The use of dogs in biomedical research has been an established practice in many countries, including the United States, for decades. Every year, tens of thousands of these animals participate in studies ranging from veterinary trials to human drug testing. Among the most used breeds, the beagleschosen for their size and temperament. However, recent farm closures and investigations into allegations of animal abuse have shed light on the structure and operation of this industry.
The most recent case involves Ridglan Farms, located in Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, which until recently was the nation’s second-largest supplier of experimental dogs. Company announced it would stop selling animals to research labs from July 1, 2026under an agreement with state authorities that avoids the initiation of criminal proceedings. Ridglan Farms currently houses approximately 2,500 dogs in its kennel and hundreds more in internal research, who will not be affected by this decision. With its closure, only a few major suppliers will remain, including Marshall Farms in New York, with about 16,000 dogs, and Oak Hill Genetics in Illinois, with about 800.
Context and background
Ridglan’s closure follows complaints in 2024 from animal rights groups including Dane4Dogs and Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). The complaints highlighted possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)including being kept in small bare cages, surgical procedures without anesthesia, and untreated wounds. These allegations led to the appointment of a special prosecutor by a Wisconsin state court, who investigated the hatchery’s practices.
An important precedent was that of Envigo, a Virginia kennel that closed after a federal investigation into alleged mistreatment of dogs destined for laboratories. Public exposure and complaints from animal rights organizations have exposed the conditions in which animals are raised and kept for research purposes and generated debate over the regulation and oversight of these facilities.
Regulation and supervision in the United States
In the United States, dog breeders and laboratories that use animals covered by the AWA are subject to federal inspections and must comply with basic animal welfare standards. However, sanctions for non-compliance are generally limitedwhose maximum fines per offense legally amount to $14,575 (approximately €13,555), although reductions are frequently applied. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General noted that these sanctions are “fundamentally insignificant” and are treated by some operators as an operating cost rather than a dissuasive consequence.
It is for this reason that the closures of Envigo and Ridglan are considered exceptional, as they involve the suspension of operations selling dogs to laboratories, which is rare even when violations of animal welfare regulations are detected. Pressure from animal rights organizations and public scrutiny were instrumental in these results.
Activism and social control
Pressure from animal rights groups has been the biggest factor in recent closures. Undercover investigations have documented the detention and handling conditions of the dogs that activists say could constitute abuse. In some cases, these actions included the temporary removal of animals as a rescue measure, which subsequently resulted in legal action and settlements with authorities.
The courts have recognized that prior control by local authorities It wasn’t always enough to ensure compliance with the AWA, which has sparked debates about regulatory effectiveness and the need for stronger accountability mechanisms in research animal breeding.
Future outlook
With Ridglan’s departure from the laboratory dog supply market, the sector faces a consolidation scenario, with fewer suppliers and more concentrated control over animal availability. This could put pressure on both scientific research and animal welfare programs, as dogs remaining in kennels will need to be managed based on internal protocols or re-homed.
At the same time, recent cases reflect a trend toward increased public scrutiny and activism in the field of animal research. Court decisions and agreements reached with farms highlight the influence of civil society in regulating the use of animals for experimentation and the importance of balancing the continuity of research with respect for welfare standards and investment in new artificial models.
About The Author
