2020
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of Different Feeding Routines on Welfare in Laboratory Mice

Abstract: The accepted norm in most laboratories around the globe is feeding laboratory mice an ad libitum diet, although several health impairments are well-established. In contrast, reducing the animals' body weight by feeding them less food once per day (referred to as 24 h schedule) has been shown to enhance life span and reduce disease susceptibility. Against this background, this study aimed at systematically investigating the effects of different feeding routines. Therefore, three feeding routines were compared t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…C57BL6/J mice (CLEA, Shizuoka, Japan) were kept in conventional transparent mouse cages (29 × 18 × 13 cm) of four or five per cage in an air-conditioned room maintained at 23 ± 3 °C with a 12-h diurnal period and unrestricted access to normal food (MF, Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and tap water. For GBEs-fed mice, as the average food intake of a 10 g mouse is about 3 g per day 67 , 68 , the feeding was carried out according to the approximate weekly food intake per cage we calculated. The mice's weight was recorded weekly to ensure that GBEs feeding did not affect their weight gain compared to normal food intake mice, records showed no significant difference in body weight between the normal feeding and GBEs feeding groups (Supplementary Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C57BL6/J mice (CLEA, Shizuoka, Japan) were kept in conventional transparent mouse cages (29 × 18 × 13 cm) of four or five per cage in an air-conditioned room maintained at 23 ± 3 °C with a 12-h diurnal period and unrestricted access to normal food (MF, Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and tap water. For GBEs-fed mice, as the average food intake of a 10 g mouse is about 3 g per day 67 , 68 , the feeding was carried out according to the approximate weekly food intake per cage we calculated. The mice's weight was recorded weekly to ensure that GBEs feeding did not affect their weight gain compared to normal food intake mice, records showed no significant difference in body weight between the normal feeding and GBEs feeding groups (Supplementary Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the experimenter could see continuously filled feeding racks in the cages of AL mice on the videos, AL mice were identifiable on the recordings. On the videos, a mouse was considered active , when it showed any kind of motion, excluding tiny whisker, ear or tail movements (Feige-Diller et al, 2020 ). A stereotypy was counted when a mouse showed circling, route tracing, jumping or back flipping ( Table 1 ).…”
Section: Animals Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the experimental phase started, a restrictive feeding regime was provided, i.e., animals received food once per day to maintain 90%–95% of their ad libitum feeding weights. This food restriction scheme had the purpose to increase the motivation to work for food rewards while avoiding a negative impact on welfare (Feige-Diller et al, 2020 ). Body weights were monitored on a daily basis using a digital scale (resolution: 0.1 g; KERN CM 150-1N pocket balance, KERN and Sohn GmbH, Balingen, Germany).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%