A The main aim of an enrichment device

A foraging enrichment device was
designed and evaluated for the use for geladas (Theropithecus gelada). The main aim of an enrichment device is to encourage
natural behaviours, increase activity, decrease aggression and decrease
abnormal behaviours. Therefore improving the welfare of captive animals and
encourage species-specific behaviours. The aim of this project was to
understand group and individual response to an enrichment device, with particular
focus taken on foraging behaviour, enclosure utilisation and nearest-neighbour
relationships. The subjects were a bachelor group of six geladas. There were
six devices, each a 25Litre plastic water container, with holes in three of the
surfaces and a frame containing turf on the fourth. The devices were filled
with a proportion of the geladas daily feed and hay. Observations were
conducted under three treatments: Baseline (B), Experimental (E) and a Post-experimental
baseline (PEB), where the devices were introduced during E. Each treatment had
a total of 32 hours observations collected under the scan sampling technique.
The results showed that during E, the percentage of time spent provisioned
foraging (22.8 ± 11.2) was greater than B (10.3 ± 8.0, P = 0.017) and PEB (3.7
± 3.9, P < 0.001). There was also a significant increase in non-provisioned foraging during E (52.52 ± 2.54) compared to B (43.919 ± 3.23, P = 0.018), which was attributed to appetitive foraging. The foraging activity budgets of the geladas were considered very similar to their wild counterparts during all three treatments and greater during the device implementation (attributed to the captive geladas having more available time to forage than wild geladas). The enrichment device has also encouraged the geladas to utilise the enclosure more evenly. Finally the geladas also showed two distinct foraging groups that remained the same during all three treatments. To conclude, a foraging enrichment device is beneficial to a bachelor group of geladas in captivity and the presence of the device can simulate similar activity budgets to their wild counterparts, improving the group's captive welfare.             2. Acknowledgements   I would like to thank everyone who assisted in the completion of this project. In particular I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Alison Cotton, for her help, encouragement and critique throughout this projects entire process. I would also like to thank all the staff at The Wild Place Project, in particular the animal manager, Will Walker, and his keepers, for allowing and helping me conduct this research. Thanks to Dr Paul White for his invaluable statistics advice. Finally, thank you to my parents, Paul Hurley and Lynn Hurley for all the advice they have given me and their assistance in building the devices.                                               3. Introduction   BACKGROUND TO STUDY Captive wild animal species psychological and physical needs are of great importance and the maintenance of this is a key aim in animal welfare (Young, 2013). Enrichment is designed to encourage natural behaviours, increase activity, decrease aggression and decrease abnormal behaviours, ensuring good welfare of captive animals (Moberg and Mench, 2000). The UK's Farm Animal Welfare Council developed the Five Freedoms in the 1960s in an attempt to define when an animal is experiencing an acceptable level of welfare (Young, 2013). The Five Freedoms include: freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury and disease; fear and distress and freedom to express normal behaviour patterns (Hau and Schapiro, 2003; Young, 2013). However, The Five Freedoms do not consider other negative effects that animals in captivity may experience, such as frustration, anxiety, fear, anger and loneliness (Mellor, 2016). Still, these freedoms have been adopted by people working with zoo animals in the UK, along with other welfare considerations (DEFRA, 2012). The provision of enrichment for captive animals can empower the animal to express normal behaviours seen in the wild, therefore facilitating the improvement of animal welfare in zoos.   Enrichment There are two main approaches to enrichment. There is the naturalistic approach, which is where an environment is created that mimics a particular species' natural environment (Young, 2013). There is also the behavioural engineering approach, where the restoration of an animal's natural need for certain behaviours is fulfilled using a device that can be operated to receive a reward, often food. The origin of the naturalistic approach came before the behavioural engineering approach and can be found in the development of Hamburg Zoo in 1907 (Young, 2013). Behavioural engineering was first suggested by Robert Yerkes in 1925, where he suggested devices could be installed into a primate enclosure to encourage work and play.   Primate enrichment has been studied extensively over the years, initially researched to improve welfare of laboratory primates (Beaver, 1989; O'Neill et al., 1991). When compared to other animals, primates are more inclined to continuously select and react to novel stimuli in their natural environment (Boere, 2001). There are five main types of primate enrichment: