5
Evaluation of the Conservation and Research Center

The Conservation and Research Center (CRC) is a directorate, or program, of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo; it has been a part of the zoo for almost 30 years. It has one of the world’s most extensive and renowned programs in conservation-biology research. The CRC and its research programs distinguish the National Zoo from most other metropolitan zoos in the United States and provide the zoo with unique opportunities to participate in conservation, education, and training efforts. The campus of the CRC is a 3,200-acre facility in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Front Royal, Virginia, about 65 miles west of the Rock Creek Park campus in northwest Washington, DC, a distance sufficient to make travel between the two campuses difficult and to require duplication of some resources and services.

Mission

The mission of the CRC as described on the CRC Web site (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/CRC/) is the conservation of biodiversity through scientific research, professional training, and education. Three primary goals are associated with the research: saving wild life, saving habitat, and restoring species to the wild. The CRC is heavily involved in promoting international training in conservation leadership through courses on site and, more recently, abroad. At least 2,700 people have taken these courses, and many of their graduates are implementing conservation programs abroad in isolated areas. CRC scientists and educators make up a major component of the zoo’s educational and outreach programs and have a major role in developing exhibits at the Rock Creek Park campus (personal communication, Lynn Dolnick, May 14, 2004).

Facilities

About 700 of the 3,200 acres at the CRC facility is enclosed, requiring 300 miles of fencing whose integrity must be maintained to protect the collection, particularly from dogs and white-tailed deer (which pose a threat of parasitic diseases to exotic ungulates). Although many of the buildings—including the convention center, dormitories, staff housing, main offices, laboratories, and some animal enclosures—are concentrated close to the main entrance to the site, some of the animal quarters and barns, including the ones for the Przewalski’s horses and the Grevy’s zebra (which died in January 2000), are on hilly terrain far from the administrative center of the campus. There are 20 miles of gravel roads and jeep trails on the property to serve outlying facilities and research sites. Although many of the structures on the site are old, they are well maintained and functional.

Staff

The CRC program has a total of about 90 scientific, animal-caretaker, administrative, and maintenance staff, of whom about two-thirds are assigned to the Front Royal site, and the remainder to the Rock Creek Park site.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report 5 Evaluation of the Conservation and Research Center The Conservation and Research Center (CRC) is a directorate, or program, of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo; it has been a part of the zoo for almost 30 years. It has one of the world’s most extensive and renowned programs in conservation-biology research. The CRC and its research programs distinguish the National Zoo from most other metropolitan zoos in the United States and provide the zoo with unique opportunities to participate in conservation, education, and training efforts. The campus of the CRC is a 3,200-acre facility in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Front Royal, Virginia, about 65 miles west of the Rock Creek Park campus in northwest Washington, DC, a distance sufficient to make travel between the two campuses difficult and to require duplication of some resources and services. Mission The mission of the CRC as described on the CRC Web site (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/CRC/) is the conservation of biodiversity through scientific research, professional training, and education. Three primary goals are associated with the research: saving wild life, saving habitat, and restoring species to the wild. The CRC is heavily involved in promoting international training in conservation leadership through courses on site and, more recently, abroad. At least 2,700 people have taken these courses, and many of their graduates are implementing conservation programs abroad in isolated areas. CRC scientists and educators make up a major component of the zoo’s educational and outreach programs and have a major role in developing exhibits at the Rock Creek Park campus (personal communication, Lynn Dolnick, May 14, 2004). Facilities About 700 of the 3,200 acres at the CRC facility is enclosed, requiring 300 miles of fencing whose integrity must be maintained to protect the collection, particularly from dogs and white-tailed deer (which pose a threat of parasitic diseases to exotic ungulates). Although many of the buildings—including the convention center, dormitories, staff housing, main offices, laboratories, and some animal enclosures—are concentrated close to the main entrance to the site, some of the animal quarters and barns, including the ones for the Przewalski’s horses and the Grevy’s zebra (which died in January 2000), are on hilly terrain far from the administrative center of the campus. There are 20 miles of gravel roads and jeep trails on the property to serve outlying facilities and research sites. Although many of the structures on the site are old, they are well maintained and functional. Staff The CRC program has a total of about 90 scientific, animal-caretaker, administrative, and maintenance staff, of whom about two-thirds are assigned to the Front Royal site, and the remainder to the Rock Creek Park site.

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report In addition to the regular scientific staff, about 35 postdoctoral, predoctoral, and visiting scientists are employed on “soft” money, mainly derived from federal grants, foundations and other non-Smithsonian sources. There is an acting associate director for science, and CRC is seeking a permanent associate director. The Animal Support Department of CRC consists of a Veterinary Division, an Animal Division focused entirely on mammals, and a Bird Unit. There are two research departments: the Department of Reproductive Sciences and the Department of Conservation Biology. Science Programs The science programs associated with CRC are focused on the conservation and management of wild animal populations. A species-recovery program is dedicated to preventing extinctions and aimed at reintroducing species to the wild and more general research on a variety of other endangered species. Among the mammalian species studied at the Front Royal campus are the maned wolf, the black-footed ferret, and the Eld’s deer. CRC has an extensive and highly respected program in reproductive physiology, with an emphasis on reproduction of cats (especially cheetahs), elephants, and pandas. It also has a repository of frozen gametes, embryos, and tissues aimed at preserving genetic diversity. The ecology research emphasizes the processes that govern the distribution and abundance of wild populations, including migratory birds. Except where they were relevant to animal-care and management problems, the committee was not asked to evaluate the science programs at the zoo, which have received highly favorable evaluations in two recent reports, one external (NRC, 2003) and one internal (Smithsonian Institution, 2003a). Recently, CRC scientists have been directed to focus their Smithsonian-funded research more closely on the mission of CRC (personal communication, David Evans, November 2003; personal communications, CRC scientists, October 2003; NZP, Strategic Plan, May 2004). Budget In 2001 and 2002, the total CRC budget exceeded $10 million. Of that, about $2.5 million came from external grants and $0.5 million from grants from the Smithsonian Institution and Friends of the National Zoo. Administrative (about $0.460 million), facilities ($1.7 million), collection (about $1.2 million), and research ($3.8 million) expenditures, largely from Smithsonian—hence, federal sources, accounted for the remainder of the budget. From 1992 to 2002, when most other federal research agencies showed substantial budget growth, the zoo experienced a steady erosion of base support for research and a loss of 5% of its scientists (Smithsonian Institution, 2003a). Animal Collection As of January 2003, the collection had 97 mammals of nine species, most of them endangered (NZP, Status of Mammalia Inventory, December 2003). A few “surrogate species” are kept as models of their rarer counterparts. At the same time, 172 birds of 11 species, again mostly endangered, were kept on the site (NZP, Status of Aves Inventory, December 2003). Those numbers have declined over the last decade, most probably for strategic reasons related to focusing of the research effort on a smaller number of species (personal communication, Linwood Williamson, November 2003). However, the Front Royal facility can also serve as a holding site, usually temporary, for animals not wanted at the Rock Creek Park exhibits or at other zoos. CURRENT STATE OF CRC The committee’s evaluation of the CRC facility was conducted by assessing the same aspects of animal management and welfare that were assessed at the Rock Creek Park facility, as detailed in the interim report, including: animal care and management, animal welfare, animal nutrition, recordkeeping, and pest control. Animal Care and Management A head veterinarian and a veterinary technician provide primary veterinary care at CRC (NZP, -CRC written response on 4/12/04 to NRC committee members’ queries). The CRC research veterinarian or a Rock Creek Park

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report veterinarian detailed temporarily to CRC provides care in the absence of the head veterinarian. Animal keepers assist the veterinarian and technician in medical treatment and clinical procedures and are responsible for the husbandry and care of animals being held for treatment or quarantine. In weekly meetings, the veterinary, curator, and keeper staffs discuss the husbandry and care of animals in the collection at the CRC facility (NZP, Response to the NAS committee on requested items, Aprl 12, 2004). The pathology needs of CRC are performed at the Rock Creek Park facility. Preventive medicine is the responsibility of the CRC head veterinarian. The updated 2004 preventive-medicine protocols (NZP, CRC Preventive Medicine Protocol, 2004) are detailed for all the taxa maintained at the facility and generally are in accordance with published guidelines (AZA, 2003c; AAZV, 1999). However, there are differences in the preventive-medicine protocols between the Rock Creek Park facility and the CRC facility. For example, kangaroos at the Rock Creek Park facility receive annual rabies and tetanus vaccinations, but the kangaroos at the CRC facility do not receive any vaccinations; all birds at the Rock Creek Park facility receive an annual vaccination against West Nile virus, and waterfowl also receive an annual botulism vaccination, but birds at the CRC facility do not receive any vaccinations. It is important that the preventive-medicine protocols at the CRC and Rock Creek Park facilities be developed in coordination or that quarantine practices for transferred animals be established, as animals (such as tree kangaroos) are transferred between the two facilities. The transfer of animals between the two facilities without regard for potential infectious disease risks places both collections in jeopardy. To assess the quality of animal care at CRC, the committee evaluated a random sample of 16 medical records, representing about 5% of the collection, to determine whether they were complete (Table 5-1), that is, continuous from the birth or receipt of the animal until its death or shipment to another facility, and to assess whether preventive medicine had been performed regularly and according to the available CRC protocols (Table 5-2). Table 5-1. Animals in the CRC collection for which medical records were incomplete Animal Accession Number Lapse in Medical Records Przewalski horse 105408 Medical records for 1994 and 1997 missing Tufted deer 113295 Medical records for 1999 missing Tree kangaroo 110930 Medical records for March 1999-July 2002 missing; animal was transferred from CRC to Rock Creek Park in March 1999 and transferred back to CRC in July 2002 Przewalski horse 108778 Medical records for 1994 and 1997 missing Micronesian kingfisher 212388 Medical records for 1993-1997 missing Scimitar horned oryx 113204 Medical records for 1998 missing

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report In general, the clinical notes on the mammals (horses, deer, oryx, wolf, and black-footed ferrets) were sufficiently informative and detailed to provide a clear picture of the veterinary care provided each specimen. The major weakness was the lack of continuity in some of the records, which appears to be because two electronic medical-records systems (one of which was the Medical Animal Records Keeping System, or MedARKS, used at the Rock Creek Park facility and discussed extensively in the interim report) and a paper system existed at CRC during the same period. For example, for the Przewalski horse (NZP, Medical Record, Accession #108778), the medical entries for 1989–1993 appear in one medical-record system, medical entries for 1995 and 1996 appear in MedARKs, medical entries for the years 1998–1999 appear in the first system, and medical entries for 2000 and later appear in MedARKs. In general, the records could be pieced together without problem, but in at least six cases (Table 5-1) some records are presumed to be missing, although in the case of the tree kangaroo (NZP, Medical Record, Accession #110930) the gap in the records occurred when the animal was transferred to the Rock Creek Park facility for 2 years. A similar problem with lapses in the medical records was also apparent in the committee’s review of medical records for recent animal deaths at the CRC (see Chapter 4). In some cases, the medical record lacks any entries for up to 12 years. An alternative explanation of the absence of records is that no veterinary care was provided to the animals during the times for which records are missing. One other minor point is the entry of dates by the veterinarians. There are inconsistencies in use of the American style and the British style. Usually, interpretation is trivial when the records are continuous, but the different practices can cause confusion. For example, is “06/10/99” the sixth of October or the 10th of June? The records for the birds in the CRC collection are rather less detailed, but there was adequate adherence to written protocols. The biggest weakness with the medical record keeping for birds is lack of documentation on the disposition of the animals. It is sometimes unclear whether a bird was shipped out or died. Outcomes should be entered properly into the records. Table 5-2. Apparent Inadequate Preventive Medical Care at CRC in 1998-2003a.   AAZV/AZA Vaccination and Testing Guidelinesb National Zoo Preventive Medicine Programc Apparent Inadequate Preventive Medical Care at the CRCd Deer, oryx Rabies and tetanus vaccination as warranted Rabies and tetanus vaccination annually Accession #113204 Scimitar horned oryx Failed to receive rabies and tetanus vaccination in 1998 and 2001       Accession #113295 - Western tufted deer Failed to receive rabies vaccination in 1998, failed to receive rabies and tetanus vaccination in 1999, 2001, 2003       Accession #113603 – Bermese brow-antlered deer Failed to receive rabies and tetanus vaccination in 2001 aThis table presents vaccination and infectious disease test schedules as recommended by the American Associaiton of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV, 1999) and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA, 2003c), and as outlined in CRC’s written preventive-medicine program (2004). Table includes information on most routinely administered vaccinations and is not inclusive of all requirements of preventive medicine program. bAAZV, 1999; AZA, 2003c. cAdapted from CRC preventive medicine protocol, 2004. dA random sample of 16 animal records were examined for adherence to CRC’s preventive medicine program (2004). In reviewing the medical records of 16 animals in the CRC collection, the committee found apparent inadequate preventive medical care in three cases. It is possible that veterinary decisions were made not to vaccinate

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report some animals on the basis of their medical status; however, if those decisions were made, they were not documented in the medical records, as should have been done. Although these incidents of apparent inadequate care were not nearly as widespread as the preventive medicine lapses documented for the Rock Creek Park animal collection in the interim report, they are still unacceptable. Senior management has established completion of scheduled preventive-medicine procedures as a monthly performance measure for the department (NAS Action Plan Performance, July 2004). From May through July 2004, the CRC veterinary-services department has achieved 100% completion of its scheduled preventive-medicine procedures. The committee also reviewed the medical records (NZP, Medical Record, Accession #110719), curatorial record (NZP, Curatorial Daily Report from Hoofstock, November 1999-January 2000), pathology report (NZP, Pathology Report, Accession #110719), Specimen Record (NZP, Specimen Record, Accession #110719), and internal memos (NZP, memo to CRC Union Steward, May 25, 2000; NZP, memo to CRC keeper, March 29, 2000a; NZP, memo to CRC keeper, March 29, 2000b; NZP, memo to Deputy Director, December 7, 2000; NZP, memo to CRC keeper, February 9, 2001) associated with the Grevy’s zebra that died in January 2000 at the CRC facility (keeper records for this animal were unavailable; see the recordkeeping section later in this chapter for further discussion). On the basis of those records and interviews with the staff at CRC, it is clear that several errors on the part of the keepers resulted in this animal’s death. The failures of the keepers to provide hay ad libitum in accordance with established procedure, to post the animal’s diet, to report problems with heat lamps, and to heavily bed and lock it in its stall (NZP, memo to CRC Union Steward, May 25, 2000; NZP, memo to CRC keeper, March 29, 2000a; memo to CRC keeper, Marcy 29, 2000b; NZP, memo to Deputy Director, December 7, 2000; NZP, memo to CRC keeper, February 9, 2001) contributed to the death of the animal from inanition and hypothermia (NZP, Pathology Report, Accession #110719). Although failures in veterinary care did not contribute to the death of the zebra, the committee’s examination of the medical record raises concern as to whether the animal received adequate attention from the veterinary staff at CRC. This animal, which was born in 1989, arrived at the Rock Creek Park facility from the St. Louis Zoo in July 1992. During its stay at the Rock Creek Park facility, it had a history of chronic recurring laminitis and lameness that required repeated prednisone and diuretic treatment. While there, it was vaccinated on a regular schedule for rabies, tetanus, and encephalitis. The final clinical entry in the medical record before the animal was transferred to CRC (November 20, 1997 clinical note) was, “Annual hooftrim and dental should be adequate” (NZP, Medical Record, Accession #110719). Following the animal’s transfer to CRC, a series of clinical notes were placed into the medical record from January 30, 1998, to February 21, 1998, to treat the animal with a steroid and a diuretic for lameness and leg edema. Other than parasite screens in 1999, there were no further medical entries for this animal until a notation on January 22, 2000, that the animal was found dead in its stall. There is no evidence in the medical record that the animal received annual vaccinations, hooftrims, or dental examinations. A complicating matter is that at the time of the animal’s death, its medical record was being simultaneously maintained in three record systems: an electronic medical-records database (992–1994 and 1999), MedARKS (1995–1997, and 1999, and 2000), and a paper medical record (1998 and 2000). The zoo moved from an electronic medical-records database to MedARKS in 1995; this explains why the record was maintained in the electronic system from 1992 to 1994 and then in MedARKS from 1995 to 1997. It is unclear why CRC veterinary staff would choose to maintain this animal’s medical record from 1998 through 2000 in three systems and in particular would record almost all this animal’s medical record on paper rather than using one of the two electronic systems. After the animal’s death, the MedARKS record was updated by the addition of the clinical notes from January and February 1998, as evidenced by the differences in the MedARKS record between a printing on March 30, 2000, and on June 23, 2003. Findings and Recommendations Findings: The preventive medicine program currently in place for the animal collection at CRC is appropriate. In a random review of medical records from the CRC, as well as the review of recent animal deaths at the CRC, there was evidence that veterinary staff at the CRC have not been adhering to a preventive-medicine program. However, recently established performance measures indicate that since May 2004, the CRC veterinary program has been completing 100% of the monthly, scheduled preventive-medicine procedures.

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report There are significant differences in the preventive- medicine protocols at the CRC and Rock Creek Park facilities. Recommendations: Senior management should continue to track completion of monthly scheduled preventive-medicine procedures at the CRC facility. The CRC and Rock Creek Park veterinary departments should collaborate to coordinate their preventive-medicine protocols, as animals are transferred between the two facilities. Animal Welfare The zoo has two institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs): one at Rock Creek Park and the other at Front Royal. The Animal Welfare Act and Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals are federal laws that mandate the IACUC at the CRC ensure adherence to federal standards of care for research animals. The Animal Welfare Act also mandates standards for exhibit animals and states that adherence to the standards for exhibitors is the responsibility of the exhibitor organization, although the formation of an IACUC to oversee the welfare of exhibit animals is not required. In addition, the roles of the National Zoo IACUCs, the USDA, and the Smithsonian for overseeing the care and use of animal on exhibit or used for breeding were not clearly defined. However, as detailed below, certain responsibilities for ensuring the welfare of exhibit animals was delegated to the IACUCs. Since the 1970s, the zoo had a committee located at the CRC to review research proposals using animals at the zoo (Smithsonian Institution, Foss memo, August 17, 1993). In response to federal legislation, this research review committee became the CRC IACUC in 1994 (NZP, Derrickson memo, June 20, 1994). In 1985, an Animal Welfare Committee located at the Rock Creek Park facility was established to address concerns with animals housed at the Rock Creek Park facility (NZP, Marcellini memo, November 16, 1994). In 1994, it appears this Animal Welfare Committee became the Rock Creek Park IACUC. From documentation provided the committee, it is apparent that the two IACUCs understanding of their mandates was very different. A memorandum from the zoo director in 1993 indicates that the Rock Creek Park IACUC’s (then known as the NZP Animal Welfare Committee) mandate was “to review all [research] proposals” (NZP, Robinson memo, April 13, 1993). A memorandum from the chair of the IACUC to IACUC members indicates the chair’s view that the IACUC was subject to the Animal Welfare Act and PHS Policy and that the IACUC “reviews all proposed research to be done at the zoo,” “tries to inspect all zoo animal facilities at least twice a year,” and “investigation of welfare concerns” (NZP, Marcellini memo, November 16, 1994). This documentation also suggests that at least some members of the IACUC considered the IACUC responsible for “ensuring that animal welfare standards are followed in husbandry, exhibition and research . . .” (NZP, Anonymous memo to Marcellini, October 27, 1994). . The available documentation from the mid 1990s suggests that the Rock Creek Park IACUC generally was complying with their stated mandate, though the Smithsonian Institution failed to submitted annual reports to the USDA and OLAW to document compliance. However, as documented in the interim report, since the late 1990s, the Rock Creek Park IACUC has not consistently fulfilled its responsibilities as required by PHS Policy IV.E. regarding recordkeeping, and failed to document its delegated oversight (NZP, Marcellini memo, November 16, 1994) of the welfare of exhibit animals and research animals not covered by PHS Policy or the AWA. The only documentation available regarding the mandate of the CRC IACUC indicates that it was responsible for review of research protocols in accordance with PHS Policy (NZP, Derrickson memo, June 20, 1994). However, the CRC IACUC also did not consistently fulfill the recordkeeping requirements mandated by PHS Policy IV.E.; it also failed to perform semiannual program evaluations and inspections of facilities from 2000 to 2002 (Smithsonian Institution, Evans letter to Potkay, March 31, 2004). The Smithsonian Institution, as the institution on record with the Public Health Service and USDA, is legally responsible for ensuring compliance with PHS Policy (PHS Policy II) and the AWA (9 CFR Part 1.1), as applicable, and was responsible for submitting annual reports to OLAW (PHS Policy IV.F) and to the USDA in connection with the use of live animals in research, tests, experiments, or for teaching (9 CFR Section 2.36). If these reports had been prepared annually, the committee considers it likely that the designated Institutional Official at the Smithsonian would have recognized that the zoo’s IACUCs were not consistently fulfilling their

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report responsibilities as detailed in the applicable provisions of the PHS Policy and the Animal Welfare Act. Since the release of the interim report, internal Smithsonian memoranda were submitted to the committee, which reflect recongition by certain staff members that “the Smithsonian Institution is subject to the Animal Welfare Act for all research involving vertebrate animals and is subject to the Public Health Service Policies for PHS-funded research” (Smithsonian Institution, Steiner memo; July 23, 1993). Another memorandum from 1993 documents that “the Smithsonian is not exempt from the [Animal Welfare] Act” and the belief by certain Zoo staff members at the time that “the Smithsonian is currently not in full compliance with those requirements” (Smithsonian Institution, Foss memo, August 17, 1993). The memo recommends specific actions to ensure compliance; however, the records made available to the committee did not indicate that any of these recommended actions were implemented. The revamped IACUC programs are outlined in the zoo’s General Memorandum 15 (NZP, Best Practices Manual, August 8, 2003; September, 2003) clearly defines the responsibilities of each IACUC as: Inspecting all animal areas and supporting facilities twice a year and submitting inspection reports; Investigating and resolving concerns and complaints brought to their attention; Reviewing proposals for research Recommending to the zoo director changes to NZP practices and procedures to correct deficiencies; Recommending to the zoo director the suspension of any activity not being conducted in a manner consistent with current policy and procedures. The revised General Memorandum, the submission of an assurance to the National Institutes of Health by the Smithsonian Institution, recent documented semiannual inspections (Smithsonian Institution, Evans letter to Potkay, March 31, 2004), and efforts to provide the appropriate training to IACUC members (NZP, Roberts memo, April 27, 2004; NZP response to the NAS committee on requested items, May 5, 2004), are all indicators that matters are improving and that conditions are more favorable for ensuring the welfare of the animals. Findings and Recommendations Findings: The CRC IACUC failed to adhere to policies meant to ensure animal welfare at CRC, such as conducting semiannual inspections and performing an investigation into the death of a Grevy’s zebra in 2000. The CRC IACUC has reorganized to clarify its role and responsibilities and to improve compliance with federal statutes. In addition, plans have been made to provide training for all IACUC members. Recommendation: The Smithsonian and the zoo should ensure that the CRC IACUC is fulfilling its stated responsibilities in a timely and complete manner. Those responsibilities extend to the entire collection and not only to the animals involved in research. Animal Nutrition At CRC, the curator, veterinarian, and nutritionist formulate diets. For many species that are managed cooperatively under the AZA Species Survival Plan (SSP), CRC had adopted dietary formulations recommended by the SSP management group. The committee was given an extensive list of feeding guidelines for all the specimens at the CRC facility, including hoofstock (Attachment 3, Academies requested information submitted April 16, 2004). The general guides for the ruminants (sable antelope, Eld’s deer, Pere David’s deer, scimitar oryx, Arabian oryx,

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report Chinese tufted deer, and kudu) and the nonruminant herbivore (Przewalski’s horse) seem reasonable on the basis of comparisons with feed intakes suggested for maintenance of cattle (NRC, 1989a) and horses (NRC, 1989b). Amounts of pellets and hay to offer are calculated as a percentage of body weight. It is essential that the body condition of all animals be monitored closely to evaluate the feeding program. Monthly body weights would be very useful, but if they are not practical, body-condition scores should be used. Environmental conditions influence energy needs. In herd feeding situations, timid animals may not get their share of the feed. It remains unclear how similar the revised protocols are to those used earlier. CRC has a standard procedure for altering diets. Diet changes may be proposed by keepers, curators, the veterinary staff, or the zoo nutritionist with a diet-change request form. The zoo nutritionist, CRC head veterinarian, and curator must approve a change before the diet is altered. Approved paper request records are filed. The only exceptions to this approval procedure are temporary diet modification related to current medical care (recommended by the head veterinarian and approved by the curator) and changes in SSP-recommended diets in response to specimen weight change in the case of black-footed ferrets. In cases of experimental alteration of diets, as in the case of cystinuria in maned wolves, the experimental diets and procedures must be reviewed and approved by the IACUC, the zoo nutritionist, the CRC veterinarian, and the responsible curator. Diet-formulation records are maintained on food cards or boards in food-preparation areas or in hoofstock barns. Those records, keepers’ daily logs, and ARKS specimen records are updated when diets are changed. The Rock Creek Park facility commissary is responsible for acquisition of all routine and specialty food items for approved diets for the CRC collection except for hay (alfalfa, timothy, and orchard grass), bamboo, and suckling laboratory mice, which are raised at CRC. The bird and mammal units place weekly orders with the commissary, and the orders are delivered by the Rock Creek Park commissary truck on the following Thursday morning. CRC has centralized storage for hay, bamboo, and commercially prepared feeds, and it has large walk-in freezers and coolers for storage or perishable bulk foods. Short-term storage of hay, bamboo, and pelleted diets is in the hoofstock barns and bird yards. Live suckling mice are collected daily from the breeding colony and are either fed immediately or euthanized and then frozen. Fruits and vegetables are transported from the freezers or coolers to smaller kitchens in the animal-collection buildings for immediate feeding or for short-term storage. Hay crops previously were raised and harvested by CRC personnel; however, this led to the crops being sprayed, fertilized, and harvested at suboptimal times because of staffing constraints, negatively affecting the quality of the hay. Starting in the summer of 2004, contractors have taken over responsibility for the hay crops. The contractors can work 7 days per week and more then 8 hours per day, so hay spraying, fertilizing, and harvesting can be accomplished at optimal times, avoiding hay-quality problems of the past. Hay use at both the Rock Creek Park and CRC facilities will be monitored by the CRC assistant director and the zoo nutritionist. Soil analysis, fertilization, and reseeding will be the responsibility of the Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations manager. Harvested hay will be sampled by the CRC mammal curator and nutritional analysis done by the zoo nutritionist. There are also problems with inadequate storage facilities to maintain hay quality. The Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) and zoo staff are investigating alternatives. Specific hay-production protocols will be developed before cutting in 2004. Among the circumstances associated with the death of the Grevy’s zebra, one in particular was related to the nutrition program. The zebra was not provided with ad libitum hay during a cold part of the year, and the appropriate protocol was not posted at the zebra’s barn. Accordingly, the information was not available to others who had occasional responsibility for the animal. Findings and Recommendations Findings: In general, the nutrition program at CRC appears to have been under appropriate control, and the feeding guidelines for all species at the CRC facility are appropriate. The CRC has hired contractors to raise and harvest hay at the CRC, to avoid previous problems with hay quality. However, available storage facilities are inadequate for maintaining hay quality.

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report Recommendation: Adequate storage facilities for hay, on which the entire NZP depends, must be found, and quality control for the hay must be assured. Recordkeeping As with the Rock Creek Park facility, CRC uses MedARKS. The CRC MedARKS records are backed up on the local server and copied onto CDs that are stored offsite by the veterinary technician. Paper records that back up the electronic MedARKS records are now stored in fireproof file cabinets in the CRC veterinary hospital as a result of a recent US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service inspection. The Rock Creek Park facility and the CRC facility MedARKS systems are not integrated but are expected to become so when the Zoological Information Management System is adopted. Unless animals are transferred between the Rock Creek Park facility and CRC, medical records are not shared. CRC pathology records, however, are integrated into the Department of Pathology database. As documented in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, there are numerous examples of failures to keep adequate medical records at the CRC veterinary hospital. It is unclear why those failures in documented medical observations, procedures, and vaccination occurred, but it is clear that some veterinarians were using handwritten records, some were using an electronic record system, and some were using MedARKS. Keepers record daily events in their logs in accordance with the zoo’s Best Practices Manual (NZP, Best Practice Manual, July 2003). Before 2001, keepers kept daily written records; these were maintained by the curator for a year and then returned to the keepers and apparently disposed of. However, in response to the death of the Grevy’s zebra housed at CRC in 2000, an electronic keeper-record system was implemented for mammal keepers at CRC (NZP, Tanner memo, November 10, 2003). Individual keepers in the mammal unit keep standard electronic records daily in accordance with the format issued by their supervisor. The electronic records are sent to the unit and the subunit (small-mammal or hoofstock) co-workers and keeper leader. The individual reports are consolidated into a unit report and forwarded electronically to the mammal supervisor, the curator (the unit’s record keeper, the veterinarian and veterinary technician, and research staff members who request them. The individual daily reports and unit reports are reviewed by the curator, corrected or amended if necessary, and then archived on the curator’s computer and on the CRC server. The records are accessible to the zoo registrar through shared folder access. The recordkeeper uses information in the reports to update specimen records in the International Species Information System ARKS database, which is maintained on the recordkeeper’s computer and backed up on CDs that are maintained offsite. Backup paper copies are filed in fireproof file cabinets on site. This system appears to capture essential information and facilitates timely information flow to supervisors and others who need to know what changes are occurring for individual animals and in the unit as a whole. The bird unit uses an entirely different record system. Keepers enter their daily reports of activities and pertinent specimen information in writing in ink on consecutive pages of hardbound notebooks maintained in the office. Additional sheets involving large numbers of birds may be stapled onto the notebook sheets. Logbook entries are photocopied at the end of each workday and sent to the curator, who reviews them on the following morning, making corrections or additions in ink that are initialed. Pertinent information determined by the curator and the zoo registrar is entered weekly in the ISIS database from the logbooks by the recordkeeper. ISIS ARKS specimen records are maintained on the recordkeeper’s computer, the CRC server, and on backup CDs stored off site by the recordkeeper. Paper copies of ARKS specimen records, inventory reports, and auxiliary information records are kept in fireproof file cabinets. It is unclear why the bird unit did not change to the electronic keeper-record system in parallel with the mammal unit, especially given the small numbers of animals and care staff at CRC. Nutritional records are kept manually on food cards or boards, and changes are noted in keepers’ logs. That system appears to work well, given the relatively small numbers of animals being fed. The current nutritional-record system, although functional, will undergo a radical change when it becomes electronic. Integration with the Rock Creek Park system should facilitate ordering, shipment, and storage of feed and bedding materials.

OCR for page 61
Animal Care and Management at the National Zoo: Final Report Findings and Recommendations Finding: Numerous incidents of inadequate medical recordkeeping were evident in reviews of medical records at the CRC facility. Recommendations: Immediate steps must be taken to clarify to the CRC veterinary staff the actions, procedures, and observations that must be included in the medical record, and senior management must ensure compliance with these policies. The CRC should transition to new recordkeeping systems in parallel with the Rock Creek Park facility. Pest Control The zoo pest-control officer is responsible for pest control at both the Rock Creek Park facility and CRC under the supervision of the head of the Pathology Department of the zoo but with the head veterinarian having local responsibility. The same protocols are used for rodent control at CRC as at the Rock Creek Park facility (NZP, NZP-CRC Rodent Control Protocol, April 16, 2004). CRC has relatively few reported pest problems. Keepers are responsible for monitoring their assigned areas for problems and reporting evidence of pest problems to the head veterinarian. They are then given the responsibility of deploying bait, assessing its effects, and reporting outcomes to the head veterinarian. Contrac©, an anticoagulant poison, is used in the small-mammal and wolf buildings because its effects are reversible. Bird areas use Quintox© rat and mouse bait. Control for raccoons and white-tailed deer is undertaken according to protocols approved by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Protocols for pesticides are under review. Completion of review and updating of pest-control protocols is expected in 2004. The pest-control officer will obtain a Virginia pest-control license. Findings and Recommendations Finding: The pest-control operation at the CRC facility has not experienced any difficulties. The unified system controlled by the new pest- control officer should minimize future problems for the facility.