ILAR Journal Online, Volume 36(1) 1994: Farm Animals in Biomedical Research

Online Issues

<< All Back-issues

<< This Issue's Table of Contents

ILAR Journal V36(1) 1994 [FORMERLY ILAR NEWS]
Farm Animals in Biomedical Research - Part One

Issues for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs)

Oversight of the Use of Agricultural Animals in University Teaching and Research¹
W. Ray Stricklin and Joy A. Mench

W. Ray Stricklin, Ph.D. and Joy A. Mench, D. Phil., are associate professors in the Department of Animal Sciences and the Poultry Science Department, respectively, at the University of Maryland, College Park.

INTRODUCTION

The monitoring of agricultural animal research and teaching activities can present some special opportunities and problems for institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) at land-grant universities and colleges of agriculture. Monitoring animal agricultural activities often requires an IACUC to deal not only with the routine politics of animal welfare and the ethical dilemmas associated with the use of animals in research, but also with agricultural traditions and the entangled administrative lines of responsibility found in some colleges and universities.

The moral or ethical basis for concern about the treatment of animals should not differ based on research objectives. However, since current regulations cover biomedical research but not food and fiber research, different housing and care criteria for animals of the same species have arisen solely on the basis of the researcher's goals. The goal of much food and fiber research is oriented toward providing abundant and inexpensive food and fiber for all members of society. This situation dictates that animals must be treated according to production standards in order for the research goals to be achieved.

Some agricultural animal research-related problems that IACUCs may have to deal with are, therefore, fundamentally different from the problems encountered in a traditional biomedical program. This may be due to differences in the goals of agriculture, the administrative structure of agricultural research programs, and disagreements about the degree of regulation that is appropriate for agricultural research. The discussion presented herein will therefore include background information about animal agriculture and the funding, conduct, and administration of agricultural animal research and teaching activities.

HISTORY, TRADITION, AND AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL RESEARCH

Colleges of Agriculture within Land-Grant Universities

The Morrill Act of 1862 provided 17.4 million acres of land and nearly $8 million to individual states to enable them to establish universities. The resultant land-grant university system incorporated a uniquely American philosophy of higher education in that it made a university education accessible to students of all income levels, provided financial support for higher education from the federal government, and established a role for the university in teaching a practical as well as a classical curriculum. Each state was to sell its allotment of federal land and use the money generated for the

leading object

liberal and practical education of the industrial

Each state currently has at least one land-grant university. In addition, passage of the 1890 Morrill Act led to the establishment of 17 so-called historically black land-grant colleges in the southern and border states. Today, these campuses serve students of all races, and enroll roughly one-fourth of all African-American students in higher education in the United States (NASULGC, 1989).

Through the Hatch Act of 1887, the Federal Government established the state agricultural experiment station network to ensure that agricultural research oriented to specific geographic regions would be conducted throughout the United States. This was followed by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which mandated the third key function of today's state and land-grant universities: extension or public service.

Impact of Agricultural Research

A major goal of the land-grant universities was to lessen the amount of labor required for food and fiber production. Technologies were developed to replace human labor, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of production and providing the abundant and relatively inexpensive food and fiber supply that we enjoy today.

In addition to the desired primary effects, these technologies had many secondary effects, both positive and negative. The crate housing of veal calves and pregnant sows, the high-density caging of laying hens, and the use of automated feeding and watering systems are animal production technologies that are considerably less labor-intensive than "traditional'' agricultural practices. These systems have essentially eliminated the long hours of strenuous physical labor once considered part of the routine daily chores done primarily by wives and children before and after the field work. The technologies implemented to reduce labor in food and fiber production, however, also imposed restrictions on the activity and behavior of animals (Mench, 1992a; Mench and van Tienhoven, 1986). The general topic of scientific assessment of the welfare of agricultural animals has been addressed at recent conferences (Mench, 1992b; Mench and Stricklin, 1993; Thompson et al., 1992). Many of the ethical questions surrounding current agricultural production practices center on the economic, bioethical, and environmental costs and benefits of using technology to manipulate plant and animal life for human purposes (Food Animal Well-Being, 1993; Stricklin, 1989a; Stricklin and Swanson, 1993).

Departments of Food and Fiber Research and Teaching

The majority of university-related food and fiber research and teaching is conducted within animal science, dairy science, poultry science, and veterinary science departments (herein referred to generically as animal sciences departments) at land-grant universities. Colleges of veterinary medicine also conduct research that directly or indirectly affects food and fiber production from animals. Animal sciences departments were originally called animal husbandry departments, and faculty frequently espoused the philosophy that good animal husbandry was both an art and a science and also spoke unabashedly of concern for the well-being of animals. A large bronze plaque hangs in the hallway of the Animal Sciences Laboratory Building at the University of Illinois-Urbana on which is reproduced a poem written in 1917 by H.W. Mumford, then Professor of Animal Husbandry, part of which is presented as follows:

Artist and Artisan...

second only to his love of God and family.

inborn sense of the true proportion of things.

make sure his stock suffer not...

(Mumford, 1917)

Many of the earlier animal science educators recognized the need for a strong foundation in scientific knowledge combined with the intangible human elements of empathy and compassion for animals. Dr. Leo Bustad, Professor and Dean Emeritus of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University, described this viewpoint when discussing his learning experiences in a post-World War II animal husbandry department:

Happy, contented, and well-cared-for livestock, I was told, were better producers. During my graduate work in nutritional studies on swine my mentor Tony Cunha, a very kind and gentle person, reinforced this attitude. He and Department Chairperson M.E. Ensminger, one of the most renowned animal scientists in the world, visited me and my pigs at odd hours, such as early Sunday morning to be sure the animals were well-cared-for and to assist me in my stewardship (Bustad, 1987).
In the post-Sputnik era of the 1960s, when science and technology gained prominence in American educational institutions, departments changed their names from Animal Husbandry to Animal Science, and accordingly, may have altered their research and teaching philosophies to some extent.

Faculty members within animal sciences departments have responsibilities and a percentage of appointment time divided among three areas: teaching, extension (which refers to the extending of knowledge to members of the general public), and research. The amount of salary and support funding a faculty member in agriculture receives ranges from zero to 100 percent in any one of these three areas. Teaching is funded primarily from the state legislature through the traditional university administrative lines of authority (university chief administrator to college dean to department head to faculty member). Extension is funded from state and federal sources through the University Extension Service Director, while research is funded from state and federal sources generally through the University Experiment Station Director.

MONITORING AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL CARE AND USE

To properly monitor the use of agricultural animals in research and teaching, IACUCs need to use different criteria than those used for biomedical research both in evaluating the appropriateness of protocols and in establishing standards for agricultural research facilities. Agricultural research often has a different target audience than does biomedical research. To be relevant to commercial agricultural production, some agricultural research must be conducted under conditions that are feasible and appropriate for farmers, and that incorporate economic considerations. There are practices that are common in animal agriculture, which would not be permitted under the regulations governing biomedical experiments. In addition, the housing requirements for agricultural animals used in food and fiber research often differ from those of agricultural and laboratory animals used in biomedical research.

Important opportunities can arise from monitoring agricultural research. In particular, the IACUC can provide a forum for increased communication between biomedical and agricultural researchers. We believe that increased communication can have mutual benefits that are frequently overlooked by both groups. In addition to benefiting animals, a quality animal care program is important to the morale of faculty and staff and for maintaining scientific credibility, which benefits all members of an institution.

Standards for Evaluating Animal Research and Teaching

Food and fiber research and teaching activities involving agricultural animals are not covered by either the Animal Welfare Act or the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS, 1986). However, a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (Ag Guide) (Consortium for Developing a Guide, 1988), patterned on the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide) (NRC, 1985) but directed specifically toward agricultural research activities, was compiled for the benefit of those institutions that conduct agricultural animal research. This Ag Guide was developed by a consortium of scientific and professional organizations, industrial groups, and governmental agencies. The development and writing of the Ag Guide occurred in conjunction with a series of consortium committee and subcommittee meetings held during 1986 and 1987, with successive drafts reviewed for comments by an increasingly larger group of interested individuals (Stricklin, 1989b).

The initial draft of the Ag Guide was developed from input by six Guide Development Subcommittees representing the major farm animal species-types, with each of these Subcommittees chaired by an animal scientist who had a background and experience in applied ethology. Also, each of the Subcommittees included a veterinarian, an agricultural engineer, an industry representative, and an animal science researcher or educator. Through the review process, the information compiled by the six species-based Guide Development Subcommittees was condensed into a 74-page document by a seven person writing committee. Current practices and issues in commercial animal agriculture were an important consideration when writing the Ag Guide.

The Ag Guide specifies that the institutional IACUC should include (1) a scientist from the institution with experience in agricultural research or teaching involving agricultural animals; (2) an animal scientist who has appropriate training and experience in the management of agricultural animals and with recognized high professional credentials as verified by scientific and professional societies in animal science, dairy science, or poultry science; (3) a veterinarian who has appropriate training and experience in agricultural animal medicine and is appropriately licensed or eligible to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine; (4) a non-scientist affiliated with the institution; (5) a person not otherwise affiliated with the institution; and (6) other members as may be required by institutional needs and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Under the Ag Guide, the IACUC is required to meet regularly to ensure that agricultural animal use is humane, appropriate, and in accordance with the Ag Guide; to review teaching and research protocols; and to conduct semi-annual facilities inspections and reviews of the overall agricultural animal care and use program.

The adoption of the Ag Guide by IACUCs is completely voluntary. However, the Council on Accreditation of the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) has accepted portions of the Ag Guide as the basis for accreditation of institutions using agricultural animals in biomedical research. Prior to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding of production animal research, a statement must be submitted that an IACUC has approved the proposed research. USDA does not specify either the Ag Guide or the Guide as the basis for the protocol review.

Administration of IACUCs

Clearly defined administrative lines of authority for the animal care program are essential in order for IACUCs to function effectively. Because agricultural colleges sometimes receive funding that is separate from that of other colleges, agricultural programs in some universities function with a degree of autonomy that can result in more than one administrator having some authority over portions of animal research within the institution.

The organization of the administration of agricultural programs varies among the land-grant universities. In some universities, the dean of the college of agriculture is also the director of the experiment station and the extension service. In other university systems, the directors may be equivalent in administrative rank to deans or even, on the larger multi-campus systems, to the chief campus administrator.

Because the responsible university officer for agriculture receives funding for research and extension directly from the state and federal government, he or she may be reluctant to relinquish control over agricultural research programs to an IACUC, which receives its authority through the traditional university lines of administration. Animal housing facilities may create an additional complication. In some situations, the buildings in which agricultural animals are housed belong to the administrator responsible for teaching, but are used for experiment station research. Conversely, facilities can be the property of the experiment station (and possibly located at an appreciable distance from the university), but used for campus-funded undergraduate and graduate teaching.

A number of potential problems can result from this administrative complexity. One lies in determining which administrator or administrators are financially responsible for any facility improvements identified by the IACUC. Often the ownership of the animals is the basis used to determine who has financial responsibility for the facilities. A second potential and related problem is in determining whether the administration of the animal care program is best achieved by establishing more than one IACUC.

Under the Ag Guide, the agricultural IACUC can be either a separate committee or the same as the IACUC required by the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs), provided that the committee composition outlined in the Ag Guide is met. At the University of Maryland College Park Campus, there are essentially three committees. The first is the IACUC that is required by the AWRs, which oversees the use of both laboratory and agricultural animals used in "biomedical" research and teaching, as well as all graduate student theses that involve the use of animals. Secondly, there is a subcommittee that makes recommendations to the IACUC on matters related to the care and use of agricultural animals used in food and fiber research and housed in on-campus facilities, and in particular reviews protocols and conducts the facilities inspections for those animals. Thirdly, the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station has a separate committee that is responsible for overseeing the care and use of agricultural animals housed at off-campus facilities. Although it occurs only rarely, it is possible for a single research project to fall within the jurisdiction of all three of these committees, for example when a graduate student is conducting research using agricultural animals at both on and off-campus sites. Under such circumstances, excellent lines of communication among the different committees and among the appropriate administrators are essential.

Protocol Review and Facility Inspection

Responsible protocol review is one of the most critical functions of IACUCs. A system of protocol review that is consistent and judicious is essential in order to gain and hold the respect and support of the scientists monitored by the IACUC. Currently, however, maintaining consistency when evaluating protocols involving farm animals can be difficult, as it is sometimes unclear whether the IACUC should follow the Guide or the Ag Guide. For example, does a research protocol involving an animal health issue, such as parasite control in agricultural research animals, which is not funded by the Public Health Service, fall under the Ag Guide or the Guide?

Consistency in protocol review also requires that the scope of the IACUC be clearly established. It may be difficult to determine whether the IACUC should be responsible for monitoring certain activities, particularly those involving extension functions. For example, extension specialists are sometimes responsible for youth activities, including 4-H Clubs. Should the specialist be required to submit a protocol for the use of animals at county fairs related to youth education'? Extension faculty may have graduate students involved in survey-type research that takes place only on privately-owned farms. Should the IACUC have protocol review responsibility for this research, and if so, how can IACUC standards of animal care be enforced? Some agricultural colleges conduct test stations to assess the growth ability of potential breeding animals under standardized conditions. Researchers often "piggyback" non-invasive research projects on these privately-owned animals. How much control should an IACUC be expected to have over the treatment of these animals even though they are housed within a university facility? Approval of a protocol involving animals within a test-station but rejection of a protocol for animals in a research building, even though both are kept under the same housing and management conditions, would be a perfectly conceivable (but clearly inconsistent) IACUC policy.

In some colleges of agriculture the funding available to improve animal facilities has not kept pace with other programs. In addition, because food and fiber research results must be meaningful to persons whose livelihood comes from agriculture, the facilities in which these animals are housed differ from the environmentally-controlled, hospital-like facilities in which laboratory animals are typically housed. The inspection of agricultural animal facilities can thus present considerable problems for the IACUC. We believe that it is important for the IACUC to keep in mind that a good animal care program can be maintained even in modest facilities. At the same time, we believe that agricultural personnel cannot use tradition as a justification for not providing appropriate animal care, including properly constructed and maintained facilities.

There are no easy answers to the questions we have posed about protocol review and facility inspection, or at least none that lead to workable solutions. There are differences between food and fiber research objectives and biomedical research objectives that are essential in order for each of the disciplines to function successfully. After dealing with some of the frustrations of monitoring animal agricultural research, however, it may be tempting at times for the IACUC to adopt a strategy oriented toward eliminating the problem program or facility or both. However, although advising faculty and administrators about the appropriateness of program areas and objectives is an IACUC function, the determination of research and teaching areas and objectives is not, and should not become, a function of the IACUC.

Agricultural Animal Technicians and Standards of Care

Farm labor has traditionally been cheap, with migratory workers or farm family members providing much of the work force. Until relatively recently, farm workers were even excluded from the federally mandated minimum wage laws. As a carryover from these general attitudes toward farm workers, university personnel working as technicians and caretakers for agricultural animals in many cases have less education, less training, and lower wages than their colleagues doing equivalent (or even sometimes less demanding) work in animal research laboratories. Within the same institution, farm animal caretakers may be hired who have only a high school diploma (or less), while laboratory animal caretakers are required to have at least a bachelor's degree. Accordingly, levels of awareness and appreciation for the importance of adherence to animal care guidelines can differ. We believe that, because the responsibilities and duties of these animal care personnel do not differ, standardizing hiring criteria and wages would result in a significant improvement in the standards of care for agricultural animals at many institutions.

Opportunities

Animal scientists are descended academically from a discipline, animal husbandry, that was founded to investigate methods of improving the care and well-being of animals. Animal scientists represent an academic discipline that has researched various aspects of nutrition, physiology, reproduction, genetics, growth, and lactation in animals under many different housing and management conditions. We have argued elsewhere that animal scientists can make major contributions to laboratory animal IACUCs (Mench and Stricklin, 1991). On the other hand, the majority of colleges of agriculture are currently in the process of establishing formal IACUC procedures, and can benefit significantly from the experiences of the general IACUC.

CONCLUSION

The monitoring of agricultural animal research and teaching activities can significantly benefit an institution. Establishing and maintaining an animal care program that is consistent across all animals and disciplines can increase the quality of research, collaboration and even faculty and staff morale. We believe that a local, high-quality institutional animal care program has immediate benefits to the institution, which ultimately supports the credibility of the entire scientific community. Beneficial changes in animal care programs are most likely to be accomplished when all parties, the IACUC, the principal investigators, animal care technicians, and university administrators view the monitoring of agricultural animals as being in everyone's best interest.

A major difference between biomedical research and agricultural research is that agricultural animal research must be conducted under conditions representative of agricultural practices. Because of this fundamental difference, standards for agricultural animal research facilities and the review of protocols that have food or fiber production as an endpoint often at times differ from those for laboratory animals. We do not believe, however, that this means that agricultural animals should be viewed by an IACUC using different ethical standards. The purpose of animal care oversight is to ensure animal well-being, and this should be the goal of the IACUC regardless of the type of animal or the funding source of the research.

¹ Portions of this paper were used in the NIH (1992) publication entitled "Laboratory Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook." This article is published as Scientific Article No. 8218 of the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station.

REFERENCES

Bustad, L. K. 1987. Investigators' interrelationship with laboratory animals. Pp. 167-170 in Effective Animal Care and Use Committees, F. B. Orlans, R. C. Simmonds, and W. J. Dodds, eds. Bethesda, Maryland: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.

Consortium for Developing a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. 1988. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. Champaign, Illinois: Association Headquarters (Available at a cost of $5.00 each from Association Headquarters, 309 West Clark Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 1-217-356-3182).

First Morrill Act. 1862. An Act Donating Public Lands to the Several States and Territories Which May Provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. Chapter 130, 12 Stat. 503, 7 USC 301-308, July 2.

Food Animal Well-Being. 1993. Conference Proceedings and Deliberations. USDA and Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs. (Available from: Purdue University Office of Agricultural Animal Research Programs, 1140 Agricultural Administration Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1140).

Hatch Act. 1887. An Act to establish agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges established in the several States under the provisions of the (First Morrill Act). Chapter 314, 24 Stat. 440, 7 USC 361, March 2.

Mench, J. A. 1992a. The welfare of poultry in modern production systems. Poultry Sci. Rev. 4:107-128.

Mench, J. A. 1992b. Rapporteur's report: Animal well-being. Pp. 99-100 FAIR '95 Proceedings, Kansas City, Missouri.

Mench, I. A., and W. R. Stricklin. 1991. Animal care and use committees: Who should serve? ILAR News 33:31-37.

Mench, J. A., and W. R. Stricklin. 1993. An International Conference on Farm Animal Welfare: Scientific Perspectives. J. Agric. Env. Ethics 6(Spec. Suppl. 2):1-116.

Mench, J. A., and A. van Tienhoven. 1986. Farm Animal Welfare. American Scientist 74:598-603.

Mumford, H.W. 1917. A Tribute to the Stockman. Breeders Gazette, Chicago.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). 1989. Fact Book 1990. Washington, D.C.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1992. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook. Public Health Service, NIH. NIH Pub. No. 92- 3415.

National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. A report of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Public Health Service (PHS). 1986. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Available from: Office for Protection from Research Risks, Building 31, Room 4B09, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892).

Second Morrill Act. 1890. An Act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts. Chapter 841, Stat. 417, 7 USC 322 et seq., August 30.

Smith-Lever Act. 1914. An Act to provide for cooperative agricultural extension work between the agricultural colleges in the several States receiving the benefits of an Act of Congress. Chapter 79.38 Stat. 372, 7 USC 341-349, May 8.

Stricklin, W.R. 1989a. Benefits and costs of animal agriculture. Pp. 87-92 in Proceedings of the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare Symposium on Science and Animals: Addressing Contemporary Issues. H.N. Guttman, J. A. Mench, and R. C. Simmonds, eds. Bethesda, Maryland: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.

Stricklin, W.R. 1989b. The development of guidelines for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Pp. 44-51 in Animal Care and Use in Behavioral Research: Regulations, Issues, and Applications, J. W. Driscoll, ed. Beltsville, Maryland: Animal Welfare Information Center, National Agricultural Library.

Stricklin, W. R., and J. C. Swanson. 1993. Technology and Animal Agriculture. In An International Conference on Farm Animal Welfare: Ethical, Technological, and Sociopolitical Perspectives. J. Agric. Env. Ethics 6(Spec. Suppl. 1):67-80.

Thompson, P., W. R. Stricklin, P. Siegel, A. Rowan, and B. Rotlin. 1992. Well-being of production animals: A diversity of viewpoints. Pp. 71-80 in FAIR '95 Proceedings. Kansas City, Mo.