contracepted nonsurgically 8 th International Conference on Wildlife Fertility Control July 2017 Benka Valerie A MS MPP Berliner Elizabeth A DVM MA DABVP Bor Nicholas BVM ID: 778975
Download The PPT/PDF document "Developing new visible marking options f..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Developing new visible marking options for free-roaming dogs and cats sterilized or contracepted non-surgically
8th International Conference on Wildlife Fertility Control July 2017
Benka
, Valerie A., MS, MPP,
Berliner
, Elizabeth A., DVM, MA, DABVP,
Bor
, Nicholas, BVM,
Briggs
, Joyce R., MS,
Cucui
, Eloïse V.,
Fischer
, Amy E., PhD,
Ferguson
, Adam,
PhD.,
Getty
, Susan F., MS
Slide2Project rationale and objectives Research & development Pilot/field Studies
Sheltered dogs in Romania (Summer 2015)Pet cats in Illinois (March 2016)Free-roaming owned dogs in Kenya (September 2016)Next Steps2nd study in cats in Illinois
Revisit options for dogs
Agenda
Slide3Current Animal Marking Methods
Slide4Marking & IdentificationProject Goal: To identify a new method,
or improve upon an existing method, to mark free-roaming dogs and cats as non-surgically sterilized or contracepted, and/or as vaccinated
Literature Review
T
hink Tank
InnoCentive Challenge – Ideation
Slide5Marking Criteria: Minimum and Ideal
Criteria
MinimumIdeal
Visibility
~ 12
ft
>25 ft
Permanence>3 years
Life of animal
Behavioral Impact
(i.e.,
interference with normal behavior, other animals, or humans)
None
None
Application
Time required
<10
minutes
5 seconds
Training required
Little
None
Humane/pain
level
No anesthesia,
pain
controllable/very brief
No anesthesia, no pain
Cost per application
<$10
<$1
Info
Retrieval
Ease of
Retrieval
Visual reading or simple device
Visual
+ data capture
Quantity
of information
Treated (yes/no)
Type/date(s) of treatment, other
info
Info retrieval device
cost
<$50
$0
Slide6Tag Material
RFID
Coding/ Visibility
Application
“21
st Century” Ear Tag
Slide7Slide8Tag material
Photo credits: Eloise
Cucui
(top tags), Kevin McGowan (crow photos)
Slide9Application
Photo Credits:
EloÏse
Cucui
Slide10Coding/Visibility
Slide11RFID
Photo Credits: Anne Marie
McPartlin
Slide123. Pilot/field studies
Photo Credit: Amy Fischer
Slide13Pilot: Sheltered dog study:
Brașov, RomaniaPhoto Credit: EloÏse
Cucui
Slide14Animals & Methods54 dogs of both sexes and varied ages, sizes, ear types (pendulous and erect), fur types, fur colors
Tag applied under anesthesia for s/n surgeryEach application used a new needle Observations on days 0-8, 10, 12, 14, 21, 28, etc.
Photo credits:
EloÏse
Cucui
Slide15Results/Conclusions
Applicator worked well in anesthetized animalsTags do not cause infection or pain in animals treated with antibiotics and analgesics5 of 54 tags (9.25%) failed over 643 dog days – all in closely confined puppies – all at fastenerMultiple outstanding questions
Photo Credit:
EloÏse
Cucui
Slide16Indoor/outdoor pet cat study:
St. Joseph, Illinois
Generously funded by:
Photo Credit: Amy Fischer
Slide17Animals & Methods
9 indoor/outdoor pet cats belonging to an ACC&D Board member
Tag applied under anesthesia for dentals.
Received NSAID on case-by-case basis
as needed for dentals.
Observations recorded on days 0-8, 10, 12, 14, 21, 28, etc., using the same forms as Romania.
Slide18Field Trials
Photo Credits: Amy Fisher
Slide19Results: Ears
Cats developed slight scabbing at point of application—not serious or bothersome
Skin underneath tag was healthy
Cats that lost tags had no ear damage.
Photo Credits: Amy Fischer
Slide20Results: Behavior
All but one cat exhibited normal behavior throughout.
One female initially exhibited ear flicking and head shaking, which stopped within a few days.
No change in non-tagged cats’ behavior toward tagged cats.
Photo Credit: Amy Fischer
Slide21Results: Visibility
Tag is quite large relative to the ear (3 cm diameter); future studies would evaluate smaller
Curling of tag could affect visibility under certain circumstances
Photo Credits: Amy Fischer
Slide22Results: Tag Loss
3/9 cats lost tags (D19, 30, 119) after ~15 months
2 cats who lost tags are most rambunctious (young males).
All tags failed at the fastener.
Tiny bump remains–no damage to ear.
Photo credit: Amy Fischer
Slide23Free-roaming owned dog field study
Laikipia, KenyaPhoto Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide24Photo Credits: Valerie Benka
Slide25Animals & Methods, Part 1
Objectives
: evaluate 1) practicality and humaneness of application in conscious dogs, 2) tag performance
Study population
: free
-roaming owned dogs with owner permission to
tag.Numbers: tag min. 100 owned dogs with 2 tag materials and topical anesthetics; monitor for min. 18 monthsHired F/T vet for 2 months to tag and monitor dogs every 3 days for first month, every 7 days for second month.
Photo Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide26Animals & Methods, Part 2
Selected calm, stable dogs who did not respond to handling or other medical treatments.
Used ethyl chloride topical anesthetic spray
Used new needle for every dog.
Microchipped
dogs for individual identification.
Changes from prior studies:Stronger fastener (higher tensile strength nylon)Heavier-weight Sunbrella fabric (to address curling)
Added textile used in crow studies
Slide27Results: Application
Dogs
struggled and vocalized during ethyl chloride and
tag application
Indicators of pain
Ethyl chloride did not have adequate anesthetic effect
Attempted tagging in 6 dogs
Four successful, two aborted
Pain/distress was very transient; dogs behaved normally within minutes post-procedure
Slide28Results: Tag Loss
Tiny sample (3 dogs), anecdotal results
“Kali”: Tag missing Day 9; children removed
“
Kuri
” and “Tiger aka
Simba
”: Tags missing Day 16; cause unknown, nylon fastener was the point of failure. Bottom half of fastener remained in-ear; no damage to ear
Photo Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide29Results: Human behavior
People seemed to respond positively to tag—several asked for tag
One tag reportedly removed by children “playing” with the tag
The problem of community members observing dogs in pain
Photo Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide30Conclusions
Marking Committee
decided to suspend further lab or controlled field studies of this prototype due to combined:
Indications
of
pain
Limited
anesthetic options for field
use
No
known stronger commercial fastener
options
Community perceptions of dog welfare and handling
Photo Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide31Conditions for reconsideration
R
esults
from cat studies indicate better efficacy of a topical anesthetic than was evident with
dogs
Availability of a topical
anesthetic that is faster and appropriate for non-shaved
ear
Availability of a non-surgical requiring sedation and/or 20
+ minute treatment
(therefore accommodating
shaving ear and
alternative anesthetic cream)
Slide324. Next Steps
Photo Credit: Valerie Benka
Slide33Continued study in cats
Rationale for proceeding with cats given dog results:
Non-surgical treatment for feral cats (e.g., implant, injection, IV) will require sedation
Potential for finer needle (thinner ear than dogs)
Better fastener outcomes in cats vs. dogs?
Slide34Continued study in cats
Phase 2 study in pet cats
Controlled study in pet cats using sedation
Collaboration
with Board-certified anesthesiologist for guidance on sedation type/level
required
Future field study (pending Phase 2 results)Potential partnership with Duquesne University and nonprofit TNR organization Frankie’s Friends
Thank you!
Slide35Revisit options for dogs
Value of this type of ear tag for use in anesthetized dogs (e.g., s/n campaigns)?
Look into commercial options for stronger fasteners, better applicators
What marking options/pathways to explore have we not already considered?
Slide36Please Join Us!
6th International Symposiumon Non-surgical Methods of Dog and Cat Population Control
July 22-24th, 2018
Boston, MAP
resented by the Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs
more at www.acc-d.org
Slide37Acknowledgements
Collaborators and volunteers:
Kaos
Softwear, Portland, OR
Dr. Karl Citek, Pacific University College of
OptometryAssociaţia de Protecţie a Animalel
or “Milioane de Prienteni”, Romania
David
Buffington, Glen Raven Custom
Fabrics
Gene
Pancheri
, Proctor & Gamble (ret
).
Dr. Adam Ferguson,
NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, Smithsonian
Institution;
Mpala
Research Center and Kenya’s
Karatina
UniversityDr. Nicholas Bor, Mpala Research Center
Dr. Dennis Makau, Director of Programs for the Africa Network for Animal Welfare
Dr. Amy Fischer, University of Illinois
Key staff at Cornell:PI: Margaret Frey, PhD (Fiber Science)Co-
Inv: Elizabeth Berliner, DVM (CVM)Co-Inv
: Edwin Kan, PhD (Engineering)DVM student: Eloïse
Cucui
Slide38Your questions?
Your ideas ?