Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:18:45.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enriching the metabolic cage: effects on rat physiology and behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

DB Sørensen ,
K Mortensen ,
T Bertelsen  and
K Vognbjerg
DB Sørensen*
Affiliation:
Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Gronnegaardsvej 15, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
K Mortensen
Affiliation:
Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Gronnegaardsvej 15, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
T Bertelsen
Affiliation:
LEO Pharma, Industriparken 55, DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark
K Vognbjerg
Affiliation:
Scanbur BK A/S, Silovej 16-18, DK-2690 Karlslunde, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: dobj@life.ku.dk
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.

Metabolic cages are used for housing rats and mice for up to five days for collection of urine and/or faeces. The small, barren area of the metabolic cage compromises animal welfare as the animals lack a solid floor, shelter, nest material and social contact. We constructed and tested a practically-applicable enrichment device designed to meet behavioural needs for environmental complexity. The influence of this device on the cage preferences and stress levels of the animals was evaluated. A box-shaped enrichment device was designed and implemented in existing metabolic cages. Male Tac:SD rats were housed for five days in an enriched metabolic cage (EMC; n = 12) or a standard metabolic cage (SMC; n = 12), and data were collected on bodyweight, food and water intake, urination and defaecation, as well as urinary corticosterone and creatinine. Moreover, open-field behaviour and cage preferences were assessed. Rats in both groups gained significantly less weight when housed in metabolic cages. Furthermore, SMC rats failed to increase their weight gain after being housed in the metabolic cage. Defaecation was significantly higher in the SMC than in the EMC and so was urinary creatinine. No group differences were found in open-field behaviour. However, in comparing activity before and after housing in the metabolic cage, only SMC animals exhibited significantly lower total activity. In a preference test, a preference for the tunnel connecting the cages in the preference test and a side preference for the left side were found. This side preference was eliminated when the EMC was placed on the right side, whereas the right side was significantly avoided when the EMC was placed on the left side. Based on these results, we conclude that, to some extent, the enrichment device improved the welfare of rats housed in EMC, compared to those in SMC.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourenrichmentmetabolic cagepreferencerat
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 395 - 403
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abe, M and Saito, KI 1998 Reduction of wrap restraint stress-induced defecation by MKC-242, a novel benzodioxan derivative, via 5-HT1 A-receptor agonist action in rats. Japanese Journal of Pharmacology 77: 211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baenninger, LP 1967 Comparison of behavioural development in socially isolated and grouped rats. Animal Behaviour 15: 312–323CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blom, HJM, van Tintelen, G, van Vorstenbosch, CJAHV, Baumans, V and Beynen, AC 1996 Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Laboratory Animals 30: 234–244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, FX, Ottenweller, JE, Seifu, Y, Zhu, GP and Servatius, RJ 2000 Persistent stress-induced elevations of urinary corticosterone in rats. Physiology & Behavior 71: 441–446CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claassen, V 1994 Housing conditions. In: Claassen, V (ed) Neglected Factors in Pharmacology and Neuroscience Research pp 225–250. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1986 Guidelines for Accommodation and Care of Animals (Appendix A) of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Purposes European Treaty Series ETS 123. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological safety%2C_use_of_animals/laboratory_animals/2006/Cons123(2006)3AppendixA_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1992 Multilateral Consultation of Parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes (ETS 123): Resolution on the Interpretation of Certain Provisions and Terms of the Convention European Treaty Series ETS 123. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal co-operation/biological_safety_%2C_use_of_animals/laboratory_animals/Res%20interpretation.asp#TopOfPageGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1997 Resolution on the Accommodation and Care of Laboratory Animals (adopted by the Multilateral Consultation on 30 May 1997). Multilateral Consultation of Parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes (ETS 123). http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/laboratory_animals/A_texts_docs.asp#TopOfPageGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1992 Measuring preferences and the strength of preferences. Poultry Science 71: 658–663CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, E, Royo, F, Lyberg, K, Carlsson, HE and Hau, J 2004 Effect of metabolic cage housing on immunoglobulin A and corticosterone excretion in faeces and urine of young male rats. Experimental Physiology 89: 427–433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskola, S, Lauhikari, M, Voipio, H-M and Nevalainen, T 1999 The use of aspen blocks and tubes to enrich the cage environment of laboratory rats. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 26: 1–10Google Scholar
Fitchett, AE, Collins, SA, Mason, H, Barnard, CJ and Cassaday, HJ 2005 Urinary corticosterone measures: effects of strain and social rank in BKW and CD-1 mice. Behavioural Processes 70: 168–176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hursh, SR 1980 Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 34: 219–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Hurst, JL, Barnard, CJ, Nevison, CM and West, CD 1998 Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: the welfare implications of social isolation and social contact among females. Animal Welfare 7: 121–136Google Scholar
Jensen, KK and Sandøe, P 1997 Animal welfare: relative or absolute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaliste-Korhonen, E, Eskola, S, Rekila, T and Nevalainen, T 1995 Effects of gnawing material, group size and cage level in rack on Wistar rats. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 22: 291–299Google Scholar
Krohn, TC, Hansen, AK and Dragsted, N 2003 Telemetry as a method for measuring the impact of housing conditions on rats’ welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 53–62Google Scholar
Manser, CE, Morris, TH and Broom, DM 1995 An investigation into the effects of solid or grid cage flooring on the welfare of laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 29: 353–363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Manser, CE, Broom, DM, Overend, P and Morris, TH 1998a Investigations into the preferences 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 Dissertation, National Laboratory Animal Center, University of Kuopio, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Patterson-Kane, EC, Harper, DN and Hunt, M 2001 The cage preferences of laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 35: 74–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, C, Canal, JR, Dominguez, E, Campillo, JE, Guillen, M and Torres, MD 1997 Individual housing influences certain biochemical parameters in the rat. Laboratory Animals 31: 357–361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saibaba, P, Sales, GD, Stodulski, G and Hau, J 1996 Behaviour of rats in their home cages: daytime variations and effects of routine husbandry procedures analysed by time sampling techniques. Laboratory Animals 30: 13–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P 1996 Animal and human welfare; are they the same kind of thing? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science Supplementum 27: 11–15Google Scholar
Simonsen, HB 1996 Assessment of animal welfare by a holistic approach: behaviour, health and measured opinion. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science Supplementum 27: 91–96Google Scholar
Sørensen, DB 2004 Animal welfare: an introduction. In: Kaliste, E (ed) The Welfare of Laboratory Animals pp 1–14. Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, 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
Spangenberg, EMF, Augustsson, H, Dahlborn, K, Essen-Gustavsson, B and Cvek, K 2005 Housing-related activity in rats: effects on body weight, urinary corticosterone levels, muscle properties and performance. Laboratory Animals 39: 45–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, P 1997 Use of in-cage shelters by laboratory rats. Animal Welfare 6: 95–103Google Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, van den Broek, FAR and Baumans, V 1996 Preference for different types of flooring in two rat strains. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar