Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
pulseWelfare NOVEMBER 2010 ISSUE 06
Collaboration to monitor deer velvet compliance
Improving bobby calf welfare
Animal Welfare in New Zealand and around the world
Farmer and public perspectives onneonatal lamb mortality
Welfare PulseWelfare Pulse is published three times a year by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). It is of special relevance to those with an interest in domestic and international animal welfare developments.
The articles in this magazine do not necessarily reflect Government policy.
For enquiries about specific articles, refer to the contact listed at the end of each article.
For general enquiries, (for example, circulation requests or information about the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) contact:
Welfare Pulse
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Animal Welfare Directorate
Postal address:
PO Box 2526
Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Street address:
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
Wellington 6011, New Zealand Tel: 64-4-894 0100
Fax: 64-4-894 0300
Email: [email protected]
Animal Welfare complaints: 0800 00 83 33
ISSN 1175-0804 (Print)
ISSN 1175-0812 (Online)
In this issue...
OIE International Animal Welfare Update 1
Your feedback 2
New Programme Manager 2
Taking stock of good practice 3
Collaboration to monitor deer velvet compliance 4
Conference feedback 5
Codes of welfare – update on issue, consultation, development and review 6
Judicial review update 6
Cupcake Day for the SPCA 6
Essay competition: animal-based research in New Zealand – Where to from here? 7
NAEAC Annual Report released 9
New agricultural newsletter 9
Codes of ethical conduct – approvals, notifications and terminations since issue 5 9
The New Zealand Three Rs Programme 10
Animal manipulation statistics due 10
AEC Service Awards 11
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct 11
Minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct 11
Farmer and public perspectives on neonatal lamb mortality 12
Kiwis take part in animal welfare exams 14
Animal behaviour and welfare research at AgResearch, Ruakura 15
Improving bobby calf welfare 16
Animal hoarding – the cruelty of kindness 18
Have your sheep been shorn yet? 19
Massey University students externship with Wellington SPCA 20
Disqualification order enforced by MAF 21
A walk on the wildside 22
2010–11 upcoming events 23
A Kiwi’s ground up perspective on animal welfare in the European Union 24
Rapid response to emergency care 25
The Commonwealth Veterinary Association – worthy of your support 26
Animal welfare in Brazil 28
Wildlife, welfare and war 29
Animal welfare in the US: Legislative developments in production animal welfare 30
The Gateway to farm animal welfare 31
Frankenfish and the need for labelled food 32
Across our desks 33
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 1
Editorial
OIEInternational Animal Welfare Update
It is now nine years since animal welfare was included, as an international leadership initiative, in the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) third strategic plan for the period 2001 to 2005 and the emphasis on animal welfare has continued in the subsequent fourth and fifth strategic plans. The subject has been “mainstreamed” into OIE activities, at both a regional and international level, and is now very much “core business”. New Zealand continues to make an active contribution to this OIE strategic initiative and this article provides an update on developments in three specific areas – standards development, laboratory animal welfare and OIE collaborating centres.
Standards DevelopmentOver the nine-year period from 2001, the following standards have been developed by expert international ad hoc groups, been the subject of extensive internal and external international consultation, via the established OIE process, and finally adopted at the annual General Session of the OIE World Assembly of Delegates:• transport of animals by air;• transport of animals by sea;• transport of animals by road;• slaughter of animals for commercial
purposes;• killing of animals for disease control
purposes;• stray dog population control;• transport of farmed fish;• slaughter of farmed fish; and • use of animals in research and
education.
Standards for production animals (broiler chickens and beef cattle) are currently under development, with dairy cattle, pigs and layer hens identified as future priorities.
All standards can be accessed under section 7 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2010 at: www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_sommaire.htm
Laboratory Animal WelfareAn ad hoc group on laboratory animal welfare was established in 2007 and includes members from New Zealand, Brazil, the United States, Canada, Japan, Tunisia, France and Britain. There are four current key initiatives:
Chapter on the use of animals in research and educationThe drafting of this chapter was the first priority of the ad hoc group. The agreed chapter (now included in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code – www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.7.8.htm) is intended to provide guidance to all 176 OIE member countries on what a system regulating use of animals in research might contain. The content is pragmatic to make it readily applicable to all members – even those with minimal or emerging research activity and no current relevant regulations.
• International veterinary training in laboratory animal medicine
This is a new priority area of the ad hoc group, which was started at the last meeting of the group in August 2009. It
is recognised that the laboratory animal veterinarian is key to ensuring high quality animal care and welfare and good science. During 2010, three focus groups have been held and the outcome of these focus groups will be considered at the ad hoc group meeting in December 2010.
• International air transport
A third priority area for the ad hoc group has been to develop an OIE discussion paper on international transportation of laboratory animals. This has led to an OIE and IATA initiative in this area, and the ad hoc group is continuing to monitor activity in this area.
• Regulatory testing
The final priority area for the ad hoc group related to the use of animals in regulatory testing and the adoption of scientifically validated non-animal alternatives. Planning for this priority area will commence at the next meeting of the ad hoc group in December 2010.
The OIE is playing a major role in World Veterinary Year 2011 and it is planned that at least some of these initiatives will be further promoted under that banner.
• Animal welfare collaborating centres
The OIE’s international network of reference laboratories and collaborating centres provides members, and indeed the whole of the international community, with authoritative scientific opinions and advice on key topics such as animal health and welfare, diagnostic techniques, food safety or veterinary training.
The 2007 First International Conference of Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres provided an important forum to discuss the roles of Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres. The strategic significance of the Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres network was further emphasised at the 2009 Second Global Conference of Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres –
www.oie.int/download/OIE-Abstract-Labo2010.zip.
OIE Laboratory Animal Welfare ad-hoc Group
2 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Your feedbackWe look forward to hearing your views on Welfare Pulse and welcome your comment on what you would like to see more of, less of, or something new that we have yet to cover. Please send your feedback to us by emailing [email protected]
Get Welfare Pulse direct to your inboxIf you would prefer to receive your copy of Welfare Pulse by email, please sign up for the alerts at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/lists, click on animal welfare and then tick “Welfare Pulse magazine”.
General subscriptionsPlease contact us by email at [email protected] if you no longer wish to receive Welfare Pulse, or need to change the address/contact name we have on file.
The following three Animal Welfare Collaborating Centres have been approved to date: • Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, Food Safety,
Veterinary Training and Animal Welfare in Teramo, Italy;• Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare Research in
Chile and Uruguay;• Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare Science and
Bioethical Analysis in New Zealand and Australia.
The vision of a small international network of animal welfare collaborating centres continues to be seen to play an important role in supporting the OIE Headquarters, the Animal Welfare Working Group and Regional Representations in discharging the OIE’s international animal welfare mandate.
It is important that this network covers the full range of animal welfare subject areas (production animals, laboratory animals, wildlife, companion animals, etc). These centres should be internationally recognised “centres of excellence” and should be geographically located to reflect the OIE’s regional structure. The centres in Chile and Uruguay, and New Zealand and Australia, provide a model for centres drawing on the expertise and experience residing in more than one country. In addition to meeting technical, advisory and training needs, at an international or regional level, it is envisaged that the centres could, in some instances, also provide support at an OIE sub-regional level.
The New Zealand and Australia Collaborating Centre is looking forward to making a significant contribution to the OIE’s international animal welfare leadership role and has identified initial priorities in relation to training, publications and “twinning” with developing centres of animal welfare interest and expertise within the Asia, Far East and Oceania OIE Region.A C David BayvelDirector Animal Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and [email protected]
New Programme Manager
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) has appointed Leonie Ward to the position of
Programme Manager, Compliance and Enforcement, Animal Welfare.
This is one of a number of newly-created positions within MAF as part of the roll out of a new strategic approach to animal welfare compliance and enforcement. Leonie started her new role mid-August and will work closely with all relevant groups within MAF as well as external industry partners, the NZVA, FFNZ and welfare groups such as the SPCA.
Having previously been in the role of Border Sector Programme Manager at MAF, Leonie says she is looking forward to bringing her skills and experience to the animal welfare field.
“The Animal Welfare Compliance and Enforcement Plan has been developed over the last 18 months by a great project team and I’m delighted to be joining the group that will now take it forward”.
“I think this plan is an innovative approach and I’m excited to be playing a part in ensuring its success and look forward to working with you all”.
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 3
In a recent public opinion poll commissioned by DairyNZ it was pleasing to see more than 70 percent of
the 1000 New Zealanders surveyed agreed that dairy farmers do all they can to look after the welfare of their cows.
This belief is not ill-conceived. It is based on decades of hard work by New Zealand dairy farmers who have emphasised good animal husbandry in their day-to-day activities.
One of our industry’s aims is to carry on this proud tradition of good stockmanship and be 100 percent compliant with the minimum standards set out in the Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare.
What’s more, by the end of 2011, we are aiming for 70 percent of dairy farmers to be compliant with good practice animal welfare guidelines; with 100 percent of farmers meeting this target by the end of 2012.
It’s easy to talk about targets that have been set; but achieving them takes a lot of effort on farms, which is why we are
stepping up our support to farmers.
DairyNZ places a great emphasis on science-based, farmer- tested solutions. This year, we are increasing our investment in our animal welfare research programme to $1.67 million, and we are changing how we target our advisory support.
Starting this season, DairyNZ is employing animal husbandry extension specialists around the country to lead discussion groups and field days focused on stockmanship training and animal husbandry.
We expect the service will find favour with people new to working with stock, as well as with experienced farm managers who have been looking for support to pass on good stockmanship practices to their new farm staff.
Another important role for our animal husbandry specialists is to synthesise what we are learning from our research programme and pass it on to farmers for them to introduce into their farm systems.
In September, DairyNZ launched an early response service to provide advisory support to farmers around stock health, management and welfare. Our animal husbandry extension specialists will be involved in this work.
We are working closely with dairy companies, MAF and the SPCA to co-ordinate support to farmers with the intent that the early response
service acts as the ambulance at the top of the cliff.
The service was trialled during the Northland drought and in other parts of New Zealand in the first half of this year. A handful of DairyNZ consulting officers and a farm consultant were involved in this trial, giving one-on-one advice to farmers. The farmers involved found the support helped them bounce ideas off others and work through a plan to get them out of a rut.
These changes are an important way of ensuring that even as our industry grows, the good stockmanship ethos of dairy farmers grows with it.
Rick Pridmore Strategy and Investment Leader – Sustainability DairyNZ [email protected]
Taking stock of
GOOD PRACTICE
DairyNZ senior scientist Kevin Macdonald taking a body condition scoring workshop for farmers earlier this year.
Phot
os: R
ick
Prid
mor
e
Rick Pridmore Strategy and Investment Leader –
Sustainability DairyNZ
DairyNZ veterinarian and senior scientist Dr Gwyneth Verkerk is running a study evaluating good husbandry practice.
4 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Collaborative work during the past two deer velvet seasons on monitoring compliance has enhanced
relationships between the deer industry, rural vets and government.
During the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 deer velvet seasons, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Enforcement Directorate and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority Verification Agency (NZFSAVA) participated in a joint project with Deer Industry New Zealand (DINZ) to monitor and record compliance with the National Velvetting Standards Body (NVSB) approved velvetter programme.
The NVSB programme has been in place since 1994 and allows deer farmers to remove velvet antler from their own stags under controlled conditions with
veterinary supervision.
Removing velvet is a restricted surgical procedure under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and can only be performed by a vet or accredited person who has satisfied the requirements of the NVSB to be an approved velvetter. Farmers who join the programme are trained, supervised and audited by vets to verify that they meet the legal, market access and Animal Welfare Act 1999 requirements for velvet removal. The NVSB list of approved velvetters is maintained by DINZ.
This project has aimed to check stags presented at slaughter premises for compliance with the NVSB programme. NZFSAVA vets recorded details of all suppliers of velvetted stags sent for slaughter and forwarded this information
to MAF who then established with DINZ, who were working partners throughout the programme, whether the supplier was a registered velvetter, whether the procedure had been contracted to a vet or if in fact the supplier was not compliant.
Recording and checking of names against databases and the subsequent follow-up work involved has been resource intensive for all, however, the results of this monitoring programme have been very positive.
The programme has raised awareness within the deer industry about requirements relating to velvet removal, and about the need for meeting those requirements. It has also provided confidence that there is a high level of compliance with the NVSB scheme.
COLLABORATIONto monitor deer velvet compliance
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 5
This monitoring programme is a good example of industry participants and regulators working together to achieve a common goal and better share information to effectively identify any welfare issues. A subsequent and important benefit to MAF has also been the enhancement of relationships MAF Animal Welfare Investigators have with rural vets.
The programme is also considered to be a good example of the success of allocating regulatory resources to proactive activities that encourage voluntary compliance and produce an effective improvement in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, as well as reflecting MAF’s determination to take on proactive opportunities that improve voluntary animal welfare compliance.
Alan Wilson Team Manager, Animal Welfare Investigations Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [email protected]
Richard Wild Specialist New Zealand Food Safety Authority Verification Agency [email protected]
Les Gainsford Animal Welfare Co-ordinator New Zealand Food Safety Authority Verification Agency [email protected]
Conference feedbackANZCCART ConferenceThe annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Testing (ANZCCART) was held in Hobart in July. About 140 delegates attended, including 12 from New Zealand.
The theme of the conference was Ethics in a Changing Environment and a variety of topics were covered including wildlife research, advanced imaging and therapy, fish welfare and informed consent for privately owned animals.
Keynote speaker Dr Matt Leach from the Comparative Biology Centre at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom made three presentations on analgesic use in laboratory animals (focusing on species and international differences); pain recognition in rodents and rabbits; and
new approaches to assessing the emotional component of pain.
ANZCCART’s two inaugural Honorary Life Members, Professor Margaret Rose and Dr Warwick Anderson, were also formally recognised.
It was announced that the 2011 conference will be held in New Zealand.
Responsible Dog Ownership in EuropeHeld in Brussels in early October (immediately after an international conference on Animal Welfare Education) this conference was focused on a sustainable European Union (EU)-wide common strategy in order to reduce the negative effects of dog overpopulation on human health and animal welfare.
The aim was to bring together representatives of the European Institutions, International Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), governments, national veterinary services and veterinary associations, to discuss EU-wide solutions to the problems of canine overpopulation in Europe.
New Zealand (David Bayvel and Kirsty Grant) participated via a DVD presentation, providing background information on the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and its Stray Dog Control Guidelines, plus a brief overview of dog ownership in New Zealand.
Other conference speakers included Her Royal Highness Alia Al Hussein of Jordan, Daniela Battaglia (Food and Agriculture Organization), David Pritchard (Council of Europe) and Andrea Gavinelli (European Commission).
6 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
NAWAC News
Judicial review update
On 4 August 2010, a legal challenge was initiated by the Wellington and Auckland Hebrew congregations
over the issue of the Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010.
The code requires all animals being commercially slaughtered in New Zealand to be stunned before slaughter.
The legal challenge will involve a judicial review of the Minister of Agriculture’s decision to issue the code without allowing an exemption for Jewish (shechita) slaughter and will be heard in the High Court in Wellington. The Minister of Agriculture will be defending his decision in court.
As part of the legal challenge, temporary relief to allow commercial slaughter by the Jewish shechita method has been granted by the High Court. This is on the understanding that the slaughter of animals using the shechita method will be at a similar level to that before the new code was issued.
Until the legal proceedings have been completed, it is not possible to comment further on the judicial review.
Animal welfare is a priority for the New Zealand Government. The new code makes it clear that all animals being commercially slaughtered need to be treated humanely and in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge.
CODES OF WELFARE – update on issue, consultation, development and review
Codes of welfare issued 2010: • Dairy Cattle• Commercial Slaughter• Dogs• Sheep and Beef Cattle
Recommended to the Minister:• Pigs
In post-consultation process:• Transport in New Zealand • Goats
Consultation on codes of welfare:• Broiler Chickens (public consultation
closed 8 November 2010)• Layer Hens (anticipated public
consultation end of 2010)
Under development:• Temporary Housing of Companion
Animals
• Camelids
• Saleyards
• Equine
Codes of welfare under review:• Painful Husbandry Procedures
Cheryl O’ConnorProgramme Manager Animal WelfareMinistry of Agriculture and Forestrycheryl.o’[email protected]
Cupcake Day for the SPCA
For the second year running, the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry’s (MAF) Animal Welfare Directorate co-ordinated the sale of cupcakes at Pastoral House on Monday 30 August to support the Royal New Zealand SPCA’s fundraising campaign Cupcake Day for the SPCA.
The SPCA plays a vital role in relation to animal welfare in New Zealand, including sharing responsibility with MAF for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act 1999. In recognition of this close working relationship, MAF was only too pleased to support the SPCA’s fundraising initiative.
Over 30 talented MAF bakers (and their spouses, children and friends) created in excess of 450 delicious and exquisitely decorated cupcakes. At the end of the day, sales and donations totalled $1603 – more than double what MAF raised in 2009.
An informal morning tea was held to present Wellington SPCA with its “cheque” and the SPCA is currently in the process of tallying up just how much money cupcake bakers raised. For updates, follow the SPCA on Twitter or Facebook, or visit www.spcacupcakeday.co.nz/
Paula Lemow Team Support Officer MAF Animal Welfare [email protected]
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 7
NAEAC News
ESSAY COMPETITION: Animal-based research in New Zealand – Where to from here?
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) invited Year 11, 12 and 13 students to write an essay between 1200 and 1500 words that demonstrated an understanding of animal-based research in New Zealand. Students were asked to provide examples of why animals are used and how their use is regulated and controlled. A wide range of original essays were submitted from around the country.
The author of the winning essay was Himanshu Wadhwa a year 13 student from Dilworth School, Auckland. The runner up was Rose Goss, a year 13 student from St Andrews College, Christchurch.
“In Vivo” to “In Vitro” – The Future of Animal Based Research in New Zealand?Essay winner Himanshu Wadhwa provides a brief overview of animal-based research (ABR) in New Zealand, exploring the need to use animals in research and how their use is controlled and regulated.
Himanshu says “People have different views about animal-based research, ranging from completely opposing it to completely supporting it. I investigated this opinion spectrum with a view to seeking a pragmatic future course of direction for ABR in New Zealand.”
ABR in New ZealandAnimals are used for research in many different fields in New Zealand including general biological enquiry, conservation, agriculture and medicine. An example of this is animals being used to find connections between diet and health at the Liggins Institute in Auckland. Scientists have been using Wistar rats to try and find a relationship between maternal diet during pregnancy and health of offspring.
Animals are also used in animal conservation research – particularly for the development of pest control techniques and non-embryonic cell cloning methods. A team led by Dr Bernie McLeod at AgResearch is trying to develop new toxins to kill bushtail possums and “methods of sterilising possums as a means of population control.” Cloning by nuclear transfer was used to produce a genetic duplicate of the last surviving cow of the rare Enderby Island cattle breed. This result represented
the first demonstration of the use of adult cloning in animal conservation.
These cloning methods now also allow for the production of livestock with known desired phenotypes. Traditionally, farmers improved the quality of their herds by selective breeding techniques that were relatively slow and unpredictable; however, ABR has led to the development of methods that allow DNA from one species to be inserted into another. Molecular biologists are altering the genomes of livestock to try and enhance the production of desired traits in them. For example, developing sheep are injected with particular genes to produce more wool.
Similarly, the research of Dr Jenny Juengel’s team at AgResearch is dual purpose. While their work is aimed at increasing reproductive efficiency of farmed animals, they also learnt about biological processes such as how egg development influences pregnancy outcomes.
The use of animals is also very important in medicine – for disease investigation; the development of surgical treatments; ensur-ing the safety of medical products; and the development of methods to be able to use farmed animals to produce therapeutic human proteins. Some examples of recent medical research include:• the Liggins Institute examined the
effects of intrauterine infections on pre-term related brain injuries using fetal sheep;
• AgResearch have generated cows that produce a human protein that may help reduce the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.
Looking at the history of medical achievements in the 20th Century across the globe, one can easily see that many treatments, vaccines and surgical methods available today would not have been possible without the animal-based research behind their discoveries and development. One specific example is anaesthesia, the understanding, improvement and refinement of which, has relied heavily on animal based studies.
Regulation and ControlThe application of the ‘Three Rs Principle” ensures that animal use is properly regu-lated in New Zealand. The three compo-nents of this principle are:• replacement – animals that might suffer
are only used when necessary;• reduction – no more and no fewer
animals are used than required to achieve the objectives of the work;
• refinement – any noxiousness is kept as low as possible.
All institutions that are using animals for research, testing or teaching must have a current Code of Ethical Conduct that has been approved by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).
Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), which conduct cost-benefit analyses to ensure maximum benefit from minimum harm to animals and ensure that animal use is controlled, also grant approvals for animal use and carry out various types of monitoring to ensure that studies are conducted in an approved manner.
An independent assessment is carried out
8 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
NAEAC News
every five years to ensure that institutions are following recommended guidelines.
Ethics of ABRThe use of animals in research is a controversial issue. Opposers argue that “animals should never be experimented on whatever the potential gain for humanity.” Supporters argue for ABR on the grounds that we should alleviate human suffering at any cost.
To me, ABR is acceptable provided the ‘Three Rs Principle’ is adhered to. This is also where New Zealand law currently stands.
Animals have life and therefore, have a right to not be used for research, especially as they cannot willingly consent or make informed decisions on the matter like humans. But this should not result in any dilemma – caring adults make decisions for their adolescents and pet owners make decisions for the well-being of their animals. As humans, we have a responsibility to care for our lives, as well as for the lives of animals. ABR provides benefits that achieve both these outcomes.
Cells grown outside a living organism are said to be “in vitro,” literally meaning “in glass.” Cells grown inside an organism are said to be grown “in vivo” or “in life.” We currently only have partial substitutes to the use of animal models in scientific process and although alternative research techniques and animal substitutes are continually being designed and used wherever possible, animal models are also needed in some cases.
Hence, I think that ABR should not be banned.
Some examples of when animal models are necessary are:• in whole-organisms studies when the
holistic effects on organisms need to be monitored – as in the case of Sarah Morgan’s aging study. Gene expression in individual cells had already been monitored. Research now needed “to be scaled up into a whole organism or animal model so that the effect of other tissues and cells on the biochemical processes could be studied”;
• where our knowledge is insufficient to create digital models and studies of human populations would be impractical – such as in the Liggins’ scientists’ search for correlations between maternal diet and offspring health. Here, human populations had already been studied, but quick-breeding animal models that could be kept in controlled environments were needed to confirm formulated theories;
• to study diseases where occurrence and survival of spontaneous patients is rare – for example, scientists researching hair growth needed to also investigate patients with a condition in which scalp-like hair growth covers the face, to seek which genes activate terminal hair growth. “Only about 50 such cases have been reported worldwide since the Middle Ages” so there isn’t a sufficient sample size. At this rate, the secrets to hair growth may never be discovered.
Animals like mice, possums and flies are considered pests, and so are killed by the mouse traps, rifles or fly swatters. What harm is there then, in allowing them to be used for research? Their deaths would at least have some meaningful use. Why not allow death to serve a useful purpose? Donated human organs are also used for teaching medical students.
Wastage and unnecessary usage are bad. Animal use should be carefully planned to obtain maximum benefit. Application of the “Three Rs Principle” will help ensure that this can be more consistently achieved and systems are in place to ensure this happens. In New Zealand, research is approved on the basis that “the greater the harm or noxiousness, the greater must be the expected benefits before a procedure can be approved.” This allows scientists to use animals for research while pacifying those who oppose the idea because they see it as unnecessary cruelty to animals.
New alternative research methods are constantly being developed, and New Zealand should continue to implement those that can increase efficiency and accuracy, and minimise animal use.
We should continue to move forward with the approach of developing replacements for animal models, using available knowledge and technology. Let New Zealand lead the world in transiting from “in vivo” methods to “in vitro.”
ConclusionABR has been a foundation stone for advancement in the expansion of our scientific knowledge and health-related industries. In New Zealand, sufficient legislation is in place to protect the welfare of animals used in research, and authorities ensure that institutions consistently aim to replace, reduce, and refine their animal usage.
However, when alternatives for remaining animal use models are developed, they should be encouraged. We do not yet have complete substitutes for animals in research and testing and while striving to find these substitutes ABR should be supported.
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 9
CODES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT – approvals, notifications and terminations since issue 5All organisations involved in the use of live animals for research, testing or teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of ethical conduct.
Codes of ethical conduct approved: • Valley Animal Research Centre
Transfers of codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil
Code holder name changes: Nil
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct: Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing code of ethical conduct• A1 Genetic Services Ltd (to use AgResearch Ltd’s code)• AgriScience Consulting (to use AgResearch Ltd’s code)• Agvet NZ Ltd (to use AgResearch Ltd’s code)• Rotorua District Veterinary Club (to use AgResearch Ltd’s code)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or arrangements terminated or lapsed:
• Genesis Research & Development Corporation Ltd
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids: Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testing in the national interest: Nil
Linda Carsons Principal Adviser Animal Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [email protected]
New agricultural newsletterMAF has started producing a new e-newsletter called the Smart Farming Bulletin.
It’s a practical newsletter to give farmers information and news about sustainable, resilient and productive agriculture. It also covers information about managing natural resources, adapting to weather extremes and answers frequently asked questions.
You can find it under “Rural NZ” at www.maf.govt.nz or email [email protected] to subscribe.
NAEACAnnual Report released
Notification of the numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching last year has been released
by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) in its Annual Report.
During 2009 a total of 297 111 animals were reported as “manipulated” which is a decrease of 13 percent compared to the previous year.
The principal purposes of manipulation in 2009 were veterinary research; basic biological research; and testing the safety and efficacy of animal health products. The animals most commonly used were rodents, farm animals, birds and fish.
NAEAC Chairperson, Virginia Williams,
said that despite the year’s numbers dropping by nearly 45 000 the rolling three year reporting average remains steady.
“Records of the number of animals used in long-term projects are not reported annually, but every three years, or when the project is completed. The rolling average is a truer reflection of animal use and is not increasing”.
“However, the influence a single project can have on the annual statistics is demonstrated this year by the reporting of a study involving the use of chicken eggs to investigate and monitor exotic avian influenza and other pathogens in wild bird species. This one project was largely responsible for an increase of over 80 percent in the number of animals
manipulated for testing purposes, as well as a significant rise in the proportion of animals killed or euthanased at the end of the testing process”.
Dr Williams adds that in seeking animal ethics committee approval for projects, researchers are required to demonstrate how they will minimise the effect on animals. Steps could include a high level of veterinary care, pre- and post-operative pain relief and removal from the study or euthanasia once the research objective is achieved.
Copies of NAEAC Annual Reports are available at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/naeac/annual-reports or by request from [email protected].
10 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
NAEAC News
The New ZealandThree Rs Programme
Animal manipulation statistics dueAll organisations/individuals with a code of ethical conduct or who have an arrangement to use another organisation’s animal ethics committee are reminded that their annual return of animal manipulation statistics for 2010 is due to be submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) by 28 February 2011. Returns must be in writing and should be completed on the forms provided by MAF for this purpose.
A copy of the form is posted to organisations in December each
year and is also available on the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand website: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/pubs/naeac/animal-manipulation-figures.pdf Please do not use old versions of the form.
Kirsty Grant Support Team Leader, Animal Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [email protected]
Established to promote the “Three Rs” in this country, the New Zealand Three Rs Programme was first
proposed in 2005 and has developed into an active collaboration between the Massey University Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART New Zealand) and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC).
The Programme has similar functions to those of Three Rs centres around the world and one of its key aims is to act as a central point of contact for such centres. The Strategic Plan for 2010–2015 describes this and other key aims of the Programme:• to promote understanding and
application of the Three Rs in New Zealand;
• to encourage new Three Rs strategies in New Zealand;
• to profile New Zealand’s Three Rs contributions nationally and internationally;
• to network and liaise with other Three Rs centres internationally.
Actions to advance these priorities over the next few years will include an information brochure (currently under development) and establishing a network of “Three Rs Champions” in a range of institutions to share information and encourage enthusiasm for the Three Rs throughout New Zealand.
For a copy of the Strategic Plan or for more information, see www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/research#threers or contact [email protected] We would be glad to hear from those in New Zealand who would like to be Three Rs Champions.
Mosquitoes, rubber dogs and jellyfishReal examples of replacement, reduction and refinement range from the routine and mundane to the sophisticated.
Today’s veterinary students would not be surprised by an artificial dog in their teaching laboratory, complete with heart sounds and working blood vessels, to replace living dogs. Similarly, scientists would expect to use the minimum number of animals necessary and more are inclined to give “hammocks” to their rats and igloo shelters to their mice as a form of refinement. However, examples that may be less widely known include jellyfish to study muscle contraction and eye development, giving pain relief to fish after surgery, using blood from mosquitoes (rather than trapping and blood sampling wildlife) to identify diseases that threaten public health and testing tick-killing medications using artificial ‘hosts’ rather than living animals.
Reading ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic?If you asked members of the general public what “The Three Rs” means, chances are they won’t reply “Replacement, Reduction and Refinement”. The core of the Three Rs is not a hard concept to grasp – essentially, it is about making science more robust and
humane by minimising harm to animals (on the basis that harm causes stress and stress can affect results). However, it can appear complicated because different definitions are used and each of the Three Rs is often treated separately. In fact, they form an orderly sequence that can be addressed as a series of questions:
Replacement – do animals have to be used at all? If so, can less-feeling animals be used?
Reduction – if animals have to be used, what is the smallest number needed?
Refinement – for the animals that are used, how are pain and distress to be minimised?
Kate Littin Senior Adviser MAF Animal Welfare [email protected]
David Mellor NZ Three Rs Programme Co-ordinator Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University [email protected]
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 11
AEC Service Awards
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) has presented a further two awards to members of animal ethics committees (AECs) in recognition of their service. Both were to
members of AgResearch Ltd’s AECs - one from the Ruakura committee, the other from the Invermay committee. The awards were presented in September 2010.
Dr Colin Mackintosh is a veterinarian and scientist at Invermay. He has served on the AEC for 20 over years.
The AEC greatly values both his scientific expertise regarding disease mechanisms, his knowledge of the animal welfare implications of proposed projects and his work in supervising staff undertaking manipulations and monitoring of projects.
Dr Nita Harding received her award in recognition of her many years of valuable input to the Ruakura AEC.
Nita’s balanced perspective, broad knowledge and concern for animal welfare were keenly sought after and appreciated in the committee’s deliberations. The award was presented to Nita by NAEAC committee member David Peart.
NominationsAECs/code holders are welcome to submit nominations to NAEAC at any time for AEC Service Awards for members who have provided meritorious service for at least five years. Names of those receiving awards are published only with their agreement.
Dr Colin Mackintosh (right) receiving his award from AgResearch’s General Manager Compliance Dr Jimmy Suttie
Dr Nita Harding receiving her award from NAEAC member David Peart
Accredited reviewers for organisations with a code of ethical conduct
Organisations with a code of ethical conduct are required to undergo a review from time to time. Reviews must be carried out by independent reviewers accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) for the purpose in accordance
with section 109 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The following people have recently been accredited.
Dr Wendy R Cook Dr G Lester LaughtonAsureQuality Ltd AsureQuality LtdPrivate Bag 3080 PO Box 644Waikato Mail Centre INVERCARGILL 9840HAMILTON 3240
Phone: 03-2146757 Phone: 07-8502825 Fax: 03-2146760 Fax: 07-8502801 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
For a full list of accredited reviewers see: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/naeac/accredited-reviewers.htm
Minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct
Code holders may make minor amendments to their code of ethical conduct. Code holders are
reminded that if they have made any minor amendments during 2010, they are required by law to notify the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) in writing of the changes as soon as practicable and by 31 March 2011 at the latest.
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 defines a minor amendment as one ‘that would not materially affect the purposes of the code’.
Linda Carsons Principal Adviser, Animal Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [email protected]
12 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Domestic
Farmer and public perspectives on
NEONATAL LAMB MORTALITYDavid Mellor’s active research interest in the causes and prevention of neonatal lamb mortality and related matters began more than 40 years ago and forms the basis of the present commentary on farmer and public perceptions of this problem.
The excessive lamb losses that occurred during this September’s unusual “cold snap” in the South
Island highlight, as an extreme example, a significant annual problem for the sheep industry in New Zealand and in other countries including Australia and the United Kingdom. In normal years, lamb losses in these countries average 15–25 percent, with variation between farms ranging from 5–50 percent or more, due mainly to differences in local weather conditions. In bad years, losses are worse.
This “reality” of lambing has been recognised for almost as long as sheep have been farmed. However, farmers have not simply accepted this situation as inevitable. For centuries, shepherds have given practical expression to their desire to care for, and protect, vulnerable newborns by using hands-on trial-and-error approaches to improve lambing management. Building on their successes, considerable international scientific activity for at least the past five decades greatly extended understanding of the factors that predispose lambs to sickness and death. This understanding has been translated into effective, practical and economic lambing methods for on-farm use.
It is important to note that birth “in the wild” is particularly hazardous. An evolutionary strategy to secure species
survival in ruminants has been to decrease neonatal losses by increasing maternal investment in individual young born in years when environmental conditions are favourable. However, domestication and subsequent selective breeding over hundreds of years have produced sheep that, in general, are genetically predisposed to annual birthing of more than one lamb. An unfortunate consequence has been a rise in neonatal losses from an estimated 5 percent in antiquity to about 30–50 percent in unmanaged flocks today. In light of the genetics of currently farmed sheep, therefore, halving the average mortality rate to 15–25 percent by knowledgeable intervention represents a significant achievement. This attests to the success of science in providing a rational basis for developing improved methods, and, importantly, to the willingness of the sheep industry to selectively use the improved methods that were found to be effective in
each region or country. Additional factors that have determined which methods would be preferred in different places include climate, topography, farming system, breed, tradition and economics.
Success in reducing such losses by deploying science-based solutions should be a justifiable source of pride among conscientious farmers. Conflict may arise, however, because evolutionary processes have deeply embedded in human beings a pre-programmed emotional drive to care for and protect vulnerable young of their own and other species. Although this promotes a sense of satisfaction among farmers when lambing goes well, it also contributes to a sense of failure when, despite their best efforts, significant lamb losses still occur.
This emotional drive also leads to genuine, deeply felt concern among the wider public. Specifically, it underlies the strong negative responses many people have to
Phot
o: 2
009,
M. O
liver
, rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
Two newborn lambs that survived
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 13
news items about high neonatal losses, especially if large piles of dead lambs are depicted. It also underlies the opprobrium generated by such news items and gives rise to the suspicion that the lambs have died through indifference or neglect. However, this is not the case with the vast majority of farmers who, along with the rest of the human population, have inherited equally strong, deeply embedded drives to care for and protect vulnerable young.
How might we proceed in light of these mutual misunderstandings?
On the one hand, farmers need to understand that legitimate public concern is focused primarily on the fate of vulnerable newborns, so that when they highlight financial reasons as their main motive for minimising neonatal losses, the message sent is that they care more about money than lambs dying. Farmers, therefore, need to explain to the public that their thwarted desire and failed efforts to care for and protect the newborn lambs that die are also emotionally harrowing for them. On the other hand, members of the public need to understand that the natural hazards of birth are great, so that mortality rates will remain significant even
when the best care is delivered by farmers. Moreover, the public needs to recognise that farmer concerns about the economic costs of lamb losses are legitimate. Farms are commercial enterprises that supply our food and thereby also contribute to the national economy.
The sheep industry would benefit by demonstrating more clearly its ongoing commitment to reducing mortality rates to lower levels than occur at present. The industry has a history of deploying scientifically based methods to good effect, but further gains could be made by an even greater application of current knowledge. Likewise, the industry should strongly support continuing attempts to further improve present methods and develop new ones. Rethinking the aims of current breeding strategies would also have merit. Of course a “one size fits all” approach will not work because of major differences between regions and countries. Experience has shown, for example, that the extensive lambing systems in New Zealand and Australia demand different solutions from those applicable to the intensive systems in Britain.
A demonstrable commitment to further improve methods of lambing
management will show that the sheep industry is continuing to take very seriously its duty of care toward the animals upon which it depends. It will also help to reassure members of the public that the deeply felt concerns they have about the fate of newborn lambs that die are both acknowledged and shared by farmers.
David J MellorCo-Director, Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre,Massey University, New [email protected]
David Mellor, Co-Director, Animal Welfare Science and
Bioethics Centre, Massey University
14 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Domestic
Kiwis take part in
ANIMAL WELFARE EXAMS Several New Zealanders were successful in the July examinations of the Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Chapter of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists (ACVSc). Kevin Stafford (MVB MSc PhD FRCVS FACVSc), Professor Applied Ethology and Animal Welfare at Massey University, became one of two inaugural Fellows in the Chapter.
Following a veterinary career in countries as varied as the Yemen, Belize and Zambia, Kevin arrived at Massey in 1990 and has been teaching animal behaviour and welfare for the past 17 years.
He has numerous publications in animal behaviour; animal welfare science; canine welfare; companion animal behaviour problems; livestock health and production; and pain assessment and management to his name.
Although an Australian, new Fellow Andrew Fisher (BVSc, PhD, FACVSc) is known to New Zealanders as a former member of AgResearch’s Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre at Ruakura.
After returning to Australia in 2002 to take up leadership of the Animal Welfare Group at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO), Andrew is now Associate Professor in Production Animal Management and Welfare at the University of Melbourne.
His teaching responsibilities focus mainly on dairy and beef cattle, and sheep, in particular looking at husbandry, health, production and welfare with involvement in veterinary public health.
Hawke’s Bay practitioner Karen Philips (BVSc, MACVSc) is one of two New Zealand veterinarians to achieve Membership in the Chapter this year.
As well as running her own mixed practice, Karen is the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) nominee on both the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and a local Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). She also sits on the Hawke’s Bay District Council’s Emergency Management Group as the animal welfare advisor.
Peggy Angus-Cook (DVM, MACVSc) is the second successful New Zealand candidate for Membership in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. A Utrecht University graduate, Peggy emigrated to New Zealand in 2000 to work for the Verification Agency (VA) in Thames.
Several moves later she is established at Prime Range Meats in Invercargill where she is active within VA as an animal welfare co-ordinator and has assisted the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Enforcement Group in animal welfare investigations.
Virginia WilliamsAnimal Welfare Co-ordinatorNZVA [email protected]
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 15
ANIMAL BEHAVIOURand welfare research at AgResearch, Ruakura
The Animal Behaviour and Welfare (ABW) team at AgResearch in Hamilton has carried out research
in this area for over 40 years. The main focus of the team’s research is in the dairy industry as part of a five year collaborative Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) programme with DairyNZ.
The programme’s goal is to support the livestock industry’s freedom to operate and market animal products in New Zealand and overseas. This is achieved in areas such as:• societal concerns and expectations
about animal welfare;• understanding welfare dimensions
such as body condition score from the animal’s perspective;
• mitigation of environmental stress and understanding resource requirements in pastoral environments;
• measurement of animal reactivity and human interactions;
• pain detection and alleviation in relation to animal husbandry procedures;
• practical welfare measurement on-farm; • understanding positive emotions.
The team leverages its skills in physiological and behavioural sciences to develop new knowledge and tools to assess animal welfare. While there is an emphasis on the dairy industry, the ABW team also undertakes industry-focused research on other species such as deer (e.g. velvet removal), sheep (e.g. transport), poultry
(e.g. broiler welfare), pigs (e.g. euthanasia), and horses (e.g. welfare).
Research has been carried out in domestic, native and pest species, playing an early role in the development of a successful pest-proof fence for protection of native fauna and avian repellents for toxic baits. There is also a current equine project underway.
The ABW team has a collaborative approach to research and has strong links with Massey University, Unitec and the University of Waikato in New Zealand. International collaborators include the University of California, Texas Tech University, University of Bristol, Scottish Agricultural College, Agriculture Canada and the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO).
These links have facilitated the training
and placement of many students in animal welfare science, and these students provide a valuable resource for many projects.
The team is also part of the regional World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare Science and Bioethical Analysis, along with Massey University, the CSIRO, University of Queensland, the Animal Welfare Science Centre at the University of Melbourne, and has a strong presence in both Europe and United States.
In future issues of Welfare Pulse, scientists from the team will provide a brief description of recent research in their fields of interest. The first of these will explore heat stress in dairy cattle. Jim WebsterAnimal Behaviour and Welfare Team [email protected]
16 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Domestic
Improving
BOBBY CALF WELFARE
For the last three years, a number of groups have proactively worked together to improve the welfare of
bobby calves sent for slaughter.
Initially known as the “Bobby Calf Transport Forum”, representatives from processor groups, transport companies, associated industry groups, and regulatory authorities came together to co-operate with each other and commit to achieving improvements in bobby calf welfare. Now known as the Farm to Processor Animal Welfare Forum, members have also been invited to act as a reference group for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s (MAF) animal welfare compliance and enforcement plan, and the forum’s mandate has been widened to include other issues.
It was acknowledged at the outset that there were issues that each of the parties would contribute to the outcome and that co-operation was needed if the welfare of bobby calves was to be improved.
Operational issues, such as how to
effectively implement standards in the Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Bobby Calves (the 2010 Code of Welfare for Dairy Cattle now includes minimum standards for Bobby Calves) have also been a focus. Industry bodies contributed with education and awareness programmes and all parties agreed that encouraging voluntary compliance was the preferred approach to achieving improvement.
For farmers, that means adequate care of calves; only selecting calves strong enough to withstand the stress of travel; feeding calves immediately prior to collection (within two hours); and holding calves for collection in pens that ensure they are clean, warm and dry.
For transporters, it means handling and transporting calves in a manner which causes minimal distress and avoids injury, bruising and suffering. For processors, its scheduling calves for slaughter as soon as possible after their last feed (ideally within 12 hours and preferably within 24 hours). Calves must be
slaughtered within 30 hours of their last feed.
The principle of “the shortest travel time and quickest time to slaughter” should be the major objective, but this is still a significant challenge facing the industry. It conflicts with current company procurement actions, competition between companies for calves, and operational scheduling decisions.
The results of the first season of this project (2008) were equivocal, with mortality rates being similar to 2007. The weather during the season had been wet and cold and may have had a significant impact. There was good awareness amongst processors, transport operators and farmers as well as anecdotal evidence suggesting transport operators were more selective about which calves were picked up, with drivers at times refusing to pick up calves deemed to be unsatisfactory.
During the 2009 season, MAF Animal Welfare Investigators assisted by two veterinarians from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority Verification Agency (NZFSA VA), undertook checks on calf collection. The goal was to assess on farm calf holding facilities, the quality of calves put out for collection, and to view transporter actions in selecting and loading calves. It was widely known that investigators would be out on the road and this may also have acted as a useful
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 17
reminder or deterrent.
Feedback was generally positive, with the majority of farms having pens that provided adequate shelter. However, there were also facilities that afforded very little shelter from inclement weather, or were in an inadequate state of repair or an unhygienic state.
There is still a need to define a minimum standard for calf housing that satisfies the needs of calves as well as transport operators, in order to allow adequate access to, and inspection of, calves at the time of pick up.
Results from the 2009 season showed more clearly a significant improvement compared to 2008 with 20 of 25 bobby calf processing premises achieving a lower average calf mortality rate.
In both years there has been a trend for calf mortality to increase as the season progresses. Factors affecting this include weather conditions during transport and the increased distances travelled as premises close down bobby calf slaughter operations.
The bobby calf welfare project continues in 2010. This season, more detailed information on calf mortality is being gathered in an attempt to confirm factors
associated with increased calf mortality rates. Additionally, processors and NZFSA VA veterinarians are expected to be alert to when mortality rates rise and to investigate and respond at that stage.
Reducing or eliminating these variations in mortality rates between the start and end of the season, and between individual processors, will lead to further improvement.
MAF Animal Welfare Investigators are also visiting farms and expect to engage with more farmers than last season in a proactive attempt to improve compliance. These visits complement NZFSA and industry initiatives in the bobby calf area as well as reflecting MAF’s determination to take on proactive opportunities that improve voluntary animal welfare compliance.
It is critical that awareness and motivation are maintained. Improvements have been achieved and some success can be claimed, but further improving the welfare of bobby calves will be the greater measure of success for this forum and industry. Alan WilsonTeam Manager, Animal Welfare InvestigationsMinistry of Agriculture and [email protected] WildSpecialistNew Zealand Food Safety Authority Verification [email protected]
18 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Domestic
ANIMAL HOARDING – the cruelty of kindness
Squalor and animal faeces, often piled high in cages or entire rooms, are the most common factor in
animal hoarding incidents, along with the pervading stench of ammonia. Animal welfare inspectors report fumes so caustic that their eyes, noses and throats remain painful for days after attending the scene of an offence.
But the most disturbing and haunting images are those of the animals incarcerated in these appalling conditions. Shut in with the fumes and the faeces, they suffer from overcrowding, disease, over-breeding, hunger and thirst. And despite the affection the hoarder is sure they afford “their” animals, by sheer force of numbers it would be impossible to adequately provide attention to all.
Far from being a problem faced only by animal protection agencies in other countries, animal hoarding is very much a reality in New Zealand.
Typically, animal hoarding involves companion animals in numbers more than usually or conveniently owned and, largely due to these excessive numbers, an inability on the part of the carers to provide for even basic needs of food, water and sufficient and sanitary housing, let alone any reasonable veterinary care.
Along with this neglect goes general denial that this is detrimental to the
animals’ wellbeing and the conviction that they, as carers, are “saving” the animals in question. Indeed, one of the typical assertions of hoarders is that no one else will be able to adequately provide this “care”, despite clear evidence of starvation, illness and death.
While in the past, research has attributed animal hoarding behaviour to a particular variant of obsessive-compulsive disorder; our experience in New Zealand has thrown up several different apparent causes of hoarding.
Most prevalent, and probably the most easily tackled from a welfare inspection perspective, is overpopulation of a collection of strays. Often, through the best of intentions, strays are “rescued”, despite lack of resources to keep them fed or disease-free. Often the carer will be elderly and there is certainly evidence of onset of senility in some cases. Removing most of these animals and de-sexing a few, left for the company of the carer, is a compassionate and usually satisfactory result. With ongoing observation to ensure that carer is coping, the remaining animals are relatively safe while the others can be de-sexed and treated for any disease present, ready for rehoming in more desirable circumstances.
Much more difficult and complex are the two other scenarios: that of the indiscriminate collection of, or breeding of animals, or cases where a breeder purposefully or carelessly breeds excessive numbers of animals.
Cases already dealt with by the SPCA in New Zealand have involved hundreds of cats and dogs but also, in one house more than 300 guinea pigs, and an Otago student with 90-plus rats in her room. Squalor and neglect are predictable, as are illness and undernourishment. Many of the animals rescued are simply too neglected and un-socialised to be candidates for rehoming and others will bear permanent damage from their deprivation. Prosecution for inflicting this suffering on the animals is often difficult and unrewarding. Additionally, recidivism
is extremely high, supporting the theories of psychological dependence or disorder. Removing animals from hoarders is also emotionally traumatic for both welfare staff, who abhor the neglect and suffering of the animal victims of the hoarding, and for perpetrators who see their beloved charges taken from them into the hands of an “enemy” who they are sure will harm them.
American SPCA Senior Vice-President for Anti-Cruelty Initiatives and Legislative Services, Dr Randall Lockwood purports that most hoarders have no real perception of the harm they are doing to the animals.
“In the majority of cases, animal hoarders often appear intelligent and clearly believe they are helping their animals. They often claim that any home is better than letting that animal die. In addition, many hoarders possess the ability to garner sympathy and often deceive others into thinking their situation is under control. They are blind to the fact that they are not caring for the animals or of the extreme suffering they are inflicting.”
According to Dr Lockwood, “being kept by a hoarder is a slow kind of death for the animal”. Actually, it’s a fate worse than death.
In a New Zealand hoarding case, the judge deemed the perpetrators’ home to be “Auschwitz for animals”. Yet the woman genuinely believed she was the saviour of these animals and gained the co-operation of others to keep them.
Detection is the first step in a long road to preventing this cruelty. Awareness of the signs will assist the SPCA or local authorities to take action. Some, but by no means all, of the signs of hoarding are:• numerous animals and the carer may
not know the total number of animals; • untidy, deteriorated dwelling; • strong smell of ammonia; • quantities of dried faeces, urine, and
vomit;• animals emaciated, lethargic and often
un-socialised and diseased; • fleas, flies and vermin often present; • carer insists all animals are happy and
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 19
Have your sheep BEEN SHORN YET?Sheep with 12 months wool growth or
more may suffer considerable stress and exhaustion unless they are shorn
before the onset of summer heat each year.
While large scale farmers shear their sheep at least once a year, the same is not always true for some lifestyle farmers who may be unaware of risks to the animals’ welfare when sheep miss annual shearing and in some cases end up with two years wool growth.
A visit from a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Animal Welfare Investigator or the RNZSPCA may also be the outcome.
Often the excuse given is “I can’t find a shearer who is willing to shear small numbers of sheep” or that there are no shearing facilities or electricity – not uncommon on some lifestyle farms. Another excuse is “something else got in the way and I never got around to it”.
However, the simple truth is that no excuse is ever acceptable. If a decision is made to purchase sheep for a lifestyle block or otherwise, consideration must be given to ensuring husbandry practices (including shearing) can be carried out in a timely and
responsible manner.
Sheep with 12 months wool growth or more may suffer heat stress and exhaustion during hot summer conditions, particularly where shade is not available. The reason for this is that sheep, unlike humans, cannot regulate their body temperature by sweating; they rely on air crossing their tongues during respiration (“panting”) to cool their bodies down.
It’s not just heat stress in summer that needs to be considered. Often sheep with excessive wool growth will be carrying excessive amounts of wet or dried faeces which are very attractive to flies and cause fly strike, a serious animal welfare condition that, if left untreated, may result in death.
Sheep also like to roll on the ground, particularly after a shower of rain. A shorn sheep is much more likely to get to its feet again compared to a sheep with a long fleece. A sheep on its back with a heavy fleece will die quickly in the height of summer and long fleeces will also get caught up more easily in wire, netting, gorse and blackberry.
November and December are good months
to have your sheep shorn, before the high summer temperatures arrive. Make an appointment with your shearer early to ensure availability, or even better, book for the same dates each year. Shearers like to know they have regular clients.
The Animal Welfare (Sheep and Beef Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 includes standards on shearing. Recommended best practice is that sheep should be shorn as frequently as is necessary to mitigate animal health and welfare concerns. Usually this would be once a year.
Good farmers and stock people speak about “empathy” with their animals. That is, they mentally put themselves in the same position as their animals and ask the question “how would I feel or react to the same conditions?” This is a good principle to follow and will mean the welfare of the animal is always paramount and protected at all times. A well cared for sheep is a profitable one.David BarbourAnimal Welfare InvestigatorMinistry of Agriculture and [email protected]
healthy even when there are clear signs of distress, neglect and illness; and
• carer may pose as a not-for-profit “rescuer” but with restricted or no access to the animals by the public and little effort made to rehome animals.
Hoarders often cut themselves off from society, closing curtains or blocking up windows in an effort to disguise their circumstances, or live on remote properties to exclude the public. So information from the public about their activities is vital. Recognising that animals are suffering and informing either local health authorities, Age Concern (where appropriate) and the SPCA
allows for intervention and the hope of rehabilitation.
Additionally, resolving animal hoarding cases typically requires a great deal of resources, in terms of money, staff and time. Seized animals that are not signed over by the perpetrator to the care of the SPCA must be retained until a resolution of any court case. These cases can drag on for years causing one SPCA to have to build a specific facility to house the cats involved.
However, allowing animals to remain in the cruel care of hoarders is neither acceptable nor realistic – there is always a better option.
Robyn KippenbergerNational Chief Executive Royal New Zealand [email protected]
20 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
Domestic
MASSEY UNIVERSITY STUDENTSExternship with Wellington SPCA
Having started back in November last year, the Massey veterinary externship with Wellington
SPCA has been a profound success. Wellington SPCA was approached by Massey University with a proposal of an externship for fifth-year Bachelor of Veterinary Science students. The externship was designed to allow students an opportunity to gain clinical, practical and interpersonal skills during a week at the clinic. The idea was that students would be exposed to routine procedures and issues that occur daily in animal welfare organisations, with the added hope that the experience might encourage future veterinarians to work alongside such organisations and shelters. The externship is now part of the students’ course, and during their week with Wellington SPCA, evaluations of the students’ work are carried out and reported back to the university.
During their week at Wellington SPCA, students spend time in all areas of the shelter taking part in operations, client consultations, hospital ward procedures, inspections, education and adoptions. This schedule allows the students to gain
experiences that would be unlikely in a classroom setting or private practice. Students get the chance to expand their skills by carrying out behavioral assessments, drawing on clinical skills, and by developing an understanding of day-to-day operations and
interpersonal skills with staff, clients and other members of the public. This gives a greater understanding of the integral role SPCAs play in terms of animal health and welfare organisations.
Most of the students embarking on the externship have a minimal knowledge of Wellington SPCA and its work. “My knowledge was pretty minimal, I knew where the building was, that there were fairly high animal numbers, but that’s about all,” veterinary student Alix Barclay-Green said.
The fact students have such a limited knowledge of the work of SPCAs is clear evidence of a an important gap between animal welfare groups and vets, and highlights a need for stronger ties to be built.
Having the students for a week enabled the SPCA to teach them more extensively about animal welfare, the organisation, and how it works. Animal Care and Adoptions Manager, Nicholas Taylor said the scheme not only provided an opportunity to help vets grow and develop, but enabled the organisation to create allies with a better understanding of the work done by SPCAs. Mr Taylor
said some SPCAs had issues with some vets feeling as though the organisation was taking away valuable work, without realising that the focus of SPCA work is centred on animal welfare. Allowing veterinary students to see what SPCAs do and what services they offer helps to build stronger ties between shelters and private practices. “We hope from this programme to gain a strategic vision, understanding, and ideal of animal welfare in this country,” Mr Taylor said.
As part of the externship, students accompany an Inspector and a Humane Education Officer as they go about their work. This allows the students to gain a better overall understanding of the organisation’s work. “It seems a lot of current vets don’t fully understand the work we do and have rather biased opinions,” Humane Education Officer Jennifer Rizzi said. “Often the students are surprised that we offer education visits and animal therapy, and even more surprised at the quality of those visits. I hope the students receive a better perspective of what the SPCA deals with and the services we offer,” she said. Veterinary student Yi Fang Tay was certainly impressed during
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 21
Disqualification order enforced by MAF
A Coromandel farm owner and property developer, and his farm worker, were recently convicted of
deliberately breaching a Court-imposed Disqualification Order under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
Phillip Peacock was sentenced to 300 hours community work and disqualified from being the owner of, or exercising authority over farm animals for three years. He was also ordered to pay solicitors’ costs.
Farm owner Lance Burt was sentenced to six months’ home detention and 100 hours community work.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Investigations Manager Greg Reid says the two defendants actively conspired to disguise the fact that Mr Peacock was acting in contravention of a disqualification from owning or having custody or control of animals that was imposed in 2006.
“As a consequence of Mr Peacock being in charge of animals, further and ongoing mistreatment of cattle in his care occurred” says Greg.
“Not only did his employer Mr Burt permit him to do this, but he also adopted various tactics to draw attention from the fact that Mr Peacock was exercising authority over animals. These tactics included the rewriting and replacement of Mr Peacock’s initial employment contract and the issuing of a trespass notice to the farm worker who had informed MAF of the situation”.
In 2006, Mr Peacock was prosecuted by MAF for the ill-treatment of cattle. He pleaded guilty to 56 charges under the Animal Welfare Act and was disqualified from owning or exercising authority over all animals for five years. Employed by Coromandel Dairy Trust Limited Director Lance Burt in July 2008, he carried out various farm duties including moving and feeding stock, calving of cows and the
supervision and instruction of farm staff.
Within a month of his appointment Mr Peacock was moved into a management role and during this time staff queried his farming decisions on several occasions. These decisions related to his failure to attend to ‘downer’ cows which later died, and the deaths of cows as a result of them being inappropriately calved with a farm tractor.
The Animal Welfare Act contains provisions that permit the disqualification of people who have breached the Act from owning or having custody of or control of animals. Greg Reid confirms that the intention of these provisions is to put a stop to further mistreatment of animals and to deter further offending by the disqualified person.
“Both defendants have learned that disqualifications will be enforced by the Ministry. Flouting the law and poor animal husbandry are unacceptable and will always be treated seriously by MAF”.
her externship. “I didn’t know Wellington SPCA was part of so many projects like Pet Therapy. I think it’s brilliant, a win-win for all, especially since SPCA animals are used.”
For students, spending time with the inspectorate is a highlight and for Wellington SPCA staff, they feel it is very important for the students to see first-hand what inspectors have to deal with. “It has been a positive initiative, it allows the students to see the reality of what SPCA inspectors face on a daily basis,” Animal Welfare Inspector Brett Lahman said. “It will hopefully impact on the new generation of veterinarians and increase co-operation and understanding between SPCA and private practice vets.” Wellington SPCA is hopeful that by
the students seeing the huge number of unwanted and abandoned animals it deals with on a daily basis, and the cost involved in caring for them and preparing them for adoption, that the new vets will eventually initiate programmes of their own offering low-cost desexing.
The benefits of the externship to students are undeniable: hands-on experience, not only in the vet clinic, but also with the inspectorate and education teams. But the Wellington SPCA also benefits from the programme. It is able to show the future veterinarians what animal welfare groups and shelters face each day, and what they achieve with very limited resources. Hopefully, the programme can help build stronger ties between the two groups, and as a result, animal welfare throughout
New Zealand can be improved.
Most of the students from the last semester said they would definitely consider working for an SPCA at some stage in their careers. They felt the externship was extremely beneficial. “I hope they keep [the programme] for future years,” Yi Fang Tay said. The only negative feedback from the students was about their backpacker accommodation experience. Perhaps that drives home an important point, that much like backpacker accommodation, a shelter is no home sweet home. Angela McGuiganHumane Education OfficerWellington SPCA [email protected]
22 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
International
A WALK ON THE WILDSIDE
IntroductionThe field of wildlife research has broadened considerably, and in January this year, the United States National Park Service (NPS) met this growing dynamic with the inauguration the NPS Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (NPS IACUC). All IACUC mandates stem from ensuring that animal research projects maintain compliance with the United States Animal Welfare Act Regulations (AWAR); however, most IACUCs focus primarily on research animals in stringent laboratory settings. The nascent NPS IACUC differs from this norm in that it deals almost exclusively with wildlife in its natural habitat, and this poses inherently new challenges in the field of animal welfare.
Mission and purposeThe NPS is currently steward to 34 million hectares (84 million acres) of land and water. This is an area roughly equivalent to the geographic expanse of the Republic of Finland. And yet this breadth of NPS natural resources is characterised by precious little geographic continuity; encompassing distinct lands from American Samoa (~10o south latitude) to north Alaska (~67o north latitude). Ecologic zones comprising the whole of this area include terrestrial and aquatic tropical, temperate, and arctic climes. The diversity of biota therein is astounding, and such a measure of diverse fauna and flora invites - appropriately - a great predilection for research.
Herein is the seminal dynamic: within this diverse biota, equilibrium must be effected between the stewardship of natural resources and the promulgation of wildlife research. And these causes may cursorily appear disparate in essence, but in fact are interdependent; with the neglect or loss of one necessitating resultant injury to the other. From this dynamic emanates the mission and purpose of the NPS IACUC; the central functions of which are to concurrently maintain and integrate
the highest levels of natural resource stewardship and wildlife research; all within the context of AWAR compliance.
IACUC issuesIt is the lawful mission of the NPS IACUC to ensure compliance with the AWAR; however, in 1966, the Congressional authors of the AWAR envisioned a different sphere of research than that in-play today. In particular, the AWAR is explicit in its language regarding the housing, care, use, and treatment of animals in laboratory settings, but AWAR language concerning wildlife lacks similar specificity, and is thus measurably dissimilar.
One might argue that the AWAR sidesteps wildlife by exempting from IACUC jurisdiction/review “studies conducted on free-living wild animals in their natural habitat”. But this clause (unofficially termed the AWAR Field Study exemption) in turn has its own exemptions, which leave room for a broader, more inclusive interpretation of AWAR authority. In particular, AWAR language specifically states that procedures causing harm to, involving an invasive procedure on, or
materially altering the behaviour of an animal under study legally necessitate IACUC review, regardless of habitat.
And from these three broadly interpretive exemptions, the NPS IACUC derives most of its jurisdictional authority concerning the review of wildlife studies. Because studies of wildlife in their natural habitat often lack traditionally quantifiable AWAR laboratory assessment parameters (for example, cage dimensions, lighting wattage, and/or facility disinfectant standards), NPS IACUC reviews often proceed instead from a different part of the AWAR, that is, collective assessment of the aforementioned issues (harm, invasive procedures, and material alterations in behaviour) within a given study. Moreover, the determination of whether or not wildlife research projects in NPS units intend any of these three actions is the absolute domain of the NPS IACUC. Such wildlife project reviews are also derived from the collective experience and expertise of the NPS IACUC members, although a great deal of AWAR consultation takes place as well. In these ways, the NPS IACUC approach to reviewing wildlife projects for
John Bryan participating in Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) Field Research in Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida: February, 2010.
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 23
AWAR compliance is fundamentally and qualitatively different from the traditional review protocols of more laboratory-based IACUCs.
Evolving issuesThe list of IACUCs focused primarily on wildlife is short. However, scientific investigations conducted on wildlife in their natural habitat are gaining ground in scope and application, particularly concerning the epidemiology of zoonoses (e.g. H5N1 HPAI). And it is in this burgeoning arena of wildlife research where the NPS IACUC must evolve and thrive; in particular by developing new, non-traditional AWAR compliance strategies. In this manner the NPS IACUC has a unique and powerful opportunity to help lead the way toward cultivating an expanded, comprehensive understanding of animal welfare outside the laboratory and across varied ecosystems.
The authorFollowing a few years in Central West Africa, I returned home in the late 1990s to my native state of Georgia in the southeastern United States, and quickly thereafter, I began my pursuit of an education in veterinary medicine at the University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine (UGA CVM) in Athens, Georgia. In May 2007, I graduated with a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine and a Certificate in International Veterinary Medicine. These were quickly followed by a Master of Science in Veterinary Pathology and the completion of a two-year post-doctoral training programme in infectious diseases of wildlife at the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study; both again at the UGA CVM. In the fall of 2009, I was hired by the United States National Park Service to serve as the inaugural Chair and Attending Veterinarian of the National
Park Service Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Since this time, it has been a full, rich experience; one that I have little doubt will continue as such. John A. Bryan, IIVeterinary Medical Officer; Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Chair & Attending VeterinarianUnited States National Park [email protected]
2010–11 upcoming events
November 2010
IDF World Dairy Summit November 2010, Auckland – New Zealand www.wds2010.com
International Companion Animal Welfare Conference 17–19 November, Vienna - Austria www.icawc.org
6th International Colloquium on Working Equids 29 November – 3 December - Delhi, Indiawww.worldvet.org/node/5486
December 2010Scientists Centre for Animal Welfare – Annual Conference 6–7 December – San Antonio, USA www.scaw.com
February 2011RSPCA Aus Science Seminar 22 February – Canberra, Australiawww.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/science-and-policies/science-seminar.html Lameness in Ruminants 28 February – 3 March – Rotorua, New Zealand www.lamenessinruminants.org
March 20115th Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Association 21–25 March - Accra, Ghanawww.5pancomvetconf2011.com
June 2011
15th Australasian Vertebrate Pest Control 20–22 June – Sydney, Australia www.avpc.net.au
UFAW International Animal Welfare Symposium – Making animal welfare improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints 29–29 June – Portsmouth, UK www.ufaw.org.uk/UFAWSYMPOSIUM2011.php
HSA Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter Centenary Conference 30 June – 1 July – Portsmouth, UK www.hsa.org.uk/symposium%202011.html
John A. Bryan, IIAttending Veterinarian
United States National Park Service
24 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
International
A KIWI’S GROUND UP PERSPECTIVE on animal welfare in the European Union
Animal welfare issues continued to attract significant attention during my secondment to the NZ Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Brussels, where my role included facilitation of animal welfare communications between New Zealand and the European Union (EU). It appears as though this attention will not wane and we need to continue to be tuned in to what is going on in Europe.
Understanding how a machine works is crucial to being able to operate it. Brussels is one of those machines because it is the administrative centre of the European Union, earning the city the title of the Capital of Europe.
There are three institutions effectively running the EU, and each has a unique role to play.
European Parliament (EP) – represents the people of Europe, directly elected by its citizens and in some policy areas jointly passes laws with the Council.
The Council of the European Union – is the Union’s main decision-making body represented by each of the national governments and jointly passes laws with the EP.
The European Commission – is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union’s treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.
New Zealand has a long standing working relationship with Commission, and the Council. For example, New Zealand participates in the Animal Welfare Cooperation Forum (Commission) and the NZ/EU Sanitary agreement (Council and Commission). However, New Zealand has had less of a working relationship with Parliament.
Our awareness of Parliament’s view on animal welfare issues needs to be maintained and taken seriously, because of the way the European Parliament’s role has developed. This is as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. A significant change
in the area of animal welfare was the introduction a “co-decision” (ordinary legislative procedure), which means that all three EU institutions involved in the legislative process have to find a consensus in the area of animal welfare (whereas previously the Council only had to consult).
Commentators have said it brings Europe closer to the US system. The balance of power had changed and the Commission would no longer be able to go against the European Parliament and on occasion it would have to take on some of their ideas.
This development is important because Parliament is influenced to a large extent by public opinion and lobbying. Therefore, it is often who speaks loudest who will drive the Parliament view. This means that we may need it to speak up proactively or be ready to represent a certain point of view and interests. For example our farming systems are sometimes not well understood and in some cases misrepresented by some lobby groups. A working knowledge of how Parliament functions including knowing who the key players involved in influencing and decision making are will be key to acting quickly and efficiently. Examples of issues being discussed now include labelling of religious methods of slaughter, and enforcement of EU standards in other countries for product imported to the EU.
Furthermore, the power of the European Parliament will significantly increase in international affairs as its consent will now be required for the approval of international trade agreements (for example future agricultural trade agreements). This could mean there are some interesting discussions ahead with respect to how animal welfare is acknowledged, treated or given priority in SPS agreements.
Another significant effect the Lisbon Treaty has on the welfare portfolio is that it has incorporated a specific article on animal welfare for the first time, in
which it instructs all EU institutions and Member States to “pay full regard to the requirements of animal welfare” in the EU’s competent areas.
Article 13 “In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the union and the member states shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the member states relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”.
The evolution of the various European treaties has involved an incremental inclusion of animal wlfare. In practice this means that any impact assessment when developing new policy in these areas must consider animal welfare.
With New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Co-operation Forum with the EU we are well placed. However there is a need think about what next will happen next and how New Zealand can best be positioned to take advantage of these movements.
Brian Astridge Market Access CounsellorNew Zealand Food Safety Authority(Formerly SPS Counsellor, Ministry Foreign Affairs and Trade, NZ Mission to the EU, Brussels)[email protected]
Brian Astridge Market Access Counsellor
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 25
RAPID RESPONSE to emergency care
The World Society for the Protection of Animals (formerly ISPA) has been involved in providing care to animals
in disasters since 1964 and in the past five years alone has helped more than half a million animals. From the Asian tsunami to the Haiti earthquake, WSPA’s teams of experienced responders have provided acute and longer term care for the animals affected, as well as assistance in rebuilding the structures made to protect them.
WSPA disaster management has also pioneered the field of risk reduction for animals in disasters with projects worldwide. Since 2008, WSPA has been assisting governments in Colombia, Australia and Canada, helping them integrate animals into emergency planning. WSPA is also a sponsor of the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Committee (NAWEM) in New Zealand, and draws upon government and SPCA staff to help them respond to Pacific Island emergencies.
In June this year, WSPA brought its disaster teams together in New Zealand for its bi-annual training event aimed at bringing all team members to an accepted minimum standard for response. Part-sponsored by MAF New Zealand (MAFNZ) and based out of Massey University, the course included representatives from Massey University, Auckland SPCA, Wellington SPCA, Victoria SPCA (Australia) and Civil
Defence in New Zealand.
A key part of the course was refreshing individuals’ swift water training where people learn how to rescue themselves and others. As many disasters globally have a hydro-meteorological element to them, it is important to keep this training up to date so that teams are effective in managing the impact of such disasters safely. The team held the training section in grade three rapids near Turangi with the help of New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue Instructors.
WSPA disaster teams around the world are always prepared for the onset of an emergency and can respond regionally within hours collecting information, liaising with authorities, providing technical expertise and preparing an assessment team. When attending a disaster, WSPA’s teams will first undertake a full needs assessment of the situation to ensure that any aid provided will be effective and targeted. This assessment determines not only the species affected but what their problems are and how best to address them. The needs might involve a requirement for immediate evacuation, emergency feed or veterinary care, or they might involve the longer term action such as the rebuilding of veterinary and animal health infrastructure, as is the case in Haiti.
James Sawyer, the Head of Disaster Management for WSPA, said “New Zealand continues to take the issue of animals in emergencies seriously, and provides great support to our work both at home and overseas. Thanks to the support received from New Zealand (both the authorities
and the participants), the course was a great success!”
James SawyerHead of Disaster ManagementWorld Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)[email protected]
James SawyerHead of Disaster Management
WSPA
26 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
International
The Commonwealth Veterinary Association
– WORTHY OF YOUR SUPPORT
The Commonwealth Veterinary Association (CVA) was founded in 1967 and is a not-for- profit
organisation. Membership is open to National Veterinary Associations of Commonwealth member countries and country councillors are appointed by the national organisation. For more information about the CVA please visit http://commonwealthvetassoc.org/.
Currently, the CVA has 54 full members and a number of associate members, including the Secretariat for the Pacific Communities, the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), Compassion in World Farming and Mayhew International and Norbrook Laboratories. Some non-Commonwealth countries are also associate members of the CVA, demonstrating our willingness to work beyond the Commonwealth.
Business is managed by a committee of executive officers appointed under a constitution. There are six regions representing Asia, Australasia and Oceania, Canada and the Caribbean, East, Central and Southern Africa, West Africa and the United Kingdom and Mediterranean.
New Zealand is part of the CVA’s Australasia and Oceania region which also includes Malaysia and Singapore
and eight Pacific Island states, with Timor-L’este as an associate member. The provision of animal health and animal welfare services within New Zealand’s island neighbours is a special challenge given the low numbers of resident veterinarians – half of the CVA Pacific Island members have no veterinarians
at all, and numbers in the others are far from ideal. Considerable scope exists for volunteer veterinarians to undertake specific priority assignments in the Pacific Island states, in collaboration with local authorities. These include the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s [SPC] Animal Health and Production Service, based in Suva, Fiji. SPC is itself a valuable associate member of the CVA.
The Mission of the CVA is to promote the veterinary profession within the Commonwealth by encouraging the highest professional standards of education, ethics and service in order to advance animal health, productivity and welfare so as to improve the quality of life of all its peoples.
The CVA has the following aims and objectives:• To promote within the Commonwealth
the interests of the veterinary and allied sciences.
• To maintain the honour and traditions of the profession.
• To facilitate the dissemination of professional knowledge and information.
• To encourage the creation of a National Veterinary Association in any Commonwealth member country where none exists.
• To promote interchange between its members.
• To encourage the creation of statutory bodies to regulate the study and practice of veterinary science in member countries where none exist.
• To promote animal health and welfare, animal production and veterinary public health within the Commonwealth.
• Such other purposes as, from time to time, may be considered desirable by the association.
• To promote the role of veterinarians in emerging fields such as aquaculture.
• To promote partnership linkages and collaborative activities between like-minded bodies.
• To encourage assistance of developing countries by developed countries.
• To achieve the closest possible links between member associations.
The CVA receives funding from annual national association membership subscriptions, but relies heavily on donations. It currently receives its major funding from the Commonwealth Foundation and from its major sponsor, Norbrook Laboratories.
These funds are applied to a variety of projects and it is satisfying to see such substantial benefits from very modest funding. These projects are designed to develop the capacity of veterinarians and farmers (especially women farmers) in developing countries. For example, in the past year, the CVA has provided funding for rabies training courses for veterinarians in rural communities in Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria and Ghana at an average cost of USD1000. Other projects include supporting:• small-scale productivity using natural
farming methods in East and Central Africa;
• poverty alleviation of women buffalo dairy farmers in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; and
• poverty alleviation of women poultry farmers in Pakistan and India.
Animals at an animal welfare shelter, Bangalore, India
Phot
o: P
eter
Tho
rnbe
r
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 27
Emphasis on continuing professional developmentThe CVA also runs a book programme to supply unwanted veterinary text books to veterinary schools in developing countries. If you have unwanted veterinary books or journals, please consider donating them to the CVA. Your New Zealand CVA councillor, Dr Helen Beban ([email protected]), can provide further advice.
The Journal of the CVA is a value-for-money publication available at a special discount price of AUD30 for a two-year subscription. There are two editions a year, and the journal is a high-quality product in full colour. To download the latest journal, please visit the CVA website at http://commonwealthvetassoc.org/July2010.pdf.
This journal is an important part of the CVA’s focus on Continuing Professional Development (CPD). CPD has been an important component of the CVA’s activities since its inception, and has been achieved in a number of ways. These include, organising workshops and conferences, short-term study grants, supporting visiting lecturers and other specialists, maintenance of the CVA website and the book programme and CVA journal as mentioned.
The CVA has been particularly fortunate in having our members be given free access to the New Zealand based SciQuest® and the British-based WikiVet.
The New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) has generously given CVA member’s access to the New Zealand and Australian publications found on SciQuest®. WikiVet is a website designed to provide a free, comprehensive, online knowledge-base for veterinary students, nurses and graduates worldwide. Aiming to cover the entire veterinary curriculum, WikiVet has been created in a similar way to its big brother Wikipedia.
It is recognised that a great deal of information can already be gained simply by “Googling” a topic. An example of unique, valuable information is the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community para-veterinary training material. Also, the Fiji National University is developing a Diploma in Animal Health programme that could contain useful material. No doubt there are numerous other examples of similar material from throughout the Commonwealth.
There is also a specific need to include leadership and how to influence public policy as a core component of professional development. The EU Better Training for Safer Food programme has a module on these topics as part of its EU veterinary training course. The Masters Course in Veterinary Public Health through the University of Sydney also places some emphasis on these areas.
One of the most important roles of the CVA is the organisation of global conferences every three years. These Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conferences bring all CVA countries together along with experts from throughout the world to provide an important opportunity for learning, information exchange and for professional development.
The next Pan Commonwealth conference will be the fifth such event and it is being jointly hosted by the CVA and the Ghana Veterinary Medical Association in Accra, Ghana, from 21-25 March 2011. For more information, please visit http://5pancomvetconf2011.com/.
The theme of the fifth Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conference (PCVC5) will be “The Role of Veterinarians and Livestock Farmers in Food Security and Poverty Alleviation”. This will be the first major international conference in the World Year of the Veterinarian, celebrating 250 years since the creation of the profession and the first veterinary school in Lyon, France. The African Veterinary Association and World Veterinary Association are also strongly engaged with the conference.
The PCVC5 will be supported by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the Director General, Dr Bernard Vallat, giving the inaugural
address. The scientific programme will cover important areas of animal health and veterinary public health. There will be specialist streams on one-health-one-medicine, rabies, working equids and animal welfare.
An impressive whole-day programme on animal welfare has been designed, and will be chaired, by the Chair of the OIE Permanent Working Group on Animal Welfare, Dr David Bayvel, from MAF New Zealand (MAFNZ). He has put together an impressive collection of senior speakers from OIE, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), The Royal Veterinary College, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), the World Bank and the UK Department for Foreign Investment and Development (DFID). The special challenges for developing countries will also be highlighted by speakers from Africa and Thailand. All participants in the welfare session will have an opportunity to have their views considered through an interactive afternoon working group session.
Peter ThornberTreasurerCommonwealth Veterinary AssociationManager Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and CommunicationsDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (DAFF)[email protected]
Peter ThornberTreasurer
Commonwealth Veterinary Association
28 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
International
Animal welfare
IN BRAZILBrazil is a continental and emerging
country with great beauty but also great problems. One can find
different stages of economic, social, cultural and educational development throughout Brazilian society, even in the scientific field. Therefore, there are places where animal welfare science is excellent and others where there is little knowledge of what animal welfare really is. However, there is a great goodwill from Brazilians towards addressing these issues.
Animal welfare in Brazil has made a good deal of progress in the last decade and has become a source of interest not only to scientists but to society as a whole. The country still does not have a Federal Animal Welfare Act, but it is working on a project to be presented to the National Congress.
As Brazil is one of the world’s largest meat exporters, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture is putting great emphasis on animal welfare and has issued guidelines about welfare practices related to the management, diet, facilities and transport of farmed livestock (cattle, pigs and poultry).These guidelines try to support the productive sector so that Brazilian products do not suffer restrictions from the most restrictive markets. They have already had a great impact on agribusiness exports, which totalled US$71.5 billion in 2009.
Standards for the welfare of transported and slaughtered animals follow OIE recommendations as Brazil is a signing Party of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Treaty.
Laboratory animals used in research, testing and teaching were not protected by law in Brazil until October 2008 but it is fair to say that prior to this time the majority of researchers and people working with laboratory animals cared about the animals they used, followed international principles on the ethics of animal experimentation and established ethical committees. Brazil also participates in the OIE Laboratory Animal Welfare
ad hoc group.
In relation to wild animals, there is a law that protects the environment as a whole and included offences against the fauna and the risks to their welfare.
The first course in animal welfare was taught to veterinary students in 1999 at the University of Brasília. Before that, some steps were taken towards teaching animal welfare and two groups commenced work with applied ethology in the 1980s. The teaching of animal welfare in veterinary colleges is one of Brazil’s main objectives because of the great impact it will have in all animal areas.
The Brazilian Veterinary Association also felt the need to act more decisively on the subject of animal welfare and a committee was created to deal with animal welfare topics in all areas. State Veterinary Associations also have their own Animal Welfare Committees.
Credit should be given to Dr. Milton Thiago de Melo, who was the president of the 1992 World Veterinary Congress in Rio de Janeiro, with emphasis on animal welfare. This forum helped make veterinarians aware of the importance of this topic and, as a consequence, many other National Congresses and seminars have been organised, bringing more
attention to the animal welfare area.
In summary, it can be said that Brazil is trying to follow international guidelines, aiming to participate in discussions and wanting to work in the animal welfare area as a partner and active member in the international harmonisation of animal welfare.
Thank you to Dr Carla Noleto for the information provided on Animal Welfare in Education.
Ekaterina RiveraDirector Central Laboratory Animal FacilityFederal University of Goiás, [email protected]
Ekaterina RiveraDirector Central Laboratory
Animal Facility
Phot
o: L
ibra
ry o
f the
Bra
zilia
n M
inis
try o
f Ext
erna
l Rel
atio
ns
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 29
WILDLIFE, WELFARE AND WARThe Marjan Centre for the Study
of Conflict and Conservation was established in July 2010 as a fully
integrated research group within the Department of War Studies in King’s College, London.
The motivation to create the centre arose out of the interest of a number of members of academic staff, former students, and leading figures in animal charities, who were concerned about the impact of war, conflict and instability on wildlife and the welfare of animals.
Although individual studies of the effects of animals in war and the impact of conflict on the environment have been undertaken in the past, there has been a lack of systematic scholarly endeavour to analyse the scope and depth of problems that reside in this area.
The reasons why there has been a relative neglect of academic study into this subject are numerous but boil down to one main factor: war and its manifold effects is a unique manifestation of human conduct. Hence, the orientation of the study of war revolves around the human subject, both as the cause of war and as victims of war.
The understanding of the impact of war on the non-human worlds, and upon the physical environment generally, therefore, rarely registers as an object of study. In particular, animals constitute genuine hidden victims of war because they are relegated from the human sphere
of experience. They are hidden because, unlike the majority of humans, they have no choice, and they have no voice.
The Marjan Centre sets out to change this by bringing out of the shadows the impact of conflict on the animal world and by including the understanding of it into contemporary war and conflict studies.
The centre is fortunate to have the backing of the Department of War Studies, King’s College, London. This world-renowned department not only provides teaching to undergraduates and postgraduates but also provides policy and strategic advice to governments and institutions globally.
The chairman of the centre is Major-General Peter Davies, CB, who after leaving the British Army forged a new career as director-general firstly of the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) and then the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). Director of Research is Professor Michael Rainsborough of the War Studies Department, with a distinguished Advisory Panel that includes Sir Crispin Tickell, GCMG, KCVO, a leading environmental spokesman, primatologist Dame Jane Goodall, and Dr David Bayvel from the Animal Welfare Directorate of the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The goal of the Marjan Centre is to become a leading educational resource, providing rigorous, impartial, research
into studies of conflict and conservation, and to create a framework to stimulate wider interest that will attract PhD, Masters and undergraduate students into this area.
The centre also intends to function as a public information forum whereby researchers and practitioners can exchange and discuss their own ideas. Through such means, the Marjan Centre intends to contribute to the raising of public awareness in the belief this can generate positive policy outcomes.
Although the centre makes explicit reference to the link between conflict and conservation, its sphere of interest extends beyond concern for the protection of endangered species. It seeks also to encompass studies of how war and its consequences impacts on all aspects of animal welfare (from the impact on domestic pets to zoo animals), and in so doing, show that the role of animals in war and the consequences inflicted upon them as a result of war are deeply connected to the human experience.
Michael Rainsborough Professor of Strategic Theory and Director of Research Marjan Centre for the Study of Conflict and Conservation, the Department of War Studies, King’s College, [email protected]
30 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
International
ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE US:Legislative developments in production animal welfare
Animal welfare in the United States (US) has not seen a substantial degree of national legislation.
There is an existing consensus against “on-farm” animal welfare assurance by a governmental authority and we are unlikely to see any comprehensive national farm animal welfare laws in the near future.
Existing federal laws for production animal welfare includes those regulating humane slaughter, livestock transport, and livestock used for research. With no on farm regulation of animal welfare by the federal government, welfare is ensured by private industry standards, third party quality assurance audits and consumer demand.
However, recent legislative initiatives have increased in the field of farm animal welfare. One such bill, of many proposed at the national level, is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act which seeks to regulate welfare on farms that sell food products to the federal government.
The bill is crafted after the history of humane slaughter in the US. In 1958 the Humane Slaughter Act was passed which similarly only regulated slaughterhouses supplying meat to the federal government.
In 1978 the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was passed to expand coverage to nearly all commercial slaughterhouses due to the precedence of the earlier act, increasing public pressure, and to solve the problem of conflicting state regulations for slaughterhouses not covered under the original act.
The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act will not be passed in the current Congress, and measures like it are rarely passed alone but are usually tacked onto larger bills. A recent egg recall involving salmonella has brought public attention to food safety, and it is possible the next Congress will attempt to pass a new food safety act overhauling the current system. Such a large piece of legislation with broad public support could easily have one or several small bills attached to it with profound ramifications on animal welfare.
I propose bills like the one discussed above will be the trend – namely, that there will be continued efforts at passing piecemeal animal welfare legislation with potentially far-reaching effects.
State livestock care boards are also significant developments in animal welfare. Several states allow proposed legislation to be voted on directly by the public rather than by legislators - this is termed a “ballot initiative.” Ballot initiative states are generally seen as dangerous ground in the animal welfare arena as public opinion can be misused to pass complex legislation drafted without any stakeholder, expert, or governmental input.
In Ohio, an animal rights group based in Washington, D.C. geared up to pass a fairly extreme ballot initiative to regulate farm animal housing. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board was created as a proactive effort by state government and private stakeholders to interdict such over-prescriptive statewide legislation. The board’s composition and mission is comparable to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand.
After formation of the board, an informal compromise between the animal rights group and Ohio was made to stall any future ballot measures such as eventual phase-out of veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages.
The board faces several hurdles. First, it is undertaking the daunting task of guiding its state, and perhaps the nation, on the contentious issue of animal welfare during an economic climate of severe state budget cuts. Despite this, the board is expected to pass standards covering euthanasia this year; non-ambulatory handling and veal husbandry standards are in the works.
The second hurdle will be faced when the board attempts to tackle layer hen and swine standards, as these are major industries in the state and will be more contentious issues. Certainly other states are taking note, as eight have followed suit in creating their own boards (including my own state, Louisiana).
It is important to note that this new cadre of livestock care boards could result in eventually encouraging federal regulation. If states pass disparate codes that complicate interstate commerce the eventual result could be for Washington to implement a uniform standard for farm animal care.
Animal welfare in the US is a complicated, fragmentary and ever changing beast. Stay tuned as it is sure to remain interesting.Tristan ColoniusDVM StudentLouisiana State University
Tristan Colonius (Louisiana State University), Rep. Kurt Schrader, Oregon’s 5th district, democrat, and a veterinarian and Jason Wood (UC Davis)
US Capitol
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 31
The Gateway to
FARM ANIMAL WELFAREAn initiative by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has become increasingly
interested in animal welfare as a means to improving human wellbeing. The concept that human and animal welfare are closely linked has been the basis for the organisation’s decision to give more explicit and strategic attention to animal welfare in countries with developing economies.
In response to an expert meeting in 2008 aimed at assessing the current knowledge on animal welfare standards, practices and policies, the FAO launched the Gateway to Farm Animal Welfare in 2009 in collaboration with key partners operating in support of farm animal welfare including, amongst others, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).
What is the Gateway?“The Gateway is a web-based participatory platform that provides a single access point for national and international information related to farm animal welfare. It gives to less economically developed country governments, professionals and producers online access to the latest information and the opportunity to contribute information relevant to their own situation. The portal aims to build awareness and foster partnerships and sharing of information; to facilitate access to information related to farm animal welfare and to strengthen synergies and encourage partnerships among academic and producer organisations, research centres, government institutions, international agencies, animal welfare and other relevant non governmental organisations, financial institutions, and the private sector to facilitate the funding, execution
and communication of initiatives related to animal welfare.”
www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/animal-welfare/en/
The portal’s contents are monitored and updated regularly, and new information is added as it becomes available. Information available on the Gateway includes:• news;• events;• publications; • legislation; • codes of practice and recommendations; • standards, policies and strategies; • scientific and technical papers; • newsletters; • training material; • employment, training and funding
opportunities; • links to relevant websites; • contact details for professionals,
governmental institutions, organisations, research and educational centres involved in animal welfare.
The Gateway features a weekly newsletter to subscribers, a monthly update on the most important uploads and a monthly thematic card highlighting contributions to a particular animal welfare topic. Periodic updates with new features as well as web-based events such as electronic conferences, fora and participatory projects on specific topics are planned. Use of the Gateway and registration, which is necessary to receive the newsletter and to submit information, is free. The search engine provides rapid retrieval of full-text documents in their original language.
This year has marked the first anniversary of the Gateway. With a visitor record of 128 575 people from 140 countries and submission of more than 2000 documents and information, the portal has been a great success.
New Zealand has agreed to use and contribute to the Gateway. Dr David Bayvel from the Animal Welfare Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) was invited to join
the Gateway International Editorial Board in 2009. The upload of New Zealand’s legislation, publications, standards, policies and strategies related to animal welfare via MAF is in progress. In addition, MAF has been working closely with the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee (ABWCC), a forum for the exchange of information about animal welfare, behaviour and related issues between New Zealand animal industry groups, animal welfare researchers, government departments, the veterinary profession, public animal welfare organisations and research funders, to encourage New Zealand contributions to the portal by organisations and individuals involved in animal welfare. Tamara Diesch Technical Adviser (part-time)Ministry of Agriculture and [email protected]
Tamara Diesch Technical Adviser (part-time)
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
32 • Welfare Pulse – November 2010
USA Update
FRANKENFISH and the need for labelled food
Every country has their internal contradictions. For New Zealand the greatest of these is probably the
desire to be a progressive “knowledge-based” economy led by entrepreneurs and scientists, mixed with limited funding and the tall-poppy tackle on anyone who gets too self-congratulatory. In America, the conflict is between the mantra that each person should live as they choose, and the unwillingness to give them a full and unfettered range of choices. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refusal to label genetically modified products.
In a consumer choice driven model, consideration is given to more than just whether a product is safe or not, and whether or not it is nutritional The model allows consumers to base their choice on religious, economic, image or even spurious grounds that are salient to them. In support of this model, producers are required to specify the exact ingredients of their products. Numerous surveys have shown that genetically modified (GM) content is a determinant for choice among American consumers, and about half of them do not want to eat GM meat. So why does the producer of the first GM animal (the AquAdvantage salmon) seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval oppose labelling of GM products because it “just causes confusion for the consumers”?
There are two basic responses to consumer confusion, one is to not offer “unwholesome” choices and expect consumers to just take what they are given, the other is to provide a full package of options, labelling and education. Despite the endless media stories about how Americans can’t point out Israel on a map, or think the sun goes around the earth, the consuming public is educable. The formula is simple: information, repetition and time.
However, popular media coverage of the horror film “Frankenfish” failed to mention which gene the GM salmon had, where it was derived from, and exactly what it did. (The GM Atlantic salmon contains a gene from the Chinook salmon which causes it to grow all year round rather than just six months out of the year, thus it reaches market weight in half the normal time.)
There is a great advantage to clarity, uniformity and labelling. Clear distinctions such as: New Zealand cows eat grass all year round (all of them); No animals were harmed in the making of this movie (not even insects); and Made in America (entirely within America from origination to packaging) let the consumer make rational choices based on their own ethics and priorities, and fosters a climate of trust and acceptance. Despite this, there is a profound unwillingness in some quarters to provide clear labelling and messages that would enable that choice to be mobilised and cause, or prevent, real shifts in production methods.
When the public cannot effectively demand what they want at point of purchase, they will eventually mandate it through regulation of production. GM grains have already been slid into the food chain and people just have to accept they are eating these products whether they want to or not. But eventually market access by stealth will cause a breakdown in trust. This “point of revolt” is approaching for GM just as it has for intensive farming methods (specifically veal crate and battery cage practices). In America, this will be seen in a continuing rise of ballot initiative driven legislation. These
initiatives involve direct public votes on questions drafted by special interest groups and passed into binding law at State level.
There is still time for the American industries to give the consumers clearly labelled choices and for the media to give them real, salient information. There is still time for legislation to be developed via careful committees and agencies that emphasise public input as much as industry needs and scientific consensus, but time is running out.
New Zealand is in an enviable position of being seen by American and domestic consumers as a producer of animal products that are safe, natural and humane. But the same stumbling blocks have appeared, and will appear in the form of intensive farming, and – eventually – GM production. If this is an area industries want to enter they need to start laying the groundwork now, not just in terms of getting people to accept GM … but by finding out if they ever will.
Emily Patterson-KaneAnimal Welfare ScientistAmerican Veterinary Medical [email protected]
Emily Patterson-KaneAnimal Welfare Scientist
American Veterinary Medical [email protected]
Welfare Pulse – November 2010 • 33
Across our desks A selection of interesting items from newsletters, journals and websites which have crossed our desks.
Disaster planning and managementThe latest edition of the ILAR Journal is devoted to this topic. It covers “lessons learnt” by those involved with animal facilities as a result of various types of disasters. There are a variety of articles ranging from natural disasters and violent threats from animal rights activists, to persistent viral outbreaks in an animal colony. It is intended that the information provided will be able to be extrapolated to a variety of situations. One of the articles is entitled IACUC considerations: You have a disaster plan but are you really prepared?
ILAR Journal, volume 51 (2), 2010
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go downOral gavage is a common laboratory procedure in rodents. This study found that coating gavage needles with sucrose measurably decreased signs of stress in mice. There were no beneficial effects of coating needles with water or citrate.
Hoggatt et al. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 49(3) 329-334, 2010.
Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMedCollecting and analysing all available literature before starting an animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing a systematic review of animal research. Writing such reviews prevents unnecessary duplication of animal studies and thus unnecessary animal use (Reduction). One of the factors currently impeding the production of “high-quality” systematic reviews in laboratory animal science is the fact that searching for all available literature concerning animal experimentation
is rather difficult. In order to diminish these difficulties, the authors developed a search filter for PubMed to detect all publications concerning animal studies. This filter was compared with the method
most frequently used (the PubMed Limit: Animals) and performed better.
Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M and Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Laboratory Animals 2010; volume 44 (3),170-175
Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer researchThis publication builds on two previous sets of guidelines to provide updated and enhanced recommendations for the care and use of animals in cancer research; to develop procedures that reduce, replace or refine animal studies; and to communicate best practice throughout the world.
Workman P et al. British Journal of Cancer Research 2010; volume 102, 1555-1577
New UFAW Awards Recognising Contributions to Animal Welfare Nominations are invited by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) for two new awards recognising contributions to animal welfare science. The UFAW Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Animal Welfare Science will recognise the exceptional achievements of an individual scientist who has made a major contribution to the advancement of animal welfare. The winner of this award will receive a commemorative medal, a framed award certificate and £3000. Also available is the UFAW Young Animal Welfare Scientist of the Year award. This award will recognise the achievements of a young scientist who has made significant contributions to improving the welfare of animals. The winner of this award will receive a framed award certificate and £1000. The closing date for nominations is 30 November 2010. Further information and nomination forms can be found on the Grants and Awards page on the UFAW website (www.ufaw.org.uk).
International Symposium on Welfare of Livestock at SlaughterThe Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) is holding an International Symposium
on Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK on the 30 June and 1 July 2011. The aim of the symposium is to provide a forum for sharing information and knowledge in relation to the humane slaughter of farmed animals, to discuss recent scientific and technical advances around the world and help identify future priorities in this area. Contributions will be made by recognised experts in this field including Dr Temple Grandin, Dr Craig Johnson and Dr Andrea Gavenelli. The closing date for the submission of abstracts is 31 October 2010. Further information about the symposium can be found under the Symposium link on the HSA website (www.hsa.org.uk).
International Symposium on the Economic Constraints of Improving Animal WelfareThe Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) is requesting contributions to a symposium entitled Making Animal Welfare Improvements: Economic and Other Incentives and Constraints. The symposium is to be held on 28-29 June 2011 at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, and will aim to discuss the role of economic factors in the advancement of animal welfare. Areas of discussion are expected to be wide reaching in nature and it is anticipated that topics will cover aspects of economic constraints in a large number of areas of animal welfare including farm animals, companion animals and animals used in research. Speakers at the symposium include Professor Linda Keeling, Professor Peter Sandøe, Professor John Webster, Dr David Main and Dr David Bayvel. The closing date for submissions of abstracts is 5 November 2010 and further details about the symposium can be found under the News, Info and Events link on the UFAW website at (www.ufaw.org.uk).
