Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density

At the 2006 National Meeting of the American Association of Laboratory Animal Science, a panel discussed the question of what constitutes optimal or acceptable housing density for mice. Though there is a consensus that present guidelines are somewhat arbitrarily defined, scientific research has not yet been able to provide clear recommendations for amending them. Speakers explored the many factors that influence decisions on mouse housing, including regulatory requirements, scientific data and their interpretation, financial considerations and ethical concerns. The panel largely agreed that animal well-being should be the measure of interest in evaluating housing density and that well-being includes not only physical health, but also animals\u27 behavior, productivity and preference

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Aggression in group-housed male mice is known to be influenced by both cage size and group size. However, the interdependency of these two parameters has not been studied yet. In this study, the level of aggression in groups of three, five, or eight male BALB/c mice housed in cages with a floor size of either 80 or 125 cm2/animal was estimated weekly after cage cleaning for a period of 14 weeks. Furthermore, urine corticosterone levels, food and water intake, body weight, and number of wounds were measured weekly. At the end of the experiment, tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) activity, testosterone levels, and weight of spleen, thymus, testes, and seminal vesicles were determined. Results indicate a moderate increase of intermale aggression in larger cages when compared to the smaller cages. Aggression in groups of eight animals was considerably higher than in groups of three animals. The increase of agonistic behavior was observed both in dominant and subordinate animals. Physiological parameters indicate differences in stress levels between dominant and subordinate animals. It is concluded that aggressive behavior in group-housed male BALB/c mice is best prevented by housing the animals in small groups of three to five animals, while decreasing floor size per animal may be used as a temporary solution to decrease high levels of aggression in an existing social group.

Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density

At the 2006 National Meeting of the American Association of Laboratory Animal Science, a panel discussed the question of what constitutes optimal or acceptable housing density for mice. Though there is a consensus that present guidelines are somewhat arbitrarily defined, scientific research has not yet been able to provide clear recommendations for amending them. Speakers explored the many factors that influence decisions on mouse housing, including regulatory requirements, scientific data and their interpretation, financial considerations and ethical concerns. The panel largely agreed that animal well-being should be the measure of interest in evaluating housing density and that well-being includes not only physical health, but also animals\u27 behavior, productivity and preference

Impact of 'living apart together' on postoperative recovery of mice compared with social and individual housing

Summary Social housing is the optimal way of housing female laboratory mice. However, individual housing may be required in experimental designs, for example after surgery. We therefore investigated whether housing two female mice in a cage, separated by a grid partition ('living apart together', LAT), counters the adverse effects of individual housing on postoperative recovery. Ten individually housed (IND) mice, nine socially housed (SOC) mice and nine mice, housed LAT, were surgically implanted with a telemetry transmitter. From one week prior to surgery until three weeks thereafter, several physiological and behavioural parameters were measured in the mice subjected to surgery. The telemetry transmitter measured heart rate (HR), body temperature and activity continuously. Body weight, food and water intake were scored regularly, as were wound healing, ease of handling, nest building and behaviour. Results indicated that SOC mice appear to be less affected by abdominal surgery than IND mice, as indicated by HR and behaviour. LAT, however, did not appear to be beneficiary to the mice. Increased HR levels and differences in behaviour as compared with both SOC and IND animals indicate that LAT may even be the most stressful of the three housing conditions. We therefore conclude that mice benefit most from social housing after surgery. If, however, social housing is not possible, individual housing appears to be a better option than separating mice by a grid partition

Report of the 2010 RSPCA/UFAW Rodent welfare group meeting ¿ the effects of husbandry on welfare and promoting good practice.

[No abstract available