Bedding is an important part of a degu’s enclosure. It absorbs moisture, separates animals from soiled surfaces and provides opportunities to dig, forage and arrange nesting material. Material that is excessively dusty, abrasive, damp or unsafe to chew may cause problems. In the wild, degus use dry vegetation and twigs in their resting areas; captive housing should likewise provide comfortable, manipulable material.
What bedding does
Absorbent bedding helps control urine and moisture. Prolonged contact with dirty, wet or abrasive surfaces can damage the feet and other skin areas. Research on rabbit pododermatitis illustrates the importance of substrate, but is not direct evidence that one particular product prevents foot disease in degus.1 Dust and airborne irritants should also be minimised. Preference studies in rats and mice provide useful comparative information, rather than a direct test of respiratory infection in degus.2
Digging, nest building and searching for scattered food also provide occupation. Studies have examined bedding effects on laboratory-rat behaviour and the physical properties of cattle bedding; these findings do not demonstrate the same long-term cognitive effects in degus.34 In practice, choose a comfortable material that supports normal behaviour and can be kept clean.2
Cleaning and moisture control
No bedding removes the need for cleaning. Absorbency, bacterial growth, ammonia and ventilation interact, and results from dairy-cattle bedding cannot establish a universal bactericidal ranking for degu products.5 Remove wet bedding, food waste and heavily soiled material daily; check nests and food stores. A more thorough clean is generally needed weekly, with the interval adjusted to enclosure size, bedding depth and condition. Deep substrates may permit partial replacement, but must still be checked for damp or mouldy areas.10
Wash suitable surfaces with water and an appropriate cleaning product, then rinse and dry them thoroughly. Follow the product instructions and keep animals away during cleaning. The previously cited black-soap survey concerned human cosmetic use and does not establish that every household black-soap product is safe for degus.6 Vinegar may help remove some mineral deposits, but is not a substitute for an appropriate cleaning or disinfection procedure. Mixing vinegar and bicarbonate produces foam while neutralising much of the acid and alkali; the foam itself does not establish superior cleaning or disinfection.
Where suitable, retain a little clean, dry used nesting material to preserve familiar scent after a full clean.10 Some plant-based bedding can be composted, subject to the product instructions and local waste rules.
Comparing bedding materials
Assess the actual product, including dust, absorbency, texture, additives and how your animals interact with it. A plant name alone does not guarantee that a product is pesticide-free, dust-free or safe.
Flax bedding
Flax can provide an absorbent, manipulable substrate. Choose a clean, low-dust product suitable for small mammals. Long particles can contribute to digging and nesting, although rat and mouse preference studies should not be treated as a degu-specific product endorsement.2 Flax may cause allergy in some people, so monitor reactions.
Hemp bedding
Hemp and flax are different bedding materials. Suitable hemp bedding can absorb moisture and provide material for digging and nest building.2 Processing and agricultural treatments vary, so check the product rather than assuming that hemp is always untreated. Human allergies are possible. Hemp mats may cover shelves, but should be removed if animals pull off and swallow substantial fibres or pieces.
Cotton-based products
Some cotton-based bedding products are absorbent and soft, but a rabbit study does not establish that cotton is the best treatment for degu pododermatitis or guarantees negligible ammonia.1 Distinguish processed bedding from cotton wool or fluffy nesting material that separates into long, thin strands. Such strands may entangle animals and are unsuitable for swallowing; rodent-welfare guidance warns against these products.11 Consider ingestion and choking risks when choosing any nesting material. Do not use a product simply because it is labelled natural.
Paper-pulp bedding
Unscented, low-dust paper-pulp products can be absorbent and useful for nesting. Their ability to support stable tunnels varies; some work better as part of a suitable mixture than alone.
Plant-based cat litter
These products may absorb urine well and clump for easier removal, but are not an ideal general floor covering for degus. Pellets or granules may be hard underfoot, wet clumps still need prompt removal, and products that clump or swell when swallowed are inappropriate for animals that chew them. The original article discussed use in a collection tray inaccessible to the animals, rather than as a surface they must walk on. A tray arrangement should not leave degus standing on wire flooring.
Miscanthus
Miscanthus is also used as horse bedding. It may provide absorbent plant particles for digging, depending on processing and dust content.
Pelleted plant materials
The original heading referred to straw pellets, while its photograph and caption showed corn pellets. These are different materials and should be checked individually. Hard pellets are not ideal as the sole walking surface; absorbency and odour control vary. Do not use a product that the animals ingest in quantities likely to cause digestive problems.
Materials requiring particular caution
Birch or beech
Coarse hardwood chips may be poorly absorbent compared with other prepared substrates. Assess particle size, dust and moisture retention rather than assuming that all birch or beech products perform identically.
Straw
Whole straw is generally a poor sole absorbent substrate. Wet or soiled straw must be removed promptly; if eaten, it also exposes the animal to contamination. Some clean straw may form part of nesting or burrow-support material where appropriate.
Hay
Degus should eat clean hay, and hay-filled nesting areas are recommended in degu-welfare guidance. It should not be relied on as the sole urine-absorbing floor material. Remove damp or dirty hay promptly to prevent deterioration and consumption of soiled forage.10
Mineral cat litter
Mineral and clumping cat litters are inappropriate for a degu substrate, particularly where they may be swallowed. Use material intended for small-mammal housing instead.
Wood shavings
Wood shavings are not a single uniform product. Species, processing, heat treatment, dust and particle size matter. Avoid dusty or strongly aromatic products. A rat study found adverse skin and stress effects when perlite was used alone; it does not establish a safe degu bedding protocol.12 Comparative studies in rats, mice and poultry cannot justify declaring every wood shaving toxic or every product harmless.27 Degu-welfare guidance permits suitable non-toxic shavings, so a blanket rejection is too broad.10
Red cedar
Avoid aromatic cedar bedding. Adverse effects, including high pup mortality, have been reported in a rat study; this supports caution but should not be expanded into an experimentally established claim about every animal species.8
Scented products
Choose unscented bedding. Added fragrances may irritate animals and interfere with familiar enclosure odours. Research on early olfactory experience in degus does not demonstrate that they universally avoid every artificial scent.9
Foraging toppers
Some products sold as bedding toppers contain a mixture of natural materials intended for investigation and foraging. They are enrichment rather than a substitute for an absorbent substrate. A homemade version is also possible, provided every component is identified, clean and safe for degus. See the enrichment guide for further ideas.
Sources
Wolf, P., Speers, R. & Cappai, M. G. (2020). Influence of different types of bedding material on the prevalence of pododermatitis in rabbits. Research in Veterinary Science, 129, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.12.004
Blom, H. J. M., et al. (1996). Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Laboratory Animals, 30(3), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367796780684890
Abbasnejad, M., et al. (2020). The effects of bedding materials on learning and memory performance and texture preference in rats. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.22067/veterinary.v12i1.86943
Ferraz, P. F. P., et al. (2020). Properties of conventional and alternative bedding materials for dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(9), 8661-8674. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18318
Hogan, J. S., et al. (1990). Bacterial counts associated with recycled newspaper bedding. J Dairy Sci, 73(7), 1756-1761. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(90)78853-4
Lin, A., Nabatian, A., & Halverstam, C. P. (2017). Discovering black soap: A survey on the attitudes and practices of black soap users. Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, 10(7), 18–22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5605219/
Atencio, J. L., et al. (2010). Effect of Pine Wood Shavings, Rice Hulls and River Bed Sand on Broiler Productivity When Used as a Litter Sources. International Journal of Poultry Science, 9(3), 240-243. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2010.240.243
Burkhart, C. A. & Robinson, J. L. (1978). High rat pup mortality attributed to the use of cedar-wood shavings as bedding. Lab Anim, 12(4), 221-222. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367778781088558
Natalia Márquez, et al. (2015). Early Olfactory Environment Influences Social Behaviour in Adult Octodon degus. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118018. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118018
RSPCA (n.d.). Creating a good home for degus. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/rodents/degus/environment
RSPCA (n.d.). Creating a good home for chinchillas. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/rodents/chinchillas/environment
Yıldırım, F., et al. (2017). Evaluation of perlite, wood shavings and corncobs for bedding material in rats. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 88, a1492. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v88i0.1492