Carnivores: Present food inside objects (e.g. Boomer balls)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    70%
  • Harms
    10%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two before-and-after studies in Germany and India found that exploratory and foraging behaviours increased and stereotypic behaviours decreased in sloth bears and spectacled bears when presented with food inside objects.
  • One before-and-after study in the USA found that exploring/foraging behaviours decreased in a sloth bear when presented with food inside objects.
  • One replicated study in the USA found that grizzly bears spent a similar time manipulating food in a box and freely available food.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A small before-and-after study in 1988 of a sloth bear Melursus ursinus in a zoo in the USA found that the first and second presentation of honey-filled logs decreased walking/pacing and explore/foraging behaviours compared to before enrichment. Both walking/pacing (first presentation: 10 min/day); second presentation: 71 min/day) and explore/foraging (first presentation: 13 min/day; second presentation: 35 min/day) behaviours decreased when presented with honey-filled logs (walk/pace: 124 min/; explore/forage: 60 min/day).  Explore/forage behaviour was lower on the third presentation compared to before enrichment, however walk/pacing was not significantly lower. One sloth bear was presented with a honey-filled log after six days of baseline observations. The log was presented for five days and was refilled twice. The log was then removed for two days and re-presented for a further four days. Post test data was collected for five days and lastly the log was presented for five continuous days. A camera recorded six hours daily 09:30 h to 15:30 h and continuous focal sampling was performed.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A small before-and-after study in 1994 of spectacled bears Tremarctos ornatus in a zoo in Germany found that providing multiple feeding enrichments simultaneously, including logs filled with honey and raisins, increased the time bears spent foraging in the mornings compared to when the bears were fed conventionally, without enrichment. Using food as enrichment increased the time bears spent foraging in the morning (average number of scans: 24) compared to conventional feeding (10.6). There were no significant differences at other times of day. Feeding routine for three bears was switched weekly between an enriched routine, which included food holes, honey inside tree cavities and logs filled with raisins, and a conventional routine consisting of fruit, vegetables, bread and pellets fed twice daily. Behavioural observations were performed four days per week for three hours per day using instantaneous scan sampling, which started after they entered the exhibit in the morning for a total of 114 observational hours. Three 60 minute observation periods were carried out daily: between 08:30 h and 09:45 h, before noon, and early afternoon.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A before-and-after study in 2007 of sloth bears Melursus ursinus in a rescue centre in India found that providing honey-filled logs both intermittently or daily reduced the frequency of stereotypic behaviour and increased exploratory behaviour compared to no enrichment. The amount of time devoted to stereotypic behaviours was lower (intermittent: 22%; daily: 22%) and exploratory behaviours were higher (intermittent: 21%; daily: 17.5%) than without honey filled logs (stereotypic: 32.5%: explorative: 14.1%). Fourteen bears were fed three times daily which included porridge and mixed scattered fruit. Behaviour was recorded using instantaneous scan sampling with two minute intervals. Baseline data were collected for ten days before treatment. Enrichment regime included logs which could hold up to 200 g of honey. Two conditions were studied: 1) logs were introduced for five days in a row; 2) logs were introduced on days one, three and five. Behaviour was monitored between 15:00 h and 17:30 h on all five days of a treatment period, behaviour was monitored for another 6-10 days.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated study in 2010 of grizzly bears Ursus arctos horribilis in a research facility in the USA, found that when presented with apples in boxes, they spent more time manipulating the object compared to an empty cardboard box but a similar time manipulating freely available apples. The bears spent more time manipulating a cardboard box filled with apples (524 seconds) and free apples (1060 seconds) compared to an empty cardboard box (105 seconds). Six bears were fed simultaneously over three days, consisting of three one hour trials. Each bear was presented with free apples, apples in cardboard box and a cardboard box. Behaviour was recorded using continuous focal sampling for one hour observation periods.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Jonas, C.S., Timbrell, L.L., Young, F., Petrovan, S.O., Bowkett, A.E. & Smith, R.K. (2020) Management of Captive Animals. Pages 527-553 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Management of Captive Animals

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Management of Captive Animals
Management of Captive Animals

Management of Captive Animals - Published 2018

Captive Animal Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust