Body weight loss during shipment was affected by age but not by time in transit. As might be expected, younger animals lost more weight than mature animals. Transit time, however, had a signifi cant but unclear effect on weight gain during the30 days after arrival. No significant difference inweight change was seen between the shorter (group A) and the longer (group C) transit times for allage classes. However, weight changes during the30day observation period were significantly differ ent among the different age classes for animals ingroup B: Adults failed to recover weight lost intransit even after the 30day observation period. On the other hand, subadults not only recovered weight lost in transit but gained significantly over their own original departure weight.
Table V. Mortality in 450 Aotus nancymai shipped from Iquitos, Peru to Richland, Washington in transit, 30day post arrival and total mortality.
| Mortality |
Group A1
|
Group B2
|
Group C3
|
Total
|
||||
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
|
| In transit |
1
|
0.89
|
1
|
0.48
|
1
|
0.76
|
3
|
0.67
|
| Arrival to 30 days |
3
|
2.68
|
2
|
0.97
|
3
|
2.29
|
8
|
1.78
|
| Total mortality |
4
|
3.57
|
3
|
1.45
|
4
|
3.05
|
11
|
2.44
|
1Group A = 34 days in transit.
2Group B = 67 days in transit.
3Group C = 914 days in transit.
No obvious explanation for this result is evident. The one significant difference between the experience of group B animals and those of the other twogroups, was the twotothree day stay in Miami compared to a 48hr or less stopover time. This delay subjected the animals to repeated handlingand placement in different cages, with little timeallowed for them to adapt to each new environment. Why this would cause a negative effect in matureanimals but a positive one in subadults and juveniles cannot be readily explained. It has been suggested that the stress of adapting to new surroundings might be greater in adult animals, due to their necessity of scent marking their territory.
The low mortality rate observed in transit (0.67%) indicates that shipping procedures; i.e.,crating, feeding, watering, and provisional housingof animals in transit, were satisfactory. The lowmortality during the 30day observation period(1.78%) reflects both the good condition of the animals on arrival and the adequacy of inhouse husbandry procedures. The low overall mortality(2.44%) demonstrates the adequacy of procedures used by the PPP for the transport of nonhuman primates, by the Perrine Primate Center in the transshipment and holding of animals, and by Battelle in the habituation of owl monkeys to a laboratory environment. Furthermore, the results indicate the feasibility of transporting nonhuman primates over long distances, involving several days of travel, without endangering the health of the animals. Nonetheless, delays during travel implies changes in holding cages, extra handling by personnel and variations in both diet composition and feeding schedule. These factors may have a profound effect on the ability different age classes have of recov ering body weight lost in transit.
