ArticleZoo biology
Feeding Management of African Rhinos (Ceratotherium simum, Diceros bicornis) in European Zoos.
Article in Zoo biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Horn trace element profiles of managed rhinoceros species and comparisons to matched livers and wild African rhinoceros horns.PloS one · 2026Article
- Vitamin D status in North American managed black rhinoceros (Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
White rhinos (WR, Ceratotherium simum) are grazers and black rhinos (BR, Diceros bicornis) are browsers; this difference has been related to BR being more challenging in terms of husbandry. Previous reports indicated that BR in zoos often receive diets with a higher proportion of easily digestible compounds compared to other rhino species. Additionally, BR are susceptible to iron overload disorder (IOD). We compared the feeding methods and recommendations, and sampled diets and feces of 117 WR and 82 BR across 41 European zoos. The few available data for free-ranging animals were also incorporated. The percentage of forage in the total estimated dry matter intake was 93% for WR and 77% for BR, matching fecal parameters indicating a higher diet digestibility in BR. BR received higher levels of (pelleted) compound feeds and produce than WR. Nevertheless, dietary fiber levels were similar to that reported for free-ranging specimens in both species. Zoo diets were higher in several minerals (Na, P, Cu, Zn) than natural diets. However, zoo BR received diets with similar iron content to that described in free-ranging BR diet items and fecal iron levels were not higher than those in the few samples of free-ranging BR available, suggesting that iron levels in zoo BR diets are not overly excessive. Consequently, IOD appears to be more complex, associated with iron bioavailability and possibly non-dietary causes. Grass hay was used in 100% of WR and 36% of BR (all BR facilities used lucerne hay). BR feces had levels of abrasive silica comparable to those of free-ranging WR and much higher than free-ranging BR, matching reports of excessive tooth wear in adult BR. Browse provision for BR could not be quantified but appeared low in general; no alternative forages (like sainfoin) were fed. Efforts to consistently provide high amounts of browse to BR must be increased and forage should be low in iron and abrasive silica.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.