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.

  • Research Note
  • Published:

The amount of cage bedding preferred by female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice

Lab Animal volume 44, pages 17–22 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

In order to improve the welfare of laboratory mice, a number of different environmental enrichment strategies have been developed to provide opportunities for mice to engage in naturalistic behaviors. Providing sufficient cage bedding for mice to use as a burrowing substrate could be considered an environmental enrichment strategy, but few studies have considered the welfare aspects of cage bedding amount. The authors compared the preferences of group-housed female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice for three different volumes of cage bedding (0.5 l, 1.5 l and 6 l). Mice of both strains but especially C57BL/6 mice showed strong preferences for cages with more bedding. The results highlight the importance of providing a sufficient amount of cage bedding to laboratory mice.

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

Figure 1: Test cage system consisting of two cages connected by a tube.
Figure 2: Percentage (mean ± s.d.) of time spent in the cage with more bedding and in the cage with less bedding in each test condition.
Figure 3: Percentage (mean ± s.d.) of time BALB/c mice spent in the cage with more bedding and in the cage with less bedding in each test condition.
Figure 4: Percentage (mean ± s.d.) of time C57BL/6 mice spent in the cage with more bedding and in the cage with less bedding in each test condition.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Boer, S.F. & Koolhaas, J.M. Defensive burying in rodents: ethology, neurobiology and psychopharmacology. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 463, 145–161 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, R.J. The natural history of the house mouse. Field Stud. 3, 219–262 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deacon, R.M. Burrowing: a sensitive behavioural assay, tested in five species of laboratory rodents. Behav. Brain Res. 200, 128–133 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harper, S.J. & Batzli, G.O. Effects of predators on structure of the burrows of voles. J. Mamm. 77, 1114–1121 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Masuda, Y., Ishigooka, S. & Matsuda, Y. Digging behavior of ddY mouse. Exp. Anim. 49, 235–237 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jirkof, P., Cesarovic, N., Rettich, A., Fleischmann, T. & Arras, M. Individual housing of female mice: influence on postsurgical behaviour and recovery. Lab. Anim. 46, 325–334 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jirkof, P. et al. Burrowing behavior as an indicator of post-laparotomy pain in mice. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 4, 165 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Jirkof, P. et al. Burrowing is a sensitive behavioural assay for monitoring general wellbeing during dextran sulfate sodium colitis in laboratory mice. Lab. Anim. 47, 274–283 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Deacon, R.M. et al. Age-dependent and -independent behavioral deficits in Tg2576 mice. Behav. Brain. Res. 189, 126–138 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham, C. et al. Synaptic changes characterize early behavioural signs in the ME7 model of murine prion disease. Eur. J. Neurosci. 17, 2147–2155 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deacon, R.M., Raley, J.M., Perry, V.H. & Rawlins, J.N. Burrowing into prion disease. Neuroreport 12, 2053–2057 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deacon, R.M., Croucher, A. & Rawlins, J.N. Hippocampal cytotoxic lesion effects on species-typical behaviours in mice. Behav. Brain. Res. 132, 203–213 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deacon, R.M., Penny, C. & Rawlins, J.N. Effects of medial prefrontal cortex cytotoxic lesions in mice. Behav. Brain. Res. 139, 139–155 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deacon, R.M. Digging and marble burying in mice: simple methods for in vivo identification of biological impacts. Nat. Prot. 1, 122–124 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, C.J. Effect of cage bedding on temperature regulation and metabolism of group-housed female mice. Comp. Med. 54, 63–68 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenbaum, M.D., VandeWoude, S. & Johnson, T.E. Effects of cage-change frequency and bedding volume on mice and their microenvironment. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 48, 763–773 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sherwin, C.M., Haug, E., Terkelsen, N. & Vadgama, M. Studies on the motivation for burrowing by laboratory mice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 88, 343–358 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. King, J.A. & Weisman, R.G. Sand digging contingent upon bar pressing in deermice. Anim. Behav. 12, 446–450 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams, N. & Boice, R. Mouse (Mus) burrows: effects of age, strain, and domestication. Anim. Learn. Behav. 9, 140–144 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Rooijen, J. Preference tests, motivations, models and welfare. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11, 1–6 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van de Weerd, H.A., Van Loo, P.L., Van Zutphen, L.F.M., Koolhaas, J.M. & Baumans, V. Strength of preference for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55, 369–382 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirchner, J., Hackbarth, H., Stelzer, H.D. & Tsai, P.P. Preferences of group-housed female mice regarding structure of softwood bedding. Lab. Anim. 46, 95–100 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gaskill, B.N., Rohr, S.A., Pajor, E.A., Lucas, J.R. & Garner, J.P. Some like it hot: mouse temperature preferences in laboratory housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 279–285 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nicklas, W. et al. Recommendations for the health monitoring of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Lab. Anim. 36, 20–42 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Blom, H.J. et al. Description and validation of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory mice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 35, 67–82 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sherwin, C.M. Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice, Mus musculus, to gain access to resources. Anim. Behav. 66, 649–655 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sherwin, C.M. The motivation of group-housed laboratory mice, Mus musculus, for additional space. Anim. Behav. 67, 711–717 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hauzenberger, A.R., Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G. & Steiger, A. The influence of bedding depth on behaviour in golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 280–294 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sluyter, F. & Van Oortmerssen, G.A. A mouse is not just a mouse. Anim. Welfare 9, 193–205 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Van Oortmerssen, G.A. Biological significance, genetics and evolutionary origin of variability in behaviour within and between inbred strains of mice (Mus musculus). A behaviour genetic study. Behaviour 23, 1–92 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arnold, C.E. & Estep, D.Q. Laboratory caging preferences in golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Lab. Anim. 28, 232–238 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sherwin, C.M. & Nicol, C.J. Reorganization of behaviour in laboratory mice, Mus musculus, with varying cost of access to resources. Anim. Behav. 51, 1087–1093 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lightfoot, J.T., Turner, M.J., Daves, M., Vordermark, A. & Kleeberger, S.R. Genetic influence on daily wheel running activity level. Physiol. Genomics 19, 270–276 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Messeri, P., Oliverio, A. & Bovet, D. Relations between avoidance and activity: a diallele study in mice. Behav. Biol. 7, 733–742 (1972).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Blom, H.J., Van Tintelen, G., Van Vorstenbosch, C.J., Baumans, V. & Beynen, A.C. Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Lab. Anim. 30, 234–244 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dawkins, M. Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Anim. Behav. 25, 1034–1046 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Eskola, S., Lauhikari, M., Voipio, H.-M., Laitinen, M. & Nevalainen, T. Environmental enrichment may alter the number of rats needed to achieve statistical significance. Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci. 26, 134–144 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tsai, P.P., Pachowsky, U., Stelzer, H.D. & Hackbarth, H. Impact of environmental enrichment in mice. 1: effect of housing conditions on body weight, organ weights and haematology in different strains. Lab. Anim. 36, 411–419 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of the results were presented as a poster at the 12th FELASA/SECAL Congress held 10–13 June 2013 in Barcelona, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Animal Welfare and Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Jennifer Freymann,  Ping-Ping Tsai, Helge Stelzer &  Hansjoachim Hackbarth

Authors
  1. Jennifer Freymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping-Ping Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helge Stelzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hansjoachim Hackbarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Freymann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freymann, J., Tsai, PP., Stelzer, H. et al. The amount of cage bedding preferred by female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. Lab Anim 44, 17–22 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.659

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.659

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