ABSTRACTS

Behaviour and adoptability of hoarded cats admitted to an animal shelter

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the behavioural characteristics and success of adoption for previously hoarded cats. Methods:Shelter records and post-adoption surveys were analysed for hoarded cats <6months old at intake. A non-standard scoring system was used. Intake scores were allocated contemporaneously, andsocialisation scores were applied retrospectively for three time points (TPs): 5-10 days post-intake (shelter TP), <1 week post-adoption (home TP1) and >1 week post-adoption (home TP2). Adoption returns were compared between hoarded and non-hoarded cats. Results: The study included 195 hoarded cats, of which 174 were adopted. Of 164 cats with intake scores, 86 (52 per cent) were scored as 'friendly' at intake. Forty-five cats had socialization scores for all of the TPs, and of these, the percentages of 'supersocial' or 'social' decreased from 87 per cent at the shelter TP to 47 per cent at home TP1, then increased to 84 per cent at home TP2. Most cats that scored as'tense' at intake had supersocial or social scores at home TP2. Nine of the 88 cats with survey results had out-of-box (OOB) elimination in either the shelter or home but only 1/88 in both. Adopters expressed positive feelings for 42/43 cats for which feelings-based language was used in their survey responses. Notable behaviours, such as neediness, were recorded for 48/88 cats. Relationships with other household pets weretypically positive. Eighteen of 174 hoarded (10 per cent) and 188/2662 non-hoarded (7.1 per cent) cats were returned postadoption. Of these, six hoarded and 87 non-hoarded returns included behavioural reasons. There were no significant differences between hoarded and non-hoarded cats for total or behavioural returns. Conclusions and relevance: Hoarded cats had high adoption rates, high adopter satisfaction and the potential for good emotional wellbeing in adoptive homes. Behaviour at intake and OOB elimination in the shelter may not reflect post-adoption behaviour. Behaviourbased outcome decisions for these vulnerable animals should be deferred to allow time for habituation. Linda S Jacobson1,Jacklyn J Ellis1,Kyrsten J Janke1 , Jolene A Giacinti2,Jyothi V Robertson3 JFeline Med Surg. 2022 Aug;24(8):e232-e243.doi: 10.1177/1098612X221102122. 1Toronto Humane Society, Toronto, Canada. 2Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, Canada. 3JVR Shelter Strategies, Belmont, CA, USA.

Free PMC article

Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation from dog grooming products used by private owners or by professional pet grooming salons: prevalence and risk factors Welfare issues and potential solutions for laying hens in free range and organic production systems: a review based on literature and interviews

Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most commonly isolated bacterium from skin lesions of dogs with post-grooming furunculosis (PGF). It is frequently found in human hair and skin care products and may pose a health risk to consumers. Information regarding the prevalence of P.aeruginosa contamination of dog grooming products is lacking. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of P. aeruginosa contamination in nonmedicated dog grooming products after either home or professional use in pet grooming salons, and to identify risk factors that may be associated with contamination. Materials and methods: Of 117 bottles of grooming products sampled for bacterial culture, 97 wereused by pet grooming salons and 20 were used by private individuals. The following suspected risk factors wererecorded: bottle size, relative remaining volume, content dilution, expiration date and ingredient list. Results: Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from 14 of 117 samples [11.97 per cent, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 6.97-19.3 per cent]. Diluted products werecontaminated significantly more often compared to undiluted products To page 30 In free-range and organic production systems, hens can make choices according to their needs and desires, which is in accordance with welfare definitions. Nonetheless, health and behavioural problems are also encountered in these systems. The aim of this article was to identify welfare challenges observed in these production systems in the EU and the most promising solutions to overcome these challenges. It is based on a review of published literature and research projects complemented by interviews with experts. We selected EU specific information for welfare problems, however, the selected literature regarding solutions is global.Free range use may increase the risk of infection by some bacteria, viruses and parasites. Preventive methods include avoiding contamination thanks to biosecurity measures and strengthening animals' natural defences against these diseases which can be based on nutritional means with new diet components such as insect-derived products, probiotics and prebiotics. Phytotherapy and aromatherapy can be used as preventive and curative medicine and vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics and pesticides. Bone quality in pullets and hens prevents keel deviations and is favoured by exercise in the outdoor range. Free range use also leads to higher exposure to variable weather conditions and predators; therefore shadow, fences and guard animals can be used to prevent heat stress and predation respectively. Granting afree range provides opportunities for the expression of many behaviours and yet many hens usually stay close to the house. Providing the birds with trees, shelters or attractive plants can increase range use. Small flock sizes, early experiences of enrichment and personality traits have also been found to enhance range use. Severe feather pecking can occur in free range production systems, although flocks using the outdoor area have better plumage than indoors. While many prevention strategies are facilitated in free range systems, the influence of genetics, prenatal and nutritional factors in free range hens still need to be investigated. This review provides information about practices that have been tested or still need to be explored and this information can be used by stakeholders and researchers to help them evaluate the applicability of these solutions for welfare improvement. Claire Bonnefous1,Anne Collin1,Laurence A Guilloteau1 , Vanessa Guesdon2,Christine Filliat3,Sophie Réhault-Godbert1 , TBas Rodenburg4,Frank A M Tuyttens56,Laura Warin7,Sanna Steenfeldt8,Lisa Baldinger9,Martina Re10,Raffaella Ponzio11 , Anna Zuliani12,PietroVenezia12,Minna Väre13,Patricia Parrott14,Keith Walley14,Jarkko K Niemi15,Christine Leterrier16 Front Vet Sci. 2022 Aug 5;9:952922.doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.952922. eCollection 2022. 1INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, Nouzilly,France. 2JUNIA, Comportement Animal et Systèmes d'Elevage, Lille, France. 3VETOPOLE 26, Châteauneuf-sur-Isère, France. 4Faculty of VeterinaryMedicine, Utrecht University,Utrecht, Netherlands. 5ILVO, Instituut voor Landbouw-, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek, Melle, Belgium. 6Department of Veterinaryand Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 7ITAVI, Nouzilly, France. 8Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 9Thuenen Institute of Organic Farming, Westerau, Germany. 10AIAB, Associazone Italiana per l'Agricultura Biologica, Rome, Italy. 11Slow Food, Bra, Italy. 12Veterinari Senza Frontiere Italia, Sede c/o Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie viale dell'Università, Padova, Italy. 13Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Helsinki, Finland. 14Harper Adams University, Newport, United Kingdom. 15Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Seinäjoki, Finland. 16CNRS, IFCE, INRAE, Université de Tours, PRC, Nouzilly, France.

Free PMC article