Agalychnis
Active Member
I've been thinking about the hypocrisy of (many) zoos.
Why keep a tiger in a large, enriching enclosure when the cow it eats was kept under horrible conditions?
Isn't it hypocrisy calling for saving endangered wild habitats, when you feed your hoofstock crops grown in industrial fields that are polluted with pesticides so that nothing can live there?
Can you really call for a halt to acidification of the oceans when you use energy (for transport of feed) that was made from Global Warming-causing fossil fuels; the exact thing that causes ocean acidification?
And I could go on.
I would therefore suggest a new form of zoo; the "green" or "eco-friendly" zoo. Not only would this zoo protect biodiversity through education and breeding programs, it would also be an example to follow when taking various eco-friendly measures.
The problem my suggestion will aim to solve is pollution, habitat destruction and poor animal welfare when it comes to animal feed. Instead of buying meat and crops from outside the zoo, I would suggest growing/raising them as a part of the zoo. They would be kept under organic, free-range conditions. This would serve several purposes:
1: Grazing hoofstock increases biodiversity on pastures, improving the quality of nature surrounding the zoo
2: Keeping and growing the zoos' own feed would have an educative purpose, as the zoo could educate the public about responsible farming and husbandry practices
3: If several different breeds of livestock, poultry and crops are used, it would provide interesting education into the different breeds around the world. The pastures with grazing domestics and organic fields could be exhibits in and of themselves
4. And last, but definetely not least: The animals at the zoo would be fed organic feed from happy, free-range animals whose farming didn't harm nature as much as traditional farming would
The only bad thing - and we're talking a BIG bad thing - about this would be the demand for space. If one livestock unit can be used to create 1½ new livestock units per year, and one livestock unit needs 0,8 hectares of pasture year-round, and a tiger (without cubs) needs one livestock unit per week, then approx. 60 hectares (or 60,000 square metres) would be needed to feed just one tiger.
Therefore, this set-up could only work in rural areas with ample space and preferrably low cost for agricultural areas. However, the space demands would be much smaller if less demanding feeder species were used; I calculated the above result from an exclusively bovine pasture. If the livestock grazed on a mixed-species pasture with both bovines, equines and caprids (and perhaps even poultry?), the demand for space could perhaps be cut in half or more, as the different livestock species would create suitable feeding habitats for one another.
I expect that in my set-up, one individual large carnivore (leopard size and up) would on average need 10-25 hectares of space (depending on a number of factors). However, one individual large herbivore would only need about 0,3-1 hectare (though much more for elephants), and the less demanding herbivores (such as camels and muskoxen) less than 0,2 hectares per individual animal.
This means a zoo with 2 tigers, 2 leopards, 10 wolves, 2 grizzly bears, 5 lions, 100 hoofstock and a number of smaller animals would need to be about 400 hectares (or 400,000 square metres) in size - not including the animal enclosures themselves!
In Denmark (which is a tiny country in northern Europe), that size would be equal to that of two relatively large fields; in the US, it might be equal to just one moderate to smaller field, though. Sizes of fields vary between countries.
Why keep a tiger in a large, enriching enclosure when the cow it eats was kept under horrible conditions?
Isn't it hypocrisy calling for saving endangered wild habitats, when you feed your hoofstock crops grown in industrial fields that are polluted with pesticides so that nothing can live there?
Can you really call for a halt to acidification of the oceans when you use energy (for transport of feed) that was made from Global Warming-causing fossil fuels; the exact thing that causes ocean acidification?
And I could go on.
I would therefore suggest a new form of zoo; the "green" or "eco-friendly" zoo. Not only would this zoo protect biodiversity through education and breeding programs, it would also be an example to follow when taking various eco-friendly measures.
The problem my suggestion will aim to solve is pollution, habitat destruction and poor animal welfare when it comes to animal feed. Instead of buying meat and crops from outside the zoo, I would suggest growing/raising them as a part of the zoo. They would be kept under organic, free-range conditions. This would serve several purposes:
1: Grazing hoofstock increases biodiversity on pastures, improving the quality of nature surrounding the zoo
2: Keeping and growing the zoos' own feed would have an educative purpose, as the zoo could educate the public about responsible farming and husbandry practices
3: If several different breeds of livestock, poultry and crops are used, it would provide interesting education into the different breeds around the world. The pastures with grazing domestics and organic fields could be exhibits in and of themselves
4. And last, but definetely not least: The animals at the zoo would be fed organic feed from happy, free-range animals whose farming didn't harm nature as much as traditional farming would
The only bad thing - and we're talking a BIG bad thing - about this would be the demand for space. If one livestock unit can be used to create 1½ new livestock units per year, and one livestock unit needs 0,8 hectares of pasture year-round, and a tiger (without cubs) needs one livestock unit per week, then approx. 60 hectares (or 60,000 square metres) would be needed to feed just one tiger.
Therefore, this set-up could only work in rural areas with ample space and preferrably low cost for agricultural areas. However, the space demands would be much smaller if less demanding feeder species were used; I calculated the above result from an exclusively bovine pasture. If the livestock grazed on a mixed-species pasture with both bovines, equines and caprids (and perhaps even poultry?), the demand for space could perhaps be cut in half or more, as the different livestock species would create suitable feeding habitats for one another.
I expect that in my set-up, one individual large carnivore (leopard size and up) would on average need 10-25 hectares of space (depending on a number of factors). However, one individual large herbivore would only need about 0,3-1 hectare (though much more for elephants), and the less demanding herbivores (such as camels and muskoxen) less than 0,2 hectares per individual animal.
This means a zoo with 2 tigers, 2 leopards, 10 wolves, 2 grizzly bears, 5 lions, 100 hoofstock and a number of smaller animals would need to be about 400 hectares (or 400,000 square metres) in size - not including the animal enclosures themselves!
In Denmark (which is a tiny country in northern Europe), that size would be equal to that of two relatively large fields; in the US, it might be equal to just one moderate to smaller field, though. Sizes of fields vary between countries.
