Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:36:00.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disruptive effects of standard husbandry practice on laboratory rat social discrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

OHP Burman  and
M Mendl
OHP Burman*
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
M Mendl
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

Elements of husbandry procedures, such as handling, may disrupt rodent social behaviour. Such effects may be contingent upon the familiarity between individuals and upon the quality and quantity of the disruption. We investigated this issue using laboratory rats. We placed 36 rats into groups of three. At the point of group formation, and at 24 h, 7 days and two weeks afterwards, individuals received one of three treatments: ‘handling’, exposure to novel conspecific ‘urine’, or ‘control’ (undisturbed), for a duration of either 5 or 15 mins. We used a social recognition test to measure the ability of the rats to recognise the urine of group members of increasing familiarity following the implementation of these treatments. The ‘control’ treatment did not appear to disrupt social recognition. The 5 min ‘urine’ treatment appeared to disrupt recognition only when the rats had received the briefest experience of the ‘familiar’ urine (5 mins). The 5 min ‘handling’ treatment, however, appeared far more disruptive, with an apparent disruption of social recognition even when familiarity with the urine donor was high (eg 7 days of group housing). Both the ‘handling’ and ‘urine’ treatments appeared more disruptive when presented for an increased duration (15 mins). There was also some evidence that increased experience of the handling procedure might reduce its disruptive effect. The results of this study have several implications for the welfare of laboratory-housed rats, and these are discussed.

Keywords

animal welfarehusbandry procedureslaboratory ratsocial discriminationsocial disruptionsocial recognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 125 - 133
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anisman, H, Zaharia, M D, Meaney, M J and Merali, Z 1998 Do early-life events permanently alter behavioral and hormonal responses to stressors? International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 16(314): 149-164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beynen, A C 1992 Communication between rats of experiment-induced stress and its impact on experimental results. Animal Welfare 1: 153–159Google Scholar
Brown, R E 1992 Responses of dominant and subordinate male rats to the odors of male and female conspecifics. Aggressive Behavior 15: 129–1383.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burman, O H P and Mendl, M 1999 The effects of environmental context on laboratory rat social recognition. Animal Behaviour 58: 629–634CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burman, O H P and Mendl, M 2000 Short-term social memory in the laboratory rat: its susceptibility to disturbance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 241–254CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, W F, Yee, L, Gable, D and Marasco, E 1976 Olfactory recognition of conspecifics by domestic Norway rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 90: 821–828CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R, Bluthé, R M, Koob, G F and Le Moal, M 1987 Modulation of social memory in male rats by neurohypophyseal peptides. Psychopharmacology 91: 363–368CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Quervain, D J F, Roozendaal, B and McGaugh, J L 1998 Stress and glucocorticoids impair retrieval of long-term spatial memory. Nature 394: 787–790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dluzen, D E, Muraoka, S, Engelmann, M, Ebner, K and Landgraf, R 2000 Oxytocin induces preservation of social recognition in male rats by activating alpha-adrenoceptors of the olfactory bulb. European Journal of Neuroscience 12: 760–766CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dluzen, D E, Muraoka, S, Engelmann, M and Landgraf, R 1998 The effects of infusion of arginine vasopressin, oxytocin, or their antagonists into the olfactory bulb upon social recognition responses in male rats. Peptides 19: 999–1005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dukas, R 1998 Constraints on information processing and their effects on behaviour. In: Dukas, R (ed) Cognitive Ethology — The Evolutionary Ecology of Information Processing and Decision Making pp 89–127. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, M, Wotjak, C T and Landgraf, R 1995 Social discrimination procedure — an alternative method to investigate juvenile recognition abilities in rats. Physiology and Behavior 58: 315–321CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewbank, R and Meese, G B 1971 Aggressive behaviour in groups of domesticated pigs on removal and return of individuals. Animal Production 13: 685–693Google Scholar
Feenstra, M G P and Botterblom, M H A 1996 Rapid sampling of extracellular dopamine in the rat prefrontal cortex during food consumption, handling and exposure to novelty. Brain Research 742: 17–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fokkema, D S, Koolhaas, J M and van der Gugten, J 1995 Individual characteristics of behavior, blood pressure, and adrenal hormones in colony rats. Physiology and Behavior 57(5): 857–862CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, S and Hurst, J L 1995 The effects of cage cleaning on aggression within groups of male laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 49: 821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L, Barnard, C J, Hare, R, Wheeldon, E B and West, C D 1996 Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: time-budgeting and pathophysiology in single-sex groups. Animal Behaviour 52: 335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, H H, Jones, R B, Schofield, C P, White, R P and Wathes, C M 2001 The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 321–333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapin, I P 1995 Only controls — effect of handling, sham injection, and intraperitoneal injection of saline on behavior of mice in an elevated plus-maze. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 34: 73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, E M 1986 Animal memory: past, present and future. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 38(B): 349–364Google ScholarPubMed
Mendl, M 1999 Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, C and Cabanac, M 1999 Opposite effects of gentle handling on body temperature and body weight in rats. Physiology and Behavior 67: 617–622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minitab 1996 Minitab Reference Manual, Version 12. State College Philadelphia: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Nevison, C M, Barnard, C J, Beynon, R J and Hurst, J L 2000 The consequences of inbreeding for recognizing competitors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 267: 687–694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noldus Information Technology 1993 The Observer Base Package. Reference Manual, Version 3.0. Noldus Information Technology: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Popik, P and van Ree, J M 1998 Neurohypophyseal peptides and social recognition in rats. Progress in Brain Research 119: 415–436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reijmers, L G J E, Leus, I E, Burback, P H, Spruijt, B M and van Ree, J M 2001 Social memory in the rat: circadian variation and effect of circadian rhythm disruption. Physiology and Behavior 72: 305–309CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodent Refinement Working Party 1998 Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse. Laboratory Animals 32: 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, W A, Borbely, L S and Garcia, R S 1993 Attenuation by contextual cues of retroactive interference of a conditional discrimination in rats. Animal Learning and Behavior 21: 101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryabinin, A E, Wang, Y M and Finn, D A 1999 Different levels of Fos immunoreactivity after repeated handling and injection stress in two inbred strains of mice. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 63(1): 143-151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, G D 1991 The effect of 22 kHz calls and artificial 38 kHz signals on activity in rats. Behavioural Processes 24: 83–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, T F, Hengehold, A K and Perez, W A 1984 Chemosensory and hormonal mediation of social memory in male rats. Behavioural Neurosciences 95: 908–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, U and Hiemke, C 1998 Combination of open field and elevated plus-maze: a suitable test battery to assess strain as well as treatment differences in rat behavior. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacological and Biological Psychiatry 22: 1197–1215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R R and Rohlf, F J 1995 Biometry. W H Freeman and Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Squire, L R 1986 Mechanisms of memory. Science 232(4755): 1612–1619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squire, L R 1987 Memory and Brain. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Van Loo, P L P, Kruitwagen, C L J J, Van Zutphen, L F M, Koolhaas, J M and Baumans, V 2000 Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of cage cleaning regime and scent marks. Animal Welfare 9: 281–295Google Scholar
Wilkie, D M, Willson, R J and Carr, J A R 1999 Errors made by animals in memory paradigms are not always due to failure of memory. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23: 451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H 2001 Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neurosciences 24(4): 207–211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed