A novel formulation for small animal arthritis?

When cats and dogs are in need of long-term/‘chronic’ pain relief we try to give them NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain relief). This is because NSAIDs have the most scientific evidence supporting their analgesic (‘pain-relieving’) effect and, unlike morphine, are able to be given orally as ‘take-home’ medications. Carprofen and meloxicam are just some examples of NSAIDs used in dogs and cats.

Veterinarians are scientists and have a responsibility to make evidence-based (i.e. using results from published studies in peer-reviewed journals) decisions on how to treat our patients. This means it is somewhat unethical to use or prescribe medications with very little evidence that they actually work. One such drug is tramadol. Tramadol is often used in cats and dogs where NSAIDs are contraindicated (e.g. kidney disease or gastrointestinal problems), or in combination with NSAIDs for ‘added effect’. It is an opioid agonist, however evidence for its analgesic effect is controversial. It may not actually be relieving pain, but instead just sedating animals so that they are not able to show signs of pain. The SkeptVet does an excellent job of reviewing Tramadol for Pain in Dogs and Cats and at one point suggests “The evidence is strong enough that tramadol should not be relied on as a sole or first-line analgesic.”

If this is the case, then what can we use in those animals where we might not want to give NSAIDs? Pain is a significant animal welfare issue. There is a reason it ranks highly in animal welfare assessment scales and evaluations. We have an ethical responsibility to treat it. The old adage of ‘if they are in pain they aren’t moving and so won’t do any more damage to themselves’ is not acceptable.

A recent publication in BMC Veterinary Research may shed some light on the future of chronic pain relief – by introducing a novel composite formulation [1]. This article is open access (free) online and can be found here. The authors argue that osteoarthritis treatment should “reduce inflammation, minimise pain, and maintain joint function.” They therefore propose the use of palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) in combination with quercetin in models of osteoarthritic pain and inflammation.

PEA is an endogenous (produced normally in the body – therefore has reduced risks of side-effects) fatty acid amide produced by tissues in response to acute inflammatory and painful conditions, but decreased in chronic conditions. There is evidence already for its anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in some other conditions, but the authors wanted to explore whether it would help with osteoarthritis. PEA is an endocannabinoid (i.e. binds to cannabinoid receptors in the body). The authors combined it with quercetin, a natural antioxidant, as PEA is rapidly oxidised in the body. They compared this combination to the NSAID meloxicam as their ‘benchmark’ drug.

They used two different rat models of inflammatory and osteoarthritic pain: by causing paw oedema; and inducing osteoarthritis. The first step of the experiment involved giving the different treatments being tested ‘pre-emptively’ (i.e. before they did anything to the rats). This way they could see if it actually worked to reduce pain and inflammation before moving onto the second step. In this second step they used it ‘therapeutically’ three times a week to see if it would work clinically on osteoarthritis.

The results show that their ‘PEA-Q’ combination decreased inflammatory and hyperalgesic (increased sensitivity to pain) responses by:

  • Reducing oedema in the rats paw
  • Decreasing an inflammatory score used in histology (microscopic structure of tissues)
  • Reduced activity of a marker of inflammatory cell infiltration
  • Decreased thermal/heat pain sensitivity

These effects were better using their novel drug combination – compared with using the NSAID.

In their osteoarthritis model they found the combination:

  • Reduced mechanical allodynia (triggering of a pain response from stimuli which do not normally provoke pain)
  • Improved locomotor function
  • Protected the cartilage from damage

These effects were equal to or better than the NSAID treatment.

These are exciting results for anyone trying to manage long-term pain in dogs and cats as the authors have now moved to translate these findings to canine and feline osteoarthritic pain. Watch this space!

{The author would like to acknowledge Adrienne French for feedback on the draft of this post.}

References

  1. Britti, D., et al., A novel composite formulation of palmitoylethanolamide and quercetin decreases inflammation and relieves pain in inflammatory and osteoarthritic pain models. BMC Vet Res, 2017. 13(1): p. 229.

 

Advertisements

Poisonous to cats

Do you know what you can and cannot have around your pet cats?

This post will explore some common things that you should avoid having around your cats. I won’t try to list all the potential poisons out there, but I will deal with as many as I can, while also explaining WHY they are so bad for our pet cats.

Lilies – inside or around the house

My mum adores lilies and we always had them in the house growing up. They are stunning plants, but do you know how dangerous they are to your cat? ‘Day lilies’, in particular, are highly toxic to cats. They are ‘nephrotoxic’, meaning they can cause kidney failure! The whole plant is toxic: petals, stamen, leaves, and pollen. If your cat eats even a small amount of these they can quickly show signs such as: salivation, vomiting, loss of appetite, and depression. But if they are seen quickly by a veterinarian, fluid therapy directly into their veins can help.

What can you do? I would recommend not keeping lilies in or around (including outside) the house if you have cats. If you do have lilies, keep them away from your cats as much as possible! This includes the pollen. If the pollen drops onto the floor or other surfaces, your cat may pick it up on their coat and then ingest the toxic pollen when they groom themselves.

IMG_5840
Cats spend a lot of time grooming themselves
A hazard in the garage; antifreeze

Another common toxin that can affect a cat’s kidneys is antifreeze. Antifreeze and coolants that contain ‘ethylene glycol’ can be fatal in even the smallest amount. Cats can be exposed by drinking the toxin (it is sweet-tasting!) or by indirectly licking it from their feet if they walk through it. Dangerous areas are in and around the garage or where cars may be parked and leak antifreeze-containing coolant. The toxin causes kidney failure very quickly. Cats may be seen vomiting or acting drunk, but usually it is picked up in the later stages when they are already having urination issues. If it is caught early enough your veterinarian can treat with medical ethanol intravenously, but most times it is too late. This poisoning has a very poor prognosis.

Please keep car products away from your cats! When doing anything with your car at home hose down the area afterwards. Or better yet, do ‘car things’ somewhere your cat cannot access. If you notice your car leaking ANYTHING, get it seen to ASAP.

Human medications are not for cats

Cats lack some of the enzymes that we have to break down and use our ‘human’ medications. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as paracetamol and ibuprofen are examples of these. If a cat is given these medications, their liver cannot break them down in the same way that ours can. Toxic products form instead and have disastrous effects on cats’ kidneys. Please keep these products away from cats and do not be tempted to give them when you think they are in pain. See a vet instead who will prescribe a medication designed with cats in mind.

Flea & tick products designed for dogs

Cats are also sensitive to certain products used to treat fleas and ticks in dogs. If a product is recommended for dog use ONLY please do not use it on cats – even in a smaller dose. Dog products contain a different active ingredient to those used in cat products. This ingredient is toxic to cats. It can cause neurological signs such as head tremors and even death. If you have both cats and dogs in your home and you use a flea/tick product on your dog, keep them apart to prevent accidental contact until the medication has had time to dry on the dog’s body.

Rodenticides

Rat or mouse poison is potentially life-threatening if your cat ingests it. Most cats dislike the taste (unlike dogs). However, it is best to be on the safe side and keep these poisons in areas that your cat cannot access. Similarly, keep them away from mice and rats that may eat the poison. Your cat can get ‘secondary’ poisoning by eating a rodent just after they have eaten the poison.

These poisons work by causing haemorrhages. They work against products in the body needed for blood clotting and can thereby cause death from generalised bleeding.

Cleaning products

Many of these are safe to use around pets. However, please be careful. Avoid letting your cat walk on still-wet surfaces, as they may be tempted to lick their paws and ingest the product afterwards. Also store them in a secure cabinet – cats love to rub things with their face so it is best to keep the products away from this behaviour.

Foods

Some things that we eat cannot be eaten by cats. Unlike dogs, cats are a little pickier with their food and will usually turn their nose up at foods they recognise as poisonous. But some may not have this innate ability, so it is best to keep these things away from them:

  • Onions and garlic
  • Coffee grounds and tea
  • Fatty foods
  • Chocolate
  • Avocado
  • Grapes and raisins
  • Yeast dough
  • Macadamia nuts
  • Alcohol
  • Anything containing the artificial sweetener ‘xylitol’

Onions and garlic are particularly toxic to pets and fatty foods can cause pancreatitis – a very painful condition for your pets!

This is a simplified summary of some poisons you may not have realised were dangerous to your cats. Please think twice before letting your cats near things that you aren’t sure about. Ask your veterinarian or consult a reputable website, e.g. AVMA, International Cat Care, for more information.

Rodeo in New Zealand

When I was about 7 years old and living in Whitianga (Coromandel Peninsula, North Island of New Zealand), my parents took my brother and I to the local rodeo event. It was a big day out for the (then) small town and the surrounding area. There were food stalls, craft markets, and bulls and stallions were being ridden. Teenagers could ride calves and young children could have a go at riding a ‘wild’ sheep. Rodeo events like this have been going on every year for decades. It is just what you do. The area has sheep and beef farms and rodeo is a natural accompaniment. Everyone got into the spirit of the day – fun and laughter followed. The champion stallion rider was venerated.

I rode a sheep that day. My parents (mostly mum – she is from a farming background) convinced me to give it a go. I remember it being fun. But I also remember asking my mum afterwards if she thought the sheep enjoyed it as well. That was the first and last rodeo event we attended.

Rodeo events are most popular in countries or regions with historical ties to rural agriculture. The USA is well-known for its rodeo – particularly in Southern States such as Texas, and the mid-west; ‘cowboy states’. Australia also has a penchant for rodeo.

In New Zealand, rodeo events are held up and down the country during the summer months. These events are advertised as ‘family friendly’ and an entertaining day out. Most are run by the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association (NZRCA), which overseas 35 rodeos annually (Report to Accompany the code of welfare: Rodeos).

So, what is the problem?

Rodeo is unacceptable to a growing number of people. Anti-rodeo Facebook groups (e.g. Anti Rodeo Action NZ and New Zealand Anti-Rodeo Coalition) have a large number of followers. These groups host anti-rodeo demonstrations across New Zealand. Many of those who are opposed to rodeo cite animal welfare grounds – rodeo events are seen as “legalised animal cruelty” (SPCA New Zealand). It has been argued that the events at rodeos are unnecessary displays of ‘archaic’ stockperson skills. This includes: calf roping; horse and/or bull bucking; and steer wrestling.

“Is putting animals in a stressful situation like this justified? If you look at the cost benefit analysis, the benefit is sport for the participants and entertainment for a crowd. I don’t see that putting animals through this kind of fear and stress is justified by the benefits.”

(Virginia Williams, animal welfare consultant vet) [1]

Several groups publicly oppose rodeo events or aspects of them: SPCA New Zealand, the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA), Lions Clubs New Zealand, and The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (to name a few).

Researchers from The University of Queensland’s Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, along with those from Toulouse University, conducted a study on the effects of calf roping [2]. Their findings conclude that calf roping causes stress to the animals. However, only stress hormones and limited behavioural data were assessed. Detailed behavioural assessments may have been more informative – and potentially indicated extreme negative welfare states experienced by the calves. Interestingly, the study was funded by a rodeo body: the Australian Professional Rodeo Association (APRA).

The other side of rodeo

Other than the obvious entertainment value for people attending the events, and sporting value for the competitors, it could be argued that the animals used would not exist but for rodeo. It is also important to consider the animal’s entire life, not just the time it is performing, or entertaining. When not competing, many of these animals are lavishly fed and allowed to do as they please. If their whole life is ‘better’ in rodeo than it may otherwise be, this may change our assessment [1].

The Code of Welfare for Rodeos

The use of animals for entertainment purposes is ethically divisive. On one side are those who see it as ‘just a bit of fun’ or important to rural agriculture; on the other side are those who maintain that the use of animals for entertainment is abhorrent. Occupying the middle ground are those who support some aspects of rodeo and not others, and those whose issue is not with using animals for entertainment, but with the welfare consequences of this particular entertainment event on the animals involved.

“My contention is that at least some of the rodeo events are unreasonable and unnecessary and cause unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress.” [1]

Suffice to say, rodeo is a contentious topic. For this reason, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) received a large number of submissions when conducting their 10-yearly review of the Code of Welfare for Rodeos . The Code has expectations for appropriate treatment of animals used in rodeos and identifies what is inappropriate. NAWAC published a report to accompany The Code, which details the reasoning behind their recommendations and these differences of opinion. It is an interesting read and shows how truly divisive this topic is. I will summarise some of the key issues here:

  • Societal views on the use of animals in rodeos, i.e. is it ethical?
    • Limited relevance to NZ culture, e.g. outdated stockperson skills
    • Not good for NZ’s reputation as animal welfare leader and its ‘clean, green’ image
    • Calf events have been banned in a number of other countries
    • Little economic value to NZ
    • Positive role of rodeo in rural cohesion
  • Stockmanship – how do we assess animal welfare at rodeos?
    • Veterinarian should be present at rodeos – last say in all welfare decisions
    • Animal welfare officer to identify issues and work with veterinarian
  • The use of spurs on bucking animals – it is necessary?
    • Prohibition of spurs called for – their use causes pain to animals
    • Spurs provide a point of contact to remain on bucking animals – removing them would make it difficult for a contestant to remain seated
  • Specific events – calf welfare in rope and tie events
    • This event is believed to be particularly stressful
    • But in the few studies performed (at the date of report), ‘detrimental physiological damage’ was not reported
    • Not all NAWAC members could agree that the event should be discontinued – there was not enough evidence for significant pain and distress
    • The Code has ‘Recommended Best Practice’ to not use calves in rodeo events
  • Children’s events
    • Effect on children exposed to ‘disrespectful’ animal treatment – animal abuse linked to abuse of people
    • Rodeos are family-orientated – children involved as part of family unit
    • Sheep disallowed for this purpose – too small to handle being ridden
  • Health, injury, and disease – should fireworks be used?
    • Add interest to the event
    • Unexpected noise and movement causes fight or flight response in horses and cattle
    • Fireworks, pyrotechnics and gas fired explosions not to be used at rodeos

The Code itself is a longer read (28 pages). It also references the NZ Rodeo Association on page 7:

“The New Zealand Rodeo Association holds a number of training days for new contestants and for those wishing to learn more about rodeo events.”

This makes the reader nervous about the potential for bias and collusion. A legal document has a responsibility to be impartial and exclude vested interests. The Code is seen by some “as a shield to protect a defendant in the face of prosecution”. It may well be less than 10 years before it is updated to reflect ethical concerns.

In summary

Society’s expectations of animal welfare standards are constantly evolving – practices that were once acceptable no longer are or may become unacceptable in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to discuss and debate these issues and respond to public concerns.

References
  1. Flagler, B., Blazing saddles, in VetScript. 2016.
  2. Sinclair, M., et al., Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Calves to Marshalling and Roping in a Simulated Rodeo Event. Animals, 2016. 6(5).

The problem of brachycephalic dogs in New Zealand: Why has Trade Me banned some of them?

As of the 1 March 2018 ‘Trade Me’ New Zealand, our biggest online trading website, will no longer allow three brachycephalic dog breeds to be sold through their platform: Pugs, French Bulldogs, and British Bulldogs. This is a huge win for the welfare of these animals.

What are brachycephalic dogs?

The word brachycephalic literally breaks down to ‘short’ ‘head’. It refers to animals (it’s not just a dog problem!) with short faces/snouts. The classic example is the Pug – with its squishy face and big eyes. The Persian cat is another example. The muzzle, or snout, of these animals has essentially been reduced in length over time via breeding. It has become a desirable characteristic.

post 15 pug
The Pug is a good example of a brachycephalic dog breed

For many people, the attraction of these dogs is in their resemblance to babies or children. A small, round face makes them ‘cute’ and ‘adorable’. This factor is becoming even more important as many people are choosing not to have children, or delaying until later in life. Instead, their pet may play the role of this family member in their life.

What is wrong with these dogs?

The problem with breeding to reduce the length of these dog’s snouts/muzzles is what has happened as a result [1]. The bony structures of the head have reduced in size, but in most cases the soft tissue in the back of the mouth and throat has remained the same. This means these dogs have to breathe around this extra tissue. Other things have happened as a result of the bony changes:

  • The size of their nostrils is reduced – they are tiny! Many of these dogs’ struggle to get enough air through their nose and so resort to ‘open mouth’ breathing;
  • Their trachea, or airway, is too small for them. It is also very weak. They really have to work hard to get air into their lungs – sometimes they work TOO hard and their airway collapses. This is an emergency situation!

Overall, their breathing could be likened to trying to suck air through a thin drinking straw that has cloth over one end. Most of these dogs have to breathe with their mouth open, and snorts or snoring sounds result from the extra soft tissue in their mouth flopping into their airway.

This snoring sound may seem ‘cute’ to many people, but it actually means the dog is struggling to breathe properly! Their small airway and all that soft tissue in their mouth is making it very difficult for them.

These dogs get very hot in Summer and can often over-heat to the point of suffering from heat stroke – another emergency situation. Dogs in general cannot sweat as well as people. This means they rely on open-mouth breathing to cool them down. If a dog is not able to breathe very well, as is the case in these ‘brachy’ dogs, then this can be a problem. And again, if they work too hard breathing, their weak airways can collapse!

Other issues with these dogs include: their eyes bulge out of their skull resulting in dry eyes and sometimes ulcers; skin conditions and/or infections due to excess facial skin – all those rolls and folds are the perfect breeding ground for bacteria; and often these dogs struggle to give birth as puppies’ heads are too big for their mothers’ pelvic bones to pass through. Most British Bulldogs are delivered via caesarean section with the help of a veterinarian.

How has it got to this point?

Because so many people want these dogs, there are a lot of people breeding them. It is big business! One puppy can fetch thousands of dollars. But because dog breeding is unregulated in New Zealand, there are no rules about who can do it and how. As a result, people have kept breeding for what people want – short ‘cute’ snouts. Supply equals demand. The problem has got worse.

Not only this, but oftentimes breeding animals (the parents) are kept in poor conditions and become ‘breeding machines’. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, and voluntary members of organisations, such as Dogs NZ (formerly the New Zealand Kennel Club) are bound by self-imposed breeding regulations. However, many ‘backyard’ breeders of these dogs are less conscientious.

What can we do?

This move by Trade Me to stop these three breeds being sold on their platform has been celebrated by many animal welfare organisations and veterinarians. By stopping a major avenue for the sale of ‘backyard’ bred dogs, there is hope yet! This will stop unwitting puppy buyers from purchasing their pet ‘sight unseen’. Often these puppies are sent to them, or they collect them from a mutual meeting place, so that the breeding area and parents are not seen. These buyers have no idea what conditions the parents are in (what their purchase is supporting), or what the parents are like (a good indication of what their puppy may be like).

However, as the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) has proposed, there are still things that can be done. Their webpage has a list of additional information and their companion animal spokesperson, Rochelle Ferguson, has written a Spinoff feature with advice. To summarise, before adopting prospective owners should:

  • Consider adopting a dog from a shelter, rather than buying one that may be supporting poor breeding practise;
  • Visit the breeder and meet the parents of the puppy they are considering adopting;
  • Support breeders who screen for inherited diseases and who don’t breed puppies with these extreme features;
  • Ask about the mother’s health and whether a caesarean was needed;
  • Consider whether the mother’s (and other dogs) behavioural needs are being met by the breeder. This all affects the puppy.

In the future:

  • Regulations that require people to have a license to breed and sell puppies would be beneficial;
  • Sales on premises (and not ‘sight unseen’ or online) could be a requirement.

I will conclude by quoting Rochelle’s message:

“The fallout from puppies that have been irresponsibly bred is shouldered, not by the breeders who profit from their sale, but by the families that purchase these animals and the veterinarians that treat them.”

References
  1. Packer, R.M.A., et al., Impact of Facial Conformation on Canine Health: Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome. Plos One, 2015. 10(10).

 

Understanding New Zealand animal welfare legislation: The Animal Welfare Act, Codes of Welfare, and new Regulations

Ngā mihi o te tau hou / Happy New Year! (in te Reo Māori)

This is a post I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally have a moment to sit and reflect on the new(ish) New Zealand Animal Welfare Regulations.

These regulations were proposed in 2015 and many were introduced in 2016 and 2017 – with more to follow in 2018. They are specific to certain species or types of animal, or refer to particular ways we manage animals, e.g. transport regulations.

Background to New Zealand animal welfare legislation

I should probably put some context around these regulations – why do we need them? We already have The Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Codes of Welfare in New Zealand. The Animal Welfare Act is a piece of legislation, whereas the Codes of Welfare are not – this means they are not enforceable as such. I will explain further.

I like to think of The Animal Welfare Act as working to reduce the extreme negative end of the spectrum of animal welfare states. It talks about ‘obligations’, ‘liability’, and that we should ‘attend properly’ to animals, etc. It is a really useful document to refer to when people have done really bad things to or with animals – when there is pain and suffering involved. The Codes of Welfare are at the other end of the spectrum and are ‘Best Practice’ documents. They expand on The Animal Welfare Act by setting minimum standards and recommending guidelines for best practice. They are also more specific. Where The Animal Welfare Act talks about animals in general, The Codes are broken down into specific animals and/or interventions, or things we may do to animals. Examples of Codes include: circuses, dairy cattle, dogs, horses and donkeys, and painful husbandry procedures.

The gap for animal welfare regulations

As we can see, The Act and Codes of Welfare are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. And although Codes do specify minimum standards for animal care, they tend to be used when rebutting complaints, and not as a means of prosecution or enforcement. If an animal cruelty complaint is laid against a person in charge of an animal, then proof of adherence to these minimum standards can be used as a rebuttal of this complaint. In effect, if the basics are provided for an animal, it is hard for anyone to say anything different. In addition, the process of bringing animal carers to prosecution can be difficult and expensive. This, again, only results in extremely bad cases being prosecuted.

This is where The Regulations come in. They essentially use the minimum standards already in place (with minor adjustments) to allow for better enforcement of The Act. To do this they clarify the rules already in place to protect animal welfare. In essence, they specify that if you do this, you will be punished with that. There is less ambiguity surrounding what is required of those caring for, or who are responsible for, animals. The regulations are meant to be an additional tool for animal welfare inspectors, and in most cases do not require evidence of pain and suffering.

What regulations will we have in New Zealand animal welfare law?

In early 2016, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sought feedback on 91 animal welfare regulations they had proposed. The broad categories for these regulations were: live animal exports; care of, and conduct towards, animals; and surgical and painful procedures. MPI travelled around the country with ‘roadshows’ publicising the regulations. Attendance was widely encouraged and there was a chance for feedback to be given and questions answered. Official written submissions to MPI totalled 1,400.

It was interesting to attend one of these ‘roadshows’ at Massey University in Palmerston North. There were many interested parties with varied views (for/against) the proposed regulations. A particularly heated discussion was had about the ‘dog tail docking’ regulation. It was clearly of high interest to dog breeders and owners. A short history of tail docking in New Zealand is given in this excellent post. Due to the issues proposed, MPI commissioned an independent review of the science and arguments for and against tail docking. The full report is available here. Essentially, the findings suggest that tail docking of dogs is a surgical procedure of major significance – with the potential to cause considerable pain and distress. The costs outweigh any potential benefits making it an unjustifiable act. A policy was approved in July 2017 to restrict tail docking of dogs. The restrictions mean that it can only be performed by a registered veterinarian, using analgesia, for therapeutic purposes, i.e. in response to a significant injury or disease. Therefore, dogs whose tails are damaged in some way may still have them docked – if a veterinarian believes this is the best therapy. Final approval to create the regulation is still pending at the time of writing.

Other regulations are already in place – particularly those relating to bobby (usually young male) calves and the export of live animals. Four regulations covering the welfare of calves were in place for the spring calving season in 2016 and a further three for 2017 calving, while those covering the export of live animals were confirmed in July 2016.

Examples of important regulations include: the mandatory use of pain relief for disbudding cattle, standards for the transportation of lame animals, that calves must be 4 days of age before being transported off farm, a maximum 12-hour journey time for young calves, young calves being prohibited from being sent cross the Cook Strait by sea (i.e. from North to South Island and vice versa), and the prohibition of killing calves by blunt force trauma to the head – other than in an emergency.

The future for animal welfare regulations

A number of regulations will be progressed in 2018. These broadly relate to: tail docking/castration (horses, sheep, llama and alpaca, and roosters), other surgical procedures in production animals and companion animals (e.g. hot branding, velvetting, cropping of ears in dogs, and Caslick’s procedures in horses), and dentistry.

Of particular interest to veterinarians, the stock transport regulation relating to lame animal’s says that “A person in charge of a lame cattle beast, sheep, deer, pig or goat commits an offence if they permit the animal to be transported”. In contrast to current practice, liability has been placed on suppliers presenting lame animals for transport, rather than transporters. Veterinarians may therefore find themselves being called upon for additional certification of lame animals for transport.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, the Animal Welfare Regulations are promising, and although some did not make the final cut (mostly due to issues with wording and meaning), there are plenty of good regulations being progressed that will improve the welfare of animals in New Zealand.

Beyond the regulations, there is still scope for further reforms in animal welfare legislation. In an earlier post, I wrote about the excellent work Dr Rebecca Ledger is doing using the Five Domains Model for forensic animal behaviour analysis in Canada. This is something we could really embrace in New Zealand. In addition, using animal abuse cases to create ‘links’ to domestic violence could lead to improvements in both animal and human welfare. The Veterinary Council of New Zealand has a guidance document relating to this here.

We still have much to do, but this is a great start!

 

Feline Four or Five?

In an earlier blog post, I mentioned the animal welfare science and bioethics Journal Club I am involved in. We meet fortnightly to review articles of relevance to animal welfare, behaviour, and bioethics. The intention is to broaden and disseminate knowledge within the research group and question and improve on our existing ideas and methods.

This week, it was again my turn to select and present an article – and of course I chose one involving cats! (it’s no secret that I am a crazy cat lady)

But I also chose this article because I am interested in behavioural profiling (of humans and animals) and wonder if this will be a requirement of animal-based research in the future. Will we have to declare the temperament of our test subjects in the same way as we record their sex and ages?

The article I chose to review was:

Litchfield, C. A., Quinton, G., Tindle, H., Chiera, B., Kikillus, K. H., & Roetman, P. (2017). The ‘Feline Five’: An exploration of personality in pet cats (Felis catus). Plos One, 12(8), e0183455. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183455

It is published in an open-access online journal here.

A few words on personality profiling in humans

One of the most widely used personality profiling devices in humans is the ‘Big Five’. It is based on ‘common language’ descriptors of personality. Each ‘factor’ consists of related traits and characteristics that fit within them. An individual’s personality is determined by where they sit on the continuum for each of the five factors.

The five factors are commonly known by the acronym ‘OCEAN’:

  • Openness to experience
  • Conscientiousness
  • Extroversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Neuroticism
Who wrote the article and why?

Human psychologists and ecologists in South Australia and New Zealand (Victoria University of Wellington) were involved in the study. It is part of a larger project (Cat Tracker Project) aimed at tracking pet cats in South Australia and New Zealand.

It is interesting that there appears to be no input from animal scientists – behaviour or welfare. A quick perusal of the reference list indicates that a large volume of feline behaviour and temperament literature appears to be overlooked – or at least not referenced. And, as the authors wrote about animal ‘personality’/expressivity, or behaviour profiling, it also seems absurd that Francoise Wemelsfelder’s Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) work was not referenced.

The Journal Club group also discussed the idea of ‘personality’ in animals. Many of us thought ‘person’-ality was the wrong terminology to use when discussing animal traits. The preferred term is ‘temperament’. It was our view that the human-centric approach taken for this study has resulted in this wording. I only wonder at why the article was not instead named ‘An exploration of ‘purr-sonality’ in pet cats…’ – at least this has an adorable human-centric approach.

The authors set-out to “analyse personality in a large sample of pet cats – using personality inventory completed by the owner”. Their research question was “how many reliable and interpretable factors depict personality in pet cats and what traits do they represent?”. They based these questions on previous research which have used: small sample sizes, wild/captive cats or those with behavioural problems – rather than ‘normal’ cats, researchers evaluating cat behaviour – rather than animal carers, and insufficient inter-rater reliability assessments.

Methods used

An online survey in South Australia and New Zealand collected information about 2,802 cats. It used 52 items based on a previous survey of Scottish Wildcats. Cat owners were asked to rate their cat on a Likert scale, according to how far they felt each trait was applicable. The authors used a type of exploratory factor analysis called ‘principle axis factoring’ (a technique similar to Wemelsfelder’s ‘principal component analysis’) to understand the relationship among these reported traits. This enabled them to group traits under common headings/factors.

What did they find? (results)

They found FIVE ‘factors’ (common headings for a group of traits) that explained ~47% of the variance in personalities:

  • Neuroticism
  • Dominance
  • Impulsiveness
  • Agreeableness
  • Extraversion

Interestingly, the authors chose to deal with items that ‘cross-loaded’, or loaded onto multiple factors, by assigning the item ONLY to the highest loading factor.

Why cat personality?

The authors drew our attention to some benefits of this type of research, namely: grouping compatible cats in multi-cat households and providing more hiding places for neurotic cats. A low/high score in an area could also improve the welfare of that cat by encouraging owners to seek advice.

The main issues we had with this article
  • The authors appear to have not considered animal (welfare or behaviour) scientists or a range of feline behaviour references in their article;
  • Reference to Francoise Wemelsfelder is sorely lacking – using 52 items from a Scottish Wildcat study also seemed unusual when the intention was to steer away from references to ‘wild/captive’ cats;
  • No consideration was given to the human-animal bond and how attached an owner was to their cat and/or how well they knew their cat – could this have contributed to a reporting bias for some owners?;
  • The labelling of 4 of the 5 personality factors were reasonably well explained, but the sudden inclusion of the fifth (‘extraversion’) appears contrived. We had to wonder if they were trying to force it to fit ‘Feline Five’ – it was too similar to the human list (see above);
  • Assigning items that cross-loaded ONLY to the highest loading factor ignores the complexities inherent in ‘personality’/temperament profiling.

Overall, this study is a great example of the importance of research collaboration. Think outside the (litter) box. 

    Reflecting on ANZCVS Science Week 2017

    I have already written a blog post about the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists (ANZCVS) Membership exams. The oral examinations (membership & fellowship) are sat by candidates each year on the Gold Coast in Australia. After the exams, there is a conference to complete the veterinary ‘Science Week’. Each chapter within the college has its own stream of presentations. Veterinarians and scientists are invited to attend and present.

    I was fortunate enough to be asked to present to the welfare chapter this year. The theme was ‘One Welfare – key drivers and new technologies’. The One Welfare concept is like that of One Health; interdisciplinary collaboration and solutions are important. #OneWelfare recognises the interconnections between animal and human wellbeing and the environment. Here I will summarise the presentations in the animal welfare chapter.

    My lanyard

    The first two speakers were asked to provide updates after attending conferences. Amy Little from the Australian Government spoke to us about the OIE global conference in Mexico, while Anne Fawcett of Small Animal Talk regaled us with stories of different coloured glitter in the faeces of polar bears in Canada – something she saw while attending the inaugural international One Welfare conference. Anne also emphasised the need to remember the conservation focus of One Welfare. For them to be truly interdisciplinary, ecologists and geographers should be invited to speak at these conferences. She also reminded us of the One Welfare portal and showed us how the Chatterbox tool can be used in teaching: to explore ethical questions.

    My presentation was on the first day within the ‘companion animal’ section. It was based on my PhD project that explores end-of-life decision-making in owners of older and chronically ill cats and their vets. I was excited to present my research and preliminary findings to vets, animal welfare scientists, and others in attendance. Mags Awad (of PetSure, formerly with RSPCA Australia) also gave an excellent presentation on shelter welfare assessment and how it relates to One Welfare. Mags spoke about the ‘No Kill’ shelter movement and what it means for animals. There is the potential for animals to be kept alive when their welfare is compromised (e.g. with severe behavioural/anxiety issues). She spoke about the ‘Drives for Lives’ project, where animals are moved from an area in a state where there is an oversupply of animals to one where more are needed for adoption. Mags reminded us that the shelter environment is novel for many animals and that there is a need to remove fear and anxiety. Improving cat housing in shelters has the greatest impact on their wellbeing.

    In the afternoon, Nat Waran from EIT in the Hawkes Bay told us what One Welfare means to her. If the people in developing countries are not enjoying good welfare, then how can we/they focus on companion animal welfare? She emphasised the need to make animal welfare relevant to people that may not be thinking about it. Becky Murphy from Dogs NZ (formerly The New Zealand Kennel Club) completed the companion animal section by talking about ethical breeding standards. Becky has the difficult task of working as the canine health and welfare officer for an organisation in the spotlight for (un)ethical breeding standards. The 2008 ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ exposé and the 2010 Bateson Report rocked the pedigree dog world by emphasising how selective breeding has changed the shape of breeds: features are exaggerated to the point of threatening health and welfare. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)’s report on animal welfare issues associated with selective breeding has also drawn attention to issues with breeding standards. Unfortunately, brachycephalic dog ownership is still on the rise in New Zealand. And a brachycephalic breed sold online will fetch three to four times as much as a Labrador puppy. But Becky wants us to be clear with our terminology. A ‘pedigree’ dog is one with a three-generation pedigree from the Kennel Club, while ‘purebred’ can mean the same thing, but is often used to refer to ‘backyard’ bred unregistered dogs with no pedigree. The problem is that referring to issues in ‘purebred dogs’, without being specific about which animals we are talking about, results in purebred breeding problems becoming pedigree problems. The blame is then lumped onto organisations such as the Kennel Club who have no control over unregistered breeders. This then results in extreme defensiveness and backlash from these groups who feel like they are being vilified. Becky admits that breed standards need to be updated to discourage extremes and the good news is that the bulldog breed standard is currently being reviewed in New Zealand.

    Virginia Williams, representing MPI, spoke about the regulatory framework for animals in research and how it has been progressed. The definition of ‘manipulation’ has been broadened to include killing an animal for research, testing, and teaching. Genetically modified animals have also been incorporated.

    Day 2 – Production & Food animal species

    Day two began with the pork industry – Kirsty Chidgey from Massey University gave an overview of the New Zealand perspective with a focus on farrowing systems. While gestation stalls have been phased out, crates are still being used for parturition and lactation. Farrowing crates are in the best interests of piglet welfare as they reduce crushing injuries, but are detrimental to the sow’s behavioural wellbeing. Kirsty investigated alternative systems for her doctoral studies and gave us a run-down of the use of pens at different stages of parturition and lactation. Kate Plush from SunPork Solutions summarised the two periods of compromised welfare for sows in farrowing crates: during nest-building and parturition, and in late lactation when no respite from piglets is provided. The dairy industry was next, with presentations from Jess Spatz Shelgren of Fonterra, Suzanne Dowling of AgResearch, and Cameron Clark from The University of Sydney. Andrew Fisher from The University of Melbourne Animal Welfare Science Centre concluded with an overview of welfare assessment toolkits. Paul Hardy-Smith from Panaquatic Health Solutions took us through quality and welfare aspects of how we kill fish. The poultry industry was represented by talks from Kate Hartcher from RSPCA Australia and Kerry Mulqueen who provides technical advice to the NZ poultry industry.

    Day 3 – A busy day of welfare

    Day three was jam-packed with talks ranging from ‘What’s really happening down on the farm?’ by Nita Harding from DairyNZ, to hoarding issues presented by Rosemary Elliott from Sentient. Nita spoke about farm monitoring; why it is necessary, how it is done, what is being found out, and how the information is being used. Kate Blaszak from WAP spoke about advocacy in animal welfare driving change. Virginia Williams spoke again for MPI about the factors underlying animal welfare offending. She gave a candid account of the types of offenders presented to MPI with some case studies. Nat Waran from Napier spoke again about One Welfare and Veterinary Education. There is a reluctance to get rid of old topics in veterinary curricula and replace them with new topics – particularly animal welfare. It takes a passion for subjects to drive them into the curriculum. There is very little integration and applied relevance with animal welfare teaching. She spoke about the difference between welfare and ethics and the need to take the ethical part ‘out of it’. “Welfare is about the subjective experience of the animal, while ethics is about what we think about the animal’s situation based on our own morals/viewpoint”. Jen Jamieson from MPI concluded the talks for the animal welfare chapter with a brilliant discussion of her PhD research. She looked at how human behaviour changes starts with schools – by exploring adolescent views of farm animal welfare. They are the next generation of animal consumers and so their views matter. I highly recommend you check out the YouTube recording of her talk given at the First International Conference on Human Behaviour Change for Animal Welfare here.

    What did I learn from Science Week?

    Too much to mention! I thoroughly enjoyed my time and having the chance to learn from so many interesting people. The awards dinner on the final night was truly inspiring. I enjoyed hearing about peoples’ achievements and everything they were doing in their various fields of veterinary science. The most important take-home is a reconfirmation that animal welfare is what drives me. I am re-invigorated to study for the membership examination next year.

    ***I would like to thank Massey University’s Institute of Veterinary, Animal, and Biomedical Sciences (Postgraduate) for generously sponsoring my attendance at Science Week this year***