Animal Research
Statistics Tasmania
Annual Report
Number 18 (2013)
September 2014
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
This report has been compiled in accordance with Section 35 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993
from animal usage statistics submitted by institutions licensed under the Act for the period 1
January 2013 to 31 December 2013.
Compiled by Mary Lou Conway
On behalf of the Animal Biosecurity and Welfare Branch
Biosecurity Tasmania
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
New Town Research Laboratories, 13 St Johns Avenue, New Town 7008
Copyright State of Tasmania (2014)
September 2014
Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
1 introduction ........................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Regulation of animal research in Tasmania ................................................................................... 3
1.2 Annual reporting format used in Tasmania ................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Explanation of the reporting format .................................................................................. 5
1.2.2 Application of categories ...................................................................................................... 5
2 Animal research activities for 2013 .................................................................... 8
2.1 Institutions ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Animal categories .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Purposes .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.4 Procedures .......................................................................................................................................... 11
3 TABLES AND FIGURES...................................................................................... 13
Table 1 Summary of animal categories used by institutions in 2013 ........................................... 13
Table 2 Distribution of projects within animal categories, purposes and procedures in 2013
...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 3 Summary of animal types used by institutions in 2013 .................................................... 16
Table 4 Purposes and procedures used for animal types in 2013 ................................................ 18
Figure 1 Animal categories used between 2009 and 2013 ............................................................. 21
Figure 2 Purposes for which animals were used between 2009 and 2013 ................................ 22
Figure 3 Procedures used between 2009 and 2013 ........................................................................ 23
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 24
1
Summary
This report details animal use for research and teaching purposes in Tasmania from 1st January
to 31st December 2013. The summaries and analyses in this report are compiled from raw
project data submitted by licensed institutions. Data was collected on live, non-human
vertebrates and cephalopods. The report complies with the nationally agreed definitions for
the collation of statistics of animal use for scientific purposes.
A total of 39 licensed institutions were required to report their animal use. This included 19
interstate institutions and 1 overseas institution. Twenty institutions used animals in Tasmania
during 2013.
There were 2 animal ethics committees (AECs) resident in Tasmania supervising projects
within the Tasmanian jurisdiction – the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment’s (DPIPWE) AEC and the University of Tasmania’s (UTas) AEC.
The DPIPWE AEC supervised 13 internal Department projects, and also provided project
assessment and monitoring services to 18 licensed external institutions of which 11 reported
animal use in a total of 19 projects. UTas continued to be the largest single research
institution using animals in Tasmania, reporting 96 projects using 35.38% of all animals
reported.
During 2013, 151,894 animals were involved in 138 research and teaching projects. This is an
increase in animal use on 2012 figures of 60% (94,704 animals in 146 projects).
The Aquatic animal category was the largest in 2013. It accounted for 35.3% of all animals
used across all categories in 2013. The ongoing footrot vaccine trail involving 43,262 sheep
accounted for 98% of Domestic mammal use.
The number of animals in the Native mammal category almost doubled in 2013 compared with
2012 – up from 19,191 to 37,560. In terms of animals used, almost all native mammal
research was devoted to population surveys involving camera traps.
Substantial decreases were noted in the use of amphibians, birds, laboratory mammals and
reptiles which reflects similar trends in 2012.
The two purposes where most animals were used in 2013 were Environmental study (32.38%)
and Health and welfare (31.92%). Over 73% of the animals used in Environmental study projects
involved camera traps. Almost all animals used in Health and welfare projects were sheep in
the footrot vaccine trial.
Relatively low impact procedures were conducted on 71.7% (or 108,873) of the total animals
compared to 85% in 2012. The change reflected a proportional increase in fisheries projects
using higher impact procedures. As was the case in 2012, no animals were subjected to Death
as an end point procedures during 2013.
2
1 introduction
1.1 Regulation of animal research in Tasmania
Animal research in Tasmania is regulated via several mechanisms.
(a) Animal Research Legislation
Part 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (the Act) deals with animal research. Since its
proclamation on 1st April 1996, all research institutions are required to be licensed by the
Minister to conduct animal research in Tasmania. A core condition of licensing is compliance
with the approved Code of Practice.
This is currently the nationally agreed Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for
Scientific Purposes 8th edition (2013) (the Code). The Code and associated reference
documents are published by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
and provide specific requirements and guidance for the use of animals for scientific purposes
to investigators, teachers, institutions and Animal Ethics Committees (AECs). The eighth
edition of the Code received Ministerial approval in October 2013, superseding the seventh
edition. No change in statistical reporting came about as a result of the new Code coming
into operation.
The Code requires that a decision to use animals must be properly justified, and animals may
only be used after due consideration of the ‘3Rs’. The principles of the ‘3Rs’ are, in brief, that
animals may be used where there are no alternatives enabling replacement of animals with
other methods; where reduction is applied such that the number of animals used is absolutely
necessary to achieve the aims of the project; and refinement of techniques used reduce the
welfare impact on animals approved for use and promote the animals’ wellbeing.
Provided research and teaching activities are properly approved and monitored within a
licensed institution by its AEC, and the institution, its AEC and researchers comply with the
Code, the use of animals for research and teaching is protected from sections 8 and 9 of the
Act (cruelty and aggravated cruelty). While sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act do not apply to the
reasonable use of fish in commercial and recreational activities, the research provisions apply
to aquatic vertebrates and cephalopods as well as terrestrial vertebrates.
Research project proposals are examined, approved and monitored by a duly constituted
AEC of the Institution. Institutions that have too few projects or are not sufficiently
resourced to have their own AEC may use the services of another institution’s AEC. For
instance, the DPIPWE’s AEC provided project assessment and monitoring services to 18
external institutions in 2013 of which 11 used animals in the reporting period.
Inspectors appointed under the Act ensure compliance with the Code and the Act.
The Act allows animal research to be conducted by institutions in a self-regulatory
environment. The institutions are, however, subject to inspection by the Inspector of Animal
Research at least on an annual basis. In practice this is applied as an ongoing monitoring
program.
The definition of ‘animal research’ in the Animal Welfare Act 1993 is:
‘a procedure, test, experiment, inquiry or study on an animal which –
(a) is undertaken to develop, demonstrate or acquire knowledge, or techniques, in an
area of science or teaching; and
3
(b) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the welfare of the animal.’
Regulation 7 of the Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2013 provides for an inspector to
determine whether an activity is or is not animal research. A precautionary approach is used
in these determinations to ensure research and teaching activities that are likely to cause
significant adverse effects on animals are approved and monitored by an AEC. It should be
noted that a researcher may still seek AEC approval for a project that uses procedures that
have been determined not to be research – an example would be the use of unbaited infrared camera traps – a technique in increasing use for observational studies.
There is also provision for the inclusion of additional species by regulation within the meaning
of ‘animal’ under the Act for particular purposes under the Act. Cephalopods (octopus,
cuttlefish, nautilus and squid) were included as ‘animals’ for the purposes of research in
January 2009. The reporting of cephalopods has been mandatory since then.
(b) Licensing
Any individual or organisation may apply as an ‘institution’ for a licence to conduct animal
research in Tasmania. The conditions of the licence require compliance of the institution and
any persons under its auspices with the Tasmanian animal welfare legislation and the approved
Code.
Licence applicants from outside Tasmania must agree to comply with the Code and provide
evidence that they are equivalently licensed in their resident jurisdiction to ensure their AEC’s
compliance with the Code are adequately monitored by an equivalent regulator.
Institutions that either lack the resources or are otherwise unable to constitute their own
AEC may share another institution’s AEC provided a formal sharing agreement is in place that
complies with the principles set down in the Code as well as addressing any other issue
specific to the host or external institution.
(c) Annual reporting
Institutions are required to provide an annual report to the Minister on their activities in
relation to animal research according to section 35 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993. The
report is to contain the numbers and types of animals used and the types of animal research
carried out. A report summarising the institutional reports is to be tabled in both Houses of
Parliament annually.
(d) Inspectors
The Minister appoints inspectors under section 36 of the Act. Inspectors advise the Minister
on matters relating to the granting and cancellation of licenses, the conduct of the AECs and
general compliance with the approved research Code of Practice. The monitoring of
compliance includes the inspection of animal holding facilities within each institution,
attendance of meetings of AECs and the collating of the annual State report.
(e) Scientific Permits for wildlife and fisheries
Institutions intending to use wildlife, including native fish, must also apply to the Resource
Management and Conservation Division, DPIPWE and the Inland Fisheries Service for
appropriate permits.
4
1.2 Annual reporting format used in Tasmania
A reporting format was developed by the then Code Liaison Group (now known as the Code
Reference Group (CRG)) of the NHMRC for the purpose of compiling annual national
statistics. It was endorsed by the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee as suitable
for State reports to avoid duplication of effort.
For reporting purposes, the term ‘animals’ covers fully metamorphosed juveniles, embryos in
the latter half of gestation, eggs in the latter half of incubation and larval fish that can feed
independently. This definition complies with the National Statistics of Animal Use for Scientific
Procedures.
During 2007, regulators from all States and Territories agreed on an amended animal
category and type list with animals grouped into more logical categories. This list was
supported by the CRG and was used for the 2007 report in Tasmania and nationally from
2008. Each jurisdiction collects data on animals that fall within its legislative scope. If
comparing data across jurisdictions, it should be noted that, for example, fish or cephalopods
may not be required to be reported in some jurisdictions. Similarly, Tasmania does not
include decapod crustaceans.
Data from annual project progress or final reports submitted by the responsible investigator
for each project during the calendar year is collated into a standard spread sheet. The
calendar year reporting period is used by most agencies collecting animal use statistics. Only
animals used in the Tasmanian jurisdiction are noted in this report.
A national repository of animal use statistics is no longer maintained. The Tasmanian statistics
are published on the DPIPWE web site once they have been tabled in Parliament.
1.2.1 Explanation of the reporting format
The reporting spread sheet requires the selection of one option from a number of choices in
each of the three main areas listed below (purposes, procedures and animals). Where animals
are used in multiple projects, each project is reported separately. While a project rarely has
multiple purposes, it is more common to have multiple procedures and animal categories.
Examples of the types of procedures that should be reported in each procedure category
have been listed in the reporting spread sheet to improve reporting precision.
The optional inclusion of comments within the format enables some contextualisation of the
animal use. For instance, a large proportion of native mammal numbers reported has been via
the use of relatively low impact camera traps. These observations are recorded events rather
than individual animals as it is difficult to accurately differentiate between individual animals.
1.2.2 Application of categories
Animal categories - within each animal category there are several types. Sub-types may
also be included where it is considered they are of particular interest to the State. The
available categories are:
Amphibians
Aquatic animals (non-mammalian)
Birds
Domestic mammals (including livestock species)
Exotic feral mammals
Exotic zoo animals
5
Native mammals (including marine mammals)
Primates
Reptiles
There were no projects in Tasmania in 2013 involving exotic zoo animals or primates, so
these categories do not appear in this report.
Purpose of Project –categorises the reason/s for the study.
Understanding Biology eg comparative anatomy studies, animal physiology, adaptations of wild
animals, wildlife survival studies.
Health and Welfare eg cancer research, drug therapy, residue and toxin testing, vaccine
development.
Management or Production eg effect of nutrition supplements, evaluating husbandry techniques,
animal production trials.
Education eg classroom studies on animal behaviour or physiology.
Environmental Study eg population surveys, acquisition of museum specimens.
Procedures used – broadly describes the severity of the procedures used (ie the impact on
the animal).
The following procedures are reported on:
Observation Involving Minor Interference: studies in which the normal activities of animals are
impacted on in a minor way.
Examples:





Wildlife studies involving repeated spotlighting or intrusion into groups of animals or
nursing animals.
Feeding trial, such as Digestible Energy determination of feed in a balanced diet.
Behavioural study with minor environmental manipulation.
Teaching of normal, non-invasive husbandry such as handling, grooming, etc.
Production of products, such as hormones or drugs, in milk or eggs from genetically
modified animals that are subject to normal husbandry procedures only.
Minor conscious procedure: animal is subjected to minor procedures that would normally not
require anaesthesia or analgesia. Any pain is minor and analgesia usually unnecessary, although
some distress may occur as a result of trapping or handling.
Examples:






Tail tipping and toe clipping for identification of new line GM animals.
Injections, blood sampling in conscious animal.
Minor dietary or environmental deprivation or manipulation, such as feeding nutrientdeficient diets for short periods.
Trapping and release as used in species impact studies, etc.
Trapping and humane euthanasia for collection of specimens.
Stomach tubing, branding, disbudding, shearing, etc.
Minor operative procedure with recovery: animal is rendered unconscious, with as little pain or
distress as possible. A minor procedure such as cannulation or skin biopsy is carried out and
6
the animal allowed to recover. Depending on the procedure, pain may be minor or moderate
and post-operative analgesia may be appropriate.
Field capture using chemical restraint methods is also included here.
Examples:
 Biopsies under anaesthesia or sedation.
 Cannulations under anaesthesia or sedation.
 Sedation/anaesthesia for relocation, examination or injections/blood sampling.
Major surgery with Recovery: generally animal is rendered unconscious, with as little pain or
distress as possible. A major procedure such as abdominal or orthopaedic surgery is carried
out and the animal allowed to recover. Post-operative pain is usually considerable and at a
level requiring analgesia.
Examples:
 Orthopaedic surgery.
 Abdominal or thoracic surgery.
 Transplant surgery.
 Mulesing, surgical castration without anaesthesia.
Minor physiological challenge: animal remains conscious for some or all of the procedure. There
is interference with the animal's physiological or psychological processes. The challenge may
cause only a small degree of pain/distress or any pain/distress is quickly and effectively
alleviated.
Examples:
 Minor infection, minor or moderate phenotypic modification, early oncogenesis.
 Arthritis studies with pain alleviation.
 Prolonged deficient diets, induction of metabolic disease.
 Polyclonal antibody production.
 Antiserum production.
Major physiological challenge: animal remains conscious for some or all of the procedure. There
is interference with the animal's physiological or psychological processes. The challenge causes
a moderate or large degree of pain/distress which is not quickly or effectively alleviated.
Examples:
 Major infection, major phenotypic modification, oncogenesis without pain alleviation.
 Arthritis studies with no pain alleviation, uncontrolled metabolic disease.
 Isolation or environmental deprivation for extended periods.
 Monoclonal antibody raising in mice.
Animal unconscious without Recovery: the animal is rendered unconscious under controlled
circumstances with as little pain or distress as possible. Any pain is minor and brief and does
not require analgesia. Procedures are carried out on the unconscious animal that is then killed
without regaining consciousness.
Examples:
 Laboratory animals killed humanely for dissection, biochemical analysis.
 Teaching surgical techniques on live, anaesthetised animals that are not allowed to
recover following the procedure.
Note that in Tasmania research involving trawling of wild fisheries is included within this
procedure category as it is considered to describe more accurately the impact on the
individual animal captured this way.
Death as an end point: the aim of the experiment requires the animal to die unassisted, ie not
euthanased, as death is a critical measure of the experimental treatment.
7
Examples:
 Toxicological experiments (eg ascertaining LD50s)
 Assessing the relative resistance to the effects of infections if euthanasia cannot be
provided at any stage to achieve the aim of the experiment.
2 Animal research activities for 2013
2.1 Institutions
There were 39 licensed institutions required to report animal use during 2013 and are listed
below.
Agrisearch Services Pty Ltd, New South Wales (no animal use in 2013)
Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory
Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Victoria (no animal use in 2013)
Birdlife Tasmania (previously Birds Tasmania), Tasmania
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences Division, Australian Capital Territory (no animal use in
2013)
CSIRO Marine and Atmospherics Division, Tasmania
Deakin University, Victoria
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (includes the Inland
Fisheries Service), Tasmania
Entura (previously Hydro Tas Cons), Tasmania
Fearn, Mr Simon (Independent researcher), Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
FlyByNight Pty Ltd, New South Wales
Friends of Maatsuyker Island, Tasmania
Freshwater Systems Pty Ltd, Tasmania
GHD Pty Ltd, Tasmania
Huon Aquaculture Co Pty Ltd, Tasmania
Jurox Pty Ltd, New South Wales (no animal use in 2013)
King Island Natural Resource Management Group, Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
La Trobe University, Victoria
Monash University, Victoria (no animal use in 2013)
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Museum Victoria, Victoria (no animal use in 2012)
Nicholas Mooney, Tasmania
North Barker Ecosystem Services, Tasmania
North East Bioregion Network, Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd, New South Wales (no animal use in
2013)
Reptile Rescue Inc., Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
Robertson, Dr Bruce, Victoria (Independent researcher)
8
Rouse, Dr Gregory, California, USA (Independent researcher) (no animal use in 2013)
Tasmanian Field Naturalist Club Inc., Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, Tasmania
Tas Nature (Peter Tonelli), Tasmania (no animal use in 2013)
University of Queensland, Queensland (no animal use in 2013)
University of Sydney, New South Wales
University of Tasmania, Tasmania
University of Wollongong, New South Wales (no animal use in 2013)
Veterinary Health Research, New South Wales (no animal use in 2013)
Vic Wader Study Group Inc, Victoria
Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd, Victoria (no animal use in 2013)
Zoetis Australia Research and Manufacturing Pty Ltd, Victoria (no animal use in 2013)
There were two AECs resident in Tasmania (DPIPWE and the University of Tasmania (UTas))
in 2013. The Australian Antarctic Division’s AEC is also resident in Tasmania, however the
Division was not licensed in Tasmania during 2013 as it was not conducting research within
the Tasmanian jurisdiction.
Of the 39 licensed institutions, 20 used animals in Tasmania in 2013 including 5 interstate
academic institutions and 2 interstate not-for-profit institutions. There was one licensed
overseas institution - Dr Gregory Rouse, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego, USA. Dr Rouse did not use animals in 2013 in Tasmania
however. Table 1 lists the institutions that used animals and the categories and numbers of
animals involved, including a comparison with 2012 figures.
In the 2013 calendar year, there was an 11% increase in the number of institutions reporting
animal use and a 6.2% reduction in the number of projects compared with 2012 figures. The
number and variety of institutions conducting animal research in Tasmania fluctuates
according to academic and commercial interests. Of the 11 not-for-profit licensees, 5
reported animal use in 2013 totalling 4,631 animals, which were predominantly birds.
UTas was the most active institution in Tasmania during 2013 with 96 projects. This
accounted for 70% of all projects reported. Although the number of UTas projects was very
similar to 2012 (97), the number of animals used in 2013 was substantially higher (53,747 in
2013 vs 22,628 in 2012) owing mainly to an increased use of fish in wild fisheries teaching
projects.
The DPIPWE Divisions of Resource Management and Conservation and Biosecurity and
Product Integrity and the Inland Fisheries Service conducted animal research reported under
DPIPWE as internal projects. The DPIPWE’s AEC supervised 13 internal projects using a total
of 85,976 animals or 56.6% of all animals reported in 2013. This is 63% greater than that used
by the Department in 2012 and was largely due to a further increase in the number of sheep
involved in a footrot vaccination trial. (43,223 in 2013 compared with 28,870 in 2012).
Of the 18 external licensees using the DPIPWE AEC in 2013, 11 reported animal use totalling
10,673 animals involved in 19 projects. CSIRO Marine and Atmospherics Division and Birdlife
Tasmania were the largest external animal users with totals of 5,089 and 3,448 animals
respectively. Private enterprises engaged in environmental surveys (Entura, Freshwater
Systems, GHD Pty Ltd, North Barker Environmental Services and Tasmanian Irrigation)
reported 1,312 animals across 8 projects – mostly in the aquatic or amphibian categories.
9
The inspector attended a total of 14 AEC meetings (6 for the DPIPWE and 8 for UTas) as
well as participating in training sessions (3) for researchers and facility inspections (3).
An external triennial review was conducted of the UTas AEC in 2013 in accordance with the
Code. The Inspector provided comment to the independent review panel and to the ensuing
report.
2.2 Animal categories
A total of 151,894 animals were used in research and teaching projects in Tasmania in 2013.
This was a 60% increase on 2012. As with the relative activity of individual institutions, the
number of animals used and project distribution between animal categories fluctuate from
year to year reflecting the level of interest in particular fields and types of research activity in
the State for that year.
Table 2.1 summarises animal numbers and projects within animal categories used in 2013, and
Figure 1 illustrates a rolling 5 year distribution of animals within categories.
Aquatic animals at 53,597 individuals were the most commonly reported category contributing
35.3% of all animals used in 2013. About two thirds of the aquatic animals used for research
in 2013 were samples collected from the catch of commercial fishers for education and
training purposes or a project that investigated the level and species of by-catch with different
trawl net mesh sizes.
As was the case in 2012, Domestic mammals accounted for a significant proportion of animals
used at 44,029 or 29.0% of the total. This was dominated by the footrot vaccine trials
involving 43,223 sheep.
The number of Native mammals used in 2013 increased by 95.7% - 37,560 in 2013 compared
with 19,191 in 2012. Almost all of these were camera trap sightings, as was the case in 2012.
A further increase in the use of camera traps in monitoring wild terrestrial populations was
apparent in 2013. There were 41,111 animals reported as camera trap sightings in 2013,
compared with 6,284 in 2012, which was in turn, a significant increase in comparison to 2011.
Projects that monitor the population of Tasmanian native mammals accounted for 38,215
camera trap sightings reported in 2013.
As already mentioned, the reports are of individual sightings rather than individual animals.
Where reports have included additional information identifying groups of animals observed via
camera traps, these have been noted in Table 4 under their respective types.
As specific reporting of camera trap use has been optional to date, the reported data is likely
to be an underestimate of projects observing animals by this method. It is proposed to include
baited camera trap use in the procedures list for the 2014 report to clarify the contribution
this methodology makes to overall figures. As previously mentioned, the use of unbaited
camera traps is not considered to be animal research under the Tasmanian legislation
although reporting is encouraged.
Meaningful reporting of wild animals used in what may be described as an indirect fashion,
such as the collection of feathers from vacated nests and assessing the efficacy of seal
deterrents by measuring the relative contribution predation by wild seals make to farmed
salmon mortality, remains a contentious area and is best resolved on a case by case basis by
the AEC involved during the project approval process.
Large fluctuations in reported numbers are generally observed where the nature of a project
involves very large animal populations. A typical example is the already mentioned footrot
10
vaccine trial that used 28,872 sheep in 2012 and 43,223 sheep in 2013. The degree of
fluctuation in animal categories is illustrated for the past 5 years in Figure 1.
2.3 Purposes
Table 2.2 summarises the research and teaching purposes for which animals were used during
2013. Figure 2 illustrates a rolling 5 year distribution of purposes. Table 4 presents detail on
the purposes and procedures applied to animal types within categories.
There was a significant increase in the number of animals used for the Environmental studies
purpose (49,178 in 2013 compared with 32,212 in 2012) and, as a result, it became the most
popular in 2013, accounting for 32.38% of all animals used in research. The Health and
Welfare purpose, the most popular in 2012, followed closely at 31.92% of all animals used in
research.
There was also a significant increase in the number of animals used for the Education purpose
(21,945 in 2013 compared with 2,451 in 2012). Almost all of this increase was due to
teaching projects which combined shore-based sampling with collection from commercial
catches.
The number of animals used for the Management and production purpose almost doubled from
8,900 in 2012 to 16,654 in 2013 due to a project investigating trawl net characteristics for
improved selectivity of catch.
The number of animals used in the Understanding biology purpose also increased substantially
in 2013 (15,263 in 2013 compared with 8,877 in 2012) although the number of projects
conducted for this purpose fell slightly. A large number of juvenile fish in a project
investigating jaw development abnormality was a major contributor to the increased numbers
used for this purpose.
2.4 Procedures
Table 2.3 summarises the procedures used on animals during 2013. Figure 3 illustrates a
rolling 5 year distribution of the number of animals subjected to the various procedural
categories between 2009 and 2013.
For the third year running, no Death as an end point projects were conducted (Figure 3).
Minor conscious procedure was the most commonly reported procedure in 2013 with 53,207
animals (35.03%) across 34 projects. As this procedure was applied in the large footrot
vaccine trail, sheep account for 80% of the animals reported in this category, followed by fish
(14%).
Observation with minor interference was applied in 38 projects in 2013, compared with 56
projects in 2012 but the number of animals involved increased from 36,194 in 2012 to 51,610
in 2013 (34.1% of all animals used). Camera trap sightings were a large contributor to the
numbers in this category.
These two procedural categories are employed mainly in wild population monitoring projects
and, as Figure 3 shows, are notable for their large fluctuations over time as determined by the
types of animals monitored and the methods used.
As for previous years Animal unconscious, no recovery featured in the top three procedural
categories. For 2013, 39,798 animals (26.3%) were reported in this category in 40 projects.
This is a substantial increase from 2012 (5,973 animals across 21 projects). 93% of animals to
which this procedure was applied were fish. Projects aimed at either validating or improving
11
commercial wild fisheries monitoring or teaching projects in the same area were the largest
contributors to the increase. The remainder were predominantly laboratory rats and mice
(6%) involved in biomedical research.
Major physiological challenge was applied to a total of 1,628 animals (1.07%) in 2013, down from
4,451 in 2012.
The number of animals in the Minor operative procedures with recovery category also decreased
significantly (1,242 in 2013 compared with 3,210 in 2012).
Minor physiological challenge was applied to 4,056 animals (2.7%) in 2013, compared with 2,707
in 2012. Fish accounted for 92.8% of the animals subjected to this procedure in projects
aimed at improving farmed fish disease resistance and productivity.
The least used procedure in 2013 was Major surgery with recovery as it was in 2012 and 2011.
In 2013, the number of animals used was 353, comprising 120 fish and 233 mice. In 2012, 90
were used and all were mice.
The relatively low impact procedures (Observation with minor interference, Minor conscious
procedures and Minor physiological challenge) were applied to108,873 animals in 2013. This
represented a reduction in the proportion of animals experiencing this group of procedures
(71.7%) to that reported in 2012 (85.5%). This change reflects the specific proportional
increase in the application of the higher impact Animal unconscious, no recovery procedure due
to the already mentioned fisheries projects.
12
3 TABLES AND FIGURES
All summarised data is displayed in this section.
% of all
animals
Total
Reptiles
Native
mammals
Lab mammals
Exotic Feral
mammals
Birds
Aquatic
animals
Domestic
mammals
Institution
Amphibia
Project
number
Table 1 Summary of animal categories used by institutions in 2013
ANU
2
180
180
0.12
Birdlife Tas
1
3448
3448
2.27
CMAR
6
5089
3.35
Deakin
1
161
0.11
DPIPWE
13
Entura
2
FBN
1
Freshwater
1
FoMI
1
GHD
1
HAC*
1
LaTrobe
1
Mooney
1
Murdoch
1
NBES
1
Robertson
1
TasIrrig
3
USyd
3
UTas
96
VWSG
Total
5089
161
5
858
% of
categories
5157
35663
1
85976
82
0.05
132
0.09
800
0.53
472
0.31
169
0.11
0
0.00
2
0.00
9
10
0.01
67
99
0.07
120
0.08
800
472
169
0
2
1
27
5
120
210
210 0.14
141
273
46572
56.60
82
132
1
138
1058 43234
379
522
414
39
4326
1275
634
141
0.09
687
0.45
53747
369
369
266
53597
6284
44029
5197
4326
37560
635
151894
0.2
35.3
4.1
29.0
3.4
2.8
24.7
0.4
100.0
2012
numbers
146
924
23591
8791
35653
486
5196
19191
872
94704
% Change
-6.2
-71.2
127.2
-28.5
23.5
969.3
-16.7
95.7
-27.2
60
* HAC project unable to estimate number of individual wild seals involved as indirect
impact measures used.
13
35.38
0.24
100.00
Table 2 Distribution of projects within animal categories, purposes and
procedures in 2013
2.1 Animal categories used in 2013
Animal
Animals per
Projects per
category
category
category
Amphibia
266
5
Aquatic
animals
53597
57
Birds
6284
16
Domestic
mammals
44029
12
Exotic Feral
mammals
5197
11
Lab mammals
4326
54
Native
mammals
37560
48
Reptiles
635
7
Total
1515894
210*
*A project may use multiple animal categories.
% Animals
0.18%
% Projects in
% Projects in
2013 (n=210) 2012 (n=146)
4.79%
2.38%
35.29%
4.14%
27.14%
7.62%
32.19%
12.33%
28.99%
5.71%
8.22%
3.42%
2.85%
5.24%
25.71%
4.11%
23.29%
24.73%
0.42%
100.00%
22.86%
3.33%
32.88%
4.79%
2.2 Research and teaching purposes used in 2013
Animals per
Purpose
purpose
Education
21945
Environmental
study
49178
Health &
welfare
48485
Management
& production
16654
Understanding
biology
15263
Total
151894
Projects per
purpose
6
% Animals
14.48%
% Projects in
% Projects in
2013 (n=138) 2012 (n=146)
3.62%
6.16%
35
32.38%
25.36%
28.77%
27
31.92%
18.84%
18.49%
11
10.96%
8.70%
6.85%
58
138
10.29%
100.00%
43.48%
42.47%
14
2.3 Research and teaching procedures used in 2013
Animals per
procedure
Projects per
procedure
Procedure
Observation
with minor
interference
51610
38
Minor
conscious
procedure
53207
34
Minor
physiological
challenge
4056
4
Minor
operative
procedure
with
recovery
1242
13
Major
physiological
challenge
1628
5
Major
surgery with
recovery
353
3
Animal
unconscious
no recovery
39798
40
Totals
151894
153*
*Projects may have multiple procedures
15
% Animals
% Projects in
2013 (n=138)
% Projects in
2012 (n=146)
33.98%
28.99%
0.23%
35.03%
27.54%
0.24%
2.67%
3.62%
0.02%
0.82%
13.04%
0.01%
1.07%
3.62%
0.01%
0.23%
5.07%
0.00%
26.20%
100.00%
28.99%
0.18%
Table 3 Summary of animal types used by institutions in 2013
Institution
Amphibians
Aquatic animals
Cephalopods
Fish
Birds
Exotic wild
Native wild
ANU
Birdlife
Tas
CMAR
Deakin
10
5079
180
3448
DPIPWE
5
Entura
858
82
FBN
Freshwater
Poultry
GHD
169
800
2
1026
131
FoMI
472
30
Domestic mammals
Cats
Cattle
Dogs
Sheep
Exotic feral animals
Cats
Mice
Rabbits
Rats
Lab mammals
Mice
Rats
Native mammals
Cetaceans
Echidna
Macropods
Native Rats and Mice
Other native mammals
Platypus
Possums and gliders
Quoll
Tas Devils
Wombats
Reptiles
Lizards
Total
9
2
43223
5138
4
15
15
16685
609
547
132
15247
2551
3
3
180
3448
5089
1
85976
131
16
82
132
800
472
169
Table 3 Summary of animal types used by institutions in 2013 continued
Institution
Amphibians
Aquatic animals
Cephalopods
Fish
Birds
LaTrobe
Mooney
Murdoch
NBES
120
Robertson
TasIrrig
141
U Syd
U Tas
VWSG
292
46280
27
Exotic wild
2
Native wild
Poultry
Domestic
mammals
Cats
Cattle
Dogs
Sheep
Exotic feral
animals
Cats
Mice
Rabbits
Rats
Lab mammals
Mice
Rats
Native mammals
Cetaceans
379
273
369
483
39
39
1
1
3550
776
Echidna
Macropods
Native Rats and
Mice
Other native
mammals
Platypus
Possums and gliders
Quoll
Tas Devils
Wombats
Reptiles
Lizards
Total
210
5
11
429
2
165
414
160
65
106
9
2
10
9
99
354
50
120
17
210
141
687
634
53747
369
Table 4 Purposes and procedures used for animal types in 2013
Amphibians
Aquatic
animals
Birds
Cephalopods
Exotic
wild
Fish
Domestic mammals
Native
wild
Poultry
Cats
Cattle
Dogs
Sheep
Purpose
Education
Environmental
study
Health &
welfare
7743
146
10
120
1388
206
29390
Understanding
biology
86
10941
5
7
261
Minor
physiological
challenge
Minor
operative
procedure
with recovery
5499
2650
5
9
2
30
43223
756
15
748
20
5287
2
7315
965
9
30
597
2
159
35
43223
3764
79
Major
physiological
challenge
Major surgery
with recovery
937
1430
120
Animal
unconscious
no recovery
Total
2
3833
Management &
production
Procedure
Observation
with minor
interference
Minor
conscious
procedure
4
266
216
37079
302
53295
4
2
6252
18
30
9
756
2
43262
Table 4 Purposes and procedures used for animal types in 2013 continued
Exotic feral animals
Cats
Mice
Lab mammals
Rabbits
Rats
Mice
Rats
Native mammals
Cetaceans
Echidna
Macropods
Purpose
Education
Environmental
study
Health &
welfare
36
29
5138
4
429
15
922
282
2592
494
15
14
16685
15
3
17114
Management &
production
Understanding
biology
11
Procedure
Observation
with minor
interference
40
5138
4
15
55
Minor
conscious
procedure
646
Minor
physiological
challenge
292
Minor
operative
procedure with
recovery
140
Major
physiological
challenge
198
Major surgery
with recovery
233
Animal
unconscious no
recovery
1986
511
3550
776
Total
40
5138
4
15
19
258
8
7
3
15
14
17114
Table 4 Purposes and procedures used for animal types in 2013 continued
Native mammals continued
Other
Native Rats native
and Mice mammals
Reptiles
Possums
Platypus and gliders
Quoll
Tas Devils Wombats
Lizards
Purpose
Education
Environmental
study
Health &
welfare
20
609
1143
2
15247
2551
65
319
3
361
44
50
254
319
53
611
3
Management
& production
Understanding
biology
165
110
106
774
971
15353
2
282
Procedure
Observation
with minor
interference
Minor
conscious
procedure
2551
34
24
Minor
physiological
challenge
Minor
operative
procedure
with recovery
65
11
Major
physiological
challenge
Major surgery
with recovery
Animal
unconscious
no recovery
Total
2
776
1253
65
15353
2551
20
366
53
635
Figure 1 Animal categories used between 2009 and 2013
21
Figure 2 Purposes for which animals were used between 2009 and 2013
22
Figure 3 Procedures used between 2009 and 2013
120000
Number of animals
100000
80000
60000
40000
2009
20000
2010
0
2011
2012
2013
Procedures
23
ABBREVIATIONS
AEC
Animal Ethics Committee
ANU
Australian National University
AWAC
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
Birdlife
Birdlife Tasmania
CMAR
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
CRG
Code Reference Group (NHMRC)
CSIRO
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division
Deakin
Deakin University, Victoria
DPIPWE
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment
Entura
Entura
Fearn
Mr Simon Fearn
FBN
FlyByNight (Hoye)
FoMI
Friends of Maatsuyker Island
Freshwater
Freshwater Systems Pty Ltd
GHD
GHD Pty Ltd
HAC
Huon Aquaculture Co Pty Ltd
LaTrobe
La Trobe University, Victoria
Mooney
Mr Nicholas Mooney
Murdoch
Murdoch University, Western Australia
NBES
North Barker Ecosystem Services
NHMRC
National Health and Medical Research Council
Robertson
Dr Bruce Robertson
Rouse
Dr Gregory Rouse
TasIrrig
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd
USyd
University of Sydney, New South Wales
UTas
University of Tasmania
VWSG
Victorian Wader Study Group
END
24