Hello. Quite a few points to address.
The team managed the water treatment effectively and we were all fully trained to run any 'swimming' pool in the country.
Maybe that’s the problem as these faculties are not swimming pools. They may derive some of their technology and science from public water treatment and swimming pools but they are not the same. To start with they have a ‘fixed bathing load’ unlike private and public swimming pools.
Chloramine formation is due to an interaction with ammonia which is derived from the animals urine – feaces, hair and skin play a very small part in this. Dichloramine is a species of chloramine along with other types formed who occur at various levels and are pH dependant the most noxious being trichloamine (nitrogen trichloride). However these compounds are destroyed by the continuities addition of more ‘free’ chlorine (hypochlorous acid). I am not going into huge detail about this but a full explanation is in the two papers I published cited perviously and again below. Did you bother to read them?
MAINTAINING THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
I also have put up a guide I produced for staff at Chessington when I was Head of Animal Behaviour which details the nuts and bolts of the daily operation of the aquatic environments using chlorination:
Water Treatment Protocols for Sealion and Penguin Exhibit
The bottom line is too little chlorine addition continues cause chloramines formation. In my experience many keeping staff don’t really understand this and basically panic and stop adding chlorine.
However I can assure you that throughout my time at Woburn the sealions did suffer from eye and skin issues, as do most facilities with a chemical systems and even Longleat. (I have recorded questionnaires from 10 uk facilities all of which have health problems with their pinnipeds and use chemicals) not scientific but still evidence
I have to say in my 35+ years experience I have seen a number of problems with eye and skin issues but this was down to mismanagement on various levels: either the staff and/or the facilities themselves for providing inadequate systems, too small pools size, no pH control, over use of aluminium sulphate, etc.
Sadly, you actually destroy your case against the use of chlorine by citing Longleat because it is a large unfiltered system. However, it’s a real pity you didn’t publish your research as this is always welcome.
The eye problems in sea lions stem more from the fresh water environment than the use of chlorination. Chlorine per se is not the problem when managed by people who know what they are doing in an exhibit with enough water volume and reasonable filtration.
Even then there are ‘work rounds’. Did you ever consider bulk chlorination over night in one of the two main pools at Woburn with the animals held the other non- chlorinated pool overnight? It worked very well when I worked at
Dolfirama Zandvoort in the Netherlands 1977.
The new outside exhibits was made and designed around cost saving and therefore has low rate filters and a turn over rate of up to 5 hrs. Ridiculous in regards to appropriate filtration for the size of pool. You can therefore see that despite managing the water to best of our ability the water filtration itself was not good enough.
Whilst high turnover rates are an advantage 5 hours isn’t that bad. Blackpool Zoo when I working with sea lions in 1975 did have a 12 hours turnover and the quality was good (when it was managed properly) the system there was upgraded and they are having a further up grade with the current pool renovation. Chessington also had a turnover of something like a 12 hour turnover rate.
It all down to loading i.e. animals and food consumption.
A 4 hour turnover rate in closed and semi-closed exhibit pools is recommended by the European Association for Aquatic Mammals and the US Animal Welfare Act code for marine mammals.
Low rate filters? If you actually mean slow progression through the filter bed as these are far better than high rate filter systems in my professional opinion having operated more filter systems on aquatic animal pools and tanks – low rate, high rate sand even diatomaceous earth (D.E.) - than care to remember.
My CV is here if you are interested.
The pinniped EAZA guidelines also state that biological systems are advised over chemical treatment pools. You just have to talk to John Partridge at Bristol zoo to discover the welfare improvements their animals have gained from changing to biological systems.
One has to ask why EAZA has made this statement and what research it actually based on. The Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice does not preclude the use of chlorine but interestingly recommend salt water as being benefice for sea lions.
Biological systems are fine and I have some experience using the systems. However, biological systems do have their own problems as well. Believe me they do!
Bristol never used chlorine in the current exhibit and their experience with chlorination relates to the old sea lion pool which had a very low animal to water ratio which is why they had problems. I know this because they did ask my advice on the matter many years ago.
This is such a common problem despite it been known for many years but everyone blames chlorination. There a number of UK aquatic mammal exhibit I know where they have constructed pools which are by volume completely inadequate to operate chlorination and this is why people bang on about “chemicals”. It is a statement made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.
Marmaris is a good facility, go and visit, I have for 2 weeks! The pens are bigger than woburn and the water beautiful, of course being a penned off piece of the ocean, there will be storms and damage, but this is common as i'm sure you know. A risk worth taking!!
I
actually know quite a bit about the place so hope my concerns are proved fruitless. But by your own addmission the sea pens are likely to recieve more damage from storms and I am not really sure it is "a risk worth taking" for either humans or animals.
You proberaly are not aware that this kind of set-up would be illegal in the UK for dolphins as there is no dedicated land-based holding facilites and hotel swimming pools wouldn't actually count.
Anyways rant over but I will be really interested to keep in contact over this matterAll the best.
Nothing wrong with a good rant!
Please believe that my argument is not against you or keepers working with the sea lions. But I found the statement from Woburn basically lazy spin and (as you have more or less confirmed) the facts are they simply were not prepared to invest enough money to up grade the current Woburn faculty which is entirely their right and decided to re home the sea lions and develope the site for other animals.
