Core Study APFCE

Aims
(include hypotheses and research questions if relevant)

The aim of this study was to see whether free-contact, traditionally trained elephants can be
trained to participate in a trunk wash by using positive reinforcement. And operant
conditioning.

Procedure
(include method and sample)

Method: The research method used was, structured method. Controlled observation involving
a small group of elephants living in captivity who were trained over a period of weeks. The
researchers watched the elephants behaviour in response to a specific stimulus.

Sample: 5 female elephants- 4 juvenile ( aged between 5-7 years) and 1 adult ( estimated to
be in her 50’s). All were housed in a stable in Nepal. They were all docile, all traditionally
trained and in free contact with their mahouts. None of the elephants had previous experience
with secondary positive training (SPR).

Procedure: A chopped banana was used as a primary enforcer. A short whistle blow was the
secondary enforcer. Training was conducted indoors during, 7:30am to 10:00am and 4:00pm
to 7:00pm with a mahout present for safety but the mahout didn’t engage with them. No
elephant went two days without a training session. Elephants could choose to turn or walk
away from their sessions. The elephant needed to put the ned of her trunk on the trainers hand
and allow the trainer to instil saline or sterile water into the truck, lift the trunk upward so that
the fluid runs to the base of the trunk and hold the fluid there before lowering the tip of the
trunk into a collection container and blowing the sample out. The behavioural tasks had to
have occurred smoothly, the fluid shouldn’t have been lost on the ground, the elephant
shouldn’t drink the solution. The elephants were taught the bridge between the primary and
secondary enforcer, by pairing the whistle blow with a follow- up banana.
The training tools used were capture, lure and shaping.

Findings
All elephants passed all tests for the individual tasks prior to or during their final testing
session with a few exceptions. Elephant 5 never passed her blow in the bucket, desensitization
to syringe and steady tests as she was older and had visual impairment and trunk weakness
issues. Elephants 2 and 4 also never passes their steady tests despite being able to complete
their trunk wash test. The ability to pass an independent behavioural tests was dependent both
on relative difficulty of the task as well as when the task was first introduced in the training
process.
Conclusions

This study proves that it is feasible to train juvenile, free-contact, traditionally trained

elephants in Nepal who have no prior experience with SPR training to voluntarily participate

in a trunk wash using only SPR techniques. The elephants respond reliably, and teaching new

tasks is an efficient process. SPR could be a great tool for captive management programs

around the world to improve behavioural management, animal health through voluntary

veterinary participation, trainer–elephant relations, and animal welfare.

Evaluation (strengths and weaknesses)

Weakness: This case study only uses 5 female ppts, this does not generalise the study. We
don’t know whether the same training would work on males or elephants from a different
species.

Strength: This study proves that we can train traditionally trained elephants to trunk wash
using SPR.