Ear tagging is perceived as less painful or stressful than tattooing and therefore is generally considered less harmful or costly to welfare. However, ear tags are more difficult to read than tattoos and can fall out, and mice usually require restraint for the tag numbers to be read
accurately. We assessed the welfare and scientific implications of tattooing by using a commercial device compared with restraint in a device versus ear tagging. Male and female BALB/c mice (n = 32) underwent procedures after 1 wk of tail or nonaversive (tunnel) handling to determine
whether tunnel handling reduced anxiety. Pain was evaluated using both the Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) and manual and automated behavior analyses; light–dark preference testing and voluntary interaction with the handler's hand were used to assess anxiety. Tail inflammation after tattooing
was quantified using bioluminescent imaging, and ear tag and tattoo misidentification rates were estimated from volunteer staff records. Tunnel handling reduced anxiety compared with tail handling. According to the MGS, tattooing was not more painful than ear tagging but caused significant
tail inflammation and more agitation and anxiety. However, all tattoos were read correctly without handling, whereas all ear tagged mice needed restraint, and at least 25% of the tag codes were misread. Handling stress together with identification errors at this rate represent potentially
serious concerns regarding the scientific integrity of data from studies using ear tagging. These concerns are unlikely to arise with tattooing. Although tattooing was stressful, so were restraint and ear tagging. However, considering the other major advantages of tattooing, the total costs
associated with tattooing were not substantially greater than for ear tagging.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom;, Email: [email protected]
Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
Publication date: March 1, 2019
This article was made available online on February 27, 2019 as a Fast Track article with title: "Welfare and Scientific Considerations of Tattooing and Ear Tagging for Mouse Identification".
More about this publication?
The Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (JAALAS) serves as an official communication vehicle for the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). The journal includes a section of refereed articles and a section of AALAS association news. The mission of the refereed section of the journal is to disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed information on animal biology, technology, facility operations, management, and compliance as relevant to the AALAS membership. JAALAS accepts research reports (data-based) or scholarly reports (literature-based), with the caveat that all articles, including solicited manuscripts, must include appropriate references and must undergo peer review.
Attention Members: To access the full text of the articles, be sure you are logged in to the AALAS website.
Attention: please note, due to a temporary technical problem, reference linking within the content is not available at this time
- Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Information for Advertisers
- For issues prior to 1997
- Institutional Subscription Activation
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites