BMC - Documentation of Introduction Procedures and Defining Outcomes of Introductions of Pairs or Small Groups of Caged NHPs

Documentation of the Introduction of Pairs or Small Groups of Caged NHPs

The BMC Documentation for Pair/Small Group Introductions includes variables that we recommend be recorded when pairs or groups are formed. While this information is intended to be used when pairs or groups of three or four NHPs are introduced to one another in indoor caging, it can be adapted for other situations. The variables enumerated contain characteristics of the individuals to be introduced (e.g. sex, age, weight, early rearing, behavioral history), features of the introduction process (e.g. stages and types of panels used), whether wounding occurred over the course of the introduction, and the final outcome (employing the standardized outcome definition below). In addition, the documentation captures longer term information on these pairs and groups, including the later separations of the animals, both temporary and permanent, and the reasons for these separations.

Some of the variables in the database are known to influence the outcome of introductions (e.g. sex, weights), whereas others are commonly thought to be influential, but have not yet been thoroughly evaluated (e.g. neutral caging, single-sex room). The information obtained through this documentation will provide data to allow these new evaluations while further exploring or controlling for variables known to introduce outcomes.

Additional information as well as this table are available in Baker et al., 2017.

Standardization of social introduction spreadsheet
Scope: Indoor caging: Pair, trio, quad.

•  Species/strain
•  Sex
•  Date of birth
•  Body weight at time of introduction
•  Rearing in the first six months of life:

◦  mother-reared
◦  mother-only
◦  nursery/peer-reared
◦  nursery/singly-housed
◦  mixed (at least two months in more than one particular category)
◦  unknown.

•  Identified/monitored/treated at time of introduction for SIB? Indicate severity using BMC scale.
•  Identified/monitored/treated at time of introduction for other abnormal behavior? (type)
•  Class of introduction (e.g. adult/adult, adult/juvenile)
•  Introduced in neutral caging?
•  Introduction in single-sex room?
•  Prior co-housing in the last year? (e.g. deriving from the same breeding group)
•  Intended group size (pair, trio, quad)
•  Goal for level of access (full contact or protected contact)
•  Start date of introduction
•  Initial panel type (e.g. clear, mesh, barrier permitting physical contact)
•  Date(s) and type of panel changes (as many columns as needed)
•  Wounds during protected contact phase? Date(s) and description of wounds during protected contact phase
•  Date of initial full contact
•  Wounds in first 14 days after initiation of full contact? Date and description
•  Success? (use BMC Common definition of a successful social introduction into pair housing)

◦  For those facilities with different preexisting definitions of success, they should ideally have an outcome column using BMC criteria PLUS a separate column for their own outcome classification.

•  Wounds in the 14 – 30 days after introduction? Date(s) and description
•  Later wounds – Date(s) and severity
•  Changes in social status: Date(s) of changes in social status (termination of social housing, temporary separation, etc.)

Pair introduction outcome definition:

The BMC developed a common definition to apply when determining whether a social introduction of individual NHPs should be considered “successful”. Having a common definition to establish when an introduction of a pair of NHPs is successful allows us to compare and analyze many aspects of social introductions. A common definition needs to be applied to determine whether one particular method is more effective than others and to perform comparisons across demographic variables, species, and facilities. Even within a single institution, using a common definition consistently across time will enable the detection of trends when comparing variables such as the type of caging or location of the introduction. These analyses can lead to program improvements and to illustrate the effectiveness of a pairing program during assessments by other groups (e.g. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, USDA, AAALAC International).

A successful social introduction is defined as one in which the animals can be maintained together for a minimum of two weeks after the final step in the introduction process has been completed.

References

Baker KC.
Survey of 2014 behavioral management programs for laboratory primates in the United States.
Am. J. Primatol. 2016 Jul; 78(7): 780-96.

Baker, K, Bloomsmith, M, Coleman, K, Crockett, C, Lutz, C., McCowan, B., Pierre, P., Weed, J., and Worlein, J. (2017). The Behavioral Management Consortium: A Partnership in Promoting Consensus and Best Practices. Pp 9 – 23 in the Handbook of Primate Behavioral Management, CRC Press, New York, Steve Schapiro (Ed).

Truelove MA, Martin AL, Perlman JE, Wood JS, Bloomsmith MA.
Pair housing of Macaques: A review of partner selection, introduction techniques, monitoring for compatibility, and methods for long-term maintenance of pairs.
Am. J. Primatol. 2017 Jan; 79(1): 1-15.

Pair introduction/Pair housing Publications

Baker KC, Bloomsmith MA, Oettinger B, Neu K, Griffis C, Schoof V, Maloney M.
Benefits of pair housing are consistent across a diverse population of rhesus macaques.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012 Mar; 137(3-4): 148-156.

Baker KC, Bloomsmith MA, Oettinger B, Neu K, Griffis C, Schoof VA.
Comparing options for pair housing rhesus macaques using behavioral welfare measures.
Am. J. Primatol. 2014 Jan; 76(1): 30-42.

Baker KC, Crockett CM, Lee GH, Oettinger BC, Schoof V, Thom JP.
Pair housing for female longtailed and rhesus macaques in the laboratory: behavior in protected contact versus full contact.
J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2012 03; 15(2): 126-43.

Bauer SA, Baker KC.
Persistent Effects of Peer Rearing on Abnormal and Species-Appropriate Activities but Not Social Behavior in Group-Housed Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta).
Comp. Med. 2016 Apr; 66(2): 129-36.

Jorgensen MJ, Lambert KR, Breaux SD, Baker KC, Snively BM, Weed JL.
Pair housing of Vervets/African Green Monkeys for biomedical research.
Am. J. Primatol. 2017 Jan; 79(1): 1-10.

Pomerantz O, Baker KC.
Higher levels of submissive behaviors at the onset of the pairing process of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) are associated with lower risk of wounding following introduction.
Am. J. Primatol. 2017 Aug; 79(8): .

Truelove MA, Martin AL, Perlman JE, Wood JS, Bloomsmith MA.
Pair housing of Macaques: A review of partner selection, introduction techniques, monitoring for compatibility, and methods for long-term maintenance of pairs.
Am. J. Primatol. 2017 Jan; 79(1): 1-15.

Worlein JM, Kroeker R, Lee GH, Thom JP, Bellanca RU, Crockett CM.
Socialization in pigtailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina).
Am. J. Primatol. 2017 Jan; 79(1): 1-12.