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
  • [31] Horse Paleogenomes and Human-Animal Interactions in Prehistory
    Perry, George H.
    Makarewicz, Cheryl A.
    [J]. TRENDS IN GENETICS, 2019, 35 (07) : 473 - 475
  • [32] Anthropomorphism in Human-Animal Interactions: A Pragmatist View
    Servais, Veronique
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 9
  • [33] Editorial: Human-Animal Interactions in Prehistoric China
    Zhang, Shuangquan
    Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manuel
    Zhang, Dongju
    Zhang, Yue
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2022, 10
  • [34] Human-Animal Interactions in Dairy Buffalo Farms
    Napolitano, Fabio
    Serrapica, Francesco
    Braghieri, Ada
    Masucci, Felicia
    Sabia, Emilio
    De Rosa, Giuseppe
    [J]. ANIMALS, 2019, 9 (05):
  • [35] Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos. Why is animal welfare so important?
    Escobar-Ibarra, Isabel
    Mota-Rojas, Daniel
    Gual-Sill, Fernando
    Sanchez, Carlos R.
    Baschetto, Fidel
    Alonso-Spilsbury, Maria
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND BIOMETEOROLOGY, 2021, 9 (02):
  • [36] HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS: ZOO-HOUSED GREAT APES USE HUMAN FAMILIARITY TO GUIDE INTERACTIONS WITH HUMANS
    Smith, J. J.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY, 2012, 74 : 33 - 33
  • [37] Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming
    Pol, F.
    Kling-Eveillard, F.
    Champigneulle, F.
    Fresnay, E.
    Ducrocq, M.
    Courboulay, V
    [J]. ANIMAL, 2021, 15 (02)
  • [38] Automation Systems for Farm Animals: Potential Impacts on the Human-Animal Relationship and on Animal Welfare
    Cornou, Cecile
    [J]. ANTHROZOOS, 2009, 22 (03): : 213 - 220
  • [39] The Complexity of the Human-Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human-Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding
    Prato-Previde, Emanuela
    Ricci, Elisa Basso
    Colombo, Elisa Silvia
    [J]. ANIMALS, 2022, 12 (20):
  • [40] Human-Animal Communication
    Kulick, Don
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL 46, 2017, 46 : 357 - 378