Ad libitum (AL) feeding of rats leads to obesity and increased result variability, as well as premature morbidity and mortality. It may also alter metabolism and responses to foreign compounds. Moderate dietary restriction (DR) reduces these untoward effects without compromising the sensitivity of rodent bioassays. The diet board (DB) is a novel method for achieving moderate DR in group housing. Food pellets are firmly attached into grooves in an aspen board, and rats have to gnaw the wood in order to eat. Food is available continuously, but due to the effort involved rats eat less. This study simulated a chronic safety test to assess the long-term effects of DB feeding. A total of 146 male and female outbred Sprague-Dawley rats, nine weeks old at onset, were housed in groups of three and fed either AL or with DBs for two years. Food and water consumption were measured at six time points. The rats were weighed every one to two weeks. Body and tibial lengths and epididymal fat weight were measured at necropsy. Modified body mass index was calculated at five time points after one year of age. DB feeding reduced body weight and fat tissue moderately, more so in males. DB males ate less than AL males, but no differences were seen in the total food consumption in the females. There was no consistent difference in the within-group variations of the measured parameters. DB is a workable DR method, albeit some modification could enhance and standardize its DR effects, especially in female rats. Keywords diet board, dietary restriction, rats, reduction, refinementExcessive morbidity and shortened lifespans of rodents involved in long-term safety studies were first recognized decades ago. This phenomenon has largely been attributed to ad libitum (AL) feeding of high-quality food, although other factors, such as the tendency to favour fast growing animals in breeding, have also been recognized.1 Unrestricted feeding has even been named as the least controlled variable in rodent bioassays, as it can lead to excessive and uneven energy intake, obesity and increased variation of animal size, as well as influencing the metabolism and the effects of foreign substances.2-5 AL feeding and the associated increase in body weight (BW) have pathological consequences, e.g. increased susceptibility to cardiac and circulatory diseases, progressive kidney failure, hormonal disturbances, early developing tumours and decreased longevity.2,3,5 Some of these adverse effects may even be seen in young animals and short-term experiments; but the consequences of AL feeding may create serious problems, particularly in long-term studies. If a considerable number of rats, even in control groups, do not survive to the end of an experiment, any late emerging study effects become difficult to discern.2,3

SummaryDuring daily care, laboratory animals are exposed to a variety of sounds which may have effects on welfare and also cause physiological and behavioural changes. So far, almost no attention has been paid to individual sounds or the sound level caused by animal care or the sound level inside the animal cage. In this study, sounds from selected rat care procedures were recorded: pulling cage out of the rack, placing it onto a table and replacing the cage back into the rack; with measurements made inside the rat cage and in the adjacent cage. Diet was poured into the food hopper and sounds were recorded inside the cage and also the adjacent cage. The work was repeated in a calm and also in a hurried style, using stainless steel and polycarbonate cages. Finally, the sounds produced by running tap water were recorded. Differences between rat and human hearing were compared using novel species-specific sound level weightings: R-weighting for rats dB(R) and H-weighting for human dB(H). Hurried work with steel caused sound exposure levels exceeding 90 dB(R) when the cages were placed into the rack and about 80 dB(R) when pulling them out of the rack or placing onto a table. With polycarbonate, the levels were 10-15 dB(R) lower. Unhurried calm working produced lower sound exposure levels than hurried working in many procedures. When the procedures were repeated with measurements in the adjacent cage, the sound exposure levels were lower, but the results were similar. Pouring food pellets into a hopper above the rat's head caused 15 dB(R) higher sound exposure levels than pouring food to an adjacent cage. In general, humans hear these sounds about 10-15 dB louder than rats. In conclusion, cage material, working style and hearing sensitivity all have an impact on the sound exposure level in the rodent cage. With correct working methods, high sound levels can be efficiently avoided in most cases.

Cage change is one of the unavoidable routines in laboratory rodent care. However, cage change disrupts the rodents' olfactory environment and can evoke stress reactions. In this study, the short-term cardiovascular responses to three different cage change procedures were compared with telemetric monitoring. These procedures were: placing the rats into a new, clean cage (NEW), transferring the old cage lid into the clean cage (LID) and transferring an enrichment object into the clean cage (ENR) with the animals. Seven outbred rats (four Hsd:Sprague-Dawley and three HsdBrlHan:WIST) were instrumented with telemetric transmitters. The reactions were recorded during the 24 h following the cage change procedures. All cage change procedures (and also simple handling) caused elevated heart rate and mean arterial pressure levels for up to 5 h after the procedure, with the largest effect seen during the first hour. The reactions observed after cage change were significantly (P , 0.05) greater than those observed after simple handling. The reactions after NEW were significantly higher than the reactions after ENR or LID, though the results were dependent on the stock. In Wistar rats the LID procedure resulted in smaller reactions than ENR. In Sprague-Dawley rats, the differences between ENR and LID were not so clear, but the transfer of scent-marked material into the new cage decreased the reactions compared with the NEW procedure also in this stock. Based on these results, using the old cage lid on the new cage could reduce the disturbance of cage change in rats.