Human-animal interactions and animal welfare in conventionally and pen-housed rats

被引:19
|
作者
Augustsson, H
Lindberg, L
Höglund, AU
Dahlborn, K
机构
[1] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Unit Comparat Physiol & Med, Dept Large Anim Clin Sci, SLU, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Uppsala Univ, Dept Physiol, Unit Comparat Med, Uppsala, Sweden
[3] Uppsala Univ, Natl Vet Inst, Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
housing; pen-housed; urine corticosterone; laboratory animals; welfare; activity;
D O I
10.1258/002367702320162388
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
The main aim of the present study was to explore the significance of large group/greater pen housing (PH) versus standard Makrolon caging (ST) in three behaviour tests related to human-animal interactions in the adult male laboratory rat. The rats' perception of human interaction was tested in three behavioural tests, of which two reflected common practical procedures, capture and restraint, whereas the third was a human approach test in a Y-maze. The rats' anticipatory reactions to handling and the reactions to restraint did not differ between groups, but the ST rats approached a human hand more quickly than did the PH rats (P < 0.01). Although food intake did not differ, ST rats gained more weight (P < 0.01) and had higher total cholesterol values (P < 0.01) than PH rats. In conclusion, this study shows that housing rats in large groups in an enriched environment did not influence their anticipatory reaction to handling in normal handling situations. However, as the PH rats tended to have a longer approach latency than ST rats in the Y-maze there might be underlying differences in appraisal that are not detected in practical situations. In addition, the PH rats weighed less arid had lower total cholesterol values than ST rats and their urine corticosterone values were higher. These effects are suggested to be due to higher physical activity in the PH rats, and the implications of this on the animal as a model is discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:271 / 281
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare
    Idrus Zulkifli
    [J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 4
  • [2] Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare
    Zulkifli, Idrus
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2013, 4
  • [3] Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare
    Idrus Zulkifli
    [J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2013, 4 (03) : 180 - 186
  • [4] Illuminating issues of companion animal welfare through research into human-animal interactions
    Podberscek, AL
    [J]. ANIMAL WELFARE, 1997, 6 (04) : 365 - 372
  • [5] HUMAN-ANIMAL INTERACTIONS
    HEMSWORTH, PH
    BARNETT, JL
    [J]. VETERINARY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA-FOOD ANIMAL PRACTICE, 1987, 3 (02) : 339 - 356
  • [6] Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare
    Mota-Rojas, Daniel
    Maurice Broom, Donald
    Orihuela, Agustin
    Velarde, Antonio
    Napolitano, Fabio
    Alonso-Spilsbury, Maria
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND BIOMETEOROLOGY, 2020, 8 (03): : 196 - 205
  • [8] Advocates for animal welfare, human-animal bond honored
    不详
    [J]. JAVMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 250 (05): : 485 - 486
  • [9] The Power of a Positive Human-Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare
    Rault, Jean-Loup
    Waiblinger, Susanne
    Boivin, Xavier
    Hemsworth, Paul
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2020, 7
  • [10] The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare
    Mellor, David J.
    Beausoleil, Ngaio J.
    Littlewood, Katherine E.
    McLean, Andrew N.
    McGreevy, Paul D.
    Jones, Bidda
    Wilkins, Cristina
    [J]. ANIMALS, 2020, 10 (10): : 1 - 24