Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T10:16:49.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences for Nest Boxes as Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H A Van de Weerd ,
P L P Van Loo ,
LFM Van Zutphen ,
J M Koolhaas  and
V Baumans
H A Van de Weerd*
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
P L P Van Loo
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
LFM Van Zutphen
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
J M Koolhaas
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, University of Groningen, Haren, The Netherlands
V Baumans
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In nature, mice live in burrows with nest chambers where they breed and may hide from predators. In the laboratory, a shelter or refuge is an easily applicable form of enrichment which may enhance the welfare of laboratory mice by giving them more control over their environment. Six nest boxes made of different materials were evaluated in a preference test with male and female mice of two strains (C57BL/6J and BALB/c). In general, mice showed a preference for cages with a nest box made of grid metal as compared to clear or white perspex nest boxes, or no nest box. They also showed a preference for a cage with a nest box of perforated metal as compared to nest boxes made of grey PVC or sheet metal, or no nest box. When offered a nest box with one open side or a nest box with two open sides, most mice preferred the nest box with one open side and were observed to lie in it with their heads directed towards the opening.

The results of this study show that nest boxes may be used for enrichment purposes in caged mice, although it is not yet entirely clear what are the main features influencing the animals’ preferences. When providing nest boxes as shelters, the structure and design of this type of enrichment should be taken into account, because these may have an effect on the social structure of groups of mice.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentmicenest boxespreference tests
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 11 - 25
Copyright
© 1998 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, N and Boice, R 1981 Mouse (Mus) burrows: effects of age, strain, and domestication. Animal Learning & Behavior 9: 140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, B V 1989 Environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. ILAR News 31: 5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, P, Militzer, K and Büttner, D 1994/1995 Environmental enrichment and aggressive behaviour: influence on body weight and body fat in male inbred HLG mice. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 37: 69–78Google Scholar
Birke, LIA, D’Udine, B and Albonetti, M E 1985 Exploratory behavior of two species of murid rodents, Acomys cahirinus and Mus musculus. A comparative study. Behavioral and Neural Biology 43: 143–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blom, H J M, Van Tintelen, G, Baumans, V, Van den Broek, J and Beynen, A C 1995 Development and application of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory rats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H J M, Van Vorstenbosch, C J A H V, Baumans, V, Hoogervorst, MJC, Beynen, A C and Van Zutphen, LFM 1992 Description and validation of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1988 The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhot, M C 1986 Nest-box exploration and choice in male and female mice tested under individual and social conditions. Behavioural Processes 13: 119–148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buhot, M C 1987 Mouse exploration and choice of nestboxes differing in size. Animal Learning & Behavior 15: 382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhot, M C 1989 Exploration and choice by mice among nest boxes differing in size: influence of the inner and the outer dimensions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41B: 49–64Google Scholar
Buhot-Averseng, M C 1981 Nest-box choice in the laboratory mouse: preferences for nest-boxes differing in design (size and/or shape) and composition. Behavioural Processes 6: 337–384CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Büttner, D 1991 Climbing on the cage lid, a regular component of locomotor activity in the mouse. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 34: 165–169Google Scholar
Büttner, D 1993 Upright standing in the laboratory rat - Time expenditure and its relation to locomotor activity. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 36: 19–26Google ScholarPubMed
Chamove, A S 1989 Cage design reduces emotionality in mice. Laboratory Animals 23: 215–219CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clough, G 1987 The animal house: design, equipment and environmental control. In: Poole, T B (ed) The UFAW handbook on the care and management of laboratory animals, 6th edition pp 108–144. Longman Scientific & Technical: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Dudek, B C, Adams, N, Boice, R and Abbott, M E 1983 Genetic influences on digging behaviors in mice (Mus musculus) in laboratory and seminatural settings. Journal of Comparative Psychology 97: 249–259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haemisch, A and Gärtner, K 1994 The cage design affects intermale aggression in small groups of male laboratory mice: strain specific consequences on social organization, and endocrine activations in two inbred strains (DBA/2J and CBA/J) Journal of Experimental Animal Science 36: 101–116Google ScholarPubMed
Haemisch, A, Voss, T and Gärtner, K 1994 Effects of environmental enrichment on aggressive behavior, dominance hierarchies, and endocrine states in male DBA/2J mice. Physiology & Behavior 56: 1041–1048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, J H 1973 Factors affecting the recognition of territory boundaries by mice (Mus musculus). Animal Behaviour 21: 464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, J H 1981 Behaviour of the house mouse. Symposia of the Zoological Society London 47: 337365Google Scholar
Mondragón, R, Mayagoitia, L, Lopéz-Luján, A and Díaz, J L 1987 Social structure features in three inbred strains of mice, C57BL/6J, BALB/cJ, and NIH: A comparative study. Behavioral and Neural Biology 47: 384–391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottoni, E B 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
Peters, A and Festing, M 1990 Population density and growth rate in laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 24: 273–279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawleigh, J M, Kemble, E D 1992 Test-specific effects of FG-7142 on isolation-induced aggression in mice. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 42: 317–321CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawleigh, J M, Kemble, E D and Ostrem, J 1993 Differential effects of prior dominance or subordination experience on conspecific odor preferences in mice. Physiology & Behavior 54: 35–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryszkowski, L and Truszkowski, J 1970 Survival of unweaned and juvenile bank voles under field conditions. Acta Theriologica 15: 223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharmann, W 1991 Improved housing of mice, rats and guinea-pigs: a contribution to the refinement of animal experiments. ATLA 19: 108–114Google Scholar
Schleidt, W M 1951 Nest und ‘Zuflucht’ bei Maiisen. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 8: 137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truszkowski, J 1974 Utilization of nest boxes by rodents. Acta Theriologica 19: 441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, H A and Baumans, V 1995 Environmental enrichment in rodents. In: Environmental Enrichment Information Resources for Laboratory Animals. AWIC Resource Series no 2, pp 145–149Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, H A, Baumans, V, Koolhaas, J M and Van Zutphen, L F M 1994 Strain specific behavioural response to environmental enrichment in the mouse. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 36: 117–127Google ScholarPubMed
Van de Weerd, H A, Van Loo, P L P, Koolhaas, J M, Van Zutphen, L F M and Baumans, V 1997 Preferences for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 31: 133–143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Loo, P L P, Van de Weerd, H A and Baumans, V 1996 Short and long term influence of an easy applicable enrichment device on the behaviour of the laboratory mouse. In: Nevalainen, T, Hau, J and Sarviharu, M (eds) Frontiers in Laboratory Animal Science, Proceedings of the joint international conference of ICLAS, Scand-LAS and FinLAS 1995, Helsinki, pp 113–118. Kandrup: DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Ward, G E and DeMille, D 1991 Environmental enrichment for laboratory mice (Mus musculus). Animal Technology 42: 149–156Google Scholar