Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:50:40.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shelter choice by Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) in the laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Veillette  and
SG Reebs
M Veillette
Affiliation:
Département de Biologie, Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, E1A 3E9, Canada
SG Reebs*
Affiliation:
119 rue Grenier, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, J2W 1Y1, Canada
*
* 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.

The preference of Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) for different in-cage shelters was tested. First, 15 males and 15 females were made to choose between a cage with a shelter and one without. Different shelters were tested consecutively: short (10-cm) or medium (15-cm) pipes made of black acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), 7.6 cm in diameter and open at both ends; and short or medium boxes made of black acrylic panels and open at only one end. The strongest use of the shelter cage for nesting (about 75% of days) was in the case of the medium, open pipe, for both males and females. The strongest use of the shelter itself for nesting was also in the case of the medium open pipe (52% of days). A second experiment gave a choice between pairs of shelters (of seven different types) to 10 males and 10 females. Both sexes nested significantly more in a medium pipe closed at one end than under a wheel, and tended to nest more in that medium, semi-closed pipe than in a medium, open pipe. Also, females tended to nest more in the medium, semi-closed pipe than under an aluminium cover. Other pairings did not yield significant differences. Direct use of the shelters for nesting was rather low, except for the medium, semi-closed pipe (about 50% of days). Semi-closed ABS pipes are inexpensive, easy to clean, and do not interfere with running wheels, and they could be recommended as environmental enrichment for hamsters.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentpreference testsex differencesshelterSyrian hamster
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 603 - 611
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baumans, V 2005 Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents and rabbits: requirements of rodents, rabbits and research. ILAR journal 46: 162–170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaulieu, A and Reebs, SG 2009 Effects of bedding material and running wheel surface on paw wounds in male and female Syrian hamsters. Laboratory Animals 43: 85–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaver, BV 1989 Environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. ILAR News 31(2): 5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y and Hochberg, Y 1995 Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B57: 289–300Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21(2): 77–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH 1978 Letter to the editor: the interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG 1999 Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents: animal welfare and the methods of science. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2: 267–280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gattermann, R, Fritzsche, P, Neumann, K, Al-Hussein, I, Kayser, A, Abiad, M and Yakti, R 2001 Notes on the current distribution and the ecology of wild golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Journal of Zoology 254: 359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB and Pederson, LJ 2008 Using motivation tests to assess ethological needs and preferences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 340–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhnen, G 2002 Comfortable quarters for hamsters in research institutions. In: Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A (eds) Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals pp 33–37. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington. www.awionline.org/pubs/cq02/CQindex.html#contents)Google Scholar
Lanteigne, M and Reebs, SG 2006 Preference for bedding material in Syrian hamsters. Laboratory Animals 40: 410–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, CE, Broom, DM, Overend, P and Morris, TH 1998a Operant studies to determine the strength of preference in laboratory rats for nest-boxes and nesting materials. Laboratory Animals 32: 36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, CE, Broom, DM, Overend, P and Morris, TH 1998b Investigations into the preferences of laboratory rats for nest-boxes and nesting materials. Laboratory Animals 32: 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, CE, Elliott, H, Morris, TH and Broom, DM 1996 The use of a novel operant test to determine the strength of preference for flooring in laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 30: 1–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moons, CP, Van Wiele, P and Ödberg, FO 2004 To enrich or not to enrich: providing shelter does not complicate handling of laboratory mice. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 43: 18–21Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Dahlborn, K 2002 Improving the housing conditions for laboratory mice: a review of ‘environmental enrichment’. Laboratory Animals 36: 243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Nevison, CM, Patterson-Kane, EG, 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
Ottoni, EB and Ades, C 1991 Resource location and structural properties of the nestbox as determinants of nest-site selection in the golden hamster. Animal Learning and Behavior 19: 234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EG 2002 Cage size preference in rats in the laboratory. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5: 63–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson-Kane, EG 2003 Shelter enrichment for rats. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42: 46–48Google ScholarPubMed
Peace, TA, Singer, AW, Niemuth, NA and Shaw, ME 2001 Effects of caging type and animal source on the development of foot lesions in Sprague Dawley rats (Rattus norvegicus). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 40: 17–21Google Scholar
Poole, T 1997 Happy animals make good science. Laboratory Animals 31: 116–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reebs, SG and St-Onge, P 2005 Running wheel choice by Syrian hamsters. Laboratory Animals 39: 442–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS® Software 2007 Version 9. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM 1996a Preferences of individually housed TO strain laboratory mice for loose substrate or tubes for sleeping. Laboratory Animals 30: 245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM 1996b Laboratory mice persist in gaining access to resources: a method of assessing the importance of environmental features. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM 1998 Voluntary wheel running: a review and novel interpretation. Animal Behaviour 56: 11–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, CM 2003 Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice, Mus musculus, to gain access to resources. Animal Behaviour 66: 649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S 1956 Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
S⊘rensen, DB, Ottesen, JL and Hansen, AK 2004 Consequences of enhancing environmental complexity for laboratory rodents - a review with emphasis on the rat. Animal Welfare 13: 193–204Google Scholar
S⊘rensen, DB, Kron, T, Hansen, HN, Ottesen, JL and Hansen, AK 2005 An ethological approach to housing requirements of golden hamsters, Mongolian gerbils and fat sand rats in the laboratory: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, KL and Bayne, K 2004 Environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. In: Reuter, JD and Suckow, MA (eds) Laboratory Animal Medicine and Management. International Veterinary Information Service: Ithaca, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Stokes, ME, Davis, CS and Koch, GG 2000 Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS® System, 2nd Edition. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P 1997 Use of in-cage shelters by laboratory rats. Animal Welfare 6: 95–103Google Scholar
Van der Harst, JE, Fermont, PCJ, Bilstra, AE and Spruijt, BM 2003 Access to enriched housing is rewarding to rats as reflected by their anticipatory behaviour. Animal Behaviour 66: 493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Van Loo, PLP, Van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1998a Strength of preference for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Van Loo, PLP, Van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1998b Preferences for nest boxes as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Animal Welfare 7: 11–25Google Scholar
Van Loo, PL, Blom, HJ, Meijer, MK and Baumans, V 2005 Assessment of the use of two commercially available environmental enrichments by laboratory mice by preference testing. Laboratory Animals 39: 58–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veillette, M and Reebs, SG 2010 Preference of Syrian hamsters to nest in old versus new bedding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125: 189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H 2001 Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neuroscience 24: 207–211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Würbel, H, Chapman, R and Rutlans, C 1998 Effect of feed and environmental enrichment on development of stereotypic wire-gnawing in laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, I and Beery, AK 2010 Males still dominate animal studies. Nature 465: 690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed