Evaluation of micro-environment and microbiologi- cal monitoring of various bedding materials for laboratory rodents

Authors

  • Anand Babu P Biochemistry & Nutrition, Central Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR) Mysore, Karnataka Author
  • Hari Prasad P Food Microbiology Central Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR) Mysore, Karnataka Author
  • Venkateswaran G Food Microbiology Central Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR) Mysore, Karnataka Author
  • Muthukumar S P Biochemistry & Nutrition,Central Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR) Mysore, KarnatakaCentral Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR) Mysore, Karnataka Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/jlas.2019.1.2.11

Keywords:

bedding materials, microbial load, ammonia, moisture, laboratory mice

Abstract

 In biomedical research, the use of laboratory animals is very vital and a critical part of effort to prevent, cure and treat  a vast range of ailments. Globally around 50-100 million laboratory animals are used annually for experimentation. Rat,  mouse, Guinea pig and rabbit are the most commonly used laboratory animals and among these, laboratory mouse is an  important species. Variety of environmental factors can affect the outcomes of studies using laboratory rodents. One such  factor is bedding. Physiological changes may occur after exposure to some types of bedding and could affect experimental  results. Some bedding materials generate dust and particulates that might cause respiratory or ocular changes. Several  new bedding materials have been introduced for laboratory rodents in the recent past, but there are only a few evaluation  reports about their performance. In this study, we have compared the performance of different bedding materials like saw  dust, paddy husk, corncob and paper shredding. We measured the micro-environment parameters like ammonia, sulfate,  temperature, biomass changes, pH, moisture content, microbial load viz., total plate count, yeast and mold count, when  housed on various types of bedding materials. We observed that the bedding materials have no significant effect on cage  temperature, humidity and pH. The ammonia level in cages using corncob bedding (242 ± 3.65 mg/100g) was less when  compared to all other beddings (Saw dust, 454 ± 2.4 mg/100g) and so prolong the interval between cage changing. The  microbial monitoring also revealed less microbial load when corncob was used as bedding material. Hence, the present  study suggests that corncob is more suitable as bedding material for housing laboratory mice. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ago A, Gonda T, Takechi M, Takeuchi T, Kawakami K (2002). Preferences for paper bedding material of the laboratory mice. Exp. Anim. 51: 157–61.

Blom HJM, Tintelen GV, Van Vorstenbosch CJAHV, Baumans V, Beynen AC (1996). Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Lab. Anim. 30: 234– 244.

Bureau of Indian Standard (3839:1989), Standard procedure. Determination of Free Amino Nitrogen.

Burn CC, Mason GJ (2005). Absorbencies of six different rodent beddings:commercially advertised absorbencies are potentially misleading. Lab. Anim. 39: 68–74.

Gamble MR, Clough G (1976). Ammonia build-up in animal boxes and its effect on rat tracheal epithelium. Lab. Anim. 10: 93-104.

Hawkins P, Anderson D, Applebee K, Key D, Wallace J, Milite G, MacArthur Clark J, Hubrecht R, Jennings M (2003). Individually ventilated cages and rodent welfare: Report of the 2002 RSPCA/UFAW rodent welfare group meeting. Anim Tech. Welfare 2: 23–34.

Krohn CT, Hansen KA (2008). Evaluation of corncob as bedding for rodents. J. Lab. Sci. 35(4): 231-236.

Mani AK, Santhi R, Sellamuthu KM, A Handbook of Laboratory Analysis, Nov (2007). First edition, p. 44- 45.

Misselbrook TH, Powell JM (2005). Influence of Bedding Material on Ammonia Emissions from Cattle Excreta . J. Dairy Sci. 88 (12): 4304- 4312.

Perkins SE, Lipman NS (1995). Characterization and quantification of microenvironmental contaminants in isolator cages with a variety of contact beddings. Contemp.Topics. Lab. Anim.Sci. 34: 93–8.

Potgieter FJ, Wilke PI (1992). Laboratory animal bedding: a review of wood and wood constituents as a possible source of external variables that could influence experimental results. Anim. Tech. 43: 65-88.

Potgieter FJ, Wilke PI (1997). Effect of different bedding materials on the reproductive performance of mice. J.S.Afr.Vet.Assoc. 68: 8-15.

Rabinder singh, Bhumbla DK, Keefer RF (2011). Recommended soil sulfate- S Tests. Recommended Soil Testy Procedure for the NE United states. 3rd Ed. North Eastern co-ordinatory committee for Testy. Agricultural Experimental Stations, NE, USA.

Raynor TH, Steinhagen WH, Hamm TE, Jr (1983). Differences in the microenvironment of a polycarbonate caging system: bedding vs raised wire floors. Lab. Anim. 17: 85–9.

Smith E, Ason D, Stockwell, Schweitzer I, Stephen, H, Langley, BS, Smith AL (2004). Evaluation of Cage Micro-Environment of Mice Housed on Various Types of Bedding Materials. JAALAS. 43(4).

Torronen R, Pelkonen K, Kiirenlampi S (1989). Enzyme inducing and cytotoxic effects of wood-based materials used as bedding for laboratory animals; comparison by a cell culture study. Life Sci. 45: 559-65.

Weisbroth SH (1979). Chemical contamination of Laboratory animal beddings: problems and recommendations. Lab. Anim. 8: 24–34.

Downloads

Published

2019-01-30

How to Cite

Evaluation of micro-environment and microbiologi- cal monitoring of various bedding materials for laboratory rodents. (2019). Journal of Laboratory Animal Science, 1(2), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.48165/jlas.2019.1.2.11