Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/379412

Where do animals covered by the US Animal Welfare Act live? Analysis of USDA licensed and registered entities

Bennett, A. J.·Schoenbeck, E. G.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Nonhuman animals are housed in captivity for a range of purposes in the US and other countries. The regulation, oversight, and public transparency of decisions related to the care and use of those animals varies by species and activity. The goals of this paper are 1) to provide a concise and accessible summary of the number and types of facilities either registered or licensed by the USDA and overseen by the federal agency; and 2) to provide concise comparisons of the relative proportion of different types of use of nonhuman animals that fall under the AWA (Animal Welfare Act). Analysis of the publicly-available list of USDA certificate holders produced descriptive data for each state and the US overall. Licensed exhibitors (N=2,640; 33% of total) and breeders (N=2,701; 34% of total) comprise two-thirds of the 8,002 USDA certificate holders. Registered research facilities (N=1,110) account for 14% of the total USDA certificates. The final 19% consists of licensed dealers (N=763; 9%) and registered carriers or interim handlers (N=788; 10%). The number and distribution of types of certificates varies across states. The largest number of exhibitors and dealers are in Florida, while the largest number of breeders are in Missouri. California has the largest number of research registered facilities. Finally, a comparison of the estimated number of animals in the US that are pets, used in agriculture, exhibition, and research suggests that animals in research are between 0.07-2.3% of the total. The comparison also highlights areas in which public information about captive animals in the US is uneven or missing altogether. Together, the current report provides a concise view of basic information and data relevant to public consideration and policy decisions about animals housed in the set of captive settings to which the AWA applies.

Explore related subjects

zoologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bennett, A. J., Schoenbeck, E. G.. 2018-08-02. Where do animals covered by the US Animal Welfare Act live? Analysis of USDA licensed and registered entities. https://doi.org/10.1101/379412

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Sea slugs unplugged: Review of subpopulation sampling in phylogeographic studies of nudibranchs and their allies

Nudibranchs and other sea slugs include many cryptic species groups with unknown phenotypic and ecological diversity. How broadly and deeply should researchers sample those cryptic species pairs to capture the genetic variation within each species and potential adaptive differences between species? Fast and inexpensive surveys of genetic diversity that sample a single well-known locus across the geographical range ("phylogeography unplugged") have long been used to identify structured populations and guide choice of sampling localities for subsequent comparative genomic or phenotypic studies of the same species. Results from such studies might also be used to better understand the expected relationships between sampling and population structure in future comparative studies in other species (including many marine gastropods) for which an unplugged phylogeographic survey is not available or impractical. We reviewed analyses of molecular variance that used mitochondrial barcode sequences from marine sea slugs, and we asked whether there are characteristic patterns of subpopulation sampling that are associated with the magnitude and geographical scale of differentiation. We found wide variation in sampling designs: studies with both many and few samples discovered significant population differentiation or broadly similar distribution of haplotypes on both large and small spatial scales, in species from different higher taxonomic groups and oceans. We found two significant associations between sampling variables and population genetic variables, and we suggest using those associations to help guide (or understand the consequences of) sampling design in future studies.

zoology↗
bioRxiv2026

A novel methodology for assessing reinforcement choice in primates under human care

Positive Reinforcement Training is a technique commonly employed in zoological collections to elicit a desired behaviour from an animal under human care. Typically, a food item is offered as a reward for performing that behaviour. Three non-human primate species (Mandrillus sphinx, Pan troglodytes, and Hylobates lar) were offered four different foods (banana, grape, apple, and sweet potato) in a series of choice experiments. Latent variable models were employed to investigate which foods were the best selection to use as reinforcement items. Results show that food preference varies between the three primate species. Pan troglodytes and H. lar showed strong preferences for grape and banana, whereas M. sphinx showed a very strong preference for sweet potato. This study indicates that foraging ecology might play an important part in fruit selection and preference in primates. The findings highlight that understanding a species' natural behaviour and dietary preferences is key to informing reinforcement and training decisions.

zoology↗
bioRxiv2026

A comprehensive identification protocol for postcranial bones of Southeast Asian Ruminantia. Part 2: Morphological criteria for small and medium-sized species

The taxonomic identification of postcranial elements from small and medium-sized ruminants represents a significant challenge in zooarchaeological and Late Quaternary paleontological studies, particularly in biodiversity-rich regions such as continental Southeast Asia. This study presents a comprehensive osteological reference framework for the small and medium-sized Ruminantia of this region, based on a comparative sample of 228 specimens representing 14 species across three families (Bovidae, Cervidae, and Moschidae). Osteological characters were first described on a small initial specimen set and subsequently scored across the full sample. Although a small number of character states were found to be unique to specific taxa, most proved highly variable, limiting their individual identification potential. To address this, a Random Forest and a Naive Bayes classifier were applied to assess the discriminatory power of character combinations across four taxonomic ranks (Family, Subfamily, Genus, and Species) on independent bones. Both approaches performed similarly, achieving mean identification accuracies of 87-86% at the family level, 69% at the subfamily level, 50% at the genus level, and 35-33% at the species level. The Naive Bayes models were further deployed as an interactive web application, allowing users to perform bone identification based on any combination of observable character states from a single anatomical element. Our results highlight the limits of morphological identification of postcranial elements in this taxonomic and biogeographic context, while demonstrating that a transparent, reproducible, and statistically grounded approach can still represent a significant step forward for zooarchaeological and Late Quaternary paleontological studies in Southeast Asia and beyond.

zoology↗