Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T15:17:54.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The application of Russell and Burch's Three Rs in commercial livestock experimentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

IG Colditz
IG Colditz*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, FD McMaster Laboratory, Locked Bag 1, Post Office, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
*
email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The inclusion of Russell and Burch's Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) in guidelines, codes of practice and law reflects their current position as the guiding principles of ethical assessment of research involving animals. This article explores some activities within the contemporary livestock industry that constitute the experimental use of animals on a local and global scale. The elucidation of correlated responses during trait selection in genetic improvement programs provides one example of experiments occurring within the commercial livestock industry. This experimentation is largely conducted without scrutiny of its conformity to the Three Rs. Experimentation to improve the management of the livestock industry is consistent with the principle of refinement, and experimentation to increase productivity per unit of livestock is consistent with the principle of reduction; however, experimentation to increase total livestock production conflicts with the principle of replacement. Some approaches regarding the appraisal of the ethics of research involving animals, which could avoid arbitrary boundaries associated with the location or purpose of experimentation, are considered together with the relationship between experimentation and other anthropogenic impacts on animals.

Keywords

animal welfareconsequentialismdeontologyexperimentationgenetic selectionlivestock
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albright, JL and Arave, CW 1997 The Behaviour of Cattle. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBSRC 2005 Review of Farm Animal Genomics in Relation to BBSRC-Funded Research. A report for BBSRC Council, July 2005. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/about/pub/reports/FAGR%20report%20final%20version%2005-07-05.pdf (accessed 13 October 2005)Google Scholar
Bishop, SC and Hill, WG 1985 Effects of selection on growth, body composition, and food intake in mice. III. Correlated responses: growth, body composition, food intake and efficiency and catabolism. Genetical Research 46: 57–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blatchford, DR, Quarrie, LH, Tonner, E, McCarthy, C, Flint, DJ and Wilde, CJ 1999 Influence of microenvironment on mammary epithelial cell survival in primary culture. Journal of Cell Physiology 181: 304–3113.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colditz, IG 2004 Welfare benefits to farm animals from their use in research. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 28, Suppl 1: 235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colditz, IG 2005 Call for openness about farm-animal experiments. Nature 436: 24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgado, C, Rosegrant, M, Steinfeld, H, Ehiu, S and Courbois, C 1999 Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Food Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28, 1999, 74pp. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Hanson, LB 1995 Breeding Schemes. Proceedings of the National Dairy Genetics Workshop pp 8-17. 19–21 February 1995. Orlando, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005 The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Orlans, FB 1987 Review of experimental protocols: classifying animal harm and applying ‘refinements’. Laboratory Animal Science 37, Special Issue: 50-56Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998 Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33Google Scholar
Rollin, BE 2000 Agribusiness and consumer ethical concerns over animal use and foods of animal origin: the emergence of new ethical thinking in society. In: Hodges, J and Han, IK (eds) Livestock, Ethics and Quality of Life pp 79–97. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rowe, JB and Atkins, KD 2004 Strategies for lifting productivity in the sheep industry. Australian Bureau of Agricultural Research and Economics Outlook Conference 2004 Sheep pp 18-29. 2–3 March 2004. Canberra, Australia. http://www.sheepcrc.org.au/images/pdfs/Strategies_for_lifting_productivity.pdf (accessed 1 November 2005)Google Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Thibier, M and Wagner, H-G 2002 World statistics for artificial insemination in cattle. Livestock Production Science 74: 203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, BW and Banos, G 1998 Impact of international evaluations of dairy cattle breeding programmes. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 23: 315–322Google Scholar