Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:08:50.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lower-Row Caging in a Two-Tiered Housing System Does not Affect the Behaviour of Young, Singly Housed Rhesus Macaques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S J Schapiro  and
M Bloomsmith
S J Schapiro*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA
M Bloomsmith
Affiliation:
TECHLab, Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30315, USA
*
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.

It has been suggested that housing of laboratory primates in two-tiered racks adversely affects the psychological well-being of those primates housed on the lower row. Excessive darkness and its consequences are among the factors suggested to account for the supposed diminished well-being of lower-row inhabitants. Additionally, two-tiered housing has been suggested to introduce unacceptable variation into experimental designs, potentially necessitating additional subjects and/or invalidating results. Only recently have data been published to address these issues, but all studies have involved small numbers of subjects. In the present study, we compared the behaviour of 45 yearling rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) housed in upper-row cages with the behaviour of 48 yearling rhesus macaques housed in lower-row cages during a year of single housing. There were no significant differences across cage locations for time spent performing behaviours indicative of diminished psychological well-being (abnormal behaviour, inactivity, vocalisation, self-directed grooming) or for species-typical activities (feeding, playing). The difference in time spent exploring between macaques housed on the lower row and those housed on the upper row approached significance, with lower-row-housed animals spending more time exploring. Although lower-row cages are significantly darker than upper-row cages at our facility, the data from the present study demonstrate that the diminished lighting and other supposed disadvantages experienced by lower-row-housed monkeys have few behavioural consequences. Thus, there are now additional empirical data that suggest that lower-row-housed monkeys are not suffering in a “monkey cave”, and that the findings of research projects using two-tiered housing systems are unlikely to be compromised.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcaptive housingpsychological well-beingrhesus macaquesingle housing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2001 , pp. 387 - 394
Copyright
© 2001 UfAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts ALA 8AN, UK

References

Bayne, Κ, Mainzer, Η, Dexter, S, Campbell, G, Yamada, F and Suomi, S 1991 The reduction of abnormal behaviors in individually housed rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with a foraging/grooming board. American Journal of Primatology 23: 23–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchl, S J, Keeling, M E and Voss, W R 1997 Establishing specific pathogen-free (SPF) nonhuman primate colonies. ILAR Journal 38: 22–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clough, C 1982 Environmental effects on animals used in biomedical research. Biological Reviews 57: 487–523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J A 1988 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J 2000 AIDS research: vaccine studies stymied by shortage of animals. Science 287: 959–960CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crockett, C M, Bowers, C L, Sackett, G P and Bowden, D M 1993 Urinary Cortisol responses of longtailed macaques to five cage sizes, tethering, sedation, and room change. American Journal of Primatology 30: 55–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crockett, C M, Bowers, C L, Shimoji, M, Leu, M, Bowden, D M and Sackett, G P 1995 Behavioral responses of longtailed macaques to different cage sizes and common laboratory experiences. Journal of Comparative Psychology 109: 368–383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crockett, C M, Shimoji, M and Bowden, D M 2000 Behavior, appetite, and urinary Cortisol responses by adult female pigtailed macaques to cage size, cage level, room change, and ketamine sedation. American Journal of Primatology 52: 63–803.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laudenslager, M L and Boccia, M L 1996 Some observations on psychosocial stressors, immunity, and individual differences in nonhuman primates. American Journal of Primatology 39: 205–2213.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Line, S W, Kaplan, J R, Heise, E R, Hilliard, J K, Cohen, S, Rabin, B S and Manuck, S B 1996 Effects of social reorganization on cellular immunity in male cynomolgus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 39: 235–2493.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubach, G R, Coe, C L and Ershler, W B 1995 Effects of early rearing environment on immune responses of infant rhesus monkeys. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 9: 31–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novak, M A and Suomi, S J 1988 Psychological well-being of primates in captivity. American Psychologist 43: 765–773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V 1997 Lighting conditions for laboratory monkeys: are they adequate? Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter 8(2): 3–6Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 1999 The monkey cave: the dark lower-row cage. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 38(3): 8–9Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 2000 The lower row monkey cage: an overlooked variable in biomedical research. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, L A and Andrews, M W 1995 Environmental enrichment and psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. In: Bennett, B T, Abee, C R and Hendrickson, R (eds) Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research: Biology and Management pp101–112. Academic Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, S J and Bloomsmith, M A 1994 Behavioral effects of enrichment on pair-housed juvenile rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 32: 159–170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, S J and Bloomsmith, M A 1995 Behavioral effects of enrichment on singly-housed, yearling rhesus monkeys: an analysis including three enrichment conditions and a control group. American Journal of Primatology 35: 89–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, S J, Bloomsmith, M A, Porter, L M and Suarez, S A 1996a Enrichment effects on rhesus monkeys successively housed singly, in pairs, and in groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, S J, Bloomsmith, M A, Suarez, S A and Porter, L M 1996b Effects of social and inanimate enrichment on the behavior of yearling rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 40: 247–2603.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, S J, Lee-Parritz, D E, Taylor, L L, Watson, L, Bloomsmith, M A and Petto, A 1994 Behavioral management of specific pathogen-free (SPF) rhesus macaques: group formation, reproduction, and parental competence. Laboratory Animal Science 44: 229–234Google ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, S J, Nehete, P N, Perlman, J E, Bloomsmith, M A and Sastry, K J 1998 Effects of dominance status and environmental enrichment on cell-mediated immunity in rhesus macaques. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, S J, Nehete, P N, Perlman, J E and Sastry, K J 2000 A comparison of cell-mediated immune responses in rhesus macaques housed singly, in pairs, or in groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 67–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, S J, Porter, L M, Suarez, S A and Bloomsmith, M A 1995 The behavior of singly-caged yearling rhesus monkeys is affected by the environment outside of the cage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, S J, Stavisky, R and Hook, M 2000 The lower-row cage may be dark, but behavior does not appear to be affected. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 39: 4–6Google Scholar