Bennett Allyson J, Perkins Chaney M, Harty Nicole M, Niu Mengyao, Buelo Audrey K, Luck Melissa L, Pierre Peter J
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Harlow Primate Laboratory, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2014 Sep;53(5):452-63.
Continued progress to move evidence-based best practices into community and regulatory animal welfare standards depends in part on developing common metrics to assess cost, benefit, and relative value. Here we describe a model approach to evidence-based evaluation and an example of comprehensive cost-benefit assessment for a common element of environmental enrichment plans for laboratory-housed nonhuman primates. Foraging devices encourage a species-typical activity that dominates the time budget of primates outside captivity and provide inherent cognitive challenges, physical activity demands, and multi-sensory stimulation. However, their implementation is not standard, and is challenged by perception of high costs and labor; nutritional and health concerns; and identification of best practices in implementation (that is, device types, food type, frequency of delivery and rotation). To address these issues, we directly compared monkeys' engagement with different foraging devices and the comprehensive cost of implementing foraging opportunities. We recorded 14 adult male cynomolgus monkeys' interactions with 7 types of devices filled with a range of enrichment foods. All devices elicited foraging behavior, but there were significant differences among them both initially and over subsequent observations. Devices that afforded opportunity for extraction of small food items and that posed manipulative challenge elicited greater manipulation. The cost of providing a foraging opportunity to a single monkey is roughly US$1, with approximately 80% attributable to labor. This study is the first to perform a rigorous cost-benefit analysis and comparison of common foraging devices included in environmental enrichment. Its broader significance lies in its contribution to the development of methods to facilitate improvement in evidence-based practices and common standards to enhance laboratory animal welfare.
将基于证据的最佳实践纳入社区和监管动物福利标准的持续进展，部分取决于制定通用指标来评估成本、效益和相对价值。在此，我们描述一种基于证据的评估模型方法，并以实验室饲养的非人灵长类动物环境丰富计划的一个常见要素为例进行全面成本效益评估。觅食装置鼓励一种典型的物种活动，这种活动在圈养外的灵长类动物时间预算中占主导地位，并提供内在的认知挑战、身体活动需求和多感官刺激。然而，它们的实施并不标准，并且受到高成本和劳动力认知、营养和健康问题以及实施最佳实践识别（即装置类型、食物类型、投放和轮换频率）的挑战。为了解决这些问题，我们直接比较了猴子对不同觅食装置的参与度以及实施觅食机会的综合成本。我们记录了14只成年雄性食蟹猴与7种装有一系列丰富食物的装置的互动。所有装置都引发了觅食行为，但在最初和后续观察中它们之间存在显著差异。提供提取小食物项目机会且带来操作挑战的装置引发了更大的操作。为一只猴子提供一次觅食机会的成本约为1美元，其中约80%归因于劳动力。这项研究首次对环境丰富中常见的觅食装置进行了严格的成本效益分析和比较。其更广泛的意义在于它对促进基于证据的实践改进方法和提高实验动物福利的通用标准的发展做出了贡献。
