Laboratory Primate Newsletter Laboratory Primate Newsletter VOLUME 38 NUMBER 2 APRIL 1999
CONTENTS
Articles and Notes
Postresearch Retirement of Monkeys and Other Nonhuman Primates, by D. Seelig & A. Truitt...... 1
Are Legal Cage Space Requirements Sound? by V. Reinhardt & A. Reinhardt...... 5
Maintenance for Cephalic Cylinders...... 7
Comparison of Two Chimpanzee Housing Configurations, by T. R. Rice, H. Harvey, R. Kayhart, & C. Torres...... 9
Research Resources for Primatologists...... 10 . . . Statistical Genetic Analysis for Animal Colonies; Primate Supply Information Clearinghouse; Caribbean Primate Research Center; Baboon Research Resources Program; Squirrel Monkey Breeding and Research Resource; B Virus Resource and Research Laboratory
Fatal Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1 (B Virus) Infection Following a Mucocutaneous Exposure, and Interim Recommendations for Worker Protection...... 14
Captive Care Symposium: IPS '98 ...... 17 . . . Adaptation of Captive-Bred New World Monkeys to a Seminatural Environment, by M. T. Moore & A. T. C. Feistner . . . Encouraging Natural Feeding Behavior in Captive Varecia Variegata Variegata, by A. Britt . . . Restocking of Varecia Variegata Variegata: The First Six Months, by A. Britt, C. Welch, & A. Katz . . . Determinants of Chimpanzee Longevity in Zoos, by V. I. Landau, J. L. Grenfell, E. I. L. Metelovski & J. E. King . . . Development of a New Ring-Tailed Lemur (Lemur Catta) Exhibit at Edinburgh Zoo, by G. Catlow, R. Clifford, L. Dickie, & C. Wren . . . Breeding Vervet Monkeys in a Source Country Research Facility, by M. C. Mdhluli, J. V. Seier, & C. Lambrechts . . . Research on Laboratory Animal Domestication of Cynomolgus Monkeys (M. Fascicularis), by Yang Shou Kai
News, Information, and Announcements
A Letter from the Editor...... 6
Erratum...... 6
Information Requested and Available...... 13 . . . SCAW on the Web; More New E-mail Lists
News Briefs...... 22 . . . Robert W. Goy, 1924-1999; Reg Gates, 1946-1999; NABR Petitions Supreme Court; Coulston Foundation Cited by USDA; Primatologists Elected to Brazilian Academy; New Genetic Research Laboratory in Pará, Brazil
Announcements from Publications...... 24 . . . Zoo Biology - Call for Manuscripts; Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Infectious Disease Review
Resources Wanted and Available...... 25 . . . Bone Density Data; Colobine Tissue Samples Wanted; Hyoid Bones; Primate Autopsy Data Survey
Meeting Announcements...... 26
Research and Educational Opportunities...... 27 . . . PRIMATE-JOBS for Summer Opportunities; Research Internship, Summer 1999, Los Angeles Zoo; Summer Apprentice Program, Washington; Primate Behavior and Ecology, Panama; Macaque Project Summer Field School, Bali; Primate Behavior and Ecology Summer Field School; Fulbright Awards for U.S. Faculty and Professionals; NIH Awards For Postdoctoral Fellows; Research Fellowships, Florida (Not Exactly Primates)
Primates de las Américas...La Página...... 30
Grants Available...... 31 . . . Institutional Animal Resources; Collaborative Research With Indian Scientists; Transplant Tolerance Cooperative Study Group; Impact of Aging on Development of Atrial Fibrillation; NIA Pilot Research Grant Program; Diabetes Endocrinology and Metabolism; Neurological Complications of Diabetes; Diabetes Centers of Excellence; Parkinson's Disease Research Centers of Excellence; Antitumor and Anti-HIV Pharmacological Studies; Nonhuman Primate Models for HIV/CNS Disease; Animal Models of HIV-Related Lung Disease; Malaria Vaccine-Elicited Protective Immunity; Basic Research on Female Pelvic Floor Disorders; The Howard Temin Award
Departments
Positions Available...... 16 . . . Laboratory Animal Technician, Kentucky; Director of Vet. Science & Clinical Vet., NM; Animal Caretaker - Georgia
Recent Books and Articles...... 36
* * *
Postresearch Retirement of Monkeys and Other Nonhuman Primates
David Seelig1 and April Truitt2
Yale University1 and Primate Rescue Center, Inc.2
Wildlife sanctuaries are among the most suitable situations in which to place monkeys and other nonhuman primates at the conclusion of biomedical and other research. In the past, facilities often routinely euthanized primate subjects, especially monkeys, at the conclusion of nonterminal studies. However, this should no longer be considered acceptable, as other options exist which give the monkeys an opportunity to live out the remainder of their lives in caring, socially and environmentally enriched, surroundings. Planning for retirement is now considered a necessary component of utilizing nonhuman primates for research (Brent et al., 1997; van Akker et al., 1994). Though discussions have often focused more on chimpanzees than on monkeys, the added attention to the former species is disproportionate to the far greater number of monkeys used in research in the United States, for whom retirement considerations are equally warranted.
Reintroduction of primates into the wild is generally not possible due to ongoing habitat destruction, the infectious state of some, and the extremely high cost of rehabilitation. However, there are a limited number of legitimate sanctuaries in the United States that are willing and able to provide excellent care for veteran research primates for the remainder of their lives. Which sanctuaries meet acceptable criteria for such retirement is rarely obvious, and a large number of establishments accept primates under false pretenses. The latter may function as breeders for the exotic pet industry or as roadside exhibitors, or may simply lack the expertise, stability, or commitment to provide the primates an acceptable quality of life for the remainder of their lives.
This article is written to assist biomedical and other research facilities which may be considering retiring ex-research monkeys and other primates. It is based on Seelig's experience placing nonhuman primates for biomedical facilities, and Truitt's research into the expanding exotic pet industry. Seelig is a student at Yale University and has worked as a behaviorist at several large primate biomedical research facilities. Truitt is the director of the Primate Rescue Center, Inc., a nonprofit organization working to reduce the number of unwanted primates in need of sanctuary. This organization also operates a primate sanctuary housing fifty veteran research subjects and former pets.
The Problem of Pseudo-Sanctuaries
In one recent case among many, a well-meaning research institution donated primates to an individual who claimed that he would exhibit them in his "wildlife park". The individual, who was actually an exotic pet dealer working under false pretenses, timed the pickup of the primates to precede two exotic animal auctions scheduled one week apart. The animals which were not sold at the first auction were transported to the second, living in shipping crates in the dealer's station wagon in the interim. Situations such as this can be avoided with careful research and appropriate precautions.
When Seelig initially set out to assist in the placement of a group of fifty capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) being retired by a pharmaceutical company, he posted notices in the Primate Supply Information Clearinghouse and the former e-mail list Primate-Talk. A large number of facilities responded, promising to provide life-long care for the primates. However, few were willing to accept the monkeys if they were sterilized. Seelig visited several of the facilities with the most reasonable proposals and found that none fulfilled all of the criteria that would assure a comfortable and secure environment for the primates for their entire lives. Only after extensive research were several acceptable facilities located that were able to take the primates; the process took more than a year.
Sanctuaries in the U.S. are largely unregulated, which enables any animal breeder, dealer, or roadside zoo to add "refuge" or "conservation center" to its name. In addition, sanctuaries that do not exhibit or sell animals are not required to be licensed by the USDA. This can make it difficult or impossible for a person with little experience to distinguish a legitimate long-term animal retirement facility from an animal dealer working under false pretenses.
Characteristics of Pseudo-Sanctuaries
On paper, pseudo-sanctuaries seem to closely resemble legitimate ones. However, a site inspection reveals significant differences in facilities and in the attitudes the care staff and administration hold towards the animals.
Many pseudo-sanctuaries sell primates and their offspring as pets to support the owners and their facilities Footnote. Infant monkeys are sold to private owners for three to five thousand dollars each, and infant chimpanzees sell for at least twenty-five thousand dollars, providing a high incentive for breeders to misrepresent themselves to well-meaning research facilities attempting to retire primates. The presence of infant primates at an establishment is often a bad sign, as breeding of primates is prevented at legitimate sanctuaries.
Pseudo-sanctuaries routinely accept more animals than they can comfortably care for, and the quality of care may suffer as a result of overcrowding and lack of resources. Offers to take large numbers of primates for little or no charge are red flags and should be examined critically.
At pseudo-sanctuaries, housing is often sub-standard and inappropriate for the specific animals housed within. For example, monkeys are not given sufficient space or internal structures for visual and physical isolation from human observers or conspecifics. Enclosures are frequently not maintained or kept sanitary, and they are often improperly constructed for drainage or routine maintenance.
Veterinary care is afforded only the critically ill or injured. Policies, staff training, and record keeping may be nonexistent or unorganized. Operations are run on a hand-to-mouth basis, without serious thought given to a stable future for the animal population. Generally, no provisions have been made for the animals in the event of a natural disaster or the death of the owner(s), which is an important concern for anthropoid nonhuman primates, given their longevity.
Many pseudo-sanctuaries operate as for-profit enterprises, and some of these hold USDA licenses as exhibitors or dealers. However, a facility's nonprofit status provides no indication of quality of care or financial security, even if it does not breed or sell primates. Many road-side exhibitors with insufficient care and security have nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Criteria of True Wildlife Sanctuaries
The following is only an abbreviated list of the criteria that should distinguish true wildlife sanctuaries. A comprehensive, itemized list is available from the authors on request. Pivotal among the policies shared by legitimate sanctuaries is that the sanctuary functions for the animals' welfare, and thus the animals' needs hold the highest priority.
The animal enclosures are designed with the needs of the inhabitants in mind. This includes sufficient space, height, and varied internal structures for primates, as well as means for visual and physical privacy from conspecifics and human observers. Also, sufficient space is provided in indoor structures (either heated boxes or covered enclosures), particularly in climates where severe weather is possible and the animals must stay indoors for long periods. Social groups are not too large and are appropriate for the species, and compatibility of individuals is monitored. Enclosures are well constructed and maintained.
There is sufficient staff to care properly for the number of animals on hand, and a veterinarian is accessible (not necessarily on-site) for emergencies and other care needs. Animals are monitored 24 hours a day. The personnel - paid staff and volunteers - are well trained for their duties. Enrichment is given high priority within their daily routines. The diet is well-balanced nutritionally and usually includes fresh produce daily.
Animal transfer, handling, quarantine, veterinary records, and emergency protocols are available for review. True sanctuaries will not take in additional animals unless there are sufficient funds to maintain the optimum level of care and security for those already there. Legitimate wildlife sanctuaries are generally not open to the public, and have qualified as 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations with the IRS. An active board of directors is involved, and corporate procedures follow IRS guidelines. IRS tax returns (Form 990) for the prior three years are available upon request per IRS regulations.
True sanctuaries prevent primates from breeding and never sell primates. In general, sanctuaries should never have to transfer animals, once on the property, except to affiliated facilities. A facility's animal transfer policies are as important as the state of its enclosures - nice enclosures and facilities, while a prerequisite for good sanctuaries, do not necessarily indicate a secure environment in which the primates will not be bred and sold into the exotic pet trade.
Location and Placement
Identifying a responsible sanctuary can be a difficult process. When a candidate facility is located, it is impossible to ascertain by phone, without references or a site visit, whether it is truly acceptable. Because legitimate facilities are so rare, locating and/or finding appropriate referral to them can entail a significant time investment.
Facilities often place notices of available primates in the Primate Supply Information Clearinghouse (PSIC) newsletter, run by Cathy Johnson-Delaney at the Washington Regional Primate Research Center. This is a suitable means to transfer primates between laboratories, but it is not suitable for placing them in sanctuaries. Exotic pet breeders and dealers refer to the PSIC newsletter. Legitimate sanctuaries generally do not refer to PSIC or respond to posted notices of available primates. A good rule of thumb is that anyone who contacts a laboratory offering to accomodate surplus primates does not represent a true sanctuary.
Unfortunately, once appropriate facilities are located, placement can be difficult, particularly if funding is not available from the sending institution. Nearly all responsible sanctuaries limit the number of animals they are willing to accept in order to provide optimum care for those already living there. Few sanctuaries have large budgets, because they are supported solely by private and corporate foundation donations.
Most sanctuaries are concerned about the introduction of new viruses into their colonies. Though they are often willing to integrate small numbers of primates into existing groups, this may not be an option for a variety of reasons (see the following section). The incoming animals' lack of social experience may be an obstacle to integration. Also, because there is already a surplus of monkeys from research and the exotic pet industry needing retirement, all primates should be vasectomized and tubally ligated before transfer.
Solutions
The following are suggestions for overcoming the problems mentioned in the previous section.
1. Locating appropriate facilities and seeking consultation. Since legitimate sanctuaries rarely seek new animals, it is necessary for research institutions to locate these facilities themselves. As unacceptable establishments vastly outnumber acceptable ones, it is recommended that research institutions without prior experience in finding retirement facilities seek consultation for referral, evaluation, and placement advice.
The authors offer to provide free phone consultation and assist with placement. Also, an accrediting organization named The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS) has been organized to monitor and provide a network of references and support for responsible sanctuaries. The current board president of TAOS is Lynn Cuny, who also has offered to provide assistance to facilities in need of primate placement. Cuny is the director of Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation, a respected wildlife sanctuary for ex-pet and ex-research primates, recently visited separately by both authors.
2. Evaluating candidate facilities. Since there are so many pseudo-sanctuaries, a thorough background check is essential. Visit the facility yourself, if possible, and know what characteristics to look for (described above). Do not take anyone's word for his or her own facility over the phone and, if a site visit is not possible, be sure to use reliable references.
References and accreditation by regulating organizations should be given serious attention. A USDA license is helpful, but it alone is not indicative of a facility's acceptability. Because a number of animal dealers and breeders hold USDA licenses, licensing might actually be a negative sign. If a facility does hold a USDA license, a faxed Freedom Of Information Act request to the appropriate regional office will yield copies of inspection reports, often within one week. Accreditation by the American Association for Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA) is usually a favorable indication, though sterilization is still recommended before sending primates to AZA-accredited (as to any other) facilities. Accreditation by TAOS is the most reliable means of assuring a comfortable, secure, and permanent environment for primates, though the number of primate facilities bearing TAOS accreditation is still small.
Most AZA-accredited facilities will not accept common research primate species such as macaques, baboons, and capuchin monkeys. A small number of non-AZA-accredited zoos with acceptable practices are willing to accept these species. These zoos should be considered (under the same criteria as sanctuaries) when looking for placement options.
3. Funding. Despite the financial constraints shared by all legitimate sanctuaries, many are receptive to retiring additional monkeys when contacted directly. The possibility of integration is dependent on compatible species and viral status, and the social composition and available enclosure space of existing groups. Often a sanctuary will be able to integrate a small number of monkeys into existing social groups and absorb the cost of care internally, although financial assistance may be requested.
Generally, integration into existing groups without the need of new enclosures is only possible with small numbers of primates. However, if your facility has no available funding for retirement, it is sometimes possible to divide your colony among several retirement facilities. Legitimate sanctuaries will never offer to purchase primates, and will usually request that your facility at least arrange and pay for transportation.
If integration into existing groups is not possible, sanctuaries will usually need financial assistance for the construction of a new enclosure, though they will often absorb some or all of the cost of caring for the primates once they arrive. Costs differ according to type of enclosure needed, which depends primarily on the species and the size and number of compatible groups that can be formed from the monkeys being retired. For example, you can expect a new enclosure for a compatible group of ten to twenty monkeys, including internal areas, to cost from twenty to twenty-five thousand dollars. The facility of origin should be willing to provide part of these costs.
4. Viral status. Sanctuaries are often uncomfortable about accepting B virus-positive macaques, so keep this in mind before breeding or acquiring them, or housing them with negative or unconfirmed animals. Sanctuaries are also reluctant to introduce new transmissible diseases into their colonies, particularly SIV, STLV, and the simian retroviruses (SRVs) for macaque species. However, facilities may be flexible if funding is available to build new enclosures for infected monkeys. New World species generally pose less of a viral risk to humans and conspecifics. It is important to test all primates, regardless of their prior housing, for tuberculosis before transferring them to a sanctuary.
5. Contraception. It is important that all primates be permanently sterilized before leaving the facility of origin, whether or not it is requested. True sanctuaries will never have objections to (and often will request) this, and laboratories should keep in mind that facilities that request reproductively viable primates for any number of reasons are probably doing so under false pretenses.
Sterilization should be performed by tubal ligation or vasectomy, not gonadectomy, as the former operations allow a wider range of species-typical social behavior and interaction.
6. Socialization. The adjustment and integration process is facilitated if attempts are made to socialize primates prior to departure, preferably in compatible groups. Social experience also facilitates a primate's ability to integrate into a new social group at the sanctuary.
It is recommended (and USDA regulations are gradually requiring) that facilities socially house all primates in pairs or groups when possible. This not only facilitates future retirement, but is a vital component of a primate laboratory's environmental enrichment program. In studies by Seelig (in prep.) at the Coulston Foundation (White Sands Research Center) and the Language Research Center (Georgia State University), as well as in similar studies conducted at other facilities (Lynch, 1998; Reinhardt, 1994; Seelig, 1998), it was found that 80% to 100% of monkeys of both sexes and all species studied can be socialized in compatible pairs, even those with little or no prior social experience.
Conclusion: Post-Research Life of Primates
Secure, post-research retirement provides monkeys and other nonhuman primates the opportunity to live out their lives in socially and environmentally enriched environments. To ensure that this is successfully accomplished, proper and timely planning is essential. Before purchasing or breeding a monkey, every research facility should include in the budget not only provision for that primate before and during the study, but also for retirement. This requires additional funds and might limit the number of primates you should acquire, or might require additional planning. Consider and plan appropriately for the additional costs and difficulties of retiring B virus-positive or SRV/STLV/SIV-infected primates before obtaining them or conducting infectious disease research. House all gregarious primates in compatible pairs or groups, preferably of the same viral status, whenever possible.
When you begin to plan retirement, you will need to research, locate, and evaluate candidate facilities. Consultation can facilitate this process and ensure that adequate placement is found. Therefore, we remind and encourage all research facilities to contact either of the coauthors for advice and referral.
References
Amer. Soc. of Primatologists (1998). Private ownership of primates. <www.asp.org/education/private.html>
Brent, L., Butler, T. M., & Haberstroh, J. (1997). Surplus chimpanzee crisis: Planning for the long-term needs of research chimpanzees. Lab Animal, 26, 36-39.
Chamove, A. (1998). Electric fence enclosures for pri-mates. Laboratory Primate Newsletter, 37[1], 12-14.
Leslie, M. (1998). Maintenance of non-human primates as pets. Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists, Position Statement ID-17. [CSTE, Suite 303, 2872 Woodcock Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30341]
Lynch, R. (1998). Successful pair-housing of male macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Laboratory Primate Newsletter, 37[1], 4-5.
Ostrowski, S. R., Leslie, M. J., Parrott, T., Abelt, S., & Piercy, P. E. (1998). B-virus from pet macaque monkeys: An emerging threat in the United States? Emerging Infectious Diseases, 1998, 4[1].
Reinhardt, V. (1994). Pair-housing rather than single-housing for laboratory rhesus macaques. Journal of Medical Primatology, 23, 426-431.
Seelig, D. (1998). Pair-housing male Macaca fascicularis: A summary. Laboratory Primate Newsletter, 37[3], 14-16.
Seelig, D. (In prep.). Pair-housing of adult male longtailed macaques ameliorates stereotypic and self-injurious behavior.
van Akker, R., Balls, M., Eichberg, J. W., Goodall, J., Heeney, J. L., Osterhaus, A. D. M. E., Prince, A. M., & Spruit, I. (1994). Chimpanzees in AIDS research: A biomedical and bioethical perspective. Journal of Medical Primatology, 23, 49-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First author's address: 2 Glen Ct, Greenwich, CT 06830 [e-mail: david.seelig@yale.edu].
Footnote: The Centers for Disease Control (Ostrowski, et al., 1998), the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (Leslie, 1998), and the American Society of Primatologists (1998) have recently released statements discouraging private ownership of primates due to disease risk and human-nonhuman primate incompatibility in private homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
Are Legal Cage Space Requirements Sound?
Viktor Reinhardt and Annie Reinhardt
Animal Welfare Institute
Facts
Cage space is probably the most contentious environmental enhancement for nonhuman primate housing because it is relatively expensive (Bowden, 1988; Line et al., 1989; Crockett, 1993; Hubrecht & Mason, 1993; Crockett & Bowden, 1994; Poole & Hubrecht, 1994). Legal space requirements, therefore, are based on the minimum spatial needs of the cage's occupant(s). Regulations under the Animal Welfare Act (United States Department of Agriculture, 1991)
1.prescribe as "minimum requirements that cages must be constructed and maintained so that" they "provide sufficient space for the nonhuman primates to make normal postural adjustments with freedom of movement," and
2.specify that "these minimum space requirements must be met even if perches, ledges, swings, or other suspended fixtures are placed in the" cage.
These two stipulations are unequivocal; the next one, however, introduces serious ambiguity:
3. "Low perches and ledges that do not [emphasis added by the authors] allow the space underneath them to be comfortably occupied by the animal will be counted as part of the floor space." A very similar elaboration is also made by the Guide for the Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 1996): "Low resting surfaces that do not allow the space under them to be comfortably occupied by the animal should be counted as part of the floor space."
This extra clause makes it legal to keep a nonhuman primate in a cage with minimum floor area, even though there is not enough room for the animal to "comfortably" occupy the floor area beneath the perch, ledge or swing, let alone make use of this space to "make normal postural adjustments with freedom of movement." The supposedly "legal" minimum floor area of such a cage is subminimal since part of it is intended neither for movement nor for resting.
Figure 1: A resting/climbing structure placed at a too low level blocks part of the minimum floor space needed by the occupant to make normal postural adjustments with freedom of movement (left and center). A properly placed structure allows the occupant to comfortably use the space under it and to sit on it in a comfortable position without head or tail touching the cage (right).
The situation is particularly problematic when too low a fixture is placed in the middle of the cage (Figure 1, left), but it is also unacceptable when it is placed on one side of the cage (Figure 1, center). In either case, there is insufficient room for the animal to freely turn around. It is the authors' opinion that this conspicuous restriction of free movement is one of the key factors responsible for the development of bizarre, stereotypic movement patterns which are so commonly seen in caged primates.
To count the useless space beneath suspended fixtures as part of the minimum floor area invalidates the important stipulation that "minimum space requirements must be met even if ... suspended fixtures are placed in the cage" (USDA, 1991).
This does not mean that caged primates should not have access to resting and climbing structures. On the contrary, such elevated fixtures should be mandatory by law (e.g., Bundesamt für Veterinärwesen, 1994) to ensure that the animals are not being restricted to a permanent terrestrial lifestyle to which they are biologically not adapted (Reinhardt et al., 1996). Elevated structures - such as perches - are too important to be merely listed as one of the "examples of environmental enrichment" (USDA, 1991). Caged nonhuman primates need elevated structures in order to get access to the "safe" vertical [arboreal] dimension of the cage (cf. International Primatological Society, 1993), and to have access to a dry place during cage-cleaning procedures (Reinhardt & Smith, 1988). At the same time, a properly placed fixture serves as a prop for arboreal exercise, i.e., climbing, balancing, and jumping.
Conclusion
In order to make the Animal Welfare Act more realistic, a change in the regulations is needed which explicitly states that perches, ledges, swings, or other suspended fixtures have to be placed in such a way that they do not block part of the floor space that is needed by the animal "to make normal postural adjustments with freedom of movement" (Figure 1, right). At the same time perches, ledges, swings, or other suspended fixtures have to be placed at a height that allows the animal to sit on them in a comfortable position without touching the ceiling with the head and without touching the floor with the tail (Figure 1, right; cf. Home Office, 1989).
References
Bowden, D. M. (1988). Primate research and "psychological well-being". Science, 240, 12.
Bundesamt für Veterinärwesen (1994). Richtlinien für die Haltung von Affen zu Versuchszwecken. Liebefeld-Bern: Bundesamt für Veterinärwesen.
Crockett, C. M. (1993). Rigid rules for promoting psychological well-being are premature. American Journal of Primatology, 30, 117-179.
Crockett, C. M. & Bowden, D. M. (1994) Challenging conventional wisdom. Lab Animal, 24(2), 29-33.
Home Office (1989). Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures (Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1996). London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
Hubrecht, R. & Mason, G. (1993). Letter to the Editor: Is cortisol a good measure of an animal's response to cage size? American Society of Primatologists (APS) Bulletin, 17, 4.
International Primatological Society (1993). IPS International Guidelines for the Acquisition, Care and Breeding of Nonhuman Primates; Code of Practice: 1, Housing and Environmental Enrichment. Primate Report, 35, 7-16.
Line, S. W., Morgan, K. N., Markowitz, H., & Strong, S. (1989). Influence of cage size on heart rate and behavior in rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 40, 1523-1526.
National Research Council (1998). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington: National Academy Press.
Poole, T. B. & Hubrecht, R. (1994). Letter to the Editor. Lab Animal, 23(6), 51.
Reinhardt, V. & Smith, M. D. (1988). PVC pipes effectively enrich the environment of caged rhesus monkeys. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 27(3), 4-5.
Reinhardt, V., Liss, C., & Stevens, C. (1996). Space requirement stipulation for caged non-human primates in the United States: A critical review. Animal Welfare, 5, 361-372.
United States Department of Agriculture (1991). Title 9, CFR (Code of Federal Register), Part 3. Animal Welfare; Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register, 56, 6426-6505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors' address: 4605 Crescent Road, Madison, WI 53711 [e-mail: viktor@animalwelfare.com].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
A Letter from the Editor
Now that all the contents of every issue of the LPN is available on the World Wide Web several weeks before the paper issues are received by mail, it does not seem outrageous to suggest that a significant number of subscribers could be getting along without their paper issues. This would not only save us printing and mailing costs, but also save you space on your shelves! The National Center for Research Resources of NIH, which has supported the LPN since 1967, has suggested that we help to support ourselves by charging subscribers $10 each. (They do not suggest hiring a bookkeeper.)
Our compromise is to ask you to decide if you can get along without the paper issue. You may, if you wish, print out any portion of the Web or e-mail files at any time. Those readers who do not have access to the Internet may continue to receive the paper issues at no cost (except postage for foreign subscribers). But we are now asking those of you who can read the LPN by computer, but who prefer the paper edition, to please send us some money to defray our printing and mailing costs. We think that $10/year is a reasonable minimum. If you wish to send more, or to send money for several years, that is fine.
We are not going to keep track of who is paying. This is an honor system. We won't visit your home or lab to see if you really could get e-mail or the Web. But you must return the card, with or without money, if you wish to continue to receive the paper edition.
* * *
In the January (38[1]) issue, We managed to mess up the "Recent Books and Articles" entry for the ASP Bulletin. That was the September, 1998, issue (not 1995!). And Janette Wallis's address is Dept of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Univ. of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, P.O. Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5020. (We had her P.O. Box number wrong, too.)
* * *
On October 23, 1998, James "Buster" Hawkins posted the following query to the CompMed e-mail discussion list: "I have two simple questions which will probably elicit lengthy answers. We work with rhesus. *
What are your favorite antibiotics for systemic use and for placing within a cephalic cylinder having a bacterial infection? *
What procedures do your PIs use to clean and maintain the cylinders? I'm specifically looking for information regarding how the outside of the cylinder is cleaned, how often they open and clean the cylinders, and what type of solution is used to flush the cylinder." Following are the responses that he received, with some editing.
Vet-1 liked putting tetracycline ointment in the cylinder and used sulfa/trimethoprim or cefotaxime (Claforan) for systemic therapy.
Joseph T. Newsome (Georgetown University Medical Center): "We set up a routine cleaning schedule of Tuesdays and Fridays. The consistency of inspection and cleaning is probably the most critical aspect of this maintenance program.
"3% hydrogen peroxide is used to debride and clean skin wound margins, followed by 10% Betadine solution mixed with sterile saline. Then we apply either granulex or Betadine ointment. The choice depends upon how the margins look and whether we wish to stimulate granulation formation or not. Occasionally in the past we have also used Panalog ointment but this seems to be a bit more messy.
"For the wells we routinely use a 1% Betadine solution mixed with sterile saline. Multiple flush and suction cycles are performed and sterile Q-tips used to remove debris. We have recently switched to 1% Betadine solution mixed with sterile saline-soaked 2x2 Telfa pads to pack the cylinders before sealing back up. This has lead to much less adhesion to the cylinder and dura then when we used gauze, and eased the cleaning process.
"At the first sign of infection or abnormality we immediately perform culture and sensitivity tests and treat both systemically and locally based upon results. We have had success with cefazolin HCl as a 1-10% solution in the well when susceptible in conjunction with increased cleaning frequency (i.e. q.o.d. or s.i.d.)."
Vet-3: "What we do with our monkeys can be broken down into two major components: implant cleaning and cylinder cleaning.
"We require cleaning of both regularly (at least once weekly for implants and three times a week for cylinders). The implant surfaces (acrylic) are cleaned (with Betadine solution and a toothbrush) before the cylinders are opened. The cylinders are opened; the caps are cleaned with hydrogen peroxide and Betadine, then set aside to soak in Betadine. A sterile aspirator tip is used to suction out the sterile saline-Betadine solution that was poured into the cylinders. Each cylinder is flushed with solution 3-5 times. The aspirator tips should be wiped with an alcohol pad between cylinders. A sterile gauze pad or Telfa pad is placed aseptically in the cylinder; the cap is rinsed with alcohol and dried, then replaced on the cylinder. Betadine solution may be put on the pad as well.
"The wound edge is cleaned after the cylinders. We use sterile saline-Betadine solution to flush the edges; hydrogen peroxide is used after the area has healed from surgery and dried proteinaceous material is removed with enzyme soak rather than scrubbing. Hair is trimmed back to a manageable level, but we don't remove all of the hair. Betadine ointment is applied at the end of the cleaning.
"Problem implants may require daily cleaning, and can be flushed with hydrogen peroxide followed by saline-Betadine. If this does not clear the problem, we go to Dakins' solution for 14 days.
"We can also use parenteral antibiotics when we culture something from the implant wound edge and there is a problem cylinder. However, we rely upon daily/regular cleaning to keep contamination to a minimum. I consider these cylinders to be chronically contaminated or infected, but the animal's immune system and our cleaning regimen can keep the areas clean enough to prevent problems in most of our monkeys. I can always culture something from an implant, usually Staph aureus or other skin/fecal bacteria. I have never put antibiotics in the cylinders of these monkeys, although I once considered it.
"Some of our post-docs clean their monkeys' cylinders twice a day, and those monkeys never have any problems. Most clean once every 2-3 days and have few problems. The only ones with problems are those monkeys whose post-docs use sloppier techniques."
Vet-4: "I trained in two primate (rhesus) laboratories before setting up my own. In one lab we routinely put antibiotics in the cylinders, and in the other we did not. In the first case, we used Tribrissen, cephalothin, and chloramphenicol. I believe there are some antibiotics that are contraindicated due to epileptogenic effects (e.g., ampicillin???). We switched antibiotics every two weeks.
"Currently I am not using antibiotics in the cylinder routinely. Instead, we flush inside the cylinder with saline at least twice a week; daily if daily recording sessions are in progress. We also use a saline-Betadine rinse on occasion. It is important that pressure does not build up.
"Cleaning outside the cylinder (the wound margin of the implant) varies considerably with the animal. Some wound edges heal smoothly and do not require any attention. For others, the hair needs to be trimmed, and the margin of the implant washed with clean water. We are currently having good luck with Panalog ointment. "
Cobie Brinkman (Australian National University): "In the studies I used to do, the cylinder was attached to a light oval-shaped frame which was bolted to the skull (rather than bolting the cylinder itself), but probably much the same worries and principles apply for avoiding and treating infection, especially where the cylinder sat close to the edge of the frame.
Vet-6: "About a year ago, we had a rhesus which was nearing the terminal phase of the study. I suspect bone changes of the skull, after a year, had loosened the head gear and were allowing some communication between the well and the outside world. Since the subject was scheduled for an acute experiment and histology we put it on a maintenance dose of amoxicillin - 25 mg/kg b.i.d per os, in addition to daily cleaning of the well*. The terminal experiment was postponed several times and the amoxicillin therapy continued daily for nearly 8 weeks. We didn't observe any adverse affects from this long-term therapy and it appeared to have a positive impact on reducing infection in the well and preventing systemic infection.
* "The well/chamber was cleaned while the monkey was alert and in a restraining chair. The well was irrigated thoroughly with about 200 ml of sterile saline, and sterile cotton tips were used to remove debris. The well cap was washed with soap and water and soaked in 1:10 chlorine bleach, then rinsed with sterile water before replacement. Either a triple antibiotic opthalmic ointment or nitro furazone were instilled in the well before replacing the cap."
Vet-7 (Wisconsin RPRC): "Our research group that has animals with head cylinders follows a very different protocol that I cringed at when I first arrived, but I have been unable to document major problems with the animals, so I have not yet forced them to change. They previously had problems with anaerobic infections and made the decision (in agreement with the previous vet) to leave the cylinder open - yep, that's right - open! They do not put a cap on the cylinder and they clean it twice weekly."
Stephen B. Jaffe (Fort Dodge Animal Health): "Nolvasan and Hibitane both have chlorhexidine as the active ingredient. I have information from a New Animal Drug Application for the Nolvasan Teat Dip product, put together in December of 1971. Following is the local toxicity of Nolvasan to the meninges: 'Hibitane proves fatal at 0.1% injected in the cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys. Although most antiseptics are similarly toxic, we strongly advise against using Hibitane on the brain or meninges.' Also of historical interest, ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries), the initial developers of chlorhexidine, generated toxicity data in the 1950's and 1960's." [This information was requested to determine if Nolvasan could be used in head cylinders. - Editors]
Vet-9: "I'm curious about why so many respondents choose to use "tamed iodine" (i.e., Betadine) preparations for topical cleansing, as well as hydrogen peroxide. Tamed iodines are quickly inactivated in the presence of organic matter, and they have no residual antibacterial activity. In addition, many humans develop contact sensitivity (myself included). Hydrogen peroxide can damage tissues and cause local tissue emphysema."
Some Useful References
Lee, G. E., et al. (1998). Use of chlorine dioxide for antimicrobial prophylactic maintenance of cephalic recording devices in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Contemporary Topics, 37[2], 59-63.
Gardiner, T. W. & Toth, L. A. (1999). Stereotactic surgery and long-term maintenance of cranial implants in research animals. Contemporary Topics, 38[1], 56-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
One of the most important questions facing facilities housing chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) today is: "What is the most efficient, enriching, and cost-effective housing configuration to properly meet the animals' needs?" Fulfilling the regulatory requirements while utilizing construction funds efficiently is an extraordinary challenge when planning buildings for housing chimpanzees. A reasonable approach to planning and designing such housing includes comparison of existing facilities and a review of literature for positive and negative attributes of different environments. In this way, previous mistakes can be avoided and previous successes emulated.
Restrictive environments deprive chimpanzees of healthy intellectual, maternal, sexual, and social development. Improved behavior has been documented when there was a large increase in size of an outdoor cage (e.g., from 33.2 ft2 to 2223 ft2); placing the chimpanzees in a social group also resulted in a dramatic improvement in behavior (Fouts, et al., 1994). Barriers that allow animals to avoid visual contact help control aggression and social stress (van Hoof, 1973; Maple & Stine, 1982; Fritz & Nash, 1983; Traylor-Holtzer & Fritz, 1985).
From the naturalist's point of view, there should be no limitations to the design of chimpanzee housing, but budget and space often limit reality. Placing enclosures across from one another allows for more housing in a given space, as opposed to placing the same number of enclosures side by side. However, planners must be made aware of the social and behavioral impact of the housing configuration on the chimpanzees housed within.
At our facility some of the housing areas have four social group "dens" arranged side by side with visual barriers between them. In others, the arrangement is the same, but each set of four faces another such set across a central corridor. Recently we examined the two types of configurations, looking at the occurrence of what we considered to be negative behaviors directed at a human observer entering the housing areas.
We chose 10 different housing areas, five of each configuration. Each area was visited three times, over a 12-week period, by a behavioral technician, who simply entered each animal area and walked along the cage fronts to the end of the rows, staying within 5 to 10 ft of the cages, <
The most frequent negative behavior recorded was spitting, which accounted for 78% of the recorded negative behaviors. The total number of negative behaviors recorded was 50% greater in the housing areas where social groups were facing each other than in those in which social groups were side by side.
This difference observed in the number of negative behaviors between the types of housing seemed to imply that the animals may be building up frustrations which are redirected at a human presence that is a more accessible target than the chimpanzees across the way. This conclusion is also supported by daily qualitative observations of the authors, who have observed less negative intergroup and intragroup behavior in the chimpanzees living in side-by-side groups. Based on our observations, it is recommended that facilities consider not only the square footage, but also the location, of dens. This type of observation can aid facilities in the planning of housing areas. We hope it will be useful in the design of facilities that maximize care, management, and well-being of the chimpanzee.
References
Fouts, R. S., Fouts, D. H., Jensvold, M. L. A., & Bodamer, M. D. (1994). An enriching approach to captive chimpanzee care. In Touch, 1[1].
Fritz, P. and Nash, L. (1983). Rehabilitation of chimpanzees: Captive population crises. Laboratory Primate Newsletter, 22[1], 4-8.
Maple, T. & Stine, W. (1982). Environmental variables and great ape husbandry. American Journal of Primatology, 1, 67-76.
Traylor-Holzer, K. & Fritz, P. (1985). Utilization of space by adult and juvenile groups of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology, 4, 115-127.
Van Hoof, J. A. R. A. M. (1973). The Arnheim Zoo Chimpanzee Consortium: An attempt to create an ecologically and socially acceptable habitat. International Zoo Yearbook, 13, 195-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
In early February, the Comparative Medicine (CM) area at the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), NIH, called together all directors of resources supported through CM. This meeting was intended to draw directors together for exchange of information and expertise in various areas related to providing a resource to the research community, and for exchange of information between CM program staff and the directors regarding programmatic issues, requirements, and assistance.
This meeting gave us a wonderful sense of the broadness of medical research: resources represented included worms, trout, squirrel monkeys, fruit flies, and frozen cells, in no particular order. Our host was Dr. Patrick Walsh at the National Resource for Aplysia (that's sea slugs) at the University of Miami. The subjects we formally discussed were *
Intellectual property rights/ Material transfer agreements * Cost recovery/Towards self-sufficiency *
Tracking and reporting of users and publication data * On-line databases and informatics *
Newsletters and publicity * Accessioning decisions/Ad-visory groups.
We also told each other, formally and informally, about our resources and how we make them available to the research community. It occurred to us that it would be useful to the primate research community to read the abstracts of the presentations by the following resources, which many of you use. - Judith Schrier, Editor
* *
Statistical Genetic Analysis for Animal Colonies
Gene maps (including those of selected nonhuman primate species) have developed to the point where serious work on gene function is a large-scale reality, and "... biologists are gradually expanding their focus from the discovery and mapping of single genes to functional studies of their protein products and the concurring activities of multiple genes or proteins" (NCRR 1998).
This program is aimed at *
Promoting the use of statistical methods required to use these maps to localize genes of physiological interest, *
Aiding in the development and maintenance of colonies structured so that they are made up of informative pedigrees required for mapping and chromosomal localization, *
Training scientists in the use and appreciation of the statistical methods required, and *
training colony managers to develop and maintain pedigreed colonies.
Specifically, we provide a formal program for training and dissemination of methods and techniques developed at the Southwest Foundation that are relevant to management and research in nonhuman primates. Four areas of concentration are: (1) primate colony management methods, (2) statistical genetic analysis for primate colonies, (3) distribution of software, and (4) development and maintenance of a Web site dedicated to nonhuman primate genetics and demography.
Reference
NCRR (1998). NCRR: A Catalyst for Discovery. A Plan for the National Center for Research Resources 1998-2003. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
Primate Supply Information Clearinghouse
The Primate Supply Information Clearinghouse (PSIC) provides communication between research institutions, zoological parks, and domestic breeding colonies for the efficient sharing of nonhuman primates and their tissues, equipment, and services. The program's activities include referrals by telephone, letter, e-mail, and fax, and publication of New Listings, which lists available and wanted primates, tissues, cadavers, equipment, and services. Long-term, continuing programs are published in a separate bulletin, Continuing Listings, which serves as a resource guide for researchers. New Listings is published twice monthly, with Continuing Listings appearing every second month. A supplemental publication, the Annual Resource Guide, includes listings from commercial primate suppliers, equipment and transportation companies, and other nonresearch institution subscribers who wish to participate in the network; it is distributed in December. At the end of 1998, the PSIC publications were mailed to 479 participants and subscribers. The PSIC database is maintained on an IBM-compatible PC and includes over 600 active listings for animals, tissues, suppliers, services, equipment, and other primate resources for referrals. In 1998, over 600 referral requests were received, and the PSIC was able to provide an average of 5.4 sources per request. In all, more than 3,694 animals were placed, with 379 facilities and over 475 researchers, veterinarians, and colony/zoo managers participating in the network. In addition, over 55 requests for tissues were satisfied, representing over 1,935 specimens acquired, sent, or shared. These numbers do not reflect the number of animals or tissues placed through contacts made because of advertisements or notices in the bulletins, that do not go directly through the Clearinghouse. The PSIC maintains a Web site on the Washington Regional Primate Research Center's Web page, which includes information about the program, subscription forms, taxonomy, and links to other Web sites which answer many questions the PSIC receives concerning regulations, laws, and primate trade. The PSIC serves as the vital link in establishing this network for sharing and exchanging nonhuman primate resources among institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
The Caribbean Primate Research Center
The Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC) is one of two research centers under the Deanship of Academic Affairs, University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus. The CPRC is fully accredited by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. The staff consists of 29 employees including the director (DVM), two scientists (PhD), two clinical veterinarians (DVM), and a part-time curator (PhD). The annual budget is approximately $1.2 million with core support shared by the NIH/NCRR, Comparative Medicine Program, and the University.
The origins of the CPRC can be traced to 1938, when the Cayo Santiago rhesus monkey colony was established to provide a field site for behavioral studies and to supply rhesus monkeys for biomedical and anatomical research. When the NIH Laboratory of Perinatal Physiology (LPP) opened in San Juan in 1956, Cayo Santiago became the Primate Ecology Section of the LPP and the daily census and longitudinal demographic database was begun. Behavioral research continued, but the primary function of the colony was to provide animals for experiments on neonatal asphyxia and cerebral palsy. When the LPP closed in 1970, the CPRC was formally established under the University's School of Medicine and a new headquarters for the primate center, now known as the Sabana Seca Field Station, was constructed. The CPRC Museum and Skeletal Collection was established in 1983 with partial support from the National Science Foundation.
The CPRC consists of three facilities: * the island colony, *
the Sabana Seca Field Station, and * the CPRC Museum. Since 1989, the CPRC has also supported field research on a free-ranging population of patas monkeys located in southwestern Puerto Rico.
Cayo Santiago, a 15.2 ha (38 acre) island 1 km off the southeastern coast of Puerto Rico, contains a free-ranging population of approximately 600 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). The colony consists of several naturally-formed social groups and a small band of extra-group males. All monkeys on Cayo Santiago are direct descendants of the original 409 monkeys imported from India and released onto the island in 1938. The identity (tattoo number), date of birth, sex, maternity, matriline, parity of females, and date of death (if applicable) are known for every animal which has lived on the island since 1956. Data on these 5,466 monkeys spanning seven rhesus generations are readily accessible through the CPRC's computerized demographic database. Research policy severely restricts experimental manipulation of the monkeys on Cayo Santiago and limits the number of observers and visitors on the island at any one time. Handling of the animals is restricted to the annual trapping period each winter. During this time all yearlings are captured for identification and bled for genetics studies using DNA fingerprinting. Each year one social group is also examined for health surveillance, and noninvasive research such as anthropological, radiographic, ophthalmological, dental, virological, and endocrinological studies are done. A field laboratory on the island, supplied with 110-220v gas-generated electricity, enables investigators to conduct various biomedical research projects (radiography, bone density, ophthalmology, electrocardiography, glucose tolerance tests, cerebrospinal fluid taps, and bleeding for genetics, endocrinology, and virology, etc.) during the annual health surveillance and roundup. The CPRC provides office space, access to the computerized demographic database, and housing for visiting scientists and students in Punta Santiago on the Puerto Rican mainland, a 10-minute boat ride from Cayo Santiago.
The Sabana Seca Field Station is located on 410 acres of federal property in a subtropical forest, approximately 10 miles west of San Juan. This facility serves as the administrative headquarters of the CPRC as well as the base of operations for biomedical research, veterinary care, laboratory support, pathology (gross necropsy and skeletal preparations), and maintenance. At Sabana Seca, there are approximately 900 Cayo Santiago-derived rhesus macaques maintained in a variety of outdoor housing configurations (individual cages, pens, and large corrals). One of the most valuable research resources at this facility is a social group (Group M) of rhesus that was translocated from Cayo Santiago in 1984. Data on this group are collected daily and a computerized demographic database similar to that of Cayo Santiago is available for researchers. In early 1995, two additional social groups were moved from Cayo Santiago to Sabana Seca. These groups are being used for a variety of studies, including behavioral, biomedical, aging, endocrine, virology, and genetics research. Housing and office space are available on site for visiting scientists, veterinarians, and students.
The CPRC Museum, on the Medical Sciences Campus, 15 minutes from downtown San Juan, houses the CPRC Skeletal Collection, over 2,700 complete or nearly-complete skeletons from 11 species of nonhuman primates. Of the 1700 rhesus skeletons, the majority are Cayo Santiago macaques of known identity, age, sex, matriline, and social group. The collection also contains the world's largest collection of patas monkey skeletons. The CPRC's collection of fixed soft tissue specimens and the Cayo Santiago Herbarium, archives, library, and centralized computer database are also housed in the Museum. Researchers are provided access to the computerized database and bench space for osteological studies.
The CPRC supports a field research project on the only free-ranging population of patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) outside Africa. This population provides investigators with an unparalleled opportunity to study the ecology, biology, and behavior of an African species without the confounding factors of predation, hunting, and local politics. Baseline data on this population include individual identities (tattoo, marking, tags), demography (group size, birth and death rates), group movement patterns (direct observations, radiotelemetry, aerial and satellite reconnaissance), habitat use (vegetation surveys), health and genetics (blood, DNA, hair, fecal samples), social and reproductive behavior, and reproductive seasonality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
Baboon Research Resources Program
The objective of this research resource program is to create a new baboon breeding facility. This facility will be located at the 7,000-acre USDA Grazinglands Research Station, 30 miles west of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center near El Reno, Oklahoma. Our goal is to provide a more naturalistic environment for the present baboon breeding colony by keeping them in large outdoor corrals. The inclusion of a nonhuman primate reproductive behaviorist and a veterinary theriogenologist will provide expertise to assist in increasing productivity. The primate behaviorist will conduct research on baboon reproductive behavior in order to identify and ameliorate any reproduction problems. An environmental enrichment program is also being developed. We will also characterize the viral status of the colony and develop a nucleus of baboons for a specific-pathogen-free breeding program. This facility will provide a source of baboons, specialized facilities, reagents, materials, and expertise in working with this nonhuman primate species as a national resource. Local, national, and international investigators are encouraged to develop programs that will utilize this resource.
* *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squirrel Monkey Breeding and Research Resource
The overall goals of this project are to provide a national research resource of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri spp.) and their tissues and to carry out research leading to a better understanding of squirrel monkey biology and research uses. This project has evolved over the years into the only breeding resource of squirrel monkeys in the United States available to NIH grantees. This has led to the development of a research and management group with expertise on reproduction, diseases, and basic biology of the squirrel monkey. The project meets biomedical research needs in three ways. First, it provides a national resource of laboratory-born squirrel monkeys. Second, our research activities continue to add new information about the biology of squirrel monkeys with particular emphasis on reproductive biology and colony management. Third, the resource provides tissues and biological fluids to investigators throughout the country, thus reducing the need for additional living animals.
The scarcity of squirrel monkeys for research and the difficulties associated with captive breeding experienced by most laboratories emphasize the need to continue research into the reproductive biology, social behavior, medical care, and husbandry management of this genus, These areas of investigation have been integrated into a multidisciplinary program designed to meet the needs of the breeding resource and of investigators who use squirrel monkeys in their research. In this way, a self-sustaining supply of squirrel monkeys has been established for biomedical research use, and our understanding of the basic biology of squirrel monkeys continues to grow. Over the past 18 years, much of our research has focused on characterization of the natural reproductive processes and diseases of squirrel monkeys. This has led to improvements in reproductive performance. Current research activities are focusing on continuing to expand our knowledge of reproduction of squirrel monkeys including the development of in vitro reproduction, embryo culture, and embryo and gamete preservation. Our investigation of natural biological processes includes studies of progesterone resistance and risk factors associated with reproductive loss. These studies are intended to address important issues in biomedicine while increasing our understanding of squirrel monkey biology. This balance between scientific investigation and resource management creates an environment that encourages inquiry and collaborative investigations while providing a scarce nonhuman primate research resource to other institutions and investigators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
B Virus Resource and Research Laboratory
The B Virus Resource and Research Laboratory, located at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia, is housed in the Viral Immunology Center, which is part of the Biotechnology Core within the Department of Biology. This resource successfully completed a major re-location and is fully functional to assist the nonhuman primate user community globally. This laboratory has provided community resources since 1987, including rapid identification of zoonotic infections, biomonitoring for specific pathogen-free macaque breeding colonies, B virus information resources and networks for medical management of B virus infections, and educational resources for prevention/control of B virus infections. Rapid identification of herpes B virus infections is done in support of the CDC Guidelines for Prevention and Control of B Virus Exposures and Infections. Antibody assessments are performed using ELISA and western blot methodologies to detect, quantify, and differentiate antibody specificities in both human and nonhuman primates. Conventional virus culture techniques as well as PCR is used for virus identification. These techniques are also used to monitor drug sensitivity of isolates and patient responses to antiviral therapies initiated in response to zoonotic infection. Biomonitoring support is provided to managers of herpes B virus-free colonies to both establish, as well as monitor these invaluable resource animals. Detailed information regarding the testing history of each animal submitted to the resource for evaluation is maintained to permit assessment of the long-term serological status of an individual animal as well as to identify potentially exposed neighboring animals. Currently over nine years of testing records are included in the database to provide information to resource users.
The laboratory services are dependent on a highly specialized infrastructure provided by NCRR, the Georgia Research Alliance, and Georgia State University. The infrastructure includes a state-of-the-art BSL-4 maximum containment laboratory, BSL-3 laboratories, staff for human and nonhuman primate serological and virological testing, database management, and serum and virus stock banking. The other activities of the resource include preparation and quality assessment of standardized virus antigen lots; human and nonhuman primate serum pooling; collection of unique isolates; assessment of recombinant reagents, primers, and sequence data for resource activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
SCAW will not be responsible for loss or damages caused by errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of postings or from contacts made through IACUC TALK. Information contained in IACUC TALK should not be used as the basis for decisions without referring to applicable laws, regulations and/or professional advice. For more information, contact SCAW, 7833 Walker Dr., Suite 340, Greenbelt, MD 20770-3229 [301-345-3500; fax: 3 01-345 3503; e-mail: scaw@erols.com]. - From a SCAW press release
More New E-mail Lists
A mailing list on the topic of primate Cognition, and more specifically, great ape cognitive behavior, has been created by Wallace Gordon Dickson, a volunteer interpreter at the Orangutan Language Project, at the Think Tank exhibit, Washington National Zoo, Smithsonian Institute. It is concerned with all types of primate language, tool use, and social and cognitive behavior studies, especially involving orangutans and language research. To subscribe, send an e-mail to <cognition-subscribe@onelist.com>.
Primates is an e-group dedicated to discussions and explorations of primate cognitive behavior and language abilities. In particular, the members are interested in research and study projects<
* * *
On December 10, 1997, a 22-year-old female worker at a primate center died from Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1 (B virus) infection 42 days after biologic material (possibly fecal) from a rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) splashed into her right eye. This report summarizes the clinical features of her illness and the subsequent investigation by CDC in response to a technical assistance request from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and presents interim recommendations to prevent ocular splash exposures. This investigation documented the hazard of ocular splashes and indicated that dendritic corneal lesions, such as herpetic skin vesicles, are not always present in B virus infection .
The exposure occurred on October 29, 1997, while the worker moved the animal within cages during a routine capture of free-ranging monkeys. She was not wearing protective eyewear because the activities in which she was engaged involved caged macaques, and the activities were judged by the primate center to carry a low risk for exposure to B virus. Following the exposure, the worker wiped her eye with a paper towel and, approximately 45 minutes later, irrigated the eye for 2-3 minutes with tap water but did not file an incident report. The monkey involved was not identified.
On November 8, the worker's eye was red and swollen. At the emergency department (ED) of a medical center affiliated with the same university as the primate center, she informed the physician that she worked with nonhuman primates and may have been exposed to B virus. Dendritic corneal lesions typical of ocular herpes infections were not observed by Wood's lamp examination. The ED physician consulted the B virus protocol in place in the ED and then consulted an infectious diseases specialist by telephone. On the basis of the reported circumstances of the contact and the absence of previous recognized transmission of B virus following mucocutaneous exposure, the infectious diseases specialist concluded that B virus infection was unlikely but recommended follow-up with the infectious diseases clinic within the next few days. The ED physician prescribed sulfonamide eye drops.
An appointment at the infectious diseases clinic was not available immediately. On November 11, the worker called her primary-care physician for a referral because her eye symptoms were worsening. The physician referred her to an ophthalmologist, who elicited history of a recent cat scratch and prescribed doxycycline for suspected Parinaud's oculoglandular syndrome secondary to cat-scratch fever. Routine eye cultures were obtained. Confirmatory serologic testing for Bartonella species, also ordered during the visit, subsequently was negative.
On November 13, the worker sought care from another ophthalmologist because of increased right retro-orbital pain and onset of photophobia, anorexia, nausea, and abdominal pain. After reconsultation with the infectious diseases specialist, the worker was immediately hospitalized for suspected B virus infection. The worker's temperature, normal on admission, reached 101.4° F (38.6° C) during the first day of hospitalization. Physical examination identified a swollen right orbit with conjunctivitis and one small tender right preauricular lymph node. Laboratory examination of urine found trace proteinuria. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis identified 8 white blood cells per milliliter (83% lymphocytes {normal: 0-10 cells, 100% mononuclear}). Serum for Western blot testing and CSF specimens and eye swabs for B virus culture were sent to the B Virus Research and Resource Laboratory. All previously collected eye cultures were retrieved from commercial laboratories to minimize biosafety hazards to laboratory workers.
Acyclovir therapy (15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 hours) was started within 2 hours of hospital admission. On November 14, therapy was changed to ganciclovir (5 mg/kg every 12 hours) when a vesicular eruption was noted in the distribution of the first and second branches of the right trigeminal nerve. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head was normal. The vesicles resolved over the following week. A sharp mid-cervical/high thoracic back discomfort occurred on November 19 but subsided over an 8-hour period. All symptoms resolved, and on November 24 the worker was discharged on outpatient intravenous (IV) ganciclovir therapy.
Despite uninterrupted ganciclovir therapy, on November 25 the worker woke with right foot weakness, inability to urinate, and lower abdominal pain, followed by a rapidly progressive ascending myelitis. The hospital readmission examination found profound right leg weakness, moderate left leg weakness, decreased hand grip strength bilaterally, and urinary retention. MRI revealed abnormalities extending from the cervical spinal cord to the upper thoracic cord. The worker was intubated electively within 13 hours and developed flaccid paralysis from C2 caudad.
The diagnosis of postviral acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis was considered by neurology consultants, and a short course of plasmapheresis and steroids was administered. On November 30 seizure activity (involuntary facial and eye movements) developed, and foscarnet, usually not recommended for B virus infection because of its toxicity, was added to ongoing ganciclovir therapy. During December 1-9, the worker developed nosocomial pneumonia with bacteremia, followed by adult respiratory distress syndrome. Repeat MRI revealed abnormalities extending from midbrain through the thoracic spinal cord. On December 10, the worker died from refractory respiratory failure.
Eye and CSF cultures obtained in the hospital on November 13 and November 14 were negative for B virus when tested at the B Virus Research and Resource Laboratory. Serum collected November 13 and November 21 and tested for reactivity to B virus by Western blot showed indeterminate and positive reactivity, respectively, confirming B virus infection.
Editorial Note
C. herpesvirus 1 (B virus) causes persistent latent infections in at least 70% of captive adult macaques but not other primates. During intermittent reactivations, the macaque may shed B virus from the buccal mucosa, urogenital tract, and in conjunctival fluid. Reactivations may be asymptomatic or accompanied by clustered vesicles on an erythematous base.
This is the first report of a worker developing a recognized B virus infection following mucocutaneous exposure without injury. Previously reported human infections usually have been attributed to macaque bites or scratches, injuries from needles used near a macaque's mucous membranes or central nervous system, or contact with infective biologic materials from macaques. One human-to-human transmission has been identified. The incubation period in humans has been as short as 2 days but more frequently is 2-5 weeks. Previously reported patients infected with B virus who were treated aggressively with either IV acyclovir or ganciclovir after onset of symptoms but before respiratory arrest or coma have survived. The death of this patient despite aggressive antiviral therapy may have resulted from factors related to the route of virus inoculation, the virulence of the virus infecting the patient, the patient's immune response, or timing of initiation of treatment following the exposure.
Interim Recommendations to Prevent Ocular Splash Exposures
Preventing worker exposure to biohazardous material is the best protection against infection. Reviews of injuries and biohazard exposures among workers exposed to nonhuman primates suggest that mucocutaneous contact with nonhuman primate body fluids is common; 16 (94%) of 17 contacts with primate body fluids in one survey involved ocular exposure. Each institution working with macaques should develop a written comprehensive personal protective equipment (PPE) program based on thorough hazard assessments of all work procedures, potential routes of exposure (e.g., bites, scratches, or mucosal exposures) and potential adverse health outcomes. This plan should clearly identify the PPE required for each task or working area and address training, inspection, maintenance, and periodic assessment of program effectiveness.
Previous recommendations for preventing B virus infections in humans advise presuming that all macaques are infected with B virus and protecting workers with a faceshield (or surgical mask and goggles or glasses) when handling uncaged active macaques. The incident described in this report indicates that proper eye protection also should be mandatory during activities such as entering areas containing macaques, conducting captures, and transporting caged macaques. Other activities where eye protection is necessary should be determined by the hazard assessment. All personnel who work in situations determined to be hazardous should wear eyewear conforming to established standards for eye and splash protection. Personal eyeglasses are not PPE.
Protective goggles designed for splash protection (available with antifog lenses for humid environments and in models that preserve peripheral vision) should be worn to protect the eyes against splash hazards in combination with a mask designed to protect other mucous membranes. Faceshields are commonly considered secondary eye protectors that are worn in combination with protective goggles. Although previous guidelines indicate a faceshield may be sufficient, ocular exposures have occurred to workers wearing faceshields, including to a worker who was wearing a combination surgical mask/faceshield while moving a macaque within cages. To minimize the potential for mucous membrane exposure, faceshields must prevent droplet splashes to the head from running down into the eyes and prevent mucous membrane exposure around the edges (sides, top, and bottom to below the chin). Decisions to use faceshields as the sole means for preventing ocular exposure should only be made after full consideration of both the limitations of faceshields and regulatory (OSHA) considerations.
Exposure Management
If exposure prevention fails, the adequacy and timeliness of wound or exposure decontamination procedures are critical factors determining the risk for infection. Institutions that house or conduct procedures involving nonhuman primates or potentially contaminated tissues should develop institution-specific postexposure procedures. Such procedures would eliminate institutional barriers to patient access and ensure appropriate diagnostic testing and infection control. First, animal handlers should be instructed to cleanse immediately and thoroughly all bites, scratches, and/or mucosal surfaces or abraded skin exposed to macaque biologic materials and to report these exposures immediately. Following an exposure to the eye, existing guidelines recommend immediately flushing the eye with water for at least 15 minutes. Second, postexposure procedures also should provide potentially exposed workers with direct and rapid access to a local medical consultant knowledgeable about B virus and other biohazards associated with nonhuman primates. The employer should ensure that direct access to the knowledgeable consultant is available immediately following exposures and at any time the worker is concerned that potential occupational exposure to B virus may be relevant to worker symptoms. Finally, postexposure procedures also should include routing diagnostic specimens to the B Virus Research and Resource Laboratory, now at Georgia State University in Atlanta. These interim recommendations will be reviewed and may be revised or augmented following additional consideration by a working group convened by Office of Health and Safety, CDC.
References
CDC (1987). Guidelines for the Prevention of Herpesvirus simiae (B virus) Infection in monkey handlers. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 36, 680-682, 687-689.
Holmes, G. P., et al. (1995). Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of B-virus infections in exposed persons. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 20, 421-439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
Laboratory Animal Technician, Kentucky
The Division of Laboratory Animal Resources at the University of Kentucky has an opening for a Laboratory Animal Technician III. Duties involve daily care of macaques, including feeding, environmental maintenance, medications and special diets, preventive health care, and provision for the animals' psychological well-being. The ideal candidate will have a BS degree and/or LATG certification, good organizational and interpersonal skills, and experience with macaques. The University provides medical and retirement benefits and opportunities for employee education, and is an EOE. Contact Dr. Janet Rodgers, H-41A UK Medical Center, Lexington, KY 40536-0293 [606-323-5885; e-mail: rodgers@pop.uky.edu]. - Posted to CompMed, Feb. 1, 1999
Director of Vet. Science & Clinical Veterinarian
The Coulston Foundation (CF) is accepting applications for two positions: a senior management person to head the Division of Veterinary Medicine and a clinical veterinarian. This Division has departments specializing in large primates (chimpanzees), small primates (macaques), and nonprimate laboratory animals, plus animal husbandry and behavioral science. The Director of Veterinary Science will have responsibility for overseeing institution-wide compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and the policies relating to humane and appropriate treatment, care and use of laboratory animals. The clinical veterinarian will be responsible for health care and management of laboratory animal colonies in cooperation with other clinical staff.
CF is a not-for-profit foundation with established government- and privately-sponsored programs in virology, immunopharmacology, and other safety evaluation and drug efficacy research programs. Participation in research programs conducted by the Foundation will be encouraged.
Candidates for both positions should have DVM or equivalent training, be licensed in at least one state, and have a strong background in nonhuman primate medicine. Proven administrative and management skills are crucial, ACLAM certification is desirable, and a candidate with experience in maintaining AAALAC accreditation is preferred for the Director position. Salary will be commensurate with education and experience. We have an excellent benefits plan. Send c.v., letter of interest, and list of references to: Coulston Foundation (HR Department), 1300 LaVelle Rd, Alamogordo, NM 88310 [fax: 505-437-9897]. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.
Animal Caretaker - Georgia
A government contractor in the Atlanta area has an opening for an Animal Caretaker. Duties will include daily care of nonhuman primates, rodents and rabbits, interacting with investigators, assisting the veterinarian with health care and possibly surgery. "We prefer a candidate certified at the LAT level but will consider an ALAT." Send inquiries to: J. Mabry, Project Manager, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS F-33, Chamblee, GA 30341-3717.
* * *
The following papers were presented at the XVIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society on August 11, 1998, at the University of Antananarivo, Madagascar. This was the third in a series of symposia under the auspices of the Captive Care and Breeding Committee that we may now regard as a tradition of the Society. Over the years we have addressed a wide diversity of topics. At our first symposium in Bali in 1994 we were informed about captive breeding facilities in many different countries. In Madison, we were primarily concerned with aspects of genotypic and phenotypic variability in primate colonies. In Madagascar, our interests were with environmental conditions that stimulate natural patterns of behavior, and with the "performance" of captive breeding colonies. We wish to thank especially Dr. Hantanirina Rasamimanana of the Université de Antananarivo, one of the principle hosts of the Congress, for her help and cooperation in organizing the program for this, another successful and very enjoyable symposium. - Hilary O. Box, Interim Vice-President for Captive Care and Breeding, University of Reading, England
* *
Adaptation of Captive-Bred New World Monkeys to a Seminatural Environment
M. T. Moore & A. T. C. Feistner
The Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (JWPT) has been carrying out a program of releasing previously caged groups of New World monkeys into a wooded area within the grounds of the zoological park. Ten releases have been conducted since 1990, involving 50 individuals of five different species: Saguinus oedipus, Leontopithecus chrysomelas, L. chrysopygus, Callithrix argentata argentata and Callimico goeldii. The experience gained in a free-ranging situation can prepare captive-bred animals for potential reintroduction, and permit the investigation of training protocols for each species.
There are several benefits from these releases. They are a good form of animal management and provide monkeys with access to a more "natural" environment. Their coat condition improves and there is a lower incidence of diarrhea, so they generally appear healthier than caged conspecifics. There are educational benefits as well. Comparisons of zoo visitor reactions to free-ranging and caged monkeys have revealed that these free-range release exhibits have strong attracting and holding powers, and thus provide a valuable opportunity to increase public awareness of conservation issues.
All the releases conducted at JWPT are accompanied by detailed studies of the groups' adaptation to the free-range environment. To assess the behavioral capabilities of the released monkeys, quantitative data are collected by scan and focal sampling for 6-10 weeks before and after release. Information collected includes activity, ranging behavior, group cohesion, and use of substrates in terms of type, height, diameter and orientation. Additional information is collected on an ad libitum basis.
We found a decrease in resting accompanied by an increase in foraging, and various changes in the amount of locomotion. In addition, a greater use of thinner, natural substrates at a wider range of heights was shown by most groups. However, a high degree of intergroup variability was documented, with several possible causes.
There appeared to be a species difference in the rate of range expansion. S. oedipus were the fastest to explore their environment, followed by C. a. argentata, then various rates among the Leontopithecus species and C. goeldii. It was a group of L. chrysomelas which eventually ranged over the greatest area.
The composition of a group also appeared to affect its behavior. We noticed that younger, often female, individuals behave more adventurously, making better use of the natural environment. Therefore these individuals, or groups composed of more of them, are more likely to be successful reintroduction candidates.
The accommodation provided for each group is also likely to affect their behavior. The S. oedipus release was relatively harsh, in that they were only provided with an insulated nest box attached to a small covered porch. Subsequent groups had access to larger heated sheds, with ropes between trees providing access routes through the woods. Furthermore, one of the sheds is surrounded by dense undergrowth. This may facilitate faster adaptation because this cover provides greater foraging opportunities and protection from potential avian predators.
One group of L. chrysomelas had lived in semi-free-ranging conditions on an island on the zoological grounds for five years; three of the four animals were born there, so they had no experience of confinement in a cage. This island may have provided a wider range of spatial and locomotor experience. This previous experience seemed to confer a behavioral advantage because, upon release, this group showed the necessary skills for orienting themselves and moving about in the woodland.
The presence of neighboring groups can have a strong impact on behavior. Every group, except the S. oedipus, had to cope with the presence of previously established neighboring groups. These were never groups of the same species due to the strongly territorial behavior of callitrichids and consequent aggression. The interspecific interactions have ranged from positive (e.g., sharing a nestbox) to indifference to intolerance. The S. oedipus group caused the majority of interspecific aggression problems. It is relevant that in the wild this species is not sympatric with any other callitrichid species, and therefore may have no "natural tolerance" to other callitrichids.
Although the JWPT release program has been very successful, there may be drawbacks. This form of animal management requires a high level of initial monitoring. However, once a group has been established, it is very low maintenance. The monkeys are exposed to predators in the woods, which is a novel risk. They are also subject to Northern Hemisphere climate conditions. Despite the practice of now supplying a heated shed, there is a risk that expelled group members may be denied access. An additional risk is that free-ranging monkeys will become too accustomed to zoo visitors, which is especially problematic if these animals are destined for reintroduction.
In conclusion, these releases are a favorable management option, with strong education benefits. The more "natural" conditions of free-ranging also permit more realistic behavioral studies of captive animals. This environment thus acts as a laboratory for understanding ecological differences between species. Finally, these releases are relevant to conservation. Information obtained from them can reveal the skills already possessed by captive-born individuals, highlighting any deficiencies, and can be used to determine a species' behavioral flexibility. This will allow us to design suitable training for animals destined for reintroduction, thus aiding the conservation of these endangered families of New World monkeys.
* *
Encouraging Natural Feeding Behavior in Captive Varecia variegata variegata
Adam Britt
There is evidence to suggest that captive animals may lose skills necessary for survival in their natural habitat (Frankham et al., 1986; Price, 1984). The aim of our research, carried out at the North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, U.K., was to devise means of encouraging species-typical feeding behavior in a group of four captive Varecia variegata variagata, the ruffed lemur, in order to maintain such behaviors, provide environmental enrichment, and demonstrate the adaptations which allow this species to satisfy its nutritional requirements in the spatially complex rainforest habitat where it naturally occurs.
Baseline data to determine species-typical feeding behavior were collected from six wild Varecia in the Betampona Reserve in eastern Madagascar between November, 1993, and August, 1995, as part of a more general study of the behavioral ecology of this species (Britt, 1996). Data were collected for a focal individual using an instantaneous time-sampling method with a 2-minute time-interval. Each observation recorded the feeding posture exhibited by the focal animal at that instant, branch orientation and diameter, and an estimate of height above the forest floor,. A total of 645 hours of activity budget data, including 3,348 feeding observations, were collected from the six individuals at Betampona.
A total of 416 hours of activity budget data, including 1,175 feeding observations, were collected from the four captive-bred Varecia at Chester between March and September, 1994. The same methods used at Betampona were employed to allow direct comparison of feeding as a proportion of total activity, the relative use of feeding postures, and the properties of supports used during feeding. Four food presentation methods were tested for their effectiveness in promoting natural feeding behavior. The group was observed in a cage from March to June, 1994, and on an island exhibit from June to September, 1994. In the cage, food was presented either in the standard manner (placed in piles on shelves) or on the mesh roof of the cage. On the island, food was presented either scattered on the ground or in wire baskets suspended from the branches of trees or shrubs.
Providing food on the mesh cage roof encouraged the relative use of feeding postures not significantly different from that of wild Varecia. This method also required the Varecia to devote the same proportion of their daily activity budget to feeding as was recorded for their wild counterparts, but the structural properties of supports used were dissimilar. Suspending food in wire baskets from trees and shrubs in the island exhibit encouraged the relative use of feeding postures not significantly different from that of wild Varecia. This method did not increase time spent feeding but did encourage the use of supports with similar structural properties to those used in the wild and decreased the amount of terrestrial feeding.
As evidenced by the rooftop feeding method, captive Varecia can be encouraged to spend more time feeding simply by reducing the ease with which food can be obtained. This could be a useful tool for controlling abnormal or stereotyped behaviors which often arise in captivity due to understimulation. Placing the Varecia in a spatially complex and stimulating naturalistic environment provides the opportunity for practicing the feeding skills necessary in their natural habitat. The fact that the captive Varecia spent less time feeding than their wild conspecifics is perhaps of little relevance to their welfare, nor to the maintenance of natural behavior within captive populations destined for reintroduction. More important, the presence of trees and shrubs provided an environment that resembles their natural habitat. The important factors for the maintenance of natural feeding behavior within captive populations are the behavioral adaptations that a species employs in its natural habitat that enable it to meet its nutritional requirements. A variety of postural behaviors were important to enable the Varecia at Betampona to efficiently obtain food items within the canopy of a tropical rain forest. The captive Varecia in the cage environment with food presented in the standard way were not required to adopt the full range of feeding postures exhibited at Betampona, although as evidenced by subsequent changes in food presentation and environment such postures remain within their behavioral repertoire. Regular practice of such postural activity can only be beneficial for maintaining natural behavior. Also, it is possible that the lack of performance of such postures may have an effect on bone density and on ligament and muscle strength. Further justification for these changes can be provided by the role of zoos as centers for education: the use of food presentation methods that encourage the exhibition of species-typical behavior provides an excellent visual demonstration of the adaptations of a species to its natural habitat.
We strongly recommend that zoos provide captive lemurs with environments containing mature trees and shrubs and utilize methods of food presentation which will encourage natural feeding behavior for reasons of conservation, welfare and education.
References
Britt, A. (1996). Environmental influences on the behavioural ecology of the black-and-white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegata variegata, Kerr, 1792). PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, U.K.
Frankham, R., Hemmer, Ryder, O. A., Cothran, E. G., Soule, M. E., Murray, N. D., & Snyder, M. (1986). Selection in captive populations. Zoo Biology, 5, 127-138.
Price, E. O. (1984). Behavioural aspects of animal domestication. Quarterly Review of Biology, 59(1): 1-31.
* *
Restocking of Varecia variegata variegata: The First Six Months
A. Britt, C. Welch, & A. Katz
On November 10, 1997, five captive-bred black and white ruffed lemurs, Varecia variegata variagata, were released into the Betampona Reserve in eastern Madagascar, the culmination of seven years of research and planning (e.g. Britt, 1996; Welch & Katz, 1992). Betampona was first proposed as a potential site to attempt an experimental restocking of Varecia by the Madagascar Fauna Group in 1992. Surveys of the existing population of Varecia in 1990 and 1991 indicated that a maximum of 35 individuals survived in Betampona (Welch & Katz, 1992). The reserve covers 2228 ha of which 70% (1569 ha) is undisturbed low altitude rain forest and suitable habitat for Varecia. The density of Varecia in Betampona (1.5-2.2/ km2) is lower than that recorded at other sites (e.g. 16.2 animals/km2 at Valohoaka in Ranomafana National Park [White et al., 1995] and 20-30 animals/km2 on the island of Nosy Mangabe [Morland, 1991]). It is presumed that hunting within the reserve in the recent past is one cause of the low Varecia population that exists today. Further justification for the restocking attempt is provided by the likelihood that the Varecia in Betampona have been isolated from other populations since the 1950s, if not before. Inbreeding depression may already be acting upon the population and the current population size (~35) falls below the figure suggested by population biologists as the minimum population size for the long-term maintenance of genetic diversity in mammals (Franklin, 1980).
The release of captive-bred Varecia into Betampona is a case study to determine the viability of releasing captive-bred lemurs as a conservation strategy to reinforce small, isolated populations. However, this is only one of the objectives of the project. The primary aim is to increase direct protection of the reserve and its other rare and endangered species through the presence and activities of project personnel. Indirect protection of the reserve is being facilitated by public awareness and conservation education programs in conjunction with on-going programs at nearby Parc Ivoloina. A further objective is to develop Betampona as a site for scientific research and to encourage the involvement of Malagasy scientists and local people in project activities.
This sub-species breeds well in captivity and the population has a history of good management (Porton, 1992). There exists a sufficiently large and healthy captive population from which individuals can be selected for return to the wild, without compromising the captive breeding program. Selection of release candidates was undertaken by the Species Survival Plan Coordinator, based upon a number of criteria. Candidates for release are given complete health screening prior to selection (blood chemistry profiles, fecal cultures, parasite checks, radiographs, TB tests, and viral screens). The final selection for release was a group of five (3:2), all born in multi-acre natural habitat enclosures at the Duke University Primate Center. Ages ranged from 1.5 to 12.5 years at the time of release.
In October, 1997, an habituation cage was constructed just east of the main trail, 1.4 km from the reserve entrance. The first release site was chosen for several reasons. The area was unoccupied by Varecia. Botanical surveys indicated an abundance of food-source tree species similar to those of areas occupied by the indigenous population. The release site was also close enough to the base camp at Rendrirendry to allow easy monitoring of the group post-release. The release was scheduled for November, as resource availability is good at this time and the weather is relatively dry, improving our ability to locate and follow our animals. Also they would have several months to adapt before facing the threat of cyclones. The group arrived at Rendrirendry on 20 October and was held overnight in a small cage. After thorough veterinary examinations, the group was transferred to the habituation cage at the release site, where they were allowed to acclimatize for three weeks. Forest fruits, young leaves, and flowers, in small quantities, were provided four times a day. The group was also provisioned with commercial monkey chow twice a day. During this period the animals were physically examined each week and their weight monitored. Each individual was fitted with a radio-collar (Teleonics) to enable project personnel to locate and track their movements.
A focal animal instantaneous time-sampling method is employed to collect behavioral and habitat use data from both our animals and the indigenous population. This will allow detailed comparison of their behavior and will provide a quantitative evaluation of our animals' adaptation to life in the wild. The group was monitored intensely for the first month post-release. During this period project personnel attempted to establish visual contact with each individual daily. The intensity of monitoring was reduced during the second month, but visual contact with each individual is still being attempted at least twice a week. During the first eight weeks post-release the group was provisioned daily with commercial monkey chow, presented in wire baskets suspended from branches 10-15 m above the ground. Three such baskets were placed in the release area. After eight weeks the group was ignoring the chow and so provisioning was stopped.
During the first week post-release several incidents gave us cause for concern. Three individuals returned to Rendrirendry and had to be captured and transported back into the reserve. On several occasions all the animals exhibited signs of heat stress and exhaustion. One female was located in cultivated land several km outside the reserve and all the animals were frequently observed travelling along the ground. After the first week the group became more settled and showed rapid adaptation to their new environment. There are no apparent problems with food location, navigation and orientation, locomotion in the canopy, or selection of suitable sleeping sites; and travel on the ground is now rarely observed. In December, the first contact between our animals and the indigenous Varecia was observed. One of the females was observed interacting affiliatively with a young wild male throughout December and January. The same female fought several fierce battles with two of the wild females. The two mature males were both observed with leg wounds during this month and it is assumed that these resulted from agonisitic encounters with the indigenous population. (Both healed well.) This situation has calmed and since March no interaction between our animals and the wild group have been observed. Both the females came into estrus in December, the time when mating occurs in the northern hemisphere. Mating in Betampona takes place in June/July. No births resulted and for the second release it is proposed to give females contraceptive injections to prevent estrus immediately after release. At the beginning of March the project suffered a major setback when one of the females was killed and eaten by a fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox). It is impossible to know whether naiveté on the part of the female caused her to fall victim to predation. It is likely that fossa do prey upon wild V. v. variegata and it is difficult to envisage how release candidates can be prepared to deal with this threat. Despite the loss of one of our animals, we feel that the project has demonstrated that captive-bred Varecia can adapt to a free-living existence. The remaining four animals are exhibiting the same behavior patterns and responses to seasonal climatic changes as the indigenous population and are in good health.
Ultimately the project will be judged a success if released animals reproduce successfully and integrate with the indigenous population. The second release of four individuals was scheduled for November, 1998. A third release will take place in 1999.
The Betampona project would like to acknowledge the support and cooperation of the Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées and the Ministère des Eaux et Forêts. Many thanks also to Duke University Primate Center for holding the animals and arranging their transportation to Madagascar, and to all the member institutions of the Madagascar Fauna Group.
References
Britt, A. (1996). Environmental influences on the behavioural ecology of the black and white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegata variegata). PhD thesis, Univ. of Liverpool, U.K.
Franklin, I. R. (1980). Evolutionary change in small populations. In M. E. Soule & B. A. Wilcox (Eds.), Conservation Biology (pp. 135-149). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Morland, H. S. (1991). Preliminary report on the social organisation of ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata variegata) in a northeast Madagascar rain forest. Folia Primatologica, 56, 157-161.
Porton, I. (1992). International Studbook for the Ruffed Lemur. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis Zoo.
Welch, C. R. & Katz, A. S. (1992). Survey and census work on the lemurs in the natural reserve of Betampona in eastern Madagascar with a view to reintroductions. Dodo, 28, 45-58.
White, F. J., Overdorff, D. J., Balko, E. A., & Wright, P. C. (1995). Distribution of ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata) in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Folia Primatologica, 64, 124-131.
* *
Determinants of Chimpanzee Longevity in Zoos
Virginia I. Landau, Jessie L. Grenfell, Erica I. L. Metelovski, and James E. King
Chimpanzees have been fascinating, and sometimes alarming, attractions in many zoos for over 100 years. During this time, chimpanzee housing has evolved from barren cages with steel bars, to concrete and glass structures permitting high visibility of the exhibit, to sophisticated modern habitats with psychological enrichment for the chimpanzees and simulated natural environments. Procedures for daily care and veterinary techniques have also undergone dramatic improvement.
This study showed the extent to which improved zoo maintenance procedures have increased the longevity of chimpanzees. Survival data on 749 chimpanzees were extracted from the ChimpanZoo data base and analyzed with a product limit survival analysis. Chimpanzees born after 1940 had significantly higher survival times than those born before 1940. First year mortality was extremely high during both time periods. Furthermore, despite the increased overall longevity of the more recently born chimpanzees, they still displayed high mortality rates during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. In fact, the shape of the survival function for chimpanzees born after 1940 was remarkably similar to that for human populations during the mid-18th century, a time during which medical science contributed virtually nothing to human longevity. Since the vast majority of chimpanzees in the post-1940 group were born during the past 20 years, these results show that mortality rates in modern zoos are still disturbingly high relative to those achieved in industrialized late-20th century human populations. The longevity hazard functions showed that the likelihood of dying during the next year was highest during the early and late stages of the life span. Male chimpanzee mortality was higher than female mortality at all ages.
Interviews with zoo keepers indicated a strong belief that the stability of keeper staff, a predictable environment, and the presence of a close friend or relative were important in prolonging longevity. However, our data showed that chimpanzee longevity was positively related to the number of times chimpanzees were transferred between zoos. This seemingly beneficial effect of transfers on longevity may be caused by the fact that chimpanzees in poor health are unlikely to be transferred, but also suggest that the stimulating effects of changed environments may prolong life.
* *
Development of a New Ring-Tailed Lemur (Lemur Catta) Exhibit at Edinburgh Zoo
G. Catlow, R. Clifford, L. Dickie, & C. Wren
Until 1997, our expanding ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) group had been housed in two cages in the Monkey House, adult males being separated from the main group. This was due to the extreme aggression shown towards the males by the females and their offspring. The males were introduced during the short breeding season and removed immediately afterwards. Although this practice had been successful in terms of breeding success, with a total of 26 births from 1989 to 1997, socially the situation was far from ideal. Therefore, a large naturalistic enclosure was developed on a site formerly used for housing Bennett's wallabies (Macropus rufogrisea). This was a large grassy paddock, with electric fencing used for the first time at Edinburgh Zoo as the enclosure barrier. A building, which can be separated into three areas by internal sliding welded mesh doors, is located in one corner of the paddock. This allows animals to be separated easily and without the need for restraint. The outdoor area has a number of trees, to which the lemurs have access except during the trees' budding season. This ensures that the trees remain healthy and can be maintained within the enclosure. The enclosure has proved to be highly successful, allowing the adult males to be housed with the main group. Twelve animals, two adult males and two females plus offspring, were moved to the new enclosure in September, 1997, and a further six infants were born in 1998. All infants survived. This enclosure has many benefits including encouraging the display of natural behaviors, providing an exciting and educational exhibit for the public, and creating a more realistic group for captive research purposes.
* *
Breeding Vervet Monkeys in a Source Country Research Facility
M. C. Mdhluli, J. V. Seier, & C. Lambrechts
The Primate Unit was established in 1974 and currently maintains about 300 vervet monkeys for biomedical research. A breeding group was established in 1979 and breeding has since progressed to the second generation. All monkeys are housed indoors in communal, pair, and single cages, with a variety of environmental enrichment devices. The overall breeding performance has been good, with a fetal wastage similar to that reported by other facilities and a very low neonatal mortality. The abortion rate was higher in first- and second-generation breeding females. This, however, was due to only 10% of the females producing 77% of the fetal wastage. The Primate Unit has been providing primates and services for in-house, collaborative, and contract research, covering diverse disciplines such as nutrition, reproduction, diabetes, toxicology, and pharmacokinetic studies.
* *
Research on Laboratory Animal Domestication of Cynomolgus Monkeys (M. Fascicularis)
Yang Shou Kai
The main bacterial and viral diseases and parasitoses in cynomolgus monkeys introduced to our facility from abroad in the late 1980s have been controlled by strict isolation and quarantine. A new system of reproduction has been set up, with captive monkeys being trained and gradually adapted to the new circumstance, as well as keeping physiological stability. The reproductive rate of the colony (including 235 female monkeys) was 73.7% and the filial generations grew normally. Microbial quality control was maintained. The rate of positive TB was down to 0% at quarantine term, from 4.7% when the wild monkeys came to the farm, and the rate of positive B virus was down from 41.6% to 22%, which was far lower than that of our rhesus monkeys. The physiological index of the filial generations was stable; genetic quality control met laboratory animal standards.
* * *
Goy was born in Detroit and received his undergraduate and doctoral degrees in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1947 and the University of Chicago in 1953, respectively. He then joined the laboratory of W. C. Young at the University of Kansas.
In the late 1950s and early '60s, Goy and Young, with colleagues Charles Phoenix, Arnold Gerall, and others, published ground-breaking reports on the effects of prenatal exposure of guinea pigs to elevated levels of androgens. This masculinized both the anatomy and reproductive behavior of genetically female offspring, indicating that early exposure to sex hormones was a critical factor, along with genes and environmental influences, in molding adult behavior.
In 1963, Young's laboratory group moved to the Oregon RPRC outside Portland and expanded its studies to include nonhuman primates. Goy had been a visiting scientist at the Wisconsin RPRC from 1961 to 1963, where he had studied patterns of juvenile behavior of rhesus monkeys with Harry Harlow. He then succeeded Harlow as Center Director in 1971 and continued in this role for 18 years.
During his tenure as Director, Goy mentored many graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scientists in behavioral endocrinology and primate development. He served as a frequent consultant to the NIH and various professional societies. He also served as an editor and editorial consultant for several scientific journals and books, and was author or co-author of nearly 200 scientific articles.
Awards Goy received include the Kenneth Craik Award in Physiological Psychology from Cambridge University; and the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award by the American Psychological Association, awarded to individuals who demonstrate "outstanding theoretical or empirical contributions to basic or applied research in psychology." Last year, Goy was honored for his lifelong contributions at a special symposium of the inaugural meeting of the Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology.
Memorial contributions may be made in Dr. Goy's name to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Southern Wisconsin, 2802 Dairy Dr., Madison, WI 53718 [608-223-9121]. - From a University of Wisconsin Press Release
Reg Gates, 1946-1999
Reg Gates, Curator of Primates at Perth Zoo, Australia, was born in Chicago on February 19, 1946. He received a Bachelor of Arts at Elmhurst College in 1969; was a keeper at Auckland Zoo from 1975 to 1982; Manager of Blantyre Zoo, Malawi, from 1982 to 1983; and Senior Animal Lab Technician at the University of Auckland from 1984 to 1985. Reg started work at Perth Zoo as a keeper in the Primate Section in August, 1985, became the Section Keeper of Primates in February, 1991, and Curator of Primates in September, 1995. He died on January 28, 1999.
Reg was much loved and respected for his gentleness and his committed ethical approach to the animals for which he cared. His depth of knowledge of primates was unmatched. His most beloved project was the organization he started for the in situ conservation of silvery gibbons (The Silvery Gibbon Project) and the work he did to improve captive husbandry as the International Studbook Keeper for the species. Reg's death will leave an enormous gap in experience, expertise, and conservation at Perth Zoo.
Reg was a devoted husband to Dianne Gates. He had a love for music and fast cars and a lifelong concern for human rights. His contribution to conservation and the development of the skills of his staff and their awareness of conservation will leave a lasting legacy. - posted to Alloprimate by Leif Cocks and Rosemary Markham, 22 February, 1999
NABR Petitions Supreme Court
The National Association for Biomedical Research has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision rendered in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman and NABR, the most recent suit seeking to invalidate existing federal requirements for enrichment of nonhuman primate (NHP) environments. By a 7 to 4 vote last September, the District of Columbia (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that one individual, Marc Jurnove, had established Article III standing on a claim of aesthetic injury derived from the emotional distress he claimed to have suffered upon seeing primates exhibited in zoo housing that he considered inhumane (NABR Update, 19[16]). The merits of the case - whether the current NHP environmental enrichment standards that apply to zoos, research facilities and others are unlawful and should be revised by USDA - have not yet been decided. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will consider the merits once the Supreme Court takes a final action on the standing question.
As explained often in the NABR Update, in order to be heard in federal court, plaintiffs must meet three standing requirements; (1) they must have suffered what is called an injury-in-fact, which (2) was caused by or is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable court ruling. NABR's petition argues that the Supreme Court should accept this case because the DC Circuit opinion expands the definition of cognizable injury well beyond the boundaries and limitations established in prior decisions of the High Court; conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals that have declined to find aesthetic injury on the basis of emotional distress alone; and was rendered in the circuit where most actions challenging federal regulations may be brought. Furthermore, by finding that the causation and redressability tests were satisfied even when the alleged injury is subjectively determined and ultimately unverifiable, the en banc opinion would open the federal courts for resolution of disputes of taste and ideology rather than actual cases and controversies as provided by the Constitution. - From the NABR Update, 20[1]
Coulston Foundation Cited by USDA
After the deaths of five chimpanzees, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has added several new charges of Animal Welfare Act violations against the Coulston Foundation. The additional charges are the result of USDA investigations into a previous complaint filed in March, 1998. "We have grave concerns regarding the circumstances under which several chimps have died at the Coulston Foundation," said Michael Dunn, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. According to a USDA news release, the new charges were added after the Coulston Foundation failed to:
Under Secretary Dunn further added, "We intend to pursue this case aggressively and continue to keep a close eye on the Coulston Foundation." - From the NABR Update, FebErratum
Maintenance for Cephalic Cylinders
* The quality of the "seal" between skin and cylinders is important. If an animal manages to "unpick" a healed and sealed edge, and stretches the skin away, potentially opening up to bugs, sticking the skin back on with a drop of superglue has proved helpful.
* In our system, the craniotomy was sealed with a thin silastic membrane, molded like very shallow, inverted hat, with a thin "top", and thick "brim". Molds were custom-made to accommodate different craniotomy sizes, and sterilized by immersion in hibitane/alcohol. The brim edge sat on the skull with the cylinder pressing it down. (Sterile) electrodes would easily penetrate the silastic, and I did not have problems with infections under the silastic. The cylinder chamber would be flushed each time it was opened (i.e., daily) with sterile saline, and "wicked" dry with sterile swabs.
* Saline flushing was repeated at the end of recording, and a little saline left, covering the membrane. To this saline, a drop or two of human topical antibiotic treatments (usually eye drops with choramphenicol 0.5% or framycetin sulphate 5 mg/ml) was added if infection was suspected (cloudiness of saline, smell).
* Except in relation to implantation surgery, our animals did not get systemic antibiotic treatments. Using this regime, infection was not a problem for recording daily for up to two months."
James "Buster" Hawkins, NIMH/NIH, Bldg 36, Rm 3A17, 36 Convent Dr., MSC 4032, Bethesda, MD 20892-4032 [e-mail: hawkins@codon.nih.gov].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comparison of Two Chimpanzee Housing Configurations
Thomas R. Rice, Holly Harvey, Roberta Kayhart, and Cindy Torres
The Coulston Foundation
Authors' address: Coulston Foundation, P.O. Box 1027, Holloman AFB, NM 88330 [e-mail: thomasrice@hotmail.com].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Research Resources for Primatologists
Bennett Dyke PhD, PI, Department of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, P.O. Box 760549, San Antonio, TX 78245-0549 [e-mail: bdyke@darwin.sfbr.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik McArthur, BS, or Cathy Johnson-Delaney, DVM; PSIC, Washington RPRC, Univ. of Washington, P.O. Box 357330, Seattle, WA 98195-7330 [206-543-5178; fax: 206-616-1710; e-mail: psic@bart.rprc.washington.edu].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Kessler, DVM, Director, Caribbean PRC, University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, P.O. Box 1053, Sabana Seca, PR 00952-1053 [e-mail: mkessler@coqui.net].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald C. Kennedy, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104 [e-mail: ronald-kennedy@ouhsc.edu].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian R. Abee, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, 307 University Blvd – 992 MSB, Mobile, AL 36688-0002 [e-mail: cabee@jaguar1.usouthal.edu].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Hilliard, PhD, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Georgia State Univ., P.O. Box 4118, Atlanta, GA 30302-4118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Information Requested or Available
Fatal Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1 (B Virus) Infection Following a
Mucocutaneous Exposure
and Interim Recommendations for Worker Protection
This material appeared in Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, December 18, 1998, 47, 1073-76, 1083. It was reported by: C. Perlino, MD, Emory Univ. School of Med.; J. Hilliard, PhD, B Virus Research and Resource Lab., Georgia State Univ., Atlanta; J. Koehler, DVM, Div. of Public Health, Georgia Dept of Human Resources. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; National Center for Infectious Diseases; and Office of Health and Safety, CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Positions Available
Captive Care Symposium: IPS '98
Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, Jersey, JE3 5BP England [e-mail: afeistner@durrell.org].
Madagascar Fauna Group, c/o BP 416, Tamatave 501, Madagascar
Madagascar Fauna Group, c/o BP 416, Tamatave 501, Madagascar
Jane Goodall Institute and University of Arizona
Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh, EH12 6TS, Scotland
Primate Unit, Experimental Biology Programme of the Medical Research Council, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa <jseier@eagle.mrc.ac.sa>
Guangdong Shunde Laboratory Animals Institute, People's Republic of ChinaNews Briefs
* Establish and maintain a program of adequate veterinary care by failing to make itself and its veterinarians aware of known side effects and complications of pharmaceutical compounds being tested.
* On three occasions, provide rationale for the number of animals used in a proposed activity.
* On three occasions, provide a complete description of the proposed use within the protocol.
* On five occasions, have the IACUC review and approve significant changes regarding the care and use of animals in ongoing activities.