Table 1 . The guinea pig participants and their grouping .
Participant number
The guinea pigs were all young to middle-aged and considered fit and well , other than the following health conditions , which were not believed to have had a significant impact on the results of the research :
• Nimbus had a diagnosis of mild pneumonia at the time the study was conducted . She had previously had a major dental procedure but had recovered .
• All guinea pigs had intermittent fungal infections but were well at the time the study was conducted .
• Rupert was partially sighted in his right eye , due to calcification of the cornea .
The participants were split into two groups , with each group having an average participant age of 3 years to negate any effect of age on the results .
Methods
Name
Age ( years )
Sex
( B ) Rupert 2 ME 1.1 Aurora 4 FN 1.2 Fig 2 FN 1.3 Leila 3 FN 2.1 Cloud 4 FN 2.2 Lentil 2 FN 2.3 Luna 2 FN 2.4 Nimbus 4 FN
FN , female neutered ; ME , male entire .
A veterinary surgeon was consulted on the study design ; it was not expected to cause significant stress or trauma to the participants , and the novel items were not considered to be particularly threatening .
No food , water or hides were placed in the experiment pen , to minimise distraction , but the guinea pigs were without food and water only for short periods of time that would not affect their welfare .
The behaviour of the guinea pigs was recorded with cameras , for later examination and assessment . The cameras were positioned nearby to record from two different angles , ensuring that the guinea pigs were observable wherever they were in the enclosure .
The handling of the guinea pigs was conducted by their usual caregiver , an RVN with a specialist certificate in exotic animals , who was appropriately experienced .
When the guinea pigs were moved , the RVN carried them with both hands and ensured their eyes were covered to minimise stress .
The guinea pigs were split into two groups , numbered 1 and 2 ( see Table 1 ), so each group could be exposed to a different novel stimulus first , in case one novel item inherently elicited a different behaviour pattern .
NIA was placed on the X at one end of the enclosure and each guinea pig from group 1 was placed individually on the X at the other end of the enclosure . Its behaviour was recorded for 6 min .
NIB was placed on the X at one end of the enclosure and each guinea pig from group 2 was placed individually on the X at the other end of the enclosure . Its behaviour was recorded for 6 min .
Then , 24 hours later , at the same time of day , the experiment was conducted again , with the addition of guinea pig ( B ), the boar .
NIA was placed on the X at one end of the enclosure and each guinea pig from group 1 was placed individually with guinea pig ( B ) on the X at the other end of the enclosure . Its behaviour was recorded for 6 min .
NIB was placed on the X at one end of the enclosure and each guinea pig from group 2 was placed individually with guinea pig ( B ) on the X at the other end of the enclosure . Its behaviour was recorded for 6 min .
Once all the data had been collected , each video was examined and the guinea pigs ' behaviours were observed and noted .
A stopwatch was used to record the time ( in seconds ) each guinea pig displayed explorative behaviours . The behaviours were all categorised as either ‘ freezing ’, ‘ escaping guinea pig ( B )’, ‘ urinating / defaecating ’ or ‘ exploring ’.
Table 2 . Time ( seconds ) spent displaying explorative behaviour .
Participant number
On own With ( B ) Difference
1.1 206 9 – 197 1.2 0 225 + 225 1.3 25 170 + 145 2.1 18 221 + 203 2.2 85 180 + 95 2.3 19 96 + 77 2.4 183 70 – 113 Average 76.6 138 + 61.4
30 Veterinary Nursing Journal