Successful observation of behaviour depends upon knowing both which behaviours to look for and focusing on the appropriate areas of the body to observe them. Behaviour based scoring systems have become increasingly widely used to assess animal pain and distress. Although studies are available demonstrating which behaviours need to be observed, there has been little attempt to assess how effectively observers apply such information when viewing an animal's behaviour. This study used historical video recordings of New Zealand white rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculi) considered to be experiencing varying degrees of post-operative pain to assess the pattern of observation and the ability to assess pain exhibited by both experienced and inexperienced human participants (n = 151). Eye tracking equipment was used to identify how quickly, how frequently, for how long different areas of the rabbit's body were attended to by the participants. Simple visual analgoue scoring was used to assess the pain experienced in each sequence. The results demonstrate that irrespective of their experience or gender, observers focus first, more frequently and for longer on the face, compared to the abdomen, ears, back and hindquarters of the rabbit and that participants were poor at identifying rabbits in pain. Observing the back and hindquarters was correlated with ‘correct’ assessments and observing the face was correlated with ‘incorrect’ assessments. In conclusion, irrespective of experience and gender, observers focused on the face when using behaviour to assess pain and were unable to effectively identify rabbits in pain. Focusing on the face is unlikely to be effective when using behavioural indicators of pain since they involve other body areas. Alternatively, if animals exhibit pain-related facial expressions, then it could improve our ability to assess pain. In addition, these results have potential implications for the use of behaviour to assess how rabbits and potentially other species feel.

Background: It has become widely accepted that whenever animals are used in scientific procedures, the 3Rs principle of replacement, reduction and refinement described by William Russell and Rex Burch should be adhered to. Animals should be replaced with non-sentient alternatives if possible, the number of animals used should be reduced and experimental procedures should be refined to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Administration of analgesic agents to animals undergoing surgical procedures is a refinement used to alleviate pain. In this study, a structured literature review was carried out to examine current trends in analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures. Results: 128 papers from 51 peer-reviewed journals were selected for inclusion in this review. Reporting administration of systemic analgesia to rabbits in peer-reviewed scientific papers increased significantly from 16% to 50% between 1995-1997 and 2005-2007 (P < 0.001). Papers that reported ethical approval were more likely than papers that did not specify approval to report systemic analgesic administration (P < 0.001). When systemic analgesics were administered, buprenorphine was the most frequently used agent and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used less frequently than opioids in both time periods. Conclusions: Although this review provides evidence that systemic analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing surgical procedures is increasing, rabbits do not always receive analgesia when they undergo experimental surgery. Other practices in rabbit perioperative care that could be improved, highlighted by this survey include: 1) changing the timing of analgesic administration by giving systemic analgesics pre- or perioperatively rather than only postoperatively, 2) using multimodal analgesia when pain is likely to be moderate to severe and 3) increasing the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and use of other techniques such as epidural analgesia particularly for orthopaedic procedures.

Oral administration of buprenorphine is becoming a popular method of providing analgesia for laboratory rodents. The mixing of buprenorphine with flavoured jello, which rodents find palatable, is becoming a commonly used method as it is thought to improve the efficacy of oral buprenorphine by increasing the time available for it to be absorbed via the oral mucosa. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of various methods of buprenorphine administration (subcutaneous saline, subcutaneous buprenorphine [0.05 mg/kg], buprenorphine gavage [0.5 mg/kg], buprenorphine in jello [0.5 mg/kg] and buprenorphine in golden syrup [0.5 mg/kg]) on thermal antinociceptive thresholds in laboratory rats. Buprenorphine administered subcutaneously, by gavage, in jello and in syrup induced significant increases in thermal antinociceptive thresholds compared with saline. This effect was observed up to 5 h postadministration for buprenorphine administered subcutaneously and by gavage, but only for one hour postadministration for buprenorphine administered in jello and in syrup.

The welfare of conventional stock laboratory mice has been assessed in 46 UK animal units using an expert-defined welfare assessment protocol containing 119 measures of mouse welfare. These were recorded using a questionnaire and observations made during a one-day visit to each unit. The standard of mouse welfare was considered to be good with widespread use of substrate and nesting material and space allowances in most cases well above the minimum recommended levels. Education and training was available and encouraged by the majority of animal units. The health and welfare of laboratory mice was being frequently assessed by animal care staff using daily inspections/observations, health records, and health monitoring schemes. Overall the mice assessed could be considered to be in good health, as indicators of poor health and welfare were exhibited at low levels, and the mice were observed exhibiting a wide range of positive natural behaviours. A number of environmental conditions (humidity, noise and light intensity) were outside recommended ranges in some animal units. The provision of cage resources such as shelters, gnawing material, floor food and other enrichment items were found to be variable. A high proportion of the units surveyed housed at least some of their mice (mainly males) singly and handling of mice by care staff varied between units. In some units there may be an opportunity for some staff to improve in some aspects of mouse handling. Finally, a number of interesting correlations were found between various behaviours and potential indictors of abnormal health or welfare, which require further investigation.