How do rehomed laboratory beagles behave in everyday situations? Results from an observational test and a survey of new owners

Evaluation of a Behavioral Test for Sickness Behavior Associated with Fusarium Mycotoxin Ingestion in Female Beagle Dogs (Canis familiaris)

Animals exhibit behavioral changes during illness, including lethargy, anorexia, fever, adipsia, and anhedonia, which are believed to comprise an adaptive evolutionary strategy. Exploratory and social behaviors generally decrease during illness, but behavioral changes of dogs during illness have not been described. The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel canine behavior test during subclinical illness induced by dietary Fusarium mycotoxin. Twelve mature female beagle dogs received 3 treatment diets: a control diet (control), a diet formulated with grains contaminated with Fusarium mycotoxin (toxin), and the toxin diet together with a toxin binding agent (binder). All dogs received each diets for 14 d in a Latin square design with a 7-d washout period between diet trials. The test consisted of individually releasing dogs into the center aisle of the housing room for 4 min per day, during which interactions with familiar dogs in adjacent kennels were recorded by an observer outside the room who was blind to treatment groups. Total interactions, orientation, and attempted physical contact with other dogs were less frequent during the toxin and binder diet treatments. Conversely, frequencies of physical proximity and olfactory contact with familiar dogs in adjacent kennels were not associated with diet. In conclusion, induction of subclinical gastrointestinal illness influenced aspects of social interactions in beagle dogs. A clinical assessment sheet integrating these findings was developed to aid in early identification of subclinical illness in research dogs based on behavior.

Former laboratory dogs' psychological and behavioural characteristics

It is becoming increasingly common for laboratories to allow the rehoming of dogs when they are no longer needed. There is no research, however, comparing the characteristics of dogs from laboratories to dogs acquired from more traditional sources for pets. This study used the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) to compare emotional and behavioural characteristics of 100 former laboratory Beagles who were rehomed to a convenience sample of 244 pet Beagles with no known history of laboratory use. Our results revealed that the former laboratory Beagles exhibited increased fearfulness, attention and attachment behaviours, and more abnormal behaviours than the convenience sample, yet were significantly less aggressive, and likely to chase other animals or escape. Importantly, we also found no significant differences in a majority of the everyday behaviours assessed. Our findings demonstrate dogs rehomed from laboratories form strong bonds with their caregivers, and make equally good companions as their non-laboratory counterparts. Our findings may be helpful in designing appropriate rehabilitation programmes, educating laboratory workers and potential adopters, and support the ongoing efforts to offer these dogs for adoption.

What Kinds of Dogs Are Used in Clinical and Experimental Research?

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research in six different specialties. In total, 150 randomly chosen clinical studies (25 studies per specialty) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated for the breed, sex, neuter status, age, and weight information of the dogs used. Breed information was given for 5.7% of the included animals. Beagles were used 1.9% of the time, which was a less significant role in research than we expected. Information about the sex of the dogs was lacking for 16.2% of the included animals, while age and weight information were missing for 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively. The neuter status was not given in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The results show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.

Abstract

Background: Dogs are widely used in research to answer questions about canine or human conditions. For the latter, research dogs are often used as models, since they are physiologically more similar to humans than other species used in research and they share similar environmental conditions. From a veterinary perspective, research findings are widely based on academic research, and thus are generated under experimental conditions. In that regard, the question arises: do the dogs used for research adequately represent the dog population seen in veterinary practice? It may, for example, be assumed that Beagle dogs are often used as experimental animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research. Furthermore, we aimed to assess other relevant criteria regarding the validity of clinical trials in the context of six different veterinary medicine specialties: cardiology, internal medicine, neurology, orthopaedics, reproduction, and surgery. Methods: A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per specialty were randomly selected. The breed, sex, neuter status, median age, and median weight of the dogs used for clinical studies (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated. Results: In total, 596,542 dogs were used in the 150 trials. Breed information was given for 33,835 of these dogs (5.7%). Of the latter, 1.9% were Beagles. Nine clinical trials exclusively used Beagles. The most frequently used breeds were German Shepherds (7.3%), Labrador Retrievers (6.7%), and Golden Retrievers (4.7%). The major reporting deficits found were missing breed specification in 25.3% of the articles; missing information about the sex of the dogs in 16.2%; missing age and weight information in 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively; and missing neuter status in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The median sample size was 56 (Q1:29; Q3:365) dogs. Conclusions: The presented project revealed that Beagle dogs represent only a small proportion of dogs in veterinary research. Based on the evaluated publications, it seems that some relevant dog attributes differ between the specialties. The results, however, show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.

The First Rehoming of Laboratory Beagles in Finland: The Complete Process from Socialisation Training to Follow-up

The fate of experimental animals represents an ethical dilemma and a public concern. In the EU, Directive 2010/63/EU allows the rehoming of former experimental animals instead of euthanasia. However, to our knowledge, there are no previous reports of rehoming Beagles in Finland. This study aimed to describe the process behind the first rehoming of laboratory Beagles at the University of Helsinki and evaluate its success. In total, 16 former laboratory Beagles were rehomed in collaboration with animal protection organisations and the University of Helsinki. The dogs had participated in animal cognition studies and had undergone minor procedures during the development of a veterinary drug. While the dogs were still in the laboratory, a socialisation training programme lasting several months was undertaken. Through surveying of the adoptive owners, and interviewing the various stakeholders involved (researchers, animal protection organisations and animal caretakers), the overall process was evaluated, including: the socialisation training programme; the comparative success of rehoming younger compared to older animals; the criteria that were used for the selection of the adoptive owners; and the eventual success of rehoming the dogs with the new owners. The majority of the dogs adjusted well to their new home environment. Euthanasia at the end of their experimental use would have been unnecessary and possibly against the objectives of European directives.

A semi-structured questionnaire survey of laboratory animal rehoming practice across 41 UK animal research facilities

If a laboratory animal survives an experiment without lasting compromised welfare, its future must be negotiated. Rehoming may be a consideration. This paper reports on research findings that provide an indication of the uptake of animal rehoming by UK facilities and the associated moral, ethical, practical and regulatory considerations that inform decisions to rehome or not. This research addresses a widely acknowledged gap in the literature to understand both the numbers, and types of animals rehomed from UK research facilities, as well as the main motivations for engaging in the practice, and the barriers for those facilities not currently rehoming. From the ~160 UK research facilities in the UK, 41 facilities completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of approximately 25%. Results suggest rehoming occurs routinely, yet the numbers are small; just 2322 animals are known to have been rehomed between 2015-2017. At least 1 in 10 facilities are rehoming. There exists a clear preference for the rehoming of some species (mainly cats, dogs and horses) over others (rodents, agricultural animals and primates). Indeed, although 94.15% of species kept in laboratories are rodents, they make up under a fifth (19.14%) of all animals known to be rehomed between 2015-2017. The primary motivation for rehoming is to boost staff morale and promote a positive ethical profile for the facility. Barriers include concern for the animal's welfare following rehoming, high scientific demand for animals that leaves few to be rehomed, and, finally, certain animals (mainly those genetically modified) are simply unsuited to rehoming. The findings of this research will support facilities choosing to rehome, as well as those that are not currently engaging in the practice. By promoting the practice, the benefits to rehoming in terms of improving laboratory animal's quality of life, helping facility staff to overcome the moral stress of killing, and addressing public concern regarding the fate of laboratory animals, can be attained. It is only once an understanding of rehoming from the perspective of UK research facilities has been ascertained, that appropriate policy and support can be provided.

Comparison of Behavior and Genetic Structure in Populations of Family and Kenneled Beagles

In dogs, the social and spatial restriction associated with living in a kennel environment could lead to chronic stress and the development of abnormal behaviors (“kennel-dog syndrome”). However, little is known about how kenneled dogs differ from their conspecifics living as pets in human families. In the current study, using a test battery exposing the dogs to novel stimuli, we compared the behavior of three groups of beagles: (1) kenneled dogs living in a restricted environment with limited human contact (N = 78), (2) family dogs living in human families as pets (N = 37), and (3) adopted dogs born in the kenneled population but raised in human families (N = 13). We found one factor comprising most of the test behaviors, labeled as Responsiveness. Family dogs and adopted dogs scored higher in Responsiveness than kenneled dogs. However, 23% of the kenneled dogs were comparable to family and adopted dogs based on a cluster analysis, indicating a similar (positive) reaction to novel stimuli, while 77% of the kenneled dogs were unresponsive (mostly immobile) in at least part of the test. To assess if the behavioral difference between the family and kenneled dogs could be due to genetic divergence of these two populations and/or to lower genetic diversity of the kenneled dogs, we analyzed their genetic structure using 11 microsatellite markers. We found no significant difference between the populations in their genetic diversity (i.e., heterozygosity, level of inbreeding), nor any evidence that the family and kenneled populations originated from different genetic pools. Thus, the behavior difference between the groups more likely reflects a G × E interaction, that is, the influence of specific genetic variants manifesting under specific environmental conditions (kennel life). Nevertheless, some kenneled individuals were (genetically) more resistant to social and environmental deprivation. Selecting for such animals could strongly improve the welfare of kenneled dog populations. Moreover, exploring the genetic background of their higher resilience could also help to better understand the genetics behind stress- and fear-related behaviors.