Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T23:05:21.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In-tank underwater cameras can refine monitoring of laboratory fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Ellis ,
GSE Rimmer ,
S-J Parker ,
C Joiner ,
M Sebire ,
DW Verner-Jeffreys  and
J Lines
T Ellis*
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
GSE Rimmer
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
S-J Parker
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
C Joiner
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
M Sebire
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
DW Verner-Jeffreys
Affiliation:
Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
J Lines
Affiliation:
Silsoe Livestock Systems Ltd, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: tim.ellis@cefas.co.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Laboratory animals need to be monitored to check the status of their health and welfare. Routine checks of laboratory fish are limited to visual observations of physical appearance and behaviour, but for species held in opaque-walled tanks, such checks are compromised by restricted views, poor visibility and provoked behaviour. Here, we report our experience of using in-tank underwater cameras to monitor laboratory populations of salmoniforme, perciforme and cypriniforme fish. A range of cameras and lenses were investigated and trialled. A standard VGA resolution analogue camera with a one-third-inch chip and 3.6-mm lens was selected based on size, picture quality, the proportion of tank in view and cost. A shell for the camera and mounting system were designed to minimise size and cleaning and enable flexible positioning within tanks. Cameras were connected via digital encoders to a server, making video available to the general computer network. Data collected from recordings of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) confirmed provoked behaviour, ie a change in distribution and increase in activity in response to direct viewing and feeding. The networked cameras therefore enable remote viewing of undisturbed behaviour in real time, providing clear, lateral views unaffected by water surface effects, and facilitate increased frequency of checking. Case studies illustrate how camera monitoring can aid detection of abnormalities in behaviour (eg lack of feeding, posture, swimming) and appearance (eg clinical signs, such as lesions), enabling earlier interventions. Furthermore, recordings provide a resource for reference and retrospective analysis, and evidence to support severity classification and identify humane end-points.

Keywords

animal welfareend-pointfish welfarelaboratory fishrefinementremote monitoring
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 191 - 203
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 2010 Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union L276: 33–79Google Scholar
Anon 2014a The 2014 Lush Prize: A global view of animal experiments 2014. http://www.lushprize.org/wp-content/uploads/Global_View_of-Animal_Experiments_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Anon 2014b Advisory notes on recording and reporting the actual severity of regulated procedures. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276014/NotesActualSeverityReporting.pdfGoogle Scholar
ASPI 2006 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate annual report 2005. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023091238Google Scholar
ASRU 2014 Extract taken from the code of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles and Cephalopods. https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389817/44389_unact_animals_Fish_Amphibians_Reptiles_and_Cephalopod.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burrows, MT, Gibson, RN, Robb, L and Comely, CA 1994 Temporal patterns of movement in juvenile flatfishes and their predators: underwater television observations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 177: 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(94)90240-2Google Scholar
CCAC 1998 Guidelines on choosing an appropriate endpoint in experiments using animals for research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
CCAC 2005 Guidelines on the care and use of fish in research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
CCAC 2017 CCAC animal data report 2016. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. https://www.ccac.ca/Documents/AUD/2016-Animal-Data-Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dennison, N and Ryder, K 2009 The challenges of using humane endpoints in fish research. https://norecopa.no/media/6272/abstract-ryder-endpoints.pdfGoogle Scholar
Domenici, P and Blake, RW 1997 The kinematics and perform-ance of fish fast-start swimming. Journal of Experimental Biology 200: 1165–1178Google Scholar
EDQM (European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare) 2016 European Pharmacopoeia, Ninth Edition, Volume 1. Council of Europe: Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2013 Seventh report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific pur-poses in the Member States of the European Union. COM(2013) 859 final. Brussels, 5.12.2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemi-cals/lab_animals/reports_en.htmGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2014 Opinion on the welfare of farmed fish. Farm Animal Welfare Committee: London, UK. https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/publications/fawc-advice-on-farmed-fish-welfareGoogle Scholar
Fentener van Vlissingen, JM, Borrens, M, Girod, A, Lelovas, P, Morrison, F and Torres, YS 2015 The reporting of clinical signs in laboratory animals: FELASA Working Group Report. Laboratory Animals 49: 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677215584249Google ScholarPubMed
FitzGerald, JL, Sheehan, TF and Kocik, JF 2004 Visibility of visual implant elastomer tags in Atlantic salmon reared for two years in marine net-pens. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P, Dennison, N, Goodman, G, Hetherington, S, Llywelyn-Jones, S, Ryder, K and Smith, AJ 2011 Guidance on the severity classification of scientific procedures involving fish: report of a Working Group appointed by the Norwegian Consensus-Platform for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal experiments (Norecopa). Laboratory Animals 45: 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1258/la.2011.010181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, WE, Overstreet, RM, Fournie, JW and Walker, WW 1985 Development of aquarium fish models for environ-mental carcinogenesis: tumor induction in seven species. Journal of Applied Toxicology 5: 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2550050408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office 2014 Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern-ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662364/Guidance _on_the_Operation_of_ASPA.pdfGoogle Scholar
Home Office 2017 Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Great Britain 2016. https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627284/annu-al-statistics-scientific-procedures-living-animals-2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
Johansen, R, Needham, JR, Colquhoun, DJ, Poppe, TT and Smith, AJ 2006 Guidelines for health and welfare monitoring of fish used in research. Laboratory Animals 40: 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367706778476451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kent, ML and Poppe, TT 1998 Diseases of seawater netpen-reared salmonid fishes. Pacific Biological Station: Nanaimo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Klontz, GW 1995 Care of fish in biological research. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3485–3492. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73113485xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, G, Johansen, R and Smith, A 2005 An analysis of fish used in research in Norway in 2003: numbers, species and use. Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Laboratory Animal Unit. http://oslovet.norecopa.no/analysisfish2003.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, C 2007 The husbandry of zebrafish (Danio rerio): a review. Aquaculture 269: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.04.077Google Scholar
Midtlyng, PJ, Hendriksen, C, Balks, E, Bruckner, L, Elskem, L, Evensen, O, Fyrand, K, Gut, A, Halder, M, Hawkins, P, Kisen, G, Romstad, AB, Salonius, K, Smith, P and Sneddon, LU 2011 Three Rs approaches in the production and quality con-trol of fish vaccines. Biologicals 39: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2011.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Readman, GD, Owen, SF, Murrell, JC and Knowles, TG 2013 Do fish perceive anaesthetics as aversive? PLoS One 8(9): e73773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rufli, H 2012 Introduction of moribund category to OECD fish acute test and its effect on suffering and LC50 values. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31: 1107–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.1779CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saberioon, M, Gholizadeh, A, Cisar, P, Pautsina, A and Urban, J 2017 Application of machine vision systems in aquaculture with emphasis on fish: state-of-the-art and key issues. Reviews in Aquaculture 9: 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12143Google Scholar
Sebire, M, Elphinstone-Davis, J, Vollmy, I, Watanabe, H, Bean, T, Pottinger, T and Katsiadaki, I Assessment of the wel-fare status of rainbow trout following transfer to different tank environments, in prepGoogle Scholar
Stien, LH, Bratland, S, Austevoll, I, Oppedal, F and Kristiansen, TS 2007 A video analysis procedure for assessing vertical fish distribution in aquaculture tanks. Aquacultural Engineering 37: 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2007.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K, Gordon, N, Langley, G and Higgins, W 2008 Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36: 327–342CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timmons, MB, Summerfelt, ST and Vinci, BJ 1998 Review of circular tank technology and management. Aquacultural Engineering 18: 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(98)00023-5Google Scholar
Toth, LA 2000 Defining the moribund condition as an experi-mental endpoint for animal research. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 41: 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.41.2.72Google Scholar
Verner-Jeffreys, DW, Pond, MJ, Peeler, EJ, Rimmer, GSE, Oidtmann, B, Way, K, Mewett, J, Jeffrey, K, Bateman, K, Reese, RA and Feist, SW 2008 Emergence of cold water straw-berry disease of rainbow trout Oncorynchus mykiss in England and Wales: outbreak investigations and transmission studies. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 79: 207–218. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao01916Google Scholar
Wedemeyer, GA 1996 Physiology of Fish in Intensive Culture Systems. Chapman & Hall: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6011-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, JH 1984 Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Zion, B 2012 The use of computer vision technologies in aquaculture: a review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 88: 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar