Scientific research can be seen by some as a competitive territory: competition of opinions, concepts, publications, competition for funding. Fortunately, it is above all a territory of sharing and cross-fertilization of ideas. It is gradually becoming a territory of productive interdisciplinary collaborations, despite persistent resistance to making borders more permeable [1]. At the crossroads of worlds, many challenges must be met for communities to understand each other, to be able to communicate with one another, and to benefit mutually from scientific interactions [2].

Delphine Destoumieux-Garzon and co-authors [3] propose to stimulate a single Animal Research Kinship (OneARK) to promote the crossing of the scientific communities in animal production and animal ecology. These two communities share many concepts and methods, which, while they are based on marked specificities (natural versus artificial systems), also and above all have common points that need to be explored more closely. Seven concepts of shared interest to improve the resilience and sustainability of animal population systems were explored by the authors: selection, system viability, system management, animal adaptability, inter-individual diversity in systems, agroecology, and animal monitoring.

This foundation stone paves the way for a finer integration between these two communities, which are close and yet distant, and which are slowly getting to know, understand, and recognize each other.

References

[1] Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525, 308–311. doi: 10.1038/525308a
[2] Knapp, B., Bardenet, R., Bernabeu, M. O., Bordas, R., Bruna, M., Calderhead, B., … Deane, C. M. (2015). Ten simple rules for a successful cross-disciplinary collaboration. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(4), e1004214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004214
[3] Destoumieux-Garzón, D., Bonnet, P., Teplitsky, C., Criscuolo, F., Henry, P.-Y., Mazurais, D., … Friggens, N. (2020). OneARK: Strengthening the links between animal production science and animal ecology. Ver 6 Peer-Reviewed and Recommended by PCI Animal Science. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3632731

Assessing body or carcass composition in growing pigs is essential to refine nutritional models, select for specific traits and evaluate pork products. The gold standard methods are dissection and chemical measurements, which are time-consuming and invasive ways to obtain the data. Different teams have tested dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), especially for determining total and regional body composition of fat, soft lean tissues and bone minerals [1-3]. The DEXA measurements are quick, non-invasive, precise, and operator independent. However, the instruments from different manufacturers are unique in implementation so that it is difficult to obtain and share generalized equations. In addition, the validity and accuracy of the measures when applied to pigs having very different composition have been scarcely addressed.

The present manuscript shows that carcass analysis by DEXA can be used to predict empty body chemical composition, and it provides accuracy values for the content in single nutrients (protein, lipids, Ca, P). The body weight range used to generate differences in body composition is very large (20 to 100 kg), which is important when studying pigs along growth. Moreover, regression equations within weight classes (20, 60 and 100 kg) show no important biases, with the exception for body fat especially at the earliest growth stages. Limitations of the technique are the needs of anesthesia when applied to living pigs, and of standardizing the positions of body, carcass and cuts when applied to living or dissected pigs. Another originality of the manuscript is the comparison of the obtained calibrations with previously published prediction models, showing that the differences do not preclude the possibility to use a single model when built from a meta-analysis of the different data. Taken together, this work offers good perspectives to refine nutritional models by inputs from rapidly analyzed body chemical composition and to monitor body and carcass composition in several pigs for genetics applications.

References

[1] Mitchell AD., Scholz AM., Pursel VG., and Evock-Clover CM. (1998). Composition analysis of pork carcasses by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Journal of Animal Science. 76(8), 2104-14. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7682104x

[2] Marcoux M., Bernier JF., and Pomar C. (2003). Estimation of Canadian and European lean yields and composition of pig carcasses by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Meat Science. 63(3), 359-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00094-3

[3] Kipper M., Marcoux M., Andretta I., and Pomar C. (2018). Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry on pig carcasses. Journal of Animal Science, 96(5), 2027-2037. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx046 "

Many cognitive studies use paradigms based on active decision-making, that require that animals are motivated to participate and interested in the reward (e.g. Rivas-Blanco et al., 2023). By contrast, looking time paradigms, in which the visual attention of an animal to a stimulus is measured, requires little training and little action from the subject, and can be used without reinforcement (e.g. Wilson et al., 2023). 

In this methodological paper, Jana Deutsch and her collaborators investigated the possibility of using a looking time paradigm to study perception and cognition in goats. The advantage of such a paradigm would be that it requires little training and can be used with no reinforcement. Goats were observed in front of two video screens presenting pictures of goats (familiar or not), of humans (familiar or not), or remaining white. The authors hypothesised that goats would pay more attention to pictures than to a white screen, would pay more attention to goats than to humans, and would discriminate familiar vs. unfamiliar beings. The goats had received previous positive contacts with the familiar humans. The goats were extensively habituated to the experimental set-up so that stress did not interfere in responses to testing. The stimuli were presented on the screens in a pseudorandomized and counterbalanced order.

As hypothesised, goats looked longer at screen with pictures, and longer when the picture was that of another goat (familiar or not) than of a human being. Goats however did not seem to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar being, or were equally motivated by the two types of beings. Ear postures were also recorded but did not show a relation with looking time and were not related to the type of picture shown on screens. Therefore, the authors argue that looking time but not ear posture is considered appropriate to test discrimination abilities or preferences in goats. More studies are needed to check if goats can differentiate familiar vs. unfamiliar beings.

The experimental design is sound. The statistical analyses are rigorous and very relevant.  The paper is clearly written.

I recommend the manuscript for publication for its originality and its quality; In addition, the paper bring findings – that looking time is an adequate paradigm in goats to analyse how they pay attention to stimuli – that have potential impacts on further studies in animal cognition.

References

Deutsch, J., Lebing, S., Eggert, A., Nawroth, C. (2024). Goats who stare at video screens – assessing behavioural responses of goats towards images of familiar and unfamiliar con- and heterospecifics. OSF, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/d4nzk

Rivas-Blanco, D., Monteiro, T., Virányi, Z., Range, F. (2024). Going back to “basics”: Harlow’s learning set task with wolves and dogs. Learning & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-024-00631-6 

Wilson, V. A. D., Bethell, E. J., Nawroth, C. (2023). The use of gaze to study cognition: limitations, solutions, and applications to animal welfare. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1147278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147278 

"Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution?" by Birte Nielsen and colleagues [1] provides food for thought on the ethical assessment of experiments involving farm animals. While regulations can provide a precise framework, they differ from country to country and do not consider several cases, mainly when the experimentation involves non- or minimally invasive manipulations. It is also the case when research projects use farmed animals that do not fall within the scope of the regulations on animal experimentation but have undergone practices that can be authorised on farms but may raise ethical questions (tail docking, live castration, tooth filing, beak trimming, dehorning). On the other hand, the heterogeneity of the criteria taken into account by the ethics committees, when they exist (and this can differ greatly from one country to another), do not necessarily correspond to the criteria of the journals, the reviewers and the bodies brought in to evaluate the research project, or to the regulations specific to each country.  

All these paradoxes lead the authors to propose solutions, the most straightforward and spontaneous of which is to ask ourselves questions about this issue upstream of the experimental design required to answer a given scientific question. While increasing the number of ethical review committees may be an insufficient option, the authors insist on the importance of improving committee members' training, taking into consideration jurisdictions' differences between countries and spending more time on ethics evaluation during manuscripts' reviewing. In addition, the upstream assessment of research projects by ethics committees, specific to an institution (research institute, universities, companies), a scientific publisher or even a dedicated international ethical review board may also be a good option.

The ethical evaluation of research projects is a question at the heart of our research activities, for which we do not have all the answers. As with scientific reviewing, we must take on the role of evaluator or be evaluated ourselves, using criteria and feelings that are not always consensual. The heterogeneity of evaluation systems within the scientific community, the lack of training for scientists in the fundamentals of ethical evaluation, and the different perceptions of the animal condition between countries and cultures can lead to a reciprocal lack of understanding between evaluator and evaluated, and sometimes a feeling of injustice, as some research may be easy to conduct in one country but difficult in another. Indeed, it is exciting to read the exchanges between the authors and the three reviewers who assessed this opinion paper to appreciate the diversity of points of view and see specific points of divergence.

In addition to animal experimentation, the judgment handed down on 30 June 2023 by the French court penalising a pig farmer for the abusive use of an authorised breeding practice (tail docking) is a perfect illustration of the fact that the ethical assessment of practices and handling of farm animals now extends far beyond the scientific world and is becoming an increasingly important factor in the relationship between society and animal breeding. Failure to consider this evolution, whether in experimentation or animal husbandry, may have legal consequences and increase the lack of understanding between our practices and how society perceives them. The questions raised and the solutions proposed in the article by Nielsen et al. are central to our concerns, not only for the scientific community but also to meet the expectations of all stakeholders.

Finally, although the authors do not directly address the question of genome editing and research using edited farm animals, this is and will be at the heart of future issues concerning the ethical evaluation of research projects. As with practices and manipulations, the intentionality of the modifications induced leads us to question and evaluate, in farmed species, their consequences on animal welfare and their relevance to society and the development of more sustainable and socially accepted animal husbandry.

Reference

[1] Nielsen, B. L., Golledge, H. D. R., Chou, J., Camerlink, I., Pongrácz, P., Ceballos, M., Whittaker, A. L., Olsson, I. S. (2023) Ensuring ethical animal welfare research: Are more ethics review committees the solution? OSF Preprints. Ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s6459

The reduction of antibiotic use in livestock production, for the different species, has become a critical focus in national action plans across many countries, underscoring the urgent need to tackle this issue to preserve public health and combat antibiotic resistance (Xu et al., 2022; Jacobsen et al., 2023; Bava et al., 2024). Among these efforts, Vietnam's ambitious 2017 livestock plan is notable for its comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at controlling antibiotic use. This framework includes a phased ban on prophylactic antibiotics in animal feed and requires mandatory prescriptions for antibiotic access.

Despite these promising regulations, their actual implementation poses significant challenges, with limited data available on their practical application. A recent study led by Batie and collaborators attempts to fill this knowledge gap by examining how these regulations are understood, accepted, and applied by stakeholders in the veterinary drug value chain in both northern and southern Vietnam (Batie et al., 2024).

The study employed an interesting iterative stakeholder mapping and analysis approach, organizing a focus group in Hanoi with 12 participants and conducting 39 in-depth semi-structured interviews with a diverse range of stakeholders. These included government authorities, national research bodies, international partners, and private sector representatives. The qualitative analysis aimed to map the veterinary drug value chain, assess stakeholders' technical and social capital regarding regulations, and identify key factors influencing regulatory compliance.

This research convincingly unveiled a complex network of 30 stakeholder categories and identified ten crucial factors that affect the implementation of regulations. These factors include stakeholders’ perceptions and understanding of the regulations, the availability of technical guidance, economic conflicts of interest, management inconsistencies, and hurdles such as technical and financial constraints, informal distribution channels, international influence, and consumer demand for safety. Additionally, the collective drive to reduce antibiotic resistance emerged as an influential factor.

The comprehensive analysis reveals a pressing insight: although Vietnam's regulatory measures are essential for reducing antibiotic usage, their effectiveness is compromised by barriers such as inadequate local stakeholder involvement and various resource limitations. The study emphasizes the necessity for deeper engagement of local stakeholders in developing and refining these regulations. Furthermore, incorporating innovations from small producers into mainstream practices could be vital in overcoming current challenges.

Nonetheless, the study acknowledges several limitations. Most interviews were conducted online owing to the health crisis—a much-needed format for time and budget constraints, albeit with some drawbacks such as reduced direct observations and potential information loss (Namey et al., 2019). The sensitivity of the subject may have led participants to withhold their true opinions, although the researchers attempted to mitigate this bias by interviewing multiple respondents from each category and gathering diverse perspectives. Notably, the study struggled to engage informal stakeholders, which could have enriched the description of the informal value chain. Constraints of time and resources meant that only a single representative from some stakeholder categories was interviewed, suggesting that interviewing additional parties, such as another veterinary district station, might have clarified roles within the drug value chain. The stakeholder identification was initially influenced by the researchers’ familiarity with the Vietnamese context; however, the iterative process helped address this limitation by recruiting new participants based on existing participants' knowledge. Additionally, translation issues may have introduced misunderstandings, potentially leading to an incomplete representation of the veterinary drug value chain, which reflects the situation as of data collection in 2021.

For Vietnam to meet its policy objectives and contribute to the global endeavor against antibiotic resistance, it is crucial to reconcile stakeholder discrepancies and promote collaborative innovation. By fostering an inclusive environment for all parties, Vietnam can not only enhance regulatory adherence but also strengthen its commitment to sustainable and responsible livestock farming practices.

The study is thoughtfully designed and skillfully executed. Additionally, the authors have made further improvements based on feedback from the journal. Readers will find the article both informative and engaging, providing valuable insights. I highly recommend this original article on the regulatory framework for controlling antibiotic use in Vietnam's livestock production systems.

References

Batie, C., Duy, N. V., Khue, N. T. M., Peyre, M., Bordier, M., Dien, N. T., et al. (2024). Understanding the implementation of antimicrobial resistance policies in Vietnam: a multilayer analysis of the veterinary drug value chain. medRxiv, 2024.06.27.24309573, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.27.24309573   

Bava, R., Castagna, F., Lupia, C., Poerio, G., Liguori, G., Lombardi, R., et al. (2024). Antimicrobial Resistance in Livestock: A Serious Threat to Public Health. Antibiotics 13, 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13060551

Jacobsen, A. B. J. E., Ogden, J., and Ekiri, A. B. (2023). Antimicrobial resistance interventions in the animal sector: scoping review. Front. Antibiot. 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frabi.2023.1233698 

Namey, E., Guest, G., O’Regan, A., Godwin, C. L., Taylor, J., and Martinez, A. (2019). How Does Mode of Qualitative Data Collection Affect Data and Cost? Findings from a Quasi-experimental Study. Field Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19886839 

Xu, C., Kong, L., Gao, H., Cheng, X., and Wang, X. (2022). A Review of Current Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics in Food Animals. Front Microbiol 13, 822689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.822689