It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

The assessment of individual traits requires that tests are reliable (i.e. consistency over time) and externally valid, meaning that they predict future responses in similar contexts (i.e. convergent validity) but do not predict responses to unrelated situations (i.e. discriminant validity). The aim of this study was to determine if dairy calf personality traits (Fearfulness, Sociability and Pessimism), derived from behaviours expressed in standardized tests, predict individuals’ responses in related situations. The first experiment tested if the trait ‘Sociability’ was related to the expression of social behaviour in the home-pen, with calves assigned individual proximity scores (based on proximity to other calves) while they were in their home-pen at approximately 113 and 118 d of age. The second experiment aimed at exploring whether traits ‘Fearfulness’ and ‘Pessimism’ were related to the calves’ emotional response to transportation. All calves were subjected to two 10-min transportation challenges done on two consecutive days. Emotional response was assessed using the maximum eye temperature (measured using infrared thermography) and the number of vocalizations emitted. Social proximity scores (Experiment 1), vocalizations emitted and maximum eye temperature after loading (Experiment 2) were consistent over time. In addition, the results showed good convergent validity with calves scoring higher in Sociability also having higher proximity scores in the home-pen, and animals scoring higher in Fearfulness and Pessimism showing a more intense emotional response to transportation. The results also showed good discriminant validity, as neither Fearfulness nor Pessimism were associated with the expression of social behaviours (Experiment 1) and Sociability was not associated with the animal’s emotional response to transportation (Experiment 2). We conclude that the methodology used to measure personality traits shows good reliability and external validity.

It is widely recommended to group house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly-housed. This review explores the likely impacts, positive and negative, of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behaviour, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

Dogs exposed to aversive events can become inactive and unresponsive and are commonly referred to as being “depressed”, but this association remains to be tested. We investigated whether shelter dogs spending greater time inactive “awake but motionless” (ABM) in their home-pen show anhedonia (the core reduction of pleasure reported in depression), as tested by reduced interest in, and consumption of, palatable food (Kong^TM test). We also explored whether dogs being qualitatively perceived by experts as disinterested in the food would spend greater time ABM (experts blind to actual inactivity levels). Following sample size estimations and qualitative behaviour analysis (n = 14 pilot dogs), forty-three dogs (6 shelters, 22F:21M) were included in the main study. Dogs relinquished by their owners spent more time ABM than strays or legal cases (F = 8.09, p = 0.032). One significant positive association was found between the Kong^TM measure for average length of Kong^TM bout and ABM, when length of stay in the shelter was accounted for as a confounder (F = 3.66, p = 0.035). Time spent ABM also correlated with scores for “depressed” and “bored” in the qualitative results, indirectly suggesting that experts associate greater waking inactivity with negative emotional states. The hypothesis that ABM reflects a depression-like syndrome is not supported; we discuss how results might tentatively support a “boredom-like” state and further research directions.

Negative social interactions have been extensively studied in dairy cattle, but little is known about the establishment of positive (preferential) relationships. Adult dairy cows are known to spend more time at close proximity to specific social partners, indicating that they establish stronger bonds with these animals, but few studies have explored what happens in socially housed calves. In this study, we explored whether calves that spent their entire life in the same social group established social preferences (i.e. pairs of individuals that interact more) that are stable over time (two 48-h periods, separated by three days), across two types of behavior (standing and lying) and across contexts (change in environment and housing design). When housed in an open pack, calves showed consistent proximity patterns when standing (but not when lying). These preferential relationships persisted even after calves were moved into a new pen fitted with free stalls. At the individual level, calves varied in how selective they were in their social relationships, with some calves spending much more time with specific partners than did others. This degree of selectivity was not associated to Sociability, marginally associated to Fearfulness, but was associated with Pessimism (more pessimistic calves were more selective in their social relationships). In conclusion, calves can form selective relationships that appeared to be consistent over time and across context, and the degree to which calves were selective varied in relation to individual differences in Pessimism.

In humans, there is evidence that sensory processing of novel or threatening stimuli is right hemisphere dominated, especially in people experiencing negative affective states. There is also evidence for similar lateralization in a number of non-human animal species. Here we investigate whether this is also the case in domestic cattle that may experience long-term negative states due to commonly occurring conditions such as lameness. Health and welfare implications associated with pain in lame cows are a major concern in dairy farming. Behavioural tests combining animal behaviour and cognition could make a meaningful contribution to our understanding of disease-related changes in sensory processing in animals, and consequently enhance their welfare. We presented 216 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows with three different unfamiliar objects which were placed either bilaterally (e.g. two yellow party balloons, two black/white checkerboards) or hung centrally (a Kong^™) within a familiar area. Cows were individually exposed to the objects on three consecutive days, and their viewing preference/eye use, exploration behaviour/nostril use, and stop position during approach was assessed. Mobility (lameness) was repeatedly scored during the testing period. Overall, a bias to view the right rather than the left object was found at initial presentation of the bilateral objects. More cows also explored the right object rather than the left object with their nose. There was a trend for cows appearing hesitant in approaching the objects by stopping at a distance to them, to then explore the left object rather than the right. In contrast, cows that approached the objects directly had a greater tendency to contact the right object. No significant preference in right or left eye/nostril use was found when cows explored the centrally-located object. We found no relationship between lameness and lateralized behaviour. Nevertheless, observed trends suggesting that lateralized behaviour in response to bilaterally located unfamiliar objects may reflect an immediate affective response are discussed. Further study is needed to understand the impact of long-term affective states on hemispheric dominance and lateralized behaviour.