Cited by 190Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal testing and alternativesVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia

To group or not to group? Good practice for housing male laboratory mice

Open access
Kappel, Sarah, Hawkins, Penny, Mendl, Michael·2017·Animals

Abstract

It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are ‘social animals’, but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts—positive and negative—of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani7120088

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social environment (group size and composition/stocking density) compromises animal welfare.

    “Social environment (group size and composition/stocking density) | Compromises animal welfare [191]. Induces aggressive behaviour [192,193] and stress [180].”

    From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [191]

    Section 4.4 links group size and male-mouse social relationships to aggression and welfare problems. But the Conclusions say housing practices can either compromise or enhance welfare, depending on the situation. The categorical claim extends beyond that context-dependent finding, and the cited passages do not establish that stocking density itself compromises welfare. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 136 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [23]Berdoy M. The Laboratory Rat: A Natural History [Film] University of Oxford Oxford, UK 2002
  2. [43]Rolls E.T. Emotions Explained Oxford Univeristy Press Oxford, UK 2005
  3. [99]Huber R.C. Weber E.M. Olsson I.A.S. Mice in standard and furnished cages do not differ in their short-term behavioural reaction to cage change and mating Proceedings of the Tenth FELASA Symposium and the XIV ICLAS General Assembly and Conference Cernobbio, Italy 11–14 June 2007 45 49

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kappel, S., Hawkins, P., & Mendl, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Kappel, Sarah
  • Hawkins, Penny
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-11-24
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
88
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766574891
Cited by
190
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Keywords
laboratory mice, male mice, group housing, single housing, animal welfare, social behavior, aggression, social defeat, subordination, stress, housing conditions, husbandry, mouse strain differences, research validity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review