Animals within zoo environments are learning continuously: they learn signals that predict when food is going to arrive or that the presence of a certain person means that something unpleasant may happen. They may learn to control their environment and caregivers: for example, they may learn that if they perform a particular behaviour (eg repetitive behaviour) they will receive a reward (ie food or attention from a caregiver). Using standard operant conditioning and classical conditioning techniques we can easily modify the behaviour of animals in zoos. Animals can be trained to comply with almost all minor veterinary procedures and examinations, such as injection, the measurement of heart rate, the cleaning of teeth and the treatment of superficial injuries. Compliance can be achieved using standard animal learning abilities without the need for punishment type I (ie physical punishment) or immobilisation (chemical or physical). In this paper we discuss how we apply learning theory to such procedures, the dangers associated with such programs (eg injury to the trainer) and the benefits (eg the treatment of large endangered animal species without the use of anaesthetic drugs). Additionally, we briefly discuss the selection and management of animal trainers. The methods we describe here are equally applicable to laboratory, farm and pet animals. Finally, as with all management processes applied to animals, a written policy on animal training needs to be produced by any institution training animals.

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.

The measurement of ‘cognitive bias’ has recently emerged as a powerful tool for assessing animal welfare. Cognitive bias was initially, and widely, studied in humans, and describes the way in which particular emotions are associated with biases in information processing. People suffering from clinical levels of anxiety or depression, for example, interpret ambiguous events more negatively than do non-anxious or non-depressed people. Development of methods for use with non-human animals has revealed similar biases in several species of mammals and birds, and one invertebrate. However, cognitive bias has not been previously explored in any species of non-human primate, despite specific concerns raised about the welfare of these animals in captivity. Here, we describe a touchscreen-based cognitive-bias task developed for use with captive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Monkeys were initially trained on a ‘Go/No-Go’ operant task, in which they learned to touch one of two lines that differed in size in order to receive a reward (food), and to desist from touching the other line to avoid a mildly aversive stimulus (delay to the next trial and white noise). In testing sessions, the monkeys were presented with lines of intermediate size. We measured whether touchscreen responses to these ambiguous stimuli were affected by husbandry procedures (environmental enrichment, and a statutory health check involving restraint and ketamine hydrochloride injection) presumed to induce positive and negative shifts in affective state, respectively. Monkeys made fewer responses to ambiguous stimuli post health check compared to during the phase of enrichment suggesting greater expectation of negative outcomes following the health check compared to during enrichment. Shifts in affective state following standard husbandry procedures may therefore be associated with changes in information processing similar to those demonstrated in anxious and depressed humans, and in a number of other taxa.