{"title":"Blood Sampling in Göttingen Minipigs-A Case Study of Two Standard Methods and Clicker Training as a Restraint-Free Alternative.","authors":"Kathrine Schiøler, Mikkel Lykke Jensen, Dorte Bratbo Sørensen","doi":"10.3390/ani15030407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Blood sampling often requires restraint that negatively affects animal welfare. This case study evaluated three methods for jugular vein blood sampling (V-bench, sling, and clicker training) with the overall aim of assessing the negative impact on animal welfare and providing a general recommendation on the use of methods. First, the effects of simulated blood sampling in V-bench and sling on behaviour, heart rate, and saliva cortisol concentrations 15 min after sampling were assessed. The sling (which had the least negative effects) was re-evaluated after one week of habituation to assess a possible positive effect. Clicker training was evaluated using behavioural observations only. The heart rate was significantly higher in animals placed in the V-bench compared to the sling (<i>p</i> < 0.05), but no significant differences were found in the saliva cortisol concentrations. Habituation to the sling resulted in a further reduction in heart rate compared to the V-bench (<i>p</i> < 0.01). When trained to voluntarily cooperate, three out of six minipigs allowed blood sampling from the jugular vein without restraint. We are convinced that all six minipigs would have succeeded if the training environment had been optimised. In conclusion, clicker training results in blood sampling with no negative behaviours displayed such as struggling or squealing/screaming. When restraint is unavoidable, the sling is preferable compared to the V-bench.</p>","PeriodicalId":7955,"journal":{"name":"Animals","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15030407","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Blood sampling often requires restraint that negatively affects animal welfare. This case study evaluated three methods for jugular vein blood sampling (V-bench, sling, and clicker training) with the overall aim of assessing the negative impact on animal welfare and providing a general recommendation on the use of methods. First, the effects of simulated blood sampling in V-bench and sling on behaviour, heart rate, and saliva cortisol concentrations 15 min after sampling were assessed. The sling (which had the least negative effects) was re-evaluated after one week of habituation to assess a possible positive effect. Clicker training was evaluated using behavioural observations only. The heart rate was significantly higher in animals placed in the V-bench compared to the sling (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were found in the saliva cortisol concentrations. Habituation to the sling resulted in a further reduction in heart rate compared to the V-bench (p < 0.01). When trained to voluntarily cooperate, three out of six minipigs allowed blood sampling from the jugular vein without restraint. We are convinced that all six minipigs would have succeeded if the training environment had been optimised. In conclusion, clicker training results in blood sampling with no negative behaviours displayed such as struggling or squealing/screaming. When restraint is unavoidable, the sling is preferable compared to the V-bench.
AnimalsAgricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
3015
审稿时长
20.52 days
期刊介绍:
Animals (ISSN 2076-2615) is an international and interdisciplinary scholarly open access journal. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications, and short notes that are relevant to any field of study that involves animals, including zoology, ethnozoology, animal science, animal ethics and animal welfare. However, preference will be given to those articles that provide an understanding of animals within a larger context (i.e., the animals'' interactions with the outside world, including humans). There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental details and/or method of study, must be provided for research articles. Articles submitted that involve subjecting animals to unnecessary pain or suffering will not be accepted, and all articles must be submitted with the necessary ethical approval (please refer to the Ethical Guidelines for more information).