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
  • [21] Investigating the welfare, management and human-animal interactions of cattle in four Indonesian abattoirs
    Doyle, R. E.
    Coleman, G. J.
    McGill, D. M.
    Reed, M.
    Ramdani, W.
    Hemsworth, P. H.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2016, 25 (02) : 191 - 197
  • [22] Impact of Procedures and Human-Animal Interactions during Transport and Slaughter on Animal Welfare of Pigs: A Systematic Literature Review
    Isbrandt, Rudi
    Wiegard, Mechthild
    Meemken, Diana
    Langkabel, Nina
    ANIMALS, 2022, 12 (23):
  • [23] Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment?: Some unresolved issues
    de Passillé, AM
    Rushen, J
    APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE, 2005, 92 (03) : 193 - 209
  • [24] Animal-human, human-animal
    不详
    LITERATUR UND KRITIK, 2010, (447-48): : 35 - 35
  • [25] Animal Welfare and the Human-Animal Bond: Considerations for Veterinary Faculty, Students, and Practitioners
    Wensley, Sean F.
    JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2008, 35 (04) : 532 - 539
  • [26] THE INFLUENCE OF HUMAN-ANIMAL INTERACTIONS IN FARM ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION - A REVIEW
    MULKENS, F
    GEERS, R
    VLAAMS DIERGENEESKUNDIG TIJDSCHRIFT, 1995, 64 (05): : 157 - 162
  • [27] Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review
    Herzog, Harold A.
    ANTHROZOOS, 2007, 20 (01): : 7 - 21
  • [28] Influence of human-animal relationship on animals' welfare and productivity
    Petrynka, Monika
    Klocek, Czeslaw
    MEDYCYNA WETERYNARYJNA-VETERINARY MEDICINE-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2012, 68 (08): : 479 - 482
  • [29] Bestiality, Zoophilia and Human-Animal Sexual Interactions
    Bourke, Joanna
    PARAGRAPH, 2019, 42 (01) : 91 - 115
  • [30] Human-animal interactions: a social work guide
    Linden, Pamela L.
    SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, 2018, 37 (08) : 1060 - 1061