Return to flip book view

Vol 19 No 3 December 2020IAT JournalAnimal Technology and WelfareISSN 1742-0385Offi cial Journal of the Institute of Animal Technology and European Federation of Animal Technologists●Level 6 Diploma projects● AWERB Lessons from Covid-19● Celebrating Making a Difference● New posters – part two

iAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorial Jas Barley, Chair of the Editorial BoardThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction Cheryl Yalden Improving animal welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice Emma Hamilton PAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSFrench, German, Italian, Spanish AWERB review of lessons learned from COVID-19 experienceLaboratory Animal Science Association, Laboraory Animal Veterinary Association, Institute of Animal Technology, Royal Society of Biology, National Centre for the Replacement Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research, Royal Society for the protection of Animals, European Federation of Animal technologists, European Society of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians, Understanding Animal Research TECH-2-TECH A picture paints a thousand words Joanna MaltonLOOKING BACK – Celebrating making a differenceAnimal Technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: A Century of Innovation Alan PalmerOptimising mouse production – good practice for efficient colony management and implementation of the 3Rs Hannah Easter Time’s up for tick-over colonies … Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?Stuart Newman and Stephen Woodley203195205221217209169ixVol 19 No 3 December 2020EditorialJas Barley, Chair of the Editorial BoardReport of the 2019 RSPCA/UFAW RodentWelfare Group meetingChloe Stevens, Emily Finnegan, Jasmine Clarkson,Charlotte Burns, Sonia Bains, Colin Gilbert,Caroline Chadwick, Samantha Izzard, Charlotte Inman,Penny Hawkins (Secretary) and Huw GolledgeReduction of the negative effects ofmethionine on bone parameters in broilers’embryos by intra-egg injection of Vitamin B12Mohammad Naser Nazem, Shima Tasharofi,Negin Amiri and Sepideh SabzekarThe care of the Children’s Python(Antaresia children)Alexander Hosking and Gary MartinicFeline-assisted therapy: a promising part of animal assisted therapy (AAT)Eliska Mičková and Krityna MachovaThe care of Central and Pygmy Bearded DragonsAlexander Hosking and Gary MartinicPAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSFrench, German, Italian, SpanishLOOKING BACKPhysical hazards in the laboratory animal houseR.T. CharlesThe incidence of a pathogenic strain of pseudomonas in a rabbit colonyG.R. Alpen and K. MaerzTECH-2-TECHDevelopment of a sifting cage change method for rats to improve welfar eSeonagh HendersonVol 1 9 No 2 August 2020CONTENTSiAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 4/8/20 10:48 Page i185

iiAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020POSTER PRESENTATIONSAssessing pain in models of Rheumatoid ArthritisSamuel Singleton, Meriam Nefla, Ngaire Dennison, Simon Arthur and Tim HalesRefinements to health monitoringHannah Jones and Rebecca KingBiosecurity risks and the pre-implantation embryo; lessons from the mouseJean Cozzi, Mendy Verrier and Jimmy MancipEnvironmental enrichment for a small colony of ratsNick Blackburn, Gemma Cronshaw and Mike MitchellOestr us checking – increasing productivity and embracing the 3RsSamantha Hoskins and Jack BrownUsing habituation to reduce stress for rats being transported short distancesSarah TaylorShining a light on rearing pigmentless ZebrafishJacqueline Glover, Thom Berriman, Dimitra Mantzor ou, William Havelange,Sam Berry and Bruno Correia da SilvaThe jacket with pulling power – a novel approach to early stage evaluationof magnetic nanoparticlesAlison Ritchie, James Dixon, Phil Clarke and Anna GrabowskaiiCONTENTSIndex to AdvertisersABPI ..................................................................x,xi LBS ..................................................................iiAS-ET ...............................................................OBC Somni Scientific ................................................ivDatesand Ltd......................................................IFC Special Diets Services .....................................viiiInstitute of Animal Technology ...............................vii Tecniplast UK Ltd .............................................xiiIPS Product Supplies Ltd.....................................IBCAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ii224238234241249245243Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling mice John Waters Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped?Joanna Malton Food trials conducted to improve the survival and development of Zebrafi sh Nicola Goodwin, Elisabeth Busch-Nentwich, Ross Kettlebourgh, David MacDonald, Robert Mottram, Peter Thompson, Diane Hazlehurst, James Bussell and Derek Stemple Covance animal environmental enrichment program – In-house enrichment items, their benefi ts and the process of implementationMichael Emmott POSTERS Mouse to Man: an overview of the impact that mouse model research has had on the development of gene and stem cell therapies and the increasing use of personalised medicine Steven CubittDo Buccal swabs from Zebrafi sh give enough of a sample of DNA to be used as a viable non-invasive method of genotyping? Sarah Lawton Alternative training method using a mouse simulator in intravenous lateral tail vein proceduresCarmen Abela Surgery refi nements improve success rates in rat bile collectionHans van Wijk, Dawn Haida, Christina Duncan, Michael Bainbridge, Thomas Visockis and J. KendrickiMAD Award – Recognition to those that have made a differenceIndex to Advertisers251zAvid plc ..............................................................viiCollege of Laboratory Animal Science and Technology (CLAST) ............................................x,xiDatesand Ltd ....................................................IFCInstitute of Animal Technology ...................208, OBC IPS Product Supplies Ltd ...................................IBCLBS Serving Biotechnology Ltd .............................iv Somni Scientifi c ..................................................iiiSpecial Diets Services .......................................viii Tecniplast UK Ltd ................................................xii Vet-Tech Solutions Ltd ......................................248

iiiAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareINHALATION ANAESTHESIA EQUIPMENT AND SERVICESOMNI Scientific is centered on the animal welfare and research community with a focus on clinical accuracy, clinician/technician safety, economic performance and intuitive functionality.SOMNI PROVIDES UNPARALLELED CUSTOMER SERVICE, CLINICAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT.(T) 0800 0129101 (D) 01872 248890 (M) 07798 969805 enquiries@somniscientific.com www.somniscientific.co.ukSCHEDULE SERVICE TODAY0800 0129101Inspection of the carrier gas system (O2, Air, N2O, etc.) including flow meters, flow control, seals, regulators, quick disconnects, and hoses Inspection of fresh gas delivery system (rebreathing system, non-rebreathing system, induction chamber, etc.)Cleaning and lubrication where appropriate:• Inspection of all tubing, conduit, stopcocks, valves, O2 flush, etc.• Inspection of the waste anaesthetic gas management system(s)• Provide a detailed report for each systemSpecialising in anaesthesia systems specific to Animal Health and Welfare.• ISO 13485:2003 standards.• Clinical and technical support.Vaporisers are life critical, precision instruments When manufactured and serviced properly, they will deliver accurate concentrations of anaesthetic agent.Veterinary Service and Vaporiser CalibrationYour Health is ImportantMachine ServiceYour Health is ImportantMachine Service(T) 0800 0129101 (D) 01872 248890 (M) 07798 969805 enquiries@somniscientific.com www.somniscientific.co.ukTony Davidge and Nimesh Joseph

ivAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020 Developed to look like natural nesting materials such as thin grass stems, Nesting Cups are made from high quality, food approved ne kraft paper in preformed portions, available in 4g, 6g, 8g, 10g & 12g sizes.• Low dust product.• Ready for use straight out of the box, without additional actions.• Easy to dose per cage.• You know the xed costs per cage with each use.• Helps mice with their thermoregulation and reduces stress.• Analysis available.• Autoclavable.Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940 Email: sales@lbs-biotech.comContact LBS - your trusted supplier, serving the needs of the Biotechnology Industry www.lbs-biotech.comNesting CupsDose controlled nesting material enabling mice to full their natural instincts. Supplied exclusively in the UK by LBS.

vAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarevOFFICERSPresidentDr Robin Lovell-Badge CBE FRSImmediate Past PresidentProfessor Sir Richard Gardner MA PhD FRSBFIAT (Hon) FRSVice-PresidentsSenga Allan MIAT RAnTech, David Anderson MRCVS,Stephen Barnett BA MSc FIAT (Hon) CBiol FRSBRAnTech, Miles Carroll PhD, Brian Cass CBE,Paul Flecknell MA Vet MB PhD DLAS DipLECVAMRCVS, FIAT (Hon), Penny Hawkins PhD BSc, WendyJarrett MA, Judy MacArthur-Clark CBE BVMS DLASFRSB DVMS (h.c.), DipECLAM FRAgS DipACLAMMRCVS, Fiona McEwen BSc BVM&S MSc MRCVS,Tim Morris BVetMed PhD DipACLAM DipECLAM CBiolFRSB CertLAS MRCVS, Clive Page OBE PhD BSc,Jan-Bas Prins PhD MSc, Vicky Robinson CBE BSc PhD,Paul Sanders MIAT RAnTech, David Spillane FIAT,Gail Thompson RLATG, Robert Weichbrod PhD RLATGLife MembersKen Applebee OBE FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech,Charlie Chambers MIAT RAnTech, Roger Francis MScFIAT RAnTech, Pete Gerson MSc FIAT RAnTech,Cathy Godfrey FIAT RAnTech, John Gregory BSc (Hons)FIAT CBiol FRSB RAnTech, Patrick Hayes FIAT DipBARAnTech, Robert Kemp FIAT (Hon) RAnTech,Phil Ruddock MIAT RAnTech, Ted Wills FIAT (Hon)RAnTechHonorary MembersMark Gardiner MIAT RAnTech, Sarah Lane MSc FIAT,Sue McHugh BSc FIAT, Norman Mortell BA (Hons)MIAT RAnTech, Wendy Steel BSc (Hons) FIATMembers of CouncilMatthew Bilton, Kally Booth, Steven Cubitt,Simon Cumming, Haley Daniels, Glyn Fisher,Nicky Gent, Alan Graham, Nathan Hill, Linda Horan,Sam Jameson, Elaine Kirkum, Adele Kitching,Theresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan, Steve Owen,Alan Palmer, Allan Thornhill, John Waters,Lynda Westall, Carole Wilson, Adrian WoodhouseCouncil OfficersChair: Linda Horan BSc (Hons) MIAT RAnTechVice Chair: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechHonorary Secretary:Simon Cumming BSc FIAT RAnTechTreasurer: Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechChair of Board of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt MSc FIAT RAnTechChair Registration & Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher FIAT RAnTechATW Editor: Jas Barley MSc FIAT RAnTechBulletin Editor: Carole Wilson BSc MIATATW/Bulletin Editorial Board:Jas Barley (Chair), Matthew Bilton, Nicky Gent,Patrick Hayes, Elaine Kirkum, Carole Wilson,Lynda WestallBranch Liaison Officer:Kally Booth MIAT RAnTechEFAT Representatives:Glyn Fisher, Alan PalmerWebsite Coordinator:Allan Thornhill FIAT RAnTechAnimal Welfare Officers and LABARepresentatives:Matthew Bilton (Chair), Kally Booth, Lois Byrom,Simon Cumming, Nicky Gent, Sylvie Mehigan,John WatersBoard of Educational Policy:Steven Cubitt (Chair), Adele Kitching (Secretary)Communications Group:Adrian Woodhouse (Chair), Nathan Hill,Elaine Kirkum, Teresa Langford, Sylvie Mehigan,Allan Thornhill, Lynda WestallIAT REPRESENTATIVESAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 26/8/20 12:39 Page v Developed to look like natural nesting materials such as thin grass stems, Nesting Cups are made from high quality, food approved ne kraft paper in preformed portions, available in 4g, 6g, 8g, 10g & 12g sizes.• Low dust product.• Ready for use straight out of the box, without additional actions.• Easy to dose per cage.• You know the xed costs per cage with each use.• Helps mice with their thermoregulation and reduces stress.• Analysis available.• Autoclavable.Tel: +44 (0)1293 827940 Email: sales@lbs-biotech.comContact LBS - your trusted supplier, serving the needs of the Biotechnology Industry www.lbs-biotech.comNesting CupsDose controlled nesting material enabling mice to full their natural instincts. Supplied exclusively in the UK by LBS.

viAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020BRANCH SECRETARIES 2 020Cambridge: Tony Davidge cambridgebranch@iat.org.ukEdinburgh: Kery-Anne Lavin-Thomson edinburghbranch@iat.org.ukHuntingdon, Suffolk & Norfolk: Jo Martin hssbranch@iat.org.ukIreland: Lisa Watson irelandbranch@iat.org.ukLondon: Rebecca Towns londonbranch@iat.org.ukMidlands: Ian Fielding midlandsbranch@iat.org.ukNorth East England: Zoe Smith and John Bland northeastbranch@iat.org.ukNorth West: Nicky Windows cheshirebranch@iat.org.ukOxford: Adam Truby oxfordbranch@iat.org.ukSurrey, Hampshire & Sussex: Francesca Whitmore shsbranch@iat.org.ukWest Middlesex: Josefine Woodley westmiddxbranch@iat.org.ukWales & West: Rhys Perry waleswestbranch@iat.org.ukWest of Scotland: Joanne King westscotlandbranch@iat.org.ukIAT OFFICERS MAY BECONTACTED VIA:IAT Administrator:admin@iat.org.ukOR VIA THE IAT WEBSITE AT:www.iat.org.ukOR THE REGISTERED OFFICE:5 South Parade, Summertown,Oxford OX2 7JLAdvertisement Managers:PRC Associates LtdEmail: mail@prcassoc.co.ukAlthough every effort is made to ensure that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appear in thejournal, the Institute of Animal Technology wish to expound that the data and opinions appearing in the articles,poster presentations and advertisements in ATW are the responsibility of the contributor and advertiser concerned.Accordingly the IAT, Editor and their agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any suchinaccurate or misleading data, opinion, statement or advertisement being published. Furthermore the opinionsexpressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor or the Institute of Animal Technology.© 2020 Institute of Animal TechnologyAll rights reser ved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher.CPD Officer: Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechRegistration and Accreditation Board:Glyn Fisher (Chair), John Gregory,Cathy Godfrey, Kathy Ryder (Home Office),Stuart StevensonObserver: Ngaire Dennison (LAVA)Congress Committee:Alan Graham (Chair), Haley Daniels, Adele Kitching,Allan Thornhill, John WatersDiversity Officer:Haley Daniels MBA MSc MIAT RAnTech CIPDUK Biosciences ASG Representative/Home Office:Alan Palmer MIAT RAnTechviAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page vi

viiAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

viiiAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020Expert in the world of research dietswww.sdsdiets.comthe essential resource for quality research dietsSDSSpecial Diets ServicesSpecial Diets ServicesPO Box 705, Witham, Essex, England CM8 3ADTelephone: +44 (0) 1376 511260Fax: +44 (0) 1376 511247Email: info@sdsdiets.comSpecial Diets Services is the largest supplier of Laboratory Animal diets in Europe and the only dedicated manufacturer in the UK. Special Diets Services has a global reputation for the quality of its diets and manufacturing and storage facilities.

ixAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareExpert in the world of research dietswww.sdsdiets.comthe essential resource for quality research dietsSDSSpecial Diets ServicesSpecial Diets ServicesPO Box 705, Witham, Essex, England CM8 3ADTelephone: +44 (0) 1376 511260Fax: +44 (0) 1376 511247Email: info@sdsdiets.comSpecial Diets Services is the largest supplier of Laboratory Animal diets in Europe and the only dedicated manufacturer in the UK. Special Diets Services has a global reputation for the quality of its diets and manufacturing and storage facilities. August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareEditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial BoardLooking back over issues of the Journal through its various identities, one thing is appar ent and that is the contribution thatoverseas authors have made to the content. Topics have varied from dealing with exotic species, lack of sophisticated equipment,different attitudes to everyday problems, staff training and education and disease outbreaks. However, the resolute that has beenconstant throughout, despite the differences across the world, is the love and concern for the animals being cared for.Many include interesting photographs but I unfortunately am unable to use them as the quality of images is so poor whenrepr oduced, to the extent in some cases, they become worthless.Obviously, things have changed over seven decades and the technology described in contributions from overseas is less differentfrom what we use in the UK. This issue welcomes contributions from Australia, the Czech Republic and Iran as well, of coursefrom the UK. Since ATW became an Open Access publication and is being published electronically, it is enjoying a wider audienceand is attracting mor e contributions than usual. Not all are relevant to our profession, but knowledge is transferable so whatseems ‘off beat’ today may become useful in the future. However, as Editor I will always strive to maintain the quality of ourpublications and the usefulness to our readers.In this issue we include the RSPCA 2019 Rodent and Rabbit Welfare group meeting repor t. The 26th meeting that the RSPCA haveorganised focussed on ‘sentience, positive welfare and psychological well being’. The repor t contains contributions from 11presenters as well as notes on the interactive discussion session on sentience that closed the meeting.A paper from Iran, a first as far as I can see for the Journal, on reducing the negative effects of methionine on bone parametersin broilers’ embryos may seem of little relevance but it offers a better understanding of how methionine affects bone structurewhich is important to most species. Similarly, Feline Assisted Therapy as described by the team at the University of Life SciencesPrague does not appear to fall into the realms of Animal Technology but it gives us a better understanding of how animals can havea positive effect on some people, which in the current situation may be of significant benefit to a wider population. Our final paperfrom the team at Western Sydney University, details the care of the Children’ Python and two species of Bearded Dragons. Notperhaps the run of the mill laboratory animals but just as important to many Animal Technologists globally as mice and rats. If youkeep reptiles at home or know of someone who is contemplating one as a pet these papers make useful reference documents. Wealso offer two papers from previous issues of the Journal which were very different in appearance and content than today’s Journalof Animal Technology and Welfare and not only because of the change of title. Issues were printed in black and white and in the veryearly days were produced by hand. The paper from France on Physical Hazards in the laboratory animal house will bring back manymemories for some of the older technicians, myself included, but not necessarily good ones. The use of ether as an anaestheticwhich I know is still used in some countries where resources are limited, for human sur gery, presented a very real danger to bothanimals and staff. Disease in laboratory animal units was often a recurring problem, bacterial infections such as Pseudomonas asdescribed in the reprint of the article were still presenting Animal Technologists with problems as late as the end of the 1980s. Whenimporting animals and tissues from overseas it is important to realise that they may be carrying disease not seen in the UK forseveral decades. In recent times, Ectromelia was introduced into a unit in the USA via antibodies produced overseas. Precautionsmust be taken until such time as you are sure that the animals and tissues are clear of any underlying infections.We are also able to offer in this issue an interesting Tech-2-Tech article by Seonagh Henderson of the University of Glasgow, ona novel technique of cage cleaning which hasa positive effect on the welfare of laboratory rats. Finally, we included several postersprepared for AST2020 but sadly at the moment remain unpresented.Thanks again to all of our authors, past and present, both internationally and here in the UK. There would not have been 70 yearsof the Journal without you. Here is to the next seven decades and beyond.THE INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL TECHNOLOGYETHICAL STATEMENT“In the conduct of their Professional duties, Animal Technologists have a moral and legalobligation, at all times, to promote and safeguard the welfare of animals in their care,recognising that good laboratory animal welfare is an essential component of goodlaboratory animal technology and science.The Institute recognises and supports the application of the principles of the 3Rs(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) in all areas of animal research.”ixAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page ixDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareThis issue marks the close of the 70th anniversary year of the foundation of what became the Institute of Animal Technology. The IAT had planned to celebrate this achievement with a series of events but unfortunately thanks to a nasty little coronavirus it has not been possible. However we still have cause to celebrate, albeit in a somewhat muted style. Firstly, we should be celebrating the fact that Animal Technologists in all our many guises have shown repeatedly, that despite the problems the world has experienced during this year, that nothing stops them placing welfare as their first priority. To all of you I offer my heartfelt congratulations for carrying on against the odds and I am proud of every one of you.We can also look back over the past 7 decades and celebrate the difference we have made to the animals in our care. As you know we have been using the theme of ‘Making a Difference’ throughout the year and this issue continues the look at our achievements.Although I was not around in 1950, I am old enough to have witnessed many of the changes our members have made to the lives of animals used in scientific research. Some of these may not have been huge leaps forward but cumulatively they have transformed the way we care for animals for the better as well as our own working lives. In the first issue of this year we looked at education and how we have developed our qualifications and the status we enjoy within the scientific world. Over the years we have made improvements to animal welfare, due to a better understanding gained through education of the requirements for animals to be not only physically and microbiologically healthy but also not to be stressed/distressed and to be able to express natural behaviours. This issue looks at some of the changes the Journal in its many guises has reported on and which have been adopted by our professions and the researchers we work with. I asked members of Council which developments in their opinion have made the greatest impact and the responses showed that in most cases it was the changes to basic husbandry that have improved animals lives the most. I think all of us understand that the work of Jane Hurst and the team at Liverpool University on non-aversive handling has made the most basic task we undertake less stressful to a huge number of mice in our care. Some of us will remember with discomfort, the days when rats were restrained by the base of their tails. Thankfully, that is no longer a general practice and now the handling of mice is also changing for the better. Emma Hamilton’s project for her Level 6 Diploma course reports on a project to change the culture at the University of Newcastle and introduce non-aversive handling of mice to the researchers there. Emma mentions John Waters’ presentation at Newcastle on the tunnel handling and cupping methods as being a seminal point in changing attitudes and we reprint John’s paper in this issue. John received the Andrew Blake Tribute Award (ABTA) for his work spreading the word on how a relatively simple change, mainly in technologists and researchers attitudes to handling, could improve animal welfare. Other ABTA papers are also printed in this issue including Joanna Malton’s: Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped? Joanna’s study showed that more complicated efforts to reduce pre-weaning losses were less effective than stopping post-partum mating by removing the male just before a litter was due so that the dam’s lactation was not impaired by trying to produce milk whilst also carrying a developing litter. Time’s up for tick-over colonies ….Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines? from Stuart Newman and Stephen Woodley discusses how the need to maintain colonies of Genetically Altered (GA) mice can be eliminated by cryopreservation, thereby dramatically reducing the numbers of mice bred unnecessarily. Other developments in refinement may have also won a ABTA if only they had entered the competition. One of the major achievements of the last 70 years is how Branch meetings, Congress and the Journal has enabled technologists to learn about changes in how we can improve an animal’s life. We have also included a retrospective look by Alan Palmer at the way Animal Technology changed by innovation at the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) during its century of existence. The review is a fascinating look into the past and illustrates how far we have developed since those early days. Now part of The Francis Crick Institute, Alan and the team are still innovating and improving animal welfare. We will be continuing a look back into the past in future issues of ATW and hopefully compare with modern methods of improved welfare. Obviously, the loss of AST2020 due to its non-viability in the face of the pandemic greatly reduced the number of posters available for publication. My thanks go to the authors who have kindly allowed the poster they had prepared for the meeting to be published in the Journal. Although I am writing this in September, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all and your families a healthy and happy Christmas and New Year.EditorialJas BarleyChair of the Editorial Board

xAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020College of LaboratoryAnimal Science & TechnologyAnimal Law &WelfareExplore the legislation and ethical principles governing the use of animals in science, essential knowledge for all existing and prospective NACWOs.Biological ScienceExplore the principles of animal anatomy and physiology, and learn how to apply this knowledge to improve animal welfare and scientic research.Disease Recognition& ControlDiscover how the mammalian body defends itself against disease and how to utilise those defences for experimental and husbandry purposes.Genetic AlterationTechnologiesAll you need to know about breeding. Maintaining and using GA animals, including the maintenance and development of specic animal models.Physiology ofPain & StressConsider the biological basis of pathological change and animal behaviour with particular reference to pain and stress.ToxicologyAn introduction to the theory, methods and regulations governing the assessment of biochemical toxicology and the role of the study director.CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNITSCLAST oers 11 dierent subjects to tailor your education to meet your specic needsAnimal FacilityManagement & DesignLearn about the process of animal facility design, construction and modication, and develop your ability to reect on management theories and strategies.SupervisoryManagement SkillsAn introduction to supervisory management within an animal facility, focusing on the legislative responsibilities and management principles needed in the workplace.ExperimentalDesignAn introduction to the principles of good experimental design and reporting. Develop your skills in eective research, review and analysis.Applied Learning& DevelopmentDevelop your skills in reection, research and the creation of eective plans. Particularly useful for existing or prospective NACWOs, NTCOs and NIOs.Project Planning& ProjectResearch, review, analyse and debate current scientic theories, and learn how to manage a project eectively through your chosen research topic.ACADEMIC SKILLSMANAGEMENT SKILLSANIMAL HEALTH & WELFARE

xiAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareCollege of LaboratoryAnimal Science & TechnologyAnimal Law &WelfareExplore the legislation and ethical principles governing the use of animals in science, essential knowledge for all existing and prospective NACWOs.Biological ScienceExplore the principles of animal anatomy and physiology, and learn how to apply this knowledge to improve animal welfare and scientic research.Disease Recognition& ControlDiscover how the mammalian body defends itself against disease and how to utilise those defences for experimental and husbandry purposes.Genetic AlterationTechnologiesAll you need to know about breeding. Maintaining and using GA animals, including the maintenance and development of specic animal models.Physiology ofPain & StressConsider the biological basis of pathological change and animal behaviour with particular reference to pain and stress.ToxicologyAn introduction to the theory, methods and regulations governing the assessment of biochemical toxicology and the role of the study director.CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNITSCLAST oers 11 dierent subjects to tailor your education to meet your specic needsAnimal FacilityManagement & DesignLearn about the process of animal facility design, construction and modication, and develop your ability to reect on management theories and strategies.SupervisoryManagement SkillsAn introduction to supervisory management within an animal facility, focusing on the legislative responsibilities and management principles needed in the workplace.ExperimentalDesignAn introduction to the principles of good experimental design and reporting. Develop your skills in eective research, review and analysis.Applied Learning& DevelopmentDevelop your skills in reection, research and the creation of eective plans. Particularly useful for existing or prospective NACWOs, NTCOs and NIOs.Project Planning& ProjectResearch, review, analyse and debate current scientic theories, and learn how to manage a project eectively through your chosen research topic.ACADEMIC SKILLSMANAGEMENT SKILLSANIMAL HEALTH & WELFARE

xiiAnimal Technology and Welfare August 2020

169August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareBackground The aim of the project was to explore the relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction by carrying out four workshops relating to the implementation of the 3Rs and working towards a Culture of Care with clearly defined shared values. The participants were members of the Biological Services Unit at King’s College London Guy’s Campus involved in the care of animals used for medical research.The 3Rs are a set of principles that provide a framework for more ethical and humane animal research.1 They stand for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. Where possible, the use of animals should be replaced by another method when they can provide the same quality of research e.g. computer models. If it is not possible to replace animals, then all efforts should be made to reduce the number of animals used. Refinement methods should be utilised to reduce the amount of pain, suffering or lasting harm experienced by the animals, this can be obtained for example, by improving housing, procedure methods and pain relief.Institutions that work with research animals are highly regulated by legislation and guidelines. However, such institutions should endeavour to go beyond the legal obligations and treat the animals with compassion and empathy by establishing a Culture of Care. Improved animal welfare has continually been shown to increase the reproducibility of research and promote good science. This culture should be extended to the people that work with the animals where “Institutional culture influences the productivity and performance of many enterprises”.2,3 Low morale and motivation in staff can be linked to low job satisfaction, increased sickness and bad public perception of an organisation. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) 2018 report, absences due to stress-related illness and mental health issues including anxiety and depression had increased in nearly 40% and 55% of organisations, respectively.4Organisational culture is generally accepted, as defined by Schein (1990), as “a set of beliefs and values shared by members of the same organisation that influences their behaviours”.5 A research report by the CIPD (2016) further found that culture ‘impacts the trust, engagement, wellbeing and productivity of employees’ and ‘plays out in employees through how they behave and the values they apply to the work they do…’ .6To obtain a Culture of Care around the animals, a culture of care is required for those who care for the animals. There are many motivational theories alluding to the factors that influence and drive employees and their work ethic. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a five-tier model of needs whereby needs lower down in the hierarchy need to be met before higher needs can be addressed.7 The first four tiers are deficiency needs whereby motivation is driven when these are not met. The last tier is growth needs whereby motivation increases as these needs are met. To get the most from employees and keep them motivated, it is important to identify what needs are currently fulfilled, what needs need fulfilling and how these can be met to achieve the stage of self-actualisation whereby individuals are motivated to become the best that they can be. The physiological and safety needs of employees should be met already by the job. The use of workshops to allow discussion and participation between staff should allow for the belonging and esteem needs to be met if they are not already being met. For example, Charles River utilises monthly webinars where discussions regarding animal welfare and strategies for implementing the 3Rs can take place as part of their institutional framework to promote a culture of care.8A study conducted by Bhatti and Qureshi (2007) across 34 organisations in the telecommunications, banking and the oil and gas sectors of Pakistan, found that employee participation had a positive and significant effect on the job satisfaction of the employee. The study also found that it was important that staff knew what The relationship between employee participation and job satisfactionCHERYL YALDEN Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK Correspondence: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk Based on an IAT Level 6 Diploma in Laboratory Animal Science and Technology Project

170Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020was going on in the organisation so that they could use the knowledge and concluded that information-sharing programmes are integral to organisational success.Legislation regarding staff is also a factor that has been considered so that no bias should be shown with the intention that all staff members have equal opportunities to benefi t from the project. The project was feasible, as at least 4 workshops were possible to implement within the timeframe with little or no extra fi nancial cost. The time to carry out the workshops was factored into the normal working week and was agreed by senior management.Improved staff welfare could lead to improved animal welfare, increased productivity and reduced sickness. These secondary factors were not assessed in the current project due to time constraints and a sample group that did not refl ect the whole company. However, there is potential for future development of the project.Another limitation of the project is that there are many factors both inside and outside of work that infl uence motivation, morale and job satisfaction in staff.ObjectivesScoping1. Identify stakeholders (high infl uence: high interest) 1.1 How: Stakeholder mapping 1.2 Completion: End December 20192. Identify potential risks and mitigating factors 2.1 How: Risk Register 2.2 Completion: End December 20193. Create a budget overview including time costs 3.1 How: Estimated costs spreadsheet 3.2 Completion: End December 2019Planning1. Communicate with primary stakeholders (High infl uence: High interest) by meeting in person to discuss the remit of project and identify concerns 1.1 How: In person 1.2 Completion: Mid-January 20202. Communicate with secondary stakeholders (High infl uence: Low interest or Low infl uence: High interest) 2.1 How: Email 2.2 Completion: End January 20203. Communicate with tertiary stakeholders (Low infl uence: Low interest) 3.1 How: Organisation’s website 3.2 Completion: End January 20204. Design a job satisfaction survey that can be put online to allow for anonymous and honest answering 4.1 Completion: End-January 20205. Confi rm content of workshops by talking to the Named Information Offi cer (NIO) and Named Training and Competency Offi cer (NTCO) 5.1 How: Meeting in person 5.2 Completion: Mid-January 20206. Communicate with suitable industry members to lead workshops 6.1 How: Email or phone 6.2 Completion: Mid-January 20207. Book suitable space to effi ciently carry out workshops 7.1 How: Email or phone 7.2 Completion: Mid-JanuaryImplementation1. Design workshop questionnaires 1.1 How: paper questionnaire consisting of approximately 10 questions 1.2 Completion: End January 20202. Inform staff of the workshops 2.1 How: In person 2.2 Completion: End January 2020Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

171August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare3. Carry out workshops twice a month on Thursday afternoon taking a maximum of 1hr 30mins 3.1 How: Active participation 3.2 Completion: 4 workshops by Mid-March 20204. Obtain workshop feedback 4.1 How: anonymous paper questionnaire 4.2 Completion: after every workshop5. Obtain results of job satisfaction as result of workshops survey 5.1 How: anonymous online questionnaire through survey monkey 5.2 Completion: Mid-MarchEvaluation1. Compare and analyse results2. Meet with senior management to discuss results and positives and negatives of the project and where the project can move 3. Create report 3.1 Completion: Early March 20204. Report to stakeholders 4.1 How: Presentation 4.2 Completion: Mid-March 20205. Gain feedback 5.1 How: staff survey and open discussion 5.2 Completion: End March 2020Primary Stakeholders The primary stakeholders are the key players in the project that have a high level of infl uence and high level of interest in the project. It was important to ensure that these stakeholders remained satisfi ed throughout the project.Secondary StakeholdersThe secondary stakeholders were those with either a high infl uence and low interest (potential change agents) or high interest and low infl uence (Back-Yarders). It was important to identify how they may be affected by the project and to keep them informed.Tertiary Stakeholders Tertiary stakeholders have low interest and low infl uence in the project and minimal effort was required to keep them informed but they were considered.Figure 2. Categories of Stakeholders The relationship between employee participation and job satisfactionPOTENTIAL CHANGE AGENTS

172Animal Technology and Welfare August 20207 Risk ID Identified Category Risk The risk is caused by Effects of Risk Mitigating Action In Place Impact Level 1 21/11/2019 DISHONEST FEEDBACK Participants feeling pressured to respond in a certain way in order to please employer and avoid negative retaliation. Non-reproducible outcomes that are not representative to the project. All questionnaires will be anonymously answered. Medium 2 21/11/2019 LACK OF TIME Time for day-to-day tasks allows no time for the project. Project gets overlooked and is unable to be completed in time frame. Time allocation for the project will be agreed with the director and line manager ahead of time and protected in writing. Staff will be motivated to finish their work in time in order to attend sessions. High 3 21/11/2019 LACK OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION Absence due to sickness, annual leave or part-time working hours. Equal opportunities affected if not all can take part and reduced statistically significant results with a smaller sample size. Sessions to be carried out on a Thursday when annual leave is lower and part-time working hours coincide. Low 4 05/01/2020 LACK OF OVERALL PARTICIPATION Lack of interest or motivation as a whole to attend sessions. A small or non-existent sample group would prevent the project from being carried out. Sessions will be mandatory and positively promoted. Senior staff will also be encouraged to be absent from the sessions to aid interaction from the staff. High 5 05/01/2020 LACK OF SUPPORT Line managers not wanting to free up time or to receive feedback that may reflect negatively on their management style. Will make it harder for the project to be carried out successfully and could negatively affect morale. The positives of the project will be promoted and the sessions will take place at a point in the week when the workload is lower. Medium 6 21/11/2019 LACK OF CONTENT Not deciding on the content or organising someone to present it in time. Will delay the implementation of the project and may completely hinder its success. Regular meetings from early on with the NTCO to determine content and arrange for a presenter and book for definite time. High 7 05/01/2020 LACK OF SPACE Not booking a suitable area in adequate time or the space becoming unexpectedly unavailable. May delay the project and reduce morale. Determine early on how much space is needed and book specific areas for specific dates. Reserve a backup space in case of unforeseen problems. Medium Date Risk Register – planning The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

173August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareBudget Overview Example questionnaire Kings College London Guys Campus Biological Services PROMOTING A CULTURE OF CARE Order of magnitude Costs £3,600Planning Time 420 Materials 10ImplementationTime 2,400Space 600Materials 50Analysis and Evaluation Time 150 TOTAL £3,600Planning documentWorkshop 1The workshop will cover: What the 3Rs stand for and how they are linked to a Culture of Care. This workshop will establish what the core values of the organisation are.Workshop 2This workshop will focus on: How the 3Rs can be implemented at the technician level. Examples of previous ways the 3Rs have been implemented that are relevant to the staff will be given.Workshop 3The workshop will be based around examples of project protocols that are not designed with best practice and discussion in groups on how the 3Rs could be implemented.Workshop 4This workshop will be creative, involving employees to take what they have learnt and apply it to a specific species or procedure to apply the 3Rs to design a technique or piece of equipment that would improve animal welfare.Each workshop will be followed by a brief questionnaire that is designed to be anonymously completed. Workshop 1 FeedbackDirections: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of these statements in response to having participated in the workshop.Q1. I have an improved understanding the principles of the 3Rs. Strongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeQ2. I have improved my understanding of the link between the 3Rs, good animal welfare, and good science. Q3. I am more confident of my ability to apply the principles of the 3Rs. Q4. My understanding of what a Culture of Care is, has improved.Q5. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them, more than I normally would. Q6. I feel more confident that I am able to contribute my ideas and that I will be listened to. Q7. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs.Q8. I will be able to get more satisfaction from my job by actively applying the principles of the 3Rs.Q9. I feel I know more of what is expected of me in my job roleThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

174Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020After all workshops had been carried out, participants were asked to complete an anonymous survey on SurveyMonkey® to give feedback on the workshops regarding job satisfaction and certain aspects that can affect job satisfaction. This feedback was used to analyse and evaluate the relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction.Participation workshops feedbackPlease indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements as a result of attending the 3Rs workshop. Communication with stakeholdersA key tool when communicating with stakeholders was the POURS method whereby:Plan (what to tell and what to ask)Outline (your understanding, clarify objectives and seek feedback)Use (open questions)Refl ect (use closed questions for confi rmation)Summarise (agree actions)Key playersThe POURS method for communicating with key players included the site manager, my line manager and Named Training and Competency Offi cer (NTCO). I met in person with these stakeholders and used a plan for which information to provide and which information to gain from them regarding the scope of the project. I outlined the objectives of the project and sought feedback. Open questions were used to gain detailed information and closed questions used to refl ect on some of the information to confi rm answers. The end of the meeting was used to summarise and agree on the actions to be taken. Communication regarding the project with these stakeholders was on a fortnightly basis following completion of each workshop. Communication with technical staff was informal and took place as group discussions and feedback questionnaires.Potential change agentsThe POURS method was also utilised to communicate with the director in face to face meetings at the beginning and end of the project. Human resources and Named Information Offi cer (NIO) will be informed by email at the beginning and end of the implementation of the project.‘Back-Yarders’ and the indifferentTertiary stakeholders including researchers, general public, project holders and administration can be kept informed via a blog on the company’s respective website after each workshop.201. I feel more able to influence how things are done in myteam wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree2. I am better informed and trained to do my job well wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree3. A positive culture is visible where I work wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree4. I feel encou raged to come up with new and better wa ysof doing things wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree5. I have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree216. I am more invested in the shared values of thecompany wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree7. I am more satisfied overall in my job wStrongly agreeAgreeNeither agree nor disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree8. How many of the workshops did you attend? w12349. What aspects of the workshops were good? w10. What would you change about the workshops? wThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

175August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare7 5.01.2020 LACK OF SPACE Not booking a suitable area in adequate time or the space becoming unexpectedly unavailable. May delay the project and reduce morale. Determine early on how much space is needed and book specific areas for specific dates. Reserve a backup space in case of unforeseen problems. 24.01.20 Successful workshops will be carried out in adequate spaces to facilitate the experience. Low Risk Register – Post Implementation Risk ID Date Identified Category Risk The risk is caused by Effects of Risk Mitigating Action In Place End Date Results of mitigation action Final Impact Level 1 21.11.19 DISHONEST FEEDBACK Participants feeling pressured to respond in a certain way in order to please employer and avoid negative retaliation. Non-reproducible outcomes that are not representative to the project. All questionnaires will be anonymously answered. 03.03.20 The responses obtained throughout the project will more accurately reflect the true feelings of the participants. Low 2 21.11./19 LACK OF TIME Time for day-to-day tasks allows no time for the project. Project gets overlooked and is unable to be completed in time frame. Time allocation for the project will be agreed with the director and line manager ahead of time and protected in writing. Staff will be motivated to finish their work in time in order to attend sessions. 13.03.20 Time to implement the project will be protected so that it can be effectively carried out to completion, whilst still providing enough time to do the normal dayday work. Medium 3 21.11./19 LACK OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION Absence due to sickness, annual leave or part-time working hours. Equal opportunities affected if not all can take part and reduced statistically significant results with a smaller sample size. Sessions to be carried out on a Thursday when annual leave is lower and part-time working hours coincide. 13.03.20 More people being able to attend will promote equal opportunities and give more statistically significant results. Low 4 5.01.2020 LACK OF OVERALL PARTICIPATION Lack of interest or motivation as a whole to attend sessions. A small or non-existent sample group would prevent the project from being carried out. Sessions will be mandatory and positively promoted. Senior staff will also be encouraged to be absent from the sessions to aid interaction from the staff. 13.03.20 Workshops will be more successfully attended with more interaction and contribution from the staff. Medium 5 5.01.2020 LACK OF SUPPORT Line managers W not wanting to free up time or to receive feedback that may reflect negatively on their management style. make it harder for the project to be carried out successfully and could negatively affect morale. The positives of the project will be promoted, and the sessions will take place at a point in the week when the workload is lower. 13.03.20 Workshops are more likely to be attended and professional relationships will be improved. Low 6 21.11.19 LACK OF CONTENT Not deciding on the content or organising someone to present it in time. Will delay the implementation of the project and may completely hinder its success. Regular meetings from early on with the NTCO to determine content and arrange for a presenter and book for definite time. 13.03.20 Workshops will be structured providing the staff with a informative and enjoyable session. Medium Will The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction7 5.01.2020 LACK OF SPACE Not booking a suitable area in adequate time or the space becoming unexpectedly unavailable. May delay the project and reduce morale. Determine early on how much space is needed and book specific areas for specific dates. Reserve a backup space in case of unforeseen problems. 24.01.20 Successful workshops will be carried out in adequate spaces to facilitate the experience. Low

176Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Project programme of workKings College London, Guys Campus Biological Services PROMOTING A CULTURE OF CARE Workshop CostingWorkshop 1Planning Time 140Materials 10Implementing Time 600Space 150 Materials 20 TOTAL 920 Workshop 2Planning Time 140Materials 10Implementing Time 620Space 150 Materials 20 TOTAL 930 Workshop 3Planning Time 140Materials 10Implementing Time 600Space 150 Materials 20 TOTAL 910 Workshop 4Planning Time 140Materials 10Implementing Time 600Space 150 Materials 20 TOTAL 930 Analysing and Evaluating Time 150 TOTAL 150 TOTAL 3,840 Chart 1. Project programme of work. Project Implementation documentDelivery MethodologyControl ElementWhat is likely to go wrong?How and when will know?What will be done about it?Quality Workshops may not inspire participation or improve job satisfaction.Results obtained from end of session questionnaires and end of project questionnaire.Use feedback after each workshop to make improvements.Cost Costs including time may exceed budget.Employ a budget analysis after each workshop.Reduce costs of latter workshops if projected expenditure is likely to exceed budget.Time Workshops may not be completed within the project timeline.When structuring and planning the workshops.Workshops will be altered to fit around schedule.Quantity The number of planned workshops may not be possible in timeframe or space not available.When booking room for workshops.Information will have to be structured so that it can be delivered in fewer hours.Table 1. Control point identificationThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

177August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareProblemsDue to work commitments and holidays, staff could not attend the original proposed dates for the workshops and so the dates had to be changed. Suitable locations to hold the workshops were only available for 3 of the new dates in the afternoon, therefore the content of the 4 workshops had to be restructured to be presented in 3 workshops.Workshop 1 FormatIce breaker activity - employees were randomly put into groups. The groups were each given a different item and were to come up with an argument as to why their item would be the best to have on a desert island. The aim of the ice breakers in each workshop was to relax the staff and create a clear division between the normal workday and the workshops. The information – presented as a slideshow and focussed on the theory of culture and the 3Rs and a tour of the NC3Rs website.Discussion – open on how the 3Rs could be implemented in the workplace.Workshop 2 FormatIce breaker activity – staff put into teams and stand in a queue. The person at the back gets an image and draws it on the back of the person in front with their finger. This person then does the same to the person in front of them without seeing the image. The person at the front draws the image on a piece of paper based on the image drawn on their back.Information – a quiz based on the previous workshop and on some welfare issues in the workplace. A brief talk on enrichment for toads and then in groups design toad enrichment.Discussion – presentation on the enrichment designed and how it incorporates the 3Rs.Workshop 3 FormatIce breaker – the same as in Workshop 2 as it went down well.Information – a guest presenter on a project that had incorporated the 3Rs to improve animal husbandry. An example of a bad protocol was given to the staff. In groups they analysed the proposed protocol to make suggestions on how it could be improved by utilising the 3Rs.Discussion – each person was given a chance to report back on the different aspects of the proposal, on what they would improve or where they would need more information to determine whether it was ethical.Revised programme of workDescription Start DateEnd DateDuration (Days)Overall programme1/12/19 18/3/20 109Communicate with primary stakeholders 8/12/19 15/12/19 8Agree content of workshops 6/1/20 24/1/20 19Communicate with secondary stakeholders 6/1/20 31/1/20 26Communicate with tertiary stakeholders24/1/20 31/1/20 8Arrange content and presenters18/1/20 13/3/20 56Design evaluation questionnaire17/1/20 26/1/20 10Book times and rooms18/1/20 31/1/20 14Design workshop 1 content17/1/20 11/2/20 26Design workshop 1 questionnaire17/1/20 11/2/20 26Workshop 1 questionnaire12/2/20 13/2/20 2Mid- point review 21/2/20 28/2/20 8First workshop 12/2/20 12/2/20 1Design workshop 2 questionnaire13/2/20 3/3/20 20Design workshop 2 content13/2/20 3/3/20 20Workshop 2 questionnaire 4/3/20 5/3/20 2Second workshop 4/3/20 4/3/20 1Design workshop 3 content 5/3/20 10/3/20 6Design workshop 3 questionnaire 5/3/20 10/3/20 6Workshop 3 questionnaire11/3/20 12/3/20 2Third workshop 11/3/20 11/3/20 1Give out overall questionnaire12/3/20 13/3/20 2Analyse results 14/3/20 17/3/20 4Evaluate 14/3/20 17/3/20 4Present project 18/3/20 18/3/20 1The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

178Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Budget – Earned Value AnalysisChart 2. Revised Project programme of work. 32 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 22nd February 2020 Cost Baseline A 4 month, £2910 project Actual Cost Planned Value (PV) 1 2 3 4 £595 Dec Jan Feb Mar Planned Value (PV) % completed Earned Value (EV) Workshop 1 planning 13 98 39 150 100% 150 Workshop 1 implementing 770 770 100% 770 Workshop 2 planning 150 150 30% 45 Workshop 2 implementing 780 780 0% 0 Workshop 3 planning 86 64 150 0% 0 Workshop 3 implementing 760 760 0% 0 Analysis and Evaluation 150 150 0% 0 PV= 13 98 1825 974 2910 965 Earned Value (EV) 965 Actual Cost (AC) 595 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 22nd February 2020Earned Value (EV) 965 Cost variance (CV) 370 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 0.49845Actual Cost (AC) 595 Schedule Variance (SV) -971 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1794.249Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.621849 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 8.02487The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

179August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare34 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 5th March 2020 Cost Baseline A 4 month, £2910 project Actual Cost Planned Value (PV) 1 2 3 4 £1,025 Dec Jan Feb Mar Planned Value (PV) % completed Earned Value (EV) Workshop 1 planning 13 98 39 150 100% 150 Workshop 1 implementing 770 770 100% 770 Workshop 2 planning 150 150 100% 150 Workshop 2 implementing 780 780 100% 780 Workshop 3 planning 86 64 150 0% 0 Workshop 3 implementing 760 760 0% 0 Analysis and Evaluation 150 150 0% 0 PV= 13 98 1825 974 2910 1850 Earned Value (EV) 1850 Actual Cost (AC) 1025 Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost variance (CV) 825 Schedule Variance (SV) -86 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 5th March 2020Earned Value (EV) 1850 Cost variance (CV) 825 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 0.955579Actual Cost (AC) 1025 Schedule Variance (SV) -86 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1612.297Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.804878 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 4.18594636 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). – Performed 13th March 2020 Cost Baseline A 4 month, £2910 project Actual Cost Planned Value (PV) 1 2 3 4 £1,585 Dec Jan Feb Mar Planned Value (PV) % completed Earned Value (EV) Workshop 1 planning 13 98 39 100% 150 Workshop 1 implementing 770 770 100% 770 Workshop 2 planning 150 150 100% 150 Workshop 2 implementing 780 780 100% 780 Workshop 3 planning 86 64 150 100% 150 Workshop 3 implementing 760 760 100% 760 Analysis and Evaluation 150 150 0% 0 PV= 13 98 1825 974 2910 2760 Earned Value (EV) 2760 Actual Cost (AC) 1585 Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost variance (CV) 1175 Schedule Variance (SV) 824 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.741325 Earned Value Analysis (EVA). Performed 13th March 2020Earned Value (EV) 2760 Cost variance (CV) 1175 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) 1.42562Actual Cost (AC) 1585 Schedule Variance (SV) 824 Estimated Cost at Completion E[C] 1671.141Planned Value (PV) 1936 Cost Performance Index (CPI) 1.741325 Estimated Time at Completion E [T] 2.805797Actual cost at completion = £1735 and time of completion = 3.5 monthsThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

180Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020ResultsParticipants comments: What aspects of the workshops were good? “...Interactions...”“Well structured with Ice Breaker activities to improve the chances of attendees feeling that they can listen and be listened to. Topic was relevant to the job and that it helps challenge you to think beyond the confines of just carrying out the tasks that are expected of you which could help promote making the workplace better for both employees and the animals that are in their care.” “I felt the group activities and ability to express ideas whilst also demonstrating the principles of the 3Rs were the best bits.”“Lots of team-based activities.”“Social interactions with other units, discussing new ideas.”“I enjoyed the ability to approach new topics and consider the issues from different perspectives.”“Fun activities allowed socialising with colleagues Informative Educational.”“The interactive element, being able to voice your views/answers without fear of being judged.”“Teamwork parts were fun, having time to talk about important welfare aspects out of work.”“The “out of the box” thinking.”39 Results Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1. Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2. 30.8%53.8%38.5%38.5%23.1%15.4%38.5%38.5%38.5%38.5%23.1%46.2%53.8%61.5%46.2%46.2%30.8%38.5%30.8%23.1%15.4%7.7%15.4%38.5%15.4%30.8%23.1%1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs more2. I understand the link between the 3Rs, good animal welfare, and …3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3Rs4. I understand what a culture ofcare is more than I did before5. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more …6. I feel I am more able tocontribute my ideas and be…7. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs8. I will be able to get more satisfaction from my job by …9. I feel I know more of what isexpected of me in my job roleStrongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree44.4%44.4%55.6%44.4%44.4%77.8%44.4%44.4%44.4%55.6%66.7%66.7%22.2%22.2%33.3%1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs more2. I am more confident to carry out my jobefficiently3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3Rs4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more than I normally …5. I feel I am more able to contribute myideas and be listened to6. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs7. I feel part of a team moreStrongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree44 4%.22.2%39 Results Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1. Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2. 30.8%53.8%38.5%38.5%23.1%15.4%38.5%38.5%38.5%38.5%23.1%46.2%53.8%61.5%46.2%46.2%30.8%38.5%30.8%23.1%15.4%7.7%15.4%38.5%15.4%30.8%23.1%1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs more2. I understand the link between the 3Rs, good animal welfare, and …3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3Rs4. I understand what a culture ofcare is more than I did before5. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more …6. I feel I am more able tocontribute my ideas and be…7. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs8. I will be able to get more satisfaction from my job by …9. I feel I know more of what isexpected of me in my job roleStrongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree44.4%44.4%55.6%44.4%44.4%77.8%44.4%44.4%44.4%55.6%66.7%66.7%22.2%22.2%33.3%1. I understand the principles of the 3Rs more2. I am more confident to carry out my jobefficiently3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3Rs4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more than I normally …5. I feel I am more able to contribute myideas and be listened to6. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs7. I feel part of a team moreStrongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree44 4%.22.2%39 Results Chart 3. Response to Workshop 1. Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2. 30.8%53.8%38.46153846%38.46153846%23.07692308%15.38461538%38.46153846%38.46153846%38.46153846%38.5%23.1%46.2%53.8%61.5%46.2%46.2%30.8%38.5%30.8%23.1%15.4%7.7%15.4%38.5%15.4%30.8%23.1%1. I understand the principles of the 3R’s more2. I understand the link between the 3R’s, good animal welfare, and …3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3R’s4. I understand what a culture ofcare is more than I did before5. I have thought about the 3R’s and how to implement them more …6. I feel I am more able tocontribute my ideas and be…7. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3R’s8. I will be able to get more satisfaction from my job by …9. I feel I know more of what isexpected of me in my job roleStrongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree44.4%44.4%55.6%44.4%44.4%77.8%44.4%44.4%44.4%55.6%66.7%66.7%22.2%22.2%33.3%1. I understand the principles of the 3R’s more2. I am more confident to carry out my jobefficiently3. I am more confident to apply the principles of the 3R’s4. I have thought about the 3R’s and how to implement them more than I normally …5. I feel I am more able to contribute myideas and be listened to6. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3R’s7. I feel part of a team moreStrongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagreeChart 3. Response to Workshop 1. Chart 4. Response to Workshop 2. Chart 5. Response to Workshop 3. 40 Chart 5. Response to Workshop 3. Chart 6. Overall workshop feedback 23.1%38.5%30.8%38.5%23.1%30.8%53.8%61.5%46.2%53.8%38.5%61.5%53.8%30.8%7.7%1. I have a better understanding of howthe 3Rs are used when reviewing a…2. I am more aware of the role of theAWERB3. I understand what good practicesand bad practices are4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more than I …5. I feel I am more able to contributemy ideas and be listened to6. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs7. I feel I have discussed the 3Rs withother technologists more than I…Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree11.1%22.2%66.7%44.4%11.1%55.6%66.7%33.3%77.8%55.6%66.7%22.2%11.1%22.2%22.2%1. I feel more able to influence how things are done in myteam2. I am better informed and trained to do my job well3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better waysof doing things4. I have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment5. I am invested in the shared values of the company6. I am more satisifed overall in my jobStrongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree40 Chart 5. Response to Workshop 3. Chart 6. Overall workshop feedback 23.1%38.5%30.8%38.5%23.1%30.8%53.8%61.5%46.2%53.8%38.5%61.5%53.8%30.8%7.7%1. I have a better understanding of howthe 3Rs are used when reviewing a…2. I am more aware of the role of theAWERB3. I understand what good practicesand bad practices are4. I have thought about the 3Rs and how to implement them more than I …5. I feel I am more able to contributemy ideas and be listened to6. I feel more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs7. I feel I have discussed the 3Rs withother technologists more than I…Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree11.1%22.2%66.7%44.4%11.1%55.6%66.7%33.3%77.8%55.6%66.7%22.2%11.1%22.2%22.2%1. I feel more able to influence how things are done in myteam2. I am better informed and trained to do my job well3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better waysof doing things4. I have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment5. I am invested in the shared values of the company6. I am more satisifed overall in my jobStrongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagreeChart 6. Overall workshop feedback The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

181August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareWhat would you change about the workshops?“The length or frequencies at which the workshops are carried out so that: (A) more in depth discussion and understanding can be gained from them (B) more chances to actually attend them given the fact that it may not be possible to attend due to work constraints. (C) Another thing to consider would be similar to the poster ‘homework’, is that research could be advised to be done so that we are better prepared for discussion sessions or so we feel that we can contribute more without being put on the spot as much.”“Not much I would change, content was interesting, perhaps a little more detail about the concept of care and how best we can train ourselves to apply it in our everyday work.”“Longer lecture focussed segments.”“Have them every 4-6 weeks.”“As someone with social anxiety I did not enjoy the Ice Breakers. I can appreciate their intended purpose but it distracted from valuable time focusing on the main aims of the workshop.”“Nothing.”“The length, some parts felt a bit rushed as there simply wasn’t enough time.”“It would have been good to have a research paper, book chapter, etc., to read and questions to answer prior to the session. We could then discuss the answers. The use of animals in research is a very controversial and complex topic so I think it might be interesting to look at it from different viewpoints.” “Better online tools.”Stakeholder EngagementAnimal Technologists as key stakeholders and the subjects of the project were highly engaged in the process. They were kept well informed of the details of the project and how change was to be managed. Communication took the form of participation and taking on an aspect of ownership of the project.The line manager had a high interest and high influence of the project and its outcomes but had a lower expectancy of the merits of the project. Therefore, it was important to communicate the outcomes and feedback of each of the workshops to them and keep them involved in the information delivered to the technicians throughout the project.The director had a high level of influence and a high interest in the merits of the project but was less directly affected by the project and the changes that it brought. It was therefore important to get the information to the director but not as often or in as much detail throughout the project.Project EvaluationMethodology AnalysisThe initial method had to be altered since available space and technologist time was not enough to support the original plan for 4 workshops with 2 weeks between. Therefore, the plan was changed to 3 workshops given at irregular intervals.Stakeholder feedbackAnimal Technologists – feedback has been gained from these key players in the feedback forms after each workshop and the overall survey at the end of the project. These players have been very involved in the project and their feedback makes up the results section of the project.45 The director had a high level of influence and a high interest in the merits of the project but was less directly affected by the project and the changes that it brought. It was therefore important to get the information to the director but not as often or in as much detail throughout the project. Figure 5. Stakeholder engagement. Figure 5. Stakeholder engagement. The relationship between employee participation and job satisfactionAnimal Technologists

182Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Director feedback will be obtained via the following questionnaire.1. The project has been successful in promoting a Culture of CareStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree2. The goals of the project were communicated clearlyStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree3. Project was executed effectivelyStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree4. The change process was managed effectivelyStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree5. Information was communicated in a timely mannerStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree7. The benefits of the project were clearly expressedStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree6. The project closed at an appropriate timeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeFigure 6. Line Manager Feedback questionnaire Figure 7. Director feedback questionnaire Line manager feedback was be obtained via the following questionnaire.1. The project has been successful in promoting a Culture of CareStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree2. The goals of the project were communicated clearlyStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree3. Project was executed effectivelyStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree4. The project closed at an appropriate timeStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree5. The benefits of the project were clearly expressedStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree7. I was involved in the aims of the projectStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree6. There is scope to extend the projectStrongly AgreeAgree Neutral DisagreeStrongly DisagreeThe relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

183August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareConclusionsEach of the individual workshop feedback forms and the overall survey indicated at improvements in some respects that could give higher overall job satisfaction.Results of Workshop 1 show that staff felt that they knew more of what was expected of them in their jobs (77% agree) and they felt more motivated to look for new ways to apply the 3Rs (84.7% agree). Feedback from Workshop 2 indicated that staff felt more confident to carry out their jobs efficiently (77.8% agree) and that they felt part of a team more (77.8% agree). Results from Workshop 3 state that the employees felt more able to contribute their ideas and to be listened to (100% agree).The overall feedback survey utilised 6 statements from the NHS Culture of Care Barometer (2015) that relate to aspects that indicate job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.10 Each of the statements also link to fulfilment of the belongingness and esteem needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.7 Feedback shows that the staff felt invested in the shared values of the company (100%) improving their sense of belonging with each other and in the organisation.6 Staff also felt more able to influence how things are done in their team because of participating in the workshops (66.7%) which improves their sense of belonging and their esteem. Results also showed that staff felt better informed and trained to do their jobs well (88.9%) and that they have a greater feeling of personal accomplishment (77.8%). Both statements indicate that the employees esteem needs are being more fulfilled. As belongingness and esteem needs are met, staff can be more motivated to reach self-actualisation and perform to the best of their abilities. This motivation is shown as the staff felt more encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things (100%). These needs and motivational factors being met should lead to increased job satisfaction and staff felt they were more satisfied overall in their jobs as a result of the workshops (77.8%).Some aspects of the workshops that were well received were the Ice Breaker activities. Participation in the workshops increased with each workshop even with the more reserved and reluctant members of staff.A restriction to the project is that there was not sufficient space available to carry out the workshops at the original desired dates and times. To improve this, I would plan the workshops and their content 2 months in advance and reserve the space then. Availability for staff to attend was also restricted due to sickness absence, annual leave and work commitments. In future I would therefore introduce 2 dates in the same month for the same workshop to allow flexibility for staff to attend.Due to the restrictions in place, only a small sample size of approximately 12 employees from 2 units attended from a possible 50 employees across 7 units. For future extension of the project I would offer the workshop to all technologists across all facilities within the establishment. I would also aim to work with the director and line managers of all the units to make workshop attendance compulsory and by having 2 sessions of the same workshop, staff can be split into two groups allowing for half the workforce to continue the normal workload, thus making compulsory attendance more attainable. Having more sessions of the same workshop also allows for smaller groups instead of all 50 employees, meaning that individual participation is more likely.The staff that did not attend the workshops may have been the people that were less invested in the culture of the organisation and could be the ones to benefit the most from the workshops. Therefore, the project could be improved, and its aims more thoroughly tested by making attendance to the workshops mandatory.Feedback on the aspects of the workshop that could be improved consistently suggested that workshops were not long enough to go through the material in sufficient depth and allow for more qualitative and quantitative discussion. Spreading staff across workshops makes it possible to have longer sessions of up to 3 hrs. Some feedback also suggested that those with social anxiety did not enjoy the Ice Breaker tasks. However, the Ice Breakers are not just for fun but perform a crucial role in preparing the staff to become more relaxed and able to participate in the workshops without feeling judged. Therefore, it is important to keep the ice-breaker activities in place but reassess the types of activity that are utilised.Other changes I would make would be to involve staff in choosing the topics for workshops and give them time to research the topic ahead of the workshop so that they are more comfortable to contribute.The way that I have learnt through carrying out this project is through Kolb’s experiential learning cycle whereby the “Concrete Experience” of doing a workshop is followed by “Reflective Observation” through feedback. “Abstract Conceptualisation” whereby positives and negatives of the experience are concluded, and changes made.12 These changes are then planned and tried out based on what I learnt through “Active Experimentation”. This is again followed by “Concrete Experience”. JustificationAs explained in the scoping document, an individuals’ motivation, morale and overall satisfaction in their job can be affected by many factors including influences outside of the organisation and this project looks at The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

184Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020just a small area. As explained by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’, higher levels will not be obtained when the lower levels are not fulfilled e.g. if a person has debt at home it will be hard to motivate them with self-esteem factors to encourage them to perform to the best of their abilities.7 In such situations, the workshops may appear to offer no improvement to job satisfaction. Although there were limitations to this project including time and space availability as well as a small sample size, some positive conclusions can be drawn from the results of the project. Although these conclusions cannot directly prove that job satisfaction can be improved and a culture of care promoted solely by implementing participatory workshops, aspects alluding to motivation and satisfaction at work were improved. Feedback directly showed a link between participation and an increased sense of belonging and increased self-esteem. Simone (2009) states “Institutional culture influences the productivity and performance of many enterprises” and so the Culture of Care that animal research organisations are aiming for should be extended to the people who work with the animals.2 The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported that absences due to anxiety had increased in nearly 40% of organisations and absences due to depression had increased in nearly 55% of organisations in 2018.4 It could therefore be argued that increased morale, which relates to improved mental health could reduce such sickness absence although it would need to be more thoroughly explored to prove whether participatory workshops could help reduce sickness absence.A more direct outcome from having more engaged and informed staff through workshops is that they will be more invested in the shared values of the organisation and be more motivated to promote a culture of care. This in turn leads to staff wanting to implement the 3Rs where possible and use better practices. Utilising better practices whenever and wherever possible improves animal welfare. Animals that have better welfare make better research models as they are otherwise healthier and there is less variation, so results obtained are better correlated to the experimental research being conducted. Less variation also means that the science is more reproducible. Good science means more ethical science and results in better treatments. Better human and animal welfare, and more ethical science, improves public perception of the organisation and the field of animal research in medical science. This is increasingly important as more organisations seek to offer a level of transparency to the general public, and therefore further extension of the current project would be beneficial.References1 Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L., (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Methuen, London. ISBN 0900767782. 2 Simone, J.V. (2009) Simone, J.V. (2009). Institutional culture. Oncol Times 31(5): 5–6.3 Brown, M. et al (2018). Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities. Management of Animal Care and Use Programs in Research, Education and Testing. 2nd Edition. Available online from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500402/ 4 CIPD (2018) Health and Well-being at work- Public Sector. Issued: May 2018 Reference: 7669 © CIPD 2018.5 Schein (1990) Organizational Culture. American Psychologist Vol. 45, No. 2, 109--119. 6 CIPD (2016). A duty to care? Evidence of the importance of organisational culture to effective governance and leadership. Available online from: https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/a-duty-to-care_2016-evidence-of-the-importance-of-organisational-culture-to-effective-governance-and-leadership_tcm18-14220.pdf [Accessed 25/1/20]7 McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Available online from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html [Accessed 25/1/20].8 Brown, M. (2014). Creating a culture of care. Available online from: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news/creating-culture-care [Accessed 28/11/19]9 Bhatti, K.K. and Qureshi, T.M. (2007). Impact of Employee Participation On Job Satisfaction, Employee Commitment And Employee Productivity. International Review of Business Research Papers. Vol.3.10 Rafferty, A. M., Philippou, J., Fitzpatrick, J. M., & Ball, J. (2015). Culture of Care Barometer: Report to NHSEngland on the development and validation of an instrument to measure ‘Culture of Care’ in NHS Trusts. London: King’s College, London.11 UNUM (2019). Sickness absence management: a simple guide. Available online from: https://www.unum.co.uk/sickness-absence-management-simple-guide#section2 [Accessed 2/12/19].12 Kolb. D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group Process. London: John Wiley.The relationship between employee participation and job satisfaction

185August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareImproving animal welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of miceEMMA HAMILTONNewcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UKCorrespondence: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk Based on an IAT Level 6 Diploma in Laboratory Animal Science and Technology ProjectAbstract The aim of this project was to implement a change of handling method for laboratory mice to reduce stress and improve animal welfare. Using a Low Stress handling Project scoping documentIntroductionThe primary focus of this project was to introduce the low stress handling of mice to Newcastle University and resulting in all researchers and technicians using this method. The focus of the project was for research staff to adopt this method. Technicians began using this method in 2019 following the guidance from Kathy Murphy the director of the department. Tunnel handling method was first investigated by Hurst JL, Figure 1. Traditional handling method using the tail. taming anxiety in laboratory mice.1 This information had not been widespread which suggests why some animal facilities had been slow to adopt the method. It was not until a scientist at Newcastle University began investigating this method that a strong movement for change at Newcastle began. This idea of the project arose when an esteemed scientist Dr J Roughan from Newcastle University received funding from the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) to conduct experiments on ‘implementation of non-aversive use handling for welfare refinement and reduction of mouse numbers.2 It was concluded in these experiments that anxious animals may provide inconsistent data as they cope poorly during scientific testing thus increasing statistical noise. The evidence suggested that this results in an increased number of animals being needed for the results to become reliable. At this point in 2019 there was compelling evidence that using the tunnel rather than the tail lowers anxiety, enhancing welfare and also increasing the chances of obtaining more precise results in the experiments.Since 2017, Dr Roughan has been presenting lectures to Animal Technologists and researchers throughout Newcastle University in order to promote non-aversive handling and to explain the benefits. The attitude of several technicians particularly between 2017 to 2019 were somewhat negative regarding this method. The feedback and consensus within the department from a large majority of technicians was that, ‘it takes too long’ and ‘we’ve always done it this way, so why change?’. This negative attitude could account for the delayed implementation of the handling technique. The senior management team were very supportive and approved of the idea of the new method however there were delays with implementing as a proactive team was needed to champion and direct the change.December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

186Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020One of the turning points regarding a change of attitude from a number of Animal Technologists, including myself, was when John Waters from the University of Liverpool, came to present at Newcastle University on the benefits to animal welfare that he has seen as an Animal Technologist since adopting the new method of handling. The Animal Technologists at Newcastle University could relate to this and it sparked a reaction, animal welfare being the top priority for Animal Technologists who are always looking for ways to improve practices. A team of line managers and technicians was then brought together in October 2019 to steer and champion the change. The Home Office was also very keen for Newcastle to begin using this method and this became one of the drivers for change. The Director of the department then proposed that all Animal Technologists should use this method and agreed that we could create a plan to help the researchers to change to the new method.The focus was to encourage the team to develop ideas on how we could help improve the Culture of Care at the university and to get the researchers to use this method of low stress handling. Throughout this scoping and planning document I have carried out smart objectives, swot analysis, pestle analysis, compiled risk registers and Gantt charts. This helped with preparation to make the project attainable by preparing and troubleshooting potential setbacks that may have arisen. The main threat to the project is that researchers will not willingly adopt the method; strategies were therefore put in place to mitigate this.I also focussed on Motivational Theory by Elton Mayo to persuade the researchers and assist with motivation within the team.3 This theory developed in the 1920s where productivity was the focus of business. Professor Elton Mayo began his experiments (the Hawthorne Studies), to prove the importance of people for productivity. Communication is crucial as it has been shown in the Hawthorn Studies that regular feedback increases productivity. The management system that would benefit this project would be based on Human Relations Theory, which allows people to act autonomously.4 It is very important that this is a team effort and that everyone contributes. This theory suggests that people desire to be part of a supportive team that facilitates development and growth. We hypothesised that if technicians and researchers receive special attention they could be encouraged to participate. Less aversive handling or tunnel handling as it is often called, can therefore be seen as important, having significance which hopefully motivates individuals.A stakeholder grid has been produced which indicates who has low and who has high interest. Communication techniques were planned with regards to timings and how information would be delivered, particularly to researchers with communication being analysed and planned beforehand. The result of the project was planned for March 2019, which was attainable due to the in- depth plan and the support from the highly skilled team.It was also important for this proposal to be presented at the Animal Welfare Ethical Review Body (AWERB). One of our objectives being to introduce a policy for the University whereby people adopt this method. This project had a professional team on board that were already motivated to change, ultimately this project demonstrated how Newcastle University have complete dedication when it comes to maximising animal welfare.SynopsisTunnel handling of mice is a relatively new method that was first introduced when a scientist Jane L Hurst carried out a study called Taming Anxiety in Laboratory Mice.1 This presented scientific evidence of the benefits to animal welfare and science from tunnel handling. The NC3Rs is a national organisation which helps advance the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement for humane animal research.5 The NC3Rs’ website is an excellent resource for up to date information on best practices to maximise animal welfare and advise on their website that it is important when handling mice to use appropriate techniques in a skilful way and advise tunnel handling as a result of evidence gained from experiments. The original research carried out by Jane Hurst showed that signs of high anxiety levels are; greater urinating, avoidance of human gloved hand, defecation during handling, higher frequency of protected stretch attend postures, fewer arm entries and less time spent on the open arms of elevated plus maze.1 Based on this evidence, the NC3Rs advises that this method should be used to help ensure that the mouse will accept human contact thus enabling procedures to be carried out efficiently and safely and not causing harm Figure 2. Low Stress handling of mice.Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

187August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfareor hinderance to animal welfare. If routine handling procedures are aversive animals are likely to develop anxiety and show exaggerated stress response when approached.6 The stress caused by handling has also been shown to cause unwanted variable within experiments. The NC3Rs now recognises and promotes that non-aversive handling not only benefits the animal but also the handler and leads to reliability of the data gained in experiments (NC3Rs). This was demonstrated where mice handled by a tunnel showed substantially improved performance in a simple behavioural test (habituation-dishabituation paradigm) compared to picking up by the tail.7Roughan and Sevenoaks (2018) investigated if handling methods affected anxiety in mice before restraint and when being tattooed or having ear tags.8 This study showed that the mice that were tunnel handled were less fearful as they had more interaction with the handler. Anxiety was shown in the tail handled mice as they had higher score on the grimace scale after they had been acclimatised to handling and testing.9These experiments show compelling evidence and this is influencing the positive changes in handling techniques throughout the Animal Technology world. The Home Office is also encouraging our industry to adopt this method which provided great support for the completion of the project successfully.Project objectivesThroughout the project I applied SMART values when establishing my objectives. The mnemonic/acronym are commonly taken to mean S-specific, M-measurable, A-achievable, R-realistic, T-time-bound. Communicate the proposalS – Communication with the researchers via an email sent from senior management team.M – Success criteria, 80% of cages tunnel handled by March 2020.A – Must be achievable by March 2020, refer to stakeholder grid.R – This is realistic as we have tunnels however communication was delayed to researchers etc., due to Managers workload during Christmas period.T – this stage will finish by 5th January 2020.Communicate method to AWERBS – Presentation of the proposal to AWERB in order to make this policy for the department.M – 1 technician/manager will do the presentation at the meeting.A – Achievable by March 2020.R – Realistic target as AWERB meetings held every 2 weeks.T – Presentation must be delivered at the latest by beginning of January 2020.ImplementingS – Put clear handling tunnels in the cages of mice.M – Must confirm how many tunnels available contact to confirm.A – Already have tunnels for half of the unit and more on order, hopefully no delay.R – Yes, as on order however may be a delay until February.T – Could have delays with resource of tunnels will do risk assessment.Produce harmonised researcher checklistS – This form will create a record for the Animal Technologists as to which researchers have received verbal information and training regarding low stress handling.M – This can be produced on excel by January 2020.A – This is not a large task and will benefit the organisation.R – This can be done at work.T – This does not require substantial time resource as estimated computer time is 30 minutes.Training researchers how to tunnel handleS – Contact all researchers and arrange the 1 to 1 training = 15 minutes.M – Produce list of research teams in the unit and tick off, line manager of the unit will arrange meeting with each research team.A – Yes as we have time to train.R – This could be challenging due to researcher time resource at minimum.T – To be done by March 2020.Demonstrating the 3RSS – This will show that Newcastle University have animal welfare as a priority.M – A publication can be made on the departments, University website and possibly on NC3RS.A – The Named Information Officer (NIO) is responsible for the department’s newsletter and could keep staff and researchers up to date.R – Currently there is already approximately 17% of animal’s tunnel handled therefore a larger percentage is needed.T – by March 2020.Complete user guide to low stress handling miceS – Provide researchers with a fact sheet on tunnel handling.M – When completed send to researchers.A – One person can perform this task which may be challenging due to time resource. R – This is achievable as we have the technology to produce this.T – This can be delivered to researchers when they have the individual 1 to 1 meeting training. Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

188Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Organisational contextStakeholders:• researchers• technicians• line management• senior managementResearchersThese were the priority in terms of influencing and creating maximum interest. For new researchers to the unit it was not a challenge as during the induction process the persons will be shown the tunnel handling method only. Researchers who have been at the University for a long time could be the most challenging to influence and they will require more interest and dedication. Animal TechnologistsMany Animals Technologists at Newcastle University were already champions of this method and were involved in the team to help implementation. They needed to be kept satisfied to maintain motivation and momentum of the project as they will be the leaders of the change and major influencers. There are some Animal Technologists who were less interested and required more influence. This is where Motivational Theory became useful.11 I consider that it is also important to mention that line mangers and senior managers need to ensure that all Animal Technologists were using the new handling method as it would be easy to revert back to tail handling out of habit.Line managers and Senior managementThe managers are providing full support as they are providing time resource and providing the clear tunnels, these persons therefore need less interest and did not need influencing. Stakeholder gridPESTLE Analysis Political: Home Office support can assist in encouraging adopting this method.Economic: There will be a period at the start of introducing this method that tasks such as cleaning out may take longer than at the present. Time will also be lost through technicians taking time to train researchers and do other tasks to help. The financial cost of the clear tunnels is also a small factor of the budget to consider.Social: This proposal will help work on the attitudes of staff in the department and hopefully as a result, create a shared belief that this is increasing the welfare of the mice therefore everyone should be using this method.Technological: We can use technology to make the posters, send emails and create training records.Legislative: Working practices can be produced for the department on this new method; AWERB will also be involved in the implementation. We all have a legal responsibility to enhance the welfare of animals in our care and this supports the 3Rs.Environmental: Plastic resource not environmentally friendly however reusable making this sustainable.BudgetHigh level of influence LowKeep satisfied • Research staff• Senior management • Animal care technicians • Named Training Compliance officer• Named Animal care and welfare officerManage closely • Research staff• Animal TechniciansMonitor (Minimal Effort) • Establishment licence holder • Human resourcesKeep informed • Research staff• Animal Technicians • Management • Named Training Compliance officer• Named Animal care and welfare officerLow INTEREST Level High Newcastle University Low Stress handling ProjectImplementation Costs1. Technical time for meetings to organise tasks = 11 technicians x 3 hours = 33 hours (Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) 33 x 10 = £3302. Tunnels @ £5 each x 700 = £35003. Presentations to researchers by FGU staff = 4 technicians for 15 minutes x 11 = 11 hours Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) = 11 x 10 = £110 4. Labour of training = 4 technical 30 minutes x 11 = 22 hours (Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) = 22 x 10 = £220Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

189August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareProject planning documentMethod statement The project was to introduce low stress handling of mice to Newcastle University Comparative Biology Centre and Centre for Life, Genetics Unit. It aimed to bring a team together, working to promote and communicate the commitment to utilising low stress handling methods for mice. This project involved a team of technologists who created ideas and contributed to successful implementation. The project also involved establishing University policies for future use. Meetings with research teams to promote this method and change culture, booklets, induction processed was also part of this.The plan was to create a team and meet to discuss ideas on how low stress handling implementation could be achieved. Time is a valuable resource therefore the App called Microsoft Planner was be used in order to reduce time taken in face to face meetings. This should be an effective method to communicate each person’s progress with task. Stakeholder engagementSenior ManagementThis liaison was to be less frequent with just updates when major breakthroughs were achieved. Permission to implement actions possibly needed. However, communication with these stakeholders is important and they must keep informed as they are major influencers. Line ManagersShould be fully supportive as they are NACWOS and leaders of the team and are high influencers. Line mangers should have weekly team meetings which will involve face to face communication. Theses were ‘in-house’ and informal and Animal Technologists were able to report information regarding progress in the animal unit. Project team for implementing the changeMomentum must be maintained. Face to face meeting for discussion as a team on how the project team would move forward and to agree the main objectives was held late December. A project tracker board was established in Microsoft that listed the task assigned to each team member. Updates from each member of the team on progress, persons notified, etc., were uploaded. A face to face meeting planned for the end of February 2020; this would provide team members with more autonomy over this project which would increase motivation.ResearchersMany researchers mostly new to the University, have already started using tunnel handling. Forms of communication used were face to face meetings and email. An email was sent out to each researcher and a meeting arranged for that group. This meeting was Technical time for meetings to organise tasks (Animal Technician hourly rate = £10 per hour) 11 Technicians x 3 hours = 33 hours December 11 hours x 10 = £110January 11 hours x 10 = £110February 11 hours x 10 = £110Tunnels £5 each x 700 = £3500Labour of training 4 Technical 30 minutes x 11 = 22 hoursDecember 5.5 hours x 10 = £55January 5.5 hours x 10 = £55February 5.5 hours x 10 = £55March 5.5 hours x 10 = £55organised by the line manager at the Genetics Unit and there was a presentation on how to use the new method and to assist researchers in using the method themselves. Preparation needed to be done beforehand as we anticipated some negative feedback of not wanting to change. The documentation provided helped with concerns and face to face communication helped influence. It was very important to support and create a good rapport to gain trust and also help influence.Budget Animal Welfare and Ethics Review Board (AWERB)It was important that this proposal was taken to an AWERB meeting as they will help support the change and assist in defining the University’s expectations with regards to the Culture of Care. The AWERB is a panel of individuals who are there to share good practice within the University, promoting animal welfare and the 3Rs. A Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer (NACWO) and Animal Technologist presented at the meeting as to what the benefits were of introducing this new practice and this was then opened for discussion.This meeting had the NACWO for the area concerned and the Named Veterinary Surgeon (NVS) present. A layperson, an Animal Technologists and a scientist who used mice in experiments was also present.The aim was for a policy document to be produced for the department that Animal Technologists and research staff could refer too. This was produced by the Head of Department and was sent to the Establishment Licence Holder (ELH) for permission to be granted. The time frame for this was completion by March 2020. A copy of the draft policy document was also planned to be available March 2020.Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

190Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Project ImplementationThe implementation of the project began when a team meeting was held; all members of the team from each mouse unit throughout the department were present. Objectives were established at this meeting and each team member was set a task that they had volunteered for. Several of the planning objectives had been met but others had been delayed, these were as follows:Communicating proposal of introducing the low stress method – Completed 20.02.2020It was decided by senior management that they wanted to delay this email being sent until after the presentation at AWERB. Present to AWERB – CompletedSenior management decided to present this at the earliest opportunity and this was communicated by a line manager who is a NACWO and an Animal Technologist.Implementing: Put tunnels used for low stress handling in the mouse cages – Delayed and ongoing This process began in December where we were able to put 400 clear tunnels in mouse cages; to complete this project in the Genetics Unit requires an additional 300 tunnels. I was informed on the 6th January that more tunnels were on order however delayed. On the 26th February I contacted the person responsible for ordering and was informed that the tunnels had arrived some weeks previously however no communication had been sent to the Genetics Unit.Training researchers to tunnel handle – Ongoing A tick sheet is being currently used and this details which researchers have been trained, this is currently at 70%. Each technician has researchers to help train, particularly new staff; the Named Training and Competency Officer (NTCO) is signing off a number of individuals as competent. The 3Rs, showing Newcastle University has welfare at the forefront – OngoingThis project has demonstrated that Newcastle University has animal welfare at the forefront of their agenda by actively contributing to the 3Rs. This has refined the technique and could also have the potential to replace and reduce mice being used in experiments. Check list of researchers within the department, confirming communication – CompletedThis has been completed for all the units of the CBC and sheets are available live on Excel to enable Animal Technologists to update if researchers have had training and or been spoken to.Results:The first milestone was reached when people volunteered to join the project, in total there were 10 Animal Technologists and 1 line manager. After the first team meeting the Genetics Unit’s line manger arranged informal face to face meetings with each research team in order to discuss the introduction of tunnel handling. 11 researchers were noted at the Genetics Unit however, when reviewed again this was 20 as new staff had started. Those that required training usually took an average of 15 minutes. 14 persons were trained and signed off as competent, leaving 6 remaining. This organisational project brought about important positive changes with regard to improvements of animal welfare. The results of this project show that Newcastle University is actively participating in finding ways to introduce the 3Rs. Implementation of the project has refined the handling technique and reduced potential anxiety and stress in mice. Clear tunnels have not been placed in all cages, only approximately 400. However this has not been detrimental as all of the cages are provided with a cardboard tunnel, which can be used as a substitute. An additional success is that this method of mouse handling is departmental policy due to the recognition and advice from the AWERB committee. Stakeholder engagement: John Waters’ Presentation: John Waters is a NACWO from the University of Liverpool who provided a presentation to the Director, managers and Animal Technologists. John described his experiences as an Animal Technologist whilst being involved in the studies regarding tunnel handling. He talked about the bond an Animal Technologist has with an animal and explained his experiences on how the low stress handling method increases this bond. A poignant observation John used was ‘you wouldn’t pick a rat up by the tail, so why a mouse?’. Following this presentation Animal Technologists were put into groups and showed by John Waters and Johnny Roughan how to perform the handling technique. ResearchersThey received regular feedback and daily reports from individuals, our focus being to communicate as much as possible to the researchers through varied methods. This came with less challenges than expected which was important as during the Hawthorne studies the workers were consulted and allowed to give feedback which improved productivity.10Both the team and I have liaised with researchers in the unit on a daily basis. There was already a good working relationship with researchers which may have contributed to there being less difficulty in influencing the researchers.During training, there were a several researchers who needed to increase their confidence with the technique, nevertheless interactions have been positive so far. Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

191August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareShowing patience and support have helped enable this transition. This, at times, interrupted normal husbandry duties as technologists were asked to aid a small number of researchers requiring encouragement. As a team we tried to offer full support to the researchers as this was a new learning experience for them. AWERB:A NACWO and Animal Technologist presented at the meeting what the welfare benefits of introducing this new practice would be and then followed an open discussion. This meeting also included the NACWO and the NVS. A layperson, Animal Technologist and scientists who use mice for experiments were also present. A Policy was then presented to the establishment licence holder for final approval.Policy Document (distributed 20.2.2020)This policy was sent out to all the staff and researchers of the department please see below:To support our University’s policy on the use of animals in research, The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) ensures that all animals are housed and cared for in a way that promotes their wellbeing and that all research work is carried out in a manner that minimises any adverse effects on the animals. To assist with this commitment the AWERB develops Newcastle University animal care and welfare standards for all staff involved in working with research animals. Together we strive to be sector leaders in laboratory animal care and welfare.In all routine circumstances where mice and rats have to be handled, low-stress methods (cupping, tunnel handling) should be used. Tail capture (suspending the animal by the tail) should not be used in routine circumstances. Tail handling (holding the tail to stabilise the animal) is permitted for restraint purposes, as this may be necessary for examination of the animal or conduct of a procedure. A series of video tutorials for all methods is available via the NC3Rs’ website (www.nc3rs.org.uk/how-to-pick-up-a-mouse). This standard applies to all staff (animal care staff and researchers). Routine circumstances are defined as all handling required for husbandry or procedural purposes, excluding work where AWERB has granted an exemption from this standard or in the event of an emergency such as the escape of an animal. This standard applies in all Newcastle University rodent units. Exemptions may be sought from AWERB for specific scientific purposes. Such applications will normally be considered by the AWERB fast-track process meaning an applicant can usually expect a decision within 2 weeks. Please complete the online Exemption Application Form to apply for exemption from Newcastle University’s Rodent Low Stress Handling Standard, Newcastle University, AWERB, (2020). Researcher group meeting held March 2020The senior management team held a meeting to explain the implementation of the policy and they also asked if there were any questions or concerns, no response occurred at the meeting and there was no opposition.Animal TechnologistsIn each animal unit, daily feedback was introduced to increase motivation and plan for the daily tasks, this only took 5 minutes. Feedback was important as the Hawthorne studies suggested that if workers received increased attention it could increase job satisfaction and productivity.10 Providing Animal Technologists with autonomy through arranging training, project tasks and helping others proved successful as tasks were completed. Line managers and senior managementAn informal team weekly meeting with line manager where we discussed weekly objectives and no face to face communication was needed with senior management. Project team meeting/workshopThis was where the team proposed ideas and people could volunteer on how they would like to contribute. A brainstorming session was completed on “blockers- why has this project not been successful in the past?” and “closing the gap – what could be done to make this project successful?”. A forum on Microsoft Planner was established so that we could communicate progress. Members of this team had voluntarily joined and consisted of 10 Animal Technologists and 1 line manager.Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of miceBLOCKERS CLOSING THE GAP❖ Different priorities ✓ Training records❖ Change ✓ Order more clear tunnels❖ Lack of confidence ✓ Research meetings❖ Affecting data ✓ Posters and user guide❖ Old school attitude ✓ Opt out rule❖ Time resource ✓ Build personal relationships❖ Indecision ✓ External collaborators❖ Lack of tunnels ✓ Assertiveness training❖ Technician engagement

192Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Summary of project tasks to be completed1. Low stress handling methods to be included in Personal licence technique section with anaesthetic code A/B and at induction – speak to NTCO and confirm. NTCO will update induction form to include demonstration of Low Stress Handling. 2. Redefine tail handling as a combination of Tunnel Capture and Tail Restraint - run this new terminology change via Johnny Roughan.3. All units to identify number of tunnels required – will order 2000 more.4. Devise publicity email to include information and links to Low Stress Handling demonstrations – personnel identified to follow up. 5. Check if mice are still to be examined in the plastic tubes and discuss whether two tubes still to be supplied (one plastic, one cardboard).6. Poster for flow-hoods and information boards are now placed in at least one unit. Other units require checking - contact Estates for wall mounting. NC3Rs’ poster link has been sent to relevant parties and a further 5 posters have been ordered. These will be placed in suitable positions to maximise their exposure throughout the CBC. 7. Researchers require active encouragement to use Low Stress Handling and arrange training where needed. All technicians to actively participate in talking to researchers about Low Stress Handling. A harmonised researcher checklist will be created and email follow-up method of recording that research personnel have been spoken to about Low Stress Handling.8. Working practice to follow. All working practices will then also form the basis for a CBC Low Stress Handling current best practice guide.9. The budget did alter throughout the project although tunnel price did not change. Presentations and training only took an average of 15 minutes; half the time anticipated. This was difficult to monitor as often more time was taken due to the ad hoc approach. A budget for the increased time it took Animal Technologists to change the mouse cages and time taken to put tunnels in the cages could also have been included. This increase of time only occurred in January as technologists adapted to the new handling method and increased in confidence.Project evaluationMethodology analysisThe smart objectives involved using differing methods of communication and these were delivered quite successfully. Challenges however did occur which were evaluated and observations made included:– This unit is a satellite building therefore communication was difficult at times. Tunnels were delivered to main campus which is 2 miles away and arrangements had to be made for delivery. When the tunnels did not arrive on time, we should have investigated the delay sooner.– Scheduling training with researchers posed challenges at times when animal care duties took priority. – Fewer researchers required training; new staff in particular were already using this method as they had been shown the method during their induction, although previously this method had not been mandatory. – This project did constitute a success, it was a team effort and members had responsibility for and assisted progress. This could assist with the progress. This could suggest that the Human Relations Theory had an influencing part.11– The project team mostly consisted of newer members of staff who were still being trained. They showed high levels of motivation to contribute, possibly due to detailed review of performance. More senior members have been doing the job for several years which could account for them being more resistant to change.– High influence of leadership could have contributed to success. Clear goals were set to achieve a change of culture at the University. – John Waters’ presentation was a huge motivator; this could be because Animal Technologists may have needed to understand benefits to pursue a goal.– When Animal Technologists were trained how to do this technique they had increased confidence and motivation. – Microsoft Planner proved to be a valuable management tool as it created a system where persons in the team could be accountable for tasks. This also supports the Hawthorne effect with regards to being monitored thus improving performance.11Research Technicians’ questionnaire1. Do you prefer using the tunnel handling method or the tail handling of mice?2. Have you seen any animal behaviour differences since using this method?3. Do you feel more of a team and supported since this project was introduced?Animal Technologists’ questionnaire1. Have you seen any positive difference with regards to animal behaviour whilst using this method, if so are you able to describe?2. Did you feel that you were able to fully contribute to this project?3. Do you feel more as a team since this project started? 4. Has this project improved your job satisfaction and if so why? ConclusionThis project came with challenges, however overall significant positive changes were made to improve animal welfare. The risks that were anticipated were not Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

193August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfareas significant as first imagined and could be dealt with effectively. Experiential learning has taken place and throughout this conclusion Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is appropriate and has been used.12 Throughout this project we have had sufficient resources of money, people and high influence which could suggest a contribution to the success.One aspect that was observed was that people appeared to become motivated when they had meaning and objectives. One of the main reasons for this goal one could argue was the vast improvements to animal welfare. There was strong leadership and vision which could have been a motivating factor, clear smart objectives were set for people which allowed for team members autonomy. Communication occurred regularly and this supports Mayo’s theory that suggested that regular attention can improve job satisfaction and support and allowing autonomy can increase productivity.14 This group could have gained a sense of value due to increasing animal welfare; this also supports the conclusions drawn from the Hawthorn studies regarding a person’s needs are based on sentiment.13 There were high norms in the team, a norm is an official level that organisations are expected to reach. The persons who volunteered already had an interest in participating, no one was forced to join the team.16 Each person’s contribution and commitment demonstrated high cohesiveness and supports Mayo’s motivational theory.15Being at a satellite animal unit did create small communication challenges as there was a short delay putting tunnels in all cages. Learning from this, the risk should have been closely monitored, it would be advised for future projects to schedule a calendar reminder to prompt an action to chase up. This however was not detrimental to implementation as we were able to improvise and handle the mice in cardboard tunnels rather than ones that were transparent. The clear tunnels are however better for welfare standards as technologists can do animal health checks more effectively. John Waters confirms this on the NC3Rs’ website by explaining that “Clear tunnels have a real advantage as animals can be seen inside them”.6Some smart objectives were dependant on senior management. Due to this being a significant change of normal working practices, careful consideration had to be made on how to approach this. Senior management sent the email out to the researchers about the proposed policy. This was appropriate as it came from a high influencer with authority. I contributed as being part of the team in one unit and followed the Human Relations theory when making decisions on how to communicate with both Animal Technologists and staff.14 Following on from the first large meeting, written communications played an important part and contributed to the organisation of the project immensely, this was via emails, through user guides, Excel and Microsoft Planner programmes.The AWERB meeting occurred before the timeline in January. This was a positive decision as one could suggest it strengthened the influence of the project as this supported the validation of the project with regards to animal welfare. Upon reflection if this had been left until the end of January it may have delayed progress. Following this meeting the unit’s line manger decided to take the step of introducing clear tunnels into cages in the unit. Researchers did not need as much motivation as had first been thought. In the scoping document it was expressed that researchers would be most likely a threat to the project. The view of this was due to past experiences of hearing verbal comments from researchers and their views of how difficult and how it takes too long to use Low Stress Handling. This could have been influenced by some Animal Technologists as a number had expressed negative preconceptions of this method. As a team we believed in the vision, were positive and had enthusiasm, this could have been an important influencer. Marie Dalton discusses that research has shown persons with a positive attitude are more successful than those with a negative viewpoint.16 Trainee Animal Technologists appeared to have the most enthusiasm for this project compared to the more senior members of staff. The main personal motivator showed to be the improvement to animal welfare. However the fact that the technique was made mandatory by higher authority may have been an influencer. The objectives set could also be a factor in increasing motivation, as we had a direction that had to be met. One could argue that new Animal Technologists could have increased motivation and were easier to influence due to wanting to gain recognition and show their dedication when being performance managed. This could support the theory of the Hawthorn effect where it was found if workers were being watched they improved performance.14 However Elton Mayo also analysed the findings of the experiment and found that persons were not motivated through environmental or pay factors.14 Social and relational factors played a bigger role in productivity.This success should be celebrated due to a widespread implementation of the 3Rs at Newcastle University. It would be interesting to evaluate the reduction of animals used in future experiments, as this has been shown in comparable experiments due to there being less variability. This project has however not only resulted in vast improvements to animal welfare but it has created a valuable social opportunity for the department, where the whole team could come together to make a positive change.References1 Jane L Hurst and Rebecca S West (2010) Taming Anxiety in Laboratory Mice. Available at: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/mammalianbehaviour/ Taming, anxiety, in, laboratory, mice.pdf [Accessed 6.1.2020].Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

194Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020 Hurst, J.L. and West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nature Methods 7:825-826.2 Johnny Roughan and Tatum Sevenoaks (2018) welfare and scientific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433351/ [Accessed 29.1.2020]3 Expert management .com Mayo’s motivational theory/hawthorn effect (2020) available from: https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018 /05/mayos-motivation-theory-hawthorn-effect/ [Accessed 30.1.2020].4 Business/human relations management theory basics (2011) understand the basic premise behind the human relations management theory. Available from: https://www.business.com/articles/human-relations- management-theory-basics/ [Accessed 7.1.2020].5 https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/6 NC3Rs.org.uk (2020) mouse handling research. Available at: papershttps://nc3rs.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/NC3Rs%20-%20mouse%20handling%20research%20papers%20table.pdf [Accessed 6.1.2020].7 Gouveia K, Hurst Jl (2017) Optimising reliability of mouse performance in behavioural testing: the major role of non-aversive handling. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28322308 [Accessed 29.1.2020)8 Johnny V Rouhan and Tatum Sevenoaks (2018) welfare and scientific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433351/ [Accessed 29.1.2020]9 Langford DJ, Bailey AL, Chanda ML, Clarke SE, Drummond TE, Echols S, et al (2010). Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nature Methods 7(6): 447-449. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1455 10 Mayos Motivation theory/hawthorn Effect. Available from: https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/05/mayos-motivation-theory-hawthorn-effect/ [Accessed 13th of February 2020].11 Elton Mayo and his key theories: The Hawthorne effect. Available from: https://www.managementstudyhq.com/elton-mayo-theories.html [Accessed 25th of March 2020].12 Kolb’s learning styles and the experiential learning cycle. Available from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html [Accessed 30th March 2020].13 Human relations theory by Elton mayo/Personal attention. Available from: https://www.toolshero.com/ management/human-relations-theory-elton-mayo/ [Accessed 30th of March 2020].14 Collins dictionary, Definition of norm (2020) available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/norm 15 Management study HQ/ Elton Mayo and his key theories. Available from: https://www.managementstudyhq.com/elton-mayo-theories.html [Accessed 26th of February 2020].16 Dalton, M. Hoyle, D.G, Watts, M.W (2010) Working towards goals: positive attitude. Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ees7 AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA412&lpg=PA412& dq=meaning+in+order+to+pursue+a+goal+human+relationship&source=bl&ots=cmtQSWwN4c&sig=ACfU3U0X5oBjVvup0dXuc-MDUexef8SIag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRna_-p8-LoAhXXMMAKHedAAVMQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v= onepage&q=meaning%20in%20order%20to%20pursue%20a%20goal%20human%20relationship&f=false [Accessed 15th March 2020]. Improving Animal Welfare at Newcastle University by introducing the low stress handling of mice

195August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePAPER SUMMARY TRANSLATIONSDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareCONTENU DE LA REVUERelation entre la participation des employés et la satisfaction professionnelle CHERYL YALDEN Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK Correspondance: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk Résumé Il s’agit d’un projet entrepris dans le cadre du programme d’études de niveau 6 du diplôme de l’IAT en science et technologie animales de laboratoire. Le projet avait pour but d’explorer la relation entre la participation des salariés et la satisfaction professionnelle en réalisant quatre ateliers relatifs à la mise en œuvre des 3R et en travaillant à une « culture des soins » comprenant des valeurs partagées clairement définies. Les participants étaient membres de l’unité des services biologiques du campus Guy au King’s College de Londres, qui s’occupe des animaux utilisés pour la recherche médicale.Les 3R sont un ensemble de principes qui fournissent le cadre d’une recherche animale plus éthique et plus humaine.1 Les institutions qui travaillent avec des animaux de recherche sont fortement réglementées par la législation et les lignes directrices. Ces institutions doivent toutefois s’efforcer d’aller au-delà de leurs obligations légales et traiter les animaux avec compassion et empathie en établissant une « culture de soins ». Il a constamment été démontré que l’amélioration du bien-être des animaux permettait d’accroître la reproductibilité de la recherche et de promouvoir une bonne science. Cette culture devrait être étendue aux personnes qui travaillent avec les animaux là où « la culture institutionnelle influence la productivité et la performance de nombreuses entreprises ».2,3 Un mauvais moral et une faible motivation du personnel peuvent être liés à un manque de satisfaction professionnelle, à une augmentation de la maladie et à une mauvaise perception publique de l’organisation. Selon le rapport du Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) de 2018, les absences dues à des maladies liées au stress et à des problèmes de santé mentale, notamment l’anxiété et la dépression, ont augmenté dans près de 40 % et 55 % des organisations, respectivement.L’enquête globale ainsi que chacun des formulaires de rétroaction de l’atelier ont indiqué des améliorations qui, à certains égards, pourraient permettre d’augmenter la satisfaction professionnelle dans son ensemble. Les rétroactions montrent que le personnel s’est senti investi dans les valeurs communes de l’entreprise, ce qui améliorait son sentiment d’appartenance au sein du personnel de l’entreprise et à l’entreprise elle-même.Mots-clés. Satisfaction professionnelle, culture des soins, participation des employés

196Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsAméliorer le bien-être des animaux à l’Université de Newcastle en introduisant une manipulation moins stressante pour les souris EMMA HAMILTONNewcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UKCorrespondance: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk Résumé Cet article est basé sur un projet entrepris dans le cadre du programme d’études de niveau 6 du diplôme de l’IAT en science et technologie animales de laboratoire. Le principal objectif de ce projet était d’introduire une manipulation moins stressante des souris à l’Université de Newcastle et, par conséquent, tous les chercheurs et techniciens utiliseront cette méthode. Le projet sera axé sur l’adoption de cette méthode par le personnel de recherche. La méthode de manipulation des souris de laboratoire à l’aide d’un tunnel afin de soulager leur anxiété a d’abord été examinée par JL Hurst (2010). Cette information n’était pas très répandue, ce qui pourrait indiquer pourquoi de nombreuses installations de recherche sur les animaux n’ont pas adopté cette méthode. Ce n’est que lorsqu’un scientifique de l’Université de Newcastle a commencé à étudier cette méthode qu’un mouvement fort en faveur du changement a commencé. Cette idée du projet est née à la suite d’expériences sur la mise en œuvre d’une manipulation non-aversive des souris pour améliorer leur bien-être et réduire le nombre de souris utilisées. Ces expériences ont conclu que les animaux anxieux pouvaient fournir des données incohérentes car ils n’étaient pas en mesure de faire face à la situation pendant les tests scientifiques, ce qui augmentait le bruit statistique. Il a été suggéré que cela entraînait la nécessité d’utiliser un nombre accru d’animaux pour que les résultats soient fiables. À ce stade, en 2019, il existait des preuves convaincantes indiquant que l’utilisation du tunnel plutôt que de la queue diminuait l’anxiété des souris, améliorait leur bien-être et augmentait également les chances d’obtenir des résultats d’expérience plus précis.L’attitude, en particulier de 2017 à 2019, était quelque peu négative à l’égard de cette méthode. La rétroaction et le consensus culturel au sein du département étaient que « cela prenait trop de temps » et « nous avons toujours procédé de cette façon, pourquoi changer ? ». Cette attitude négative pourrait expliquer le retard de mise en œuvre de la nouvelle méthode. L’objectif était d’amener l’équipe à développer des idées sur la façon dont nous pourrions aider à améliorer la culture des soins à l’université afin d’amener les chercheurs à utiliser cette méthode de traitement réduisant le stress. Tout au long de ce document de portée et de planification, les objectifs SMART, l’analyse SWOT, l’analyse de pilon, un registre des risques et des diagrammes de Gantt ont été utilisés. Cela a aidé à préparer ce projet en prévoyant et en palliant les éventuels revers qui pourraient survenir. La réticence des chercheurs constituait la principale menace à l’introduction de la nouvelle méthode de manipulation. Des stratégies ont donc été mises en place pour atténuer cette menace. Un aspect observé était que la motivation du personnel semblait augmenter lorsque les choses étaient comprises et que des objectifs étaient fixés. L’amélioration considérable du bien-être des animaux constitue l’une des principales raisons que l’on pouvait avancer en faveur de cet objectif.Ce projet s’est accompagné de défis, mais globalement des changements positifs importants ont été mis en place pour améliorer le bien-être des animaux, ce qui a créé une occasion sociale de valeur pour le département, l’équipe entière pouvant collaborer afin d’apporter un changement positif. Mots-clés. Souris, manipulation moins stressante, bruit statistique, amélioration du bien-être, réduction du nombre de souris.

197August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareINHALTVERZEICHNISZusammenhang zwischen Mitarbeiterbeteiligung und Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz CHERYL YALDEN Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK Korrespondenz: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk AbstractDieser Artikel basiert auf einem Projekt, das im Rahmen des IAT-Studienprogramms Versuchstierkunde und -technik, Diplomstufe 6, durchgeführt wurde. Ziel des Projekts war die Untersuchung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Mitarbeiterbeteiligung und Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz. Dazu wurden vier Workshops durchgeführt, deren Schwerpunkt die Umsetzung des 3R-Prinzips und einer Kultur der Sorgfalt mit klar definierten gemeinsamen Werten war. Die Teilnehmer waren Mitglieder der Biological Services Unit am King’s College London Guy’s Campus, die mit der Betreuung von für die medizinische Forschung verwendeten Tieren befasst sind. Das 3R-Prinzip bietet einen Rahmen für eine verbesserte ethische und humane Tierforschung.1 Einrichtungen, die mit Versuchstieren arbeiten, sind durch Gesetzgebung und Richtlinien stark reguliert. Dennoch sollten sich solche Einrichtungen bemühen, über die gesetzlichen Verpflichtungen hinauszugehen und die Tiere mit Mitgefühl und Einfühlung zu behandeln, indem sie eine Kultur der Sorgfalt etablieren. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass ein verbesserter Tierschutz die Reproduzierbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse erhöht und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis fördert. Diese Kultur sollte auf Personen ausgedehnt werden, die mit Tieren dort arbeiten, wo “die institutionelle Kultur die Produktivität und Leistung vieler Unternehmen beeinflusst”.2,3 Eine niedrige Arbeitsmoral und Motivation der Mitarbeiter kann mit geringer Arbeitszufriedenheit, erhöhtem Krankenstand und einer schlechten öffentlichen Wahrnehmung einer Organisation in Zusammenhang gebracht werden. Einem Bericht des Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) von 2018 zufolge hat Abwesenheit aufgrund von stressbedingten Krankheiten und psychischen Gesundheitsproblemen einschließlich Angst und Depressionen in fast 40 % bzw. 55 % der Organisationen zugenommen. Die einzelnen Workshop-Feedback-Fragebögen und die Gesamtumfrage wiesen auf Verbesserungen in einigen Punkten hin, die zu einer höheren allgemeinen Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz führen könnten. Die Rückmeldungen haben ergeben, dass sich die Mitarbeiter mit den gemeinsamen Werten des Unternehmens identifizieren, wodurch sich ihr Gefühl der Zugehörigkeit untereinander und zur Organisation verbessert hat.Schlagwörter: Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz, Kultur der Sorgfalt, Mitarbeiterbeteiligung

198Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsVerbesserung des tierschutzes an der Newcastle University durch Einführung eines schonenden Umgangs mit MäusenEMMA HAMILTONNewcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UKKorrespondenz: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk AbstractDieser Artikel basiert auf einem Projekt, das im Rahmen des IAT-Studienprogramms Versuchstierkunde und -technik, Diplomstufe 6, durchgeführt wurde.Schwerpunkt dieses Projekts war die Einführung eines schonenden Umgangs mit Mäusen an der Newcastle University und die künftige Anwendung dieser Methode durch alle Wissenschaftler und Techniker. Die Tunnel-Handling-Methode wurde ursprünglich von Hurst JL untersucht, um Angstzustände bei Labormäusen zu überwinden (2010). Diese Informationen waren nicht weit verbreitet, was erklären könnte, warum nur wenige Tierversuchseinrichtungen diese Methode anwendeten. Erst als ein Wissenschaftler an der Newcastle University begann, diese Methode zu untersuchen, wurde eine starke Dynamik für diesbezügliche Veränderungen in Gang gesetzt. Diese Projektidee entstand im Anschluss an Experimente zum Thema “Implementierung nicht-aversiven Maus-Handlings zur Verbesserung des Tierwohls und zur Reduzierung der Mauszahlen”. Fazit dieser Experimente war, dass ängstliche Tiere u. U. inkonsistente Daten liefern, da sie wissenschaftliche Versuche schlecht bewältigen und so statistisches Rauschen erhöhen. Es wurde vermutet, dass dies dazu führt, dass eine größere Anzahl von Tieren benötigt wird, um Ergebniszuverlässigkeit zu erzielen. Es gab zu diesem Zeitpunkt im Jahr 2019 stichhaltige Beweise dafür, dass Tunnel- statt Schwanz-Handling Angst verringert, das Wohlbefinden verbessert und auch die Chancen erhöht, präzisere Versuchsergebnisse zu erhalten.Insbesondere zwischen 2017 und 2019 herrschte eine bestimmte negative Einstellung gegenüber dieser Methode. Feedback und Konsens innerhalb der Abteilung lauteten: “Es dauert zu lange” und “Wir haben es immer so gemacht, warum jetzt ändern?” Diese negative Einstellung könnte der Grund für die zögerliche Einführung der neuen Methode sein. Es ging darum, das Team zur Entwicklung von Ideen anzuregen, wie wir zu einer besseren Kultur der Sorgfalt an der Universität beitragen könnten, und die Forscher zu überzeugen, diese Methode des schonenden Umgangs zu nutzen. Für das gesamte Scoping- und Planungsdokument wurden intelligente Zielsetzungen, SWOT-Analysen, Pestel-Analysen, ein Risikoregister und Gantt-Diagramme verwendet. Dies trug bei der Vorbereitung dazu bei, dieses Projekt realisierbar zu machen, indem potenzielle Rückschläge antizipiert und entsprechende Lösungen erarbeitet wurden. Das größte Risiko für die Einführung der neuen Handling-Methode bestand darin, dass die Forscher nicht hinter ihr stehen würden, und daher wurden Strategien zur Abschwächung dieses Risikos ergriffen. Ein Aspekt, der beobachtet wurde, war, dass sich Mitarbeiter offenbar motiviert fühlen, wenn sie Sinn und Ziele erkennen. Als ein wesentlicher Zweck dieser Zielsetzung kann die enorme Verbesserung des Tierschutzes ins Treffen geführt werden.Dieses Projekt war nicht frei von Herausforderungen, doch insgesamt wurden bedeutende positive Veränderungen zur Verbesserung des Tierschutzes vorgenommen, und es bot der Abteilung einen wichtigen sozialen Rahmen, in dem das gesamte Team gemeinsam eine positive Veränderung bewirken konnte. Schlagwörter: Maus, schonender Umgang, statistisches Rauschen, Verbesserungen des Tierschutzes, Reduzierung der Mauszahlen

199August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareINDICE DELLA REVISTAIl rapporto fra partecipazione del dipendente e soddisfazione sul lavoro CHERYL YALDEN Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK Corrispondenza: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk Estratto Il presente progetto è stato svolto nell’ambito del programma di studi per il Diploma IAT di Livello 6 in Scienza e Tecnologia degli Animali da Laboratorio. Scopo del progetto era quello di esplorare il rapporto fra partecipazione del dipendente e soddisfazione sul lavoro tramite lo svolgimento di quattro workshop relativi all’attuazione delle 3R e il lavorare a una “cultura della cura” con obiettivi condivisi e chiaramente definiti. I partecipanti erano membri dell’Unità Servizi Biologici presso il Guy’s Campus del King’s College di Londra, coinvolti nella cura degli animali usati per la ricerca medica.Le 3R sono una serie di princìpi che forniscono un quadro di riferimento per una ricerca sugli animali che sia più etica e umana.1 Le istituzioni che lavorano con gli animali da ricerca sono molto regolamentate da legislazione e linee guida. Tuttavia, esse dovrebbero impegnarsi ad andare oltre gli obblighi di legge e a trattare gli animali con compassione ed empatia, creando una “cultura della cura”. È stato continuamente dimostrato che il miglioramento del benessere degli animali aumenta la riproducibilità della ricerca e promuove una buona scienza. Questa cultura dovrebbe essere estesa alle persone che lavorano con gli animali laddove “La cultura istituzionale influenza la produttività e i risultati di molte imprese”.2,3 Livelli bassi di morale e di motivazione nel personale sono riconducibili a una scarsa soddisfazione sul lavoro, a periodi di malattia più lunghi e a una cattiva percezione di un’organizzazione da parte del pubblico. Secondo il rapporto del Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) del 2018, le assenze per malattie legate allo stress e problemi di salute mentale, fra cui ansia e depressione, sono aumentate rispettivamente in quasi il 40% e il 55% delle organizzazioni.Ciascuno dei moduli di commento individuale sui workshop e i sondaggi generali hanno indicato miglioramenti che, per alcuni aspetti, potrebbero offrire una maggiore soddisfazione complessiva sul lavoro. I commenti mostrano che il personale si è sentito investito dei valori condivisi dell’azienda, con il risultato di un maggiore senso di appartenenza reciproca e nei confronti dell’organizzazione.Parole chiave: soddisfazione sul lavoro, cultura della cura, partecipazione dei dipendenti

200Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsIl miglioramento del benessere animale nell’Università di Newcastle con l’introduzione di tecniche di manipolazione dei topi a basso stressEMMA HAMILTONNewcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UKCorrispondenza: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk EstrattoIl presente articolo si basa su un progetto svolto nell’ambito del programma di studi per il Diploma IAT di Livello 6 in Scienza e Tecnologia degli Animali da Laboratorio. Scopo principale del progetto era quello di introdurre nell’Università di Newcastle tecniche di manipolazione dei topi a basso stress e di conseguenza l’utilizzo di questo metodo da parte di tutti i ricercatori e i tecnici. L’obiettivo del progetto era l’adozione del metodo da parte di tutto il personale di ricerca. Il metodo di manipolazione con tunnel è stato studiato inizialmente da Hurst J.L., “Taming anxiety in laboratory mice” (2010). Queste informazioni non hanno avuto ampia diffusione, il che potrebbe spiegare perché non molte strutture di ricerca hanno adottato questo metodo. Una forte spinta al cambiamento è partita solo quando uno scienziato dell’Università di Newcastle a cominciato a studiare il metodo. L’idea di questo progetto è nata in seguito agli esperimenti sull’“attuazione di tecniche di manipolazione dei topi non repulsive per il miglioramento del benessere e la riduzione del numero degli animali.” La conclusione di questi esperimenti è stata che animali ansiosi possono fornire dati incoerenti, in quanto mal sopportano i test scientifici, incrementando così il rumore statistico. L’indicazione è che ciò conduce alla necessità di un maggior numero di animali perché i risultati siano attendibili. A questo punto, nel 2019 ci sono state prove convincenti del fatto che l’utilizzo del tunnel anziché della coda abbassa l’ansia, migliora il benessere e aumenta inoltre le probabilità di ottenere risultati più precisi durante gli esperimenti.L’atteggiamento nei confronti di questo metodo è stato alquanto negativo, soprattutto dal 2017 al 2019. I commenti e il consenso nella cultura dipartimentale erano: “richiede troppo tempo” e “abbiamo sempre fatto così, perché cambiare?”. Tale atteggiamento negativo potrebbe essere stato il motivo per la ritardata adozione del nuovo metodo. L’obiettivo era quello di far sì che il personale sviluppasse idee su come contribuire a migliorare la cultura della cura nell’Università e convincere i ricercatori a usare questo metodo di manipolazione a basso stress. Durante la delimitazione della portata e pianificazione degli obiettivi SMART del documento, si sono utilizzati l’analisi SWOT, l’analisi PESTLE, un registro dei rischi e i diagrammi di Gantt. Ciò ha agevolato la preparazione di un progetto realizzabile, definendo e risolvendo le potenziali problematiche che sarebbero potute insorgere. La principale minaccia all’introduzione del nuovo metodo di manipolazione consisteva nella non accettazione da parte dei ricercatori, pertanto sono state messe in atto delle strategie per la mitigazione di tale problema. Un aspetto osservato è che le persone sono sembrate motivate quando hanno avuto un significato e degli obiettivi. A tale scopo, una delle principali ragioni che si potevano addurre era il notevole miglioramento del benessere degli animali.Il progetto ha comportato delle sfide, tuttavia il benessere degli animali ha avuto nel complesso dei significativi cambiamenti in positivo. Nel dipartimento si è anche creata una preziosa opportunità sociale, in quanto tutto il personale si è unito per apportare un cambiamento positivo. Parole chiave: topo, manipolazione a basso stress, rumore statistico, miglioramenti del benessere, riduzione del numero di topi.

201August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareINDICE DE LA REVISTALa relación entre la participación de los empleados y la satisfacción laboral CHERYL YALDEN Biological Services, Hodgkin Building, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London SE1 1UL UK Correspondencia: cheryl.yalden@kcl.ac.uk Résumé Este es un proyecto realizado como parte del programa de estudio del Diploma en Tecnología y Ciencia de Animales de Laboratorio de Nivel 6 del IAT. El objetivo del proyecto era explorar la relación entre la participación de los empleados y la satisfacción laboral llevando a cabo cuatro talleres en relación a la implementación de las 3 R y trabajando para conseguir una «cultura de cuidado» con valores compartidos bien definidos. Los participantes eran miembros de la Unidad de Servicios Biológicos del Guy´s Campus del King´s College London que participaban en el cuidado de animales utilizados para la investigación médica.Las 3 R son un conjunto de principios que ofrecen un marco para una investigación con animales que sea más humana y ética.1 Las instituciones que trabajan con animales de investigación están muy reguladas por leyes y directrices. Sin embargo, dichas instituciones deberían comprometerse a ir más allá de las obligaciones legales y tratar a los animales con compasión y empatía estableciendo una «cultura de cuidado». La mejora del bienestar animal siempre ha demostrado que aumenta la reproducibilidad de la investigación y que fomenta la buena ciencia. Esta cultura también debería llegar a las personas que trabajan con los animales cuando «la cultura institucional influye en la productividad y rendimiento de muchas empresas».2,3 Una moral y motivación bajas del personal puede relacionarse con una baja satisfacción laboral, un mayor número de bajas por enfermedad y una mala percepción pública de una organización. Según el informe del Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) 2018 las ausencias debidas a enfermedades relacionadas con el estrés y problemas de salud mental, como la ansiedad y la depresión, han aumentado en las organizaciones casi un 40 % y un 55 %, respectivamente.Todos los comentarios individuales del taller y la encuesta general indicaron que las mejoras de algunos aspectos podrían crear una mayor satisfacción laboral. Los comentarios muestran que el personal sentía que compartía los valores de la empresa mejorando así su sentimiento de pertenencia a la organización.Palabras clave. Satisfacción laboral, cultura de cuidado, participación de empleados

202Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Paper Summary TranslationsMejora del bienestar animal en la Universidad de Newcastle mediante la introducción de una manipulación de bajo estrés para roedores EMMA HAMILTONNewcastle University, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH UKCorrespondencia: emma.hamilton@newcastle.ac.uk RésuméEste artículo se basa en un proyecto realizado como parte del programa de estudio del Diploma en Tecnología y Ciencia de Animales de Laboratorio de nivel 6 del IAT. El foco principal de este proyecto fue introducir una manipulación de bajo estrés para roedores en la Universidad de Newcastle para que como resultado, todos los investigadores y técnicos podrán utilizar este método. El foco del proyecto será que el personal de investigación adopte este método. El método de manipulación con tubo fue investigado por primera vez por Hurst JL, Mejora de la ansiedad de los roedores de laboratorio (2010), sin embargo, esta información no estaba muy difundida, por lo que se podría deducir el motivo por el que no muchas instalaciones de investigación con animales adoptaban este método. Realmente no hubo un cambio signifi cativo en el sector hasta que un científi co de la Universidad de Newcastle empezara a investigar este método. Esta idea del proyecto surgió tras varios experimentos sobre la implementación de una manipulación de ratones no invasiva para refi nar el bienestar y reducir el número de ratones utilizado. La conclusión de estos experimentos fue que animales con ansiedad podían ofrecer datos inconsistentes al no rendir bien durante las pruebas científi cas, aumentando así los errores estadísticos. Se dedujo que esto llevaba a un aumento del número de ratones necesarios para que los resultados fuesen fi ables. En este momento en 2019, hubo pruebas concluyentes que indicaban que usar un tubo en lugar de la cola del ratón reducía la ansiedad del animal, mejoraba el bienestar y aumentaba la posibilidad de obtener resultados más precisos durante los experimentos.La percepción de este método, en particular de 2017 a 2019, fue algo negativa. Los comentarios y el consenso general dentro del departamento fue que «se pierde demasiado tiempo» y «siempre lo hemos hecho así, ¿por qué cambiar ahora?». Esta recepción negativa podría ser el motivo por el que hubo una demora en la implementación de este nuevo método. El foco era hacer que el equipo desarrollase ideas sobre cómo podíamos ayudar a mejorar la cultura de cuidado en la Universidad y hacer que los investigadores usasen este método de manipulación menos estresante. Durante todo este documento de planifi cación y alcance se utilizaron objetivos inteligentes, análisis DAFO, análisis PESTLE, un registro de riesgos y gráfi cos Gantt. Esto ayudó a que este proyecto fuera factible al preparar el terreno y resolver posibles contratiempos. El principal riesgo en cuanto a la introducción de este nuevo método de manipulación fue que los investigadores no estuvieran convencidos; por tanto se llevó a cabo una estrategia para resolver esta situación. Un aspecto que se observó fue que la gente parecía estar más motivada al tener unos objetivos y encontrar una relevancia. Uno de los principales motivos para este objetivo se podría decir que era las mejoras del bienestar animal.Este proyecto llegó con problemas, sin embargo, se realizaron cambios positivos signifi cativos para mejorar el bienestar animal y creó una oportunidad social valiosa para el departamento, al que todo el equipo podía unirse para llevar realizar un cambio positivo. Palabras clave. Ratón, manipulación de bajo estrés, errores estadísticos, refi namientos del bienestar, reducción del número de ratones.

203August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAWERB review of lessons learned from COVID-19 experienceLaboratory Animal Science Association, Laboraory Animal Veterinary Association, Institute of Animal Technology, Royal Society of Biology, National Centre for the Replacement Reduction and Refi nement of Animals in Research, Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, European Federation of Animal Technologists, European Society of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians, Understanding Animal Research Supported by:The COVID-19 crisis resulted in many establishments having to rapidly curtail, stop work or drastically alter their working practices. It is essential that the AWERB reviews the processes that were in place during the crisis, and their outcomes, not only in the event of similar future episodes, but also in reference to more general disaster management plans so that improvements can be made. This will support future business continuity, as well as helping in the delivery of the AWERB task; Establishment licence standard condition 6.3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/establishment-licence-standard-conditions/establishment-licence-standard-conditions and Directive 2010/63 EU article 27.1 (c) to “Establish and review management and operational processes for monitoring, reporting and follow-up in relation to the welfare of animals housed or used in the licensed establishment”.Whilst what and how should be reviewed will need to take local circumstances into account, it is suggested that three phases are considered, as the actions taken and likely issues raised in each phase will be different. The impact on staff, and diffi culties they experienced are also worthy of discussion, as well as considering whether any changes have led to improvements in processes.Some suggested starting questions are offered here; the focus should be on what can be learnt in order to help in future decision making, rather than simply responding to these (or other) specifi c questions. In reviewing the issues and possible resolutions for the future, AWERBs should consider sharing the experiences of their establishments more widely, including looking at how others dealt with the situation via mechanisms such as the AWERB Hubs and industry related organisations.The initial response to the outbreak– Were business continuity plans and/or emergency plans in place?– If yes, were business continuity plans and/or emergency preparations successful?– Have any gaps been identifi ed in these plans and how were these remedied? – Where facilities were partially or fully shutdown, how were decisions made regarding whether, and which, animals to kill? What were the processes involved?– Who was involved in the decision making? Do these people feel others should have been involved and that they had enough support?– What criteria were considered for decisions to kill animals, shut facilities or limit work? In hindsight were these the right ones? Should any be added/ removed?– Could any of the studies that were stopped have been completed or some of all of the animals used in some other way or rehomed rather than killed? – How were the decisions and actions above communicated and documented?December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCE1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCE1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCE1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCE1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCE1 | PageSupported by:DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO AIDAWERB REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM COVID19EXPERIENCEInstitute ofAnimal Technology

204Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020– Did actions include planning for the administrative processes necessary to continue PIL and PPL processing and the AWERB?During lockdown itself– How was animal work prioritised?– Were deliveries cancelled or delayed? Were there any difficulties in getting supplies of food/bedding, etc., or with getting vital equipment serviced or mended?– Were there any process or communications failures such that animals were delivered that were not required or could not be accommodated?– Were any decisions on breeding management correct (tick-over versus shutdown of breeding)? Was optimum use made of cryopreservation?– Were the patterns of work for personnel (shifts, teams, etc.) effective or could there have been better options?– Is there anything that could, or should have been done to allow the use (or rehoming) of animals so that killing of animals could have been avoided?– Were there any unique challenges presented regarding animal husbandry and/or welfare of animals? – Were records kept of all decisions taken?– Did AWERB continue to operate? If so how, and was AWERB able to function successfully? If not, why, and what could have been done to keep the AWERB operational?– Does the AWERB consider the correct balance was achieved between protecting staff from the risks of COVID-19 whilst maximising the possible outcomes that could be achieved from the animals who had already been bred, delivered or had started on study?Re-commencement of work and ongoing preparedness– Was the timing with respect to sourcing animals/ recommencing and/or expansion of any breeding correct in terms of allowing commencement of work but without creating additional wastage? If not, how could things have been done differently?– What period did it take to return to (near) or “new” normal levels of activity? Were there actions that could have speeded this up without causing issues for personnel or wastage of animals?– What were the main barriers to returning to work? Can any of these be reduced or removed for the future?– Did planning include consideration of a further wave of infection?– Are there contingency plans for further waves of infection (e.g. for staffing, staff support, use or rehoming of animals, supply of consumables, etc.)? – How will a culture of preparedness be maintained?Staff Care and Concerns– What was the experience of Animal Technicians? Do they feel that their safety, wellbeing and their own concern for the animals were taken into account? Do they feel that their work during the COVID outbreak is appreciated? Did they get enough support in respect of their role if they needed it?– If the office-based managers worked remotely did the technicians feel communication was adequate? Have there been issues with training for new staff? – What was the experience of the veterinarians, researchers, administrators and other members of staff involved in decision making around animal studies and/or ongoing care (or killing) of the animals? Specifically, were decisions transparent, timely and clearly communicated? Were researchers properly engaged in the decisions about their own work?– Have differences in working patterns created concerns or difficulties (for example the need for some people to work longer hours or more days than others), particularly with respect to relationships between staff?– Were there particular challenges related to animal studies from changes to “virtual” operating environments? – Have staff had an opportunity to debrief? Were relevant support systems available and accessible to staff, for example to address possible compassion fatigue?– How can you best canvass opinions from staff as to any of the above (e.g. via an anonymous survey) to ensure the Culture of Care is maintained? Consider utilising questions to probe whether conversations were open and honest. Do people feel they were listened to?We have all had to adapt to new ways of working through the COVID crisis. In addition to reviewing what was less successful in your approaches to dealing with the situation caused by COVID, it is important to consider if there have been any positive outcomes and whether any of the challenges may present opportunities for improved processes.Looking Forward– Which, if any of your new processes/ways of working do you consider worth keeping post COVID?– Which, if any, existing processes have you found to be unnecessary?– Are there ongoing issues preventing recommencement of work? What ethical, animal welfare, 3Rs or regulatory consequences might result from these? AWERB review of lessons learned from COVID19 experience49Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.What 3Rs idea have you developed?EMMA FILBYMira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FSCorrespondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.ukBased on an article written for the National Centre for the 3RsApril 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHBackgroundEmma was invited to write an article as a 3Rschampion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November2019.Here is her response describing how she has used anautomated system to reduce how frequently mousecage bedding ischanged without compromisingcleanliness.IntroductionOur unit opened in 2017, during the procurement ofnew equipment we had the opportunity to purchase adigital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. Thecages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage orDVC. This system uses the data collected by sensorsbelow the cage to flag when to clean out based on thechange in an electromagnetic signal. To have thisfunctionality we first needed to create an algorithmduring a learning phase.The learning phase: devising analgorithmWe held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage basechange based on pictures to avoid being subjective. Wereferred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for thehousing and care of animals bred, supplied or used forscientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandrypractices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and theimportance of olfactory cues to rodents and their needfor control over their environment.1We started the trial, noting when the cage reached thepoint it required a base change. We assessed airquality, what proportion of the cage base was wet andwhether the animals still had choice over theirenvironment and their ability to show spatial separationof different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,for example their nest was free of faeces. During the‘learning phase’ we as ke d our Name d VeterinarySurgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) tocheck that they agreed with our assessment.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49

205August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare49Haven’t the time to write a paper but want to have something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of Animal Technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.What 3Rs idea have you developed?EMMA FILBYMira Building, University of Cambridge, University Biomedical Services,Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge CB3 0FSCorrespondence: emma.filby@admin.cam.ac.ukBased on an article written for the National Centre for the 3RsApril 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHBackgroundEmma was invited to write an article as a 3Rschampion in NC3Rs ‘Tech 3Rs’ Issue 5, November2019.Here is her response describing how she has used anautomated system to reduce how frequently mousecage bedding is changed without compromisingcleanliness.IntroductionOur unit opened in 2017, during the procurement ofnew equipment we had the opportunity to purchase adigital ventilated rack system from Tecniplast UK. Thecages are referred to as the Digitally Ventilated Cage orDVC. This system uses the data collected by sensorsbelow the cage to flag when to clean out based on thechange in an electromagnetic signal. To have thisfunctionality we first needed to create an algorithmduring a learning phase.The learning phase: devising analgorithmWe held a meeting to agree what warranted a cage basechange based on pictures to avoid being subjective. Wereferred to the Home Office Codes of Practice for thehousing and care of animals bred, supplied or used forscientific purposes (HOCoP) for advice on husbandrypractices to set our criteria, balancing hygiene and theimportance of olfactory cues to rodents and their needfor control over their environment.1We started the trial, noting when the cage reached thepoint it required a base change. We assessed airquality, what proportion of the cage base was wet andwhether the animals still had choice over theirenvironment and their ability to show spatial separationof different behaviours such as nesting and excretion,for example their nest was free of faeces. During the‘learning ph ase’ we aske d our Name d VeterinarySurgeon (NVS) and Home Office inspector (HOI) tocheck that they agreed with our assessment.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:51 Page 49A picture paints a thousand wordsJOANNA MALTONImperial College, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN UKCorrespondence: j.malton@imperial.ac.ukIntroductionThe old saying in many cases is true but it needs to be the right picture and a clear image to get the point across. Images can be used to help attract people’s interest in an article.Would you be more interested in reading an article that is all words or one that has clear images that help explain what the writer is saying?Would you buy a magazine if all the pictures are out of focus? So what do you need to consider when deciding what image to use in your article?1. Is the picture relevant to what you are saying?2. Is the image clear enough to be able to see what is going on?3. Is the subject well lit or is the image too dark/bright?4. Is the subject likely to move as you take the photo?How do you get a good image in the first place?There are several factors you need to consider when taking a photo of your subject;-1. What equipment do you have available? Phone/ camera?As technology improves phones now have the capability to produce higher quality images which means you do not necessarily need a camera to take a good photo. It is advisable to try a few practise shots with the phone/camera that you are going to use so you have an idea of your equipment’s capabilities. Also, where available try out different settings on the camera – if the camera is equipped with a sport/action mode this can be useful when taking shots of subjects that may move. Due to the faster shutter speed, sport mode can also help reduce blurring due to hand-shake. The increased shutter speed may mean you need an additional light source to prevent the image being too dark. If you need a more detailed image of a subject that is not going to move, then try Macro or close-up mode. December 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECH

206Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020This mode uses a longer shutter speed so may require the use of a tripod or stand of some kind to help keep the camera still enough to get a clear picture. If you have the camera too close to the subject it may struggle to focus. Try taking a photo from further away, if necessary the image can be cropped later to enlarge the area you want to show. Starting out with a larger image and then cropping it will help maintain the details.2. What resolution does the image need to be to be suitable for printing? Is there a minimum/maximum file size or specific file type that the publisher can use?The resolution of an image refers to the image quality. The resolution is measured in dpi (dots per inch, or the number of pixels per inch). Ideally the image should be a resolution of 300dpi or higher for printing.Editor’s Note. Photos for the Journal need to be 300dpiBefore taking your photo check the settings in your camera to make sure they are set at the right resolution, also check the image quality is set to high or medium (low will give a poor quality image).File types – there are a number of different file types that can be used for images, most cameras will have the option of saving images as one or more file types;-JPEG files tend to be used most commonly as they are a more compact file so require less memory space, however due to the way they reduce the file size some of the detail in the image may be lost. This is worth considering especially if you need to edit the image later. Each time you save a copy more detail may be lost.Raw files are the equivalent of the negative that you would get from a film camera. This file type stores a lot more information about the image so allows more options when it comes to editing. However due to the amount of information that is stored these files take up a lot more memory space. These files need to be processed or developed by a data convertor or other compatible software.TIFF files are similar to Raw files in that they store a lot of information however they are easier to process as they don’t require specific software.3. How do you find out what resolution your image is?To check a photo’s resolution on a Windows PC, select the file you want to use. Right click on the image and then select properties.A window will appear with the image’s details. Go to the Details tab to see the image’s dimensions and resolution.4. Is the subject likely to move or do you need to get a close-up image to show the finer details?Where available try out different settings on the camera – if the camera is equipped with a sport/action mode Figure 1.exposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.speed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigureIn additioncomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1.Under exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigure3.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyIn additionto yourcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyto yourcomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments to6Under exposed/too dark–use extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too bright–use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor there are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subject.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearly.here are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterhere are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1.exposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.speed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigureIn additioncomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1.Under exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigure3.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyIn additionto yourcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyto yourcomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments to6Under exposed/too dark–use extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too bright–use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor there are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subject.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearly.here are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterhere are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1.exposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.speed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigureIn additioncomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1.Under exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Figure 2.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectFigure3.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyIn additionto yourcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlyto yourcomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toUnder exposed/too darkexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too brightspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments to6Under exposed/too dark–use extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.Over exposed/too bright–use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor tcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longerexposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.use a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subjectCorrect exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearlycomputers built in photo editor there are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterspeed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subject.Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearly.here are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments touse extra lights if available or a longeruse a setting with a faster shutterhere are a number ofcomputer programs available online to help make minor adjustments toFigure 1. Under exposed/too dark – use extra lights if available or a longer exposure setting as long as the subject is not moving.this can be useful when taking shots of subjects that may move. As explained earlier, due to the faster shutter speed, sport mode can also help reduce blurring, due to hand-shake; the increased shutter speed may mean you need an additional light source to prevent the image being too dark. As mentioned before, if you need a more detailed image of a subject that is not going to move, then try Macro or close up mode. This mode uses a longer shutter speed so may require the use of a tripod or stand of some kind to help keep the camera still enough to get a clear picture.5. Where are you going to be taking the photo? Is the area/room well lit? If not do you have extra lights available to help light the subject? Figure 2. Over exposed/too bright – use a setting with a faster shutter speed, or if possible reduce the amount of light on the subject.Figure 3. Correct exposure allowing all the details to be seen clearly.In addition to your computer’s built in photo editor there are a number of computer programmes available online to help make minor adjustments to photos such as altering the lighting/colour, cropping the image so it just shows required area. For example Fotor and Be funky. These are free to use as long as you only need the basic tools. Tech-2-Tech

207August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareSummaryThe key points to remember;-– Check the camera’s resolution before you start.– Choose the right mode for the subject.– Take the photo.– Check the photo (zoom in to check the detail is clear).– If the first one doesn’t work make adjustments and try again.Tech-2-Tech

208Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020April 2014 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHHaven’t the time to write a paper but want to get something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of animal technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.Animal technology at the National Institutefor Medical Research: a century of innovationALAN PALMERBiological Services, National Institite for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill,London NW7 1AACorresponding author: apalmer@nimr.mrc.ac.ukBased on an IAT/LAVA Congress 2013 Platfor m PresentationSummaryUnderstanding the past to appr eciate the present: Acentury of animal science and technology at the MRCNIMR.As the MRC celebrates its centenary year thispresentation takes a look back at the histor y of animaluse at the National Institute for Medical Research. Thedevelopment of key principles, techniques and designthat improved animal welfare standards and helpedshape the modern animal technology industry, alongwith the important scientific discoveries made using arange of species will be described.Particular attention will be paid from the 1940s throughto the 1970s, regarded by some as the ‘golden age’ ofAnimal Technology and science; this period saw somemajor advances in caging systems, breedingtechniques, laboratory animal nutrition, animaltechnician training and education, the LaboratoryAnimals Bureau and animal house design to name justa few. Insights into these developments and the keypeople who helped drive forward advances in animalwelfar e will be presented providing a fascinatingaccount into how life in the ‘animal house’ has changedover the past 100 years.Keywords: National Institute for Medical Research,centenar y, advances, animal welfareIntroductionThe modern barrier maintained animal facility iscontrolled with computer monitored environmentalconditions and staffed by highly trained technologistscaring for animals housed in state of the art cagingsystems. However, it was not always like this and aspart of MRC National Institute for Medical ResearchCentenary celebrations this presentation recounts acollection of articles, anecdotes and pictures thatdescribe what life was like in the ‘Animal House’ andhow certain technologies and practices evolved.27ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 27141LOOKING BACKEditor’s introductionDuring the 70-year history of the Institute’s Journal our overseas contributors have been an impor tant source ofarticles. They provide an interesting insight into both the differences and similarities between Animal Technologyin different countries and continents and a fascinating reminder of the way things have changed (or in somecases have remained the same). These papers have not been edited and appear in their original style.The first article from an author in France is taken fr om the Jour nal of the Institute of Animal Technicians, Volume23. 4, December 1972 and was presented at the IAT Congress held that year in Newcastle upon Tyne. It predatesthe passing of the UK legislation The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 which was a forerunner to other similarActs concerning safety in the workplace outside of the UK.The second paper discusses an incidence of Pseudomonas in a laboratory rabbit colony. Taken from The JournalVolume 20.2, June 1969. Many laboratory animals at this time were bred in house and disease outbreaks inlaboratory animals was often a common problem for technicians and research workers alike. Some organismsmade replication of results difficult and the loss of animals through disease, especially virulent outbreaks, wasextremely upsetting for Animal Technicians and Researchers. In addition, losses were also of considerableeconomic impact both due to the loss of animals and in the case of animals already on experiment, reagentsand research time was also lost. Thankfully thanks to the efforts of animal technicians globally, commercialbreeding companies and research workers, disease in laboratory animals is much less common although whenit does occur the effects remain the same.August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePhysical hazards in the laboratory animalhouseR.T. CHARLESWorld Health Organisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, FranceAlthough it is an employer’s responsibility to keepworking conditions as s afe as possible for hisemploye es, the Superintendent or Chief AnimalTechnician in charge of animal units should beresponsible for the safety of the personnel in hischarge.In all laboratory house manipulations, common sense,experience, and genuine desire to work safely are thebasic requirements. In all matters of safety perhapsthe most important thing is to visualise the hazard andto take adequate precautionary measures in advance.When an accident does occur, it is important to knowwhat to do.Accidents do not just ‘just happen’; They all have acause. To eliminate the possible danger of an accident,it is necessary to find out exactly what these causesare and to realise that there are two basic factorsinvolved in most accidents: (1) personal factors; (2) twomechanical factors.It has b ecomecommon practise in most largeindustrial organisations to employ a Safety Officer, whois a trained specialist in this field, but if there is noestablishment within your own organisation for such aperson who would be responsible under normalcircumstances for the formation of a safety committeedirectly answerable to the management, the need forsuch a committee is still of paramount importance.The Su per vis or of a large animal breeding orexperim ental uni t should be onsuch a saf etycommittee or be able to report to the person directlyresponsible to the management for the safety of theunit. Too often, technical staff are work-orientated,either in the production of animals, or the housing oflarge groups of experimental animals, without giving aAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page 141

209August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareApril 2014 Animal Technology and WelfareTECH-2-TECHHaven’t the time to write a paper but want to get something published? Then read on!This section offers readers the opportunity to submit informal contributions about anyaspects of animal technology. Comments, observations, descriptions of new or refinedtechniques, new products or equipment, old products or equipment adapted to new use,any subject that may be useful to technicians in other institutions. Submissions can bepresented as technical notes and do not need to be structured and can be as short or aslong as is necessary. Accompanying illustrations and/or photos should be high resolution.NB. Descriptions of new products or equipment submitted by manufacturers are welcomebut should be a factual account of the product. However, the Editorial Board gives nowarranty as to the accuracy or fitness for purpose of the product.Animal technology at the National Institutefor Medical Research: a century of innovationALAN PALMERBiological Services, National Institite for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill,London NW7 1AACorresponding author: apalmer@nimr.mrc.ac.ukBased on an IAT/LAVA Congress 2013 Platfor m PresentationSummaryUnderstanding the past to appr eciate the present: Acentury of animal science and technology at the MRCNIMR.As the MRC celebrates its centenary year thispresentation takes a look back at the histor y of animaluse at the National Institute for Medical Research. Thedevelopment of key principles, techniques and designthat improved animal welfare standards and helpedshape the modern animal technology industry, alongwith the important scientific discoveries made using arange of species will be described.Particular attention will be paid from the 1940s throughto the 1970s, regarded by some as the ‘golden age’ ofAnimal Technology and science; this period saw somemajor advances in caging systems, breedingtechniques, laboratory animal nutrition, animaltechnicia n training and education, the LaboratoryAnimals Bureau and animal house design to name justa few. Insights into these developments and the keypeople who helped drive forward advances in animalwelfar e will be presented providing a fascinatingaccount into how life in the ‘animal house’ has changedover the past 100 years.Keywords: National Institute for Medical Research,centenar y,advances, animal welfareIntroductionThe modern barrier maintained animal facility iscontrolled with computer monitored environmentalconditions and staffed by highly trained technologistscaring for animals housed in state of the art cagingsystems. However, it was not always like this and aspart of MRC National Institute for Medical ResearchCentenary celebrations this presentation recounts acollection of articles, anecdotes and pictures thatdescribe what life was like in the ‘Animal House’ andhow certain technologies and practices evolved.27ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 27LOOKING BACK – Celebrating making a difference141LOOKING BACKEditor’s introductionDuring the 70-year history of the Institute’s Journal our overseas contributors have been an impor tant source ofarticles. They provide an interesting insight into both the differences and similarities between Animal Technologyin different countries and continents and a fascinating reminder of the way things have changed (or in somecases have remained the same). These papers have not been edited and appear in their original style.The first article from an author in France is taken fr om the Jour nal of the Institute of Animal Technicians, Volume23. 4, December 1972 and was presented at the IAT Congress held that year in Newcastle upon Tyne. It predatesthe passing of the UK legislation The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 which was a forerunner to other similarActs concerning safety in the workplace outside of the UK.The second paper discusses an incidence of Pseudomonas in a laboratory rabbit colony. Taken from The JournalVolume 20.2, June 1969. Many laboratory animals at this time were bred in house and disease outbreaks inlaboratory animals was often a common problem for technicians and research workers alike. Some organismsmade replication of results difficult and the loss of animals through disease, especially virulent outbreaks, wasextremely upsetting for Animal Technicians and Researchers. In addition, losses were also of considerableeconomic impact both due to the loss of animals and in the case of animals already on experiment, reagentsand research time was also lost. Thankfully thanks to the efforts of animal technicians globally, commercialbreeding companies and research workers, disease in laboratory animals is much less common although whenit does occur the effects remain the same.August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePhysical hazards in the laboratory animalhouseR.T. CHARLESWorld Health Organisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, FranceAlthough it is an employer’s responsibility to keepworking conditions as s afe as possible for hisemploye es, the Superintendent or Chief AnimalTechnician in charge of animal units should beresponsible for the safety of the personnel in hischarge.In all laboratory house manipulations, common sense,experience, and genuine desire to work safely are thebasic requirements. In all matters of safety perhapsthe most important thing is to visualise the hazard andto take adequate precautionary measures in advance.When an accident does occur, it is important to knowwhat to do.Accidents do not just ‘just happen’; They all have acause. To eliminate the possible danger of an accident,it is necessary to find out exactly what these causesare and to realise that there are two basic factorsinvolved in most accidents: (1) personal factors; (2) twomechanical factors.It has b ecome common practise in most largeindustrial organisations to employ a Safety Officer, whois a trained specialist in this field, but if there is noestablishment within your own organisation for such aperson who would be responsible under normalcircumstances for the formation of a safety committeedirectly answerable to the management, the need forsuch a committee is still of paramount importance.The Su per vis or of a large animal breeding orexperim ental uni t should be on sucha safetycommittee or be able to report to the person directlyresponsible to the management for the safety of theunit. Too often, technical staff are work-orientated,either in the production of animals, or the housing oflarge groups of experimental animals, without giving aAugust20:Animal Technology and Welfare 12/8/20 07:54 Page 141Animal Technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: A Century of InnovationALAN PALMERBiological Services, National Institute for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA UK Corresponding Author: alan.palmer@crick.ac.ukBased on an IAT/LAVA Congress 2013 Platform PresentationReprinted from ATW Volume 13.1 April 2014

210Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020During the late 1940s the whole of the animal scienceand technology industry was beginning to rapidly developand standardisation of feeding, maintenance, colonymanagement, breeding and supply was taking shape.In response the Medical Research Council (MRC) set upthe Laboratory Animals Bureau (LAB) in 1947, later tobecome the Laboratory Animals Centre (LAC) in 1958.The main function of the LAB was to facilitate thestandardisation of the supply of animals for research.Up until then many laboratory animals were sourcedfrom the commercial pet trade usually with inferior stockwhich often resorted to poorly funded researchers havingto resort to buying large quantities of mice regardless ofhealth and condition – the research industry was beingsupplied with inferior animals by unscrupulous breedersas the prime stock could be sold as pets for moremoney. It was therefore essential for Laboratory Animalwelfare to take priority, not only to improve the standardsof health and welfare for all species but to also supply agood standard animal for research.Barrier Maintained Animal FacilitiesThe MRC National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR)has a long history of pioneering the use of barriermaintained animal facilities since it first recognised, inthe early 1920s, the importance of keeping researchanimals at the Rhodes Farm facility free from any chanceinfection. The initial innovation was the introduction of a‘bathing house’ that all researchers and care staff woulduse to wash in and change into protective rubber clothingbefore entering the dog compound.Tech-2-TechFigure 1. Animal attendant wearing protective rubberclothing, standing at the entrance to the dog compoundbathing house.Figure 2. A miscellany of huts and sheds that housedmany of the animals at NIMR until early 1960s – NIMRDirector Sir Peter Medawar referred to this as ‘shantytown Mill Hill’.However, during the post-war years 1945–1950sbuilding materials and labour were prioritised for re-building of war damage and new towns and with fundsin short supply it was not uncommon for researchanimals to be housed in wooden sheds where diseasespread easily.Sir Peter Medawar made it his priority, when takingdirectorship of NIMR in 1962, to modernise all theanimal units at NIMR, a project that was initiated by SirCharles Harrington in the early 1960s. Sir PeterMedawar was adamant that strictly controlled purposebuilt animal facilities was important to help reducepathoge nic burden affecting animal welfare andexperimental results.The sound-proof dog unit was the first of the new unitsto be completed and was opened in 196 6, there beinga very good reason why it had to be priority andcompletely sound proofed!Figure 3. The new dog facility incorporated kennels,indoor exercise passage, outdoor exerc ise yard,bathing room and it also boasted a state of the arthospital standard operating theatr e.28ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 28Animal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovation

211August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAnimal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovationTech-2-TechFigure 4. Bath-time in the new dog facility.Beagles and greyhounds wer e both housed in thefacility – the beagles being mainly used for Diabetesresearch and the greyhounds, which were ex-racingdogs, used for Osteoporosis research.Figure 5-6. Pictures ofthe old units – the catswere kept in racks ofcages for stock andlittering down but therewas also a rotationsystem in placeallowing the cats outfor exercise.Figures 7-8: The new NIMR cat facility circa 1969.Due to an increasing demand, the dogs had beenmoved from their original wooden hut to a block ofkennels on the 3rd floor of the south west wing in themain building where they also had an outside run.This proved highly entertaining for the local youths,after closing time at the local public house, as theywould stand on the road close to the building (at thistime there was no perimeter security fencing) barkingand whipping the dogs up into a frenzy of noise thatwas the source of many local complaints. It wastherefore considered essential to design the new unitto contain all noise by the use of soundproofing thatwould absorb the noise while also making itcomfortable for staff and dogs.Apparently after moving the dogs from the main buildinginto the new sound-proof unit the local inebriated youthswould still bark but although they got no reaction,several weeks passed before all human barking ceased!The next priority was to build a modern cat facility asoriginally the cats were kept in two wooden huts, onefor breeding and one for holding.In 1967 the new modern cat unit was built in the valleywhich incorporated stud male pens/breeding room andrearing pens as well as offices and staff showers/restroom over two floors. During its highest period ofactivity, the new cat units were producing over 1750cats per year – approximately half of these would be forinternal use and the rest would be made availablecommercially to other research institutions.The demand for a good quality research cat wasincreasing not only at NI MR by th e Physiology29ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 29

212Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Animal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovation30department which required 500 per year over 3 kilos inweight but also across the whole research industry andthe Laboratory Animals Centre wished to take the MRCand the rest of the research industry out of theinfamous cat market as many cats were being suppliedby unscrupulous dealers with animals rife in parasitesthat was causing a national concern.There was a substantial economic cost to running thecat unit but Doug Short MBE, FIAT, the original ChiefAnimal Technician at NIMR, insisted it solved thegreater ethical problem of where and how to sourcequality cats and also provide them with the bestpossible welfare.Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) UnitConstruction of the SPF unit started in 1969 and wascompleted, commissioned and ready for occupation inDecember 1972. The original stock animals wereCaesarean-rederived germ-free rats and mice that weremaintained in pressure isolators in the Gnotobioticsunit and later contaminated with suitable identified gutflora. Rabbits and Guinea pigs were introduced a fewyears later.By late 1973 the SPF unit was producing over 10,000mice and 2,500 rats per month and supplying nearly allthe institutes’ rodent requirements. The efficiency ofthe unit is reflected by the fact that the death rateamong the 50,000 mice and 8000 rats housed wasless than 0.1% compared to over 25% in the stockspreviously housed in conventional units – theelimination of infantile diarrhoea in mice being themajor contributory factor.It is interesting to note that when the NIMR director SirPeter Medawar first proposed the building of the SPFunit in the 1960s he faced opposition from certainelements of the scientific community for proposing thatin the future all major biological research institutes re-establish their animal colonies on a ‘specific pathogenfree’ basis and that the use of pure inbred strains andfirst generation (F1) hybrids would be the researchmodels of choice.It is well known that many within the scientificcommunity still believed that the use of these animalswas in some way unnatural or ar tificial and would givemisleading results and not be representative of thecharacteristics of mammalian life.A quote by Sir Peter Medawar sums up his foresightinto what is today regarded as standard: “The provisionofSPF [specific pathogen-free] animals is not to bethought of as a great romantic adventure in the worldof biological research, but as something that will in afew years’ time be as commonplace as the provision ofinbred strains is today”.Automation and feeding the rabbitsAnother popular research animal at NIMR during the1960–1980s was the rabbit which were to be given anew home in the soon to be developed SPF unit.However the original rabbitry is still very interesting fortwo reasons:The first was the development of a new pelleted rabbitdiet in 1959 – the previous rabbit diet was known asDiet18 which was developed by H.M. Bruce and A.S.1Parkes in 1945 and was ver y successful. Howeversome of the ingredients of Diet18, in particular linseedcake meal and bone meal, were prone to becomingrancid if stored for any length of time. The number ofrabbits being used was increasing rapidly and it wasimpractical to order the amounts of the diet needed asfresh regular orders and if ordered in bulk it went rancidbefore it could be used.This problem was also being reported elsewhere in theindustrywith animals becoming lethargic and out-of-condition when fed Diet18 that had been kept instorage. As a solution for this problem Doug Short andLen Gammage (NIMR Senior Animal Technician)developed a new pelleted diet with a high proteincontent (with human food grade ingredients) less proneto deterioration and with the help of a nutritionist thenew diet was trialled successfully with animals quicklyimproving condition and breeding performanceimproving.The new diet was supplemented with hay for rabbitsand could also be used for Guinea pigs whensupplemented with hay and green-stuffs. This new dietwas to become known as SG1 (after Short andGammage) and was eventually made availablecommercially and the formula used in the industr y forover 2 decades.The only problem with the SG1 diet was that theanimals found it so palatable ordinary stock animalsbecame fat as they would not stop eating it when fedvia a conventional hopper system and it was thoughtthat feeding little and often was too time consuming forthe technicians.After a visit to a local poultry farm where he saw achicken battery with an automatic feeding system,Doug Short, being the visionary that he was, decidedthat the way forward in the animal house wasautomation. Thanks to the help of the NIMRengineering department, an automatic chicken batterywas converted into a fully automated feeding andwatering system for the rabbit facility.In this converted chicken battery the food hopper wouldgo around a track on the outside of the rabbit cages(672 cages in total) and stop for short inter vals at eachcage, this would then be followed a few minutes laterTech-2-TechATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 30

213August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAnimal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovation31by the water trough on the same track and re-filled fromthe mains water supply after triggering a valve.Not being content with just automated feeding andwatering, Doug Shorts’ modifications also incorporatedfully automated cleaning – the rabbit cages having agrid bottom floor that allowed urine and faeces to dropthrough onto a plate glass shelves that were bondedtogether to run the length of the rack and a squeegeewas attached to the hoppers that pushed the rabbitexcreta along the glass shelf and emptied it into a drainwhere it was flushed into the sewers.This system had no adverse effect on the animalsbreeding or temperament and the rabbits could notgorge themselves on the food constantly. It alsoreduced labour considerably and odours.Rodent cage design andstandardisation of animal feeds atMRC NIMRWhen the Small Animals Department at Rhodes Farm,Mill Hill, was built in the early 1920s the rats and micewere kept in wooden boxes, made by an on-sitecarpenter. These original wooden boxes had no foodhopper or water bottle holder as the animals were feda diet of wet mash only – dried, cubed feed was not yetbeing commercially available.Some mice were also kept in large glass bowls (similarto goldfish bowls) which was standard practice in theindustr y.Until the years following World War 2 (WW2) – miceand rats were fed this diet of wet mash which would bemade by the animal care staff, incorporating prettymuch anything they could get their hands on from localfood supp liers and the works’ can teen kitchen waste,supplemented where possible with dried milk and eggproducts and margarine – there was no provision forwater bottles and the mash would be changed dailyTech-2-TechFigures 9-12. Automated rabbit feeding, watering and cleaning system.Figure 13. Replica of an early wooden mouse cage. Figures 14-15. The first NIMR metal cages.ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 31

214Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Animal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovationand fed in rations to lactating mums first, followed bypregnant breeders and young weaners with the stockanimals being fed what was left. However post WW2the necessity to change because of food shortagesand lack of manpower – changing the soiled wet mashdaily was seen as both time consuming and wasteful.The wet mash also soiled the animals’ cages andbedding so was far from ideal from a welfareperspective.The wooden rodent boxes had limited life as theanimals were quite adept at gnawing their way out, sonew metal caging was designed and implemented andby 1930 both the Hampstead laboratories and RhodesFarm small animals department were now using metalrodent cages as standard. These cages were still madeon site as cages made commercially were still notreadily available, food and water hoppers were notincorporated into the design as the animals were stillbeing fed the diet of wet mash.However, by 1945 Sir Alan Parkes and Hilda Bruce hadstarted working on standardisation of the animal feedsby developing compound diets in a cubed and pelletedform that would be suitable for all standard smalllaboratory animals. In 1949 and after nearly five yearsof research at NIMR, a diet called 41B went intocommercial production as the first complete un-supplemented dried rodent diet for mice and rats – andwas used in the same formula industry wide for over 3decades.The new standard dried and cubed rodent diets nowmeant provision of separate water was a necessity aswas an easier method of feeding the diet. As metalwas becoming easier to source post WW2 cages werebeing made out of zinc – the original zinc boxes justhad a perforated lid which made for a very cold anddamp environment in the winter for the animals. Theseboxes were adapted for inclusion of a small diethopper and water bottle holder. The first water bottlesused were actually ink bottles with a small rubber bungand spout. This also caused the problem during thewinter months of the water bottles freezing as theanimals were kept in huts with little or noenvironmental control/heating.This led to a purpose built rodent box designed in thelate 1940s by NIMR Animal Technicians and then SeniorTechnician, Doug Short with a bottle and food hopper.These cages were still made on site as required andwere seen as a revelation, in terms of animal welfare,as the animals could be checked regularly withoutremoving lids and fed/watered daily with a minimum offuss and no wet mash to soil the cages.Tech-2-TechFigure 16. A ‘modern’ style rodent cage circa 1950s.Standardisation of animal supplyand trainingThe MRC had been breeding and supplying otherresearch institutes for some time but were unable tomeet demand so they set up a system of regulationand an accreditation scheme for commercial breedersto the research industr y. This accreditation schemewas developed at NIMR and based on the knowledge,expertise and experience of the animal care team andsenior researchers Sir Alan Parkes and Hilda Bruce.The accreditation scheme was initiated for regulatinglaborator y animal supply nationally. Commercialbreeders were invited to apply for accreditation andmost breeders of repute did so.The accreditation scheme demanded strict regulationssuch as– stock must be raised primarily for research use– breeding stock must be self-contained– strict standards of hygiene should be implemented– annual inspections will be carried outThe Laboratory Animals’ Centre published the MouseNewsletter (until the mid-1970s) detailing all mousestrains available to the researcher and also maintained15 of the commonest laboratory mouse strains atNIMR which it supplied to institutes and commercial32ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 32••••

215August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAnimal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovationbreeders with a nucleus of stock together withinstructions on how to breed using the ‘traffic lightsystem’ in order to maintain genetic integrity.Tech-2-TechThe LAB initiated annual conferences for exchanges ofinformation for animal technicians and scientists onall aspects of laborator y animal care and welfare; butthere was also a spontaneous movement amongstanimal technicians nationwide that resulted in theformation of a new technical organisation, The AnimalTechnicians Association (ATA) at the 1950 LABconference – this new organisation with Sir AlanParkes as its first president would put the provision oftraining for animal technicians as a priority and put anend to the belief which had prevailed for too long thatthe work of the animal technician was an unskilledoccupation.Figure 17. List of papers printed in the 1st Journal ofthe Animal Technicians Association by the President DrA.S. Parkes FRS.Although Sir Alan Parkes and Hilda Bruce set thefoundations for the standardisation of the AnimalTechnology industry with their work on diets andbreeding, NIMR animal technicians led by Doug Shortand the Animal Technicians Association (ATA) (later tobecome the IAT – Institute of Animal Technology)33ATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 33Although Sir Alan Parkes and Hilda Bruce set the foundations for the standardisation of the Animal Technology industry with their work on diets and

216Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Animal technology at the National Institute for Medical Research: a century of innovation34spearheaded the development of modern standardsand pioneered many advances that would not onlyimprove standards at NIMR but also help establish thestandard for the whole industryThe late 1950s and early 1960s also saw thepublication of many important books following theformation of the LAB and ATA as there became an everincreasing demand for the sharing of knowledge:1959 – publication of Russell & Burch book ‘ThePrinciples of Humane Experimental Technique’ whichintroduced the concept of the 3Rs (Replacement,Refinement and Reduction) and they credit the MRC’sLAB for carr ying out the 1st systematic survey ofanimal use in the UK and the work carried out by theATA for improving the efficiency of animal techniciansand encouraging communication.1961 – Following the ‘3Rs’ book the MRC’s LACpublished the 1st practical guide for commercialbreeders and those involved in their c are – theMRC/LAC accreditation scheme developed at NIMRformed the nucleus for this book.1962 – Publication of the first concise textbook ofLaboratory Animal Technology based on the ATAeducation syllabus with 24 chapters coveringeverything from animal handling to the law, all but 6were written by NIMR or LAC people.So the Animal Technology industr y was by now a modernforward thinking profession with the skilled animaltechnician regarded as an important asset to biologicalresearch and a quote by Dr. Lane-Petter, director of LACin 1962 sums up the advances per fectly:ConclusionsAnimal Technologists and care staff across the wholeBiomedical industry have been responsible for someground-breaking advances in laboratory animal scienceand welfare in the last few decades. This is just a smallsnapshot of advances and innovations made in thepast 100 years at MRC NIMR that have contributedtowards improved laboratory animal welfare across thewhole industry – advances and innovations drivenforward largely by animal care staff working alongsideresearchers and veterinarians. Undoubtedly a similarstory could be told for many establishments across thecountr y.References1Bruce, H.M. and Parkes, A.S. (1946). Feeding andbreeding of laboratory animals: growth and maintenanceof rabbits without fresh green food. Journal of Hygiene,Cambridge, Vol.44 pp. 501-507Tech-2-TechATW:Animal Technology and Welfare 25/9/20 13:34 Page 34

217August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare112Optimising mouse production – goodpractice for efficient colony managementand implementation of the 3RsHANNAH EASTERThe Francis Crick Institute, 1 Brill Place, London NW1 1BFCorrespondence: hannah.easter@crick.ac.ukBased on a Poster displayed at IAT Congress 2018IntroductionThis poster provides an overview of the methods used tominimise mouse production through various techniques.It will look at ways for scientists and technicians toproduce the required numbers of genetic models ofinterest from fewer litters and reduce the overallnumbers of mice pr oduced. The main techniques utilisedand described in this poster include: the use of adatabase to see live breeding data; calculating numberof mice required for experiments; using punnet squar esto decide on best breeding pairs and pedigree charts torecord lines; the efficient use of cryo-preservation and‘tick over’ protocols for minimally used lines and usingeconomic breeding life to maximise pr oductivity of pairs.Optimising breeding performanceat the Francis Crick InstituteThe Francis Crick Institute is a newly opened institute,with scientists and staff coming from multiple sites intoone building. Being a central London location, effectiveuse of space allocation is critical.One of the measures that the Biological ResearchFacility (BRF) is implementing is to have clearinformationand guidelines on effective colonymanagement. We are providing various tools andservices that can assist the people responsible formouse colonies to plan their experiments and optimisebreeding per formance:– Providing information of basic colony managementand how to set up breeding schemes to fit in withthe economic breeding life of the mice.– Cryopreservation of lines which are not needed liveon the shelf or as a safeguard in case anythinghappens to a mouse colony (e.g. disease or failedexperiment).– Breeding of communal lines which any user groupcan use to minimise repeat colonies and reducegenetic variation within the Institute.– Workshop training is provided for user groups andcolony managers which provides practical advice onhow to estimate animal cohort size, carry outstatistical tests, experimental analysis, breedingcalculations and randomisation.– Placing strains on ‘tick over’ when suitable andproviding assistance to help the colony managersdo this effectively.– Providing an effective database so colony managerscan look at live breeding data and also call upreports to allow them to check colony breeding dataand then request alterations to current breedingpairs if needed.– Using methods to optimise breeding such a schecking a female’s oestrus phase before placing ina timed mating to increase the chances ofsuccessful pairings. This has seen around an 80%increase in successful timed matings within TheFrancis Crick Institute breeding units.These measures together with good communicationbetween the technician and researcher is helping tooptimise breeding within The Francis Crick Institute andreduce cage and mouse numbers.Considerations for breedinganimalsIt is impor tant to consider various factors whenchoosing which mice to use for breeding and theappropriate breeding strategy:Relevant to all strains:– Consider the economic breeding life of the mousewhich includes looking at the size, health, survivalrates, sex ratio of the litters produced and the abilityto nurture the litters in the female.Animal Technology and Welfare August 20189 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 112December 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareReprinted from ATW Volume 17.2 August 2018112Optimising mouse production – goodpractice for efficient colony managementand implementation of the 3RsHANNAH EASTERThe Francis Crick Institute, 1 Brill Place, London NW1 1BFCorrespondence: hannah.easter@crick.ac.ukBased on a Poster displayed at IAT Congress 2018IntroductionThis poster provides an overview of the methods used tominimise mouse production through various techniques.It will look at ways for scientists and technicians toproduce the required numbers of genetic models ofinterest from fewer litters and reduce the overallnumbers of mice pr oduced. The main techniques utilisedand described in this poster include: the use of adatabase to see live breeding data; calculating numberof mice required for experiments; using punnet squar esto decide on best breeding pairs and pedigree charts torecord lines; the efficient use of cryo-preservation and‘tick over’ protocols for minimally used lines and usingeconomic breeding life to maximise pr oductivity of pairs.Optimising breeding performanceat the Francis Crick InstituteThe Francis Crick Institute is a newly opened institute,with scientists and staff coming from multiple sites intoone building. Being a central London location, effectiveuse of space allocation is critical.One of the measures that the Biological ResearchFacility (BRF) is implementing is to have clearinformation and guidelines on effective colonymanagement. We are providing various tools andservices that can assist the people responsible formousecolonies to plan their experiments and optimisebreeding per formance:– Providing information of basic colony managementand how to set up breeding schemes to fit in withthe economic breeding life of the mice.– Cryopreservation of lines which are not needed liveon the shelf or as a safeguard in case anythinghappens to a mouse colony (e.g. disease or failedexperiment).– Breeding of communal lines which any user groupcan use to minimise repeat colonies and reducegenetic variation within the Institute.– Workshop training is provided for user groups andcolony managers which provides practical advice onhow to estimate animal cohort size, carry outstatistical tests, experimental analysis, breedingcalculations and randomisation.– Placing strains on ‘tick over’ when suitable andproviding assistance to help the colony managersdo this effectively.– Providing an effective database so colony managerscan look at live breeding data and also call upreports to allow them to check colony breeding dataand then request alterations to current breedingpairs if needed.– Using methods to optimise breeding such a schecking a female’s oestrus phase before placing ina timed mating to increase the chances ofsuccessful pairings. This has seen around an 80%increase in successful timed matings within TheFrancis Crick Institute breeding units.These measures together with good communicationbetween the technician and researcher is helping tooptimise breeding within The Francis Crick Institute andreduce cage and mouse numbers.Considerations for breedinganimalsIt is impor tant to consider various factors whenchoosing which mice to use for breeding and theappropriate breeding strategy:Relevant to all strains:– Consider the economic breeding life of the mousewhich includes looking at the size, health, survivalrates, sex ratio of the litters produced and the abilityto nurture the litters in the female.Animal Technology and Welfare August 20189 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 112The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Brill Place, London NW1 1BF UK 112Optimising mouse production – goodpractice for efficient colony managementand implementation of the 3RsHANNAH EASTERThe Francis Crick Institute, 1 Brill Place, London NW1 1BFCorrespondence: hannah.easter@crick.ac.ukBased on a Poster displayed at IAT Congress 2018IntroductionThis poster provides an overview of the methods used tominimise mouse production through various techniques.It will look at ways for scientists and technicians toproduce the required numbers of genetic models ofinterest from fewer litters and reduce the overallnumbers of mice pr oduced. The main techniques utilisedand described in this poster include: the use of adatabase to see live breeding data; calculating numberof mice required for experiments; using punnet squar esto decide on best breeding pairs and pedigree charts torecord lines; the efficient use of cryo-preservation and‘tick over’ protocols for minimally used lines and usingeconomic breeding life to maximise pr oductivity of pairs.Optimising breeding performanceat the Francis Crick InstituteThe Francis Crick Institute is a newly opened institute,with scientists and staff coming from multiple sites intoone building. Being a central London location, effectiveuse of space allocation is critical.One of the measures that the Biological ResearchFacility (BRF) is implementing is to have clearinformation and guidelines on effective colonymanagement. We are providing various tools andservices that can assist the people responsible formouse colonies to plan their experiments and optimisebreeding per formance:– Providing information of basic colony managementand how to set up breeding schemes to fit in withthe economic breeding life of the mice.– Cryopreservation of lines which are not needed liveon the shelf or as a safeguard in case anythinghappens to a mouse colony (e.g. disease or failedexperiment).– Breeding of communal lines which any user groupcan use to minimise repeat colonies and reducegenetic variation within the Institute.– Workshop training is provided for user groups andcolony managers which provides practical advice onhow to estimate animal cohort size, carry outstatistical tests, experimental analysis, breedingcalculations and randomisation.– Placing strains on ‘tick over’ when suitable andproviding assistance to help the colony managersdo this effectively.– Providing an effective database so colony managerscan look at live breeding data and also call upreports to allow them to check colony breeding dataand then request alterations to current breedingpairs if needed.– Using methods to optimise breeding such a schecking a female’s oestrus phase before placing ina timed mating to increase the chances ofsuccessful pairings. This has seen around an 80%increase in successful timed matings within TheFrancis Crick Institute breeding units.These measures together with good communicationbetween the technician and researcher is helping tooptimise breeding within The Francis Crick Institute andreduce cage and mouse numbers.Considerations for breedinganimalsIt is impor tant to consider various factors whenchoosing which mice to use for breeding and theappropriate breeding strategy:Relevant to all strains:– Consider the economic breeding life of the mousewhich includes looking at the size, health, survivalrates, sex ratio of the litters produced and the abilityto nurture the litters in the female.Animal Technology and Welfare August 20189 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 112

218Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020113– Is the strain free fr om unexpected abnormalitiesand phenotypes?– Correct genotype to give the best ratio of usefullitters.– Correct temperament for breeding – were theprevious generations ‘good’ br eeders?– Do you want to have pairs or trios? Trios willproduce more mice but you may not know whichfemale is the mother of the litter.Strain dependent:– What background strai n is the m ouse? Somebackground strains such as CD1 have larger litterscompared to C57Bl/6J mice.– Is there an issue with the breeding of this strain?Some Genetically Altered (GA) lines are known to besub-fertile when homozygous.– Are there any phenotypes in this strain? Phenotypessuch as APC Min are health status dependent andmice could get sick fr om 3-6 months of age. Do youneed to set up more breeders to compensate?– Does the strain have Green Fluorescent Protein(GFP) or similar incorporated? This will allow foreasier identification of the correct allele withoutbiopsies.– Can your line become homozygous, increasing thenumber of suitable mice per litter? Or is there alethal phenotype pertaining to the genotype?– Do you have a low requirement of mice for yourexperiment or will ther e be periods when your usageis lower than at other times? Can it be put into a‘tick over’ breeding strategy? Depending on what isrequired, this can be based around number of mice,age or the genotype of the animals.Use of Mendelian genetics to setup pairsObserving the rules of Mendelian Genetics whenchoosing mice for pairs, can help to generate more ofthe required genotype mice in fewer litters. This can bedone with simple single allele strains or can be used formultiple allele Genetically Altered (GA) lines:(Het x Het x Het) x(Het x Het x Het)AaBbCc x AaBbCcFigure 1. Table showing incidence of inheritance. (WT=Wild Type, HET= heterozygous, HOM=Homozygous).Figure 2. Table showing incidence of genotypes in tripleKO production.Figure 3. Table showing increased incidence of tripleKO.Figure 4. Table showing higher frequency of triple KO.As you can see below (Figure 2) you only achieve a1/64 chance of obtaining a triple KO but there are alsomany potential genotypes which can be used for afur ther cross to increase triple knock out (KO)generation.In the second mating (Figure 3), if you cross anycombination of single KO, het, het with each other a1/16 chance of the triple KO required is achieved.If you crossed a double KO, het; you would increaseyour chance of getting the triple KO to 1/4 with alloffspring being useful for further matings (Figure 4).BreedingHaving a good database, where you can easily see allthe live breeding data makes colony management a loteasier. The first step is to ensure that all users of thedatabase are correctly trained in its use. At The FrancisCrick Institute we provide training to all new starters(both researchers and technicians).Being able to see the following data will help planexperiments as well as assess the current breedinglevels. Here are some data points which can help: number of pairs in each strain date of birth of offspring number of offspring each pair has had number of males and females in each litter number of days since pairing number of failed litters (if any)Tech-2-Tech9 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 113Optimising mouse production – implementation of the 3Rs

219August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTech-2-Tech114Good databases will have the ability to generatereports which give you breeding statistics so you cansee how successful a strain is in regards to: litter size sex ratio time between litters pre-weaning loss this information will allow you to adjust the breedingscheme accordinglyIt is also a good way for you track individual mice backto the founding pair, so the ability to pull up a pedigreechart of breeders for that strain is an invaluable tool tohave on a database.Figure 5. Example of pedigree chart. It shows afounding breeder and all the breedings that have comefrom this original mating.Figure 6. Example of a pair and litter housed at TheFrancis Crick Institute. The mice are displaying thevariant of the Tomato allele which gives them thedistinctive pink colouring.Figure 7. Colony dashboard.Figure 7 shows an example of what a colony dashboardlooks like on a database, the main features are: genotype variations and how many mice of eachthere are how many breeding pairs the strain has any homozygous lethality related to specific alleles also any other notes or flags the strain may haveCalculating the number of mice/matings neededBy calculating the number of mice needed beforestarting any experiments, you can reduce the chance ofover/under breeding. Some experiments will havespecial requirements, such as only needing male mice,etc. This will need to be taken into consideration whendesigning your experiment. There are many differenttools online which can help with planning cohort size.Two examples are:Experimental Design Assistant – Found on the NC3Rswebsite. This is a free online tool which is designed tohelp researchers ensure they use the minimum numberof animals for their specific objectives:https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/experimental-design-assistant-edaBreeding Colony Size Planning Worksheet – TheJackson Laboratory have a worksheet you candownload which uses a calculation to help you decidehow many pairs you need to set up and how many miceyou will need for it: https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-serv i c es/customer-support/technical-support/breeding-and-husbandr y-support/colony-planningCryopreservationCryopreservation in regards to laboratory animals isthe process of freezing genetic information for aparticular strain which can then be used in the futureto re-derive when needed. This is useful if a strain isnot going to be used for a long time; it can becryopreserved and then th e live animals can beremoved from the shelf. The strain can then be br oughtback when required. It is also good to freeze strainseven if they are still needed live on the shelf, so thereis always a back-up if something happens to the colony.Why is it important?At The Francis Crick Institute we ar e trying to reducethe number of mice produced, using the methodsfeatured on this poster. It is not only ethical to try andreduce overall mouse numbers but alsohelps whenworking to set total cage allowances within the BRF.– This is an industry wide issue, in 2016, 1.65 millionGA mice were created but were not used in furtherexperiments.9 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 114Optimising mouse production – implementation of the 3Rs

220Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020December 2018 Animal Technology and Welfare155Time’s up for tick-over colonies…Do we now need to maintain so manyGA mouse lines?STUART NEWMAN and STEPHEN WOODLEYKing’s College London, Research Management and Innovation Directorate,Biological Services Unit, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1ULCorrespondence: stephen.woodley@kcl.ac.ukPlatform Presentation at IAT Congress 2018AbstractThe practice of continually breeding lines to maintainthem as a live resource either in-between studies orindefinitely “just in case” is common practice in manyanimal facilities. This process of “ticking over” colonieshas historically occurred due to the unavailability orunreliability of archiving services, coupled to theeconomic cost associated with the processes. Theadvent of reliable sperm cryopreser vation andassociated recovery processes has now eliminatedmost reasons to not archive lines.The appointment of the Manager of EmbryologyServices within King’s College London (KCL) BiologicalServices, coupled with the technical support by theAnimal Technologists, has permitted rapid and efficientarchiving which in turn has led to the substantialreduction in “tick-over” colonies. Between September2015 and October 2017 various subsidy incentiveswere offered to research groups resulting in over 350lines being cryopreser ved with 97 removed as a liveresource. This is a significant ethical refinement as it isestimated to have prevented the breeding of anadditional 4,000 mice per year. Other benefits includereleasing of cage space for scientific research and theaccommodation of new mouse lines.The culture throughout small laborator y animalestablishments to maintain tick-over colonies has beensuccessfully challenged by centrally subsidised andtargeted archiving throughout KCL Biological Ser vicesUnits (BSUs), which has in turn facilitated furtherscientific work. Ethically and financially incentivisedarchiving is a noteworthy indication of our commitmentto implementing the 3Rs across King’s College London.Key wordsMouse, cryopreser vation, 3Rs, tick-over, animal welfare.IntroductionGenetically altered (GA) mice ar e an impor tant modelorganism with valuable mutations being created eachyear. In 2016 the Home Office statistics1showed that1,650,514 mice were returned under creation andbreeding of GA animals not used in experimentalprocedures.It has been common practice for genetically alteredmice to be maintained as a live resource, partly due toarchiving costs and associated efficiencies but alsodue to poor colony management. The process of tickingover colonies indefinitely is now unnecessary.The process of indefinite tick-over colonies is poorpractice for many reasons:1. Unnecessary production and killing of animals – theprocess of ticking over colonies is unethical asanimals are produced without being used forscientific purposes.2. Financially costly – long-term holding of even smallnumbers of mice is costly compared tocryopreservation of a colony.3. Poor genetic integrity – maintaining small closedcolonies speeds up genetic drift and the likelihoodof fixing new random mutations in a population ofmice.4. Poor Culture of Care – culling animals which are aresult of tick-over colonies is incredibly stressful toall personnel. Reducing the instances improvesmorale of staff which in turn improves the cultureof care within an establishment. Tick-over coloniesalso indicate a lack of awareness within goodcolony management practice.Reducing tick-over colonies has a number of benefits,including but not limited to; 3Rs reducing the numberDecember18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 155Tech-2-Tech115– It is the responsibility of anyone conductingresearch with animals that they do so in a mannerthat is ethical and follows all cur rent legislation andlocal policies.– As part of the 3Rs; by optimising your breedingschemes you can reduce the overall number ofanimals produced.– By reducing the number of animals, you reducewastage in terms of actual cost, resources andlabour.– It is also important that by refining your breedingschemes, you are also reducing cage counts whichcan be a critical factor within animal units.AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Clare Brazil-Adams, Helen Bailey,Alan Palmer, Rekha Subramaniam, Eva Gronroos andother staff members from EXP3 for the their helptowards this poster.ReferencesHome Office. Annual statistics of scientific procedures onliving animals Great Britain 2016. Found at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil e/627284/annual-statistics-scientific-procedures-living-animals-2016.pdf9 Aug:Animal Technology and Welfare 2/10/20 14:13 Page 115Optimising mouse production – implementation of the 3Rs

221August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2018 Animal Technology and Welfare155Time’s up for tick-over colonies…Do we now need to maintain so manyGA mouse lines?STUART NEWMAN and STEPHEN WOODLEYKing’s College London, Research Management and Innovation Directorate,Biological Services Unit, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1ULCorrespondence: stephen.woodley@kcl.ac.ukPlatform Presentation at IAT Congress 2018AbstractThe practice of continually breeding lines to maintainthem as a live resource either in-between studies orindefinitely “just in case” is common practice in manyanimal facilities. This process of “ticking over” colonieshas historically occurred due to the unavailability orunreliability of archiving services, coupled to theeconomic cost associated with the processes. Theadvent of reliable sperm cryopreser vation andassociated recovery processes has now eliminatedmost reasons to not archive lines.The appointment of the Manager of EmbryologyServices within King’s College London (KCL) BiologicalServices, coupled with the technical support by theAnimal Technologists, has permitted rapid and efficientarchiving which in turn has led to the substantialreduction in “tick-over” colonies. Between September2015 and October 2017 various subsidy incentiveswere offered to research groups resulting in over 350lines being cryopreser ved with 97 removed as a liveresource. This is a significant ethical refinement as it isestimated to have prevented the breeding of anadditional 4,000 mice per year. Other benefits includereleasing of cage space for scientific research and theaccommodation of new mouse lines.The culture throughout small laborator y animalestablishments to maintain tick-over colonies has beensuccessfully challenged by centrally subsidised andtargeted archiving throughout KCL Biological Ser vicesUnits (BSUs), which has in turn facilitated furtherscientific work. Ethically and financially incentivisedarchiving is a noteworthy indication of our commitmentto implementing the 3Rs across King’s College London.Key wordsMouse, cryopreser vation, 3Rs, tick-over, animal welfare.IntroductionGenetically altered (GA) mice ar e an impor tant modelorganism with valuable mutations being created eachyear. In 2016 the Home Office statistics1showed that1,650,514 mice were returned under creation andbreeding of GA animals not used in experimentalprocedures.It has been common practice for genetically alteredmice to be maintained as a live resource, partly due toarchiving costs and associated efficiencies but alsodue to poor colony management. The process of tickingover colonies indefinitely is now unnecessary.The process of indefinite tick-over colonies is poorpractice for many reasons:1. Unnecessary production and killing of animals – theprocess of ticking over colonies is unethical asanimals are produced without being used forscientific purposes.2. Financially costly – long-term holding of even smallnumbers of mice is costly compared tocryopreservation of a colony.3. Poor genetic integrity – maintaining small closedcolonies speeds up genetic drift and the likelihoodof fixing new random mutations in a population ofmice.4. Poor Culture of Care – culling animals which are aresult of tick-over colonies is incredibly stressful toall personnel. Reducing the instances improvesmorale of staff which in turn improves the cultureof care within an establishment. Tick-over coloniesalso indicate a lack of awareness within goodcolony management practice.Reducing tick-over colonies has a number of benefits,including but not limited to; 3Rs reducing the numberDecember18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 155December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare December 2018 Animal Technology and Welfare155Time’s up for tick-over colonies…Do we now need to maintain so manyGA mouse lines?STUART NEWMAN and STEPHEN WOODLEYKing’s College London, Research Management and Innovation Directorate,Biological Services Unit, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1ULCorrespondence: stephen.woodley@kcl.ac.ukPlatform Presentation at IAT Congress 2018AbstractThe practice of continually breeding lines to maintainthem as a live resource either in-between studies orindefinitely “just in case” is common practice in manyanimal facilities. This process of “ticking over” colonieshas historically occurred due to the unavailability orunreliability of archiving services, coupled to theeconomic cost associated with the processes. Theadvent of reliable sperm cryopreser vation andassociated recovery processes has now eliminatedmost reasons to not archive lines.The appointment of the Manager of EmbryologyServices within King’s College London (KCL) BiologicalServices, coupled with the technical support by theAnimal Technologists, has permitted rapid and efficientarchiving which in turn has led to the substantialreduction in “tick-over” colonies. Between September2015 and October 2017 various subsidy incentiveswere offered to research groups resulting in over 350lines being cryopreser ved with 97 removed as a liveresource. This is a significant ethical refinement as it isestimated to have prevented the breeding of anadditional 4,000 mice per year. Other benefits includereleasing of cage space for scientific research and theaccommodation of new mouse lines.The culture throughout small laborator y animalestablishments to maintain tick-over colonies has beensuccessfully challenged by centrally subsidised andtargeted archiving throughout KCL Biological Ser vicesUnits (BSUs), which has in turn facilitated furtherscientific work. Ethically and financially incentivisedarchiving is a noteworthy indication of our commitmentto implementing the 3Rs across King’s College London.Key wordsMouse, cryopreser vation, 3Rs, tick-over, animal welfare.IntroductionGenetically altered (GA) mice ar e an impor tant modelorganism with valuable mutations being created eachyear. In 2016 the Home Office statistics1showed that1,650,514 mice were returned under creation andbreeding of GA animals not used in experimentalprocedures.It has been common practice for genetically alteredmice to be maintained as a live resource, partly due toarchiving costs and associated efficiencies but alsodue to poor colony management. The process of tickingover colonies indefinitely is now unnecessary.The process of indefinite tick-over colonies is poorpractice for many reasons:1. Unnecessary production and killing of animals – theprocess of ticking over colonies is unethical asanimals are produced without being used forscientific purposes.2. Financially costly – long-term holding of even smallnumbers of mice is costly compared tocryopreservation of a colony.3. Poor genetic integrity – maintaining small closedcolonies speeds up genetic drift and the likelihoodof fixing new random mutations in a population ofmice.4. Poor Culture of Care – culling animals which are aresult of tick-over colonies is incredibly stressful toall personnel. Reducing the instances improvesmorale of staff which in turn improves the cultureof care within an establishment. Tick-over coloniesalso indicate a lack of awareness within goodcolony management practice.Reducing tick-over colonies has a number of benefits,including but not limited to; 3Rs reducing the numberDecember18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 155Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2019 winning entry Reprinted from ATW Volume 17.3 December 2018King’s College London, Research Management and Innovation Directorate,Biological Services Unit, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1UL UK December 2018 Animal Technology and Welfare155Time’s up for tick-over colonies…Do we now need to maintain so manyGA mouse lines?STUART NEWMAN and STEPHEN WOODLEYKing’s College London, Research Management and Innovation Directorate,Biological Services Unit, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1ULCorrespondence: stephen.woodley@kcl.ac.ukPlatform Presentation at IAT Congress 2018AbstractThe practice of continually breeding lines to maintainthem as a live resource either in-between studies orindefinitely “just in case” is common practice in manyanimal facilities. This process of “ticking over” colonieshas historically occurred due to the unavailability orunreliability of archiving services, coupled to theeconomic cost associated with the processes. Theadvent of reliable sperm cryopreser vation andassociated recovery processes has now eliminatedmost reasons to not archive lines.The appointment of the Manager of EmbryologyServices within King’s College London (KCL) BiologicalServices, coupled with the technical support by theAnimal Technologists, has permitted rapid and efficientarchiving which in turn has led to the substantialreduction in “tick-over” colonies. Between September2015 and October 2017 various subsidy incentiveswere offered to research groups resulting in over 350lines being cryopreser ved with 97 removed as a liveresource. This is a significant ethical refinement as it isestimated to have prevented the breeding of anadditional 4,000 mice per year. Other benefits includereleasing of cage space for scientific research and theaccommodation of new mouse lines.The culture throughout small laborator y animalestablishments to maintain tick-over colonies has beensuccessfully challenged by centrally subsidised andtargeted archiving throughout KCL Biological Ser vicesUnits (BSUs), which has in turn facilitated furtherscientific work. Ethically and financially incentivisedarchiving is a noteworthy indication of our commitmentto implementing the 3Rs across King’s College London.Key wordsMouse, cryopreser vation, 3Rs, tick-over, animal welfare.IntroductionGenetically altered (GA) mice ar e an impor tant modelorganism with valuable mutations being created eachyear. In 2016 the Home Office statistics1showed that1,650,514 mice were returned under creation andbreeding of GA animals not used in experimentalprocedures.It has been common practice for genetically alteredmice to be maintained as a live resource, partly due toarchiving costs and associated efficiencies but alsodue to poor colony management. The process of tickingover colonies indefinitely is now unnecessary.The process of indefinite tick-over colonies is poorpractice for many reasons:1. Unnecessary production and killing of animals – theprocess of ticking over colonies is unethical asanimals are produced without being used forscientific purposes.2. Financially costly – long-term holding of even smallnumbers of mice is costly compared tocryopreservation of a colony.3. Poor genetic integrity – maintaining small closedcolonies speeds up genetic drift and the likelihoodof fixing new random mutations in a population ofmice.4. Poor Culture of Care – culling animals which are aresult of tick-over colonies is incredibly stressful toall personnel. Reducing the instances improvesmorale of staff which in turn improves the cultureof care within an establishment. Tick-over coloniesalso indicate a lack of awareness within goodcolony management practice.Reducing tick-over colonies has a number of benefits,including but not limited to; 3Rs reducing the numberDecember18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 155Time’s up for tick-over colonies... Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?47A NDREW BLAKE TRIBUTE AWARDE NTRIEST ime for change? Practicalities ofimplementing non-aversive methodsfor handling miceJOHN WATERSMammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology,University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TECorrespondence: kimmy@liv.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2017 winning entryAbstractRecent studies have shown that the method choice forhandling laborator y mice is impor tant to animalwelfare. In 2015, 60% of all animals used in HomeOffice procedures were laborator y mice. Given thelar ge number of mice within global facilities, mousewelfare should be a high priority. Improved handling notonly leads to more consistent scientific data, it canalso lead to improved animal welfare. Historically micehave been picked up by their tail, a method that hasbeen passed down to generations of technologists andis widely accepted as a method of handling. Hurst andWest (2010) showed that picking up mice by their tailinduces aversion and high anxiety. By contrast, usingalternatives, such as a tunnel or cupped on the openhand, leads to voluntary approach to the handler, lowanxiety andanimals that more readily accept somephysical restraint. Hurst and West’s findings wereconsistent across strains and sex of laboratory mice,handlers with dif fering levels of experience anddiffer ent light periods (light/dark). From a welfareperspective, the response from the mice on a dailybasis is a positive step in the right direction.The evidence presented by Hurst and West indicatesthat a change to the standard method for picking upmice would provide improved welfare for millions ofmice worldwide. However, this will only happen if thenon-aversive methods are taken up by facilities. To besuccessful, the practicalities of these methods need tobe demonstrated and appropriate instruction providedfor technical staf f and researchers to aidimplementation of the methods.First, I gained information from talking to technologists,conducted a sur vey of their responses concerning keyissues and established practic al details ofimplementation in our own facility. I then played a majorpart in designing and constructing a video-basedtutorial with accompanying commentar y, todemonstrate the handling methods and their use incommon laborator y sit uations fr om a practical,technologist’s viewpoint. This includes ways to avoidcommon problems in implementation to reduce stressin both animals and the technologists carr ying out thehandling. Although my main focus was practicalimplementation from an animal technologist’sperspective, as this will have the greatest impact onimplementation, the tutorial provides important trainingmaterial for technologists and researchers alike.With valuable support from NC3Rs to provide a web-based resource, truly available to all (nationally andinternationally), the tutorial is now hosted on theNC 3Rs’ website (http://www.nc 3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial). Statistics gained from NC3Rs for thefirst six weeks since its launch show that the tutorial isalready being used in a wide range of countries inaddition to the UK. Feedback from fellow technologistsin the United States has further enhanced the hope thatanimals outside of the UK will also benefit from the non-aversive methods of handling that have been developed.April 2017 Animal Technology and WelfareSponsored by the Association of the BritishPharmaceutical IndustryAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 47

222Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020of mice produced, reduced cage occupancy, createsadditional space for current scientific research,improved staff morale, reduced risk of losingcolony/business continuity.In some cases, tick over colonies are permitted wherewaiting for a publication feedback e.g. may have torepeat work, future use is imminent so maintaining alive colony results in less overall harm (number of miceproduced, procedures, etc.), where archiving attemptshave been unsuccessful or are currently ongoing.The appointment of the Manager of EmbryologyServices within King’s College London, BiologicalServices, coupled with the technical support by theAnimal Technologists, has permitted rapid and efficientarchiving which in turn has led to the substantialreduction in tick-over colonies.CryopreservationTo archive mouse colonies we have used establishedprotocols to cr yopreserve both sperm3and embryos.4Significant advances have been made over the past 15years which help optimise the cryopreservation ofmurine sperm4and subsequent in vitro fertilisationmethodology5,6,7offering a quick, efficient and robustmethod to archive mutant mouse models on a range ofgenetic backgrounds, using a minimal number of mice.However, sperm freezing may not be appropriate if a lineis from a mixed or unknown genetic background thatneeds to be maintained, also if there are multiple orhomozygous mutations which need to be maintained. Ithas therefore been necessary in some cases to archivepreimplantation embryos. In our hands it is moreefficient to generate embryos by in vitro fertilisation, notonly does this give us a higher yield per donor femalebut also avoids the breeding and maintenanceassociated with requiring a stud bank.Case presentationBetween the dates of November 2015 and November2017 various incentives have been available to helpreduce the number of mouse colonies being “ticked-over” within KCL. Whilst establishing the Embryologyservices, RMID-Biological Services provided financialsupport to gather proof of concept of newly availableservices, the subsidies also acted as an incentive forthe use of these services promoting good colonymanagement.Proof of concept – the first fifteen sperm and embryocryopreservation sessions were provid ed free ofcharge.Subsidised archiving – half price archiving for all linesfor eighteen months where the line is being removed asa live resource, or for three months if the line is beingmaintained as a live resource.To improve the uptake of the services availableBiological Services Animal Technologists throughoutKCL highlighted lines which were being ticked-over andproactively engaged in discussion with colony ownersand managers to encourage archiving.Facility wide rederivation projects are taking placeacross KCL to improve the health status throughout theestablishment. To accomplish the rederivationproject/s, cryopreservation formed a key part of thestrategy. Archiving cryopreserved material in advancepermits the rapid and efficient recovery when newclean/refurbished areas are opened. This strategy alsobenefits colony management and business continuity.Because the rederivation work that is being performedis in the interest of animal welfare and improvedresearch, KCL Management agreed to subsidise thecosts so Biological Services could offer the servicefree of charge to research groups.DiscussionSince the establishment of the embryology services,up to November 2017 more than 350 mouse lines hadbeen cryopreser ved, with 97 being removed as a liveresource. We estimate this has prevented the breedingof roughly 4,000 mice per year, based on theassumption of that each tick-over colony would contain1-2 breeding pairs with a litter produced every 6-8weeks.In total 7,327 embryos have been cr yopreserved in 346straws and 5,900 sperm aliquots have been archived.The uptake and distribution of cryopreservationrequests peaked through Q2 and Q3 2016 perhaps dueto research groups utilising the discounted offersavailable. Subsequent request numbers stabilisedmoving for ward indicating confidence and satisfactionwith the techniques available.High staff morale can provide several benefits to anyorganisation or business such as improved productivity,focus and more. Because of the cryopreservationprocess, animal care staff wer e able to reduce thenumber of instances where animals were culled whichhad not previously undergone a scientific procedureother than breeding and maintenance. Reducing “tick-over” colonies has enabled animal care staff to focusgreater time to animal welfare and the personaldevelopment of their careers. This also helps tomaintain a good culture of care for staff to work withinand consequently greater pr oductivity.Due to the large number of colonies being removed asa live resource there has been an impact on financialincome. We believe this is an important area to discussalthough it should not be considered as a limitingfactor. Following this large-scale cryopreser vationprogramme the department saw a reduction ofTimes up for tick-over colonies… Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?156December18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 156Times up for tick-over colonies... Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?

223August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTimes up for tick-over colonies... Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?Times up for tick-over colonies… Do we now need to maintain so many GA mouse lines?157£171,550 per year on mouse maintenance incomeacross the seven BSUs.We did however see an increase on procedure incomeof 59% from embr yology services and experimentalprocedures performed by staff in New Hunt’s HouseBSU.ConclusionThe culture throughout small laboratory animalestablishments to maintain tick-over colonies has beensuccessfully and amicably challenged by subsidisedand tar geted archiving throughout KCL BiologicalServices.The successful programme has reduced unnecessarybreeding and maintenance of mice, provided furthertime for Animal Technologist development (CPD),created space for internal customers and externaltherapeutics companies.KCL Biological Services staff continue to activelyadvise colony managers/owners for improved breedingprogrammes, both to maintain genetic integrity andprevent over breeding.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all Biological Services staff andcolony managers who have contributed towards thiswork, also the Research Management and InnovationDirectorate, Biological Services for providing theresources to facilitate this work.References1Home Office (2017). Annual Statistics of ScientificProcedur es on Living Animals Great Britain 2016.2Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L. (1959). (as reprinted1992). The principles of humane experimental technique.Wheathampstead (UK): Universities Federation for AnimalWelfare.3Ostermeier, G.C., Wiles, M.V., Farley, J.S. and Taft, R.A.(2008). Conserving, distributing and managing geneticallymodified mouse lines by sperm cryopreservation. PloSOne, 3 (7), e2792.4Renard, J.P. and Babinet, C. (1984). High sur vival ofmouse embr yos after rapid freezing and thawing insideplastic straws with 1-2 propanediol as cryoprotectant. TheJournal of Experimental Zoology, 230(3), 443-448.5Takeo, T. and Nakagata, N. (2010). Combination mediumof cryoprotective agents containing L-glutamine andmethyl-{beta}-cyclodextrin in a preincubation mediumyields a high fertilization rate for cryopreserved C57BL/6Jmouse sperm. Laboratory Animals, 44 (2), 132-7.6Takeo, T. and Nakagata, N. (2011). Reduced GlutathioneEnhances Fertility of Frozen/Thawed C57BL/6 MouseSperm after Exposure to Methyl-Beta-Cyclodextrin. Biologyof Reproduction, 85 (5), 1066-1072.7Ishizuka, Y., Nishimura, M., Matsumoto, K., Miyashita,M., Takeo, T. and Nakagata, N. et al. (2013). Theinfluence of reduced glutathione in fertilization mediumon the fertility of in vitro-matur ed C57BL/6 mouseoocytes. Theriogenology, 80 (5), 421-6.December18:Animal Technology and Welfare 20/12/18 07:27 Page 157

224Animal Technology and Welfare August 202047ANDREW BLAKE TRIBUTE AWARDENTRIESTime for change? Practicalities ofimplementing non-aversive methodsfor handling miceJOHN WATERSMammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology,University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TECorrespondence: kimmy@liv.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2017 winning entryAbstractRecent studies have shown that the method choice forhandling laboratory mice is im por tant to animalwelfare. In 2015, 60% of all animals used in HomeOffice procedures were laboratory mice. Given thelarge number of mice within global facilities, mousewelfare should be a high priority. Improved handling notonly leads to more consistent scientific data, it canalso lead to improved animal welfare. Historically micehave been picked up by their tail, a method that hasbeen passed down to generations of technologists andis widely accepted as a method of handling. Hurst andWest (2010) showed that picking up mice by their tailinduces aversion and high anxiety. By contrast, usingalternatives, such as a tunnel or cupped on the openhand, leads to voluntary approach to the handler, lowanxiety and animals that more readily accept somephysical restraint. Hurst and West’s findings wereconsistent across strains and sex of laboratory mice,handler s with differing leve ls of exper ience anddifferent light periods (light/dark). From a welfareperspective, the response from the mice on a dailybasis is a positive step in the right direction.The evidence presented by Hurst and West indicatesthat a change to the standard method for picking upmice would provide improved welfare for millions ofmice worldwide. However, this will only happen if thenon-aversive methods are taken up by facilities. To besuccessful, the practicalities of these methods need tobe demonstrated and appropriate instruction providedfor technical staff a nd researchers to aidimplementation of the methods.First, I gained information from talking to technologists,conducted a survey of their responses concerning keyissu es and established practical details ofimplementation in our own facility. I then played a majorpart in designing and constructing a video-basedtuto rial with accompany ing comme ntary, todemonstrate the handling methods and their use incomm on laborator y situat ions from a practical,technologist’s viewpoint. This includes ways to avoidcommon problems in implementation to reduce stressin both animals and the technologists carr ying out thehandling. Altho ugh m y mai n foc us was practicalimpl ementation from an animal technologist’sperspective, as this will have the greatest impact onimplementation, the tutorial provides importanttrainingmaterial for technologists and researchers alike.With valuable support from NC3Rs to provide a web-based resource, truly available to all (nationally andinternationally), the tutorial is now hosted on theNC3Rs’ webs ite (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial). Statistics gained from NC3Rs for thefirst six weeks since its launch show that the tutorial isalready being used in a wide range of countries inaddition to the UK. Feedback from fellow technologistsin the United States has further enhanced the hope thatanimals outside of the UK will also benefit from the non-aversive methods of handling that have been developed.April 2017 Animal Technology and WelfareSponsored by the Association of the BritishPharmaceutical IndustryAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 47Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceJOHN WATERSMammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology,University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TE UK Correspondence: kimmy@liv.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2017 winning entryReprinted from ATW Volume 16.1 April 2017Andrew Blake Tribute Award Entries48IntroductionIn 2010, Hurst and West published a paper entitled“Taming Anxiety in Laboratory Mice” (Nature Methods7:825-826). This outlined the significant improvementsto the welfare of laboratory mice that can be seen byavoiding the traditional tail handling method and usinga non-aversive alternative.Picking up mice by the base of the tail has historicallybeen accepted as the method of choice for handlingthem but there has been an absence of any scientificdata to substantiate this method of handling. This hasbeen passed down through generations oftechnologists without any thought as to the impact ithas upon laboratory mice.Hurst and West (2010) pr esented significant data toshow that mice find tail handling aversive, resulting inhigh levels of anxiety in those picked up by the tail. Twoalternative methods of handling were presented that donot induce this aversion and anxiety, leading to morereliable scientific data and a significant improvement inmouse welfare. They compared the response oflaboratory mice picked up and held by three differentmethods: by the tail base, cupped on the open hand, orpicked up inside a transparent tunnel. In each handlingsession, the handler picked up each mouse in turn bythe designated method and held it for 30 s. After movingaway from the open cage for 60 s, the mice were han-dled again so that each mouse was picked up twice andheld for a total of 60 s. The voluntary response to thehandler was recor ded for each of the handling methods.This showed that mice habituated to tunnel or cuphandling are much more willing to interact voluntarilywith their handler, regardless of strain, handler’sexperience, and if carried out in the dark or light period.Hurst was awarded the 2010 NC3Rs’ prize for the mostoutstanding original contribution to scientific andtechnological advances in 3Rs. NC3Rs recognised thatthe work has the potential to improve the lives ofmillions of laboratory mice.Funded by a NC3Rs’ studentship, Gouveia (2014)carried out f ur ther research to establish thepracticalities of how long and how frequently mice needto be handled to gain the benefits of these alternativehandling methods. She showed that only brief handling(2s) was sufficient to improve theresponse towardsthe handler and anxiety, compared to those picked upby the tail. Frequent handling using non-aversivemethods increased tameness but this was not the casefor tail-handled mice.The potential impact that this work could have issubstantial. Handling stress confounds researchstudies involving physiological or behaviouralresponses. Increased data variability due touncontrolled handling stress can result in impaired testperformance (due to stress), false positive or negativeresponses, and requires more animals for testing. Highanxiety induced by previous handling experience cancause particularly strong impair ment of performance inbehavioural studies (Gouveia 2014; Gouveia and Hurstsubmitted). Handling also has a substantial impact onthe animal’s welfare. In 2015, mice made up 60% of allanimals used thr oughout the UK in Home Officeregulated procedures. This equated to over 1 millionmice, without taking into account the many animalsthat are held within facilities that undergo proceduresthat are not regulated. The number of mice within UKfacilities that could benefit from improved handlingcould be in the many millions, and considerably greaterthan this worldwide.However, the use of alternative methods to handlemice in the laboratory will only be of benefit if carriedout correctly. Incorrect implementation could result inhigh levels of stress, reducing the impact or evenhaving the reverse effect of increased stress andanxiety. Following the publication of Hurst and West(2010), there was uncertainty about how thealternative handling methods would impact upon thedaily running of animal units if there was widespreadadoption. It became clear that a few issues needed tobe addressed in order to facilitate a smooth transitionto the new methods of handling and allow laboratorymice and the technical/research community to benefitfrom the new findings.The largest impact would be on Animal Technologistsresponsible for the day-to-day care of animals, and whowould be responsible for the changeover of methods.For this, any negative impacts would have to be assmall as possible. The technologists needed guidancefrom somebody who had implemented the methods,recognised common mistakes made and could offerguidance on how to overcome any problems. My owncontribution has thus focussed on understanding therange of concerns and potential issues across a broadrange of Animal Technologists and facilities, and theprovision of simple, clear and practical advice. Tounderstand the range of concerns and potential issues,I organised a workshop on mouse handling at theInstitute of Animal Technology Annual Congress 2012.In addition to implementing the new methods in my ownlocal animal facility where I am NACWO, I conductedtwo small studies to gain some objective data onpotential issues of concern. I then helped to puttogether a tutorial on mouse handling, both by providingthe technologist’s perspective on practical handlingissues and by filming appropriate video clips withassociated commentary to demonstrate best practicein different scenarios and how to avoid commonproblems that we had identified. Initially, I presentedthe tutorial in person at an event organised by CharlesRiver and, on invitation, to the BSG TechnicianSymposium in Cambridge. This provided usefulAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 48Animal Technology and Welfare December 202047A NDREW BLAKE TRIBUTE AWARDE NTRIEST ime for change? Practicalities ofimplementing non-aversive methodsfor handling miceJOHN WATERSMammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology,University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TECorrespondence: kimmy@liv.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2017 winning entryAbstractRecent studies have shown that the method choice forhandling laborator y mice is impor tant to animalwelfare. In 2015, 60% of all animals used in HomeOffice procedures were laborator y mice. Given thelar ge number of mice within global facilities, mousewelfare should be a high priority. Improved handling notonly leads to more consistent scientific data, it canalso lead to improved animal welfare. Historically micehave been picked up by their tail, a method that hasbeen passed down to generations of technologists andis widely accepted as a method of handling. Hurst andWest (2010) showed that picking up mice by their tailinduces aversion and high anxiety. By contrast, usingalternatives, such as a tunnel or cupped on the openhand, leads to voluntary approach to the handler, lowanxiety andanimals that more readily accept somephysical restraint. Hurst and West’s findings wereconsistent across strains and sex of laboratory mice,handlers with dif fering levels of experience anddiffer ent light periods (light/dark). From a welfareperspective, the response from the mice on a dailybasis is a positive step in the right direction.The evidence presented by Hurst and West indicatesthat a change to the standard method for picking upmice would provide improved welfare for millions ofmice worldwide. However, this will only happen if thenon-aversive methods are taken up by facilities. To besuccessful, the practicalities of these methods need tobe demonstrated and appropriate instruction providedfor technical staf f and researchers to aidimplementation of the methods.First, I gained information from talking to technologists,conducted a sur vey of their responses concerning keyissues and established practic al details ofimplementation in our own facility. I then played a majorpart in designing and constructing a video-basedtutorial with accompanying commentar y, todemonstrate the handling methods and their use incommon laborator y sit uations fr om a practical,technologist’s viewpoint. This includes ways to avoidcommon problems in implementation to reduce stressin both animals and the technologists carr ying out thehandling. Although my main focus was practicalimplementation from an animal technologist’sperspective, as this will have the greatest impact onimplementation, the tutorial provides important trainingmaterial for technologists and researchers alike.With valuable support from NC3Rs to provide a web-based resource, truly available to all (nationally andinternationally), the tutorial is now hosted on theNC 3Rs’ website (http://www.nc 3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial). Statistics gained from NC3Rs for thefirst six weeks since its launch show that the tutorial isalready being used in a wide range of countries inaddition to the UK. Feedback from fellow technologistsin the United States has further enhanced the hope thatanimals outside of the UK will also benefit from the non-aversive methods of handling that have been developed.April 2017 Animal Technology and WelfareSponsored by the Association of the BritishPharmaceutical IndustryAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 47

225August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare47ANDREW BLAKE TRIBUTE AWARDENTRIESTime for change? Practicalities ofimplementing non-aversive methodsfor handling miceJOHN WATERSMammalian Behaviour and Evolution Group, Institute of Integrative Biology,University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston CH64 7TECorrespondence: kimmy@liv.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award 2017 winning entryAbstractRecent studies have shown that the method choice forhand ling laboratory mice is impor ta nt to animalwelfare. In 2015, 60% of all animals used in HomeOffice procedures were laboratory mice. Given thelarge number of mice within global facilities, mousewelfare should be a high priority. Improved handling notonly leads to more consistent scientific data, it canalso lead to improved animal welfare. Historically micehave been picked up by their tail, a method that hasbeen passed down to generations of technologists andis widely accepted as a method of handling. Hurst andWest (2010) showed that picking up mice by their tailinduces aversion and high anxiety. By contrast, usingalternatives, such as a tunnel or cupped on the openhand, leads to voluntary approach to the handler, lowanxiety and animals that more readily accept somephysical restraint. Hurst and West’s findings wereconsistent across strains and sex of laboratory mice,handler s with differing leve ls of exper ience anddifferent light periods (light/dark). From a welfareperspective, the response from the mice on a dailybasis is a positive step in the right direction.The evidence presented by Hurst and West indicatesthat a change to the standard method for picking upmice would provide improved welfare for millions ofmice worldwide. However, this will only happen if thenon-aversive methods are taken up by facilities. To besuccessful, the practicalities of these methods need tobe demonstrated and appropriate instruction providedfor technical staff a nd researchers to aidimplementation of the methods.First, I gained information from talking to technologists,conducted a survey of their responses concerning keyissu es and established practical details ofimplementation in our own facility. I then played a majorpart in designing and constructing a video-basedtuto rial with accompany ing comme ntary, todemonstrate the handling methods and their use incomm on laborator y situat ions from a practical,technologist’s viewpoint. This includes ways to avoidcommon problems in implementation to reduce stressin both animals and the technologists carr ying out thehandling. Altho ugh m y mai n foc us was practicalimpl ementation from an animal technologist’sperspective, as this will have the greatest impact onimplementation, the tutorial provides importanttrainingmaterial for technologists and researchers alike.With valuable support from NC3Rs to provide a web-based resource, truly available to all (nationally andinternationally), the tutorial is now hosted on theNC3Rs’ webs ite (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial). Statistics gained from NC3Rs for thefirst six weeks since its launch show that the tutorial isalready being used in a wide range of countries inaddition to the UK. Feedback from fellow technologistsin the United States has further enhanced the hope thatanimals outside of the UK will also benefit from the non-aversive methods of handling that have been developed.April 2017 Animal Technology and WelfareSponsored by the Association of the BritishPharmaceutical IndustryAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 47Andrew Blake Tribute Award Entries48IntroductionIn 2010, Hurst and West published a paper entitled“Taming Anxiety in Laboratory Mice” (Nature Methods7:825-826). This outlined the significant improvementsto the welfare of laboratory mice that can be seen byavoiding the traditional tail handling method and usinga non-aversive alternative.Picking up mice by the base of the tail has historicallybeen accepted as the method of choice for handlingthem but there has been an absence of any scientificdata to substantiate this method of handling. This hasbeen passed down through generations oftechnologists without any thought as to the impact ithas upon laboratory mice.Hurst and West (2010) pr esented significant data toshow that mice find tail handling aversive, resulting inhigh levels of anxiety in those picked up by the tail. Twoalternative methods of handling were presented that donot induce this aversion and anxiety, leading to morereliable scientific data and a significant improvement inmouse welfare. They compared the response oflaboratory mice picked up and held by three differentmethods: by the tail base, cupped onthe open hand, orpicked up inside a transparent tunnel. In each handlingsession, the handler picked up each mouse in turn bythe designated method and held it for 30 s. After movingaway from the open cage for 60 s, the mice were han-dled again so that each mouse was picked up twice andheld for a total of 60 s. The voluntary response to thehandler was recorded for each of the handling methods.This showed that mice habituated to tunnel or cuphandling are much more willing to interact voluntarilywith their handler, regardless of strain, handler’sexperience, and if carried out in the dark or light period.Hurst was awarded the 2010 NC3Rs’ prize for the mostoutstanding original contribution to scientific andtechnological advances in 3Rs. NC3Rs recognised thatthe work has the potential to improve the lives ofmillions of laboratory mice.Funded by a NC3Rs’ studentship, Gouveia (2014)carried out f ur ther research to establish thepracticalities of how long and how frequently mice needto be handled to gain the benefits of these alternativehandling methods. She showed that only brief handling(2s) was sufficient to improve the response towardsthe handler and anxiety, compared to those picked upby the tail. Frequent handling using non-aversivemethods increased tameness but this was not the casefor tail-handled mice.The potential impact that this work could have issubstantial. Handling stress confounds researchstudies involving physiological or behaviouralresponses. Increased data variability due touncontrolled handling stress can result in impaired testperformance (due to stress), false positive or negativeresponses, and requires more animals for testing. Highanxiety induced by previous handling experience cancause particularly strong impair ment of performance inbehavioural studies (Gouveia 2014; Gouveia and Hurstsubmitted). Handling also has a substantial impact onthe animal’s welfare. In 2015, mice made up 60% of allanimals used thr oughout the UK in Home Officeregulated procedures. This equated to over 1 millionmice, without taking into account the many animalsthat areheld within facilities that undergo proceduresthat are not regulated. The number of mice within UKfacilities that could benefit from improved handlingcould be in the many millions, and considerably greaterthan this worldwide.However, the use of alternative methods to handlemice in the laboratory will only be of benefit if carriedout correctly. Incorrect implementation could result inhigh levels of stress, reducing the impact or evenhaving the reverse effect of increased stress andanxiety. Following the publication of Hurst and West(2010), there was uncertainty about how thealternative handling methods would impact upon thedaily running of animal units if there was widespreadadoption. It became clear that a few issues needed tobe addressed in order to facilitate a smooth transitionto the new methods of handling and allow laboratorymice and the technical/research community to benefitfrom the new findings.The largest impact would be on Animal Technologistsresponsible for the day-to-day care of animals, and whowould be responsible for the changeover of methods.For this, any negative impacts would have to be assmall as possible. The technologists needed guidancefrom somebody who had implemented the methods,recognised common mistakes made and could offerguidance on how to overcome any problems. My owncontribution has thus focussed on understanding therange of concerns and potential issues across a broadrange of Animal Technologists and facilities, and theprovision of simple, clear and practical advice. Tounderstand the range of concerns and potential issues,I organised a workshop on mouse handling at theInstitute of Animal Technology Annual Congress 2012.In addition to implementing the new methods in my ownlocal animal facility where I am NACWO, I conductedtwo small studies to gain some objective data onpotential issues of concern. I then helped to puttogether a tutorial on mouse handling, both by providingthe technologist’s perspective on practical handlingissues and by filming appropriate video clips withassociated commentary to demonstrate best practicein different scenarios and how to avoid commonproblems that we had identified. Initially, I presentedthe tutorial in person at an event organised by CharlesRiver and, on invitation, to the BSG TechnicianSymposium in Cambridge. This provided usefulAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 48Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling mice

226Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries49feedback to improve the tutorial, which has now beenturned into a freely-available on-line resource, hostedon the NC3Rs website. Details of these activities areoutlined in separate sections below.Consultation with professionalAnimal TechnologistsThe opinions of Animal Technologists concerning thefindings by Hurst and West (2010), and their practicalimplementation in animal facilities, was gained via aworkshop at the Institute of Animal Technology 2012Congress which was attended by 60 delegates (allexperienced Animal Technologists). Following on from apresentation by Professor Hurst, I gave a presentationon practical issues and led an interactive question andanswer session to discuss the issues from my ownperspective after implementing the new methods in mylocal animal facility. The main purpose was to showbest practice and give some advice to help otherswishing to carry out the methods based on our ownexperience. The workshop would also help me gaininformation about the issues that others perceived orhad experienced. Each participant was provided with ahandset to submit answers to a set of 15 questions,which were collated with TurningPoint polling software.This allowed me to share responses instantaneouslywith the delegates to guide the discussion, and alsoallowed me to store the data for future analysis. Thequestions asked, and resulting responses, aresummarised in Table 1.Q1: Following on Hurst and West’s findings, does your facility currently implement new handling methods?Yes No17% 83%Q2: What is the main reason for technologists not implementing new methods?Time Cost Scientific protocol Manager instructed Other73% 0% 0% 9% 18%Q3: What is the most common method of handling laboratory mice in your facility?Tail Hand Tunnel Other95% 5% 0% 0%Q4: Roughly what % of animals in your facility consist of laboratory mice?0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%6 % 19% 22% 53%Q5: When transferring mice to a clean cage by the tail, do you support the mouse on your arm or hand?Yes, always Yes, sometimes No never30% 54% 16%Q6: What would be the mouse’s preferred colour choice for a home tunnel?Red Clear67% 23%Q7: Does your facility supply environmental enrichment for laboratory mice?Yes No97% 3%Q8: What is the main reason technologist’s supply enrichment?Improves welfare Direct instruction Scientific protocol Other100% 0% 0% 0%Q9: How much longer would you be prepared to add onto cleaning to improve welfare?None 1-2 seconds 3-4 seconds 5 seconds or more3% 33% 17% 47%Q10: By which of these methods are you more likely to be bitten?Tail (hand support) Tunnel Cup73% 3% 24%Table continued APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 49Andrew Blake Tribute Award Entries50This revealed that only 17% of facilities were yetimplementing the new handling methods for mice,although the work had been well publicised. Among the60 delegates, 95% reported tail to be the mostcommon method for handling laborator y mice in theirfacility. The main reason for not implementing the newmethods was the perceived time required (thought totake longer than tail handling by most respondents).However, it was interesting that 97% of workshopparticipants were willing to add at least 1-2 secondsper mouse to their cleaning schedule to benefit animalwelfare, and nearly half (47%) would spend 5 secondsextra per mouse. Two thirds of respondents also feltthat mice would prefer red over clear handling tunnels.It was encouraging to see that 73% indicated that theywould be more likely to implement a new handlingmethod following the workshop, though 19% were stillundecided. However, there were concerns regarding theimplementation and it was clear that tail handling wasstill the most common method in most facilities, morethan 15 months on from the Hurst and West (2010)publication. The challenge remained how to convincetechnologists and their managers to implement improvedmethods of handling within their establishments.Practical issuesTo address some practical issues, which were raised bytechnologists at the workshop and might inhibitimplementation of the new methods of handling, Iconducted two brief studies to gain some objectivedata, outlined below.Time issue concerns with alternativemethods of handlingWhile Hurst and West (2010) used a substantialduration of handling (60 s per day) to demonstrate themajor difference in mouse response to alternativehandling methods, Gouveia (2014) showed that onlybrief (2 s) handling was sufficient to make a difference.Further, my own experience of in-house implementationsuggested that simply handling mice to transfer thembetween cages at cleaning was sufficient to tame miceto the two non-aversive handling methods. Even so,others voiced concern that using alternative methodsto transfer mice during cage cleaning would add extratime to cleaning schedules. Cleaning is a major part ofa technologist’s daily routine. A method that adds extratime to an already tight time budget is not going to beattractive to technologists, bringing the benefits intoconflict with potential costs. It is of major importanceto find a balance between the two in order to eliminatestress from both the animal and technologist duringthis husbandry procedure.To understand whether there is likely to be anincreased cost of handling time during cage cleaning, Iset up a small study to compare the time required toclean mice out using three methods of handling:customary tail handling, encouraged into a tunnel, orcupped on the hand to transfer animals betweencages.I set up a camera to observe one of two technologistscleaning out laboratory mice. The 49 mice used were amixture of C57BL/6, BALB/c and ICR (CD-1) males andfemales (obtained from Envigo UK). The mice werehoused in conventional MB1 cages (North KentPlastics) in groups of 2-5, containing corn cobsubstrate and paper nesting material (IPS Ltd). Eachcage was enriched with a cardboard mouse houseQ11: Which of these lab species are you more likely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog3% 22% 0% 11% 64%Q12: Which of these lab species are you less likely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog8% 4% 84% 4% 0%Q13: After the evidence presented today, are you more likely to implement a new handling method?Yes No Undecided73% 9% 18%Q14: If you were to change from tail handling which method would you choose?Tunnel Cup Other54% 43% 3%Q15: Is it the role of an animal technician to develop better welfare practices?Yes No Don’t know94% 6% 0%Table 1. Responses to Institute of Animal Technology Congress 2012 workshop on mouse handling.APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 50

227August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTime for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries50This revealed that only 17% of facilities were yetimplementing the new handling methods for mice,although the work had been well publicised. Among the60 delegates, 95% reported tail to be the mostcommon method for handling laborator y mice in theirfacility. The main reason for not implementing the newmethods was the perceived time required (thought totake longer than tail handling by most respondents).However, it was interesting that 97% of workshopparticipants were willing to add at least 1-2 secondsper mouse to their cleaning schedule to benefit animalwelfare, and nearly half (47%) would spend 5 secondsextra per mouse. Two thirds of respondents also feltthat mice would prefer red over clear handling tunnels.It was encouraging to see that 73% indicated that theywould be more likely to implement a new handlingmethod following the workshop, though 19% were stillundecided. However, there were concerns regarding theimplementation and it was clear that tail handling wasstill the most common method in most facilities, morethan 15 months on from the Hurst and West (2010)publication. The challenge remained how to convincetechnologists and their managers to implement improvedmethods of handling within their establishments.Practical issuesTo address some practical issues, which were raised bytechnologists at the workshop and might inhibitimplementation of the new methods of handling, Iconducted two brief studies to gain some objectivedata, outlined below.Time issue concerns with alternativemethods of handlingWhile Hurst and West (2010) used a substantialduration of handling (60 s per day) to demonstrate themajor difference in mouse response to alternativehandling methods, Gouveia (2014) showed that onlybrief (2 s) handling was sufficient to make a difference.Further, my own experience of in-house implementationsuggested that simply handling mice to transfer thembetween cages at cleaning was sufficient to tame miceto the two non-aversive handling methods. Even so,others voiced concern that using alternative methodsto transfer mice during cage cleaning would add extratime to cleaning schedules. Cleaning is a major part ofa technologist’s daily routine. A method that adds extratime to an already tight time budget is not going to beattractive to technologists, bringing the benefits intoconflict with potential costs. It is of major importanceto find a balance between the two in order to eliminatestress from both the animal and technologist duringthis husbandry procedure.To understand whether there is likely to be anincreased cost of handling time during cage cleaning, Iset up a small study to compare the time required toclean mice out using three methods of handling:customary tail handling, encouraged into a tunnel, orcupped on the hand to transfer animals betweencages.I set up a camera to observe one of two technologistscleaning out laboratory mice. The 49 mice used were amixture of C57BL/6, BALB/c and ICR (CD-1) males andfemales (obtained from Envigo UK). The mice werehoused in conventional MB1 cages (North KentPlastics) in groups of 2-5, containing corn cobsubstrate and paper nesting material (IPS Ltd). Eachcage was enriched with a cardboard mouse houseQ11: Which of these lab species are you more likely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog3% 22% 0% 11% 64%Q12: Which of these lab species are you lesslikely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog8% 4% 84% 4% 0%Q13: After the evidence presented today, are you more likely to implement a new handling method?Yes No Undecided73% 9% 18%Q14: If you were to change from tail handling which method would you choose?Tunnel Cup Other54% 43% 3%Q15: Is it the r ole of an animal technician to develop better welfare practices?Yes No Don’t know94% 6% 0%Table 1. Responses to Institute of Animal Technology Congress 2012 workshop on mouse handling.APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 50Andrew Blake Tribute Award Entries50This revealed that only 17% of facilities were yetimplementing the new handling methods for mice,although the work had been well publicised. Among the60 delegates, 95% reported tail to be the mostcommon method for handling laborator y mice in theirfacility. The main reason for not implementing the newmethods was the perceived time required (thought totake longer than tail handling by most respondents).However, it was interesting that 97% of workshopparticipants were willing to add at least 1-2 secondsper mouse to their cleaning schedule to benefit animalwelfare, and nearly half (47%) would spend 5 secondsextra per mouse. Two thirds of respondents also feltthat mice would prefer red over clear handling tunnels.It was encouraging to see that 73% indicated that theywould be more likely to implement a new handlingmethod following the workshop, though 19% were stillundecided. However, there were concerns regarding theimplementation and it was clear that tail handling wasstill the most common method in most facilities, morethan 15 months on from the Hurst and West (2010)publication. The challenge remained howto convincetechnologists and their managers to implement improvedmethods of handling within their establishments.Practical issuesTo address some practical issues, which were raised bytechnologists at the workshop and might inhibitimplementation of the new methods of handling, Iconducted two brief studies to gain some objectivedata, outlined below.Time issue concerns with alternativemethods of handlingWhile Hurst and West (2010) used a substantialduration of handling (60 s per day) to demonstrate themajor difference in mouse response to alternativehandling methods, Gouveia (2014) showed that onlybrief (2 s) handling was sufficient to make a difference.Further, my own experience of in-house implementationsuggested that simply handling mice to transfer thembetween cages at cleaning was sufficient to tame miceto the two non-aversive handling methods. Even so,others voiced concern that usingalternative methodsto transfer mice during cage cleaning would add extratime to cleaning schedules. Cleaning is a major part ofa technologist’s daily routine. A method that adds extratime to an already tight time budget is not going to beattractive to technologists, bringing the benefits intoconflict with potential costs. It is of major importanceto find a balance between the two in order to eliminatestress from both the animal and technologist duringthis husbandry procedure.To understand whether there is likely to be anincreased cost of handling time during cage cleaning, Iset up a small study to compare the time required toclean mice out using three methods of handling:customary tail handling, encouraged into a tunnel, orcupped on the hand to transfer animals betweencages.I set up a camera to observe one of two technologistscleaning out laboratory mice. The 49 mice used were amixture of C57BL/6, BALB/c and ICR (CD-1) males andfemales (obtained from Envigo UK). The mice werehoused in conventional MB1 cages (North KentPlastics) in groups of 2-5, containing corn cobsubstrate and paper nesting material (IPS Ltd). Eachcage was enriched with a cardboard mouse houseQ11: Which of these lab species are you more likely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog3% 22% 0% 11% 64%Q12: Which of these lab species are you less likely to form a bond with?Rabbit Cat Mouse Primate Dog8% 4% 84% 4% 0%Q13: After the evidence presented today, are you more likely to implement a new handling method?Yes No Undecided73% 9% 18%Q14: If you were to change from tail handling which method would you choose?Tunnel Cup Other54% 43% 3%Q15: Is it the r ole of an animal technician to develop better welfare practices?Yes No Don’t know94% 6% 0%Table 1. Responses to Institute of Animal Technology Congress 2012 workshop on mouse handling.APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 50

228Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries51(Datesand Ltd) and a clear plastic tunnel (Clear Plasticsupplies, (50mm diameter, 130mm long 3mm thick).The two technologists were aware of the filming but werenot told the reason why until afterwards (to avoid biasingthe results). The technologists were of varying levels ofexperience but completely competent in all threemethods. It should be noted that the time recorded wascage transfer time only, and the time to remove anyenrichment was not recorded. Each technologist handledthe mice by each method, involving three separate cagecleans by each technologist.Wilcoxon matched pair tests compared the duration ofhandling between each pair of methods, taking handlerinto account. Ther e was no significant difference in theamount of time taken to clean mice by either tunnel orcup when compared to the traditional tail method(Figure 1). The cup method had a slight increase in timecompared to tunnel handling, due to some micejumping off the hand and back into cage. However,although this differed from tunnel handling, it was notsignificantly longer than for mice picked up andtransferred by the tail (Figure 1).I did not find that tunnel or cup handling added time toour cleaning procedures compared to tail handling,when carried out by personnel that were well practicedand competent in all three handling techniques.Carrying out a formal evaluation of the time it took topick up and transfer mice between cages duringcleaning allowed me to answer the question of time withconfidence when technologists showed concern abouthow it would impinge on their daily routine, and to easeany apprehension that changing handling methodswould add more time onto their daily workload. Acompletely independent test of the impact of tail versustunnel handling on the duration of cage cleaning wascarried out by Lynn McLaughlin in the main BiomedicalServices Unit at the University of Liverpool (talkpresented at the LASA conference, 2015). Thisconfirmed that technologists could clean out as quicklyusing a tunnel once very familiar and competent withthe method. However, she showed that it tooktechnologists time to get good at using the new method.Inevitably, some time is needed to gain good handlingskills using any method. The important issue is toensure that personnel know how to implement the newmethods in a safe and efficient way. Clearly, a resourcewas needed to help train technologists so that theycould learn best practice as quickly as possible.Tunnel preferenceThe initial work carried out at our animal facility, leadingto the publication of Hurst and West (2010) andGouveia and Hurst (2013), was carried out usingtransparent tunnels. However, there is general supportfor the use of red as the optimum colour choice forlaboratory animal enrichment, because mice arerelatively insensitive to red light and therefore perceivered shelters as darker. An issue raised was that micemight not want to utilise transparent tunnels within thecage as much as red tunnels, although clear tunnelsallow better observation of animals. As clear tunnelsthat are placed within cages for tunnel handling canalso double up as enrichment, would mice prefer a redtunnel over a clear one?I carried out a small observational study to determinewhether there was any major preference among 4singly housed male BALB/c laboratory mice. The micewere housed in M3 cages (North Kent Plastics) butmoved to a MB1 cage (North Kent Plastics) for theduration of the filming. The standard stainless steelmesh cage top was replaced by a clear Perspex topwith ventilation holes. Food and water were presentedwithin cage, with the water bottle in a metal holder andfood in a dish. The test cage contained corn cobsubstrate (IPS Ltd), paper nesting material (IPS Ltd)and a cardboard mouse house (Datesand Ltd). TheFigure 1. Cage transfer time (seconds) for mice handledby three methods (n = 98 transfers per method, mean± sem).Cage transfer time(s)Handling methodFigure 2. Number of visits by singly housed maleBALB/c mice to red and clear tunnels within a cage.(n = 4, mean ± sem).Mean no. of visitsAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 51

229August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTime for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries52mice were supplied with a choice of two similar plastictunnels (50mm diameter, 130mm long, 3mm thick),one red in colour and one clear. The mice were filmedover a four hour period during the active dark phase ofthe light cycle under red light to deter mine if the micehad a colour preference. The mice had an opportunityto habituate to the two tunnels prior to the test beingcarried out.There was no clear preference for one tunnel over theother. During filming, the mice visited both tunnels butdid not use either tunnel as a place to nest or spendlong periods of time. This confirmed our generalobservations when providing transparent or opaquetunnels as enrichment in cages within our facility. Themice enjoyed climbing over and going through thetunnels, indicating that a tunnel within the cage hasenrichm ent value regardless of the colour andtransparency, consistent with previous observations.While there is no major preference for one tunnel typeover the other, there are advantages to using a cleartunnel over a red tunnel. When handling mice using aclear tunnel, health checks can be conducted onnormal healthy animals, without having to remove theanimal or manipulate the mouse to examine its ventralsurface. Mice exhibit normal behaviours within thetunnel and remain calm, allowing any abnormalities inmovement or behaviour to be noticed through thetransparent surface. Visual inspections are moredifficult using red tunnels and any minor injuries couldbe missed. It is apparent that in our facility the mice donot use the tunnels as a nesting place, but more as anenrichment. The ability to conduct brief health checkswithin clear tunnels potentially can save a little time ondaily duties and help to ensure the good health of theanimals, providing a clear advantage for using clearover coloured tunnels.Mouse handling tutorialMy supervisor, Professor Hurst, gained funding througha BBSRC Sparking Impact Award to produce a tutorialthat would train technologists and researchers in thenew handling methods and explain the potential impactfrom both a mouse welfare and scientific perspective.This funding allowed me to spend the equivalent of oneday per week over a 9 month period working on thetutorial, from the initial design to finished product andpresentation to suitable audiences. I was specificallytasked with bringing a technologist’s perspective toillustrate the practical issues of implementing the newhandling methods in a busy animal facility. I also had toestablish suitable filming conditions to provide highquality video clips and then film suitable clips toillustrate the methods and their implementation,conducted with the help of Professor Hurst’s PhDstudent, Kelly Gouveia. The story board for the tutorialwas decided jointly between the three of us, based onfeedbac k previously gaine d. Kelly G ouv eia wasresponsible for putting together a section on scientificbackground to introduce the tutorial and explain whynon-aversive handling is important. We drafted theaccompanying commentary to provide clear instructionand advice, which was then appr oved in joint meetingswith Professor Hurst.The layout of the tutorial covers three main areas:1. Impact of human-animal interactions and handlingstress in mice. This introduces the value of themouse tothe scientific community as a universalmodel, but points out that the relationship betweenthe mouse and human handler is not wellunderstood.2. Introduction to non-aversive methods for handlingmice and effects on welfar e and experimentalresults. This covers reduction in stress to themouse and how this can improve scientific data.3. Practicalities of non-aversive handling: best practicefor implementation in routine husbandr y andexperimental procedures. This looks at how themethods can be implemented from a technical pointof view with minimum disruption to normal work. Italso addresses common difficulties experiencedand how to avoid these. This section comprises themain body of the tutorial and is the most crucial fortraining purposes.Ensuring the correct implementation of the alternativehandling methods is by far the most impor tant aspectof the tutorial, with the potential to make the largestcontribution to mouse welfare. However, even highlyexperienced animal technologists and researchers maynot have had appropriate training to correctlyimplement the new handling methods. Although theselook simple, I know from experience that if not carriedout well, they can take extra time and cause stress toboth the handler and the mice. We thus identified themain key issues and targeted video clips to provideclear visual demonstrations.Making instructional video clipsTo ensure high production quality, I filmed the videoclips using a Panasonic HDC-SD9 HD camcorder,mounted on a tripod. Extra lighting was provided using2 Polaroid 256 LED Video Light panels. After initialtrials, we decided that a clear MB1 cage base withoutcage enrichment would provide the clearest video clipsfor demonstration purposes, and used a curtain toprovide a plain non-distracting background. Videos clipswere trimmed of superfluous material to ensure thatviewers would focus only on the point being made andconverted into MP4 format. Still photographs were shotwith an Olympus E410 DSLR camera and edited usingOlympus Master editing software.APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 52

230Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries53Tunnel and cup handling as an alternative topicking up by the tailThe first video clips in the tutorial provide a simplevideo demonstration of tail, tunnel and cup methods forpicking up mice, to familiarise the viewer with whatthese methods involve. We also emphasise thatanimals that are picked up by tunnel or cup can still berestrained by the tail, as this does not increase stress.This ensures that people understand that it is pickingup mice by the tail that is stressful.Practicalities of tunnel handlingThis section deals with how to hold a handling tunnelcorrectly, how to get mice into the tunnel and returnthem to the cage. We show how to position the tunnelcorrectly to avoid mice bypassing the tunnel, and useof the free hand to guide the mouse into the tunnel. Weemphasise the need to take charge of the situation andnot let the mouse decide when to go inside the tunnel,as indecisiveness in this situation results in frustrationfor the technologist and increases handling time. Thevideo demonstrates that gently tipping the mouse outbackwards is the best way to remove the mouse, whileshaking the tunnel must be avoided. We also point outthe advantage of a plastic tunnel that the animalscannot grip but discuss the range of different tunnelsthat can be used.Practicalities of cup handingThis section deals with how to handle mice by thecupping method and return them back to their homecage. We show how to offer open hands to the mouse,use the corner of the cage, and that the mouse willhappily sit on the open hands. To return the mouse,the hands are lowered into the cage and the mousewill leave safely back to its cage. We show twomethods that can be used to habituate mice to sit onopen hands happily, without attempting to jump off.We show that the mouse can first be held betweenclosed hands for approximately 10 s before the handsare opened. We use a video clip to demonstrate thatmice typically are then willing to sit calmly on the hand,though warn that this may take a few sessions withvery jumpy animals. Once habituated, there i s nolonger any need to enclose mice within the hands. Wealso show that mice already habituated to beingpicked u p in a tunnel will sit calmly if then tipped outbackwards onto the open hand, combining the twomethods.Cage transferAs cage cleaning is one of the main reasons to handlemice, we first show that using the alter native methodstakes no longer than tail handling once practiced. Laterin the tutorial, we show video demonstrations of howthis can be easily achieved with each method withoutchasing mice around their home cage.Handling for common proceduresWe include video clips to demonstrate how to transferanimals picked up by tunnel or by cupping to scruffrestraint where procedures require this level ofrestraint, and that this can be achieved just as quicklyand practically when mice are picked up by the tail. Wealso present data showing that scruff restraint is notstressful for animals that have been accustomed totunnel or cup handling. Lastly, we show how easilyanimals can be transferred to other locations, such asan anaesthetic chamber, using either the tunnel or cupmethod.Testing out the tutorialI presented the tutorial to technologists andresearchers at two events using a PowerPoint format.One event was the Charles River sponsoredtechnologist event held in Liverpool, the other was anIAT Cambridge Branch Symposium entitled “Leave ourTails Alone”. The tutorial was presented to see if thecontent and level of the information worked well andwas well understood by fellow technologists. Thefeedback at the end of the presentations was wellreceived and the video content was felt to be importantin helping with the uptake.Online resourceIdeally, we wanted the tutorial to be freely available toanyone to watch at any time, either as part of a formaltraining course or for self-tuition. Following discussionswith NC3Rs, Mark Prescott offered to work with us andwith a video company to produce a professional onlineresource that they would host to help maximise theuptake. An online resource would allow the viewer tofast forward or rewind as required for furtherclarification. To ensure that the audio commentary wasas clear as possible, Katie Lidster from NC3Rs agreedto read the commentary as she had previousexperience on other NC3Rs videos. We then workedwith the video company to ensure that the timing ofcommentary and video fully corresponded to get overthe points we wanted to make, reviewed each draft andsuggested suitable amendments until we were happywith the final version.The tutorial was launched live on the NC3Rs website on26th September 2016 to correspond with the NC3RsAnnual Technician Symposium. This can be viewed at:http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorialI was invited to attend the symposium to discuss thetutorial and any questions or issues with fellowdelegates. Feedback once again was very positive, withsome technologists stating that they are slowlyimplementing the new techniques in their facilities.They particularly appreciated the opinion of anothertechnologist who understood what is expected ofanimal technologists and how the implementation ofAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 53I presented the tutorial to technologists and researchers at two events using a PowerPoint format. One event was the Charles River sponsored technologist event held in Liverpool, the other was an IAT Cambridge Branch Symposium entitled “Leave our Tails Alone”. The tutorial was presented to see if the content and level of the information worked well and was well understood by fellow technologists. The feedback at the end of the presentations was well received and the video content was felt to be important in helping with the uptake.

231August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTime for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries54new ideas can impact on their daily routines. All werein agreement t hat there are po sitive benefits tolaboratory mouse welfare, but there is still someuncertainty about the amount of time the new methodswill take to carry out.Analysis of mouse handling tutorial usageNC3Rs has been tracking the number of views of thetutorial since its launch, and where in the world it isbeing accessed from (Figur es 3 and 4). This indicatesthat the tutorial is being viewed in countries around theworld and not solely reaching UK establishments.Although the statistics cover only a six week periodsince the launch so far, it is very encouraging indeedthat the site has been accessed 2160 times and thetutorial played 1545 times over this time period.Figure 3. Summary of mouse handling tutorial views(total number and geographical spread) on the NC3Rswebsite for the first six weeks after launch (26thSeptember 2016 to 11th November 2016).Figure 4. Countries that have accessed the mousehandling tutorial on the NC3Rs website over the first sixweeks after launch (26th September 2016 to 11thNovember 2016).DiscussionThe tutorial provides a resource that is suitable foranimal technologists and fo r research staff andstudents, and is available to all relevant establishmentswithin the UK and worldwide. By highlighting commonproblems that can be encountered initially, it should beof particular help in aiding technologists with thetransition fr om tail handling to non-aversive methods.Ultimately, this will lead to improved welfare for millionsmice held in establishments across the world. As timeco nstraints have been poi nted out as the mostimportant factor in limiting uptake of the new methodsfrom a technologist’s point of view, it was vitallyimportant that this was addressed in the tutorial toshow how to capture animals efficiently. Otherwise thisimportant refinement could simply be discarded asbeing impractical in a busy establishment. From my ownpractical experience of implementation, I know that thisis not the case, but aproper training tutorial is essentialto show other technologists how to implement the newmethods and avoid time-consuming mistakes.With suppor t from NC3Rs, the tutorial is now avai lablevia their website. The initial uptake is encouraging,though we are looking at further steps to advertise thetutorial and encourage u ptake, particularl y outside theUK. I am also currently preparing a FAQ for the NC3Rswebsite to accompany the tuto rial. A technologist hasa moral obligation to up hold the highest standard ofwelfare for animals within their care. I have discoveredfor myself the considerable benefits of avoidi ng pickingup mice by the tail and using alternative methods fromthe obv ious difference this ma kes in th eir behaviour.By p laying a major role in putting together thi s tutorialand focusing on essenti al practical issues, I ho pe itwill provide other technologists and research ers withthe nec essar y information and encouragem ent tocarr y out the changes needed so that all mice willbenefit.TestimonialsThe value of promoting non-aversive methods via thetutorial and other presentations can be measuredthrough uptake by the research community. Althoughslow to start with, the methods are now starting to betrialled and taken up. I will continue to offer advice andsupport, and will tr y to help with any issues raised. Asa unit that now solely uses this method for routinehandling, we have been able tosee the benefits to themice without any negative effects on the day-to-dayrunning of our animal unit.The following are testimonials from technical staff whohave adopted the non -aversi ve methods in theirfacilities. They, too, are seeing the benefits without toomuch disruption to their daily routines. This is a smallchange to husbandry procedures but has a largeimpact upon mouse welfare.APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 54

232Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Time for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries55“Thanks especially for sharing the video; I have in turn shared it with my supervisor and she is consideringmaking the tunnel technique our standard practice for our facility, with Jess’s endorsement. Once our facility ison board, I’m confident other LARC facilities in the IU School of Medicine will learn about it as well. The videois compelling enough; I don’t see how anyone could argue against a simple change that demonstrably makesfor such happier animals.”“It’s ideas like this that so clearly improve animal well-being that make this work interesting and worthwhileevery day!”“Yes, I really like using tunnels to transfer mice from cage to cage. The video really sold me on it – seeing thedifference a simple change in handling has on each mouse’s well-being and how that affected their behavior ontasks like the star maze and their decreased fear response to a human hand, made me much more consciousof my handling technique.”“With naive mice, I find that it does take a little longer to transfer from cage to cage but with mice acclimatisedto the tunnels it is as quick and easy as any other method I’ve tried. More than anything, though, my own initialineptness with the tunnels slowed me down but once I was comfortable with it time is not an obstacle.”“I was very impressed with the video and happy to learn that there was something I could so easily change thatmakes a difference to these animals. It is just great to see that I can have an effect on the well-being of themice.”Thanks again,Nikki CobbLARCIndiana University School of Medicine“Department of Pathology at Cambridge has switched to tunnel/cup handling for all technologists. Someresearch staff have adopted this, others still utilise tail handling. We find newer r esearch staff members verykeen to engage with the new handling techniques although some ‘old-timers’ are a bit resistant.”“We now find tunnel handling as quick as tail capture, although initially there is a time investment. We moveda room at a time to the technique to manage the workload. The cost of tunnel purchase has been slightly offsetby reduced need for disposable cardboard tunnels now that each cage has a polycarbonate tunnel at all times.”“We’ve seen a huge improvement in interaction between mice and handler and definitely wouldn’t want to goback to tail capture.”Regards,Lisa WrightNACWO/Facility ManagerDepartment of PathologyUniversity of CambridgeTennis Court RoadCambridgeCB2 1QPAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 55

233August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareTime for change? Practicalities of implementing non-aversive methods for handling miceAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries56AcknowledgementsI would like to acknowledge the following, who havehelped make this resource material readily available:BBSRC Sparking Impact Award to JL Hurst, whichfunded creation of the tutorial.Professor J Hurst Mammalian Behaviour Group,University of Liverpool for the original research, gainingfunding and help with the tutorial, and providingcomments on this application.Dr Kelly Gouveia for the scientific validation included inthe tutorial. Also for her support and dedication inhelping produce the video material used within thetutorial.NC3Rs for funding and helping us to turn the tutorialinto a web-based resource, hosting this on theirwebsite (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial), and promoting uptake.Katie Lidster (NC3Rs) for narrating our audio script.Animal Technologists throughout the UK for their time inattending talks, for their valuable efforts in trying to getthe methods established within their own facilities andfor having the passion and belief that the new methodsare positively improving mouse welfare.References1Hurst, J.L. and West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety inlaboratory mice. Nature Methods 7:825-826.2Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (2013). Reducing mouseanxiety during handling: Effect of experience with handlingtunnels. PLoS ONE 8: e66401.3Gouveia, K. (2014). Taming anxiety and variation inlaboratory mice. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.4McLaughlin, L. (2015). Alternative handling technique formice: Pros and Cons. Presentation at LASA, London, UK5Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (submitted) Optimisingreliability of mouse per formance in behavioural testing:the major role of non-aversive handling.“After a small trial period with handling tubes/cupped hands, I as NACWO implemented a tail lift ban for allhusbandry interactions with our mice, eventually staff have found no major issues with time once we and themice got the hang of no tail lifting.”“I did invest in handling tubes but this investment was considered worthwhile as having the tubes in the majorityof the cages helped remind staff of the tail lift ban and promoted the change in our behaviour not to use thetails.”“The NC3Rs video has also helped show the benefits to staff with reservations or long standing tail lift skills.”“My AWERB, HOI and NVS are full supporters of us adopting Hurst and West’s paper on alternative methods ofhandling, researchers were informed of the proposed shift away from tail lifting and have agreed to this as aworthwhile refinement.”Andy MilnerTechnical Manager, Bioresources UnitUniversity of PortsmouthAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 56References1 Hurst, J.L. and West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nature Methods 7:825-826.2 Gouveia, K. (2014). Taming anxiety and variation in laboratory mice. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.3 Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (2013). Reducing mouse anxiety during handling: Effect of experience with handling tunnels. PLoS ONE 8: e66401.4 Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (2017). Optimising reliability of mouse performance in behavioural testing: the major role of non-aversive handling. Sci Rep 7, 44999 (2017).5 McLaughlin, L. (2015). Alternative handling technique for mice: Pros and Cons. Presentation at LASA, London, UKAndrew Blake Tribute Award Entries56AcknowledgementsI would like to acknowledge the following, who havehelped make this resource material readily available:BBSRC Sparking Impact Award to JL Hurst, whichfunded creation of the tutorial.Professor J Hurst Mammalian Behaviour Group,University of Liverpool for the original research, gainingfunding and help with the tutorial, and providingcomments on this application.Dr Kelly Gouveia for the scientific validation included inthe tutorial. Also for her support and dedication inhelping produce the video material used within thetutorial.NC3Rs for funding and helping us to turn the tutorialinto a web-based resource, hosting this on theirwebsite (http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/mouse-handling-tutorial), and promoting uptake.Katie Lidster (NC3Rs) for narrating our audio script.Animal Technologists throughout the UK for their time inattending talks, for their valuable efforts in trying to getthe methods established within their own facilities andfor having the passion and belief that the new methodsare positively improving mouse welfare.References1Hurst, J.L. and West, R.S. (2010). Taming anxiety inlaboratory mice. Nature Methods 7:825-826.2Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (2013). Reducing mouseanxiety during handling: Effect of experience with handlingtunnels. PLoS ONE 8: e66401.3Gouveia, K. (2014). Taming anxiety and variation inlaboratory mice. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.4McLaughlin, L. (2015). Alternative handling technique formice: Pros and Cons. Presentation at LASA, London, UK5Gouveia, K. and Hurst, J.L. (submitted) Optimisingreliability of mouse per formance in behavioural testing:the major role of non-aversive handling.“After a small trial period with handling tubes/cupped hands, I as NACWO implemented a tail lift ban for allhusbandry interactions with our mice, eventually staff have found no major issues with time once we and themice got the hang of no tail lifting.”“I did invest in handling tubes but this investment was considered worthwhile as having the tubes in the majorityof the cages helped remind staff of the tail lift ban and promoted the change in our behaviour not to use thetails.”“The NC3Rs video has also helped show the benefits to staff with reservations or long standing tail lift skills.”“My AWERB, HOI and NVS are full supporters of us adopting Hurst and West’s paper on alternative methods ofhandling, researchers were informed of the proposed shift away from tail lifting and have agreed to this as aworthwhile refinement.”Andy MilnerTechnical Manager, Bioresources UnitUniversity of PortsmouthAPRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 56

234Animal Technology and Welfare August 202043ANDREW BLAKE T RIBUTEAWARDRat litters in trouble – can they behelped?JOANNA MALTONImperial College, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NNCorrespondence: j.malton@imperial.ac.ukWinner of the Andrew Blake Tribute Award 2016IntroductionThe aim of this project was to investigate a husbandr yprotocol to reduce the pre-wean loss of an inbred,congeni c strain of rats. The offspring of th isestablished colony were backcr ossed to WKY femalesin order to produce the required genotype. A failure tothrive was observed when the pups reached 2 to 3weeks of age. It was observed that the pups whosurvived to weaning age exhibited stunted gr owthranging from 14 to 25g.Following careful observation of subsequent litters itbecame apparent that the mother rat’s lactation waseither reduced or non-existent when the pups reachedapproximately 2 weeks of age. The pups were notmature enough to eat solids and they quickly lostweight and became dehydrated with a large number ofpups dying before they reached weaning age.The table shows some information relating to theaffected litters before the study began.MethodAll of the rats in this colony are fed on Special DietsServices (SDS) RM3 expanded diet and were initiallyhoused in Tecniplast U1500 cages and later movedinto Tecniplast Double Decker cages (this change hadno influence on the results of this study).10 monogamous breeding pairs were set up for thestudy and 40 litters were observed. Each new litter wasmonitored closely from birth and the individual pupswere weighed twice per week until they reached 3weeks of age. Some of these breeding cages wereprovided with supplement diets from birth to the pupsreaching 3 weeks of age. The supplements providedwere:LactolMade by Beaphar, Lactol is a vitamin fortified milkpowder that is used as a milk replacement formula forpuppies and kittens, in addition it acts as a dietarysupplement for lactating dogs and cats. Lactol has atypical analysis of 24% crude protein, 5% oil, 3% ashand 2% fibre.April 2016 Animal Technology and WelfareYear #Litters #Pups #Lost Pre wean Averageborn born pre loss% litterweaning size2003 55 476 53 11% 8.62004 96 571 74 13% 5.92005 72 371 74 20% 5.12006 46 183 48 26% 3.92007 29 171 25 15% 5.82008 45 303 64 21% 6.72009 31 222 28 13% 7.12010 42 286 50 17% 6.8Table 1. Historical breeding data.April 2016 latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:27 Page 43Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped?JOANNA MALTONImperial College, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN UK Correspondence: sj.malton@imperial.ac.ukAndrew Blake Tribute Award winning entry 2016Reprinted from ATW Volume 15.1 April 2016Sponsored by Institute of Animal Technology and Animals in Science Education Trust57A S-ET CONGRESS 2017B URSA RY COMPETITIONE SSAYSDescribe the five aspects of a traineeanimal technician’s job that you think arethe most important – in each case justifythe choice you have madeMICAH DUPONTUniversity of Birmingham, Biomedical Services Unit, Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, BirminghamB15 2TTCor respondence: micahraidupont@gmail.comWinner of the AS-ET Bursary Competition to attend Congress 2017The five C’sCommitment – To the animals that are in your care 24hours a day, 365 days a year and ensuring they havethe highest quality of care throughout their lifetime. Thekey commitment of animal technicians is guaranteeingthat all animals within the facility have their appropriatewelfare and health needs met, whether it is somethingas simple as ensuring that animals have theappropriate food for their life or physiological state ormore complex needs such as ensuring that an animalis given the correct and most appropriate analgesiaand anaesthetics when used for surgical procedures.Confirming each and ever y animal is checked aApril 2017 Animal Technology and WelfareThe Animals in Science Education Trust (AS-ET) is a charity registered under UK Charity lawwith the objective of advancing education and promoting excellence in the care and welfareof animals used in science.The essays included in this issue were amongst those submitted for the second AS-ETBursary competition to attend IAT Congress 2017. The intention of the bursary is toencourage junior animal technical staff to extend their knowledge and experience byattending the largest animal technology meeting in the UK. More information includingdetails of how you can support AS-ET can be found at http://www.animalsinscienceeducationtrust.org.uk/Applications were invited from animal technical staff based in the UK or the Republic ofIreland who were awarded the IAT Level 2 Diploma in Laboratory Animal Science andTechnology in 2014, 2015 or 2016. The successful applicant is selected on the basis of a1000 word essay on a prescribed subject. The 2016 subject was:APRIL latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 07:28 Page 57Institute ofAnimal TechnologyAnimal Technology and Welfare December 2020

235August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareRat litters in trouble – can they be helped?Andrew Blake Tribute Award44Powdered RM3This is a finely ground version of an expanded pelletproduced by SDS for breeding rodents and has a typicalanalysis of 22.4% crude protein, 4.2% crude fat, 7%ash and 4.2% fibre.The first litter of each pair received no supplementaryfeeds unless it became apparent that they were notgoing to thrive without further intervention in whichcase they were given RM3 mash daily (made up asbelow) until their condition improved.When subsequent litters were born the parents wereoffered one of 3 supplemental feeds daily until theirpups were weaned.These supplemental feeds were given in small ceramichamster dishes as follows:RM3 MashEach pair were given a dish of mash made up of 30mlpowdered RM3 to 60ml of water. Fresh mash wasmade each day.Lactol FormulaEach pair were given a dish of formula made up of 30mllactol powder to 60ml of water. Fresh formula wasmade daily.Finally all supplementar y feeding was stopped and thebreeding pair temporarily separated once the femalewas pregnant to prevent post-partum mating. Thepurpose of this was to determine whether rearing alitter whilst being pregnant was impairing the female’sability to feed her young.ResultsThe following graphs show the growth rate of individualpups (the key to the left of each graph shows thenumber of the pup and the colour it is represented by).Each chart shows the results from different trials. the average weight at weaning was 28g 79% of pups survived past weaning ageFigure 1. R47A backcross female with litter at 2 to 3weeks of age showing limited milk production.Figure 2. Congenic R47A female showing obviouslactation with a litter at 2 to 3 weeks of age.Figure 3. This image shows the difference in sizebetween an R47A backcross pup (on the left) and aCongenic R47A at 20 days old.Figure 4. Once their eyes opened the pups quicklylearnt from their parents where to find food.Figure 5. Growth rates – no supplements given.April 2016 latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:27 Page 44

236Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Rat litters in trouble – can they be helped?Andrew Blake Tribute Award45 all pups showed a loss of weight or maintained thesame bodyweight between 1.5 and 3 weeks of age all pups gained weight after weaning the average weight at 3 weeks of age was 25g 67% of pups born survived past weaning age the majority of pups lost weight or stopped gainingweight between 1.5 and 3 weeks of age all pups gained weight after weaning the average weight at weaning age was 31g 76% of pups born survived past weaning ageYear #Litters #Pups #Lost Pre wean Averageborn born pre loss% litterweaning size2011 36 368 34 13% 7.42012 18 110 12 11% 6.12013 36 309 29 9% 8.52014 24 184 1 0.5 7.62015 18 158 10 6% 8.7Table 2. Current breeding data.Figure 6 . Growth rates – Lactol Formu lasupplementation.Figure 7. Growth rates – RM3 mash supplementation.Figure 8. Growth rates – male r emoved before litterborn. the majority of pups lost weight or stayed at thesame weight between 1.5 and 3 weeks of age all pups gained weight after weaning average weight at weaning 40g 100% of pups survived past weaning age 1 pup lost weight between 2.5 and 3 weeks of age,all others gained weight consistently up to and pastweaning ageConclusion– Providing RM3 mash improved the average weanweight of the offspring.– Offering lactol formula had little influence on thewean weight of the pups.– Giving supplementary food/milk did not improve thesurvival rate of the pups.Removing the male prior to the female giving birth wasthe only method that had a positive effect on thefemales ability to pr ovide a constant supply of milk fortheir pups and as a result the offspring were all healthyand a good weight at weaning age.These results indicate that the best way to producehealthy litters from this strain is to remove the maleonc e pr egna ncy has been confirmed. This wouldprovide healthier research models for the studies theseanimals have been produced for.Offspring produced in this manner could go on toproduce better litters in the future.Separating the pair once pregnancy is confirmed alsobenefits the female as it allows her time to recoverbefore having another litter. It was observed that someof the females in this colony lost weight whist rearingtheir litters resulting in them being unable to sustainthe following litter for more than a few days.This study was designed specifically for this strain ofrats to try to find a solution to the problems that wereobserved.April 2016 latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:27 Page 45

237August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareRat litters in trouble – can they be helped?Andrew Blake Tribute Award46I am pleased to say that since the completion of thisstudy the researchers looking after the colony agreed(after some discussion) to separate the females oncepregnancy was confirmed. We started separating thefemales in 2012 and although there is still a slight dropin weight during the pups transition from milk on tosolids have seen further reduction in the pre-wean lossas can be seen in the chart below. The slightly higherloss for this year was due to a single litter of 11 pupswhich failed to thrive resulting in only 2 making it toweaning age.In addition to the reduction in the number of pups beinglost pre-weaning there has also been an improvementwith regards the weight of the pups being produced. Ascan be seen in the following chart. Although there is stilla dip in weight when the pups reach around 2 weeks ofage the recovery time is much faster with the pups onlyneeding to receive RM3 Mash supplementary feeds for2 to 3 days whereas initially they would have requiredthe mash for at least a week if not longer.AcknowledgementsThanks goes to Mandy Thorpe, Ray Edgar, Nicole Clarkand Maeve Troy together with all the CBS technologistsfor all their help and allowing me time to complete thisstudy. I would also like to thank the Researchers incharge of the colony who have taken on board myfindings and have a healthier colony as a result.SuppliersBeaphar – manufacturers of Sherleys Lactol.Special Diets Services – manufacturers of RMS Diet.Figure 9. Previous litter weights compared with 2015weights.April 2016 latest:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:27 Page 46

238Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Introduction Zebrafish has joined the mouse as one of the mostimportant model organisms (MO) to study biologicalprocesses in vivo, due to their high fecundity, rapidgeneration time and optical translucency during earlyembryogenesis. The mouse, due to its genetic tractability, has been astable research tool for over a century. In this timemuch has been done to understand the husbandryrequirements of the species including dietar yrequirements. While there is a considerable amount ofliterature about Zebrafish research there is ver y littlewith regards to their husbandry requirements, mostimportantly their nutritional needs. Many researchfacilities suffer with high mortality rates within theirZebrafish fry as well as deformities and gender bias.Poor dietary provision such as over or under feeding ora poor quality of diet is a major contributing factor.Here we have looked at a variety of feeding regimesthat can potentially enhance the survival rate andquality of life for Zebrafish fr y. The overall aim is todefine the optimal breeding diet and regimes tosupport lar val and fry development by improvingsurvival rates and providing adequate nutrients toreduce the chance of deformities occurring as well asimproving gender ratio.Deformed fish – lack of nutritionalrequirements?Zebrafish diets Over 100 dry fish foods are commercially available.Only around 5% of these diets claim to be a specialistZebrafish diet. Invariably these diets have differentnutritional values and can be in multiple forms e.g.granules, pellets, flake or sticks. These are available inDecember 2012 Animal Technology and WelfareFood trials conducted to improve thesurvival and development of ZebrafishNICOLA GOODWIN*, ELISABETH BUSCH-NENTWICH, ROSS KETTLEBOROUGH, DAVID MACDONALD, ROBERT MOTTRAM, PETER THOMPSON, DIANE HAZLEHURST, JAMES BUSSELL and DEREK STEMPLEWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA*Corresponding author: ng3@sanger.ac.ukPresented at the Institute of Animal Technology Congress, 2012Figure 1. How a normal healthy Zebrafish shouldappear at 3 months of age.Figures 2 & 3. The deformities found in the Zebrafishreared on ZM at 3 months of age.Curved spineDeformed peduncleClamped caudal finDomed head shape197DEC 12.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:36 Page 197Introduction Zebrafish has joined the mouse as one of the mostimportant model organisms (MO) to study biologicalprocesses in vivo, due to their high fecundity, rapidgeneration time and optical translucency during earlyembryogenesis. The mouse, due to its genetic tractability, has been astable research tool for over a century. In this timemuch has been done to understand the husbandryrequirements of the species including dietar yrequirements. While there is a considerable amount ofliterature about Zebrafish research there is ver y littlewith regards to their husbandry requirements, mostimportantly their nutritional needs. Many researchfacilities suffer with high mortality rates within theirZebrafish fry as well as deformities and gender bias.Poor dietary provision such as over or under feeding ora poor quality of diet is a major contributing factor.Here we have looked at a variety of feeding regimesthat can potentially enhance the survival rate andquality of life for Zebrafish fr y. The overall aim is todefine the optimal breeding diet and regimes tosupport lar val and fry development by improvingsurvival rates and providing adequate nutrients toreduce the chance of deformities occurring as well asimproving gender ratio.Deformed fish – lack of nutritionalrequirements?Zebrafish diets Over 100 dry fish foods are commercially available.Only around 5% of these diets claim to be a specialistZebrafish diet. Invariably these diets have differentnutritional values and can be in multiple forms e.g.granules, pellets, flake or sticks. These are available inDecember 2012 Animal Technology and WelfareFood trials conducted to improve thesurvival and development of ZebrafishNICOLA GOODWIN*, ELISABETH BUSCH-NENTWICH, ROSS KETTLEBOROUGH, DAVID MACDONALD, ROBERT MOTTRAM, PETER THOMPSON, DIANE HAZLEHURST, JAMES BUSSELL and DEREK STEMPLEWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA*Corresponding author: ng3@sanger.ac.ukPresented at the Institute of Animal Technology Congress, 2012Figure 1. How a normal healthy Zebrafish shouldappear at 3 months of age.Figures 2 & 3. The deformities found in the Zebrafishreared on ZM at 3 months of age.Curved spineDeformed peduncleClamped caudal finDomed head shape197DEC 12.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:36 Page 197Introduction Zebrafish has joined the mouse as one of the mostimportant model organisms (MO) to study biologicalprocesses in vivo, due to their high fecundity, rapidgeneration time and optical translucency during earlyembryogenesis. The mouse, due to its genetic tractability, has been astable research tool for over a century. In this timemuch has been done to understand the husbandryrequirements of the species including dietar yrequirements. While there is a considerable amount ofliterature about Zebrafish research there is ver y littlewith regards to their husbandry requirements, mostimportantly their nutritional needs. Many researchfacilities suffer with high mortality rates within theirZebrafish fry as well as deformities and gender bias.Poor dietary provision such as over or under feeding ora poor quality of diet is a major contributing factor.Here we have looked at a variety of feeding regimesthat can potentially enhance the survival rate andquality of life for Zebrafish fr y. The overall aim is todefine the optimal breeding diet and regimes tosupport lar val and fry development by improvingsurvival rates and providing adequate nutrients toreduce the chance of deformities occurring as well asimproving gender ratio.Deformed fish – lack of nutritionalrequirements?Zebrafish diets Over 100 dry fish foods are commercially available.Only around 5% of these diets claim to be a specialistZebrafish diet. Invariably these diets have differentnutritional values and can be in multiple forms e.g.granules, pellets, flake or sticks. These are available inDecember 2012 Animal Technology and WelfareFood trials conducted to improve thesurvival and development of ZebrafishNICOLA GOODWIN*, ELISABETH BUSCH-NENTWICH, ROSS KETTLEBOROUGH, DAVID MACDONALD, ROBERT MOTTRAM, PETER THOMPSON, DIANE HAZLEHURST, JAMES BUSSELL and DEREK STEMPLEWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA*Corresponding author: ng3@sanger.ac.ukPresented at the Institute of Animal Technology Congress, 2012Figure 1. How a normal healthy Zebrafish shouldappear at 3 months of age.Figures 2 & 3. The deformities found in the Zebrafishreared on ZM at 3 months of age.Curved spineDeformed peduncleClamped caudal finDomed head shape197DEC 12.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:36 Page 197Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA UK Reprinted from ATW Volume 11.3 December 2012Animal Technology and Welfare December 2020

239August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and Welfarevarious sizes from 5microns or above with variable sinkand float rates. An alternative to a manufactured feedis live food. Of these the 3 most commonly used areArtemia (Brine shrimp), Paramecia (Protozoa) andRotifers.ParameciaLive food is commonly used within Zebrafish facilities,with Paramecia being the most popular. Paramecia is asingle celled ciliate protozoa which ranges from 50-350µm in length. It propels its body by the simple ciliaat speeds of 20 body lengths per second. It is culturedwithin our facility in Petri dishes and fed yeast andwheat grains. Survival rates for fry reared on Parameciahave been recorded as high as 100%. Trial 1ZM Larval (Current) vs. Kyowa Larval (Specialist).These are both a dry powdered diet of the samemicron. From 5 days of age; half of the fry were rearedon ZM Laval and half reared on Kyowa. All fry were heldin 2 litre tanks at a density of 50 fry per tank on a non-drip flow system until 15 days of age. Ar temia was alsofed from 15 days onwards. The results were collectedon the day of transfer to adult modules – 84 days ofage. 6 study groups were assessed.Trial 2Comparison between ZM Laval diet and Zeigler Lavaldiet. Zeigler Laval is defined as a highly digestible dietwhich is available in sizes <100 to 500 microns. Dueto the particle size and digestibility it is said to besuitable for very young fr y.Table 2. Fry Survival rate when reared on ZM Laval dietvs. Zeigler Laval diet.Trial 3100 fry were reared on Paramecia and Zeigler Lavaldiet. The controls were fed Zeigler from 5 days of agewhereas the trial fr y were fed Paramecia from 5-15days of age, before they were then also reared onZeigler. All fry were given Artemia from 15 days of age.As the paramecia are fed within 40mls of system watertwice each day the controls were also dosed with thesame amount of water. Fry were reared in 2 litre tanksunder the same conditions. Table 3. Survival rates of fry reared on Paramecia vs.Zeigler.Results and discussion Trials 1 and 2 clearly show that the diet fed to fry canhave a profound effect on their development, theirpotential for growth deformities and their likely survivalrate and sex ratio. Of the powdered diet, Kyowa Laval showed goodsurvival rate, tightest sex ratio and lowest deformityPoster Presentations5 Figure 4: Examples of diets Over 100 dry fish foods are commercially available. Only around 5% of these diets claim to be a specialist Zebrafish diet. Invariably these diets have different nutritional values and can be in multiple forms e.g. granules, pellets, flake or sticks. These are available in various sizes from 5microns or above with variable sink and float rates. An alternative to a manufactured feed is live food. Of these the 3 most commonly used are Artemia (Brine shrimp), Paramecia (Protozoa) and Rotifers. Paramecia: Live food is commonly used within Zebrafish facilities, with Paramecia being the most popular. Paramecia is a single celled ciliate protozoa which ranges from 50-350µm in length. It propels its body by the simple cilia at speeds of 20 body lengths per second. It is cultured within our facility in Petri dishes and fed yeast and wheat grains. Survival rates for fry reared on Paramecia have been recorded as high as 100%. Figure 4. Examples of diets.6 Figure 5: Close up of live food Trial 1: ZM Larval (Current) vs. Kyowa Larval (Specialist). These are both a dry powdered diet of the same micron. From 5 days of age; half of the fry were reared on ZM Laval and half reared on Kyowa. All fry were held in 2 litre tanks Figure 5. Close up of live food.Table 1. Fry survival rate when reared on ZM Laval dietvs. Kyowa Laval diet.7 at a density of 50 fry per tank on a non-drip flow system until 15 days of age. Artemia was also fed from 15 days onwards. The results were collected on the day of transfer to adult modules ± 84 days of age. 6 study groups were assessed. Diet Av. Fry into nursery Av. Transferred Survival % No. of Male No. of Female % of deformed fry Kyowa 90 73 58-100% 37 36 0-4% ZM 90 57 49-91% 25 31 5-44% Av, survival for fry reared on Kyowa 82% Av, survival for fry reared on ZM 66% Table 1: Fry survival rate w.....en reared on ZM Laval diet vs. Kyowa Laval diet. Trial 2: Comparison between ZM Laval diet and Zeigler Laval diet. Zeigler Laval is defined as a highly digestible diet which is available in sizes <100 to 500 7 at a density of 50 fry per tank on a non-drip flow system until 15 days of age. Artemia was also fed from 15 days onwards. The results were collected on the day of transfer to adult modules ± 84 days of age. 6 study groups were assessed. Diet Av. Fry into nursery Av. Transferred Survival % No. of Male No. of Female % of deformed fry Kyowa 90 73 58-100% 37 36 0-4% ZM 90 57 49-91% 25 31 5-44% Table 1: Fry survval rate hen reared on ZM Laval diet vs. Kyowa Laval diet. Trial 2: Comparison between ZM Laval diet and Zeigler Laval diet. Zeigler Laval is defined as a highly digestible diet which is available in sizes <100 to 500 8 microns. Due to the particle size and digestibility it is said to be suitable for very young fry. Diet Av. Fry per study Av. Alive day 30 Av. Transferred Spread of % survival No. of male No. of female % of deformed fry Zeigler 150 104 97 61-77% 46 51 5-20% ZM 150 55 45 12-55% 30 15 32-61% Av, survival for fry reared on ZM 30% Av. survival for fry reared on Zeigler 65% Av. survival for fry reared on ZM 30% Table 2: Fry Survival rate when reared on ZM Laval diet vs. Zeigler Laval diet. Trial 3: 1000 fry were reared on Paramecia and Zeigler Laval diet. The controls were fed Zeigler from 5 days of age whereas the trial fry were fed Paramecia from 5-15 days of age, before they were then also reared on Zeigler. All fry were given Artemia from 15 days of age. As the paramecia are fed within 40mls of system 8 microns. Due to the particle size and digestibility it is said to be suitable for very young fry. Diet Av. Fry per study Av. Alive day 30 Av. Transferred Spread of % survival No. of male No. of female % of deformed fry Zeigler 150 104 97 61-77% 46 51 5-20% ZM 150 55 45 12-55% 30 15 32-61% Av, survival for fry reared on ZM 30% Table 2: Fry Survival rate when reared on ZM Laval diet vs. Zeigler Laval diet. Trial 3: 1000 fry were reared on Paramecia and Zeigler Laval diet. The controls were fed Zeigler from 5 days of age whereas the trial fry were fed Paramecia from 5-15 days of age, before they were then also reared on Zeigler. All fry were given Artemia from 15 days of age. As the paramecia are fed within 40mls of system 9 water twice each day the controls were also dosed with the same amount of water. Fry were reared in 2 litre tanks under the same conditions. Diet Av. Fry placed into Nursery Av. Alive day 30 Survival rate range % of deformed fry Paramecia 83 76 87-94% 0 Zeigler 83 52 20-78% 2% Average survival rate for Zeigler reared Fry 60% Average survival rate for Paramecia reared Fry 91% Table 3: Survival rates of fry reared on Paramecia vs. Zeigler Results and conclusions: Trials 1 and 2 clearly show that the diet fed to fry can have a profound effect on their development, their potential for growth deformities and their likely survival rate and sex ratio. Of the powdered diet, Kyowa Laval showed good survival rate, tightest sex ratio and lowest deformity levels. ZM Laval diet has the lowest survival rate and a heavy sex bias towards males. Zeigler Laval showed a consistent survival rate which is important when predicting breeding programs and experimental cohorts. 198DEC 12.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:36 Page 198Food trials conducted to improve the survival and development of Zebrafish

240Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Food trials conducted to improve the survival and development of Zebrafishlevels. ZM Laval diet has the lowest survival rate and aheavy sex bias towards males. Zeigler Laval showed aconsistent survival rate which is important whenpredicting breeding programs and experimentalcohorts.From the data we gathered it was clear that feeding theZebrafish fry the live paramecia up to 15 days of agegave us the greatest survival rate by as much as a 31%increase when compared to the 3 dried foods – Zeigler,ZM and Kyowa.Growth rate was seen to be highly variable for all fryraised on the dry diet while those raised on Parameciagrew at a more controlled and comparable rate. Itshould also be noted that a lower incidence ofdeformities was also obser ved, suggesting thatParamecia is an accessible and nutritious food sourcefor the fry. This improvement in growth and consistency along withsurvival allows us to plan and execute better breedingand experimental programs which, within a large scaleaquatics production facility, is essential. It should alsobe noted that the lower levels of deformities is highlydesirable from a welfare perspective.Poster PresentationsFigure 6. Growth difference of Fish raised on ZM Lavaldiet at 3 months of age.199DEC 12.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:36 Page 199

241August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187Research Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate UK December 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187December 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187Reprinted from ATW Volume 9.8 December 2010December 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187IntroductionAt Covance, the wellbeing and needs of the animals in our care are top priority. Over the years we have tried to provide all our animals with the most up-to-date and naturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic their natural environment. We currently source items and products from companies that are experienced in this field and work closely with them to produce new products that have the needs of the animals in mind. New and more advanced products are continually introduced into the market, appearing to improve the environment of the animals, but do they? At Covance, we have a system in place to put all new items to the test. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers and then tested, reviewed and reported using a robust process. If an issue is found at any stage of this process, then the item or product is rejected and kept on file to ensure that the same product is not introduced at a later date. This poster details the process we follow and also shows some of the enrichment products used by the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationDecember 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187December 2010 Animal Technology and WelfareIntroductionAt Covance, the well-being and needs of the animals inour care are top priority. Over the years we have tried toprovide all our animals with the most up-to-date andnaturally beneficial enrichment to help mimic theirnatural environment. We currently source items andproducts from companies that are experienced in thisfield and work closely with them to produce newproducts that have the needs of the animals in mind.New and more advanced products are continuallyintroduced into the market, appearing to improve theenvironment of the animals, but do they? At Covance,we have a system in place to put all new items to thetest. Items are issued to us from leading suppliers andthen tested, reviewed and reported using a robustprocess. If an issue is found at any stage of thisprocess, then the item or product is rejected and kepton file to ensure that the same product is not introducedat a later date. This poster details the process we followand also shows some of the enrichment products usedby the main species here at Covance.Process of implementationRodentsFigures 1, 2 and 3 show items we currently use withinour rodent facilities. We use a variety of enrichmentproducts on a wide range of species. Each of theseitems provides their users with a variety of enrichment,including forms of entertainment to alleviate boredomand to reinforce natural behaviour. The items we provideto our rodents include:l Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.l Sizzle nest – for bedding and nesting.l Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raisedarea to climb on, creating an added dimension to thecageCovance animal environmental enrichmentprogramme –In-house enrichment items, theirbenefits and the process of implementationMICHAEL EMMOTTResearch Associate, Animal House Operations, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ+EY4$44ECHNICAL$EVELOPMENT4EAM.63.AMED6ETERINARY3URGEON!7#!NIMAL7ELFARE#OMMITTEE0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 1)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 2)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 3)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 4)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 5187ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 187Amber tunnels – add a “hide away” area and a raised area to climb on, creating an added dimension to the cage.–––Aspen chew blocks – help keep teeth growth in check.programme – In-house enrichment items, their

242Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Figures 4 and 5 show guinea pigs and rabbits in ourcare. Guinea pigs receive Sizzle nest and lengths oftunnel, which are used as a means of retreat. Rabbitsare provided with Sizzle nest, Aspen chew blocks, hayand a shelf that provides shelter and a raised platform.All of these items are standard.CaninesWithin the canine department we have a number ofrooms particularly designed for exercising (figures 6-8).Each dog is given a minimum of 10 minutes twice weekly,which is not only a time for the dog to play with toys, butalso for them to interact with the staff who work closelywith them. We provide a number of items, including:l climbing frames and slidesl kongsl friz-beesl dental ballsl dumbellsl havaballsl pulling ropesl sand pitsPrimatesAs shown in Figures 9 and 10, primates within our careare provided with exercise pens that they are allowedaccess for 3-3.5 hours at a time. we use a variety ofplastic, rubber and metal toys, which include:l super challenger balll rhino dentall tug toysl hercules dentall havaballsl stainless steel rattlesl monkey shine mirrorsl laddersl dumbellsl goodie space ballsl squeeze’n toss footballsl buoysl water bathsl nettingPoster Presentations)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 6)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 7)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 8)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 9)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 10188ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 188••••••••Covance Animal Environmental Enrichment ProgramFigures 4 and 5 show guinea pigs and rabbits in ourcare. Guinea pigs receive Sizzle nest and lengths oftunnel, which are used as a means of retreat. Rabbitsare provided with Sizzle nest, Aspen chew blocks, hayand a shelf that provides shelter and a raised platform.All of these items are standard.CaninesWithin the canine department we have a number ofrooms particularly designed for exercising (figures 6-8).Each dog is given a minimum of 10 minutes twice weekly,which is not only a time for the dog to play with toys, butalso for them to interact with the staff who work closelywith them. We provide a number of items, including:l climbing frames and slidesl kongsl friz-beesldental ballsldumbellslhavaballslpulling ropeslsand pitsPrimatesAs shown in Figures 9 and 10, primates within our careare provided with exercise pens that they are allowedaccess for 3-3.5 hours at a time. we use a variety ofplastic, rubber and metal toys, which include:l super challenger balll rhino dentall tug toysl hercules dentall havaballsl stainless steel rattlesl monkey shine mirrorsl laddersl dumbellsl goodie space ballsl squeeze’n toss footballsl buoysl water bathsl nettingPoster Presentations)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 6)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 7)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 8)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 9)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 10188ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 188Figures 4 and 5 show guinea pigs and rabbits in ourcare. Guinea pigs receive Sizzle nest and lengths oftunnel, which are used as a means of retreat. Rabbitsare provided with Sizzle nest, Aspen chew blocks, hayand a shelf that provides shelter and a raised platform.All of these items are standard.CaninesWithin the canine department we have a number ofrooms particularly designed for exercising (figures 6-8).Each dog is given a minimum of 10 minutes twice weekly,which is not only a time for the dog to play with toys, butalso for them to interact with the staff who work closelywith them. We provide a number of items, including:l climbing frames and slidesl kongsl friz-beesl dental ballsl dumbellsl havaballsl pulling ropesl sand pitsPrimatesAs shown in Figures 9 and 10, primates within our careare provided with exercise pens that they are allowedaccess for 3-3.5 hours at a time. we use a variety ofplastic, rubber and metal toys, which include:l super challenger balll rhino dentall tug toysl hercules dentall havaballsl stainless steel rattlesl monkey shine mirrorsl laddersl dumbellsl goodie space ballsl squeeze’n toss footballsl buoysl water bathsl nettingPoster Presentations)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 6)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 7)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 8)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 9)NTRODUCTION#OVANCE!NIMAL%NVIRONMENTAL%NRICHMENT0ROGRAM)N(OUSE%NRICHMENT)TEMS4HEIR"ENEFITSANDTHE0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATION2ODENTSQQQ0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE0ICTURE 0ICTURE#ANINESQQQQQQQQ0RIMATES0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTURE 0ICTUREQQQQQQQQQQQQ0ROCESSOF)MPLEMENTATIONFigure 10188ATW Dec10:Animal Technology and Welfare 3/10/20 06:53 Page 188••• • • • • • • •••••

243August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare65BackgroundIn recent years there has been much publicitysurrounding the growing concern around the futureshortage of technical skills and expertise across allsectors in the UK. Various factors are thought tocontribute to this looming ‘Skills Gap’, but an ageingtechnical workforce with many experienced techniciansnearing retirement, and a lack of suitable trainingopportunities are thought to be the main issues thatneed to be addressed. Additionally, in science andparticularly laboratory animal science (LAS), there isvery little formal training offered in the UK to supportthe incr ease in both the knowledge and technical skillsrequired to deliver reproducible science. Additionally,various discussions have become recurring themes inlaboratory animal science and have further highlightedthe need to appropriate training.For example, following the publication of the NC3Rs’Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo experiments(ARRIVE) guidelines, there has been an increaseddemand for improved reporting and, alongside this,there has been an awareness of the need to criticallyevaluate experimental protocols and biomedical data,with many studies and discussions r evealing probablesources of variability. Appropriate training is also a keyrequirement to help reduce the number of animalsused in research while increasing the usefulness of thedata generated from in vivo models.The MRC Harwell Institute is at the internationalforefront of the advancement of medicine andknowledge through the discover y and investigation ofmouse models of human disease. The Institute recentlysecured funding to construct a new training centre,Advance@MRC Har well, with versatile laborator y,conferencing and IT training spaces, set to open in2020. The new training centre will make an importantcontribution to scientific training in the UK. With animalwelfare being a con tin uous theme through thedevelopment and delivery of training courses at MRCHarwell. The existing training programme is focussedPOSTER PRESENTATIONSOriginally presented at:IAT Congress 2019ADVANCE@MRC Harwell: a new trainingcentre for Laboratory Animal Scienceand GeneticsTERTIUS HOUGH, MARK GARDINER and SARA WELLSMary Lyon Centre, MRC Harwell Institute, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RDCorrespondence: m.gardiner@har.mrc.ac.ukApril 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareFigure 1. Architects representation of finished building.APRIL_1-628207435_4-628196990.e$S:Animal Technology and Welfare 24/9/20 06:52 Page 65Mouse to Man: an overview of the impact that mouse model research has had on the development of gene and stem cell therapies and the increasing use of personalised medicineSTEVEN CUBITTCCTech. St John’s Innovation Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 OWS UKThe presenterSteven Cubitt founded two companies, The Cube, followed by CCTech, which provide specialist services on a wide range of projects in the UK, Europe and globally. Steven has recently been engaged on several projects to provide strategic advice regarding future investment in the biomedical research facilities at leading universities.Gene therapies, stem cell therapies and personalised medicineThese are starting to transform treatments for a number of different debilitating diseases/conditions. A stem cell is a cell capable of becoming another more differentiated cell type in the body, such as a skin cell, a muscle cell or a nerve cell. Because of their ability to become different types of cells, stem cells offer us the greatest potential to treat degenerative conditions and illness that can affect us all – spinal cord damage, sports injuries, bone, cartilage and tendon damage, blood cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, blindness, stroke and heart disease.More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stem cells has helped to pave the way for developing human stem cell lines and using them to treat disease.The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling targeted gene knock outs in mice, a technology which has revolutionised mouse genetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate ES cells from human embryos, one of the great milestones in human biomedical research.More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemcells hascell lines and usingThe first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling targeneknock outs in mice, a technology which hasrevolutionised mouseIt took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EScells fromhuman biomedical research.More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemcells hashelped to pave the way for developing human stemcell lines and usingThe first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling tarknock outs in mice, a technology which hasvolutionised mouseIt took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EScells fromhuman embryos, one of the great milestones inhuman biomedical research.More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemhelped to pave the way for developing human stemcell lines and usingthem to treat disease.The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling tarknock outs in mice, a technology which hasvolutionised mousegenetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EShuman embryos, one of the great milestones inhuman biomedical research.3More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemhelped to pave the way for developing human stemthem to treat disease.The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling tarknock outs in mice, a technology which hasgenetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EShuman embryos, one of the great milestones inhuman biomedical research.More than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemhelped to pave the way for developing human stemthem to treat disease.The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling tarknock outs in mice, a technology which hasgenetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EShuman embryos, one of the great milestones inMore than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemhelped to pave the way for developing human stemThe first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling tarknock outs in mice, a technology which hasgenetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EShuman embryos, one of the great milestones inMore than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stemhelped to pave the way for developing human stemThe first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling targetedgenetics and developmental biology.It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate EShuman embryos, one of the great milestones inCorrespondence: steven@cctech.eu

244Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Poster PresentationsCancer In the UK society, for every £1 invested in cancer research in 1986, the investment gains between 24 – 28 pence every year, into the indefinite future.The 1 year standardised survival rate in England increased 50% – 1971 65% – 2000 70% – 2010Cardiovascular diseasesCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseases still account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.Death rates have seen a 73% fall between 1974 and 2013.A significant recent development is the speed at which these therapies are being transferred from mouse to man. These developments require new types of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) facilities which feed back into pre-clinical research needs. However, because human trials have given equivocal results, more animal research is still needed.SummaryThe Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) licenses cell and gene therapy manufacturing facilities in the UK which include early-stage translational centres in the academic and public sector. 2018 marked the fourth consecutive year of increases in operational footprint within the UK’s MHRA licensed GMP manufacturing facilities.With new facilities scheduled to open in 2019. This network of facilities, operated by 21 organisations in the UK, comprises of 15 dedicated cell therapy sites, 6 dedicated gene therapy sites and 4 multifunctional sites.Currently Life Sciences employs 240,000 people in the UK, with a turnover of £70 billion annually. With this current investment in advanced therapy medicinal product technology, the UK plans to maintain its significant lead role in this field.CancerIn the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that weinvestedMore dramatic steadily increasing.The 1 year standardised survival50% -1971 65%Cardiovascular diseasesCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that weinvestedin medical research in the 1980s and 1990s.More dramatic steadily increasing.The 1 year standardised survival1971 65%Cardiovascular diseasesCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that wein medical research in the 1980s and 1990s.More dramatic steadily increasing.The 1 year standardised survival1971 65%-2000 70%Cardiovascular diseasesCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.4In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that wein medical research in the 1980s and 1990s.More dramatic steadily increasing.The 1 year standardised survivalrate in England increased2000 70%-2010Coronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that wein medical research in the 1980s and 1990s.rate in England increased2010Coronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that wein medical research in the 1980s and 1990s.rate in England increasedCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.In the UK Society cancer gains between 24 and 28 pence everyyear, into the indefinite future, for every pound that werate in England increasedCoronary heart disease, strokes and other circulatory diseasesstill account for more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.Death rates have seen a 73% fall betweenA significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good ManufacturingPracticeresearch nequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.SummaryTheMedicines and Healthcare Products RegulatoryAgency(facilities in the UK whichcentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 markedDeath rates have seen a 73% fall betweenA significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good Manufacturing(GMP) facilities which feed back into preresearch needs. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.SummaryMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory(MHRA)licenses cell and gene therapy manufacturingfacilities in the UK whichcentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 markedDeath rates have seen a 73% fall betweenA significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good ManufacturingGMP) facilities which feed back into preeeds. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatorylicenses cell and gene therapy manufacturingfacilities in the UK whichinclude earlycentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 marked5Death rates have seen a 73% fall betweenA significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good ManufacturingGMP) facilities which feed back into preeeds. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatorylicenses cell and gene therapy manufacturinginclude earlycentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 markedDeath rates have seen a 73% fall between1974 and 2013.A significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good ManufacturingGMP) facilities which feed back into preeeds. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatorylicenses cell and gene therapy manufacturinginclude early-stage translationalcentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 marked1974 and 2013.A significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good ManufacturingGMP) facilities which feed back into pre-clinicaleeds. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatorylicenses cell and gene therapy manufacturingstage translationalcentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 marked1974 and 2013.A significant recent development is the speed at which thesetherapies are being transferred from mouse to man. Thesedevelopments require new types of Good Manufacturingclinicaleeds. However, because human trials have givenequivocal results, more animal research is still needed.licenses cell and gene therapy manufacturingstage translationalcentres in the academic and public sector. 2018 marked

245August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDecember 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareDo Buccal swabs from Zebrafish give enough of a sample of DNA to be used as a viable non-invasive method of genotyping?SARAH LAWTONBSF, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL UKCorrespondence: Sarah.Lawton@manchester.ac.ukAbstract The Zebrafish (Danio rerio) has become a valuable research model within the laboratory. Due to the increased numbers used of transgenic Zebrafish, genotyping of the fish has become an everyday necessity to facilitate their use in order to identify the fish with the correct or necessary genes. Genotyping of the fish is usually performed at 6 months of age. By this time, the fish are classed as adults in size and are ready for breeding.Currently the proven method of genotyping involves taking a tail fin clip from the fish to gain the sample. This involves surgically removing a piece of the tail fin under anaesthetic.In previous studies buccal swabs have been taken from different species such as humans, mammals and larger species of fish. This involves taking a swab from the inside of the mouth, gathering cells which are used to extract the DNA. This study investigates if taking buccal swabs from Zebrafish gives enough of a sample of DNA to be a viable non-invasive method for genotyping. This project was conducted within the principles of the 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement). All fish were euthanised prior to sample taking to prevent risk of suffering.Sample takingThe sample taking method for each fish needs to be repeatable. The method will change for each experimental group depending on the number of rotations of the swab but everything else will remain the same. For the purposes of this study I tested for the gene IPIP27A_F. All equipment needs be set out beforehand ready for the sample taking.Materials and ProcedureRemove one fish at a time from the MS222 anaesthetic solution, selecting each fish noting if it is male or female. Start the timer. Gently dab the fish on paper towel (TORK Hygiene Roll) to remove excess water and place the fish on sampling area, facing forwards towards you.Using tweezers (Pake Dissecting Forceps Curved Fine Serrated Jaw 115m), gently open the mouth of the fish, just wide enough to be able to insert the swab (TAMIYA Craft Cotton Swab, Triangular, Extra small, 50PCS). Insert the swab. Remove tweezers from the mouth, leaving the swab in place, allowing the mouth to close around the tip of the swab. Rotate the swab for the necessary amount of times depending upon the experimental group. 5Figure 1. Basic ProcedureDNA Extraction and PCR.First add 50 milimolar (mM) of Sodium Hydroxide to thesample inside the epindorf tube, repeating for all samples.Vortex each sample for 5 seconds, then heat all samples to2 Euthanise fishand positionupright. Starttimer.3 Place swab inmouth androtate requirednumber oftimes.4 Cut tip offswab intoepindorph, closelid and label.Stop timer andrecord.5 Perform DNAextraction andrun PCR.6 Results.1 Set upequipment andarea. Preparefish foreuthanasia.Figure 1. Basic Procedure

246Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Remove swab from mouth, ensuring not to touch anything with the tip. Keeping hold, cut off the tip with the sample into the correct epindorph tube with scissors. Close the lid on the epindorph tube and stop the timer.Dispose of the holding end of swab into the bin.Now an inspection of the fish is carried out, looking for any signs of damage to the mouth.Record all results on the recording sheets and take any pictures.The fish can now be disposed of in the yellow disposable bag. Reset the timer and wipe down the tweezers ready for the next fish. DNA Extraction and PCRFirst add 50 milimolar (mmol) of Sodium Hydroxide to the sample inside the epindorf tube, repeating for all samples. Vortex each sample for 5 seconds, then heat all samples to 95°C for 20 mins in a thermal cylinder. After this add 5 mM solution Tris buffer (PH8 1 molar (M) solution) to each sample. The samples can now be stored at 4°C ready for PCR.For PCR begin with using 0.2ml PCR tubes, adding 2µL of the DNA sample mixed with 8.5 ul H2O, 1µL of primer IPIP27A_F, 1µL of primer IPIP27A_R, and 12.5 µL GoTag® green master mix (Promega). Run this on the following PCR cycle using a Techne 3Prime Thermal Cycler for:Table 1. PCR cycle used.RunOrderCyclesTemperature(Degrees Celsius)Time(seconds)1 1 95 1202 30 95 3060 3072 303 1 72 1204 1 4 HoldResultsThe results gained from Set 1 were very promising. Each sample gave a positive result when compared to the control sample. In total 12 samples were taken, 2 samples for a range of rotations (1 male and 1 female for each) including 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. This helps to indicate firstly if a DNA positive result can be given and secondly if there are any differences to be found between the number of rotations.The first male sample of 0 rotations is not as clear as the rest of the samples. Due to this being the first sample which had been taken, it may be the technique that was the cause. It is not possible to rule out that this may also be a result of a lack of DNA being taken due to a low number of rotations. The signal from the results becomes very strong on the female sample of 2 rotations and remains strong throughout the rest of the samples. Pictures of the fish taken post sampling will help to evaluate if there were any visible signs of damage being caused. From the pictures, no signs of mouth damage are visible.Figure 2.Table 2.Figure 2.UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Table 2.Record sheet for set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Record sheet for set 18UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Record sheet for set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Figure 2. UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Figure 2.Table 2.Figure 2.UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Table 2.Record sheet for set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Record sheet for set 18UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Record sheet for set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1UV transilluminator image of results for Set 1Further investigationsThis method of genotyping for Zebrafish needs to be further investigated. The results gained from this project show that it is possible to gain a positive result using this method but it has been limited to using only euthanised animals, being tested using a single gene. For the future, investigations into other genes will be needed to ensure it is functional across the Zebrafish genome. Investigations using live animals will be Table 2. Record sheet for set 1Poster Presentations

247August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster Presentationsnecessary to ensure that there is no damage to the mouth area or any other lasting harm has occurred and that the fish are able to function fully after the procedure. The length of time (seconds), taken to extract each sample is something to look at reducing. A possible cause may be due to using tweezers to open the mouth of the fish first which is no longer necessary, as the mouth will open when touched by the swab.AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Graham Morrissey (Director, BSF), Adam Hurlstone and Anthony Jackson.For full paper e-mail: Sarah.Lawton@Manchester.ac.uk

248Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020

249August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAlternative training method using a mouse simulator in intravenous lateral tail vein proceduresCARMEN ABELA London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT UK Correspondence: carmen.abela@lshtm.ac.ukIntroductionThe purpose of this study was to reduce or replace mouse cadavers for use in procedural training. – Our small, in-house breeding colony was greatly reduced as a refinement due to unethical wastage.– Our five-step training programme incorporates the use of cadavers in training towards competence.– An alternative method was necessary to maintain high standards and for future planning should our in-house breeding colony dissolve.Project Goals 3Method For this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (a combination of researchers and technical staff).This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at the assessment stage. All participants had mixed experience in various technical procedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etc., but none had ever carried out intravenous injections of any kind.An independent statistician was responsible for randomly allocating the participants into the two groups (cadaver and simulator).The simulator used was a ‘Mimicky Mouse’ model purchased independently. This model has 2 lateral tail veins leading to a reservoir. An intravenous tail injection into these veins can be simulated using sterile water.Training was carried out following a standard operating procedure written specifically to mimic the same procedure for both methods.Project GoalsMethodFor this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theassessment stageAll participants had mixedprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anykind.Project GoalsFor this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theassessment stageAll participants had mixedprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anyFor this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theassessment stage.All participants had mixedprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of any4For this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theexperience in various technicalprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anyFor this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theexperience in various technicalprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anyFor this study we took 2 groups of 10 participants (acombination of researchers and technical staff)This was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theexperience in various technicalprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anyThis was a randomised, controlled trial with blinding at theexperience in various technicalprocedures such as oral gavage, intraperitoneal injections, etcbut none had ever carried out intravenous injections of anyDecember 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

250Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Poster PresentationsTraining on both cadavers and simulators was carried out by the same trainer who determined when participants were ready for a competence assessment.The assessor for competence was blinded to which method the participant had trained with.Figure 1ResultsCompetence was assessed by using a S1K method viainjection into the lateral tail vein•This method allows for a clear assessment of competence•It is a straight pass or failFigure 1. ‘MickeyMouse’ simulator.Competence was assessed by using a S1K method viainjection into the lateral tail veinThis method allows for a clear assessment of competenceIt is a straight pass or fail. ‘MickeyMouse’ simulator.Competence was assessed by using a S1K method viainjection into the lateral tail veinThis method allows for a clear assessment of competenceIt is a straight pass or fail6. ‘MickeyMouse’ simulator.Competence was assessed by using a S1K method viainjection into the lateral tail vein.This method allows for a clear assessment of competenceIt is a straight pass or failCompetence was assessed by using a S1K method viaThis method allows for a clear assessment of competenceCompetence was assessed by using a S1K method viaThis method allows for a clear assessment of competenceThis method allows for a clear assessment of competenceFigure 1. ‘Mimicky Mouse’ simulator. Results Competence was assessed by using a S1K method via injection into the lateral tail vein.• this method allows for a clear assessment of competence• it is a straight pass or fail• results showed there appeared to be no significant difference between the simulator and cadaver2• overall pass rates were lower than expected• chi square p-value = 0.64•Results showed there appeared to be no significant differencebetween the simulator and cadaver•Overall pass rates were lower than expected•Chi square pChart 1.ConclusionsMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anequivalence level of successResults showed there appeared to be no significant differencebetween the simulator and cadaverOverall pass rates were lower than expectedChi square p-value= 0.64Chart 1.Comparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulatorConclusionsMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anequivalence level of successResults showed there appeared to be no significant differencebetween the simulator and cadaverOverall pass rates were lower than expectedvalue= 0.64Comparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulatorMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anequivalence level of success7Results showed there appeared to be no significant differencebetween the simulator and cadaver2Overall pass rates were lower than expectedComparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulatorMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anequivalence level of success.Results showed there appeared to be no significant difference2Overall pass rates were lower than expectedComparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulatorMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anResults showed there appeared to be no significant differenceComparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulatorMuch larger numbers would be required to ensure anResults showed there appeared to be no significant differenceComparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulator.Chart 1. Comparison of pass rates for cadaver v simulator.Conclusions Much larger numbers would be required to ensure an equivalence level of success.– It does demonstrate however that the simulator can be used as an alternative method of training with a level of success.– Quality of the training was not reduced.– This is a useful tool for facilities with no cadaver availability.– The study supports the 3Rs objective to directly replace or avoid the use of animals (cadavers).– Opens up the possibility of training in various procedures using a simulator.– The market is currently limited in good quality simulators for research training. – Organisations collaborating in training research could achieve statistical significance for various methods of training quality with simulators using these methodsAcknowledgementsI would like to thank:All participants that took part in this study.My colleagues in the BSF for supporting this study particularly James Gates who carried out the training.The Wellcome Trust for funding.LSHTM for allowing me to carry out this study.References 1 www.procedureswithcare.org.uk/intravenous-injection-in-the-mouse/https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs2 Douglas C Vines, David E Green, Gen Kido, Harald Keller (2011) Evaluation of mouse tail-vein injections both qualitatively and quantitively on small animal PET tail scans, J. NMT, vol 39, no 4, 264-270.3 https://www.vet-tech.co.uk/laboratory-supplies/training-simulator/mimicky-mouse-training-simulator.aspx

251August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareSurgery refinements improve success rates in rat bile collectionHANS VAN WIJK, DAWN HAIDA, CHRISTINA DUNCAN, MICHAEL BAINBRIDGE, TOMAS VISOCKIS and J. KENDRICK Covance Laboratories Ltd., Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG3 1PY UK Correspondence: Hans.Vanwijk@covance.comIntroductionRats are typically the rodent species of choice for investigating the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of new chemical entities. In the absenceof a gall bladder, they are ideal for researching the time course of excretion and metabolism of novel xenobiotics in bile.This poster compares the model success rates using 3 different housing regimes during recovery from surgery.The experimental study phase of all 3 methods remained unchanged – animals were tethered and singly housed in glass metabolism cages in order to separately collect bile and excreta and obtain an excretion balance for theduration of the study (up to 96 hours).Only animals deemed to be healthy and with a good bile flow were used on study. Bodyweights and clinical signs including assessment of urine, faeces and bile output were recorded during the recovery period to monitor the health of the animals for animal welfare.MethodsThe same surgical technique was used for all 3 methods. Catheters were placed in the bile duct to collect bile; a second catheter was secured into the duodenum where artificial bile salts were infused. Both catheters were exteriorised via a tail cuff.1Method 1 – Animals were tethered and singly housed in glass metabowls from surgery until the end of study (not performed at this establishment).2Method 2 – Animals were allowed to recover from surgery, singly housed in a standard cage whilst being tethered. They were transferred to a glass metabowl the day before dosing.3Method 3 – A modified tail cuff was developed which enabled both catheters to be passed through the tail cuff and connected to the dual PinPortTM. The U-shaped loop was connected to the dual port permitting the animal to recirculate its own bile back into the duodenum during the recovery period. The port was protected by a cap screwed onto the tail cuff. This modification meant that animals did not need to be tethered and could be group housed with standard environmental enrichment in standard caging. It also enabled the recovery period to be extended and therefore to allow the animals moretime to recuperate from the surgical procedure. Following surgery, the animals were returned to group housing and their health and welfare monitored during the recovery period (Figure 1).4When bile was to be collected for analysis, the U-shaped loop was removed from the port within the tail cuff adapter (Figure 2) and a dual tether fixed onto the dual port. The exteriorised catheters from the tether were connected to a dual stainless steel swivel device. Animals were then singly housed in metabolism cages to enable bile, urine and faeces to be collected for periods of up to 96 hours (Figure 3). Artificial bile salts were infused through the duodenal cannula to replace the bile collected, animals were continuously tethered for the duration of the study.BILE AND DUODENUM CANNULATION SUCCESS RATESYear Model1997-2000 Method 1 Dual Cannulation – Direct Catheters2011-2016 Method 2 Dual Cannulation – Direct Catheters2016-2019 Method 3 Dual Cannulation – PinPortTMRat strains used in this poster were Harlan Hanover Wistar, Charles River Sprague Dawley and Hanover Wistar.December 2020 Animal Technology and Welfare

252Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Poster PresentationsResultsThe surgery success rate for method 1 was not recorded, surgery success rates for methods 2 and 3 were >99%.Table 1 shows the percentage of animals suitable for starting the study and the percentage of animals completing the study.Tethering/housing conditions and associated success rates are shown in Tables 2 and 3.Comparison of procedural issues between method 2 and method 3: Table 4.The dropout rate during the surgery/recovery period for method 2 was 13%, against 10.1% for method 3.The recovery period has been extended from 3 days (method 2) to 6 days (method 3).Extending the length of the recovery/study period to 10days for method 3 increases amount of time for problems to occur.Figure 2. The PinPortFigure 2. The PinPortTMTMtail cuff in-situ during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phaseFigure 1. Group-housed animals that are untethered with the PinPort™ cannula transferring the animal’s own bile between the bile duct and duodenum. Figure 2. The PinPortFigure 2. The PinPortTMTMtail cuff in-situ during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phasesitu during the recirculation phaseFigure 2. The PinPortTM tail cuff in-situ during the recirculation phase.Figure 3. Tethered rat in a metabolism cage during the sample collection period.

253August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfarePoster PresentationsBILE DUCT (BILE AND DUODENUM) CANNULATION SUCCESS RATESYear Model No. of Animals % Suitable % Achieving Prepared for Study End of Study1997-2000 Method 1 Dual Cannulation – Direct Catheters 266 74 Not Recorded2011-2016 Method 2 Dual Cannulation – Direct Catheters 392 87 822016-2019 Method 3 Dual Cannulation – PinPortTM 288 90 77Table 1. Bile Duct (Bile and Duodenum) Cannulation Success RatesNumber of daysSingle Housed in Glass MetabowlsContinuously Tethered in Standard CageGroup Housed with Env. EnrichmentStudy – Single Housed in Glass MetabowlsMethod 1 5 0 0 3Method 2 0 3 0 3Method 3 0 0 6 4Table 2. Bile Duct (Bile and Duodenum) Cannulation Success RatesTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition Post-SurgeryTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition PostTable 3. Success Rates in Tethering/Housing Condition Post-SurgerySurgeryTable 4. Surgery and Study-Associated Issues - Number of Animals (%)Table 4. Surgery and StudyTable 4. Surgery and StudyTable 4. Surgery and StudyTable 4. Surgery and Study--Associated IssuesAssociated IssuesAssociated Issues-Number of Animals (%)Number of Animals (%)Number of Animals (%)Number of Animals (%)

254Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020Poster PresentationsThe overall dropout during surgery, recovery and studyperiods for method 2 (over 6 days) is 12% per day, compared to method 3 (over 10 days) 6.7% per day. The incidence of poor condition/bodyweight loss after surgery and the number of snapped catheters were similar for methods 2 and 3.The number of losses attributed to the permanent tethering of animals in method 2 were higher due to the difficulty of performing repairs to chewed tethers although animal losses due to no bile flow was lower in method 2 compared to method 3. Note that in method 2 no connectors were used. All losses were euthanised in accordance with humane end points.During the development of method 3, a number of animals were lost due to the catheter becoming detached from the port during tethering, this reduced over time as experience with the method was gained. It has been observed that bile from animals was still flowing when the connector was removed from catheter at necropsy.However it is clear that the welfare improvements in method 3 are enormous as evidenced by the improved bodyweight gain in PinPortTM animals (method 3) when compared to the other methods4.The surgical success (measured by the number of animals producing acceptable bile flow after a recovery period) was comparable to the continuously tethered model (method 2).ConclusionsSurgical success rate, reduction in bodyweight losses, comparable animal health observation, and acceptable bile flow show that the PinPortTM model hugely improves animal health and welfare without infringing scientific integrity4. References1 R. Remie, J.W. Rensema, G.H.J. Van Wunnik and J.J.Van Dongen: Permanent double bile fistula (with intact enterohepatic circulation). In: Manual of microsurgery on the laboratory rat, (eds. R. Remie, J.W. Rensema, G.H.J. Van Wunnik and J.J.Van Dongen), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (Biomedical Division) Amsterdam, New York, Oxford. Ch. 10, pp 201-213 (1990).2 H. Van Wijk, P. Donachie, D.L. Mann, H. McMahon and D. Robb (2001) A novel bile duct cannulation method with tail cuff exteriorization allowing continuous infusion and enterohepatic recirculation in the unrestrained rat. Laboratory Animals (2001) 35, 325-333.3 N. Burden, J. Kendrick, L. Knight, V. McGregor, H. Murphy, M. Punler, H. van Wijk (2017). Maximizing the success of bile duct cannulation studies in rats: recommendations for best practice. Laboratory Animals, 51(5): 457-464.4 H. van Wijk1, L. Crossman1, G. Adjin-Tettey1, D. Haida1, J. Kendrick1, E. Newell1, S. Korte2 and L. Wright1: In Courtesy of the 3Rs: How to Avoid Single Housing of Bile Duct Cannulated Rats in ADME Studies, Using a Modified Tail Cuff. 1Covance Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, UK; 2Covance Preclinical Services GmbH, Münster, Germany Presented at SOT San Antonio, The Toxicologist, Vol:150 (1):493 (PS, No 3104).

255August 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareAugust 2020 Animal Technology and WelfareIPS Product Supplies Ltd. BCM IPS LTD. London WC1N 3XX T: (0) 870 600 1616 E: customers@ipsltd.biz W: www.ipsltd.bizIPS continue to provide critical supplies and services to the biomedical and research industry, with the health and safety of all our colleagues, industry partners and customers in mind. We appreciate everything you do!Supporting our Industryat this dicult timewww.ipsltd.bizUntitled-2 1 03/07/2020 09:17

256Animal Technology and Welfare August 2020