Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Meeting Summary
  • Published:

Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density

Lab Animal volume 36, pages 40–49 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

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' behavior, productivity and preference.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Baumans, V., Stafleu, F.R. & Bouw, J. Testing housing system for mice—the value of a preference test. Z. Versuchstierkd 29, 9–14 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davidson, L.P., Chedester, A.L. & Cole, M.N. Effects of cage density on behavior in young adult mice. Comp. Med. 57, 355–359 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Doolittle, D.P., Wilson, S.P. & Gieseking, D. Effect of caging variables on body weight and weight gain in mice. Lab. Anim. Sci. 26, 556–561 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eveleigh, J.R. Murine cage density: cage ammonia levels during the reproductive performance of an inbred strain and two outbred stocks of monogamous breeding pairs of mice. Lab. Anim. 27, 156–160 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hackbarth, H., Bohnet, W. & Tsai, P.P. Allometric comparison of recommendations of minimum floor areas for laboratory animals. Lab. Anim. 33, 351–355 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Haemisch, A. Voss, T. Gartner, K. (1994). Effects of environmental enrichment on aggressive behavior, dominance hierarchies, and endocrine states in male DBA/2J mice. Physiol. Behav. 56, 1041–1048.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haemisch, A. & Gartner, K. 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). J. Exp. Anim. Sci, 36, 101–116 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hunt, C. & Hambly, C. Faecal corticosterone concentrations indicate that separately housed male mice are not more stressed than group housed males. Physiol. Behav. 87, 519–526 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jennings, M. et al. Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse. Report of the Rodent Refinement Working Party. Lab. Anim. 32, 233–259 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kingston, S.G. & Hoffman-Goetz, L. Effect of environmental enrichment and housing density on immune system reactivity to acute exercise stress. Physiol. Behav. 60, 145–150 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Peng, X., Lang, C.M., Drozdowicz, C.K. & Ohlsson-Wilhelm, B.M. Effect of cage population density on plasma corticosterone and peripheral lymphocyte populations of laboratory mice. Lab. Anim. 23, 302–306 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Peters, A. & Festing, M. Population density and growth rate in laboratory mice. Lab. Anim. 24, 273–279 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Renne, U. The effect of caging type and population density on the body weight development of laboratory mice. Z. Versuchstierkd. 32, 153–156 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sherwin, C.M. Observations on the prevalence of nest-building in non-breeding TO strain mice and their use of two nesting materials. Lab. Anim. 31, 125–132 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, A.L. & Corrow, D.J. Modifications to husbandry and housing conditions of laboratory rodents for improved well being. ILAR J. 46, 140–147 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsai, P.P., Stelzer, H.D., Hedrich, H.J. & Hackbarth, H. Are the effects of different enrichment designs on the physiology and behaviour of DBA/2 mice consistent? Lab Anim. 37, 314–327 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Van de Weerd, H.A., Van Loo, P.L., Van Zutphen, L.F., Koolhaas, J.M. & Baumans, V. Nesting material as environmental enrichment has no adverse effects on behavior and physiology of laboratory mice. Physiol. Behav. 62, 1019–1028 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van de Weerd, H.A., Van Loo, P.L., Van Zutphen, L.F., Koolhaas, J.M. & Baumans, V. Preferences for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Lab. Anim. 31, 133–143 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Loo, P.L., Mol, J.A., Koolhaas, J.M., Van Zutphen, P.F. & Baumans, V. Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size. Physiol. Behav. 72, 675–683 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wurbel, H. & Stauffacher, M. Prevention of stereotypy in laboratory mice: effects on stress physiology and behaviour. Physiol. Behav. 59, 1163–1170 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Council of Europe. Council Directive 86/609/EEC: OJ L 358, 18.12.1986 as last amended by Directive 2006-10/EC. Appendix II.

  22. Fullwood, S., Hick, T.A., Brown, J.C., Norman, R.L. & McGlone, J.J. Floor space needs for laboratory mice. ILAR J. 39, 29–36 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McGlone, J.J., Anderson, D.L. & Norman, R.L. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: BALB/cJ males or females in solid-bottom cages with bedding. Cont. Topics 40, 21–25 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith, A.L., Mabus, S.L., Muir, C. & Woo, Y. Effects of housing density and cage floor space on C57BL/6J mice. Comp. Med. 54, 656–663 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith, A.L., Mabus, S.L., Muir, C. & Woo, Y. Effects of housing density and cage floor space on three strains of young adult inbred mice. Comp. Med. 55, 368–376 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. (ILAR, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

  27. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1996) (PL 99-158, Health Research Extension Act, 1985).

  28. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations, 9 CFR, Chapter 1 (USDA, Beltsville, MD, 1992).

  29. Carbone, L. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. (Oxford University Press, New York, 2004).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. White, W.J., Balk, M.W. & Lang, C.M. Use of cage space by Guineapigs. Lab. Anim. 23, 208–214 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Final Rule: Animal Welfare; Standards; 9 CFR Part 3. Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 32. February 15, 1991. P. 6426–6505.

  32. Latham, N. & Mason, G. From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications for laboratory housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86, 261–289 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitten, W.K. Occurrence of anoestrus in mice caged in groups. J. Endocrinol. 18, 102–107 (1959).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bouwknecht, J.A., Olivier, B. & Paylor, R.E. The stress-induced hyperthermia paradigm as a physiological animal model for anxiety: a review of pharmacological and genetic studies in the mouse. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 31, 41–59 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Festing, M.F. Design and statistical methods in studies using animal models of development. ILAR 47, 5–14 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wurbel, H. & Garner, J.P. Refinement of rodent research through environmental enrichment and systematic randomization. NC3Rs – National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research at http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?id=395 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Whitaker, J. et al. The effect of cage size on reproductive performance and behavior in C57BL/6 mice. Lab Anim. (NY) 38, 32–39 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Welfare Enforcement. Fiscal Year 1997: Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Appendix, Table 2. APHIS 41-35-054.

  39. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Scientific Aspects of the Welfare of Food Animals Report 91 (Ames, Iowa, 1981).

  40. Dawkins, M.S. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare (Chapman & Hall, London, 1980).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Duncan, I.J.H. Animal rights – animal welfare: a scientist's assessment. Poult. Sci. 60, 489–499 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rollin, B.E. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gärtner, K. et al. Stress response of rats to handling and experimental procedures. Lab. Anim. 14, 267–274 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Edwards, E.A. & Dean, L.M. Effects of crowding mice on humoral antibody formation and protection to lethal antigenic challenge. Psychosom. Med. 39, 19–24 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Harvey, P.W. & Chevins, P.F. Crowding during pregnancy delays puberty and alters estrous cycles of female offspring in mice. Experientia 43, 306–308 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hurst, J.L., Barnard, C.J., Tolladay, U., Nevison, C.M. & West, C.D. Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: Effects of cage stocking density and behavioural predictors of welfare. Anim. Behav. 58, 563–586 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ishida, H., Mitsui, K., Nukaya, H., Matsumoto, K. & Tsuji, K. Study of active substances involved in skin dysfunction induced by crowding stress. I. Effect of crowding and isolation on some physiological variables, skin function and skin blood perfusion in hairless mice. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 26, 170–181 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The National AALAS seminar and panel session at which the topic of mouse cage density was discussed was cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Division of Veterinary Resources and the NIH National Center for Research Resources, Division of Comparative Medicine. We thank William Watson and Franziska Grieder for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Veterinary Resources, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

    Charmaine Foltz

  2. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

    Larry Carbone

  3. Veterinary Medical Unit, VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN

    David DeLong

  4. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

    Bernard E. Rollin

  5. Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Pascalle Van Loo

  6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

    Julia Whitaker

  7. Division of Compliance Oversight, OLAW, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

    Axel Wolff

Authors
  1. Charmaine Foltz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry Carbone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David DeLong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernard E. Rollin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pascalle Van Loo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julia Whitaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Axel Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charmaine Foltz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foltz, C., Carbone, L., DeLong, D. et al. Considerations for determining optimal mouse caging density. Lab Anim 36, 40–49 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1107-40

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1107-40

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing