Risk factors for stereotypic behaviour in captive ungulates

Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar

More widespread farming of species not typically used as livestock may be part of a sustainable approach for promoting human health and economic prosperity in a world with an increasing population; a current example is peccary farming in the Neotropics. Others have argued that species that are local to a region and which are usually not farmed should be considered for use as livestock. They may have a more desirable nutrient profile than species that are presently used as livestock. It may also reduce the pressure from hunting on other wild species, and cause less environmental damage than exotic species. We propose a sentiocentric utilitarian framework that could be used to decide whether species that are local, but generally not used as livestock, should be farmed. To illustrate the use of our decision-making framework, we employ two contrasting neotropical case studies: the Spotted Paca (Cuniculus paca) and the Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). We argue that it may be acceptable to use non-sentient species that are typically not farmed as livestock. However, research should determine whether farming them offers human, environmental or sustainability benefits. In addition, we recommend that if invertebrate species are considered for farming, research should be conducted to determine the likelihood that they are sentient. Finally, given the ethical failings of current livestock farming practices, we argue that a high bar must be met if 'new' species that are sentient are to be farmed.

The welfare problems of wide-ranging Carnivora reflect naturally itinerant lifestyles

Carnivora with naturally small home ranges readily adjust to the evolutionarily new environment of captivity, but wider-ranging species seem prone to stress. Understanding why would advance both collection planning and enclosure design. We therefore investigated which aspects of wide-ranging lifestyles are key. We identified eight correlates of home range size (reflecting energetic needs, movement, intra-specific interactions, and itinerant lifestyles). We systematically assessed whether these correlates predict welfare better than range size per se, using data on captive juvenile mortality (from 13 518 individuals across 42 species) and stereotypic route-tracing (456 individuals, 27 species). Naturally itinerant lifestyles (quantified via ratios of daily to annual travel distances) were found to confer risk, predicting greater captive juvenile losses and stereotypic time-budgets. This finding advances our understanding of the evolutionary basis for welfare problems in captive Carnivora, helping explain why naturally sedentary species (e.g. American mink) may breed even in intensive farm conditions, while others (e.g. polar bears, giant pandas) can struggle even in modern zoos and conservation breeding centres. Naturally itinerant lifestyles involve decision-making, and strategic shifts between locations, suggesting that supplying more novelty, cognitive challenge and/or opportunities for control will be effective ways to meet these animals' welfare needs in captivity.

The phenotypic costs of captivity

The breeding of threatened species in captivity for release is a central tool in conservation biology. Given gloomy predictions for biodiversity trends in the Anthropocene, captive breeding will play an increasingly important role in preventing future extinctions. Relative to the wild, captive environments drastically alter selection pressures on animals. Phenotypic change in captive animals in response to these altered selection pressures can incur fitness costs post-release, jeopardising their potential contribution to population recovery. We explore the ways in which captive environments can hinder the expression of wild phenotypes. We also stress that the phenotypes of captive-bred animals differ from their wild counterparts in multiple ways that remain poorly understood. We propose five new research questions relating to the impact of captive phenotypes on reintroduction biology. With better use of monitoring and experimental reintroductions, a more robust evidence base should help inform adaptive management and minimise the phenotypic costs of captivity, improving the success of animal reintroductions.