Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T06:35:12.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of appropriate measures for the assessment of laboratory mouse welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MC Leach ,
PD Thornton  and
DCJ Main
MC Leach*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK
PD Thornton
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
Home Office, Queen Anne's Gate, London SWIH 9AT, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: m.c.leach@ncl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Delphi consultation process was used to examine the validity and feasibility of potential resource-input and animal-based outcome measures of laboratory mouse welfare identified by a comprehensive literature search. The consultation was an iterative two-stage technique that used web and email based questionnaires to gather data. On completion of the second consultation stage a total of 97 measures of mouse welfare, their order of importance, and appropriate sample sizes and sampling times where relevant, were identified. Of these, 55 were resource-input measures that included assessments of the cages, animal rooms environmental conditions, husbandry procedures, provision of food and water, staffing, resources placed into mouse cages, and the establishment policies. The remaining 42 were animal-based outcomes, measures that included assessments of unprovoked behaviour, provoked responses, vocalisations, physical appearance, and health indicators. The measures that were considered by the experts to be appropriate for assessing laboratory mouse welfare measures can be placed into four basic categories: characteristics of the staff, performance of husbandry and care procedures, health and well-being of the mice, and the provision and use of cage resources.

Keywords

animal-based outcome measuresanimal welfareDelphi techniqueexpert opinion and refinementlaboratory miceresource-input measures
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 161 - 170
Copyright
© 2008 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

Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, PH 1990 The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal index (ANI) for the assessment of animal's well-being in housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, First Edition. Her Majesty's Stationary Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Burman, OHP and Mendl, MT 2000 Short-term social memory in the laboratory rat: its susceptibility to disturbance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 241–254CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabanac, A and Briese, E 1991 Handling elevates the chronic temperature of mice. Physiology and Behaviour 51: 95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 8–14Google Scholar
Emond, M, Faubert, S, and Perkins, M 2003 Social conflict reduction program for male mice. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42: 24–26Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 9: 187–205Google Scholar
Gärtner, K, Büttner, D, Döhler, K, Friedel, R, Lindena, J and Trautschold, B 1980 Stress response of rats to handling and experimental procedures. Laboratory Animals 14: 267–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, S and Hurst, JL 1995 The effects of cage cleaning on aggression within groups of male laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 49: 821 -826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P 2002 Recognising and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals. Research Animals Department, RSPCA: Southwater, UKGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO 1976 Behaviour as an index of welfare. In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Poultry Conference pp 1005-1018, 4-1 I September 1976, Attard, MaltaGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, JF, Webster, AB and Siegel, PB 1985 Dictionary of Farm Animal Behaviour. Guelph: University of Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, A and Fowler, P 1992 Outcome measures for primary health care: what are the research priorities? British Journal of General Practice 42: 227–231Google ScholarPubMed
Leach, MC, Thornton, PD and Main, DCJ 2006 Development of a welfare-benchmarking scheme for laboratory mice. Proceedings of the 9th FELASA Symposium on Internationalisation and Harmonisation of Laboratory Animal Care and Use Issues pp 68-71. 14-17 June 2004, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
Leach, MC and Main, DCJ 2008 An assessment of laboratory mouse welfare in UK animal units. Animal Welfare 17: 171–187Google Scholar
Linstone, HA and Turoff, M 1975 The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley: Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF and Green, LE 2000 Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes. Acta Agriculturae Animal Science, Section A 30: 108–113Google Scholar
Morrell, JM 1999 Techniques of embryo transfer and facility decontamination used to improve the health and welfare of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals 33: 201–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress, and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record 116: 431 -436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, AIS and Dahlborn, K 2002 Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: a review of environmental enrichment. Laboratory Animals 36: 243–270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seabrook, MF and Wilkinson, JM 2000 Stockpersons’ attitudes to the husbandry of dairy cows. Veterinary Record 147: 157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM 2004 The motivation of group-housed laboratory mice, Mus musculus, for additional space. Animal Behaviour 67: 711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Sandøe, P 2001 Proceedings of the international workshop on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 51(S30): 1–134Google Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, van Loo, PLP, van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1998 Preferences for nest boxes as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Animal Welfare 7: I 1–25Google Scholar
van Loo, PLP, van der Meer, E, Kruitwagen, CLJJ, Koolhaas, JM, van Zutphen, LFM and Baumans, V 2004 Long-term effects of husbandry procedures on stress-related parameters in male mice of two strains. Laboratory Animals 38: 169–177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF and Main, DCJ 2003 Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level. Animal Welfare 12: 429–73 1Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of diary cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, Hörning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–625Google Scholar