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
  • [41] Community science as a potential tool to monitor animal demography and human-animal interactions
    Marechal, Laetitia
    Lobo, Raul
    Mcadam, Fintan
    Simpson, Elizabeth
    Woolston, Josephine
    Stanley, Mae
    Romero, Teresa
    Dunn, Jenny C.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2025, 15 (01):
  • [42] Human-Animal Interactions in Disaster Settings: A Systematic Review
    Wu, Haorui
    Heyland, Lindsay K.
    Yung, Mandy
    Schneider, Maryam
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK SCIENCE, 2023, 14 (03) : 369 - 381
  • [43] Human-Animal Health Interactions: The Role of One Health
    Day, Michael J.
    AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2016, 93 (05) : 344 - +
  • [44] DAIRY CATTLE WELFARE AS A RESULT OF HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP - A REVIEW
    Adamczyk, Krzysztof
    ANNALS OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2018, 18 (03): : 601 - 622
  • [45] Human-animal conflicts
    Kesavan, P. C.
    CURRENT SCIENCE, 2014, 107 (08): : 1222 - 1223
  • [46] Human-Animal Communication
    Kulick, Don
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL 46, 2017, 46 : 357 - 378
  • [47] THE HUMAN-ANIMAL DISEASES
    Davis, David J.
    SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY, 1934, 39 : 62 - 66
  • [48] Investigating Human-Animal Interactions in Homes of Children With Autism
    Lisk, Caitlin
    Lawson, Lisa Mische
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, 2023, 77
  • [49] Human-animal interactions - The importance of examining the whole of a subject
    Mills, DS
    VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2003, 165 (03): : 180 - 181
  • [50] Human-Animal Interactions in Disaster Settings:A Systematic Review
    Haorui Wu
    Lindsay K.Heyland
    Mandy Yung
    Maryam Schneider
    International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14 (03) : 369 - 381