The food provided for many zoo animals is chopped into small pieces even if the animals are capable of processing much larger items. Chopping food takes time and the chopped edges increase the risk of bacterial contamination and food spoilage; whereas leaving food whole may allow the animals to express more natural feeding behaviour and increase their food processing time. So why do keepers chop food? Reasons offered are: [1] It enables all individuals in a group to obtain enough of each food type and reduces aggression; [2] It prevents wastage caused by animals taking one bite and discarding the rest of a large item; [3] It enables a wider scatter feed to encourage foraging behaviour and prolong feeding time. We investigated these assumptions in two species, Sulawesi crested black macaque (Macaca nigra) and Brazilian tapir (Tapiris terrestris). The usual fruit and vegetable feed provided to each group was offered in four conditions: chopped/clumped, chopped/scattered, whole/clumped and whole/scattered, such that the total amount of food was the same on each day. The average piece size and total weight of each produce type was recorded each day and any food uneaten each day was weighed. Each study subject was observed individually during feeding time and the number and type of each food item eaten recorded, along with any aggression and their total time spent feeding. Each subject was also observed for two 30 minute sessions at other times throughout the day and their behaviour recorded using instantaneous sampling every minute. The data were analysed using randomisation tests equivalent to two-way ANOVAs to determine the effects of food item size and presentation method on total weight of food consumed, diversity of food items consumed, total feeding time, aggression during feeding, behaviour throughout the day and total food wasted. These results indicate that the supposed advantages of chopping food are not actually evident. For the macaques food size and presentation did not significantly affect any of the variables measured when considering all subjects. However the most subordinate individual was able to obtain significantly more food (randomisation test, P = 0.008) when food was left whole rather than chopped (scattering or clumping the food made no difference). For the tapirs the only statistically significant effect was found at one of three zoos where the chopped/clumped condition resulted in significantly less foraging behaviour throughout the day than the whole/clumped condition (randomisaton test, P = 0.013). Therefore chopping food does not seem to have any of the advantages keepers suggest and we recommend that if animals are capable of processing it food should be provided whole to avoid the increased risk of contamination and nutrient loss and save keeper time.