The influence of facility and home pen design on the welfare of the laboratory-housed dog.
We have an ethical and scientific obligation to Refine all aspects of the life of the laboratory-housed dog. Across industry there are many differences amongst facilities, home pen design and husbandry, as well as differences in features of the dogs such as strain, sex and scientific protocols. Understanding how these influence welfare, and hence scientific output is therefore critical. A significant proportion of dogs' lives are spent in the home pen and as such, the design can have a considerable impact on welfare. Although best practice guidelines exist, there is a paucity of empirical evidence to support the recommended Refinements and uptake varies across industry. In this study, we examine the effect of modern and traditional home pen design, overall facility design, husbandry, history of regulated procedures, strain and sex on welfare-indicating behaviours and mechanical pressure threshold. Six groups of dogs from two facilities (total n=46) were observed in the home pen and tested for mechanical pressure threshold. Dogs which were housed in a purpose-built modern facility or in a modern design home pen showed the fewest behavioural indicators of negative welfare (such as alert or pacing behaviours) and more indicators of positive welfare (such as resting) compared to those in a traditional home pen design or traditional facility. Welfare indicating behaviours did not vary consistently with strain, but male dogs showed more negative welfare indicating behaviours and had greater variation in these behaviours than females. Our findings showed more positive welfare indicating behaviours in dogs with higher mechanical pressure thresholds. We conclude that factors relating to the design of home pens and implementation of Refinements at the facility level have a significant positive impact on the welfare of laboratory-housed dogs, with a potential concomitant impact on scientific endpoints.
Behaviour and Evolution Research Group, Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: laura.hall@stir.ac.uk.
Laura E M
LE
Scullion Hall
Drug Safety Metabolism, Innovative Medicines and Early Development Biotech Unit, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK.
Sally
S
Robinson
Charles River Laboratories, Elphinestone Research Centre, Tranent, UK.
John
J
Finch
Behaviour and Evolution Research Group, Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Hannah M
HM
Buchanan-Smith
D000822:Animal Husbandry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods*; D000827:Animal Welfare; D000818:Animals; D000830:Animals, Laboratory; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D004285:Dogs; D005160:Facility Design and Construction / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods*; D033161:Government Regulation
3Rs; Enrichment; Facility design; Home pen design; Housing; Husbandry; Laboratory-housed dog; Strain; Welfare
Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2004 Nov;43(6):42-51
15669134
Lab Anim. 2004 Jul;38 Suppl 1:1-94
15202954
Comp Med. 2005 Feb;55(1):12-23
15766204
Neuroscience. 2005;135(3):703-14
16125862
Curr Biol. 2011 Jun 21;21(12):R463-5
21683898
Brain Behav Immun. 2008 Jul;22(5):662-7
18395410
Lab Anim Sci. 1995 Feb;45(1):70-5
7752619
J Anim Sci. 1991 Oct;69(10):4167-75
1778832
Br Vet J. 1986 Nov-Dec;142(6):524-6
3594185
Pain. 2002 Feb;95(3):195-199
11839418
Altern Lab Anim. 2010 Jun;38(3):205-12
20602536
Nat Genet. 2000 Nov;26(3):263
11062457
Am J Primatol. 2009 Sep;71(9):732-41
19452517
Pain. 2008 Nov 30;140(2):332-343
18926637
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jun;35(7):1466-83
20851145
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2015 Mar-Apr;72:35-46
25575806
Toxicol Pathol. 2013;41(4):560-614
23475558
J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2006;9(1):1-7
16649947