Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:54:37.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foraging enrichment for laboratory rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SR Johnson ,
EG Patterson-Kane  and
L Niel
EG Patterson-Kane
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Animal Biology Division, Sir Stephen Watson Building, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH28 0PO, Scotland, UK
L Niel
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada
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.

The provision of foraging opportunities may be a simple way of improving an animal's welfare, but this approach has been neglected for laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus). Standard housing contains little enrichment, and food is often provided ad libitum, which may result in inactivity and obesity, especially in mature males. Foraging enrichments may offer a way to correct these deficiencies. This study compared three potential enrichments — a limited-access hopper, gnawing sticks and a foraging device — to standard housing and feeding conditions, in order to examine their effects on rat body weight, food consumption, behaviour and preferences. The subjects were 12 mature male Wistar rats. Effects were assessed from daily weighing and from video records of the rats' behaviour over 24 h periods. The rats' preferences were determined using a four-way test system in which they could choose between a standard cage and cages offering the three potential enrichments. Compared to the standard housing and feeding, the limited-access hopper had a tendency to reduce food consumption, but the time spent feeding increased. The gnawing sticks provided the rats with the opportunity to gnaw, but did not affect other behaviours or body weight. The foraging device had the benefits of reducing aggression and allowing the rats to search for and manipulate food, but resulted in significant gains in body weight. Additionally, the foraging device was the preferred feeding source. Of the four possible feeding locations, the rats spent the least amount of time in the standard cage. The foraging device provided the most benefits but requires further modification to address problems of obesity.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourenvironmental enrichmentforagingpreferencerats
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 305 - 312
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ackroff, K, Schwartz, B and Collier, G 1986 Macronutrient selection by foraging rats. Physiology and Behavior 38: 71–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albert, DJ, Dyson, EM, Walsh, ML and Wong, R 1988 Defensive aggression and testosterone-dependent intermale social aggression are each elicited by food competition. Physiology and Behavior 43: 21–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, SA 1956 Behaviour components in the feeding of laboratory rats. Behaviour 9: 24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, SA 1975 The Rat. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, GR 1993 An enriched commune housing system for laboratory rats — a preliminary view. Animal Technology 44: 201–213Google Scholar
Blom, HJM, van Tintelen, G, Baumans, V, van den Broeck, J and Beyen, AC 1995 Development and application of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory rats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, DJ Jr and Noonan, M 1996 Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Laboratory Animals 30: 97–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, SF, Beighley, BG, Libretto, JS, Mollenhour, MJ and Prytula, RE 1975 Contrafreeloading as a function of early environmental conditions. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 65: 95–97Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, WA 1967 A behavioural study of the home-cage activity of the white rat. Behaviour 58: 280–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, B, Snow, FM and Greenough, WT 1977 Impoverished rats weight more than enriched rats because they eat more. Developmental Psychobiology 10: 537–541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Forkman, B 1993a Self-reinforced behaviour does not explain contra-freeloading in the Mongolian gerbil. Ethology 94: 109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B 1993b The effect of uncertainty on the food intake of the Mongolian gerbil. Behaviour 124: 197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B 1996 The foraging behaviour of Mongolian gerbils: a behavioural need or a need to know? Behaviour 133: 129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannon, KN, Smith, HV and Tiernet, KJ 1983 Effect of procurement cost on food consumption in rats. Physiology and Behavior 31: 331–337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, M, Coerse, NCA and Forkman, B 2000 Frustration-induced aggression in the domestic hen: the effect of thwarting access to food and water on aggressive responses and subsequent approach tendencies. Behaviour 137: 531–546Google Scholar
Havelka, J 1956 Problem-seeking behaviour in rats. Canadian Journal of Psychology 10: 91–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, M 1999 Preliminary behaviour data for single and pair housed rats. Animal Technology 50: 47–48Google Scholar
Hurst, JL, Barnard, CJ, Nevison, CM and West, CD 1997 Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: welfare implications of isolation and social contact among caged males. Animal Welfare 6: 329–347Google Scholar
Inglis, IR and Ferguson, NJK 1986 Starlings search for food rather than eat freely-available, identical food. Animal Behaviour 34: 614–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, GD 1963 Preference for bar pressing over ‘freeloading’ as a function of number of reward presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology 65: 451–454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, DF, Ackroff, KM, Collier, GH and Plescia, L 1984 Effects of dietary nutrients and foraging costs on meal patterns of rats. Physiology and Behavior 33: 465–471CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, DF and Collier, G 1994 Meal patterns of rats encountering variable food procurement cost. Animal Behaviour 47: 1279–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastelein, RA and Wiepkema, PR 1989 A digging trough as occupational therapy for Pacific Walruses (Odobenus divergens) in human care. Aquatic Mammals 15: 9–17Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM 1999 The laboratory rat. In: Poole, T and English, P (eds) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 7th Edition, Volume 1: Terrestrial Vertebrates pp 313–330. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, MM 2002 Comfortable quarter for rats in research institutions. In: Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A (eds) Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 9th Edition. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Manser, CE, Broom, DM, Overend, P and Morris, TH 1998a Investigation into the preference of laboratory rats for nest-boxes and nesting materials. Laboratory Animals 32: 23–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, CE, Broom, DM, Overend, P and Morris, TH 1998b Operant studies to determine the strength of preference in laboratory rats for nest-boxes and nesting materials. Laboratory Animals 32: 36–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mering, S 2000 Housing environment and enrichment for laboratory rats — refinement and reduction outcomes. PhD Thesis, University of Kuopio, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001 Effect of dietary fiber on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90: 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuringer, AJ 1969 Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science 166: 399–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, AS, Nevison, CM, Patterson-Kane, E, Sherwin, CM, van de Weerd, HA and Würbel, H 2003 Understanding behaviour: the relevance of ethological approaches in laboratory animal science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orok-Edem, E and Key, D 1994 Response of rats (Rattus norvegicus) to enrichment objects. Animal Technology 45: 25–30Google Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG 2001a Enrichment theory from rat research. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Environmental Enrichment p 15 (Abstract). November 4–9th 2001, Taronga Zoo, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG 2001b Environmental enrichment for laboratory rats: a review. Animal Technology 52: 77–84Google Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG, Harper, DN and Hunt, M 2001 The cage preference of laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 35: 74–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson-Kane, EG, Hunt, M and Harper, D 2002 Rats demand social contact. Animal Welfare 11: 327–332Google Scholar
Pollé, IFH 1997 An investigation into factors influencing foraging motivation. MSc Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Poole, T 1997 Happy animals make good science. Laboratory Animals 31: 116–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renner, MJ and Rosenzweig, MR 1987 Enriched and Impoverished Environments: Effects on Brain and Behavior. Springer-Verlag: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 1990 SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th Edition, Volume 1 and 2. SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Sharp, PE and LaRegina, MC 1998 The Laboratory Rat. CRC Press: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S 1956 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Baumans, V 1995 Environmental enrichment in rodents. In: Smith, CP and Taylor, V (eds) Environmental Enrichment Information Resources for Laboratory Animals, AWIC Resource Series No 2 pp 145–149. National Agricultural Library: Beltsville, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Whishaw, IQ and Dringenberg, HC 1991 How does the rat (Rattus norvegicus) adjust food-carrying responses to the influences of distance, effort, predatory odor, food size, and food availability? Psychobiology 19: 251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrightson, D and Dickson, C 1999 Diet restriction through hopper design. Animal Technology 50: 45–47Google Scholar