Small Companion Animals - experiment
Rabbits have been and continue to be used in laboratory work such as production of antibodies for vaccines and research of human male reproductive system toxicology. In 1972, around 450 000 rabbits were used for experiments in the United States, decreasing to around 240 000 in 2006. The Environmental Health Perspective, published by the National Institute of Health, states, "The rabbit is an extremely valuable model for studying the effects of chemicals or other stimuli on the male reproductive system."
According to the Humane Society of the United States, rabbits are also used extensively in the study of bronchial asthma, stroke prevention treatments, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and cancer.
The New Zealand White is one of the most commonly used breeds for research and testing.
Animal rights activists generally oppose animal experimentation for all purposes, and rabbits are no exception. The use of rabbits for the Draize test, which is used for, amongst other things, testing cosmetics on animals, has been cited as an example of cruelty in animal research.
Albino rabbits are typically used in the Draize tests because they have less tear flow than other animals and the lack of eye pigment make the effects easier to visualize.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, rabbits are also used extensively in the study of bronchial asthma, stroke prevention treatments, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and cancer.
The New Zealand White is one of the most commonly used breeds for research and testing.
Animal rights activists generally oppose animal experimentation for all purposes, and rabbits are no exception. The use of rabbits for the Draize test, which is used for, amongst other things, testing cosmetics on animals, has been cited as an example of cruelty in animal research.
Albino rabbits are typically used in the Draize tests because they have less tear flow than other animals and the lack of eye pigment make the effects easier to visualize.
The rabbit test was an early pregnancy test developed in 1927 by Bernhard Zondek and Selmar Aschheim. The original test actually used mice. The test consisted of injecting the tested woman's urine into a female rabbit, then examining the rabbit's ovaries a few days later, which would change in response to a hormone only secreted by pregnant women. The hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), is produced during pregnancy and indicates the presence of a fertilized egg; it can be found in a pregnant woman's urine and blood.
The rabbit test became a widely used bioassay (animal-based test) to test for pregnancy. The term "rabbit test" was first recorded in 1949 but became a common phrase in the English language. Xenopus frogs were also used in a similar "frog test". Modern pregnancy tests still operate on the basis of testing for the presence of the hormone hCG. Due to medical advances, use of a live animal is no longer required. It is a common misconception that the injected rabbit would die only if the woman was pregnant. This led to the phrase "the rabbit died" being used as a euphemism for a positive pregnancy test. In fact, all rabbits used for the test died, because they had to be surgically opened in order to examine the ovaries. While it was possible to do this without killing the rabbit, it was generally deemed not worth the trouble and expense. Source
The rabbit test became a widely used bioassay (animal-based test) to test for pregnancy. The term "rabbit test" was first recorded in 1949 but became a common phrase in the English language. Xenopus frogs were also used in a similar "frog test". Modern pregnancy tests still operate on the basis of testing for the presence of the hormone hCG. Due to medical advances, use of a live animal is no longer required. It is a common misconception that the injected rabbit would die only if the woman was pregnant. This led to the phrase "the rabbit died" being used as a euphemism for a positive pregnancy test. In fact, all rabbits used for the test died, because they had to be surgically opened in order to examine the ovaries. While it was possible to do this without killing the rabbit, it was generally deemed not worth the trouble and expense. Source
The use of guinea pigs in scientific experimentation dates back at least to the 17th century, when the Italian biologists Marcello Malpighi and Carlo Fracassati conducted vivisections of guinea pigs in their examinations of anatomic structures. In 1780, Antoine Lavoisier used a guinea pig in his experiments with the calorimeter, a device used to measure heat production.
The heat from the guinea pig's respiration melted snow surrounding the calorimeter, showing that respiratory gas exchange is a combustion, similar to a candle burning.
Guinea pigs played a major role in the establishment of germ theory in the late 19th century, through the experiments of Louis Pasteur, Émile Roux, and Robert Koch.
Guinea pigs have been launched into orbital space-flight several times, first by the USSR on the Sputnik 9 biosatellite of March 9, 1961 – with a successful recovery.
China also launched and recovered a biosatellite in 1990 which included guinea pigs as passengers.
In English, the term guinea pig is commonly used as a metaphor for a subject of scientific experimentation, or any experiment or test in modern times. This dates back to the early 20th century; the Oxford English Dictionary notes its first usage in this capacity in 1913.
In 1933, Consumers Research founders F. J. Schlink and Arthur Kallet wrote a book entitled 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs, extending the metaphor to consumer society. The book became a national bestseller in the United States, thus further popularizing the term, and spurred the growth of the consumer protection movement. The negative connotation of the term was later employed in the novel The Guinea Pigs by Czech author Ludvík Vaculík as an allegory for Soviet totalitarianism.
The heat from the guinea pig's respiration melted snow surrounding the calorimeter, showing that respiratory gas exchange is a combustion, similar to a candle burning.
Guinea pigs played a major role in the establishment of germ theory in the late 19th century, through the experiments of Louis Pasteur, Émile Roux, and Robert Koch.
Guinea pigs have been launched into orbital space-flight several times, first by the USSR on the Sputnik 9 biosatellite of March 9, 1961 – with a successful recovery.
China also launched and recovered a biosatellite in 1990 which included guinea pigs as passengers.
In English, the term guinea pig is commonly used as a metaphor for a subject of scientific experimentation, or any experiment or test in modern times. This dates back to the early 20th century; the Oxford English Dictionary notes its first usage in this capacity in 1913.
In 1933, Consumers Research founders F. J. Schlink and Arthur Kallet wrote a book entitled 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs, extending the metaphor to consumer society. The book became a national bestseller in the United States, thus further popularizing the term, and spurred the growth of the consumer protection movement. The negative connotation of the term was later employed in the novel The Guinea Pigs by Czech author Ludvík Vaculík as an allegory for Soviet totalitarianism.
Guinea pigs were popular laboratory animals until the later 20th century; about 2.5 million guinea pigs were used annually in the U.S. for research in the 1960s, but that total decreased to about 375,000 by the mid-1990s.
As of 2007, they constitute approximately 2% of the current total of laboratory animals. In the past they were widely used to standardize vaccines and antiviral agents; they were also often employed in studies on the production of antibodies in response to extreme allergic reactions, or anaphylaxis.
Less common uses included research in pharmacology and irradiation.
Since the middle 20th century, they have been replaced in laboratory contexts primarily by mice and rats. This is in part because research into the genetics of guinea pigs has lagged behind that of other rodents, although geneticists W. E. Castle and Sewall Wright made a number of contributions to this area of study, especially regarding coat color.
The guinea pig was most extensively implemented in research and diagnosis of infectious diseases.
Common uses included identification of brucellosis, Chagas disease, cholera, diphtheria, foot-and-mouth disease, glanders, Q fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and various strains of typhus.
They are still frequently used to diagnose tuberculosis, since they are easily infected by human tuberculosis bacteria. Because guinea pigs are one of the few animals which, like humans, cannot synthesize vitamin C but must obtain it from their diet, they are ideal for researching scurvy. From the accidental discovery in 1907 that scurvy could be induced in guinea pigs, to their use to prove the chemical structure of the "ascorbutic factor" in 1932, the guinea pig model proved a crucial part of vitamin C research.
As of 2007, they constitute approximately 2% of the current total of laboratory animals. In the past they were widely used to standardize vaccines and antiviral agents; they were also often employed in studies on the production of antibodies in response to extreme allergic reactions, or anaphylaxis.
Less common uses included research in pharmacology and irradiation.
Since the middle 20th century, they have been replaced in laboratory contexts primarily by mice and rats. This is in part because research into the genetics of guinea pigs has lagged behind that of other rodents, although geneticists W. E. Castle and Sewall Wright made a number of contributions to this area of study, especially regarding coat color.
The guinea pig was most extensively implemented in research and diagnosis of infectious diseases.
Common uses included identification of brucellosis, Chagas disease, cholera, diphtheria, foot-and-mouth disease, glanders, Q fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and various strains of typhus.
They are still frequently used to diagnose tuberculosis, since they are easily infected by human tuberculosis bacteria. Because guinea pigs are one of the few animals which, like humans, cannot synthesize vitamin C but must obtain it from their diet, they are ideal for researching scurvy. From the accidental discovery in 1907 that scurvy could be induced in guinea pigs, to their use to prove the chemical structure of the "ascorbutic factor" in 1932, the guinea pig model proved a crucial part of vitamin C research.
Complement, an important component for serology, was first isolated from the blood of the guinea pig. Guinea pigs have an unusual insulin mutation, and are a suitable species for the generation of anti-insulin antibodies.
Present at a level 10 times that found in other mammals, the insulin in guinea pigs may be important in growth regulation, a role usually played by growth hormone.
Additionally, guinea pigs have been identified as model organisms for the study of juvenile diabetes and, because of the frequency of pregnancy toxemia, of pre-eclampsia in human females.
Guinea pig strains used in scientific research are primarily outbred strains. Aside from the common American or English stock, the two main outbred strains in laboratory use are the Hartley and Dunkin-Hartley; these English strains are albino, although pigmented strains are also available.
Inbred strains are less common and are usually used for very specific research, such as immune system molecular biology. Of the inbred strains that have been created, the two that are still used with any frequency are, following Sewall Wright's designations, "Strain 2" and "Strain 13".
Present at a level 10 times that found in other mammals, the insulin in guinea pigs may be important in growth regulation, a role usually played by growth hormone.
Additionally, guinea pigs have been identified as model organisms for the study of juvenile diabetes and, because of the frequency of pregnancy toxemia, of pre-eclampsia in human females.
Guinea pig strains used in scientific research are primarily outbred strains. Aside from the common American or English stock, the two main outbred strains in laboratory use are the Hartley and Dunkin-Hartley; these English strains are albino, although pigmented strains are also available.
Inbred strains are less common and are usually used for very specific research, such as immune system molecular biology. Of the inbred strains that have been created, the two that are still used with any frequency are, following Sewall Wright's designations, "Strain 2" and "Strain 13".
Hairless breeds of guinea pigs have been used in scientific research since the 1980s, particularly for dermatological studies.
A hairless and immunodeficient breed was the result of a spontaneous genetic mutation in inbred laboratory strains from the Hartley stock at the Eastman Kodak Company in 1979.
An immunocompetent hairless breed was also identified by the Institute Armand Frappier in 1978, and Charles River Laboratories has reproduced this breed for research since 1982.
Cavy fanciers then began acquiring hairless breeds, and the pet hairless varieties are referred to as "skinny pigs".
A hairless and immunodeficient breed was the result of a spontaneous genetic mutation in inbred laboratory strains from the Hartley stock at the Eastman Kodak Company in 1979.
An immunocompetent hairless breed was also identified by the Institute Armand Frappier in 1978, and Charles River Laboratories has reproduced this breed for research since 1982.
Cavy fanciers then began acquiring hairless breeds, and the pet hairless varieties are referred to as "skinny pigs".
A laboratory rat is a rat of the species Rattus norvegicus which is bred and kept for scientific research. Laboratory rats have served as an important animal model for research in psychology, medicine, and other fields.
Laboratory rats share origins with their cousins in domestication, the fancy rats. In 18th century Europe, wild Brown rats ran rampant and this infestation fueled the industry of rat-catching. Rat-catchers would not only make money by trapping the rodents, but also by turning around and selling them for food, or more importantly, for rat-baiting.
Rat-baiting was a popular sport which involved filling a pit with rats and timing how long it took for a terrier to kill them all. Over time, breeding the rats for these contests produced variations in color, notably the albino and hooded varieties.
The first time one of these albino mutants was brought into a laboratory for a study was in 1828, in an experiment on fasting. Over the next 30 years rats were used for several more experiments and eventually the laboratory rat became the first animal domesticated for purely scientific reasons.
Over the years, rats have been used in many experimental studies, which have added to our understanding of genetics, diseases, the effects of drugs, and other topics in health and medicine.
Laboratory rats have also proved valuable in psychological studies of learning and other mental processes. The historical importance of this species to scientific research is reflected by the amount of literature on it, roughly 50% more than that on mice.
Domestic rats differ from wild rats in many ways: They are calmer and less likely to bite, they can tolerate greater crowding, they breed earlier and produce more offspring, and their brains, livers, kidneys, adrenal glands, and hearts are smaller.
Scientists have bred many strains or "lines" of rats specifically for experimentation. Most are derived from the albino Wistar rat, which is still widely used. Other common strains are the Sprague Dawley,
Fischer 344, Holtzman albino strains, the Long-Evans, and Lister black hooded rats. Inbred strains are also available but are not as commonly used as inbred mice.
Recent studies have shown that rats release a brain chemical, dopamine when they play. The study was conducted at Gettysburg College where holes were drilled into the skull of each experimentational rat and a tube was used to collect amounts of dopamine released.
This rat is being deprived of restful REM sleep by a researcher using a single platform ("flower pot") technique. The water is within 1 cm of the small flower pot bottom platform where the rat sits. At the onset of REM sleep, the rat would either fall into the water only to clamber back to its pot to avoid drowning, or its nose would become submerged into the water shocking it back to an awakened state.
Rat strains are generally not transgenic, or genetically modified, because the gene knockout and embryonic stem cell techniques that work in mice are relatively difficult in rats. This has disadvantaged many investigators, who regard many aspects of behavior and physiology in rats as more relevant to humans and easier to observe than in mice and who wish to trace their observations to underlying genes.
As a result, many have been forced to study questions in mice that might be better pursued in rats. In October 2003, however, researchers succeeded in cloning two laboratory rats by nuclear transfer. So rats may begin to see more use as genetic research subjects. Much of the genome of Rattus norvegicus has been sequenced.
Laboratory rats share origins with their cousins in domestication, the fancy rats. In 18th century Europe, wild Brown rats ran rampant and this infestation fueled the industry of rat-catching. Rat-catchers would not only make money by trapping the rodents, but also by turning around and selling them for food, or more importantly, for rat-baiting.
Rat-baiting was a popular sport which involved filling a pit with rats and timing how long it took for a terrier to kill them all. Over time, breeding the rats for these contests produced variations in color, notably the albino and hooded varieties.
The first time one of these albino mutants was brought into a laboratory for a study was in 1828, in an experiment on fasting. Over the next 30 years rats were used for several more experiments and eventually the laboratory rat became the first animal domesticated for purely scientific reasons.
Over the years, rats have been used in many experimental studies, which have added to our understanding of genetics, diseases, the effects of drugs, and other topics in health and medicine.
Laboratory rats have also proved valuable in psychological studies of learning and other mental processes. The historical importance of this species to scientific research is reflected by the amount of literature on it, roughly 50% more than that on mice.
Domestic rats differ from wild rats in many ways: They are calmer and less likely to bite, they can tolerate greater crowding, they breed earlier and produce more offspring, and their brains, livers, kidneys, adrenal glands, and hearts are smaller.
Scientists have bred many strains or "lines" of rats specifically for experimentation. Most are derived from the albino Wistar rat, which is still widely used. Other common strains are the Sprague Dawley,
Fischer 344, Holtzman albino strains, the Long-Evans, and Lister black hooded rats. Inbred strains are also available but are not as commonly used as inbred mice.
Recent studies have shown that rats release a brain chemical, dopamine when they play. The study was conducted at Gettysburg College where holes were drilled into the skull of each experimentational rat and a tube was used to collect amounts of dopamine released.
This rat is being deprived of restful REM sleep by a researcher using a single platform ("flower pot") technique. The water is within 1 cm of the small flower pot bottom platform where the rat sits. At the onset of REM sleep, the rat would either fall into the water only to clamber back to its pot to avoid drowning, or its nose would become submerged into the water shocking it back to an awakened state.
Rat strains are generally not transgenic, or genetically modified, because the gene knockout and embryonic stem cell techniques that work in mice are relatively difficult in rats. This has disadvantaged many investigators, who regard many aspects of behavior and physiology in rats as more relevant to humans and easier to observe than in mice and who wish to trace their observations to underlying genes.
As a result, many have been forced to study questions in mice that might be better pursued in rats. In October 2003, however, researchers succeeded in cloning two laboratory rats by nuclear transfer. So rats may begin to see more use as genetic research subjects. Much of the genome of Rattus norvegicus has been sequenced.
Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species, popular because of their availability, size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate.They are widely considered to be the prime model of inherited human disease and share 99% of their genes with humans. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can cost hundreds of dollars each.
Transgenic animal production consists of injecting each construct into 300–350 eggs, typically representing three days' work.
Twenty to fifty mice will normally be born from this number of injected eggs. These animals are screened for the presence of the transgene by a polymerase chain reaction genotyping assay. The number of transgenic animals typically varies from two to eight.
Chimeric mouse production consists of injecting embryonic stem cells provided by the investigator into 150–175 blastocysts, representing three days of work. Thirty to fifty live mice are normally born from this number of injected blastocysts.
Normally, the skin color of the mice from which the host blastocysts are derived is different from that of the strain used to produce the embryonic stem cells. Typically two to six mice will have skin and hair with greater than seventy percent ES cell contribution, indicating a good chance for embryonic stem cell contribution to the germline.
Transgenic animal production consists of injecting each construct into 300–350 eggs, typically representing three days' work.
Twenty to fifty mice will normally be born from this number of injected eggs. These animals are screened for the presence of the transgene by a polymerase chain reaction genotyping assay. The number of transgenic animals typically varies from two to eight.
Chimeric mouse production consists of injecting embryonic stem cells provided by the investigator into 150–175 blastocysts, representing three days of work. Thirty to fifty live mice are normally born from this number of injected blastocysts.
Normally, the skin color of the mice from which the host blastocysts are derived is different from that of the strain used to produce the embryonic stem cells. Typically two to six mice will have skin and hair with greater than seventy percent ES cell contribution, indicating a good chance for embryonic stem cell contribution to the germline.
Millions of birds suffer miserably each year in government, university, and private corporation laboratories, especially considering the huge numbers of chickens, turkeys, ducks, quails, and pigeons being used in agricultural research throughout the world, in addition to the increasing experimental use of adult chickens and chicken embryos to replace mammalian species in basic and biomedical research. For example, Colgate-Palmolive sponsored the development of the CAM (Chorioallantoic Membrane) Test, an eye irritation test in which vivisection of fertilized chicken eggs is necessary to expose the egg’s interior membrane to the materials being tested.
In 1993, a workshop on The Production of Avian Antibodies, held in Berlin, Germany, focused on the use of chickens instead of mammals to produce monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies (used in diagnostic testing). Instead of collecting blood from mammals to obtain antibodies (which causes pain and distress to animals), antibodies are extracted from the yolks of eggs laid by caged laboratory chickens who must endure painful immunization injections and ultimately be disposed of.
According to the publisher of The Laboratory Chicken (2002), within the last five years, “the chicken has found increased use in biomedical research, principally for production of polyclonal antibodies to be used in a wide variety of research efforts” (Fulton).
Multinational pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Bayer, and Pfizer maintain permanent laboratory flocks of chickens and other avian species to test their products on.2 Companies.
Like AviGenics and Embrex in the U.S. and Shanghai Fudan Xinyang Biological Technology Corporation in China are among the growing number of biotechnology firms that are being funded through government and university programs to develop genetically modified chickens for a wide array of projected uses in medicine and agribusiness (Shanghai).
A typical “breakthrough” article proclaims that genetically modified chicks “could become drug factories.”
According to one article, two U.S. biotechnology companies have already produced genetically modified birds who can lay eggs containing specific drugs, proteins, and antibodies targeting human medical problems. With hens laying an average of 200 eggs per hen each year, both companies say yields could be “large and lucrative” (Reuters).
In addition to spending millions of dollars on experiments funded by its corporate trade organization, the US Poultry & Egg Association, the poultry industry receives indirect government funding in the form of research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and its numerous university extension programs.
Tillman notes that “Agricultural studies are fundamental to the production agriculture departments of U.S. Land Grant Colleges” (p. 29).
Studies of the effects of food deprivation, artificially-induced diseases, and heat stress are among the many types of experiments that are repetitively conducted on birds at taxpayers’ expense.
Slaughter experiments are also routinely performed on live chickens, turkeys, ducks, ostriches, and emus, in which these birds are subjected to varying levels of electric shock in order to test the effect of various voltages on their muscle tissue for the meat industry.
For example, the Spring 2002 issue of the Journal of Applied Poultry Research has an article in which USDA researchers describe shocking 250 hens in a laboratory simulation of commercial slaughter conditions to show that “subjecting mature chickens to electrical stimulation will allow breast muscle deboning after 2 hours in the chiller with little or no additional holding time” (Dickens et al.).
Israeli scientists have bred a featherless chicken. Although featherless chickens look quite terrifying, poultry farm owners in many countries have shown keen interest in the birds because they will not need to be plucked.
According to the scientists who have bred the new species, these birds cause no harm to people’s heath. Moreover, they grow faster, and their meat is low fat.
According to the head of the project, Professor Avigdor Cahaner, at the Agricultural Institute in Rehvot, Israel, such birds have more advantages because there will be no need to install air conditioners for them in warmer countries. However, the genetic scientist admits that the new species of chickens are unlikely to adapt to cold climates. Consequently, breeding bald chicken in Scandinavian countries or Russia would be quite difficult.
The opponents of the new species have accused the Israeli scientists of having created a genetically modified chicken. But the scientists dismiss these charges and insist that the new chicken comes from a natural breed.
Russian experts have found another serious drawback, “When pairing the rooster may injure the hen with its nails and beak because it has no feathers on the head and the neck. Even now, the nails of two of the rooster’s fingers have to be cut off in order to prevent him from injuring the hen.
“When pairing the rooster may injure the hen with its nails and beak because it has no feathers on the head and the neck. Even now, the nails of two of the rooster’s fingers have to be cut off in order to prevent him from injuring the hen. But in the case of new breed, there will be scratches left on the hen’s skin, while the rooster will have nothing to hold on to with its beak. This can be quite dangerous for the hen because when other birds see an injured hen they start plucking her. This means that the hen would have to be isolated, treated or culled,” Margarita Dmitrieva said.
Moreover, the absence of feathers reduces the chickens’ resistance to many skin diseases. Birds will be consistently subjected to bacterial or fungal infections through skin injuries.
The Israeli geneticists agree with their Russian colleagues but continue to breed bald chickens. The team of researchers led by Avigdor Cahaner is carrying on the experiment. They weigh and measure the newly breed chickens, compare with the conventional breeds and monitor their population, feeding and growth. “The food prepared from bald chicken does not taste any different from those prepared from ordinary chicken,” say those who have just tasted the food prepared with bald chickens, as long as you haven’t seen those horrible creatures alive. Source
In 1993, a workshop on The Production of Avian Antibodies, held in Berlin, Germany, focused on the use of chickens instead of mammals to produce monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies (used in diagnostic testing). Instead of collecting blood from mammals to obtain antibodies (which causes pain and distress to animals), antibodies are extracted from the yolks of eggs laid by caged laboratory chickens who must endure painful immunization injections and ultimately be disposed of.
According to the publisher of The Laboratory Chicken (2002), within the last five years, “the chicken has found increased use in biomedical research, principally for production of polyclonal antibodies to be used in a wide variety of research efforts” (Fulton).
Multinational pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Bayer, and Pfizer maintain permanent laboratory flocks of chickens and other avian species to test their products on.2 Companies.
Like AviGenics and Embrex in the U.S. and Shanghai Fudan Xinyang Biological Technology Corporation in China are among the growing number of biotechnology firms that are being funded through government and university programs to develop genetically modified chickens for a wide array of projected uses in medicine and agribusiness (Shanghai).
A typical “breakthrough” article proclaims that genetically modified chicks “could become drug factories.”
According to one article, two U.S. biotechnology companies have already produced genetically modified birds who can lay eggs containing specific drugs, proteins, and antibodies targeting human medical problems. With hens laying an average of 200 eggs per hen each year, both companies say yields could be “large and lucrative” (Reuters).
In addition to spending millions of dollars on experiments funded by its corporate trade organization, the US Poultry & Egg Association, the poultry industry receives indirect government funding in the form of research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and its numerous university extension programs.
Tillman notes that “Agricultural studies are fundamental to the production agriculture departments of U.S. Land Grant Colleges” (p. 29).
Studies of the effects of food deprivation, artificially-induced diseases, and heat stress are among the many types of experiments that are repetitively conducted on birds at taxpayers’ expense.
Slaughter experiments are also routinely performed on live chickens, turkeys, ducks, ostriches, and emus, in which these birds are subjected to varying levels of electric shock in order to test the effect of various voltages on their muscle tissue for the meat industry.
For example, the Spring 2002 issue of the Journal of Applied Poultry Research has an article in which USDA researchers describe shocking 250 hens in a laboratory simulation of commercial slaughter conditions to show that “subjecting mature chickens to electrical stimulation will allow breast muscle deboning after 2 hours in the chiller with little or no additional holding time” (Dickens et al.).
Israeli scientists have bred a featherless chicken. Although featherless chickens look quite terrifying, poultry farm owners in many countries have shown keen interest in the birds because they will not need to be plucked.
According to the scientists who have bred the new species, these birds cause no harm to people’s heath. Moreover, they grow faster, and their meat is low fat.
According to the head of the project, Professor Avigdor Cahaner, at the Agricultural Institute in Rehvot, Israel, such birds have more advantages because there will be no need to install air conditioners for them in warmer countries. However, the genetic scientist admits that the new species of chickens are unlikely to adapt to cold climates. Consequently, breeding bald chicken in Scandinavian countries or Russia would be quite difficult.
The opponents of the new species have accused the Israeli scientists of having created a genetically modified chicken. But the scientists dismiss these charges and insist that the new chicken comes from a natural breed.
Russian experts have found another serious drawback, “When pairing the rooster may injure the hen with its nails and beak because it has no feathers on the head and the neck. Even now, the nails of two of the rooster’s fingers have to be cut off in order to prevent him from injuring the hen.
“When pairing the rooster may injure the hen with its nails and beak because it has no feathers on the head and the neck. Even now, the nails of two of the rooster’s fingers have to be cut off in order to prevent him from injuring the hen. But in the case of new breed, there will be scratches left on the hen’s skin, while the rooster will have nothing to hold on to with its beak. This can be quite dangerous for the hen because when other birds see an injured hen they start plucking her. This means that the hen would have to be isolated, treated or culled,” Margarita Dmitrieva said.
Moreover, the absence of feathers reduces the chickens’ resistance to many skin diseases. Birds will be consistently subjected to bacterial or fungal infections through skin injuries.
The Israeli geneticists agree with their Russian colleagues but continue to breed bald chickens. The team of researchers led by Avigdor Cahaner is carrying on the experiment. They weigh and measure the newly breed chickens, compare with the conventional breeds and monitor their population, feeding and growth. “The food prepared from bald chicken does not taste any different from those prepared from ordinary chicken,” say those who have just tasted the food prepared with bald chickens, as long as you haven’t seen those horrible creatures alive. Source