Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching PDF 2020

Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching Fourth edition © 2020. Published by the American Dairy Science Association®, the American Society of Animal Science, and the Poultry Science Association. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons...

Guide for the Care of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching Fourth edition © 2020. Published by the American Science, and the Poultry Science Association. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). American Dairy Science Association® American 1800 South Oak Street, Suite 100 PO Box 7410 Champaign, IL 61820 Champaign, IL 61826 www.adsa.org www.asas.org ISBN: 978-0-9634491-5-3 (PDF) ISBN: 978-0-9634491-4-6 (ePub) Committees to revise the Animals in Research Senior Editorial Committee Cassandra B. Tucker, University of California Michael D. MacNeil, Delta G (representing the A. Bruce Webster, University of Georgia (representing Ag Chapter 1: Institutional Policies Ken Anderson, North Carolina State University, Chair Deana Jones, ARS USDA Gretchen Hill, Michigan State University James Murray, University of California Davis Chapter 2: Agricultural Animal Health Care Frank F. Bartol, Auburn University, Chair Johann Coetzee, Kansas State University Cia Johnson, American Veterinary Medical Association Wendy Underwood, American Veterinary Medical Association Michael Martin, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Chapter 3: Husbandry, Housing, and Biosecurity Darrin Karcher, Purdue University, Chair Marcia Endres, University of Minnesota Rick Grant, William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Frank Mitloehner, University of California Davis Mark Estienne, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Ken Koelkebeck, University of Illinois Chapter 4: Environmental Enrichment Janeen Salak-Johnson, Oklahoma State University, Chair Donald C. Lay Jr., ARS USDA Kathryn Proudfoot, The Ohio State University Emily Miller-Cushon, University of Florida Maja Makagon, University of California Davis Marisa Erasmus, Purdue University Chapter 5: Animal Handling and Transport Temple Grandin, Colorado State University, Chair Casey W. Ritz, University of Georgia Derek Haley, University of Guelph Yi Liang, University of Arkansas Chapter 6: Beef Cattle Joel S. Caton, North Dakota State University Michael Galyean, Texas Tech University Ron Lemenager, Purdue University Greg Lardy, North Dakota State University Michael Looper, University of Arkansas Clinton Krehbiel, University of Nebraska Steven Zinn, University of Connecticut Chapter 12: Egg-Type Poultry Ken Koelkebeck, University of Illinois, Chair Ken Anderson, North Carolina State University Karen Schwean-Lardner, University of Saskatchewan Craig Coufal, Texas A&M University Janice Siegford, Michigan State University A. Bruce Webster, University of Georgia Heng-wei Cheng, ARS USDA/Purdue University Committees to revise the Animals in Research John McGlone, PhD, Co-Chair Steven Ford, PhD Frank Mitloehner, PhD Temple Grandin, PhD Pamela Ruegg, DVM Carolyn Stull, PhD Gregory Lewis, PhD Michael Galyean, Institutional Policies Stephen Ford, PhD, Chair James Swearengen, DVM Don Lay, PhD W. Ronald Butler, PhD Frank Bartol, PhD Agricultural Animal Health Care Wendy Underwood, DVM, Chair Michele Bailey, DVM Steven Berry, DVM Gail Golab, PhD, DVM Husbandry, Housing, and Biosecurity Frank Mitloehner, PhD, Chair James Swearengen, DVM Curt Gooch, PE Pius Mwangi Ndewga, PhD Larry Jacobson, PhD Environmental Enrichment Joy Mench, PhD, Chair Ruth Newberry, PhD Suzanne Millman, PhD Cassandra Tucker, PhD Larry Katz, PhD Animal Handling and Transport Temple Grandin, PhD, Chair Joseph Stookey, PhD Mhairi Sutherland, PhD A. Bruce Webster, PhD Carolyn Stull, PhD Jeffrey Hill, PhD Beef Cattle Terry Mader, PhD, Chair Allen Trenkle, PhD James W. Oltjen, PhD Tami Brown-Brandl, PhD John Arthington, PhD Larry Hollis, DVM Scott Willard, PhD Committees to revise the Guide Animals in Agricultural Research Stanley Curtis, FASFAS liaison Guide Joy Margaret Katherine Leslie William Beef Horses Neal R. Merchen, Chair Katherine A. Houpt, Chair G. LeRoy Hahn Harold F. Hintz William G. Kvasnicka Sandi Lieb Michael L. Galyean James A. DeShazer David P. Hutcheson K. Douglas Butler Janice C. Swanson Stephen G. Jackson Thomas Tobin Dairy Cattle and Veal Jack L. Albright, Chair Poultry Ruth Blauwiekel James V. Craig, Chair Kenneth E. Olson Gerald B. Haventsein William G. Bickert Karl E. Nestor James L. Morrill Jr. Paul B. Siegel Carolyn L. Stull William F. Dean Kenneth K. Kruger Graham Garrett Committees for the Guide for the Care and Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, Steering Committee Joy A. Mench, Chair Alden Booren Glenn Gray Kirklyn Kerr David L. Zartman Jack L. Albright Leslie L. Christianson Virgil Hays Alvin Melliere Guide Development Committee Stanley E. Curtis, Chair Jack L. Albright Harold W. Gonyou John J. McGlone James V. Craig Katherine A. Houpt W. Ray Stricklin Table of Contents PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE CHAPTER 3: HUSBANDRY, HOUSING, AND BIOSECURITY CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT CHAPTER 5: ANIMAL HANDLING AND TRANSPORT CHAPTER 6: BEEF CATTLE CHAPTER 7: DAIRY CATTLE CHAPTER 8: HORSES CHAPTER 9: SWINE CHAPTER 10: DOMESTIC SHEEP AND GOATS CHAPTER 11: MEAT-TYPE POULTRY CHAPTER 12: EGG-TYPE POULTRY CHAPTER 13: WATERFOWL APPENDIX I U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization Used in Testing, Research, and Training INDEX viii ix This is the fourth edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, commonly known as the Ag Guide. This edition builds upon and replaces previous versions of the Ag Guide published in 1988, 1999, and 2010. The Ag Guide is published jointly by the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), and the Poultry Science Association (PSA). The Ag Guide comprises subject-oriented chapters covering subjects that per- tain to all the agricultural animal species (chapters 1 to 5) and species chapters, which fall under the pur- view of the respective association(s) dedicated to the species (chapters 6 to 13). Each association appoint- ed a senior editor to steer the revision of their respec- tive species chapters and to collaborate with the se- nior editors from the other associations to guide the writing and revision of the subject-oriented chapters. Committees charged with the writing and revi- sion of the species-specific chapters were recruited by the respective professional associations devoted to the species. In addition, up to two individuals identified by each association were selected for each of the subject-oriented chapter committees, which thus comprised representatives from the three as- sociations. The individuals recruited were scientists, veterinarians, or engineers with expertise in the spe- cies or subjects covered in their respective chapters. Each chapter committee selected a chairperson from its membership to coordinate revisions and interact with the senior editors. The chapter committees searched the scientific lit- erature to include new research published since the third edition of the Ag Guide. The Ag Guide senior editors reviewed the chapters before accepting final drafts. Each society was responsible for the peer re- view of the respective species-specific chapters, with reviewers drawn from peers and the society boards of directors. The boards of directors of each asso- ciation reviewed and approved final drafts of the general chapters, as well as their respective species chapters. After these approvals, the chapters were compiled into the first draft of the fourth edition of and long practice, other animal care practices do not lend themselves to prescriptive stipulation. It is essential that IACUCs and others who oversee ani- mal care practices exercise professional judgment to encourage appropriate animal welfare outcomes to be achieved, rather than merely seeking to apply specific housing and management requirements. An overly prescriptive approach to animal care and use can stifle research progress and teaching opportuni- ties. The US Government Principles for the Utiliza- CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Ani- mals in Research and Teaching (the Ag Guide) strongly affirms that scientific and professional judgment and concern for the humane treatment of animals are re- quired for the proper care of animals used in and teaching. Scientists, veterinarians, and others must assume responsibility for animal welfare and uphold the rigor and integrity of agricultural animal and instruction. The use of animals for research and teaching, including production research, is governed by numerous federal and local laws, regulations, and stan- dards. In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 1990) and Title 9 Part 1A of the Code of Federal Regulations (USDA, 1985) apply, whereas in Europe, the European Convention for the Protection of Verte- brate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scien- tific Purposes (ETS123; Council of Europe, 1986) and subsequent amendments apply (Directive 2010/63/EU; European Union, 2010). A repository of international animal research regulations is available (AAALAC, 2018). Compliance with these laws, regulations, poli- cies, and standards (or subsequent revised versions) in the establishment and implementation of an animal care program must be met. Other countries have also developed laws and guidelines for the use of animals in research, with many continuing to evolve (Odgen et al., 2016). Because a variety of management systems and physical accommodations may be used for agricultural animals, an understanding of the husbandry needs of each species and of the particular requirements of agri- cultural research and teaching is essential for an effec- tive institutional program of agricultural animal care and use (Stricklin and Mench, 1994; Granstrom, 2003). Critical components of such a program should include (1) clearly established lines of authority and respon- sibility; (2) an active and knowledgeable institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC); (3) proce- dures for self-monitoring of the IACUC through regu- lar (e.g., semi-annual) review of programs and facility oversight by the institutional officer; (4) appropriately maintained facilities for proper management, hous- ing, and support of animals; (5) an adequate program of veterinary care; and (6) training and occupational health programs for individuals who work with the animals (Curtis, 1994; Tillman, 1994; ARENA-OLAW, CHAPTER research or teaching activities at the institution; and other members as required by institutional needs and applicable laws, regulations, policies, and granting or research funding agencies or groups. Because of experience and training, one individual may be able to fulfill more than a single role on but the committee should not have fewer than 5 mem- bers. This committee may also monitor the care and use of laboratory animals at the institution, provided that the special membership requirements outlined above are met. This recommendation can be fulfilled by several different types of committee structures, in- cluding a single institutional committee or unit com- mittees (e.g., departmental, college, or program) that review agricultural and biomedical research that uses agricultural animals. The overriding goal should be to facilitate a centralized, uniform, and high-quality sight of the institution’s animal care program. The IACUC should meet at regular intervals to en- sure that the use of agricultural animals in research and teaching programs is humane, appropriate, and in ac- cordance with this guide. Meetings of the IACUC need not always be conducted in person. Electronic tech- nology, including web-based or telecommunications, can allow the committee to function appropriately. Such communications must be held with a quorum of members in real time and provide the same interactive opportunities as a face-to-face meeting. The IACUC should work with investigators to resolve issues while ensuring animal care, taking into account the investiga- tors’ expertise with a particular species. The IACUC is authorized to review and approve or disapprove protocols and other proposed activities, or propose signiﬁcant changes in activities, related to agricultural ani- mal care and use in research and teaching; conduct, at minimum, semi-annual inspection of active agricultural animal facilities and study ar- eas, review the overall agricultural animal care and use program, and provide a written report to the responsible institutional official regarding the institution’s compliance with this guide (including expected dates of correction for detected issues and minority views of the IACUC, should they occur); investigate reports of noncompliance or animal care concerns involving agricultural animals at the facility; suspend activities involving agricultural animals when not in compliance with approved proto- cols or written operating procedures (see section: Written Operating Procedures); make recommendations regarding the develop- ment and implementation of institutional policies and procedures to facilitate, support, and moni- Appropriateness of procedures and post-procedur- al care. Criteria and process for timely intervention, re- moval of animals from a study, or euthanasia if painful and stressful outcomes are anticipated (endpoint criteria). Unusual husbandry requirements (Note: describ- ing a procedure as a “standard farm operating practice” may be acceptable if the institution’s written operating procedure is being used or if the practice is needed to serve as an appropriate control). Aspects of animal husbandry not covered under written operating procedures (see section on Writ- ten Operating Procedures). Method of euthanasia and disposition of the ani- mal. Responsibilities, training, and qualiﬁcations of the researchers, teachers, students, and animal care personnel involved in the proposed activities. The US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (Appendix 1 of this guide) state that “Procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of their relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowl- edge, or the good of society” (Vemulapalli et al., 2017). Because IACUCs are NOT constituted to function as scientific peer-review committees, the IACUC should be judicious in reviewing the merit of proposed research and teaching activities (Mann and Prentice, 2004). In- stitutions should consider developing other mechanisms for peer merit review of research projects that have not already been reviewed by outside agencies. Although qualified peer review of research and teaching tant to consider, such peer review does not eliminate the need for the IACUC to thoughtfully review animal use. Institutions must develop policies for animal care and use related to research conducted off site as well as research using privately owned animals on and off site. The fact that research is conducted off site does not lessen the responsibility of the institution to assure ap- propriate and humane animal care and use. Investigators are encouraged to work with IACUCs for assistance in refining their protocols and proposed animal care and use practices. The common acceptance and use in animal agricul- ture of a production system, management practice, or routine procedure does not reduce the responsibility of every animal user to follow applicable laws, regula- tions, and policies, including the standards outlined in this guide. Exceptions to some provisions in this guide, however, may be justifiable to obtain new knowledge or to demonstrate methods commonly used in commercial agricultural animal production. For example, applied PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that scientists, agricultural animal care staff, students, and other individuals who care for or use agricultural animals are qualified to do so through training or ex- perience. Appropriate supervision should be provided with training programs appropriate for animal user needs and information about the humane care and use of agricultural animals, including, if applicable, (1) husbandry needs, proper handling, surgical procedures, and pre- and post-procedural care; (2) methods to min- imize the number of animals used and techniques to minimize pain and distress, including the proper use of anesthetics, analgesics, tranquilizers, and nonphar- macologic methods; (3) methods for reporting deficien- cies in the animal care program; (4) use of information services such as the Animal Welfare Information Cen- ter at the National Agricultural Library (NRC, 1991; USDA-APHIS, 2018); and (5) methods of euthanasia. Records of participation in training programs should be maintained and available for review as needed. Employees who provide routine animal care should participate regularly in in-service education and train- ing relevant to their responsibilities. Formal or on-the- job training opportunities should be made available to all technical and husbandry support staff, including those who are temporary or part-time employees. It is recommended that the training program include in- formation provided by experts from a broad range of disciplines such as animal husbandry, behavior, nutri- tion, environmental physiology, experimental surgery, veterinary clinical and diagnostic medicine, agricultural engineering, instrumentation, and others as deemed ap- propriate. A variety of reference materials is available for use in training programs (Kreger, 1995; Underwood, 2005). In addition to having in-house training, it is desir- able for agricultural animal care staff to be profession- ally trained or certified. Many states have colleges with accredited programs in veterinary technology (AVMA, 2007). Technician and technologist certification is avail- able through the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS; https://www.aalas.org/), although that program primarily emphasizes the care and use of laboratory animals rather than agricultural animals. Animal scientists with educational credentials ranging from the baccalaureate to the doctorate degree who seek recognition of their expertise in the biology and production of agricultural animals can be certi- fied through examination by the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists (ARPAS; https://www. arpas.org/). OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH An occupational health and safety program must be established for individuals who work with agricultural animals. The program should be consistent with fed- CHAPTER Zoonoses can also be a serious risk. Personnel (in- cluding animal care staff, technicians, investigators, clinicians, students, maintenance workers, and securi- ty staff) who have contact with or an opportunity for contact with animals, their waste products, or tissues should be made aware of identified hazards (Acha and Szyfres, 2001, 2003; Fontes, 2008). Zoonotic disease in animal populations should be screened for or monitored regularly as appropriate. Information pertaining to the most common zoonotic diseases found in agricultural animals and the means by which they are spread can be found in the Merck Veterinary Manual (https://www. merckvetmanual.com/). The noise level in some animal facilities may be high. When personnel are exposed to noise exceeding local, state, or federal standards, appropriate protection pro- grams must be implemented (USDL OSHA, 1995). Work assignments and health records should be a part of an occupational health program. Occupational health program records are maintained under HIPAA guidelines and requirements. Records should be kept of individual work assignments and should include the date and time of injuries or unusual illnesses. Supervisors must inform personnel of potential health hazards, and personnel must notify their supervisor if a zoonosis occurs. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Hazardous Materials The use of hazardous biological, chemical, or physical materials necessitates compliance with applicable laws and regulations, as well as compliance with guidelines issued by granting agencies and organizations. Insti- tutions should have written policies governing experi- mentation with hazardous materials and should ensure that staff members associated with research projects involving hazardous materials are qualified to assess the dangers to animals and humans and are capable of selecting appropriate safeguards. Special facilities and equipment may be required for certain hazardous ma- terials, and additional requirements exist for those bio- logical materials or toxins deemed as select agents by federal law. Further information about recommended practices and procedures can be found in publications by CDC-NIH (2000, 2007), CDC-FSAP (2005), and NRC (2011). Genetically Engineered, Gene Edited, and Cloned Animals As advancements in research drive the discovery and development of new technologies, consideration needs to be made for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. Institutions, researchers, and IACUCs should assure that assessment of animal care and use protocols reflects differences in animal tech- nologies (Dennis, 2000; Wells, 2005). Guidelines for re- in the United States, and, by the European Parliament in Europe. Specific information for US institutions can be obtained by reviewing the NIH guidelines for re- search involving recombinant DNA molecules (NIH, 2002), the Animal Welfare Act regulations overseen by USDA, and the US FDA Guidance 187 for industry that may be helpful in the conduct of research with GE animals (FDA, 2009). FDA Guidance 187 does not address GEd animals and is currently in revision, so at this time there are no regulations specifically in force that address GEd animal use, care, or welfare. Research Involving Cloning of Agricultural Animals Animal cloning (Vajta and Gjerris, 2006) is an as- sisted reproductive technology (FDA, 2008) similar to artificial insemination, embryo transfer, and in vitro fertilization. The current technique used for animal cloning is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). are no published US guidelines for unique requirements regarding the care and use of animal clones in research. The care and use of animal clones does not differ from that required for the animal from which the genotype is sourced. In addition, because the progeny clones are not clones, progeny do not require special consideration. Disposition of GE Animals and Clones The disposition of GE animals and clones may be of interest to animal agriculture, stakeholders in the food chain, and the US government (FDA) because of issues involving the emergence of new policies by internation- al governments (Codex Alimentarius, 2008). Thus, it is recommended that institutions and researchers partici- pate in the Livestock Industry Clone Registry, whereby animal clones are registered in the database or registry. This registry is part of the Supply Chain Management program developed by livestock cloning companies to identify cattle and porcine clones in the United States. For more information about the registry, please see https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/ restrictions-on-gmos.pdf. REFERENCES AAALAC. 2018. International regulations and resources. AAALAC International. https://www.aaalac.org/resources/international- regs.cfm. Acha, P. N., and B. Szyfres. 2001. Zoonoses and Communicable Dis- eases Common to Man and Animals. 3rd ed. Vol. I: Bacteriosis and Mycoses. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC. Acha, P. N., and B. Szyfres. 2003. Zoonoses and Communicable Diseases Common to Man and Animals. 3rd ed. Vol. II: Chla- mydioses, Rickettsioses and Viroses; Vol. American Health Organization, Washington, DC. ARENA-OLAW (Applied Research Ethics National Association-Of- fice of Laboratory Animal Welfare). 2002. Dennis, M. B. 2000. Humane endpoints for genetically engineered animal models. ILAR J. 41:94–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ilar.41.2.94. Dennis, M. B. 2002. Welfare issues of genetically ILAR J. 43:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.2.100. European Food Safety Authority. 2012. Update on the state of play of animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from SCNT closing and their offspring, and food safety of products obtained from those animals. EFSA J. 10:2794. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2794. European Union. 2010. EU Directive 2010/63/EU of the Europe- an Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific bourg, 22.10.2010 (Directive 2010/63/EU). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:2010:276:0033:0079:EN:PDF. FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2008. Animal Cloning— A Risk Assessment. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055489.htm. FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2009. Guidance for In- dustry 187 Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Con- taining Heritable Recombinant DNA Products. https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/16/E9-862/guidance- for-industry-on-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-animals- containing-heritable. Fontes, B. 2008. Institutional responsibilities in contamination control for research animals and in occupational health and safety for animal handlers. ILAR J. 49:326–337. org/10.1093/ilar.49.3.326. Granstrom, D. E. 2003. Agricultural (nonbiomedical) animal re- search outside the laboratory: A review tutional animal care and use committees. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.44.3.206. Greene, M. E., M. E. Pitts, and M. L. James. gies for institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) members and the institutional official 142. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.48.2.131. Kerst, J. 2003. An ergonomics process for the care and use of re- search animals. ILAR J. 44:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ilar.44.1.3. Kirkhorn, S. R., and V. F. Garry. 2000. Agricultural Environ. Health Perspect. 108(Suppl. 4):705–712. Kreger, M. D. 1995. Training materials for animal AWIC Quick Bibliography Series, 95–08. Beltsville, MD. Kues, W. A., and H. Niemann. 2011. Advances in farm animal trans- genesis. Prev. Vet. Med. 102:146–156. prevetmed.2011.04.009. Laible, G. 2009. Enhancing livestock through genetic engineer- ing—Recent advances and future prospects. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32:123–137. https://do cimid.2007.11.012. Mann, M. D., and E. D. Prentice. 2004. Should IACUC review sci- entific merit of animal research projects? Lab. Anim. (NY) 33:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0104-26. Murray, J. D., and E. A. Maga. 2016. Genetically engineered live- stock for agriculture: A generation after mal research conference. Transgenic Res. doi.org/10.1007/s11248-016-9927-7. Niemann, H., and C. Wrenzycki, ed. 2018. Animal Biotechnology 2. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland. NIH (National Institutes for Health). 2002. search Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. National In- stitutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/ rac/guidelines_02/NIH_Guidelines_Apr_02.htm. NIH (National Institutes for Health). 2015. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. NIH Publication No. 15-8013. Office of Laboratory National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Wald, P. H., and G. M. Stave. 2003. Occupational medicine pro- grams for animal research facilities. ILAR doi.org/10.1093/ilar.44.1.57. Wells, D. N. 2005. Animal cloning: Problems Sci. Tech. 24:251–264. https://doi.org/10.20506 CHAPTER 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL Agricultural animal health care involves proper man- agement and husbandry as well as veterinary care. Proper management is essential for the well-being of animals, the validity and effectiveness of research and teaching activities, and the health and safety of animal care personnel. Sound animal husbandry programs pro- vide systems of care that permit animals to grow, ma- ture, reproduce, express some species-specific behavior, and be healthy. Specific operating procedures depend on factors that are unique to individual institutions. Well-trained and motivated personnel can often achieve high-quality animal care with less than ideal physical facilities and equipment. ANIMAL PROCUREMENT When an institution acquires new animals, atten- tion must be paid to applicable international, federal, and state regulations and institutional procedures, par- ticularly those dealing with transportation and animal health. All animals must be obtained and transported legally. The program or attending veterinarian, in con- junction with the principal scientist, should formulate written procedures to assess the health status of a herd or flock obtained from a vendor before acquiring ani- mals. The institution should develop a mechanism and process of control for animal acquisition that ensures coordination of resources that will preclude the arrival of animals in advance of preparation of adequate hous- ing, nutrition, and appropriate veterinary quarantine procedures. Quality control for vendors and knowledge of the history of purchased animals is part of an ad- equate institutional veterinary care program. Animals of unknown origin or from stockyards should only be used if necessary; such animals may pose significant unknown health risks compared with animals of known origin, and therefore should be handled appropriately. Newly acquired animals should undergo a quarantine and acclimation period for preventive and clinical treat- ments as appropriate for their species health status. ACCLIMATION AND STABILIZATION Newly arrived animals require a period of acclima- tion. Acclimation refers to a stabilization period before CHAPTER diseases and parasites as appropriate to protect their health and maintain the health of animals in the home facility. In addition to having adequate quarantine pro- cedures, research facilities and animal use protocols should be designed to minimize the risk of introducing or transmitting disease agents. VETERINARY CARE Attending or Program Veterinarian An institution using agricultural animals in research or teaching should have an official with the and authority to manage an institutional animal care program. The housing, feeding, and nonmedical care of such animals should be directed by a veterinarian or scientist trained and experienced in the proper care, handling, and use of each species of agricultural animal used. A qualified veterinarian must be responsible for the agricultural animal health care program. This per- son may be designated the attending or program vet- erinarian. Although this model may not be mandated for every institution, it is the position of the Ag Guide that every institution should have a model like it. The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR)/Na- tional Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (The ILAR Guide; NRC, 2011) de- fines the attending veterinarian as a veterinarian “with sufficient authority, including access to all animals and resources, to manage the program of animal care.” The attending or program veterinarian is a resource who can give research personnel advice that ensures that humane needs of animals are met and that is, to the ex- tent possible, compatible with scientific requirements. Animal Welfare Act regulations and Public Health Service policy (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015) require that the veterinarian this role have the authority to oversee other aspects of animal care and use, including animal husbandry and nutrition, sanitation practices, zoonosis control, and hazard containment. Research and teaching institutions should provide investigators and instructors with access to a veteri- narian who has experience in the care of agricultural animals. The veterinarian can be full-time, part-time, or a private practitioner and should have capability to ensure that the provisions of the program are met. This program veterinarian should be provided access to all research and teaching animals and to any related docu- ments including health care records. The program vet- erinarian should also be involved in development and oversight of the veterinary care program. This includes providing oversight of all aspects of animal care and use such as protocol review, establishment of anesthetic and analgesic guidelines, development of study removal criteria, and responsible conduct of research activities. Veterinary involvement in these activities helps to en- sure animal health and welfare. The program veterinar- CHAPTER animals are potential sources of infection and should be disposed of promptly by a commercial rendering service or other appropriate means (e.g., burial, composting, or incineration), following applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. Postmortem examination of fresh or well-preserved animals may provide impor- tant animal health information and research data, and can aid in preventing further losses. When warranted and appropriate, waste and bedding removed from a site once occupied by a dead animal should be made inaccessible to other animals and the site disinfected appropriately. Medical Records An important component of an agricultural animal health program is maintaining records that can to monitor animal health events, both physical havioral, as well as outcomes and levels of production. Medical records should comply with the American Col- lege of Laboratory Animal Medicine (www.aclam.org) statement on medical records (Field et al., 2007). Group health records may be appropriate for animals that are kept as cohorts (e.g., in a colony, school, flock, herd, or room), particularly because the animals under- go daily observation or evaluation by trained individu- als. The institution, in cooperation with the program veterinarian, should determine the method(s) by which medical records are maintained. Oversight of medical records is the responsibility of the principal investiga- tor, the program veterinarian, and the IACUC. When institutional representatives determine that a medical record should be created, the record typically contains the following information: 1. Identiﬁcation of the animal(s) or group(s); 2. Observational information, such as the behavior, results of physical examinations such as weight, and observed abnormalities, or injuries; 3. Immunizations and other prophylactic treat- ments and procedures; 4. Documentation and interpretation of diagnostic tests when required; 5. Documentation of interventions by the research- er; 6. Treatments prescribed and administered; 7. Clinical response and follow-up information; 8. Descriptions of surgical procedures, anesthesia analgesia, and perioperative care; 9. Methods used to control pain and distress; 10. Documentation of resolution; 11. Documentation of euthanasia or other disposi- tion; and 12. Necropsy ﬁndings if necropsy is indicated. The record system must be structured so that mation is easily collected, gathered, analyzed, summa- rized, and available to the veterinarian, the principal CHAPTER ing, and tail docking, should be conducted with the use of pain management protocols appropriate for the age and species of animal involved. Details of these pro- cedures are provided in the species-specific chapters. The program veterinarian should advise investigators about the choice and use of analgesics, anesthetics, or any other pain- or distress-relieving measure. include recommended times for withholding of food and water to minimize the risk of adverse events such as vomiting or aspiration after anesthesia. After being trained and subsequently supervised by a qualified sci- entist or veterinarian, technical personnel may admin- ister anesthetics and analgesics as part of a research or teaching protocol. If a painful or distressing experimental procedure must be conducted without the use of an anesthetic or analgesic because such use would prevent collection of useful data, this must be scientifically documented in the animal care and use protocol and approved by the IACUC. In such cases, appropriately validated pain as- sessment methods should be used in conjunction with analgesic protocols (rescue analgesia) to manage pain and ensure that animal distress and suffering are mini- mized (Coetzee, 2011). Paralytic drugs (e.g., succinylcholine and other cu- rariform drugs) are not anesthetics. They must not be used unless animals are in a surgical plane of anesthesia and thus are unconscious. Use of paralytic agents must be justified in the animal use protocol, and appropriate ventilation and monitoring for depth of anesthesia must be described. Sedatives and tranquilizers are psychotropic sub- stances that alter mental processes or behavior but do not produce anesthesia or, in most cases, long-lasting analgesia (Coetzee, 2011). However, these medications can reduce the dose of anesthetic required. When used alone, tranquilizers should only be used to allay fear and anxiety. Their use may render restraint less stress- ful and enable animals to adapt more easily to novel situations. However, these compounds may not provide long-lasting pain relief, especially when pain ated with tissue damage and inflammation. Surgery Personnel Inappropriately performed surgical techniques or inadequate postoperative care will result in unneces- sary pain and distress. Experimental surgery on ag- ricultural animals should be performed or supervised by an experienced veterinarian or their designee, or by research scientists who are trained, highly skilled, and experienced in performing experimental surgery, in ac- cordance with established protocols approved by an IACUC. Researchers should seek input from a veteri- narian experienced in basic surgical techniques for the subject species when establishing surgical protocols to be approved by an IACUC. Institutions should provide basic surgical training and opportunities to upgrade CHAPTER in the normal range during postsurgical recovery; and Trained personnel for postsurgical observation to help ensure a safe recovery. Postsurgical observa- tion should be provided until the animal is fully recovered from anesthesia, ambulatory, and able to return safely to its original housing location. Signs of Pain and Distress Pain is an aversive feeling or sensation associated with actual or potential tissue damage resulting in physiological, neuroendocrine, and behavioral changes that indicate animal distress. Although pain and dis- tress in animals can often be detected by an experi- enced observer, these conditions are sometimes unap- parent, especially in stoic animals. When unanticipated pain or distress are detected, animal-care attendants or research staff should take immediate ameliorative ac- tion as necessary and contact the program veterinarian. Pain can be one of the earliest signs of disease or in- jury. Animals in pain may become less active, reduce feed consumption, grind their teeth, vocalize, or appear frightened and agitated. Animals in pain may resis and Use Dairy Science Association®, the American Society of Animal This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. Society of Animal Science Poultry Science Association 4114C Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 www.poultryscience.org 978-1-7362930-0-3 (PDF) ISBN: 978-0-9649811-2-6 (PDF) 978-1-7362930-1-0 (ePub) 978-0-9649811-3-3 (ePub) Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural and Teaching, 4th edition (2020) Davis (representing the American Dairy Science Association®) American Society of Animal Science) the Poultry Science Association) Guide 4th edition authors Chapter 7: Dairy Cattle Cassandra Tucker, University of California Davis, Chair Nigel Cook, University of Wisconsin–Madison Marina von Keyserlingk, University of British Columbia Peter Krawczel, University of Tennessee Chapter 8: Horses Sarah A. Reed, University of Connecticut Donald C. Lay Jr., ARS USDA Timothy B. Lescun, Purdue University Chapter 9: Swine Gretchen Hill, Michigan State University Donald C. Lay Jr., ARS USDA Scott Radcliffe, Purdue University Brian Richert, Purdue University Chapter 10: Sheep and Goats Michael L. Thonney, Cornell University Daniel F. Waldron, Texas A&M University (retired) Gosia Zobel, AgResearch, New Zealand Michael D. MacNeil, Delta G Poultry Science Association Editorial Committee (poultry species chapters) A. Bruce Webster, University of Georgia Ken Anderson, North Carolina State University Karen Christensen, Tyson Foods Ken Koelkebeck, University of Illinois Chapter 11: Meat-Type Poultry Colin Scanes, University of Arkansas, Chair Kate Barger-Weathers, Cobb-Vantress Inc. Dave Hermes, Purdue University Bill Dozier, Auburn University Karen Christensen, Tyson Foods Inc. Anne-Marie Neeteson, Aviagen Inc. Aaron Kiess, Mississippi State University Continued Chapter 13: Waterfowl Greg Fraley, Purdue University, Chair Mike Lilburn, The Ohio State University Mamduh Sifri, Sifri Solutions LLC Xixi Chen, Maple Leaf Farms Inc. Darrin Karcher, Purdue University Maja Makagon, University of California Davis Pat Wakenell, Purdue University Susan Fraley, Purdue University Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural and Teaching, 3rd edition (2010) Writing Committee Janice Swanson, PhD, Co-Chair Wendy Underwood, DVM Joy Mench, PhD Terry Mader, PhD Susan Eicher, PhD Patricia Hester, PhD Janeen Salak-Johnson, PhD PhD, Liaison to the FASS Board Subcommittees Dairy Cattle Pamela Ruegg, DVM, and Susan Eicher, PhD, Co-Chairs Bill Bickert, PhD Randy Shaver, PhD Nigel Cook, BS, MRCVS Paul Fricke, PhD Sheila McGuirk, PhD, DVM Doug Reinemann, PhD Horses Carolyn Stull, PhD, Chair Anne Rodiek, PhD Robert Coleman, PhD Sarah Ralston, VMD, PhD Donald Topliff, PhD Suzanne Millman, PhD Poultry Patricia Hester, PhD, Chair Ken Anderson, PhD Inma Estevez, PhD Ken Koelkebeck, PhD Sally Noll, PhD Robert Porter, PhD, DVM Carl Mike Turk, BS Bruce Webster, PhD Sheep and Goats Gregory Lewis, PhD, Chair William Gavin, DVM Arthur L. Goetsch, PhD J. Bret Taylor, PhD Michael Thonney, PhD Swine Janeen Salak-Johnson, PhD, Chair Joe Cassady, PhD Matthew B. Wheeler, PhD Anna Johnson, PhD for the Care and Use of Agricultural and Teaching, 1st revised edition (1999) to the steering and development committee Revision Committee A. Mench, Chair E. Benson James V. Craig A. Houpt John J. McGlone Jack L. Albright L. Christianson Adele P. Douglass G. Kvasnicka Neal R. Merchen Subcommittees Sheep and Goats Margaret E. Benson, Chair Frank C. Hinds Carl S. Menzies Cindy B. Wolf Dexter W. Johnson Larry S. Katz Christine S. F. Williams Swine John J. McGlone, Chair J. Joe Ford Paul L. Sundberg Leslie L. Christianson E. T. Kornegay Lisa Tokach H. Purchase L. Van Wicklen Use of Agricultural 1st edition (1988) x 1 9 17 30 54 76 92 113 127 141 156 177 199 and Care of Vertebrate Animals 208 209 PREFACE the Ag Guide. All chapters were updated, revised, or rewritten, with the extent of revision of any given chapter determined by progress in the academic lit- erature pertaining to subjects covered in the chapter. Three new poultry chapters were written, covering meat-type poultry, egg-type poultry, and waterfowl to reflect the diversity of species, phenotypes, and uses among avian agricultural animals, replacing the single chapter on poultry in the third edition of the Ag Guide. The board-approved first draft of the Ag Guide was made available to the membership of ADSA, ASAS, and PSA, institutional animal care and use commit- tees (IACUCs), and other users of the Ag Guide, and to the public for a 75-day period of comment. After all submitted comments had been considered, the 4th edition of the Ag Guide was produced and made available on the ADSA, ASAS, and PSA websites. The Ag Guide covers agricultural animal species having different phenotypes within species and that are housed in assorted management systems across widely varying climates. The content must be suf- ficiently broad to cover the diverse research and teaching institutions that use agricultural animals, yet be clear enough to give unambiguous guidance to IACUCs responsible for the care and use of ani- mals in their respective institutions. The terms must, should, and recommend, which were introduced in the third edition of the Ag Guide, have been clarified in this edition to mean the following when used in reference to a specific animal care and use practice: Must indicates that the animal care and use must be as stated; should indicates that the animal care and use ought to be as indicated unless otherwise justi- fied; recommend indicates an appropriate way of do- ing things but leaves room for other approaches that achieve the same result. The Ag Guide is not intended to be simply a set of provisions on how agricultural animals are to be housed and managed. Although many of the spe- cies chapters have standards for such things as floor space, feeder space, and drinker allocations because these metrics have been verified by scientific study x PREFACE xi tion and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (1985; Appendix 1) are en- dorsed in this guide as a basis for professional judg- ments about the appropriate treatment and use of ag- ricultural animals in research and teaching activities. Senior Editors: Cassandra B. Tucker (ADSA); Michael D. MacNeil (ASAS); A. Bruce Webster (PSA) Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 POLICIES 2002; CIOMS-ICLAS, 2012). This chapter is intended to guide the development of institutional policies and programs for agricultural animal care and use. research MONITORING THE CARE AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS research Each institution should establish an agricultural ani- mal care and use program with clearly designated lines of authority in accordance with this guide and in com- pliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies. The chief executive officer, in- stitutional official, or responsible administrative official of the institution should appoint a committee (known as the institutional animal care and use committee or IACUC) to monitor the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching activities within the institution. The IACUC should be composed of individuals who are qualified by experience or train- ing to evaluate the programs and proposals for agricul- tural animal research and should include individuals from each of the following categories: a scientist who has experience in agricultural re- search or teaching involving agricultural animals; an animal, dairy, or poultry scientist who has training and experience in the management of ag- ricultural animals; a veterinarian who has training and experience in agricultural animal medicine and who is licensed or eligible to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine; a person whose primary concerns are in an area outside of science (e.g., a faculty member from a non-science department, a staff member, a stu- dent, or an institutional administrator); a person who is not affiliated with the institution and who is not a family member of an individual affiliated with the institution (e.g., a member of the clergy or a community member). This public member is intended to provide representation for general community interests in the proper care and treatment of animals and should not be a per- son who uses animals in agricultural or biomedical 1 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 2 tor the humane and appropriate use of animals in agricultural research and teaching, as well as any other aspect of the agricultural animal care program; and perform other functions that may be required by institutional need and by applicable laws, regula- tions, and policies. the IACUC, Other useful information about IACUC functions and training can be found in Prentice et al. (1992), the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guide- book (ARENA-OLAW, 2002), the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH, 2015), Animal Welfare Act information reposi- tory (USDA, 2018), Oki et al. (1996), Silverman et al. (2006), and Greene et al. (2007). PROTOCOL REVIEW over- The review of research and teaching activities using animals is one of the most important functions of the IACUC. Animal use protocol(s) (AUP) describing these activities must be reviewed before the initiation of the research or teaching activity to determine whether the proposed care and use of animals is appropriate and hu- mane. Approval of the AUP may be granted, withheld pending modifications, or denied. The IACUC should perform an annual review and renewal of approved AUP with resubmission and re-approval at least once every 3 years. The IACUC may choose to re-review an AUP at any time as deemed necessary. The following topics should be considered in the preparation and re- view of animal care protocols: Objectives and signiﬁcance of the research or teaching activity. Unnecessary duplication of previous studies. Availability or appropriateness of alternative pro- cedures or models (e.g., less invasive procedures, cell or tissue culture, or computer simulations) for the proposed research or teaching activity. It should be noted, however, that hands-on training involving animals is an important component of agricultural research and teaching (Vemulapalli et al., 2017); additionally, there is no substitute of another animal or simulation for production re- search. Aspects of the proposed experiment or demon- stration having to do directly with animal care and use, including justiﬁcation for the species and strain of animal used; justiﬁcation for the number of animals used; description of procedures that may cause discomfort, distress, or pain; and meth- ods of alleviating discomfort, distress, or pain in- cluding anesthesia, analgesia, tranquilizers, and nonpharmacologic means, as well as justiﬁcation for any procedures that involve unalleviated pain, discomfort, or distress. Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 3 research and teaching may require the use of produc- tion practices that are consistent with those currently in use in the appropriate industry, even though such practices differ from those outlined in this guide. Also, research and teaching dealing with infectious diseases, toxins, or products of biotechnology may require spe- cial facilities. Exceptions to this guide should be stated explicitly in the AUP and be reviewed and approved by the IACUC. WRITTEN OPERATING PROCEDURES It is important to develop written animal care and husbandry policies and procedures for each unit in the program. Some husbandry practices may cause tempo- rary discomfort or pain. The IACUC must review and approve all operating procedures that have the poten- tial to cause pain or distress in animal care and hus- bandry. These procedures would then be available for reference in the AUP without having to be described separately for each study, experiment, or demonstra- tion. To be acceptable as written operating procedures, the procedures should sustain the long-term welfare of the animal and the animal handlers, be performed by or under the direct supervision of proficient person- nel, and be conducted with precautions taken to re- duce pain, stress, and infection. The written procedures must be filed in the appropriate administrative office and in locations accessible to individuals involved in carrying out these procedures. Husbandry procedures and production methods at agricultural research facilities should be revised as changes occur in the industry and when research dem- onstrates improvements. is impor- ANIMAL HEALTH CARE Adequate health care and records must be main- tained for all agricultural animals used in research and teaching (see Chapter 2: Agricultural Animal Health Care). Institutional requirements will determine wheth- er full-time, part-time, or consulting veterinary services are appropriate. All euthanasia methods utilized should follow American Veterinary Medical Association guide- lines (AVMA, 2020) or be thoroughly considered by the IACUC before granting approval to ensure the animal incurs no undue pain or stress. BIOSECURITY It is essential that the agricultural animal care staff, researchers, students, and other associated individuals maintain a high standard of biosecurity to protect the animals from pathogenic organisms. For additional de- tails on biosecurity issues, see Chapter 3: Husbandry, Housing, and Biosecurity. Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 4 eral, state, and local regulations and will depend on the facilities, research activities, and hazards involved. The degree of participation by individuals in the program should be based on an assessment of risk by health and safety specialists involving consideration of the hazards posed by the animals and materials used; the duration, frequency, and intensity of exposure; the susceptibility of the personnel; and the history of occupational injury and illness in the particular workplace (Clark, 1993; Kerst, 2003; Wald and Stave, 2003). General guidelines for occupational health programs have been published by the National Research Coun- cil (NRC, 2011). The program for individuals working with agricultural animals may include a physical exam- ination before job placement, periodic medical evalua- tions for people in identified job categories, assessments of the workspaces to ensure protection from health haz- ards, and provision for treating illness or injury. The program should also include an educational component to teach personnel about agricultural animal and zoo- notic disease, physical hazards, and personal hygiene. Special precautions may be necessary for individuals who are at unusual risk (e.g., immunocompromised, having a temporary or long-term physical limitation, or pregnant). Additional training may be necessary if cer- tain chemicals, radiation, and other hazardous agents are part of an experimental protocol. It is important that all researchers, students, agri- cultural animal caretakers, and others be immunized against tetanus every 10 years based on the institu- tion’s risk assessment. Prophylactic vaccinations should also be considered when research is being conducted on infectious diseases for which effective vaccines are available. Persons working with animals may develop allergies. The occupational safety and health program should identify high-risk areas with a potential for al- lergy development. Persons with known allergies should be provided personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce or eliminate allergen exposure or avoid expo- sure to animals. Physical injuries constitute health haz- ards for individuals working with animals. Institutions should identify high-risk areas and tasks and should ed- ucate animal care personnel about methods for reduc- ing risk. Injuries can be minimized by providing train- ing in proper animal handling, lifting, and equipment use. Access to first aid and medical treatment should be readily available, and personnel should be trained and familiar with access procedures. Such access may include readily available and properly stocked first aid kits. Cases of animal bites and scratches should be documented and appropriate medical care provided as needed. Air quality assessments are recommended for animal care areas, and appropriate respiratory protec- tion should be provided for these individuals (OSHA, 2011). Caretakers working with agricultural animals in closed buildings should be afforded the option to use respirators or dust masks because they may develop respiratory problems, including chronic and irreversible lung damage (Kirkhorn and Garry, 2000). Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 5 search involving genetically engineered (GE) and gene edited (GEd) animals do not differ materially from those that apply to conventional animals used in re- search except under special conditions. The published scientific literature has not established the need for unique guidelines. The general standards of care associ- ated with GE or GEd agricultural animals should be the same as those applied to all agricultural animals in research unless the genetic modification requires altera- tion in management or environment to maintain animal welfare (Dennis, 2002). Clones of livestock animals that are not GE or GEd do not differ materially from non- clones and require no special considerations (Batchel- der et al., 2007). The animal biotechnology industry has guidelines for research and development with GE animals as a stewardship program (BIO, 2009). The BIO Guidance provides information for the development and imple- mentation of stewardship programs for all institutions and researchers that plan to engage in research and de- velopment, and possible commercialization, of GE ani- mals. The European Food Safety Authority (2012) has published an update on the welfare and environmental impact of food animals derived from cloning. Research Involving Genetic Engineering and Gene Editing of Agricultural Animals Genetic engineering of agricultural animals is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes, includ- ing heritable and nonheritable recombinant DNA constructs. Gene editing is the use of programmable nucleases such as TALENs (transcription activator- like effector nucleases) or the CRISPR/Cas 9 system that allows for the specific site-directed induction of a double-stranded DNA break, which can result in a tar- geted mutation (GEd) or insertion of a transgene (GE) (Petersen, 2018). Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, in which the organism’s genes are manipulated indirectly. The genetic engineering of ag- ricultural animals has been extensively reviewed (NRC, 2002; CAST, 2003, 2007, 2009; Wheeler, 2007; Laible, 2009; Kues and Niemann, 2011; Tan et al., 2012; Mur- ray and Maga, 2016), with the recent book by Nie- mann and Wrenzycki (2018) being a useful reference. For animals used in biomedical research, the needs for thermal comfort, humidity control, floor space, and ap- propriate nutrition and husbandry practices should be based on the standards outlined in this guide. Animals with certain genetic backgrounds may have special re- quirements that should be researched and documented to enable those responsible for animal care to be able to provide for the animals’ comfort. Animal welfare for GE animals used in research is regulated by law in some jurisdictions, with regulations and guidelines es- tablished, for example, by the US Department of Agri- culture (USDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 6 Care and Use Committee Guidebook. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. https://grants.nih.gov/ grants/olaw/guidebook.pdf. AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 2007. Veteri- nary technician information available online. Page iii in 2007 AVMA Membership Directory and Resource Manual. AVMA, Schaumburg, IL. AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 2020. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 edition. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/2020_Eu- thanasia_Final_1-15-20.pdf. AWA (Animal Welfare Act). 1990. Animal Welfare Act. PL (Public Law) 89–544. Accessed January 14, 2010. www.nal.usda.gov/ awic/legislat/awa.htm. Batchelder, C. A., M. Bertolini, J. B. Mason, A. L. Moyer, K. A. Hoffert, S. G. Petkov, T. R. Famula, J. Angelos, L. W. George, and G. B. Anderson. 2007. Perinatal physiology in cloned and normal calves: Hematologic and biochemical profiles. Cloning Stem Cells 9:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1089/clo.2006.0038. BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization). 2009. BIO Guidance for Genetically Engineered Animal Stewardship. BIO, Wash- ington, DC. https://www.bio.org/articles/bio-guidance-geneti- cally-engineered-animal-stewardship. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2003. Ani- There mal Agriculture’s Future Through Biotechnology, Part 1, Bio- technology in Animal Agriculture: An Overview. Issue Paper 23. CAST, Ames, Iowa. http://www.cast-science.org/ websit- eUploads/publicationPDFs/animalbiotech.pdf. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2007. The Role of Transgenic Livestock in the Treatment of Human of animal Disease. Issue Paper 35. CAST, Ames, IA. http://www.cast- science.org/websiteUploads/publicationPDFs/Medications_Is- sue_Paper_35_final_pdf142.pdf. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2009. Animal Productivity and Genetic Diversity: Cloned and Trans- genic Animals. Issue Paper 43. CAST, Ames, IA. http://www. castscience.org/websiteUploads/publicationPDFs/CAST%20 Animal%20Productivity165.pdf. CDC-FSAP (Centers for Disease Control-Federal Select Agent Pro- gram). 2005. Possession, Use, and Transfer of Biological Agents and Toxins. 7 CFR, Part 331 and 9 CFR, Part 121. https:// www.selectagents.gov/selectagentsandtoxinslist.html. CDC-NIH (Centers for Disease Control-National Institutes of Health). 2000. Primary Containment for Biohazards: Selection, Installation, and Use of Biological Safety Cabinets. 2nd ed. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. CDC-NIH (Centers for Disease Control-National Institutes of Health). 2007. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 5th ed. Department of Health and Human Ser- vices, US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. CIOMS-ICLAS (Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences-International Council for Laboratory Animal Science). 2012. International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals. https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ Guiding_Principles_2012.pdf. Clark, J. M. 1993. Planning for safety: Biological and chemical haz- ards. Lab. Anim. 22:33–38. Codex Alimentarius. 2008. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant DNA Animals. CAC/GL68-2008. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/down- load/standards/11023/CXG_068e.pdf. Council of Europe. 1986. European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes. Strasbourg, 18.III.1986 (ETS123). Text amended ac- cording to the provisions of the Protocol (ETS No. 170) as of its entry into force on 2 December 2005. https://www.coe.int/en/ III: Parasitoses. Pan web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/123. Curtis, S. E. 1994. Commentary: Farm animal use in biomedical sci- ence—Melding the guidelines. ILAR J. 36:35–39. https://doi. Institutional Animal org/10.1093/ilar.36.2.35. Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 7 Human Services, Bethesda, MD. https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/de- fault/files/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf. NRC (National Research Council). 1991. Education and Training in modified animals. the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: A Guide for Develop- ing Institutional Programs. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Animal Biotech- nology: Science-Based Concerns. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/openbook. php?isbn=0309084393&page=R1. NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th ed. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ purposes. Stras- Guide-for-the-Care-and-Use-of-Laboratory-Animals.pdf. Off. J. L276:33–79. Ogden, B. E., W. Pang, T. Agui, and B. H. Lee. 2016. Laboratory animal laws, regulations, guidelines and standards in China mainland, Japan, and Korea. ILAR J. 57:301–311. https://doi. org/10.1093/ilar/ilw018. Oki, G. S., E. D. Prentice, N. L. Garnett, D. F. Schwindaman, and C. Y. Wigglesworth. 1996. Model for performing institutional animal care and use committee: Continuing review of animal research. Contemp. Top. Lab. Anim. Sci. 35:53–56. OSHA. 2011. Indoor air quality in commercial and institutional build- ings. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 3430-04 2011. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/3430indoor- air-quality-sm.pdf. Petersen, B. 2018. Chapter 7: DNA nucleases and their use in live- stock production. Pages 123–148 in Animal Biotechnology 2. H. https://doi. Niemann and C. Wrenzycki, ed. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92348-2_7. Prentice, E. D., D. A. Crouse, and M. D. Mann. 1992. Scientific mer- of guidelines for insti- it review: The role of the IACUC. Ilar News 34:15–19. https:// ILAR J. 44:206–210. doi.org/10.1093/ilar.34.1-2.15. Silverman, M. A., J. Suckow, and S. Murphy, ed. 2006. The IACUC 2007. Training strate- Handbook. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Stricklin, W. R., and J. A. Mench. 1994. Oversight of the use of ag- (IO). ILAR J. 48:131– ricultural animals in university teaching and research. Ilar News 36:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.36.1.9. Tan, W. S., D. F. Carlson, M. W. Walton, S. C. Fahrenkrug, and P. B. Hackett. 2012. Precision editing of large animal genomes. Adv. Genet. 80:37–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- lung diseases. 404742-6.00002-8. Tillman, P. 1994. Integrating agricultural and biomedical research facility personnel. policies: Conflicts and opportunities. ILAR J. 36:29–35. https:// Natl. Agric. Library, doi.org/10.1093/ilar.36.2.29. Underwood, W. J. 2005. Training for best practices for agricultural program. Lab. Anim. (NY) 34:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j. laban0905-29. USDA. 1985. 9CFR1.A: Animal Welfare. Accessed Nov. 4, 2017. https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/final-rules-animal-welfare- 9-cfr-parts-1-2-and-3 USDA. 2018. Animal Welfare Act. Na- i.org/10.1016/j. tional Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-wel- fare-act. USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2018. 9 CFR part 1A: Animal Welfare. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/text-idx?SID=b1cbc38fc683272a198ead296c4acfd0&mc=tr the first transgenic ani- ue&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title09/9CIsubchapA.tpl. 25:321–327. https:// USDL OSHA (US Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1995. 29CFR§1910.95: Occupational noise exposure. USDL-OSHA, Washington, DC. https://www. ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f74cc9e1b9e9cb4bfcf8ec8234810 NIH Guidelines for Re- 531&mc=true&node=se29.5.1910_195&rgn=div8. Vajta, G., and M. Gjerris. 2006. Science and technology of farm ani- mal cloning: State of the art. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 92:211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2005.12.001. Vemulapalli, T. H., S. S. Donkin, T. B. Lescun, P. A. O’Neil, and P. A. Zollner. 2017. Considerations when writing and reviewing Animal Welfare, a higher education teaching protocol involving animals. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 56:500–508. Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES 8 Wheeler, M. B. 2007. Agricultural applications for transgen- J. 44:57–71. https:// ic livestock. Trends Biotechnol. 25:204–210. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.03.006. and prospects. Rev. /rst.24.1.1566. Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 HEALTH CARE animal use, which permits physiological and behavioral adaptation to the new environment. The veterinarian or their veterinary designee should establish general acclimation guidelines for each species. Any modifica- tions to the general program should be discussed with the attending veterinarian before animals are shipped. In some cases, animals may require an extended ac- climation period because of their history or health status. However, some studies, such as comparisons of metaphylactic treatments for bovine respiratory disease post-shipment, need to begin as soon as animals arrive. Such exemptions from the acclimation period must be scientifically justified and approved by the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). QUARANTINE Quarantine is the separation of newly received ani- mals from those already in the facility or on the premises until the health of the new animals has been evaluated and found to be acceptable. The program veterinar- ian should ensure that quarantine facilities or locations are appropriate and that quarantine procedures are consistent with current veterinary practices and ap- plicable regulations. The quarantine period should be long enough to observe signs of infectious disease or obtain diagnostic evidence of infection status. Quaran- tine and testing of animals before introduction is espe- cially important for herds or flocks that have attained specific-pathogen-free status, but addition of animals should be discouraged in specific-pathogen-free herds or flocks. If the health history of newly received animals is unknown, the quarantine program should be more comprehensive and sufficiently long to allow expression or detection of diseases present in the early incubation stage. Exceptions to quarantine practices should be ap- proved by the attending veterinarian or their veterinary designee in advance of shipment of the animals. The program veterinarian, or skilled personnel un- der the direction of the program veterinarian, should perform an initial examination and subsequent daily observations of newly received animals. Animals should be observed in quarantine until they are cleared for in- troduction into a herd or facility. During the quarantine period, animals should be vaccinated and treated for 9 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE 10 ian is not required to be the sole provider of veterinary care and can delegate authority to other qualified indi- viduals. However, the program veterinarian should be responsible for the veterinary care of all animals and should have frequent and direct communications with others providing care. The program veterinarian should utilize the expertise of other professionals when making determinations about agricultural animal care. Trained non-veterinary staff and study personnel listed on the approved IACUC protocol may administer treatments according to standard operating procedures approved by the program veterinarian. credentials Preventive Medicine Adequate agricultural animal health care in research and teaching involves a written and implemented pro- gram for disease prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and endpoint resolution. The objectives of such a program are to ensure animal health and wel- fare, minimize pain and distress, utilize animal pro- duction practices, prevent zoonosis, assist investigators on study-related animal health issues, and avoid con- taminants or residues in animal products. The program should include training for animal users regarding ani- mal behavior, production practices, humane and appro- priate restraint for the species involved, anesthesia, an- algesia, surgical and postsurgical care, and euthanasia. A mechanism for direct, frequent, and regular com- munication must be established among personnel who are responsible for daily animal care and observation, animal users, and the program veterinarian. This will help ensure that timely and accurate animal health in- formation is effectively communicated. Sick, Injured, and Dead Animals serving in Animal care personnel must be trained to recognize signs of illness and injury. When appropriate, sick and injured animals should be segregated from the main group to protect them and the other animals, observed at least once daily, and provided with veterinary care as appropriate. When animals are separated, a mechanism should be in place to communicate to staff the status of the animals and to ensure proper daily, weekend, holiday, and emergency care. In some circumstances, segregation is not feasible or may disrupt the social hierarchy, cause additional stress to the animal, or ad- versely affect research. The advantages of segregation should be weighed against its disadvantages, especially for mild illnesses or injuries that can be easily managed. Care should be taken to minimize spread of pathogens from ill animals to healthy animals by observing ap- propriate biocontainment measures. Incurably ill or in- jured animals with unrelievable pain or distress should be killed in the most humane way as soon as possible by trained personnel. Unexpected deaths should be report- ed to the attending veterinarian or their designee. Dead Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE 11 scientist, and the IACUC. The ACLAM statement on Medical Records for Animals Used in Research Teaching and Testing (Field et al., 2007) suggests that “Nota- tions in the medical record should be made by individu- als who have administered treatments, or made direct observations or evaluations of the animal(s) or their di- agnostic results, or their designee. Individuals typically responsible for making notations in the record include veterinary staff (veterinarians or veterinary techni- cians), animal husbandry staff (animal care staff, man- agers, supervisors), and research staff (e.g., principal investigators, study directors or research technicians). All entries in the record should be dated, indicate the originator of the entry (e.g., initials, signature, and electronic signature) and be legible to someone other than the writer.” be used and be- SURGERY Multiple Major Surgical Procedures The ILAR Guide (NRC, 2011) differentiates major from minor surgery as follows: “major survival surgery (e.g. laparotomy, thoracotomy, joint replacement, and limb amputation) penetrates and exposes the body cav- ity, and may produce substantial impairment of physi- cal or physiologic functions, or may involve extensive tissue dissection or transection. Minor survival surgery does not expose a body cavity, causes little or no physi- cal impairment and would include suturing, peripheral vessel cannulation, and percutaneous biopsy, routine agricultural animal procedures such as castration, and most procedures routinely done on an ‘outpatient’ ba- sis in veterinary clinical practice.” Minimally invasive surgery such as laparoscopy may benefit the animal relative to traditional surgical techniques. animal’s Performance of more than one major survival surgery on a single animal is discouraged but may be necessary illnesses, to ensure or maintain the health of the animal. Long- lived animals may undergo multiple major surgeries, such as a cow that requires surgery for correction of displaced abomasum and cesarean section for thera- peutic purposes. Multiple major survival surgeries per- formed for nontherapeutic reasons should be performed only when justified, as reviewed and approved by the IACUC. Multiple major surgeries that produce minor physiologic or physical impairment and reduce overall animal use, such as multiple endoscopic laparotomies in , sheep for reproductive purposes, may be appropriate. Likewise, multiple surgical procedures may be justified when they are related components of the same project (e.g., cannulation of the digestive tract at several loca- tions). Anesthesia and Analgesia infor- Painful animal husbandry-related procedures (stan- dard agricultural practices), such as castration, dehorn- Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE 12 surgical skills for persons who will conduct or assist with experimental surgery. The training program must be reviewed by the IACUC and under the direction of the program veterinarian or their designee. Training provided must be documented and the competency of personnel ensured. This may Surgical Facilities and Aseptic Technique Major survival surgeries should be performed in fa- cilities designed and prepared to accommodate sur- gery whenever possible, and appropriate aseptic surgi- cal procedures should be used. Good surgical practice includes the use of surgical caps, masks, gowns, and sterile gloves, as well as aseptic surgical site prepara- tion and draping. Sterile instruments must be used. Manufacturers’ recommendations must be followed for chemical sterilants. For non-survival surgeries, during which the animal is euthanized before recovery from anesthesia, it may not be necessary to follow all aseptic techniques, but the instruments and surrounding area should be clean. Minor surgical procedures that do not penetrate a body cavity or produce substantial impairment (e.g., wound suturing, peripheral-vessel cannulation, certain standard agricultural practices) may be performed un- der less stringent conditions in accordance with stan- dard agricultural practices (Brown et al., 1993). Therapeutic and emergency surgeries (e.g., caesarean section, treatment of bloat, repair of displaced aboma- sum) may sometimes need to be performed in agricul- tural settings that are not conducive to rigid asepsis. However, every effort should be made to conduct such surgeries in a sanitary or aseptic manner and to use an- esthetics or analgesics commensurate with the risks to the animal’s well-being. Research protocols that carry a high likelihood of the need for emergency surgery should contain provisions for handling anticipated cas- es. Surgical packs and equipment for such events should be prepared and readily available for emergency use. is associ- Postsurgical Care Appropriate facilities should be available for animals that are recovering from general anesthesia and major surgery. The following are recommended: Segregation from other animals until recovery from anesthesia; Clean and sanitary recovery area; Adequate space, with consideration for physical comfort and well-being of the animal, in a place suitable for recovery from anesthesia without in- jury (e.g., a room or stall with protective covering on floors and walls); Environmental controls sufficient to ensure main- tenance of environmental temperature within the thermoneutral zone and animal temperature with- Ag Guide, 4th ed. 2020 2: AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE 13 ZOONOSES Zoonotic diseases are defined as infectious diseases in animals that can be transmitted to humans, who, in turn, may transmit the infectious agent to another ani- mal. Information pertaining to zoonotic diseases can be found online in the Merck Veterinary Manual (https:// www.merckvetmanual.com/). A current list and inci- dence of notifiable diseases, such as Q-fever (Coxiella burnetii), may be obtained from the US Centers for Dis- ease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/). The program veterinarian, working in collaboration with scientists or instructors of record, should estab- lish appropriate preventive medicine programs and hus- bandry practices to decrease the likelihood of transmis- sion of potential zoonotic agents. Each institution must have an appropriate occupational health and safety program for evaluating human health risks associated with animal contact and must take steps to ensure that health risks for each individual are assessed and man- aged at an acceptable level. restless, RESIDUE AVOIDANCE

Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching PDF 2020

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue