Most expensive zoo animals to house in terms of food cost?
- Thread starter GreatApeFan7
- Start date
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
True, ursids and canids too.
Back when Antwerp had sea otters, they mentioned that they were really expensive (as in hundreds of euros every single day) to keep as they eat a lot of food, and that food consisted of costly high quality fish and shellfish. Also they would damage the windows of their exhibit by rubbing shells or throwing ice against them, leading to several costly replacements.
A video by Burgers' Zoo a while ago mentioned their manatees as the most expensive animals, as they eat large amounts of fresh vegetables. So that herbivores are always cheaper isn't exactly a universal rule. Someone at the Laafsekikkers did mention that the prices for certain vegetables are especially high during winter, so that might also be a factor.
Finally, I think that most species that eat any type of fish or seafood, especially large amounts of those, would come out as being fairly expensive. Even in bulk that stuff doesn't come cheap.
A video by Burgers' Zoo a while ago mentioned their manatees as the most expensive animals, as they eat large amounts of fresh vegetables. So that herbivores are always cheaper isn't exactly a universal rule. Someone at the Laafsekikkers did mention that the prices for certain vegetables are especially high during winter, so that might also be a factor.
Finally, I think that most species that eat any type of fish or seafood, especially large amounts of those, would come out as being fairly expensive. Even in bulk that stuff doesn't come cheap.
IIRC, the SDZ Safari Park has a colony of crayfish BTS that they rear and care for which are meant to feed the platypus. From my talks about their diet when it Platypus Habitat opened, the docents mentioned that the platypuses were relatively expensive to feed and they’re not exclusively on crayfish aka yabbies, being feed an assortment of worms and other invertebrates
Kakapo
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised to know that King Cobras are common in captivity, given the fact that they only can feed on other alive snakes. I was told that main food used for them are young boa constrictor. I suppose corn snakes will be used too. For sure not a cheap meal.
Dugongs must be a nightmare too, since seagrasses are not cultivated and must be harvested to the wild. Since seagrasses are not harvested for different purposes than feeding dugongs, there is no market for this.
Three-toed sloths also must be very difficult. Every country grows bamboo and eucalyptus with varied species and is easy to get for pandas and koalas, but despite being an easy to care plant with very rapid growth, which non-tropical country grows Cecropia??? They need to be imported... so shipping costs for daily fresh Cecropia must be really expensive!
Whale sharks (and of course baleen whales) must be a nightmare to keep too. Tons of fresh, and better alive, krill everyday. Not cheap! And I suppose that no place tries to hold leatherback turtles... both importing and breeding jellyfishes in enough quantity must be a big bucket. In fact, a very expensive feeding is many times what marks the limit in what is a commonly kept animal in zoos and what is entirely absent from worlds zoos. Leatherback turtles could be as common as green or loggerhead turtles in aquariums if they feed in other than jellies. That's the same reason because there are not specialized leaf-eating colobus monkeys in zoos. I think indris are not kept by similar reasons, but I don't know their diet deeply. And what about those small New Guinea parrots that only can feed in mushrooms?
If we enter in insect world the're is a new universe here. Tons of extremely specialized species that only can feed in, say, the wood of certain tree species rotten only by certain species of fungus. Or for example those milichiid flies that only can feed on honeybees that have been recently chased by spider crabs. Not to say about how to rear tachinid flies and ichneumon wasps in cases where they're parasitoids only of certain species of bugs or caterpillars... And have any place in the world tried to rear blister beetles? Or mantidflies, that in many cases only can parasitize the eggs of certain spider species? What about conopid flies, or bee-flies... Etc etc. Relatively harmless ectoparasites can be easy to keep once we have a host, except if the host itself is very difficult ot impossible to keep (who want to care for whale barnacles?). But what about dangerous endoparasites? Who want to feed a botfly larva while puting at risk and maybe make die of pain the deer, marmot or human needed for feed it?
Dugongs must be a nightmare too, since seagrasses are not cultivated and must be harvested to the wild. Since seagrasses are not harvested for different purposes than feeding dugongs, there is no market for this.
Three-toed sloths also must be very difficult. Every country grows bamboo and eucalyptus with varied species and is easy to get for pandas and koalas, but despite being an easy to care plant with very rapid growth, which non-tropical country grows Cecropia??? They need to be imported... so shipping costs for daily fresh Cecropia must be really expensive!
Whale sharks (and of course baleen whales) must be a nightmare to keep too. Tons of fresh, and better alive, krill everyday. Not cheap! And I suppose that no place tries to hold leatherback turtles... both importing and breeding jellyfishes in enough quantity must be a big bucket. In fact, a very expensive feeding is many times what marks the limit in what is a commonly kept animal in zoos and what is entirely absent from worlds zoos. Leatherback turtles could be as common as green or loggerhead turtles in aquariums if they feed in other than jellies. That's the same reason because there are not specialized leaf-eating colobus monkeys in zoos. I think indris are not kept by similar reasons, but I don't know their diet deeply. And what about those small New Guinea parrots that only can feed in mushrooms?
If we enter in insect world the're is a new universe here. Tons of extremely specialized species that only can feed in, say, the wood of certain tree species rotten only by certain species of fungus. Or for example those milichiid flies that only can feed on honeybees that have been recently chased by spider crabs. Not to say about how to rear tachinid flies and ichneumon wasps in cases where they're parasitoids only of certain species of bugs or caterpillars... And have any place in the world tried to rear blister beetles? Or mantidflies, that in many cases only can parasitize the eggs of certain spider species? What about conopid flies, or bee-flies... Etc etc. Relatively harmless ectoparasites can be easy to keep once we have a host, except if the host itself is very difficult ot impossible to keep (who want to care for whale barnacles?). But what about dangerous endoparasites? Who want to feed a botfly larva while puting at risk and maybe make die of pain the deer, marmot or human needed for feed it?
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure King Cobras are just fed rats in captivity. Someone with more knowledge - say @Batto - would be able to answer that.
Dugongs are fed lettuce and other such things - they don't get fed on harvested sea grasses (or, at least, if they are it is not as a primary diet). And almost nowhere keeps Dugongs anyway.
The only place outside their native range which keeps Three-toed Sloths would likely be the Dallas World Aquarium, so this isn't exactly a widespread issue in zoos. Presumably the owner of DWA can afford it even if it is expensive. In any case, I believe that the story of Three-toed Sloths feeding exclusively on Cecropia isn't even true.
Last edited:
I've heard it's not so much feeding them that's the problem, rather the propensity for Leatherbacks to continually run into tank walls. I read an interesting paper awhile ago detailing raising young leatherbacks in captivity by means of a harness, preventing the turtles from running into the sides and hurting themselves. While supplying jellies for an adult Leatherback might be tough, youngsters could probably be supported reasonably easily. Jellyfish husbandry is fairly advanced for several species at this point, particularly for moon jellies which are bred in large numbers.
Not the specific paper but a nice synopsis of sorts. Raising Giants: National Save The Sea Turtle Foundation Provides Equipment Essential for Rearing Leatherback Sea Turtles
I've heard this as well, usually it's youngsters or the occasional fickle specimen that needs live snakes if I'm recalling what I've read correctly.
Last edited:
Haliaeetus
Well-Known Member
Most carnivores (cats, bears, canids...) aren't very expensive to feed, because reject pieces of meat (carcasses...), not appreciated for human consumption, are easily available in the slaughterhouses and wholesale markets.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, carcasses from culled horses if I remember rightly, however, these still cost money and considering that multiple animals will be held and adding additional costs I'm sure that this is quite expensive annually.
At the Phoenix zoo in the USA apparently these are the daily costs of these two species (from 2014):
Spectacled bears = $10 per day (diet of these ursids comprising more biscuits, fruits and vegetables than meat so apparently lower than other bear species).
Jaguar = $10 per day (whole chicken, rabbit and occasionally fish).
Zoo animals can run some big food bills
An older article from 2011 to which I'll post the link below states the follow annual costs for carnivores at the Columbus zoo in the USA (prices are probably higher a decade on):
Gray wolf = $2,380 (raw meat, dry-food mix and carcasses)
Leopard = $1,900 ( raw meat and carcasses )
Brown bear = $2,040 ( raw meat, dry-food mix, fish and sweet potatoes )
African lion = $6,760 (raw meat, bones and carcasses)
Tiger = $5,950 (raw meat and bones)
What it takes to feed exotic animals
I saw the one at London Zoo being fed a (dead) rat and eating it.
As far as I know, no aquarium feeds Whale Sharks solely on krill, and it doesn't need to be live. They are usually fed a mix of chopped fish, squid, and dead krill, and are trained to accept it from a scoop, where the Whale Shark swims across the surface and the mixture is poured in front of it.
As for baleen whales, the only baleen whale ever kept in captivity, GG, a Grey Whale calf, was fed on a similar seafood mix.
The king cobra keeper community is separated into two fractions: The "Natural dieters" vs. "The "Replacers". The first argue that king cobras only eat snakes and the occasional monitor lizard in the wild and should thus only be fed reptiles. Thanks to the ongoing commercial breeding of ball python and cornsnake morphs, getting prey snakes (both alive and frozen) is a bit easier than it used to be, but still more pricey than a rodent - based diet. The "Replacers" argue that they have been keeping and breeding King cobras on alternative diets (rodents, eels, chicken legs) for years without any issues. Furthermore, they use as an argument that the spread of snake diseases such as Cryptosporidium serpentis (which is pretty common in some cornsnake breeding lines) to king cobras is less likely if you don't use prey snakes. Both fractions often clash with one another online.
So far, no one has done a comparative dietary study to evaluate any long-term effects of replacement diets on king cobras.
Last edited:
As @Andrew Swales correctly pointed out in an older thread, depending on the local legislation, a zoo might be required not to use rejected meat for its carnivores, among others due to the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases such as TBC.
Haliaeetus
Well-Known Member
It may depend of the definition given to "rejected meat", if it's the meat of healthy animals (thus, pieces without value for human consumption ; I think it wouldn't be a problem to give it to animals) or not (that must be really unable to animal consumption, at least in some circumstances).
And it may vary according to national legislations, and to zoonotic events that could lead to temporary or permanent restrictions.
Let's just say that my insight into this matter might be of a professional nature...
You're just repeating what I wrote...
May I ask what your opinion is?
Sophie Brugmann
Active Member
I'm so surprised no one mentioned them yet: I think the answer is walruses. I know that Hagenbeck's male eats as much seafood weight wise as the whole Aquarium Feed out in a week. It's more extreme for them especially because they mimic a natural cycle of allowing them to fatten up before winter. So one animal will feed between 40-55 kg seafood. Including mussels, squid and shrimp.
Also big cats are less expensive to feed in Europe than the US. The reason is first of all culling surplus is more common and also that European Zoos Feed out more body parts (fur, skin, organs, tendons,etc.) And therefore need much fewer supplements.
Also big cats are less expensive to feed in Europe than the US. The reason is first of all culling surplus is more common and also that European Zoos Feed out more body parts (fur, skin, organs, tendons,etc.) And therefore need much fewer supplements.
Expensive animals tend to be the ones which require the most work in order to prepare food and specialist feeders. For example numbats can be kept on a basic custard mixture, but to breed they must have a certain amount of termites in the diet. AFAIK no substitute has been found, so termites must be collected regularly and maintained on the zoo grounds. Platypus and nectivorous birds such as sunbirds (insects for breeding) also fit into this category.
Koalas and to a lesser extent red/giant pandas are similarly expensive due to the time spent harvesting and maintaining fresh branches. The actual food isn't expensive (unless you need to import it), but it generally takes up alot of keeper time.
Large fish/crustacean eating species such as cetaceans, pinnipeds and sea otters are expensive by virtue that seafood is pretty expensive by weight.
Insects and other fiddly invertebrates would only be expensive if it takes alot of time to feed them. Most species are kept on grain, vegetables or other insects. If the zoo is maintaining a live food supply, then this could occupy a full time job. I've heard that crickets are a nightmare to keep, breed and rear. Most other live food is relatively straight-forward.
Large carnivores and herbivores eating bulk meat and vegetables/hay are generally not expensive. If you feed alot pelleted food, well that's another story. Elephants only enter the conversation because of their size, but I would say that the number of keepers to animal ratio is what makes them expensive.
Koalas and to a lesser extent red/giant pandas are similarly expensive due to the time spent harvesting and maintaining fresh branches. The actual food isn't expensive (unless you need to import it), but it generally takes up alot of keeper time.
Large fish/crustacean eating species such as cetaceans, pinnipeds and sea otters are expensive by virtue that seafood is pretty expensive by weight.
Insects and other fiddly invertebrates would only be expensive if it takes alot of time to feed them. Most species are kept on grain, vegetables or other insects. If the zoo is maintaining a live food supply, then this could occupy a full time job. I've heard that crickets are a nightmare to keep, breed and rear. Most other live food is relatively straight-forward.
Large carnivores and herbivores eating bulk meat and vegetables/hay are generally not expensive. If you feed alot pelleted food, well that's another story. Elephants only enter the conversation because of their size, but I would say that the number of keepers to animal ratio is what makes them expensive.