Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:16:41.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences of Laboratory Mice for Characteristics of Soiling Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C M Sherwin
C M Sherwin*
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When designing cages to maximize welfare, we should consider both the physical and psychological needs of the animals for which the cage is intended. Many laboratory species show non-random defecation patterns and therefore might possess a psychological need for soiling sites with preferred characteristics. This study examined whether caged laboratory mice preferred to defecate on a floor with or without sawdust, and whether mice preferentially defecated in clearly partitioned areas of the cage which prevented mixing of soiled and clean sawdust. The mice were recorded as active in each area of the cage at a frequency that would be expected from the floor-area available, ie general activity was randomly distributed, but, the mice were selective in the areas used for defecation. Significantly more faeces were deposited in areas containing sawdust than in areas without (p<0.0001). After corrections for differences in the size of floor-area, significantly fewer faeces were deposited in partitioned areas at the rear of the cage than in the front area of the cage which contained the feeder and drinkers (p <0.001). Overall, these results show that the mice defecated in localized areas and preferred to defecate in areas containing sawdust. These results support other evidence which indicates that conventional cage designs for mice do not provide a sufficiently complex or appropriate environment to allow selective soiling behaviour. Such cages might therefore be inadequate with respect to catering for the psychological needs and overall welfare of laboratory mice.

Keywords

animal welfaredefecationlaboratory micesawdustsoiling behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , August 1996 , pp. 283 - 288
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baumans, V, Stafleu, F R and Bouw, J 1987 Testing housing systems for mice - the value of a preference test. Zeitschrift Versuchstierkd 29: 9–14Google ScholarPubMed
Blom, H 1993 Evaluation of Housing Conditions for Laboratory Mice and Rats. PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Brant, D H and Kavanau, J L 1964 ‘Unrewarded’ exploration and learning of complex mazes by wild and domestic mice. Nature 204: 267–269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, J P and Marshall, P E 1990 The captive management of a breeding colony of Ryuku mice (Mus caroli). Animal Technology 41: 191–196Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, M R and Clough, G 1976 Ammonia build-up in animal boxes and its effect on rat tracheal epithelium. Laboratory Animals 10: 93–104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaerdel, A D, White, W J, Lang, C M, Dvorchik, B H and Bohner, K 1983 Localized and systemic effects of environmental ammonia in rats. Laboratory Animal Science 33: 40–45Google ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1996 Reorganisation of behaviour in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) with varying cost of access to resources. Animal Behaviour 51: 1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R R and Rohlf, F J 1981 Biometry, 2nd edition p 427. W H Freeman and Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Van Winkle, T J and Balk, M W 1986 Spontaneous corneal opacities in laboratory mice. Laboratory Animal Science 36: 248–255Google ScholarPubMed
Wallace, M E 1963 Cage design principles, practice and cost. Journal of the Animal Technicians Association 14: 65–72Google Scholar
Wallace, M E 1984 The mouse: in residence and in transit. In: Standards in Laboratory Animal Management pp 25–39. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Ward, G E and De Mille, D 1991 Environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Animal Technology 42: 149–156Google Scholar
Weiss, J and Taylor, G T 1984 A new cage type for individually housed laboratory rats. In: Standards in Laboratory Animal Management pp 85–89. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
White, W J, Balk, M W and Lang, C M 1989 Use of cage space by Guinea-pigs. Laboratory Animals 23: 208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar