Literature DB >> 15264764

To enrich or not to enrich: providing shelter does not complicate handling of laboratory mice.

Christel P H Moons1, Peggy Van Wiele, Frank O Odberg.   

Abstract

Environmental enrichment (EE) is used in laboratory animal housing to provide stimuli exceeding those of barren cages and is intended to improve the welfare of captive animals. It is argued that when laboratory mice can routinely retreat in sheltering objects when humans are present, they do not habituate to humans and continue to shy away, thereby increasing the time needed for husbandry and testing procedures. To this date very limited research has been carried out to determine whether providing EE in the form of shelter interferes with the habituation of mice to humans and thus complicates catching and handling them. We housed 20 FVB (inbred) and 20 NMRI (outbred) male mice in standard cages and another 20 FVB and 20 NMRI male mice in cages enriched with two PVC conduits. When the mice were 10 weeks old, measurements of food and water consumption, weight, latency of catching, and a behavior score in response to handling during a sham subcutaneous injection were performed weekly for 4 consecutive weeks. Food and water consumption and weight were influenced by strain, but the presence of EE in the home cage did not affect these parameters as much. Outbred mice ate, drank, and weighed more than did the inbred animals, but they did not significantly gain weight during the course of the 4 testing weeks. Cage enrichment in the form of PVC conduits decreased the time needed to catch outbred animals and did not increase the time needed to catch mice from the inbred strain. Furthermore, no differences in resistance to being held during the sham injection could be detected between animals from the enriched versus non-enriched group. These results indicate that EE in the form of sheltering objects does not complicate catching or handling mice and that allowing access to enrichment in the laboratory cage, which has been shown to have positive effects on welfare, does not interfere with the management or cost of laboratory animals. Copyright 2004 American Association for Laboratory Animal Science

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15264764

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1060-0558


  6 in total

1.  Effect of a cage divider permitting social stimuli on stress and food intake in rats.

Authors:  M M Boggiano; S A Cavigelli; J R Dorsey; C E P Kelley; C M Ragan; P C Chandler-Laney
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2008-05-15

2.  Lipid-body containing interstitial cells (lipofibroblasts) in the lungs of various mouse strains.

Authors:  Luka Opitz; Katharina Maria Kling; Christina Brandenberger; Christian Mühlfeld
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Home improvement: C57BL/6J mice given more naturalistic nesting materials build better nests.

Authors:  Sarah E Hess; Stephanie Rohr; Brett D Dufour; Brianna N Gaskill; Edmond A Pajor; Joseph P Garner
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Tunnel use facilitates handling of ICR mice and decreases experimental variation.

Authors:  Yu Nakamura; Kaoru Suzuki
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 1.267

5.  Evaluation of the effects of space allowance on measures of animal welfare in laboratory mice.

Authors:  Jeremy D Bailoo; Eimear Murphy; Justin A Varholick; Janja Novak; Rupert Palme; Hanno Würbel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Enrichment for Laboratory Zebrafish-A Review of the Evidence and the Challenges.

Authors:  Chloe H Stevens; Barney T Reed; Penny Hawkins
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.