PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17018212

Preference for bedding material in Syrian hamsters.

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether Syrian (golden) hamsters, Mesocricetus auratus, prefer certain bedding materials and whether bedding material can affect paw condition, body weight gain and wheel-running activity. In a first experiment, 26 male hamsters had access to two connected cages, each cage containing a different bedding material (either pine shavings, aspen shavings, corn cob or wood pellets). In a second experiment, 14 male hamsters had access to four connected cages that contained the different bedding materials and also a piece of paper towel to serve as nest material. In a third experiment, 30 male hamsters were each placed in a single cage, 10 of them with pine shavings, 10 with aspen shavings and 10 with corn cob, and they were monitored for 50 days. Significant preferences in the first experiment were: pine shavings over aspen shavings, corn cob over wood pellets, pine shavings over corn cob and aspen shavings over wood pellets (aspen shavings versus corn cob was not tested). However, there was no significant preference expressed in the second experiment, suggesting that the general preference for shavings in the first experiment was based on bedding material suitability as a nesting material. No significant effect of bedding material on paw condition, body weight gain and wheel-running activity was detected. None of the four bedding materials tested in this study can be judged to be inappropriate in the short term if nesting material is added to the cage and if the litter is changed regularly.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Lanteigne, S G Reebs. 2006. Preference for bedding material in Syrian hamsters.. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367706778476424

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗