Environmental factors that affect the behavior and welfare of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) housed in cages
Article InfoTo view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Fig. 1
The percentage of cats in each treatment group on day 1 and day 2 who ate more than ½ of offered food (a), urinated (b) or defecated (c) in the litter pan. Tx = effect of treatment; Day = effect of day; Tx*Day = the interaction effect of treatment and day; (M+m+) managed room, enriched cage; (M+m−) managed room, unenriched cage; (M−m+) unmanaged room, enriched cage; (M−m−) unmanaged room, unenriched cage; n = number of cats in each treatment group.
Fig. 2
The mean number of sickness behaviors (decreased appetite, no eliminations for 24 h, eliminating out of the pan, upper and lower GI signs). (M+m+_1) managed room, enriched cage, day 1; (M+m+_2) managed room, enriched cage, day 2; (M+m−_1) managed room, unenriched cage, day 1; (M+m−_2) managed room, unenriched cage, day 2; (M−m+_1) unmanaged room, enriched cage, day 1; (M−m+_2) unmanaged room, enriched cage, day 2; (M−m−_1) unmanaged room, unenriched cage, day 1; (M−m−_2) unmanaged room, unenriched cage, day 2.
Fig. 3
Cats exhibiting affiliative and maintenance behaviors (% of treatment group). (M+m+) managed room, enriched cage; (M+m−) managed room, unenriched cage; (M−m+) unmanaged room, enriched cage; (M−m−) unmanaged room, unenriched cage, (n) number of cats per treatment group. * Denotes statistical significance at the level of P = 0.006.
Fig. 4
The mean ± SD of the number of cats observed in the hide box during scan sampling. (M+m+_1) managed room, enriched cage, day 1; (M+m+_2) managed room, enriched cage, day 2; (M−m+_1) unmanaged room, enriched cage, day 1; (M−m+_2) unmanaged room, enriched cage, day 2.
Highlights
- •We assessed cats’ responses to the quality of housing (room and cage) environment.
- •Cats in unmanaged rooms ate and eliminated less than cats in managed rooms.
- •Cats in unmanaged rooms hid more and were less likely to approach a stranger.
- •Indicates room environment may be as important as the cage environment to the cat.
- •Suggests the welfare of caged cats is dependent on both cage and room factors.
Abstract
Understanding environmental factors that affect the behavior of cats in cages is important if caretakers are to improve the welfare of confined cats. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the macro (room) and micro (cage) environments on cat behavior and their implications for cat well-being. Cats (n = 76) were caged singly at The Ohio State University and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that were combinations of a managed (M+) or unmanaged (M−) macro environment and an enriched (m+) or unenriched (m−) micro environment. Cats housed in the M+ environment experienced minimal noise or disruption and a consistent schedule while cats in the M− environment experienced random disturbances and an unpredictable schedule. The m+ environment included hiding and perching opportunities while the m− environment had no hiding and perching opportunity. Cats were observed for 48 h for maintenance, affiliative behaviors (e.g., eating, elimination, soliciting attention), agonistic, avoidant behaviors (e.g., growling, hissing, hiding) using scan sampling and 5-min, continuous focal sampling. At the end of day 2, a stranger approach test was conducted to assess the cats’ reactions to the approach of an unfamiliar person. Data analysis of food intake revealed that the effect of treatment (P = 0.03), day (P < 0.0001) and the interaction (P = 0.03) were statistically significant. Cats housed in the M+ environment had a significant decrease in the mean (SD) number of sickness behaviors from day 1 to day 2 (M+m+ 1.6 (0.5), 1.0 (0.9), P = 0.02; M+m− 1.9 (0.5), 1.0 (0.9), P = 0.002) and hiding behavior (M+ 0.6 (0.3), 0.3 (0.4); M− 0.5 (0.4), 0.4 (0.4); P = 0.01), while cats housed in the M− environments did not show such decreases. Significantly more cats exhibited affiliative and maintenance behaviors at the end of day 1 (P < 0.001) when housed in the M+ environment (27/36, 75%) compared to cats housed in the M− environment (4/40, 10%). Differences between cats in M+ and M− in step 3 of the approach test included a shorter latency to interact (M+ 8.6(13.1), M− 15.6(14.8); P = 0.03), longer duration of interaction (M+ 21.1(13.3), M− 13.6(14.6); P = 0.03) and more affiliative behaviors in response to approach by a stranger (M+ 3.7(1.6), M− 2.8(1.7); P = 0.008). These results suggest that the macro environment may be at least as relevant to the cat as the micro environment, indicating that attention to cage enrichment without consideration for the effect of the room may be insufficient to optimize caged cat behavior and welfare.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Purchase access to this article
Claim Access
If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.
Subscribe to this title
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
