Abstract # 6181 Poster # 191:

Scheduled for Friday, June 19, 2015 06:00 PM-08:00 PM: (Cascade AJBCD) Poster Presentation


COMPARING SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS IN LABORATORY-HOUSED MACAQUES: WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

G. H. Lee, J. P. Thom and J. M. Worlein
Washington National Primate Res. Ctr., University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7330, USA
line
     Nearly all nonhuman primate research facilities conduct regularly scheduled behavioral observations to identify and subsequently treat behavioral problems [Baker et al., 2007]. Since resources and personnel are limited, it is important to develop an efficient monitoring plan that can detect abnormal behaviors at high accuracy with minimal observation time. This will leave more time to spend on therapeutic interventions to prevent and treat behavioral problems which will lead to an overall better outcome for each animal. Here we compare two observational methods used to survey our entire caged macaque population (Macaca fascicularis, M. mulatta, M. nemestrina) across three Seattle facilities Dec 2013-June 2014: “Zones” focal-group one-zero sampling (10min duration) and “Homecage” focal-animal continuous recording (5min duration). Both methods had very similar detection rates. Out of 588 macaques 29% (Zones) and 30% (Homecage) showed some atypical behaviors (e.g., over-grooming, locomotor stereotypy, other stereotypies, self-suck/-clasp). In addition, both methods detected the most concerning abnormal behaviors (self-biting, self-hitting, floating limb) at identical rates (2% of the population). While the two methods seem to have the same payoff, Homecage was a larger time investment, requiring approximately 78h (or 8min staff time expenditure per animal) vs 30h (3min per animal) for Zones monitoring. Therefore, for detection of abnormal/atypical behaviors Zones monitoring is the more efficient method. Support: NIH grants P51 OD010425, R24OD01180-15.