Search

Environmental enrichment plans for captive nonhuman primates often include provision of foraging devices. The rationale for using foraging devices is to promote species-typical activity patterns that encourage physical engagement and provide multi-sensory stimulation. However, these devices have been shown to be ineffective at sustaining manipulation over long periods of time, and often produce minimal cognitive engagement. Here we use an evidence-based approach to directly compare the amount of object-directed behavior with a foraging device and a computer-based videogame system. We recorded 11 adult male rhesus monkeys' interactions with a foraging device and two tasks within a joystick videogame cognitive test battery. Both techniques successfully produced high levels of engagement during the initial 20 min of observation. After 1 hr the monkeys manipulated the foraging device significantly less than the joystick, F(2,10) = 43.93, P

Continued progress to move evidence-based best practices into community and regulatory animal welfare standards depends in part on developing common metrics to assess cost, benefit, and relative value. Here we describe a model approach to evidence-based evaluation and an example of comprehensive cost–benefit assessment for a common element of environmental enrichment plans for laboratory-housed nonhuman primates. Foraging devices encourage a species-typical activity that dominates the time budget of primates outside captivity and provide inherent cognitive challenges, physical activity demands, and multi-sensory stimulation. However, their implementation is not standard, and is challenged by perception of high costs and labor; nutritional and health concerns; and identification of best practices in implementation (that is, device types, food type, frequency of delivery and rotation). To address these issues, we directly compared monkeys’ engagement with different foraging devices and the comprehensive cost of implementing foraging opportunities. We recorded 14 adult male cynomolgus monkeys’ interactions with 7 types of devices filled with a range of enrichment foods. All devices elicited foraging behavior, but there were significant differences among them both initially and over subsequent observations. Devices that afforded opportunity for extraction of small food items and that posed manipulative challenge elicited greater manipulation. The cost of providing a foraging opportunity to a single monkey is roughly US$1, with approximately 80% attributable to labor. This study is the first to perform a rigorous cost–benefit analysis and comparison of common foraging devices included in environmental enrichment. Its broader significance lies in its contribution to the development of methods to facilitate improvement in evidence-based practices and common standards to enhance laboratory animal welfare.

The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate, 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection of each solution over the course of three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 60 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period. Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here ranged from 3% to 10% for the plain lidocaine hydrocarbonate; for the lidocaine hydrocarbonate and lidocaine hydrochloride solutions with epinephrine, success ranged from 37% to 63%. We conclude that 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate without vasoconstrictor is not as effective as the other two preparations for inferior alveolar nerve block. The 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate with epinephrine and 2%.