Transcript Ag Guide
Anatomy of a
Land Grant Institution
Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S.
Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care
The University of Tennessee
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What is a land grant institution?
Colleges and universities designated by
Congress and state legislatures to receive
federal support as defined in the Morrill
Acts of 1862 and 1890
Rationale for LGI Development
Need for broad-based educational systems
LGIs to offer curricula in military tactics,
agriculture, and mechanic arts
Provide practical education to industrial
classes
First Morrill Act of 1862
Allowed public lands to be donated
to states
Proceeds from sale of these public lands
supported the LGIs
Hatch Act of 1887
Mandated creation of Agricultural
Experiment Stations
Stations affiliated with LGIs
Scientific research to be conducted at
experiment stations
Federal and state funds appropriated
annually to support research
Smith-Lever Act of 1914
Provided federal monies for support of
cooperative extension efforts
Educational programs established to
disseminate information obtained in
experiment station research to local
communities
Other Landmark Decisions
Six million dollar endowment to the
University of Hawai’i in 1960 in lieu of
federal land endowment
University of Guam, College of the Virgin
Islands, Community Colleges of American
Samoa and Micronesia, and Northern
Marianas College achieved land grant
status in 1972
Other Landmark Decisions (cont.)
Twenty-nine Native American colleges
received land grant status and a 23 million
dollar endowment in 1994
LGIs Today
All states and territories have at least
one LGI
Total of 105 LGIs which receive over
$550 million annually in federal funding
Characteristics of Traditional LGIs
Complex, decentralized animal care programs
Varied, multiple funding sources, including
Hatch and LGI appropriations
Unique programs, such as veterinary medicine
and agricultural sciences
Separate programs with overlapping
research focus
Multiple lines of authority
LGIs and AAALAC Accreditation
Single vs. multiple accredited units
ILAR Guide for most species
Ag Guide and principles of the first three
chapters of the ILAR Guide applicable to
food and fiber animals
The Ohio State University
Single office for animal management and
veterinary care for the accredited program
Single IACUC (sub-IACUC for food and
fiber animals)
Single AAALAC accreditation (excluding
food and fiber animals)
University of Wisconsin
Multiple animal care programs with
multiple veterinarians, with compliance
oversight in the institutional veterinarian’s
office
Multiple IACUCs
Multiple AAALAC accredited programs
(ag component not accredited)
University of Missouri
Multiple animal care programs, with many
facility managers hired by and reporting to the
institutional veterinarian’s office, and all
veterinarians reporting to the institutional
veterinarian (including ag)
Single IACUC
Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag
component not accredited; soon to apply for
single accreditation, including ag)
University of Illinois
Decentralized management of animal facilities
and centralized oversight of all areas (including
ag) through the institutional veterinarian’s office
and IACUC
Centralized veterinary care for lab animals;
decentralized veterinary care (with institutional
oversight) for food and fiber animals.
Single IACUC
Single AAALAC accreditation, including ag
food and fiber animals
Clemson University
All veterinary care and oversight provided
by institutional veterinarian’s office
Single IACUC
Single AAALAC accreditation
Key to Successful AAALAC
Accreditation in LGIs
Ensure adequate veterinary care and
compliance oversight
Ensure clear lines of authority
Ensure strong institutional commitment to
the animal care and use program
Accreditation for Agricultural
Programs: Analysis of the
Arguments For and Against
Neal R. Merchen, Ph.D.
Professor and Interim Head
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois
General Challenges –
Agricultural Animal Programs
Complex lines of accountability/authority
Teaching activities - impact on H-H programs
and biosecurity
Decentralized management
Faculty involved in management/oversight
“Cultural resistance” to centralized oversight
Disconnect between clinical veterinary service
and oversight by IV
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
AAALAC website
Points from experience at U. of Illinois
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
Symbol of quality
Value in external validation of quality
Demonstrates accountability
Validates commitment to humane and ethical
animal care and use
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
(?) Enhances quality of agricultural
research
(?) Recruiting tool for faculty, students,
researchers
No discernable impact
(?) Enhances funding opportunities.
Limited impact for funding of ag production
research
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
Exercise in self-assessment
Engage all participants
Re-evaluation of practices
Improves sensitivity to concerns of public
Encourages standardization of practices
Improves record-keeping
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
Costs
Funding, human resources
Transaction costs for preparation
Repair, renovation of facilities
Ongoing costs
University of Illinois –
College of ACES Agricultural
Animal Program Infrastructure
Daily census 12 to 14,000 animals
10 livestock units at 3 locations
50 academic staff and animal caretakers
150 animal buildings
Extensive documentation
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
Difficulties in collaboration among principals
IACUC
Institutional veterinarian
Clinical veterinarians
Faculty
Animal care staff
“Complex lines of accountability and authority”
- Build consensus opinions/agendas
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
Poor relationship between ag animal
care program to local oversight of animal
care program
Biggest reason for disinterest by ag animal
units
Lack of communication/mutual understanding
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST (cont.)
Poor relationship between ag animal care
program to local oversight of animal care
program
Imbalance in institutional authority among
IACUC, IV, IO
Poor representation of ag animal programs on
IACUC
AAALAC used as a “club”
Greatest Opportunities –
AAALAC Accreditation
of Ag Animal Programs
Establishes independent seal of quality assurance
Demonstrates accountability
Self-assessment may improve practices
Professionalism/pride/esprit de corps of animal
caretakers
Greatest Challenges -
Institutions/AAALAC
Resources
Develop effective working groups among IV,
IACUC, IO, ag animal programs
Improve communication between AAALAC and
ag animal professionals
Clarify role of AAALAC to ag animal
professionals
Trends in Deficiencies
Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M.
Associate Director, AAALAC International
Standards Used
Farm Animal Position Statement
AAALAC International uses the current edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (NRC 1996) as its primary standard for evaluating animal care facilities and programs.
The full range of programmatic criteria outlined in Sections I-III of the Guide are entirely
applicable to farm animals, and in accredited facilities, the use of farm animals in research should
be subject to the same general ethical considerations as the use of other animals in research.
However, uses of farm animals are often separated into biomedical uses and agricultural uses,
and different criteria for evaluating standards of housing and care for animals of the same species
may be appropriate. Decisions on categorizing research uses of farm animals and defining
standards for their care and use should be based on user goals, protocols, and concern for animal
well-being and should be made by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. For
animals in an agricultural setting, AAALAC International takes the position that, in accredited
facilities, the housing and care for farm animals should meet the standards that prevail on a high
quality, well managed farm. The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in
Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS 1999) is recognized by AAALAC International as a
reference resource for individual farm animal species. Regardless of an investigator’s research
objectives or funding source, institutions are expected to provide oversight of all research
animals and ensure that their pain and distress is minimized.
AAALAC International
& Land Grant Institutions
Approximately 28% are accredited
Of those LGIs/State Universities
that are accredited….
38% have Campus-wide accreditation
The Animal Care and Use Program
Institutional Policies
OHSP
IACUC
Adequate Veterinary Care
Administrative Organization
Animal Management
Animal Space Provisions
Support Service
Sanitation Practices
Caging/Housing System
Aseptic surgery
Husbandry Practices
Identification/Record Keeping
Vermin Control
Veterinary Care
Preventive Medicine
Disease Diagnosis, Control, Treatment
Surgical & Postsurgical Care
Anesthesia/Analgesia
Euthanasia
Physical Plant
HVAC
Survival Surgery Support
Facility Maintenance
Personnel Safety Concerns
General Storage Conditions
Sanitation of Facilities
Physical Plant
(cont.)
Illumination
Emergency Power
Physical Plant Design
Security
Trend Data
Data extracted from January 1993 through
January 2002 meetings of the Council on
Accreditation, equating to the three most
recent site visits for each institution (or
less if they were new to the AAALAC
program)
Mandatory Deficiencies Identified
Range of zero to nine mandatory items in a letter
59% of letters reviewed had no mandatory items for
correction, i.e., institution granted Full Accreditation
after site visit
No significant correlation between number of
mandatory items identified and whether program
was Campus-wide or University-limited
No correlation between number of mandatory items
and whether institution had a medical school or
health science center
Suggestions for
Improvement Identified
Range of zero to 20 SFIs in a letter
24% of letters reviewed had no SFIs
No significant correlation between number of
SFIs identified and whether program was
Campus-wide or University-limited
No correlation between number of SFIs and
whether institution had a medical school or
health science center
Mandatory Item vs.
Suggestion For Improvement
Mandatory Item = a deficiency which
must be corrected for Full Accreditation to
be awarded or continued
Suggestion for Improvement (SFI) =
items which the Council feels are desirable
to upgrade an already acceptable or even
commendable program
Land Grant Institution
Program Deficiencies
20%
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
7%
8%
65%
Comparison Of LGIs
with all Accredited Institutions
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
General
Animal Care and Use
Programs
70%
13%
12%
5%
Land Grant Colleges
&
State Universities
65%
8%
7%
20%
Land Grant Institution
Suggestions for Improvement
20%
30%
13%
37%
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
Common Deficiencies
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
28.6
IACUC
OHSP
HVAC
Program of Vet Care
19.8
13.5
9.5
Comparison Of LGIs
with all Accredited Institutions
IACUC
OHSP
HVAC
Veterinary Care
General
Animal Care and Use
Programs
25%
15%
9%
4%
Land Grant Colleges
&
State Universities
28.6%
19.8%
13.5%
9.5%
Identified Concerns
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
V
A
D
C
es
&
M
ai
nt
H
e
.C
ar
V
et
A
d.
IA
C
U
C
O
H
SP
Mandatory
SFI's
Accreditation Challenges
IACUC Issues
Christine M. Parks, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Director, RARC
University of Wisconsin-Madison
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Institutional Policies
Lack of institutional commitment
Institutional official not empowered to
commit necessary resources
Need to establish clear lines of authority
and oversight of the program
Inconsistencies in procedures and
practices between centralized and satellite
areas
IACUC Participation
Inadequate oversight of animals in satellite
or study areas
Inadequate program oversight
Lack of participation of nonaffiliated
member
Organizational structure presented potential
conflict of interest
Policies, Training and
Documentation
Inadequate personnel training and
documentation
No policies for rodent surgery,
analgesia/anesthesia, environmental
enrichment, dog exercise
No or inadequate IACUC training
IACUC Semiannual Review
Review did not include evaluation and
inspection of all housing and laboratory
areas
Review did not include evaluation of
programmatic issues
No plan and schedule for correcting
deficiencies
IACUC Semiannual Review
Inadequate oversight of farm units
Inadequate evaluation of remote sites,
and other sites such as slaughter house
or feed mill
Protocol Review Issues
Inadequate intensity of protocol review
including: pain and distress; exceptions
from the Guide; euthanasia techniques; use
of analgesia; justification of animal
numbers; endpoints
Need to ensure all animals covered by a
protocol (holding, breeding, sentinels)
Protocol Review Issues
(cont.)
Process errors, such as: protocol approval
outside committee procedures; chair acting
outside of authority; definition of major
changes; documentation lapses
Inadequate annual review
Safety issues not addressed
Failure to match numbers of animals
approved with number used
Occupational Health and Safety
at Land Grant Institutions:
An AAALAC Perspective
Wendy J. Underwood, D.V.M., M.S.
Attending Veterinarian
Eli Lilly and Company
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What mandates the creation
of an OHS program?
PHS Policy: The ILAR Guide
The AG Guide
OHSA: CFR 29
ILAR: “Occupation Health and Safety in
the Care and Use of Research Animals”.
What do the ‘Guides’ say?
The ILAR Guide: “An occupational
health and safety program must be part of
an overall animal care and use program
The Ag Guide: “An occupational health
and safety program must be established for
individuals who work with agricultural
animals.”
What are the required
components of an OHSP?
Risk Assessment and hazard identification
Medical surveillance
Training
Personnel hygiene
PPE
Facilities
Procedures and monitoring
What are the ‘hallmarks’
of a good OHSP?
Strong administrative support
Sound implementation strategies
Effective coordination of components
OHS Findings at
Land Grant Institutions
Programatic
PPE
16%
Medical
Surveillance
3%
Programatic
20%
Risk
Assessment
Training
Study Hazards
PPE
Study
Hazards
Medical
Surveillance
20%
Risk
Assessment
Training
6%
35%
Programmatic Issues 20%
Inadequate:
Oversight
Implementation
Notification
Not offered to all
Intensity
Involvement by health
specialists
Need to ensure that
the program conforms
to the guide.
Program does not
reflect actual
practices.
Not applied to field
study areas.
Risk Assessment and
Hazard Identification 35%
Lack of
risk assessment
first aid kits
identification of
hazardous materials
proper signage
Potential health risks
not identified
(Q fever)
Lack of
confined space policy
lone operator policy
lock Out/Tag Out
documentation of all
personnel involved in
program
Allergen exposure
Personnel Training 6%
Inadequate training
Need to provide training on
Zoonoses
Allergens
Sharps disposal
Heavy equipment
Ergonomics
Experimentation
involving hazards 20%
Lack of or
inappropriate
biohazard signs
No mechanism to
ensure people
following policy
Exhaust air not
filtered
Protocols not
reviewed by safety
committee
Non filtered vacuums
Lack of respirator use
Inappropriate storage
of volatile gases
Inappropriate
handling of
medicated feeds
Personnel Hygiene 16%
Lack of water, sinks, towels, etc. to wash
Uncertified safety showers, eye stations, or
chemical hoods
Washer and dryer for cleaning work
clothing installed in soiled area
No provision for cleaning work clothes
PPE
Not available
Not offered
Not used
Inappropriate
Lack of
hearing protection
respiratory protection
Lack of monitoring
mechanism for PPE
use
Policy not enforced
Lack of policy
Medical Surveillance 3%
Tetanus immunization not offered
No program to evaluate Q fever
Broad OHSP Issues
at Land Grant Institutions
Lack of an OHS program for Ag facilities
Lack of opportunity for inclusion
Absence of safety professionals
Industrial Hygienists
Biosafety Officers
Safety Officers
More Common OHSP Issues
at Land Grant Institutions
PPE: No boots, safety
glasses or work clothes in
barn areas
Confined Space Entry
Zoonoses: ringworm,
crypto, erysipelas, flue
Heavy equipment
training
No tetanus immunization
First aid kits
Storage issues: gas,
diesel, formalin, kerosene
Physical injury and
ergonomics
Poor or no biohazard
signage
Lone Operator
OHS Findings:
Mandatory or Suggestions?
25
20
15
10
5
0
eil
rv
Su
x
M
E
PP ds
ar
az
H
e
ien
yg
H ng
ni
ai
Tr
SP
H
sk
Ri
O
SFI's
e
nc
la
Mandatory
Accreditation Challenges
Animal Management
Joy A. Mench, Ph.D.
Professor of Animal Science
University of California – Davis
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
The Guide
A good management program provides the
environment, housing and care that permit
animals to grow, mature, reproduce and
maintain good health; provides for their wellbeing; and minimizes variations that can affect
research results”
The Guide
“Many factors should be considered in planning
for adequate and appropriate physical and social
environment, housing, space and management”
Species, strain, breed and individual characteristics of
animal; ability of animals to form social groups;
availability and suitability of enrichments; design and
construction of housing; project goals and
experimental design
Goal of housing to maximize species-typical
behavior and minimize stress-induced ones
Husbandry & Management
Behavioral Management
Husbandry
Population management
IACUC oversight of husbandry
Role of IACUC in husbandry program
Husbandry & Management
Routine husbandry and management
issues do not generally appear to pose
significant challenges at Land-Grant
Institutions
Relatively rare as mandatory issues, but there
are several common areas of suggested
improvements
Behavioral Management
Provide opportunity for animal to express
species-typical postures, behaviors, and
activity
Lack of social enrichment for social
species
Pair or group-housing; visual, olfactory,
auditory contact
Feed and Water
Food quality
Feed grade
Feed storage times
Feed storage conditions
(vermin/contamination)
Feed provision conditions (floor feeding)
Water
Automatic water lines
Sanitation
Cage sanitation schedules not in conformance
with Guide
No (or too infrequent) mechanism for ensuring
effectiveness of sanitation
(e.g., microbiological monitoring, other
appropriate methods)
Cluttered and dirty rooms
Rusted equipment
Other Husbandry Issues
Lack of effective vermin control program
A particular problem at farm locations, with bulk
feed storage areas, open feed troughs
No formal (or inadequate) Disaster Plan—
most cited deficiency!
Appropriate emergency contacts
Posting of procedures
Takes account of people and animals
“Official responder” (vet or colony manager)
IACUC Husbandry Issues
Special Agricultural Practices
Castration, dehorning, molting, etc
If likely to cause pain or distress must be
reviewed and approved by the IACUC, as per
the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural
Animals
Accreditation Challenges
Veterinary Care Issues
Joseph D. Thulin, D.V.M., M.S.
Institutional Veterinarian and Director
Division of Animal Resources
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
Categorizing Veterinary Concerns
Program Organization
Corresponds to Chapter 1 of NRC Guide
Issues of institutional arrangements for veterinary
care, responsibilities and authority of
attending/institutional veterinarian, etc.
Program Design and Implementation
Corresponds to Chapter 3 of NRC Guide
Preventive medicine (quarantine, surveillance,
treatment, control, etc.), surgery, pain management,
euthanasia
Veterinary Care Concerns
Summarized Major Category
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
53
16
Mandatory
91
1
SFI
Design &
Implementation
Organization
Summary of Mandatory Items
0% 3%
13%
23%
Organization
Preventive
Medicine
Surgical Care
Pain Management
Euthanasia
61%
Summary of Suggestions
for Improvement
11%
1%
9%
47%
32%
Organization
Preventive Medicine
Surgical Care
Pain M anagement
Euthanasia
Challenges in
Organization
of Veterinary Care
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council
Inadequate oversight to ensure adequate
veterinary care.
Institution needs to establish suitable
arrangements for provision of vet care
consistent with Guide, Ag Guide and
institutional policy.
Inadequate involvement of Attending
Veterinarian in ag animal program.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
Institution needs to implement an ag animal
health program that delineates the lines of
authority and responsibilities of veterinary care.
No formal communication between PIveterinarians and Attending Veterinarian.
PI-veterinarian not providing adequate vet care.
Dairy manager initiating treatment w/o input
from veterinarian.
Who is the Attending Veterinarian?
The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated
authority for activities involving animals at [the
registered] facility…” (Animal Welfare Regs)
The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated
program authority and responsibility for
activities involving animals at the institution…”
(PHS Policy)
The veterinarian who is responsible for the
program of adequate veterinary care. (AWR,
NRC Guide, Ag Guide)
Attending Veterinarian (cont.)
The Attending (Institutional) Veterinarian ideally
should report to the Institutional Official.
An institution might have more than one AV;
however, the lines of accountability and
responsibilities among the veterinarians need to
be clearly delineated.
PI-veterinarians pose special considerations such
as conflict of interest and relationship to the AV.
Challenges in Design and
Implementation of the
Veterinary Care Program
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council
Inadequate notification of the veterinary
staff about ill animals. (Most frequent
deficiency.)
Daily observation of animals not
conducted.
Inadequate treatment of health problems
(e.g., feather picking in poultry).
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
Inadequate routine health care (e.g., dental work,
physical exams, hoof trimming, etc.).
Medical records at farm units did not conform
with Ag Guide.
Inadequate documentation of health problems
and treatments.
Indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
15% death rate of cows in a barn due to
mastitis which had not been aggressively
investigated.
Records of veterinary care provided by PIveterinarians inadequate.
Malnourished/moribund piglet observed;
had intended to leave with sow for next
day or two.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
Diagnostics services not used to ensure
adequate veterinary care.
Inadequate aseptic techniques (sterilized
instruments, hair removal, disinfection of
site, sterile gloves, survival surgeries).
Inadequate documentation of surgical and
postoperative care.
Adequate Veterinary Care
NRC Guide requires effective programs for:
Preventive medicine.
Surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and control of
disease, including zoonosis control.
Management of protocol-associated disease,
disability, or other sequelae.
Anesthesia and analgesia.
Surgery and postsurgical care.
Assessment of animal well-being.
Euthanasia.
Adequate Veterinary Care
(cont.)
Under AWR also includes availability of
appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and
services.
Ag Guide requires a written and implemented
program for disease prevention (including
biosecurity), surveillance, diagnosis, treatment,
and end point resolution, and has stringent
requirements for health and production record
keeping.
Challenges in Implementation
of Veterinary Care
Poorly organized programs typically have
problems with implementation.
All personnel involved in veterinary care
must be knowledgeable of institutional
responsibilities.
Be cognizant of the relationships among
the various standards/regulations, i.e.,
NRC Guide, Ag Guide, AWR, PHS Policy.
The Physical Plant in an
AAALAC International Accredited
Agricultural Facility
John J. McGlone, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Animal Science
Texas Tech University
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Outline
Physical Plant Considerations
(Sections of the Guide):
The physical environment
Physical Plant considerations
Problem areas
Opportunities
The Physical Environment
Microenvironment &
Macroenvironment
Housing
Primary enclosures
Sheltered or outdoor housing
Naturalistic environment
Space
Temperature & Humidity
Ventilation
Illumination
Noise
Physical Plant Considerations
In general, the building,
room and pens or cages
The Physical
Environment
p. 22-36 of the Guide
The Physical Plant
Ch 4, pp 71-80 of the
Guide
Physical Plant (Ch 4)
Functional areas
Construction guidelines
Corridors
Animal room doors
Exterior windows
Floors, drainage, walls, ceilings
HVAC
Power and lighting, storage
areas, noise control, facilities
for sanitizing materials
Facilities for aseptic surgery
Physical Plant Problem Areas
Physical plant issues
represented
10% of all mandatory
items (32/320)
15% of all suggestions
for improvements
(112/759)
Physical Plant Problem Areas
All other issues
were 3 or less and
they were
scattered over
nearly every
category and
sub-category
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
The big 4 Issues
Flooring should be refurbished, resealed,
or replaced to provide smooth, impervious
sanitizable surfaces (n=17)
Unsealed animal room surfaces (n=4)
Fencing in need of repair (n=4)
Temperatures not monitored/recorded
regularly (n=4)
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
Summary Problem Areas
Flooring
Walls
Fencing
Temperature
& humidity
monitoring
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
What is not a major concern
A farm setting
Outdated facilities
Natural ventilation
Non-controlled photoperiod
(as in open barns)
Lack of temperature control
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
Opportunities
Agricultural facilities
can be accredited for
what they are
A farm setting, as in a
modern, wellmanaged farm
A hybrid between a
farm and a laboratory
A biomedical facility
that uses farm animals
Ag facilities
can be
accredited,
too!
The End
For more information:
AAALAC International
Booth # 607
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.aaalac.org