Not wanting to go into a hijack, here are some cites:
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3psy/index_files/04-05/PSY398/Wallace_uncon%20fear.pdf
"The odor from the fur of cats has been used as an unconditioned, ecologically fear stimulus for rats (eg R. J. Blanchard & Blanchard 1989, Zangrossi & File 1992… There are other predator odors… that elicit avoidance responses similar to those seen with presentation of a cat or cat odors"
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:AHnEZF9XEQoJ:www.neurodome.psc.br/pbupl/PUBLIC/cue_%2520and_conditioning_of_defensive_behavior.pdf+rattus+predator+avoidance+odor
Abstract
*Exposure of rats to a cat odor block in a previously familiarized situation was followed by three extinction days to the same or a different
situation, and with or without an identical but odor-free block, and, testing in the original apparatus with an odor-free block (cue). Initial
exposure produced risk assessment (stretch attend), avoidance of the block, and crouch/freeze with snif®ng/head movements. Avoidance
continued during extinction, but context-only exposed rats showed predominantly crouch/freeze with sniff/head movements, while rats
exposed to the context 1 cue showed higher levels of stretch attend. During the test day, rats exposed to the cue during extinction showed
reduced defensive responding compared to those not extinguished with the cue, but context extinction had less effect, possibly due in part to
initial familiarization with the situation.These data indicate that both cue and context conditioning to cat odor did occur, and that the type of
conditioned stimulus (context-only vs. context 1 cue) in¯uenced the type of defensive behaviors elicited by this stimulus, although the all
animals received the same conditioning protocol. Particular behaviors disappeared at different rates during extinction, with avoidance the
most persistent. However, in this context there was no incentive for approach behaviors inconsistent with avoidance, and stretch attend
behaviors could and did occur while subjects were located far from the block or the area in which it had been encountered. In addition,
immobile crouch/freeze did not occur at higher than control levels, while the crouch/freeze activities that did increase incorporated sensory
sampling in a relevant modality (snif®ng/head movements). Thus, the behaviors seen to the conditioned stimulus appeared to re¯ect
combinations of different defense strategies, appropriate to the type of conditioned stimulus and responsive to its extinction. Differences
between these data and those from studies using fecal predator odorants suggest that the latter may not elicit a complete range of conditioned
defenses. q 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Cat odor; Predator odor; Rat; Defense; Defensive behavior; Risk assessment; Crouch; Freeze; Sniff; Aversive conditioning
*
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:agm1Vi8LyNEJ:www.neurodome.psc.br/pbupl/PUBLIC/Conditioning_and_residual_emotionality_effects_of_predator_stimuli.pdf+rattus+predator+avoidance+odor+Blanchard+1989
Abstract
*The advantages of using predator-related odor stimuli to study emotional responses in laboratory tests depend on whether such stimuli do
elicit a relatively complete pattern of emotionality. This has been confirmed for cat fur/skin odor stimuli, which elicit a range of defensive
behaviors in rats that may be reduced by anxiolytic drugs, produce residual anxiety-like behavior in the elevated plus maze and support rapid
aversive conditioning to the context in which they were encountered. Although the synthetic fox fecal odor, trimethylthiazoline (TMT), elicits
avoidance similar to that seen in response to cat fur/skin odor, this avoidance does not respond to anxiolytic drugs. In addition, TMT does not
produce residual anxiety-like behaviors in the elevated plus maze, nor does it support conditioning.
As natural cat feces also elicit avoidance but fail to support conditioning, it is possible that the ability of a predator-related odor to serve as
an effective unconditioned stimulus (US) relates to its predictive status with reference to the actual presence of the predator. Avoidance per se
may reflect that a stimulus is aversive but not necessarily capable of eliciting an emotional response. *
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t2w7774hg2662mg8/
“Abstract We evaluated eight synthetic predator odors and mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) feces for eliciting avoidance responses and/or reduced feeding by wild captured Hawaiian roof rats (Rattus rattus). In a bioassay arena, we recorded: (1) time until each rat entered the arena, (2) time elapsed until first eating bout, (3) time spent in each half of the arena, (4) number of eating bouts, and (5) consumption. Rats displayed a response to the predator odors in terms of increased elapsed time before initial arena entry and initial eating bout, a lower number of eating bouts, and less food consumption than in the respective control groups. The odor that produced the greatest differences in response relative to the control group was 3,3-dimethyl-1,2-dithiolane [from red fox (Vulpes vulpes) feces and mustelid anal scent gland]. Mongoose fecal odor produced different responses in four of the five variables measured while (E,Z)-2,4,5-trimethyl-Delta3-thiazoIine (red fox feces) and 4-mercapto-4-methylpentan-2-one (red fox urine and feces) odors were different from the control group in three of the five variables measured. These laboratory responses suggest that wild Hawaiian roof rats avoid predator odors.”
I don’t get why you are questioning why a very smart prey animal would avoid an area with a predator in comparison to areas without predators?
Duck Duck Goose "
But not if the rats in Sanders’ house are there because there’s a population explosion across the way at the farm and the dairy, and they’re only in Sanders’ house because there’s nowhere else for them to go, i.e. they’re exploring new territory out of necessity. Sure, they’d probably prefer to be in a nice warm dairy full of spilled grain, but it’s possible the dairy is full-up." Yes, population pressure will cause rats to migrate, but they can live pretty damn cheek-by-jowl, and if a dairy or a farm had that many rats, it’d be very very obvious and very very closed down. Now another more likely reason is that the Dairy is using very effective control methods.
I was in charge of the Lab Rats at both my colleges, ran experiments with them ect. One was a maze expeiment, where some used cat litter was placed on the rats usual routes. Those rats very clearly exibited “avoidance” behavior.