scholarly journals Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Rodents and Rabbits: Requirements of Rodents, Rabbits, and Research

ILAR Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Baumans
ILAR Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Joanna Makowska ◽  
Daniel M Weary

Abstract Most would agree that animals in research should be spared “unnecessary” harm, pain, or distress, and there is also growing interest in providing animals with some form of environmental enrichment. But is this the standard of care that we should aspire to? We argue that we need to work towards a higher standard—specifically, that providing research animals with a “good life” should be a prerequisite for their use. The aims of this paper are to illustrate our vision of a “good life” for laboratory rats and mice and to provide a roadmap for achieving this vision. We recognize that several research procedures are clearly incompatible with a good life but describe here what we consider to be the minimum day-to-day living conditions to be met when using rodents in research. A good life requires that animals can express a rich behavioral repertoire, use their abilities, and fulfill their potential through active engagement with their environment. In the first section, we describe how animals could be housed for these requirements to be fulfilled, from simple modifications to standard housing through to better cage designs and free-ranging options. In the second section, we review the types of interactions with laboratory rodents that are compatible with a good life. In the third section, we address the potential for the animals to have a life outside of research, including the use of pets in clinical trials (the animal-as-patient model) and the adoption of research animals to new homes when they are no longer needed in research. We conclude with a few suggestions for achieving our vision.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Hutchinson ◽  
A. Avery ◽  
S. VandeWoude

Author(s):  
Piotr Ochniewicz ◽  
Piotr Garnuszek ◽  
Urszula Karczmarczyk ◽  
Ewa Laszuk ◽  
Łukasz Sochaczewski


2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Honess ◽  
Jessica L. Gimpel ◽  
Sarah E. Wolfensohn ◽  
Georgia J. Mason

Many captive animals show forms of pelage loss that are absent in wild or free-living con-specifics, which result from grooming or plucking behaviours directed at themselves or at other individuals. For instance, dorsal hair loss in primates such as rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta) in research facilities, results from excessive hair-pulling or over-grooming by cage-mates. This behaviour appears to be associated with stress, and is controllable to some extent with environmental enrichment. Quantifying alopecia in primates (as in many species) is therefore potentially useful for welfare assessment. A simple system for scoring alopecia was developed and its reliability was tested. Study 1 showed high interobserver reliability between two independent scorers in assessing the state of monkeys’ coats from photographs. Study 2 showed that there were no significant differences between the scores derived from photographs and from direct observations. Thus, where hair loss due to hair pulling exists in captive primates, this scoring system provides an easy, rapid, and validated quantitative method, for use in assessing the success of attempts to reduce it via improved husbandry. In the future, such scoring systems might also prove useful for quantifying barbering in laboratory rodents.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olatz Goñi-Balentziaga ◽  
Iván Ortega-Saez ◽  
Sergi Vila ◽  
Garikoitz Azkona

Abstract Background Replacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain. Results Of the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer “little to none” or “minor” stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion − 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle. Conclusions Overall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy May Tran ◽  
Madeleine Broder ◽  
Suzannah Luft ◽  
Michael L. Schwartz ◽  
Karen Muller Smith ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document