Animal Welfare and Aquaculture Research

                        12 February  2004     

        

Executive Summary

 

            Animal welfare is not only ethically important, but it is vital to good science and in practical husbandry applications. Governmental guidelines and regulations ensure proper care and treatment of animals during the conduct of research and commercial production. Agency oversight is related to funding source, practice, animal type, and organizational structure.  Whether animal use involves biomedical or agricultural research, animal well-being is a high priority and includes providing an appropriate environment or habitat, food, health care and minimizing of stress. Animals are indispensable in both biomedical and basic research, and they are an important protein source for human nutrition; fishes provide the most efficiently produced and healthy animal protein for industrial nations as well as in developing countries.

 

Introduction

 

            The use of animals in research and teaching or for food is receiving increasing scrutiny. The significant and indispensable role that animals have had in medical advancements through research cannot be overemphasized. No less important is the extent that human nutrition depends on animals, including fishes, as a primary source of protein. Historically, capture fisheries have been the primary source of aquatic products, but in recent decades, exploitation has exceeded the sustainable yield for most species; increasingly aquaculture is filling this deficit, and the support of research and teaching are vital.  Little common ground will likely be found with animal rights advocates who oppose the use of animals, whether in research or as food.  The perspective of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that “… animals are not ours to eat….”, is not a position that invites cooperation.  The use of animals for food or in research and teaching for agricultural or biomedical purposes is not in conflict with the priorities of the vast majority of the worlds’ peoples.  However, humane treatment and proper care of animals in these contexts have ethical considerations as well as having practical scientific rationale. The scientific community appreciates the importance of proper care and humane treatment of animals.

            Animal research is the focus of this document, animal welfare in aquaculture production is not specifically addressed. Schwedler and Johnson (1999/2000) provide an in-depth discussion of fish culture production and health issues relative to animal welfare. Regenstein (1992) covers processing and marketing of cultured fish.  For a comprehensive source on fish welfare, including various aspects of fish culture, consult Erickson (2003).

 

Background

 

The supply of aquatic products from capture fisheries stagnated during the last decade of the 20th century despite substantially increased fishing effort; 75% of the stocks are either depleted, or have been over- or fully exploited  (Tidwell and Allan 2001).  Fish are significant in global food security, providing about 15% of animal protein (FAO 2002). Currently one-third of the world fish supply comes from aquaculture, which is the most rapidly growing component of all animal husbandry. Fish are also increasingly one of the most important vertebrate groups in genetic research.

 

Relative to food supply at the beginning of the present millennium, an estimated eight-hundred million people in developing countries are chronically undernourished (FAO 2002) and six million children under the age of five die from starvation annually.  Food deficiencies may relate to insufficient calorific intake or from improper nutritional balance.  Protein intake is vital, and animal sources are important.  To meet local needs, aquaculture can provide an inexpensive, accessible, and efficiently produced animal protein supply at the subsistence level (New 2003). About 20% of the total global foodfish in 2001 were produced in aquaculture, which supplied about 80% of the production in low-income food deficit countries, but only 9% in industrial countries. Food supply is one aspect, but economics is also an important consideration. Some feel that income generation in developing countries is more important than food, but not all agree that small-scale aquaculture is the most effective route for poverty alleviation.  However, emphasizing food production over poverty reduction, seems to be an intuitively logical prioritization. 

 

  Animal-based research has been vital to the significant advances in science in general, and biomedical developments specifically (Grieder and Strandberg 2003).  The use of cats and dogs in research diminished during the decade of the 90’s, while the use of rodent models increased.  In the UK, 84% of animals used in research are rats and mice (NCB 2003). Further, non-mammalian models such as those based on zebrafish, frogs and fruit flies are increasingly being used. In Canada, fish make up about 23% of all research animals (CCAC 1999), while the majority of animals used for research in the U.S. are rats and mice. The relative importance of fishes in research, also varies between industrial and lesser developed countries (LDC). Practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure or control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals. Almost all of the scientific advances in medicine have been made using animal models from laboratory trials; human life expectancy has increased by over 20 years largely because of animal research.  Further, life expectancy of dogs and cats is more than 3-5 years longer because of vaccines and medicines that were developed through biomedical research. To use the myriad of pharmaceuticals on humans without first testing in animals is not acceptable (FASS 1999; Olsson et al. 2003). Many Hollywood celebrities purport to support medical research, while simultaneously promoting the animal rights movement; this is a clear conflict of priorities, but may be simple naivety.  Nevertheless, because of their influence on public attitudes, their position results in a serious disservice to medical research, as it implies that advancements in medicine can be made without the keystone position that animals play in these investigations.

 

Legislative Systems

 

            Legislation that addresses animal welfare in research varies from country to country, and the extent of governmental oversight differs relative to the types of animals used (e.g. all vertebrates are covered by PHS; FASS limits coverage to “warm-blooded” vertebrates; USDA includes only mammals but not rats, mice nor birds).  However, the rules and regulations for the humane care and use of animals emphasize the animals’ welfare relative to appropriate housing, health care, proper feeding and treatment during research. Investigations may be conducted in the laboratory under controlled conditions, or they may be under ambient conditions in natural settings.  Thus, research may have a basic, biomedical or an agricultural orientation, and further, farm animals also may be used in a variety of ways, such as animal models for biomedical application to humans and other animals, or in studies with agricultural production applications (Tillman 1994). Most animal farming systems are designed to maximize production and economic return; nevertheless, optimal production must consider animal well-being and good health, which depend on proper care and good husbandry practices (Schwedler and Johnson 1999/

2000).

 

Biomedical research is the most regulated arena, it is subject to both USDA regulations as well as PHS guidelines, while field research and agricultural studies operate under different guidelines – for fishes see AFS/ASIH (2003), for animal husbandry see FASS (1999). Research on agricultural animals used in biomedical research is regulated more rigidly than if these same animals are used in studies that simulate farm conditions. If research is related to improvements in production of food or fiber, then simulated commercial conditions may be required, thereby, further modifying the regulations that govern use (FASS 1999).

 

Federal oversight of animals used in research in the US, began with the passage of the Animal Welfare Act (1966), giving USDA the enforcement responsibility; in 1971, NIH developed Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals for PHS-supported institutions (NRC 1996; USDA 2002).  The agricultural equivalent for these guidelines is the “Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Testing” (FASS 1999). For field research, professional societies have developed guidelines for studies relative to the various groups of vertebrates (e.g. AFS/ASIH 2003).

 

Infrastructure

 

Subsequent to legislative promulgation, designated governmental agencies developed guidelines to facilitate compliance with the regulations and/or enforce them, e.g. PHS and USDA/APHIS, respectively. Governmental organizations such as AWIC (Animal Welfare Information Center) of USDA and the Veterans Health Administration provide services to the research community through training opportunities and as informational sources. The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW, formerly the Office for Protection from Research Risks – OPRR) at the National Institutes of Health, administers and coordinates the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

 

Also, several nongovernmental organizations (NGO) evolved that now provide various services relative to animal care and use. Three examples of NGOs and their contributions are: AALAS (American Association of Laboratory Animal Scientists), which provides a forum for the exchange of information and expertise in the production, care and use of laboratory animals and provides a system of certification for animal care-givers; AAALAC International (American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care) provides a voluntary peer-review system for accreditation of research facilities; ILAR (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research) provides information to the scientific community on laboratory animals and other biological research resources.

 

 

Operation

 

An Institution that conducts research must establish a program of animal care that operates under the appropriate guidelines. Various “Guides” provide a set of recommendations for use by competent scientists who apply good judgment in the care and use of animals, thereby facilitating compliance with Federal regulations and standards (Irving 1985). The bases for animal care and use are articulated in the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (OLAW 1986) and the “Guide” (Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; NRC 1996).  The underlying principles are that animals will be housed and cared for properly, and that they will be treated humanely during experimental procedures, not subjected to undue pain or distress (see discussion under Ethical Treatment).  Governmental agencies have authority over the programs, but oversight management is the delegated responsibility of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at each facility. An IACUC is a self-regulating entity (OLAW 1988; Silverman et al. 2000; OLAW 2002; USDA 2002; Bayne and deGreeve 2003), but authority must be renewed regularly.  An IACUC must review its program and be re-registered annually through USDA, and update the Institutional Assurance Document with NIH/OLAW on a five-year cycle. An IACUC serves the institution through review of animal use protocols for teaching and proposal for funded research projects; the IACUC is also responsible for inspecting animal holding and research facilities twice yearly.

 

The “Guide” governs laboratory animal care for, and use of any vertebrate (traditional laboratory animals, farm animals, wildlife and aquatic animals) relative to biomedical research.  Although it does not specifically address the use of farm animals in agriculture research or teaching relative to production, FASS (1999) does put these activities into context. Comprehensive guidelines on the care and use of fishes is more complicated because of the much greater species diversity compared to other vertebrate groups (DeTolla et al. 1995).  Further, procedures for studying animals in natural settings are provided by the various professional societies for the particular vertebrate group (e.g. AFS/ASIH 2003 or OC 1997).

 

Guidelines for the use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing differ depending on whether the application is for biomedical uses or for agricultural ones.  The latter are voluntary through the guidance of FASS (1999), because research must be conducted under farm conditions where the objective is to improve procedures for the production of food or fiber, and cannot strictly follow guidelines for housing, etc. as set down for laboratory animals.  Agricultural schools have animal care programs and institutional animal care and use committees, similar to those at institutions that conduct biomedical research, although they have the option supporting two IACUC’s, one for biomedical research and one for agricultural research.

 

The “Guide” describes the structure and functions of an appropriate animal care and use program; institutional policies and responsibilities; animal environment, housing and management; and required veterinary medical care. Guidance to the administrators of animal care and use programs is provided by OLAW (1988).  This publication describes the mechanisms for complying with the responsibilities of the institution to properly use and care for research animals, including the components and key aspects of a quality program. Technicians who care for the animals must have appropriate experience and training as documented through AALAS certification. The Institutional Care and Use Program must be registered with USDA and is subject to annual inspections by APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) representatives; in addition, the Program is certified through PHS by Institutional Assurance Document, which describes the program and the IACUC relative to PHS guidelines and USDA regulations.  The Document is revised and reviewed on a 5-year cycle.

 

An IACUC is composed of members representing various experience and perspectives.  Both USDA and PHS require that the committee must include a qualified veterinarian with laboratory animal experience, one member from the lay community who is not affiliated with the institution, and one practicing scientist; PHS has an additional requirement that membership should include a person who is not a scientist.  Minimal committee membership for USDA is three, while five persons are required by PHS.  Usually, scientific representation is drawn from the various subdisciplines among animal users, so that the committee is routinely larger than the minimum.

 

The IACUC has several specific functions:  1) Every six months, the committee reviews the institutional animal care program, and inspects the research and holding facilities for compliance with USDA title 9 and the “Guide”; 2) it reports findings of the reviews and inspections to PHS and APHIS/USDA; 3) it notifies PHS and USDA of any infractions or deficiencies, the necessary remedial action and the time frame for correcting; 4) the committee reviews all teaching exercises that use animals, and protocols of proposals for studies that include live animals, both laboratory and field – in accordance with the appropriate agency guidelines (some animals are not included – see farm exceptions below); 5) the committee is responsible for providing appropriate training to investigators and staff; and 6) it reviews occupational health and welfare issues for researchers and animal care givers relative to hazardous agents, communicable diseases and dangerous animals.

 

The committee reports to APHIS/USDA and AWIC/PHS through a designated Institutional Officer (IO) with reference to the approved Assurance Statement that procedures and facilities are in compliance with the AWA. Research institutions guarantee compliance with these regulations and guidelines through IACUC monitoring and according to their approved Institutional Assurance Document, which is periodically renegotiated with PHS. A voluntary system of accreditation is also possible through  AAALAC International.

 

 Guidelines for teaching and conducting research fall into various general areas, each with different emphasis.  Comprehensive universities that are engaged in basic research are more commonly conducting biomedically related investigations where human applications are the primary consideration, while agricultural orientation is more focused on the inquiry into the production of food or fiber, attempting to improve existing practices. In the latter case, however, research might be either basic, or that which simulates commercial conditions.  Also, field research on non-laboratory, or non-captive natural populations is governed by guidelines developed by professional societies, e.g. for fishes AFS/ASIH (2003).

 

Ethical Treatment – Pain and Distress

 

            The IACUC reviews protocols and proposals relative to the guidelines established by the governmental regulations and PHS policies. The principles applied to biomedical research encourage: 1) design of procedures on basis of relevance to human or animal health, advancement of  knowledge, or as contributions to the good of society; 2) the use of species that are appropriate to the study, and that the minimum number of animals are used that will provide statistically defensible answers to the question; 3) avoidance of discomfort, distress or pain, or alleviation through analgesia, sedation or anesthesia; and  that 4) qualified technicians provide appropriate animal husbandry, and that health care is administered under supervision of an experienced laboratory animal veterinarian.

 

            The use of animals in research presents ethical questions. Animal experimentation is costly in economic terms as well as from an ethical standpoint (Jackson 2003). Ultimately, the responsibility for the ethical and scientific validity of a study rests with the investigator. Governmental agencies, reflect the beliefs and values of the citizenry by demanding that researchers use proper research techniques and operate animal care facilities according to prescribed maintenance codes. 

 

Any discomfort, distress, or pain to animals used in research should be considered as an experimental cost (Olsson et al. 2003).  While stress is the rule, not the exception in an animals’ life (Curtis 1985), a clear demarcation between stress and distress is not readily or uniformly distinguishable (Moberg 1985; 2003), and further, an animal can react to adverse stimuli by modifying its behavior so as to deter potential stress. Beyond an ill-defined threshold, these reactions may result in distress, which can lead to a prepathological condition.  The type, intensity and duration of stimuli are factors that can contribute to alteration of an animals’ internal physiological homeostasis. If sufficiently strong or persistent, the adverse stimulus can cause measurable physiological alterations. The effects of physiological stress may cause undesirable responses from an experimental standpoint alone (Barton and Iwama 1991; Barton 2000); therefore, experimental results will be most precise when the animals are minimally exposed to excessive stimuli. Extensive culture of fishes results in minimal stress, but more intensive systems might cause some low level of physiological effect (Ross and Ross 1999). Although experiencing pain can result in distress, pain is not necessary to elicit this response. While pain can induce stress and distress, the perception of pain is relative.

 

 

A simple neurological response to a physical or noxious stimulus (nociception) is present in all animals, however, the definition of pain is elusive. Pain should be considered as distinct from simple nociception.  Defining pain, even in humans is relative; pain is a perception, it has no definite physical dimensions (Kitchell and Johnson 1985). The CNS has evolved with various specializations and degrees of sensitivities in the more derived vertebrate groups, such as mammals and birds, but less so relative to the “lower” vertebrates (e.g. fish and reptiles). Further, there is a phylogenetically related hierarchy among fishes, jawless forms such as lampreys are differentially developed compared to the more advanced groups of bony fishes. The development of a complex cerebral cortex is associated with the consciousness of pain (Rose 2002). Only in humans and non-human primates is the cerebral cortex sufficiently developed so that pain as conscious effect can be logically experienced. To ascribe pain perception to various animals is feasible only by analogy, inferred by comparative anatomy, physiology and species-specific behavior. The transfer of human concepts and emotions (pain, distress, fear, happiness) is complicated, even if similar brain activity can be demonstrated (NCB 2003). However, PHS guidelines direct that a procedure or treatment which would be painful to a human, should be considered to cause pain in an experimental animal under similar conditions.  This interpretation relative to animal treatment is anthropocentric, cannot be verified, and is not supported by the central nervous system (CNS) development in most vertebrates, but conversely, it is empirically unfounded to overemphasize the uncertainty that pain perception can exist in a group of animals. Thus, according to PHS policy, presumption of pain is considered in certain experimental protocols for all classes of vertebrates, regardless of their phylogenetic position, and those procedures that would have potential for induction of pain, are alleviated through the use of appropriate anesthesia. When necessary, appropriately humane methods of euthanasia are required. It should be noted that the mere application of an anesthetic to fishes or removing them from water, can result in physiological effects (Ross and Ross 1999); nevertheless, these reactions are normal. 

 

Conclusions

 

Adherence to proper guidelines for the care and use of animals is inherent in good research (Irving 1985). Further, since the principle goal of agriculture/aquaculture is to grow animals to market size most efficiently, the implicit understanding is that the culture environment should be minimally stressful (Ross and Ross 1999). To alleviate fear that animals were being commandeered for research purposes, legislation was developed to regulate the use of animals in research and teaching. In addition to the actual investiga-tion itself, more general ethical considerations for the animals’ well-being have been incorporated.  Animal use in science has emotional overtones, but is vital to advance knowledge, consequently the benefits need to be articulated to the public and to legislators, along with credible assurance that investigators will adhere to the principals of humane care and ethical treatment. Extensive institutional programs have been developed which ensure compliance with governmental regulations and guidelines.

 

 

Oversight was extended to farm animals under experimental conditions, but studies that simulated production are distinguished from biomedical investigations. While considerably more latitude is possible under farm production conditions, the policies and regulations provide guidance for animal husbandry research based on assurance that those animals not covered by AWA will receive humane care and treatment based on a blend of guidelines and professional judgment. However, recent adverse publicity of some commercial land animal operations has extended pressure to incorporate animal welfare into general production practices. Producers of terrestrial animals are responding to the concerns raised in animal welfare issues; however, producers of aquatic commod-ities should also be prepared to consider valid criticisms. The science of animal well-being examines stressors, stress, distress and the cumulative physiological effects that can lead to pathological manifestations (Conte 2003; Reynnells 2003). Science-based information should be used in addressing animal welfare issues instead of engaging in arguments based on emotion or subjective matter. Communication between scientists and the public is vital; too frequently, legislators are only getting the activists’ side of the story. Researchers are concerned with animal welfare too, so their position also involves concern for animal well-being.

 

             

                                                            References

 

AFS/ASIH (American Fisheries Society/American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists). 2003 (Draft revision of 1988 document). Guidelines for the use of fishes in research.  AFS, Bethesda.

 

Barton, B.A. 2000. Stress. Pages 892-898 in R.R. Stickney, editor. Encyclopedia of aquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

 

Barton, B.A., and G.K. Iwama. 1991. Physiological changes in fish from stress in aquaculture with emphasis on the response and effects of corticosteroids. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 1:3-26.

 

Bayne, K., and P. deGreeve. 2003. An overview of global legislation, regulation, and policies on the use of animals for scientific research, testing, or education. Pages 31-50 in J. Hau and G.L. Van Hoosier, Jr., editors. Handbook of laboratory animal science, volume 1, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

 

CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care). 1999. Animal use survey. CCAC, Ottawa.

 

Conte, F.S. 2003. Aquaculture and farm animal well-being: compatibility or conflict. World Aquaculture Society, Aquaculture America Abstracts, Louisville, KY.

 

Curtis, S.E. 1985. What constitutes animal well-being? Pages 1-14 in G.P. Moberg, editor. Animal stress. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD.

 

DeTolla, L.J., S. Srinivas, B.R. Whitaker, C. Andrews, B. Hecker, A.S. Kane, and R. Reimschessel. 1995. Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR Journal online 37(4):1-20.

 

Erickson, H.S. 2003. Information resources on fish welfare. AWIC Resource Series 20. (www.//nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/fishwelfare.htm).

 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2002. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, United Nations, Rome.

 

FASS (Federation of Animal Science Societies). 1999. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching, 1st revised edition.  FASS, Savoy, IL.

 

Grieder, F.B., and J.D. Strandberg. 2003. The contribution of laboratory animals to medical progress – past, present and future. Pages 1-11 in J. Hau and G.L. Van Hoosier, Jr., editors. Handbook of laboratory animal science, volume 1, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

 

Irving, G.W., III. 1985. Regulations and guidelines for animal care: problems and future concerns. Pages 281-196 in G.P. Moberg, editor. Animal stress. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD.

 

 Jackson, C. 2003. Laboratory fish: impacts of pain and stress on well-being. Contemporary Topics 42(3):62-73.

 

Kitchell, R.L., and R.D. Johnson. 1985. Assessment of pain in animals. Pages 113-140 in G.P. Moberg, editor. Animal stress. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD.

 

Moberg, G.P. 1985. Biological response to stress: key to assessment of animal well-being. Page 27-49 in G.P. Moberg, editor. Animal stress. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD.

 

Moberg, G.P. 2003. Arriving at a biological definition of stress and distress. The John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/)

 

New, M.B. 2003. Responsible aquaculture: is this a special challenge for developing countries? World Aquaculture Society Annual Meeting Keynote address, 20 May 2003, Salvador, Brazil.

 

NCB (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). 2003. The ethics of research involving animals. Consultation Paper, NCB, London, UK.

 

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington.

 

OC (Ornithological Council). 1997. Guidelines to the use of wild birds in research. A.S. Gaunt and L.W. Oring, editors. Ornithological Council, Washington, D.C.

 

OLAW (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare). 1986. Public Health Service Policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

 

OLAW. 1988. Institutional administrator’s manual for laboratory animal care and use. National Institutes of Health, Publication 88-2959, Bethesda, MD.

 

OLAW. 2002. Institutional animal care and use committee guidebook, 2nd edition.  National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

 

Olsson, A.S., P. Robinson, K. Pritchett, and P. Sandoe. 2003. Animal research ethics.  Pages 13-30 in J. Hau and G.L. Van Hoosier, Jr., editors. Handbook of laboratory animal science, volume 1, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

 

Regenstein, J.M. 1992. Processing and marketing aquacultured fish. NRAC Fact Sheet 140, NE Reg. Aquiculture Center, North Dartmough, MA.

 

Reynnells, R. 2003. The science and ethics behind animal well-being assessment. Educational Program Series, Future Trends in Animal Agriculture.USDA/

CSREES, PAS. (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/farmanimals/Proceedings

91503.htm)

 

Rose, J.D. 2002. The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Reviews in Fisheries and Science 10(1):1-38.

 

Ross, L.G., and B. Ross. 1999. Anesthetic and sedative techniques for aquatic animals, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science, New York, NY.

 

Schwedler, T.E., and S.K. Johnson. 1999/2000. Responsible care and health maintenance of fish in commercial aquaculture. AWIC Bulletin 10(3-4):1-15.

 

Silverman, J., M.A. Suckow, and S. Murthy, editors. The IACUC handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

 

Tidwell, J.H., and G.L. Allan. 2001. Fish as food: aquaculture’s contribution. EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) Reports 21(111):958-963.

 

Tillman, P. 1994. Integrating agricultural and biomedical research policies: conflicts and opportunities.  ILAR Journal  36(2):29-35.

 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002.  Animal welfare act and animal welfare regulations. United States Code, Title 9 (Animals and Animal Products), Chapter 1, Subchapter A – Animal welfare.  USDA, APHIS, Washington, D.C.