Pair housing of macaques has become a widely implemented compromise between meeting the social needs of the monkeys and allowing for their use in biomedical research. While beneficial to the animals, pair housing can provide challenges for those caring for them. Drawing from both scientific literature and direct experience, this paper provides a review of practical aspects of pair housing including partner selection, pairing methodologies, staff education, and equipment considerations. Recommendations include selecting a pairing method appropriate to the facility and the individual animals being paired, educating staff on social behavior, and establishing a pair monitoring program to facilitate long-term pair maintenance. Assessment of behavior is essential in determining the compatibility of new pairs and in identifying established pairs that may need interventions to enhance their long-term compatibility. The pair housing program at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center is described as one model of a successful program. Am. J. Primatol. 79:e22485, 2017. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Despite the importance for both animal welfare and scientific integrity of effective welfare assessment in non-human primates, there has been little or no consensus as what should be assessed. A Delphi consultation process was undertaken to identify the animal- and environment-based measures of welfare for laboratory-housed macaques and to determine their relative importance in on-site welfare assessments. One-hundred fifteen potential indictors were identified through a comprehensive literature search, followed by a two-round iterative electronic survey process to collect expert opinion. Stable group response and consensus about the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the proposed indicators (67.5% agreement) was achieved by the completion of Round Two. A substantially higher proportion of environment-based measures (72%: n = 44/61) were considered as valid, reliable, and feasible compared to the animal-based measures (22%: n = 12/54). The indicators that ranked most highly for assessing welfare were the presence of self-harm behaviours and the provision of social enrichment. This study provides an empirical basis upon which these indicators can be validated and then integrated into assessment tools developed for macaques and emphasises the need to include both animal- and environment-based indicators for accurate welfare monitoring.

Background: Accurate assessment of the welfare of non-human primates (NHPs) used and bred for scientific purposes is essential for effective implementation of obligations to optimise their well-being, for validation of refinement techniques and novel welfare indicators, and for ensuring the highest quality data is obtained from these animals. Despite the importance of welfare assessment in NHP research, there is little consensus on what should be measured. Greater harmonisation of welfare indicators between facilities would enable greater collaboration and data sharing to address welfare-related questions in the management and use of NHPs. Methods: A Delphi consultation was used to survey attendees of the 2019 NC3Rs Primate Welfare Meeting (73 respondents) to build consensus on which welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets are reliable, valid, and practicable, and how these can be measured. Results: Self-harm behaviour, social enrichment, cage dimensions, body weight, a health monitoring programme, appetite, staff training, and positive reinforcement training were considered valid, reliable, and practicable indicators for macaques (≥70% consensus) within a hypothetical scenario context involving 500 animals. Indicators ranked important for assessing marmoset welfare were body weight, NHP induced and environmentally induced injuries, cage furniture, huddled posture, mortality, blood in excreta, and physical enrichment. Participants working with macaques in infectious disease and breeding identified a greater range of indicators as valid and reliable than did those working in neuroscience and toxicology, where animal-based indicators were considered the most important. The findings for macaques were compared with a previous Delphi consultation, and the expert-defined consensus from the two surveys used to develop a prototype protocol for assessing macaque welfare in research settings. Conclusions: Together the Delphi results and proto-protocol enable those working with research NHPs to more effectively assess the welfare of the animals in their care and to collaborate to advance refinement of NHP management and use.