Breeding of Giant Pandas in Zoos: is it really worth it?

A one-week-old giant panda has recently died at the National Zoo in Washington DC, USA. The cub, which was born on 16th September 2012, had been conceived through artificial insemination. Since a breeding programme began at the Zoo in the 1970s, at least 6 cubs have died, with only one surviving to adulthood.

Outside China, there are approximately 47 giant pandas currently housed in zoos, and records show that there have reportedly been 51 births and 60 deaths since 1937. The relatively low birth rate attests to the challenges giant pandas face in terms of successful breeding in captivity, especially outside of China and, clearly, non-Chinese zoos are effectively ‘consumers’ of giant panda.

Giant pandas are generally transferred to zoos outside of China under the terms of a loan agreement. The loan is for a fixed period of several years, perhaps as many as 10, and with a charge of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. In the case of Edinburgh Zoo the annual ‘rental charge’ is reportedly $1 million. The pandas are expected to be returned to China after the loan period and any cubs born remain the property of the Chinese government.

Animals are moved between zoos around the world for a number of reasons, and it is often claimed that transfers are necessary to ensure that genetic diversity is maintained within the captive population, especially for threatened species. However, in the case of giant pandas, breeding pairs are often sent to zoos around the world for political and economic reasons rather than as a necessary component of genetic management.

The conservation benefits of such transfers are highly questionable. Although it is claimed that the annual loan fee goes towards the conservation of the species, there is some doubt whether this money goes directly to conserving the species in the wild. Some sources claim instead that it goes towards the funding of captive breeding. To date, only one giant panda has ever been released back into the wild, and it sadly died a year later.

Transporting captive animals long distances and into unfamiliar surroundings can profoundly increase their stress levels. Stress can lead to a variety of health and welfare problems for captive animals, for example changes in social behaviour, prolonged inactivity, stereotypic behaviour, and lower levels of immunity, with associated higher susceptibility to illness and disease.

The arrival of Tian Tian and Yang Guang at Edinburgh Zoo in December 2011 can be interpreted as a diplomatic  gesture, aimed at enhancing political relations between Scotland and China while, potentially, generating a much needed increase in ticket sales for Edinburgh Zoo (In 2010 the Zoo had to be rescued with a £2m bank loan).

The last survey carried out estimated that there were around 1600 giant pandas left in the wild and this number is decreasing. More efforts need to be focused on protecting the giant panda’s natural habitat rather than transporting them to zoos around the world where conditions may be entirely unsuitable, the animals’ welfare may be severely compromised and the educational and conservation dividends are remarkably elusive.

Blogging off,


2 Responses to “Breeding of Giant Pandas in Zoos: is it really worth it?”

  1. Sylvie Says:

    Hi all,
    I am definitely a non-believer in moving animals from zoo to zoo like they now did in Edinburgh. Ok, the lease money may or may not go towards the entire program but what about those poor animals themselves. They came from China where they had reasonable grounds to roam and now they are stuck in such a small patch just so that people can stare and point at them.
    Ok, the lease money MAY go towards the breeding program, but still. .. in the mean time those animals are suffering in my opinion.


  2. gill gilbey Says:

    Dear Will,
    How well does panda breeding do in China? Does China actively conserve the panda’s habitat? It is not surprising that the Chinese would use the panda for political and financial gain,after all they appear to treat all wildlife as a “commodity” rather than with an altruistic approach.From the evidence you give it is obvious that sending the poor animals around the world is having only a detrimental effect.