One of the achievements of animal genetics is that it finds solutions along with the emergence of new needs of the animal husbandry community or the adoption of new laws. Muir and Cheng (2013) research serves as a classic example of using the innovations of animal genetics to meet new legal challenges, such as the restriction of beak cutting in laying hens. Muir and Cheng (2013) investigated the genetic diversity to deal with the cannibalism of intact chickens. In 2021, the European Citizens' Initiative urged the European Commission to legislate against the use of cages for farm animals in the livestock industry. Chapuis et al., (2024) presented a successful solution to the poultry industry about this (future) law by presenting a cost-efficient assignment SNP panel.

In animal breeding, access to pedigree information is necessary for genetic progress. Since the 1970s, the development of genomic science and  molecular techniques has shown their ability in this field. Despite the substantial reduction of genotyping costs in the last 20 years, the practical use of genome-wide genotyping for thousands of SNPs remains challenging. Therefore, the search for a small, cost-effective SNP panel is ongoing, with objectives including genetic diversity (Viale et al., 2017), product traceability (Dominik et al., 2021), species and hybrid identification (Harmoinen et al., 2021) and pedigree construction in wild populations (Ekblom et al., 2021). Furthermore, especially in recent decades, small panels of markers have been proposed for parentage assignment in different animals. For example, Domínguez-Viveros et al., (2020) developed panels with 42 to 63 markers for different sheep breeds in Mexico. Similar panels for parentage assignment have been proposed for salmon (May et al., 2020), rainbow trout (Liu et al., 2016), French sheep (Tortereau et al., 2017), Spanish sheep (Calvo et al., 2021), and European bison (Wehrenberg et al., 2024), with marker numbers of 142, 95, 180, 173, and 96, respectively. Massault et al., (2021) showed by simulation that a panel with at least 50 markers is sufficient for progeny assignment in pearl oysters. These examples highlight that extracting a small panel of markers (usually less than 200) from the total genotyping introduced in different species, can open new horizons for applying genomic information in animal breeding.

Chapuis et al. (2024) addressed the challenge of finding an efficient set of markers that can be used in the hybridization of two species of the Pekin duck and the Muscovy duck. They used KASPar technology to setup a panel, with SNPs existing in both species and their hybrids. This panel has sufficient polymorphism to use in practice. Thus, it can be considered as a step forward compared to previous work done on microsatellites. A final list of SNPs was constructed from a reference set comprising 600 K genotyping of Anas platyrhynchos, Cairina moschata and mule duck. 

In addition to developing of a cost-efficient assignment panel, the work of Chapuis et al. (2024) presented a factorial design to maintain genetic diversity while considering specificities of duck production. The use of factorial design in avian pedigreed populations is relatively novel, making this research particularly innovative. The study's approach to factorial design in populations with limited size may be generalized to similar poultry species. Furthermore, sufficient effective size of population is selected. So, the panel can be used in other populations outside the tested populations. A notable feature of this panel is the use of neutral SNPs, which ensures that markers will not be lost due to future selection pressures over time.

The paper of Chapuis et al. (2024) exemplifies the application of molecular genetics to address challenges in the poultry industry.  The use of kinship matrix instead of relationship matrix, taking into account the unique characteristics of duck production, could be another novelty of the paper. According to the reviewers' comments, the results can be beneficial in the future, particularly with the introduction of the specific factorial design.

References

Calvo JH, Serrano M, Tortereau F, Sarto P, Iguacel LP, Jiménez MA, Folch J, Alabart JL, Fabre S and Lahoz B (2021). Development of a SNP parentage assignment panel in some North-Eastern Spanish meat sheep breeds. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 18, e0406. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2020184-16805    

Chapuis H, Brard-Fudulea S, Hazard A, Vignal A, Demars J, Rouger R, Teissier M, Gilbert H (2024). Cost-efficient assignment panel for ducks. Setup of a cost-efficient assignment panel for duck populations.: An illustration with experimental data. HAL, hal-04542880, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Animal Science. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04542880 

Domínguez-Viveros J, Rodríguez-Almeida FA, Jahuey-Martínez FJ, Martínez-Quintana JA, Aguilar-Palma GN, Ordoñez-Baquera P (2020). Definition of a SNP panel for paternity testing in ten sheep populations in Mexico, Small Ruminant Research ,193,106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106262

Dominik S, Duff CJ, Byrne AI, Daetwyler H, Reverter A (2021). Ultra-small SNP panels to uniquely identify individuals in thousands of samples. Animal Production Science 61, 1796–1800. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21123

Ekblom R, Aronsson M, Elsner-Gearing F, Johansson M, Fountain T, Persson J (2021). Sample identification and pedigree reconstruction in Wolverine (Gulo gulo) using SNP genotyping of non-invasive samples. Conservation Genetics Resources 13, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-021-01208-5

Harmoinen J, von Thaden A, Aspi J, Kvist L, Cocchiararo B, Jarausch A, Gazzola A, Sin T, Lohi H, Hytönen MK, Kojola I, Stronen AV, Caniglia R, Mattucci F, Galaverni M, Godinho R, Ruiz-González A, Randi E, Muñoz-Fuentes V, Nowak C (2021). Reliable wolf-dog hybrid detection in Europe using a reduced SNP panel developed for non-invasively collected samples. BMC Genomics 22, 473. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07761-5

Liu S, Palti Y, Gao G, Rexroad CE (2016). Development and validation of a SNP panel for parentage assignment in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 452, 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.001

Massault C, Jones DB, Zenger KR, Strugnell JM, Barnard R, Jerry DR (2021). A SNP parentage assignment panel for the silver lipped pearl oyster (Pinctada maxima). Aquaculture Reports 20, 100687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100687

May SA, McKinney GJ, Hilborn R, Hauser L, Naish KA (2020). Power of a dual-use SNP panel for pedigree reconstruction and population assignment. Ecology and Evolution 10, 9522–9531. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6645

Muir WM, Cheng HW(2013). Genetics and the Behaviour of Chickens: Welfare and Productivity. In Genetics and the Behaviour of Domestic Animals. Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). pp. 1–30.ISBN: 9780128100165

Tortereau F, Moreno CR, Tosser-Klopp G, Servin B, Raoul J (2017). Development of a SNP panel dedicated to parentage assignment in French sheep populations. BMC Genetics 18, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-017-0518-2

Viale E, Zanetti E, Özdemir D, Broccanello C, Dalmasso A, De Marchi M, Cassandro M (2017). Development and validation of a novel SNP panel for the genetic characterization of Italian chicken breeds by next-generation sequencing discovery and array genotyping. Poultry Science 96, 3858–3866. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex238

Wehrenberg G, Tokarska M, Cocchiararo B, Nowak C (2024). A reduced SNP panel optimised for non-invasive genetic assessment of a genetically impoverished conservation icon, the European bison. Scientific Reports 14, 1875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51495-9

"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

With the increasing use of cage-free housing systems for laying hens comes the challenge of monitoring the behaviour of individual hens in large enclosures where they can be not only on the floors but on different levels. The aim of the present study by Gebhardt-Henrich et al., (2023) was to validate a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system with the capacity to track a large number of hens for different research and applied purposes where behaviour monitoring is relevant, such as heritability estimates for breeding programs.

In a housing system with 225 birds per pens, 26 antennae were placed at different locations. All birds in 5 pens were equipped with a glass tag in a custom-developed leg band. For validation purposes, the behaviour of three hens who could move between two pens was also monitored on video. Equipping these hens with colour-coded backpacks made them identifiable on video.

Matching the antennae detection of the focal birds with the behaviour observation showed that the antennae were able to detect a hen on the right tier in > 90% of cases, but that match on antenna level was lower.

The limitations of the system are also discussed in this concise methods paper that will be helpful to many researchers interested in tracking laying hens in loose housing systems.

Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G., Kashev, A., Petelle, M.B., Toscano, M.J., 2023. Validation of a Radio frequency identification system for tracking location of laying hens in a quasi-commercial aviary system. bioRxiv 2023.02.16.528820. ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.16.528820

A correct execution of feeding plan for growing rabbit decreases the possibility of post-weaning digestive disorders, thus enhancing the feed efficiency in the animals. However, a limitation of feed daily quantity is required between 10 weeks of age and the first artificial insemination. This limitation causes energy deficiency with a consequent reduction in fertility. Beauvais et al. (2022) studied the impact of feed restriction strategies in female rabbits. Four feed restriction strategies were applied in two distinct periods (post-weaning and puberty) and evaluated by different physiological parameters (growth rate, metabolic profiles, reproductive parameters and mammary gland development). In the first part of the paper, the authors evaluated the association between weight slopes and feeding strategies in the late post-weaning and peripartum period in the four groups. As revealed by the authors, a significant difference was observed during the late post-weaning period, which remained significant between the pubertal and fattening phases. Probably these differences are related to the restriction feeding pattern. The results indicated that restrictive feeding changes in the first step of post-weaning period is associated with a significant difference in body weight. This difference occurs from the third week of diet, highlighting the high sensitivity of growing rabbit to nutrition during the post-weaning period.

In the second part of the paper, the authors evaluated the expression of genes involved in the lipid metabolism. During the mid-pregnancy, was revealed a significant higher expression of lipogenic genes, which may be considered as useful markers for the mammary epithelial development in less restrictive strategies during early life period.

The results proposed by Beauvais et al. (2022) enlighten the important role played by the feeding conditions of young female rabbits in the early life rearing. In particular, this activity provides specific recommendations for optimizing lactation and thus preventing neonatal mortality of the offspring. Moreover, the authors provide indications about the effect of feeding strategies on the mammary development and gene expression with absolute consequences on the development of offspring. Mammary lipid metabolism affects the milk profile and therefore the growth performance of the young animals.

Reference

Hue-Beauvais C, Bebin K, Robert R, Gardan-Salmon D, Maupin M, Brun N, Aujean E, Jaffrezic F, Simon S, Charlier M, Le Provost F (2022). Impact of pre-breeding feeding practices on rabbit mammary gland development at mid-pregnancy. biorXiv, 2022.01.17.476562, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.17.476562 

Naturally occurring compounds that can reduce methane production in anaerobic conditions have been studied for quite some time as feasible approaches to mitigate methane production in ruminant animals, especially those of commercial importance. Asparagopsis taxiformis (red algae) and Dictyota bartayresii (brown algae) are effective inhibitors of methane synthesis under in vitro anaerobic fermentation systems (Machado et al., 2014) likely because of their high concentration of secondary metabolites that are toxic to the typical rumen microbiota, including protozoa. In addition to phytoplankton (Palmer and Reason, 2009), Asparagopsis contains a high concentration of haloform compounds (e.g., bromoform, chloroform) while Dictyota has a high concentration of isoprenoid terpenes. Despite the economic and biological impact of diverse phytochemicals on reducing methane production in ruminant animals (Tedeschi et al., 2021), haloform compounds’ environmental impact and safety, in particular, are still unclear. In the present study, Munõz-Tamayo and collaborators (2021) listed relevant literature about the impact of A. taxiformis on ruminal methane production.

Concurrent to the understanding of mechanisms and biology behind the reduction of ruminal methane, mathematical models can lead the way to enhance the effectiveness of feeding A. taxiformis under commercial applications. Thus, in the present study, Munõz-Tamayo and collaborators (2021) sought to develop a mathematical model to understand the rumen fermentation changes in vitro experimentation containing extract of A. taxiformis by adapting a previously documented model by Muñoz-Tamayo et al. (2016).

Modeling development, calibration, and evaluation steps should be independent of each other, requiring complete, distinct, and separate databases (Tedeschi, 2006). However, in rare circumstances where such requirements cannot be met because data availability is scarce, the cross-validation technique, when possible, should be considered to assess data dispersion’s effects on model adequacy. In other situations, clear reasoning for failing to do so must be addressed in the paper. In the present paper, Munõz-Tamayo and collaborators (2021) explained the limitations in their modeling efforts were primarily due to the lack of ideal data: “experiments with simultaneous dynamic data of bromoform, volatile fatty acids, hydrogen, and methane.” Regardless of the availability of ideal data, improvements in the conceptual model are warranted to include amino acids and branched-chain fatty acids fermentation dynamics in the rumen and the fluctuations in ruminal pH.

References

Machado L, Magnusson M, Paul NA, Nys R de, Tomkins N (2014) Effects of Marine and Freshwater Macroalgae on In Vitro Total Gas and Methane Production. PLOS ONE, 9, e85289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085289

Muñoz-Tamayo R, Chagas JC, Ramin M, Krizsan SJ (2021) Modelling the impact of the macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis on rumen microbial fermentation and methane production. bioRxiv, 2020.11.09.374330, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.09.374330

Muñoz-Tamayo R, Giger-Reverdin S, Sauvant D (2016) Mechanistic modelling of in vitro fermentation and methane production by rumen microbiota. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 220, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.005

Palmer CJ, Reason CJ (2009) Relationships of surface bromoform concentrations with mixed layer depth and salinity in the tropical oceans. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003338

Tedeschi LO (2006) Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agricultural Systems, 89, 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004

Tedeschi LO, Muir JP, Naumann HD, Norris AB, Ramírez-Restrepo CA, Mertens-Talcott SU (2021) Nutritional Aspects of Ecologically Relevant Phytochemicals in Ruminant Production. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.628445