Anatomy of a
Land Grant Institution
Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S.
Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care
The University of Tennessee
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What is a land grant institution?
 Colleges and universities designated by
Congress and state legislatures to receive
federal support as defined in the Morrill
Acts of 1862 and 1890
Rationale for LGI Development
 Need for broad-based educational systems
 LGIs to offer curricula in military tactics,
agriculture, and mechanic arts
 Provide practical education to industrial
classes
First Morrill Act of 1862
 Allowed public lands to be donated
to states
 Proceeds from sale of these public lands
supported the LGIs
Hatch Act of 1887
 Mandated creation of Agricultural
Experiment Stations
 Stations affiliated with LGIs
 Scientific research to be conducted at
experiment stations
 Federal and state funds appropriated
annually to support research
Smith-Lever Act of 1914
 Provided federal monies for support of
cooperative extension efforts
 Educational programs established to
disseminate information obtained in
experiment station research to local
communities
Other Landmark Decisions
 Six million dollar endowment to the
University of Hawai’i in 1960 in lieu of
federal land endowment
 University of Guam, College of the Virgin
Islands, Community Colleges of American
Samoa and Micronesia, and Northern
Marianas College achieved land grant
status in 1972
Other Landmark Decisions (cont.)
 Twenty-nine Native American colleges
received land grant status and a 23 million
dollar endowment in 1994
LGIs Today
 All states and territories have at least
one LGI
 Total of 105 LGIs which receive over
$550 million annually in federal funding
Characteristics of Traditional LGIs
 Complex, decentralized animal care programs
 Varied, multiple funding sources, including
Hatch and LGI appropriations
 Unique programs, such as veterinary medicine
and agricultural sciences
 Separate programs with overlapping
research focus
 Multiple lines of authority
LGIs and AAALAC Accreditation
 Single vs. multiple accredited units
 ILAR Guide for most species
 Ag Guide and principles of the first three
chapters of the ILAR Guide applicable to
food and fiber animals
The Ohio State University
 Single office for animal management and
veterinary care for the accredited program
 Single IACUC (sub-IACUC for food and
fiber animals)
 Single AAALAC accreditation (excluding
food and fiber animals)
University of Wisconsin
 Multiple animal care programs with
multiple veterinarians, with compliance
oversight in the institutional veterinarian’s
office
 Multiple IACUCs
 Multiple AAALAC accredited programs
(ag component not accredited)
University of Missouri
 Multiple animal care programs, with many
facility managers hired by and reporting to the
institutional veterinarian’s office, and all
veterinarians reporting to the institutional
veterinarian (including ag)
 Single IACUC
 Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag
component not accredited; soon to apply for
single accreditation, including ag)
University of Illinois
 Decentralized management of animal facilities
and centralized oversight of all areas (including
ag) through the institutional veterinarian’s office
and IACUC
 Centralized veterinary care for lab animals;
decentralized veterinary care (with institutional
oversight) for food and fiber animals.
 Single IACUC
 Single AAALAC accreditation, including ag
food and fiber animals
Clemson University
 All veterinary care and oversight provided
by institutional veterinarian’s office
 Single IACUC
 Single AAALAC accreditation
Key to Successful AAALAC
Accreditation in LGIs
 Ensure adequate veterinary care and
compliance oversight
 Ensure clear lines of authority
 Ensure strong institutional commitment to
the animal care and use program
Accreditation for Agricultural
Programs: Analysis of the
Arguments For and Against
Neal R. Merchen, Ph.D.
Professor and Interim Head
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois
General Challenges –
Agricultural Animal Programs
 Complex lines of accountability/authority
 Teaching activities - impact on H-H programs
and biosecurity
 Decentralized management
 Faculty involved in management/oversight
 “Cultural resistance” to centralized oversight
 Disconnect between clinical veterinary service
and oversight by IV
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
 AAALAC website
 Points from experience at U. of Illinois
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
 Symbol of quality
 Value in external validation of quality
 Demonstrates accountability
 Validates commitment to humane and ethical
animal care and use
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
 (?) Enhances quality of agricultural
research
 (?) Recruiting tool for faculty, students,
researchers
 No discernable impact
 (?) Enhances funding opportunities.
 Limited impact for funding of ag production
research
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
 Exercise in self-assessment
 Engage all participants
 Re-evaluation of practices
 Improves sensitivity to concerns of public
 Encourages standardization of practices
 Improves record-keeping
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
 Costs
 Funding, human resources
 Transaction costs for preparation
 Repair, renovation of facilities
 Ongoing costs
University of Illinois –
College of ACES Agricultural
Animal Program Infrastructure
 Daily census 12 to 14,000 animals
 10 livestock units at 3 locations
 50 academic staff and animal caretakers
 150 animal buildings
 Extensive documentation
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
 Difficulties in collaboration among principals





IACUC
Institutional veterinarian
Clinical veterinarians
Faculty
Animal care staff
“Complex lines of accountability and authority”
- Build consensus opinions/agendas
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
 Poor relationship between ag animal
care program to local oversight of animal
care program
 Biggest reason for disinterest by ag animal
units
 Lack of communication/mutual understanding
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST (cont.)
 Poor relationship between ag animal care
program to local oversight of animal care
program
 Imbalance in institutional authority among
IACUC, IV, IO
 Poor representation of ag animal programs on
IACUC
 AAALAC used as a “club”
Greatest Opportunities –
AAALAC Accreditation
of Ag Animal Programs
 Establishes independent seal of quality assurance
 Demonstrates accountability
 Self-assessment may improve practices
 Professionalism/pride/esprit de corps of animal
caretakers
Greatest Challenges -
Institutions/AAALAC
 Resources
 Develop effective working groups among IV,
IACUC, IO, ag animal programs
 Improve communication between AAALAC and
ag animal professionals
 Clarify role of AAALAC to ag animal
professionals
Trends in Deficiencies
Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M.
Associate Director, AAALAC International
Standards Used
Farm Animal Position Statement
AAALAC International uses the current edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (NRC 1996) as its primary standard for evaluating animal care facilities and programs.
The full range of programmatic criteria outlined in Sections I-III of the Guide are entirely
applicable to farm animals, and in accredited facilities, the use of farm animals in research should
be subject to the same general ethical considerations as the use of other animals in research.
However, uses of farm animals are often separated into biomedical uses and agricultural uses,
and different criteria for evaluating standards of housing and care for animals of the same species
may be appropriate. Decisions on categorizing research uses of farm animals and defining
standards for their care and use should be based on user goals, protocols, and concern for animal
well-being and should be made by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. For
animals in an agricultural setting, AAALAC International takes the position that, in accredited
facilities, the housing and care for farm animals should meet the standards that prevail on a high
quality, well managed farm. The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in
Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS 1999) is recognized by AAALAC International as a
reference resource for individual farm animal species. Regardless of an investigator’s research
objectives or funding source, institutions are expected to provide oversight of all research
animals and ensure that their pain and distress is minimized.
AAALAC International
& Land Grant Institutions
Approximately 28% are accredited
Of those LGIs/State Universities
that are accredited….
38% have Campus-wide accreditation
The Animal Care and Use Program
Institutional Policies
 OHSP
 IACUC
 Adequate Veterinary Care
 Administrative Organization
Animal Management
 Animal Space Provisions
 Support Service
 Sanitation Practices
 Caging/Housing System
 Aseptic surgery
 Husbandry Practices
 Identification/Record Keeping
 Vermin Control
Veterinary Care
 Preventive Medicine
 Disease Diagnosis, Control, Treatment
 Surgical & Postsurgical Care
 Anesthesia/Analgesia
 Euthanasia
Physical Plant
 HVAC
 Survival Surgery Support
 Facility Maintenance
 Personnel Safety Concerns
 General Storage Conditions
 Sanitation of Facilities
Physical Plant
(cont.)
 Illumination
 Emergency Power
 Physical Plant Design
 Security
Trend Data
 Data extracted from January 1993 through
January 2002 meetings of the Council on
Accreditation, equating to the three most
recent site visits for each institution (or
less if they were new to the AAALAC
program)
Mandatory Deficiencies Identified
 Range of zero to nine mandatory items in a letter
 59% of letters reviewed had no mandatory items for
correction, i.e., institution granted Full Accreditation
after site visit
 No significant correlation between number of
mandatory items identified and whether program
was Campus-wide or University-limited
 No correlation between number of mandatory items
and whether institution had a medical school or
health science center
Suggestions for
Improvement Identified
 Range of zero to 20 SFIs in a letter
 24% of letters reviewed had no SFIs
 No significant correlation between number of
SFIs identified and whether program was
Campus-wide or University-limited
 No correlation between number of SFIs and
whether institution had a medical school or
health science center
Mandatory Item vs.
Suggestion For Improvement
 Mandatory Item = a deficiency which
must be corrected for Full Accreditation to
be awarded or continued
 Suggestion for Improvement (SFI) =
items which the Council feels are desirable
to upgrade an already acceptable or even
commendable program
Land Grant Institution
Program Deficiencies
20%
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
7%
8%
65%
Comparison Of LGIs
with all Accredited Institutions
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
General
Animal Care and Use
Programs
70%
13%
12%
5%
Land Grant Colleges
&
State Universities
65%
8%
7%
20%
Land Grant Institution
Suggestions for Improvement
20%
30%
13%
37%
Institutional Policies
Animal Management
Veterinary Care
Physical Plant
Common Deficiencies
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
28.6
IACUC
OHSP
HVAC
Program of Vet Care
19.8
13.5
9.5
Comparison Of LGIs
with all Accredited Institutions
IACUC
OHSP
HVAC
Veterinary Care
General
Animal Care and Use
Programs
25%
15%
9%
4%
Land Grant Colleges
&
State Universities
28.6%
19.8%
13.5%
9.5%
Identified Concerns
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
V
A
D
C
es
&
M
ai
nt
H
e
V
et
.C
ar
A
d.
IA
C
U
C
O
H
SP
Mandatory
SFI's
Accreditation Challenges
IACUC Issues
Christine M. Parks, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Director, RARC
University of Wisconsin-Madison
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Institutional Policies
 Lack of institutional commitment
 Institutional official not empowered to
commit necessary resources
 Need to establish clear lines of authority
and oversight of the program
 Inconsistencies in procedures and
practices between centralized and satellite
areas
IACUC Participation
 Inadequate oversight of animals in satellite
or study areas
 Inadequate program oversight
 Lack of participation of nonaffiliated
member
 Organizational structure presented potential
conflict of interest
Policies, Training and
Documentation
 Inadequate personnel training and
documentation
 No policies for rodent surgery,
analgesia/anesthesia, environmental
enrichment, dog exercise
 No or inadequate IACUC training
IACUC Semiannual Review
 Review did not include evaluation and
inspection of all housing and laboratory
areas
 Review did not include evaluation of
programmatic issues
 No plan and schedule for correcting
deficiencies
IACUC Semiannual Review
 Inadequate oversight of farm units
 Inadequate evaluation of remote sites,
and other sites such as slaughter house
or feed mill
Protocol Review Issues
 Inadequate intensity of protocol review
including: pain and distress; exceptions
from the Guide; euthanasia techniques; use
of analgesia; justification of animal
numbers; endpoints
 Need to ensure all animals covered by a
protocol (holding, breeding, sentinels)
Protocol Review Issues
(cont.)
 Process errors, such as: protocol approval
outside committee procedures; chair acting
outside of authority; definition of major
changes; documentation lapses
 Inadequate annual review
 Safety issues not addressed
 Failure to match numbers of animals
approved with number used
Occupational Health and Safety
at Land Grant Institutions:
An AAALAC Perspective
Wendy J. Underwood, D.V.M., M.S.
Attending Veterinarian
Eli Lilly and Company
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What mandates the creation
of an OHS program?
 PHS Policy: The ILAR Guide
 The AG Guide
 OHSA: CFR 29
 ILAR: “Occupation Health and Safety in
the Care and Use of Research Animals”.
What do the ‘Guides’ say?
 The ILAR Guide: “An occupational
health and safety program must be part of
an overall animal care and use program
 The Ag Guide: “An occupational health
and safety program must be established for
individuals who work with agricultural
animals.”
What are the required
components of an OHSP?
 Risk Assessment and hazard identification
 Medical surveillance
 Training
 Personnel hygiene
 PPE
 Facilities
 Procedures and monitoring
What are the ‘hallmarks’
of a good OHSP?
 Strong administrative support
 Sound implementation strategies
 Effective coordination of components
OHS Findings at
Land Grant Institutions
Programatic
PPE
16%
Medical
Surveillance
3%
Programatic
20%
Risk
Assessment
Training
Study Hazards
PPE
Study
Hazards
Medical
Surveillance
20%
Risk
Assessment
Training
6%
35%
Programmatic Issues 20%
 Inadequate:
 Oversight
 Implementation
 Notification
 Not offered to all
 Intensity
 Involvement by health
specialists
 Need to ensure that
the program conforms
to the guide.
 Program does not
reflect actual
practices.
 Not applied to field
study areas.
Risk Assessment and
Hazard Identification 35%
 Lack of
 risk assessment
 first aid kits
 identification of
hazardous materials
 proper signage
 Potential health risks
not identified
(Q fever)
 Lack of




confined space policy
lone operator policy
lock Out/Tag Out
documentation of all
personnel involved in
program
 Allergen exposure
Personnel Training 6%
 Inadequate training
 Need to provide training on





Zoonoses
Allergens
Sharps disposal
Heavy equipment
Ergonomics
Experimentation
involving hazards 20%
 Lack of or
inappropriate
biohazard signs
 No mechanism to
ensure people
following policy
 Exhaust air not
filtered
 Protocols not
reviewed by safety
committee
 Non filtered vacuums
 Lack of respirator use
 Inappropriate storage
of volatile gases
 Inappropriate
handling of
medicated feeds
Personnel Hygiene 16%
 Lack of water, sinks, towels, etc. to wash
 Uncertified safety showers, eye stations, or
chemical hoods
 Washer and dryer for cleaning work
clothing installed in soiled area
 No provision for cleaning work clothes
PPE
 Not available
 Not offered
 Not used
 Inappropriate
 Lack of
 hearing protection
 respiratory protection
 Lack of monitoring
mechanism for PPE
use
 Policy not enforced
 Lack of policy
Medical Surveillance 3%
 Tetanus immunization not offered
 No program to evaluate Q fever
Broad OHSP Issues
at Land Grant Institutions
 Lack of an OHS program for Ag facilities
 Lack of opportunity for inclusion
 Absence of safety professionals
 Industrial Hygienists
 Biosafety Officers
 Safety Officers
More Common OHSP Issues
at Land Grant Institutions
 PPE: No boots, safety
glasses or work clothes in
barn areas
 Confined Space Entry
 Zoonoses: ringworm,
crypto, erysipelas, flue
 Heavy equipment
training
 No tetanus immunization
 First aid kits
 Storage issues: gas,
diesel, formalin, kerosene
 Physical injury and
ergonomics
 Poor or no biohazard
signage
 Lone Operator
OHS Findings:
Mandatory or Suggestions?
25
20
15
10
5
0
eil
rv
Su
x
M
E
PP ds
ar
az
H
e
ien
yg
H ng
ni
ai
Tr
SP
H
sk
Ri
O
e
nc
SFI's
la
Mandatory
Accreditation Challenges
Animal Management
Joy A. Mench, Ph.D.
Professor of Animal Science
University of California – Davis
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
The Guide
A good management program provides the
environment, housing and care that permit
animals to grow, mature, reproduce and
maintain good health; provides for their wellbeing; and minimizes variations that can affect
research results”
The Guide
 “Many factors should be considered in planning
for adequate and appropriate physical and social
environment, housing, space and management”
 Species, strain, breed and individual characteristics of
animal; ability of animals to form social groups;
availability and suitability of enrichments; design and
construction of housing; project goals and
experimental design
 Goal of housing to maximize species-typical
behavior and minimize stress-induced ones
Husbandry & Management
 Behavioral Management
 Husbandry
 Population management
 IACUC oversight of husbandry
 Role of IACUC in husbandry program
Husbandry & Management
 Routine husbandry and management
issues do not generally appear to pose
significant challenges at Land-Grant
Institutions
 Relatively rare as mandatory issues, but there
are several common areas of suggested
improvements
Behavioral Management
 Provide opportunity for animal to express
species-typical postures, behaviors, and
activity
 Lack of social enrichment for social
species
 Pair or group-housing; visual, olfactory,
auditory contact
Feed and Water
 Food quality
 Feed grade
 Feed storage times
 Feed storage conditions
(vermin/contamination)
 Feed provision conditions (floor feeding)
 Water
 Automatic water lines
Sanitation
 Cage sanitation schedules not in conformance
with Guide
 No (or too infrequent) mechanism for ensuring
effectiveness of sanitation
(e.g., microbiological monitoring, other
appropriate methods)
 Cluttered and dirty rooms
 Rusted equipment
Other Husbandry Issues
 Lack of effective vermin control program
 A particular problem at farm locations, with bulk
feed storage areas, open feed troughs
 No formal (or inadequate) Disaster Plan—
most cited deficiency!




Appropriate emergency contacts
Posting of procedures
Takes account of people and animals
“Official responder” (vet or colony manager)
IACUC Husbandry Issues
 Special Agricultural Practices
 Castration, dehorning, molting, etc
 If likely to cause pain or distress must be
reviewed and approved by the IACUC, as per
the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural
Animals
Accreditation Challenges
Veterinary Care Issues
Joseph D. Thulin, D.V.M., M.S.
Institutional Veterinarian and Director
Division of Animal Resources
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
Categorizing Veterinary Concerns
 Program Organization
 Corresponds to Chapter 1 of NRC Guide
 Issues of institutional arrangements for veterinary
care, responsibilities and authority of
attending/institutional veterinarian, etc.
 Program Design and Implementation
 Corresponds to Chapter 3 of NRC Guide
 Preventive medicine (quarantine, surveillance,
treatment, control, etc.), surgery, pain management,
euthanasia
Veterinary Care Concerns
Summarized Major Category
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
53
16
Mandatory
91
1
SFI
Design &
Implementation
Organization
Summary of Mandatory Items
0% 3%
13%
23%
Organization
Preventive
Medicine
Surgical Care
Pain Management
Euthanasia
61%
Summary of Suggestions
for Improvement
11%
1%
9%
47%
32%
Organization
Preventive Medicine
Surgical Care
Pain Management
Euthanasia
Challenges in
Organization
of Veterinary Care
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council
 Inadequate oversight to ensure adequate
veterinary care.
 Institution needs to establish suitable
arrangements for provision of vet care
consistent with Guide, Ag Guide and
institutional policy.
 Inadequate involvement of Attending
Veterinarian in ag animal program.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
 Institution needs to implement an ag animal
health program that delineates the lines of
authority and responsibilities of veterinary care.
 No formal communication between PIveterinarians and Attending Veterinarian.
 PI-veterinarian not providing adequate vet care.
 Dairy manager initiating treatment w/o input
from veterinarian.
Who is the Attending Veterinarian?
 The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated
authority for activities involving animals at [the
registered] facility…” (Animal Welfare Regs)
 The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated
program authority and responsibility for
activities involving animals at the institution…”
(PHS Policy)
 The veterinarian who is responsible for the
program of adequate veterinary care. (AWR,
NRC Guide, Ag Guide)
Attending Veterinarian (cont.)
 The Attending (Institutional) Veterinarian ideally
should report to the Institutional Official.
 An institution might have more than one AV;
however, the lines of accountability and
responsibilities among the veterinarians need to
be clearly delineated.
 PI-veterinarians pose special considerations such
as conflict of interest and relationship to the AV.
Challenges in Design and
Implementation of the
Veterinary Care Program
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council
 Inadequate notification of the veterinary
staff about ill animals. (Most frequent
deficiency.)
 Daily observation of animals not
conducted.
 Inadequate treatment of health problems
(e.g., feather picking in poultry).
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
 Inadequate routine health care (e.g., dental work,
physical exams, hoof trimming, etc.).
 Medical records at farm units did not conform
with Ag Guide.
 Inadequate documentation of health problems
and treatments.
 Indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
 15% death rate of cows in a barn due to
mastitis which had not been aggressively
investigated.
 Records of veterinary care provided by PIveterinarians inadequate.
 Malnourished/moribund piglet observed;
had intended to leave with sow for next
day or two.
Examples of Deficiencies
Identified by Council (cont.)
 Diagnostics services not used to ensure
adequate veterinary care.
 Inadequate aseptic techniques (sterilized
instruments, hair removal, disinfection of
site, sterile gloves, survival surgeries).
 Inadequate documentation of surgical and
postoperative care.
Adequate Veterinary Care
 NRC Guide requires effective programs for:
 Preventive medicine.
 Surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and control of
disease, including zoonosis control.
 Management of protocol-associated disease,
disability, or other sequelae.
 Anesthesia and analgesia.
 Surgery and postsurgical care.
 Assessment of animal well-being.
 Euthanasia.
Adequate Veterinary Care
(cont.)
 Under AWR also includes availability of
appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and
services.
 Ag Guide requires a written and implemented
program for disease prevention (including
biosecurity), surveillance, diagnosis, treatment,
and end point resolution, and has stringent
requirements for health and production record
keeping.
Challenges in Implementation
of Veterinary Care
 Poorly organized programs typically have
problems with implementation.
 All personnel involved in veterinary care
must be knowledgeable of institutional
responsibilities.
 Be cognizant of the relationships among
the various standards/regulations, i.e.,
NRC Guide, Ag Guide, AWR, PHS Policy.
The Physical Plant in an
AAALAC International Accredited
Agricultural Facility
John J. McGlone, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Animal Science
Texas Tech University
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Outline
 Physical Plant Considerations
(Sections of the Guide):
 The physical environment
 Physical Plant considerations
 Problem areas
 Opportunities
The Physical Environment
 Microenvironment &
Macroenvironment
 Housing
 Primary enclosures
 Sheltered or outdoor housing
 Naturalistic environment





Space
Temperature & Humidity
Ventilation
Illumination
Noise
Physical Plant Considerations
 In general, the building,
room and pens or cages
 The Physical
Environment
 p. 22-36 of the Guide
 The Physical Plant
 Ch 4, pp 71-80 of the
Guide
Physical Plant (Ch 4)
 Functional areas
 Construction guidelines






Corridors
Animal room doors
Exterior windows
Floors, drainage, walls, ceilings
HVAC
Power and lighting, storage
areas, noise control, facilities
for sanitizing materials
 Facilities for aseptic surgery
Physical Plant Problem Areas
 Physical plant issues
represented
 10% of all mandatory
items (32/320)
 15% of all suggestions
for improvements
(112/759)
Physical Plant Problem Areas
 All other issues
were 3 or less and
they were
scattered over
nearly every
category and
sub-category
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
The big 4 Issues
 Flooring should be refurbished, resealed,
or replaced to provide smooth, impervious
sanitizable surfaces (n=17)
 Unsealed animal room surfaces (n=4)
 Fencing in need of repair (n=4)
 Temperatures not monitored/recorded
regularly (n=4)
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
Summary Problem Areas




Flooring
Walls
Fencing
Temperature
& humidity
monitoring
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
What is not a major concern
 A farm setting
 Outdated facilities
 Natural ventilation
 Non-controlled photoperiod
(as in open barns)
 Lack of temperature control
Physical Plant Problem Areas –
Opportunities
 Agricultural facilities
can be accredited for
what they are
 A farm setting, as in a
modern, wellmanaged farm
 A hybrid between a
farm and a laboratory
 A biomedical facility
that uses farm animals
Ag facilities
can be
accredited,
too!
The End
For more information:
AAALAC International
Booth # 607
accredit@aaalac.org
accredit_europe@aaalac.org
www.aaalac.org