Introducing the Shelter Quality Protocol: a new tool for the welfare assessment of dogs housed in shelters

Shanis Barnard: s.barnard @izs.it

ICAWC Workshop _ Istanbul 6 October 2014

Why shelter dog welfare is at risk?

Lack of feasible and reliable tools to assess dog welfare in shelters

HAZARDS ADVERSE EFFECTS

Overpopulation

Direct consequences • on the animal health

and welfare (health and welfare impairments)

• on public health (zoonosis transmission, bite events)

Inadequate housing conditions

Social deprivation

Poor health surveillance

Absence of minimum requirement for shelters

Source: EFSA 2012

Risk assessment applied to Animal

Welfare

EFSA (2012) Scientific opinion: Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals.

affect an animal‘s welfare

might respond differently to

environmental inputs

factor with the potential to cause poor welfare

responses are the

consequences of the factors acting upon the animal

Negative consequences of hazards

(vs benefits)

EC (2012) European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. Brussels OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) (2013) Guiding principles on animal welfare of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.www.oie.int

• In the past, focus was on welfare inputs (e.g. minimum standard requirements for housing conditions)

• Recently, both the EC and the OIE recognised the potentials of assessing farm animal welfare through scientifically validated indicators based on animal welfare outcomes, properly reflecting the welfare conditions of animals

Animal-based measures

Largest initiative for the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals: Welfare Quality® project

Welfare Quality® protocols were successfully designed developing a standardised methodology to assess livestock

welfare

The Shelter Quality project

Financed by the Italian Ministry of Health

Aims: develop a dog welfare assessment protocol for long-term

shelters using animal-based indicators Identify risk factors for poor welfare by correlating the input

measures with welfare outcomes

WQ based their scientifically validated measures on 12

criteria grouped into four main principles

Our protocol was inspired from the Welfare Quality® assessment systems

Welfare Quality® projects were successfully designed and applied

to livestock animals

A Welfare Quality® approach

Good feeding

Good housing

Good health

Appropriate behaviour

Welfare Quality® principles

Summary of SQ protocol measures

Levels of assessment

• Shelter: the measures are recorded evaluating the shelter as a unit (e.g. QBA).

• Pen: the measures are recorded evaluating each pen as a unit and observing all the animals confined in it (irrespective of the number of animals) (e.g. space allowance)

• Animal: the measures are recorded evaluating each animal as a unit (e.g. BCS)

Measures scored at shelter level

10

• Shelter population size• Social housing• Exercise• Surgeries/pain control

• Mortality• Morbility• Feeding• Emotional State

Social housing

• Dogs are social animals and it has been demonstrated that isolation is detrimental for their welfare.

• Single housing should be avoided in shelters especially when dealing with long-term confinement.

• Isolation is accepted when needed for clinical or safety reasons.

Emotional State Profile

Playful \

Emotional state focus not so much on what an animal does, but on how it does it, that is, its dynamic style of interaction with the

environment

12 adjectives: playful, happy, friendly, confident, nervous, unsure, anxious, alert, boisterous, attention-seeking, quiet & relaxed.

125 mmMin. Max.

Visual Analogue Scales: is defined by its left ‘minimum’ and right ‘maximum’ point. Min. means that the expressive quality indicated by the term is entirely absent in any of the animals you have seen. Max. means that this expressive quality is dominant across all observed animals.

Measures scored at pen level

13

• Space allowance• Water supply• Bedding• Sharp edges• Panting/shivering/huddling

• Barking level• Abnormal behaviour• Evidence of pain• Diarrhoea

BeddingType of bedding (shelter, basket, other)

Adequacy

Presence of at least a bed per dog No harmful edges or ingestible parts bedding material dry and free from faeces

Sharp edges

Presence of sharp or harmful edges (Y/N)

Behavioural Observations

• Barking level > N° animals barking

What to record: After 1 minute observation record:

• Thermal comfort > N° animals

panting / shivering / huddling

• Abnormal Behaviours > Presence/absence active

repetitive / other compulsive behaviours

Measures scored at individual level

16

• Reaction to human• Body condition• Cleanliness

• Skin condition• Lameness• Coughing

Reaction to human

Fear and aggression are among the most common behavioural problems that impair interaction between dogs and human beings, thereby

representing a failure in communication between the two species.

Reaction toward human, short test situation

A. Stand still, ignore dog

B. Crouch, talk gently to dog

Dog response score to the short test

Skin condition

Indicator of poor welfare related to the enclosure but also to health problems Wounds Hair loss Swelling Ectoparasites

Cleanliness of the animalThe animal is

Clean Dirty/Wet

Test for feasibility and reliability of the

measures

31

12 1

Assessment of 29 shelters in 6 European countries Average assessment duration: 02:30h; Total animals assessed: 1308 Location:

3

10

Variation in shelter level prevalence of assessed animal-

based measures

Dependent variable Independent variable Regression coefficient P-value

Wounds

Swelling

Hair loss areas

Space allowance: adequateInadequate

Baseline0,64 0,003

Bedding: adequateinadequate

Baseline0,67 0,002

Sharp/harmful edges:absencepresence

Baseline1,11 0,002

Skin condition

Logistic regression analysis:

Cleanliness of the animal

Dependent variable Independent variable Regression coefficient P-value

Cleanliness Space allowance: adequateInadequate

Baseline0,85 0,0003

Bedding: adequateinadequate

Baseline0,61 0,01

Bedding type:none/daisclose shelterplastic basket

Baseline0,38-1,58

nsns

Recommendations of Directive 2010/63/UE on the protection of animals for scientific purposes

Body condition

Dependent variable Independent variable Regression coefficient P-value

Too heavy Space allowance: adequateinadequate

Baseline-1,09 0,059

Pen with run area:absencepresence

Baseline-0,66 ns

Feeding regimen:at libitumonce/daytwice/day

Baseline0,38-1,58

nsns

Results from Emotional State Profile

0 5 10 15 20 25 300.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Shelters

ESP

inde

x

75%

25%

Practical application

• The protocol allows the identification of critical aspects in the shelter design or in dog management procedures.

• The Shelter Quality team is working to develop a standardised system to classify shelter on the basis of the welfare of the animals they host.

• Today, the protocol is a useful tool to collect relevant dog welfare measures and have an overview of the shelter condition and criticalities (Example: the Croatian experience).

Special thanks to…

Shanis Barnard: s.barnard @izs.it

Marta AmàtDeborah TempleLindsay MatthewsElisa Di FedeMarjiana VučinićKatarina RadisavljevicTomislav MikušTatjana ZajecAlexandra Hammond-Seaman

Scientific coordination: Paolo Dalla VillaNicola Ferri