Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Behavioural Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc
Effects of space allowance on the behaviour of long-term housed shelter dogs Simona Normando a,∗,1 , Barbara Contiero b , Giorgio Marchesini b , Rebecca Ricci b,1 a b
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy Department of Animal Medicine Production and Health, University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 June 2013 Received in revised form 8 January 2014 Accepted 17 January 2014 Available online 24 January 2014 Keywords: Dog Shelter Space allowance Welfare
a b s t r a c t The aim of this study was to assess the effects of space allowance (4.5 m2 /head vs. 9 m2 /head) on the behaviour of shelter dogs (Canis familiaris) at different times of the day (from 10:30 to 13:30 vs. from 14:30 to 17:30), and the dogs’ preference between two types of beds (fabric bed vs. plastic basket). Twelve neutered dogs (seven males and five females aged 3–8 years) housed in pairs were observed using a scan sampling recording method every 20 s for a total of 14,592 scans/treatment. An increase in space allowance increased general level of activity (risk ratio (RR) = 1.34), standing (RR = 1.37), positive social interactions (RR = 2.14), visual exploration of the environment (RR = 1.21), and vocalisations (RR = 2.35). Dogs spent more time in the sitting (RR = 1.39) or standing (RR = 1.88) posture, in positive interactions (RR = 1.85), and active visual exploration (RR = 1.99) during the morning than in the afternoon. The dogs were more often observed in the fabric bed than in the plastic basket (53% vs. 15% of total scans, p < 0.001). Results suggest that a 9.0 m2 /head space allowance could be more beneficial to dogs than one of 4.5 m2 . © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction At present, scientific knowledge concerning minimal welfare requirements for shelter dogs is quite scarce, even if this happens to be a crucial issue for both ethical and economic reasons. In particular, there has been little scientific research on the effects of space allowance on the behaviour and welfare of kennelled dogs. Space allowance has been found to influence the behaviour and welfare of other animals kept in confined environments, such as cattle (Cozzi et al., 2009), sows (Salak-Johnson et al., 2007), and laboratory animals (McGlone et al., 2001; Patterson-Kane, 2002). Although a number of studies have considered the effect of cage size on the behaviour of shelter dogs (for a review see Taylor and Mills, 2007), most have reported no increase in activity with increasing cage size. However, as suggested by Taylor and Mills (2007), some limitations in experimental design might explain the results of these studies, such as a small sample size (Newton, 1972;
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 049 641231; fax: +39 049 641174. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Normando), [email protected] (B. Contiero), [email protected] (G. Marchesini), [email protected] (R. Ricci). 1 These two authors contributed equally to the present study and the writing of this manuscript. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.015 0376-6357/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Neamand et al., 1975; Campbell et al., 1988; Hughes et al., 1989) or the fact that the enclosure size remained small despite the relatively big increase over the initial size of the cage (from 1 m2 to 2 m2 in Hite et al. (1977) and Hughes et al. (1989); from 1 m2 to 3 m2 in Neamand et al. (1975)) so that the increased enclosure size may not have promoted any difference in the dogs’ behaviour. On the contrary, Clark et al. (1991) and Hetts et al. (1992) compared the behaviour of dogs kept in enclosures which varied widely in size (from 1 m2 cages to 54 m2 pens) and found that dogs housed in larger pens were significantly more active and spent less time engaged in stereotypy than those kept in smaller cages. Hetts et al. (1992) also observed that dogs kept in smaller cages spent more time grooming and manipulating enclosure barriers. Also, in most studies concerning management of kennelled dogs, differences in pen size are often considered as part of a compound variable together with the number of dogs or differences in the environment, for example, and thus are of relatively little help in evaluating the effects of space allowance in itself (see Spangelberg et al. (2006) and Beerda et al. (1999a,b)). As suggested by Taylor and Mills (2007), in studies that aim to assess levels of activity as a parameter of dogs’ welfare, the type of activity performed is also very important and should be kept in consideration before drawing any conclusion.
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
Identifying the minimum space allowance requirements that safeguard animal welfare is not just a scientific goal and has important practical implications as well. In Italy, a no-kill policy has been observed for kennelled dogs since 1991, according to which dogs must be housed in shelters at the expense of the local Municipality until re-homing. This leads to many dogs being housed in shelters for long periods of time, and the economic impact risks to be overwhelming. Moreover, as adoptions seldom balance dogs entering shelters, this law leads to the creation of many new shelters to house dogs which cannot be hosted in those already existing. Setting up and running a shelter can be very expensive, however, and this can affect the quality of life of the dogs. Buying land has a cost, and land closer to urban areas tends to cost more. Higher space requirements may induce shelters to be set up in faraway areas, but this can impair the chance of the dogs of being re-homed because less people will visit the shelter to adopt a dog. In order to optimize costs and benefits, guidelines on the amount of space required to shelter dogs kept in various conditions would therefore be useful. Up to now, political interventions in dictating guidelines on shelter dogs’ welfare have been impaired by the lack of scientific evidence, and these guidelines tend to contain very vague statements such as “enough space to allow the dog to express its natural behaviour” or “to provide dogs with a comfortable resting place”, or to assign values based on common sense (Veneto Region Law 60/93). Moreover, the lack of studies that consider only one single housing condition at a time (outdoor vs. indoor, group vs. single housing, different size of enclosure, different type of human/conspecific contact) makes it difficult to assess the effect of each condition on the dogs’ behaviour. There has also been very little scientific interest in the bedding implements offered to dogs, despite the fact that literature describes shelter dogs as being inactive most of the time (Normando et al., 2009). In this study, we assessed the effects of two different space allowances (4.5 m2 /head vs. 9 m2 /head) on the behaviour and welfare of shelter dogs during different times of the day with the remaining social and environmental variables maintained constant. Particular attention was paid also to the preference expressed by dogs towards the type of bedding offered inside the pen. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Animals, management and treatments Thirteen mixed-breed, medium-sized neutered (eight males, five females; age 3–8 years) dogs were involved in this study (Table 1). Their permanence in the shelter varied from 1 to 8 years.
307
All the dogs were vaccinated once a year for distemper, parvovirosis, leptospirosis, and infectious hepatitis. They were routinely dewormed every four months. They were housed for the entire length of the study in six pairs in modular enclosures consisting of an indoor and an outdoor area. The thirteenth dog served as the substitute for another dog adopted during the study (Table 1). The standard enclosure unit was a pen consisting of an indoor area (1.5 m × 2.0 m = 3.0 m2 ) and a covered outdoor area (1.5 m × 4.0 m = 6.0 m2 ) for a total pen area of 9.0 m2 . The floor of the pen was made of non-slip smooth concrete. The front walls were made of framed galvanized steel mesh, whereas the back walls were constituted of framed steel panels. The lateral walls of the outdoor area consisted of panels of 1.20 m height and framed galvanized steel bars up to the roof. By removing part of the lateral wall, the outdoor area could become part of the contiguous pen to form a double sized enclosure with a total pen size of 18 m2 . A wall made of framed panels separated the pen’s indoor and outdoor areas. A door and a sliding dog door connected the two areas. Both doors were kept open during the experimental period. The lateral walls of the indoor area were constituted of panels for their entire height. There were two external doors: one at the front, made in galvanized steel mesh that gave access to the front area of the pens, and one at the back, made of panels, connecting the indoor area of the pen to the exterior running area. The roof, which covered both the indoor and the outdoor area, was made of double insulated non-conducting sheet panels. As shown in Fig. 1, during Treatment A (4 weeks), pairs of dogs were housed in standard pen units (total pen size = 9.0 m2 ); during Treatment B (4 weeks) they were housed in enclosures created by connecting two contiguous pens after removing the confining side wall (total pen size = 18.0 m2 ). One raised foldable fabric dog bed (Dream 100, Ferplast S.p.A., Castelgomberto, VI, Italy) and one plastic basket dog bed (Siesta Deluxe 10, Ferplast S.p.A., Castelgomberto, VI, Italy) were placed in each pen’s outdoor area. In order to preclude the number of beds from constituting a potentially confounding variable, only one foldable fabric dog-bed and only one basket bed were provided also in Treatment B pens, and in the same position as in Treatment A (Fig. 1). Three pairs of dogs (AB, CD, FG with G substituting for E after 2 days of observation) experienced first Treatment A and then Treatment B, while three pairs (LR, MN, PT) experienced first Treatment B and then Treatment A. Dogs constituting a pair were familiar with each other. All the dogs were fed twice daily at 08:00 and 18:00. Pens were cleaned and disinfected from 08:00 to 10:00 every day, while dogs were exercised in a common fenced running area (7.5 m × 5 m). The dogs were exercised again for 1 h before the evening meal, from
Table 1 Dogs participating the study (identified by alphabetical letter, gender, breed and age), years of permanence in the shelter, and ID of the paired dog. ID
Gender
Breed
Age (years)
Permanence in the shelter (years)
A B C D E F
Male Female Male Male Male Female
Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound English Setter Italian Hound
6 8 5 4 3 3
5 6 4 3 1 1
G L M N P R T
Male Male Female Female Male Female Male
Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound
5 4 8 7 5 7 4
4 1 8 6 3 5 1
Paired with B A D C F E (first two days of observation during Treatment A) and G (third and fourth days of observation during Treatment A and all four days of observation during Treatment B) F R N M T L P
308
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
Fig. 1. Layout of the experimental pens and example of distribution of two pairs of dogs in Treatment A (4.5 m2 /head) and Treatment B (9 m2 /head) during the first (1–32 days) and the second (46–67 days) part of the study.
17:00 to 18:00. External access to the running area was banned during observation sessions. Personnel were active in the shelter every day from 07:30 to 13:00 and then from 16:30 to 19:00. Water was provided ad libitum by an automatic device in the outdoor area of the pen. During the study, all the dogs remained available for adoption, given that it would have been unethical to deny them this opportunity. These dogs had already been in the shelter for a long time, however, so their chances of being adopted were considered scarce. Potential adopters were not allowed near the experimental pens during observations, while visits were allowed to the rest of the shelter and postponed in the experimental pens until the end of the observation periods. Therefore, only one experimental dog (dog E) required substitution (by dog G) when the former was chosen for adoption. The shelter was situated in the Veneto region in Northeast Italy. 2.2. Protocol and behavioural observations Dogs were housed in pairs in the experimental pens on day 1: three pairs were assigned to Treatment A and three pairs to Treatment B. All dogs had previously been housed in smaller pens (3 m × 2.5 m) than those used in Treatment A. After 10 days of adaptation, the behavioural observations began. During these 10 days, preliminary observations were carried out. Video-recording was attempted, but the structure of the pens interfered with the autofocus ability of the video-cameras, making the results unsatisfying. Thus video-recording was discontinued. The length of 10 days was chosen because it was considerably longer than the 3 day-period of acclimatization in which higher cortisol levels had been observed in dogs admitted to shelters by Hennessy et al. (1997). Two observers made all the behavioural observations. The same person observed the same three pairs of dogs for the entire length of the study. On day 11 of the study, Observer A began observing two pairs of dogs housed in 18 m2 enclosures and one pair in a 9 m2 enclosure, while Observer B observed one pair in a 18 m2 enclosure and two pairs in 9 m2 enclosures. Intra- and inter-observer reliability assessments were carried out during preliminary observations by direct observations of 12 dogs for 10 min each. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were higher than 99.6%. During the experimental period, each pair of dogs was observed once a week using an instantaneous scan sampling recording method every 20 s, for 12 min, and 20 s every hour for six hours, from 10:30 to 13:30 and from 14:30 to 17:30. Hence, in each day of
observation, each observer observed her three pairs of dogs in six time periods: three in the morning (between 10:30 and 13:30) and three in the afternoon (between 14:30 and 17:30). Each time an observation hour began, the observers sat in front of the first pen approximately 3 m from the front wall, waited three minutes to give the dogs time to habituate to their presence, and then recorded the behaviour for 12 min and 20 s (37 scans per dog). Then the observers moved in front of their second pen and repeated the procedure (the same process was repeated for the third pen). Dogs were observed on days 11, 18, 25, 32. On day 36, dogs were moved from Treatment A pens to Treatment B pens, and vice versa for dogs which had had Treatment B first. All pairs were then observed in the new condition on days 46 (after 10 days of adaptation to the new condition), 53, 60, 67. The behavioural patterns assessed during the study are listed in Table 2. They were chosen on the basis of preliminary observations after consulting scientific literature on the topic. 2.3. Statistical analysis Behavioural data were recorded as number of scans during which every dog performed a particular behaviour. The behavioural patterns included in the ethogram were grouped into broader categories: positive interactions (tail wagging, social play, allo-grooming, other positive interactions), negative interactions (growling, attacking/jumping on, teeth baring, fear signs), and maintenance (eating, drinking, micturition, defecation), as specified in Table 2. Solitary play was rare and grouped under other. Because our data were expressed as frequency counts of events, they were processed using the generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach for the analysis of percentage of repeated measurements (PROC GENMOD of SAS). This method assumes the Poisson distribution and the log link function to estimate the relative risk ratio (RR) for the double space allowance (Treatment B) against the single space allowance (Treatment A). The model included the effects of time (the eight days of observation, as repeated effect), period (two time periods, morning vs. afternoon), treatment (double space allowance vs. single space allowance), and the interaction between period and treatment. The dog nested within the couple was considered as subject repeated effect. The effects of length of permanence in the shelter (≤5 years vs. >5 years) and of order of treatment (whether the pair was housed in a 4.5 m2 /head vs. a 9 m2 /head enclosure first) were tested using the same statistical
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
309
Table 2 Ethogram used in the study. Posture
Standing
Only paws are in contact with the ground, hind legs and forelegs more or less extended (grouped into STATION) Flexed hind legs, rump in contact with the ground, forelegs extended (grouped into SITTING POSTURE) Flexed hind legs and forelegs, head held upright, sternal recumbence, the forelegs are held straight on the ground in front of the dog (grouped into SITTING POSTURE) Sterno-costal recumbence (grouped into RECUMBENCE) Sterno-costal recumbence with ventrally flexed. rounded back and head near the abdomen or the hind paws (usually during sleep) (grouped into RECUMBENCE) The dog goes from recumbence to a standing posture (grouped into STATION) The dog goes from a standing posture to recumbence (grouped into RECUMBENCE) The dogs is not visible
Sitting Sphinx Lying Rolled up Standing up Lying down Out of sight Behavioural pattern
Passive
Active visual exploration Passive gazing Resting/sleeping
Active
Movement Locomotion Exploring Fear signs
Barking
Growling
Teeth baring Attacking/jumping on
Tail wagging
Playing
Allogrooming Other positive interactions Selfgrooming Eating Drinking Defecation Micturition Other Location
The dog is still and fixes its gaze and attention to a stimulus. The stimulus is recorded as being people, animals, inanimate objects The dog is still and its eyes are open, but its attention does not appear to be focused on anything in particular The dog, with its eyes closed, is lying in sternal sterno-costal lateral recumbency or rolled up or in a sphinx posture The dog changes the position of one or some of its body parts respect to another one, without changing its location in the space (grouped into MOVING) The dog moves from place to place using one of its species specific gaits (walk, trot, canter) (grouped into MOVING) The dogs moves from place to place, while keeping its head low in order to sniff at features of the environment (grouped into MOVING) The dog exhibits fear signs, such as tail between legs, crouched posture, lowered ears, trembling. The eliciting stimulus is recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) A dog vocalization produced by irregular oscillation of vocal folds (the sound source) and by turbulence of airflow in the vocal tract resulting in a mostly noisy sound with more or less harmonic components, depending on context (Molnár et al., 2006). The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs The dog is emitting a low-frequency broadband vocalization, usually associated with agonistic encounters (Faragó et al., 2010). The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog retracts its lips showing its teeth. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog launches itself towards someone/another dog, with mostly hind leg propulsion, moving forward with the forelegs leaving the ground before the hind legs (McDonnell, 2003) with stiff posture and pilo-erection. In some cases the hind legs can maintain contact with the ground. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) Rhythmic moving of the dog’s tail from side to side. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) Activities appearing to have no immediate use or function, involving a sense of pleasure and elements of surprise. These activities are mostly modified versions of serious survival activities distinguished from the “serious” analogues by postures or expressions denoting less serious intent (McDonnell, 2003). The recipient/recipients of social play is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (social play grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS; solitary play grouped into OTHER) Nibbling, biting, licking or rubbing parts of another dog’s body. The recipient/recipients could only be a dog/dogs, as the shelter staff was allowed near the pens but not into them during observation sessions (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog solicits non-aggressive interaction, for by whining, jumping on the fence, or sniffs or contacts the other dog or people (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) Nibbling, biting, licking or rubbing parts of own body
Out of sight
The dog ingests solid matter (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dog ingests a liquid, usually water (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dogs voids faeces through the anus (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dog voids its urinary bladder content to the exterior (grouped into MAINTENANCE) Any other behavioural pattern The dogs is not visible by the observer
Indoor area Outdoor area Open bed Basket
The dogs is in the indoor area of the pen The dogs is in the outdoor area of the pen, but not on the open bed or in the basket The dog is on the open foldable fabric dog-bed The dog is in dog bed shaped as a plastic basket
method. The former was done because Wells et al. (2002) found that dogs who had been in the shelter for more than five years spent more time at the back of their kennels, more time resting, and less time barking than dogs housed in the shelter for shorter periods of time. The latter because it was supposed that dogs placed
into a more restricted environment after previously experiencing more space would be affected by the lack of space more severely than those that had experienced the smaller pen first. Moreover, analysing for order of treatment could be useful in ruling out the hypothesis that any differences in behaviour observed were due
310
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
to the fact that the pen used in Treatment B differed more in size (even if it had the same shape) from the smaller ones in which the dogs had been housed before the experiment, than pens used for Treatment A. To test the difference between percentage values (i.e., preference for one of the two types of bedding and other behavioural patterns performed by dogs while barking) a chi-square statistic was used. Social interactions were analyzed as divided in interactions towards people (i.e., shelter staff only, given that no visitor was allowed near the dogs during observation) and interactions towards other dogs using a chi-square statistic. p values
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Behavioural Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc
Effects of space allowance on the behaviour of long-term housed shelter dogs Simona Normando a,∗,1 , Barbara Contiero b , Giorgio Marchesini b , Rebecca Ricci b,1 a b
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy Department of Animal Medicine Production and Health, University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 June 2013 Received in revised form 8 January 2014 Accepted 17 January 2014 Available online 24 January 2014 Keywords: Dog Shelter Space allowance Welfare
a b s t r a c t The aim of this study was to assess the effects of space allowance (4.5 m2 /head vs. 9 m2 /head) on the behaviour of shelter dogs (Canis familiaris) at different times of the day (from 10:30 to 13:30 vs. from 14:30 to 17:30), and the dogs’ preference between two types of beds (fabric bed vs. plastic basket). Twelve neutered dogs (seven males and five females aged 3–8 years) housed in pairs were observed using a scan sampling recording method every 20 s for a total of 14,592 scans/treatment. An increase in space allowance increased general level of activity (risk ratio (RR) = 1.34), standing (RR = 1.37), positive social interactions (RR = 2.14), visual exploration of the environment (RR = 1.21), and vocalisations (RR = 2.35). Dogs spent more time in the sitting (RR = 1.39) or standing (RR = 1.88) posture, in positive interactions (RR = 1.85), and active visual exploration (RR = 1.99) during the morning than in the afternoon. The dogs were more often observed in the fabric bed than in the plastic basket (53% vs. 15% of total scans, p < 0.001). Results suggest that a 9.0 m2 /head space allowance could be more beneficial to dogs than one of 4.5 m2 . © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction At present, scientific knowledge concerning minimal welfare requirements for shelter dogs is quite scarce, even if this happens to be a crucial issue for both ethical and economic reasons. In particular, there has been little scientific research on the effects of space allowance on the behaviour and welfare of kennelled dogs. Space allowance has been found to influence the behaviour and welfare of other animals kept in confined environments, such as cattle (Cozzi et al., 2009), sows (Salak-Johnson et al., 2007), and laboratory animals (McGlone et al., 2001; Patterson-Kane, 2002). Although a number of studies have considered the effect of cage size on the behaviour of shelter dogs (for a review see Taylor and Mills, 2007), most have reported no increase in activity with increasing cage size. However, as suggested by Taylor and Mills (2007), some limitations in experimental design might explain the results of these studies, such as a small sample size (Newton, 1972;
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 049 641231; fax: +39 049 641174. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Normando), [email protected] (B. Contiero), [email protected] (G. Marchesini), [email protected] (R. Ricci). 1 These two authors contributed equally to the present study and the writing of this manuscript. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.015 0376-6357/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Neamand et al., 1975; Campbell et al., 1988; Hughes et al., 1989) or the fact that the enclosure size remained small despite the relatively big increase over the initial size of the cage (from 1 m2 to 2 m2 in Hite et al. (1977) and Hughes et al. (1989); from 1 m2 to 3 m2 in Neamand et al. (1975)) so that the increased enclosure size may not have promoted any difference in the dogs’ behaviour. On the contrary, Clark et al. (1991) and Hetts et al. (1992) compared the behaviour of dogs kept in enclosures which varied widely in size (from 1 m2 cages to 54 m2 pens) and found that dogs housed in larger pens were significantly more active and spent less time engaged in stereotypy than those kept in smaller cages. Hetts et al. (1992) also observed that dogs kept in smaller cages spent more time grooming and manipulating enclosure barriers. Also, in most studies concerning management of kennelled dogs, differences in pen size are often considered as part of a compound variable together with the number of dogs or differences in the environment, for example, and thus are of relatively little help in evaluating the effects of space allowance in itself (see Spangelberg et al. (2006) and Beerda et al. (1999a,b)). As suggested by Taylor and Mills (2007), in studies that aim to assess levels of activity as a parameter of dogs’ welfare, the type of activity performed is also very important and should be kept in consideration before drawing any conclusion.
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
Identifying the minimum space allowance requirements that safeguard animal welfare is not just a scientific goal and has important practical implications as well. In Italy, a no-kill policy has been observed for kennelled dogs since 1991, according to which dogs must be housed in shelters at the expense of the local Municipality until re-homing. This leads to many dogs being housed in shelters for long periods of time, and the economic impact risks to be overwhelming. Moreover, as adoptions seldom balance dogs entering shelters, this law leads to the creation of many new shelters to house dogs which cannot be hosted in those already existing. Setting up and running a shelter can be very expensive, however, and this can affect the quality of life of the dogs. Buying land has a cost, and land closer to urban areas tends to cost more. Higher space requirements may induce shelters to be set up in faraway areas, but this can impair the chance of the dogs of being re-homed because less people will visit the shelter to adopt a dog. In order to optimize costs and benefits, guidelines on the amount of space required to shelter dogs kept in various conditions would therefore be useful. Up to now, political interventions in dictating guidelines on shelter dogs’ welfare have been impaired by the lack of scientific evidence, and these guidelines tend to contain very vague statements such as “enough space to allow the dog to express its natural behaviour” or “to provide dogs with a comfortable resting place”, or to assign values based on common sense (Veneto Region Law 60/93). Moreover, the lack of studies that consider only one single housing condition at a time (outdoor vs. indoor, group vs. single housing, different size of enclosure, different type of human/conspecific contact) makes it difficult to assess the effect of each condition on the dogs’ behaviour. There has also been very little scientific interest in the bedding implements offered to dogs, despite the fact that literature describes shelter dogs as being inactive most of the time (Normando et al., 2009). In this study, we assessed the effects of two different space allowances (4.5 m2 /head vs. 9 m2 /head) on the behaviour and welfare of shelter dogs during different times of the day with the remaining social and environmental variables maintained constant. Particular attention was paid also to the preference expressed by dogs towards the type of bedding offered inside the pen. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Animals, management and treatments Thirteen mixed-breed, medium-sized neutered (eight males, five females; age 3–8 years) dogs were involved in this study (Table 1). Their permanence in the shelter varied from 1 to 8 years.
307
All the dogs were vaccinated once a year for distemper, parvovirosis, leptospirosis, and infectious hepatitis. They were routinely dewormed every four months. They were housed for the entire length of the study in six pairs in modular enclosures consisting of an indoor and an outdoor area. The thirteenth dog served as the substitute for another dog adopted during the study (Table 1). The standard enclosure unit was a pen consisting of an indoor area (1.5 m × 2.0 m = 3.0 m2 ) and a covered outdoor area (1.5 m × 4.0 m = 6.0 m2 ) for a total pen area of 9.0 m2 . The floor of the pen was made of non-slip smooth concrete. The front walls were made of framed galvanized steel mesh, whereas the back walls were constituted of framed steel panels. The lateral walls of the outdoor area consisted of panels of 1.20 m height and framed galvanized steel bars up to the roof. By removing part of the lateral wall, the outdoor area could become part of the contiguous pen to form a double sized enclosure with a total pen size of 18 m2 . A wall made of framed panels separated the pen’s indoor and outdoor areas. A door and a sliding dog door connected the two areas. Both doors were kept open during the experimental period. The lateral walls of the indoor area were constituted of panels for their entire height. There were two external doors: one at the front, made in galvanized steel mesh that gave access to the front area of the pens, and one at the back, made of panels, connecting the indoor area of the pen to the exterior running area. The roof, which covered both the indoor and the outdoor area, was made of double insulated non-conducting sheet panels. As shown in Fig. 1, during Treatment A (4 weeks), pairs of dogs were housed in standard pen units (total pen size = 9.0 m2 ); during Treatment B (4 weeks) they were housed in enclosures created by connecting two contiguous pens after removing the confining side wall (total pen size = 18.0 m2 ). One raised foldable fabric dog bed (Dream 100, Ferplast S.p.A., Castelgomberto, VI, Italy) and one plastic basket dog bed (Siesta Deluxe 10, Ferplast S.p.A., Castelgomberto, VI, Italy) were placed in each pen’s outdoor area. In order to preclude the number of beds from constituting a potentially confounding variable, only one foldable fabric dog-bed and only one basket bed were provided also in Treatment B pens, and in the same position as in Treatment A (Fig. 1). Three pairs of dogs (AB, CD, FG with G substituting for E after 2 days of observation) experienced first Treatment A and then Treatment B, while three pairs (LR, MN, PT) experienced first Treatment B and then Treatment A. Dogs constituting a pair were familiar with each other. All the dogs were fed twice daily at 08:00 and 18:00. Pens were cleaned and disinfected from 08:00 to 10:00 every day, while dogs were exercised in a common fenced running area (7.5 m × 5 m). The dogs were exercised again for 1 h before the evening meal, from
Table 1 Dogs participating the study (identified by alphabetical letter, gender, breed and age), years of permanence in the shelter, and ID of the paired dog. ID
Gender
Breed
Age (years)
Permanence in the shelter (years)
A B C D E F
Male Female Male Male Male Female
Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound English Setter Italian Hound
6 8 5 4 3 3
5 6 4 3 1 1
G L M N P R T
Male Male Female Female Male Female Male
Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound Italian Hound
5 4 8 7 5 7 4
4 1 8 6 3 5 1
Paired with B A D C F E (first two days of observation during Treatment A) and G (third and fourth days of observation during Treatment A and all four days of observation during Treatment B) F R N M T L P
308
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
Fig. 1. Layout of the experimental pens and example of distribution of two pairs of dogs in Treatment A (4.5 m2 /head) and Treatment B (9 m2 /head) during the first (1–32 days) and the second (46–67 days) part of the study.
17:00 to 18:00. External access to the running area was banned during observation sessions. Personnel were active in the shelter every day from 07:30 to 13:00 and then from 16:30 to 19:00. Water was provided ad libitum by an automatic device in the outdoor area of the pen. During the study, all the dogs remained available for adoption, given that it would have been unethical to deny them this opportunity. These dogs had already been in the shelter for a long time, however, so their chances of being adopted were considered scarce. Potential adopters were not allowed near the experimental pens during observations, while visits were allowed to the rest of the shelter and postponed in the experimental pens until the end of the observation periods. Therefore, only one experimental dog (dog E) required substitution (by dog G) when the former was chosen for adoption. The shelter was situated in the Veneto region in Northeast Italy. 2.2. Protocol and behavioural observations Dogs were housed in pairs in the experimental pens on day 1: three pairs were assigned to Treatment A and three pairs to Treatment B. All dogs had previously been housed in smaller pens (3 m × 2.5 m) than those used in Treatment A. After 10 days of adaptation, the behavioural observations began. During these 10 days, preliminary observations were carried out. Video-recording was attempted, but the structure of the pens interfered with the autofocus ability of the video-cameras, making the results unsatisfying. Thus video-recording was discontinued. The length of 10 days was chosen because it was considerably longer than the 3 day-period of acclimatization in which higher cortisol levels had been observed in dogs admitted to shelters by Hennessy et al. (1997). Two observers made all the behavioural observations. The same person observed the same three pairs of dogs for the entire length of the study. On day 11 of the study, Observer A began observing two pairs of dogs housed in 18 m2 enclosures and one pair in a 9 m2 enclosure, while Observer B observed one pair in a 18 m2 enclosure and two pairs in 9 m2 enclosures. Intra- and inter-observer reliability assessments were carried out during preliminary observations by direct observations of 12 dogs for 10 min each. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were higher than 99.6%. During the experimental period, each pair of dogs was observed once a week using an instantaneous scan sampling recording method every 20 s, for 12 min, and 20 s every hour for six hours, from 10:30 to 13:30 and from 14:30 to 17:30. Hence, in each day of
observation, each observer observed her three pairs of dogs in six time periods: three in the morning (between 10:30 and 13:30) and three in the afternoon (between 14:30 and 17:30). Each time an observation hour began, the observers sat in front of the first pen approximately 3 m from the front wall, waited three minutes to give the dogs time to habituate to their presence, and then recorded the behaviour for 12 min and 20 s (37 scans per dog). Then the observers moved in front of their second pen and repeated the procedure (the same process was repeated for the third pen). Dogs were observed on days 11, 18, 25, 32. On day 36, dogs were moved from Treatment A pens to Treatment B pens, and vice versa for dogs which had had Treatment B first. All pairs were then observed in the new condition on days 46 (after 10 days of adaptation to the new condition), 53, 60, 67. The behavioural patterns assessed during the study are listed in Table 2. They were chosen on the basis of preliminary observations after consulting scientific literature on the topic. 2.3. Statistical analysis Behavioural data were recorded as number of scans during which every dog performed a particular behaviour. The behavioural patterns included in the ethogram were grouped into broader categories: positive interactions (tail wagging, social play, allo-grooming, other positive interactions), negative interactions (growling, attacking/jumping on, teeth baring, fear signs), and maintenance (eating, drinking, micturition, defecation), as specified in Table 2. Solitary play was rare and grouped under other. Because our data were expressed as frequency counts of events, they were processed using the generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach for the analysis of percentage of repeated measurements (PROC GENMOD of SAS). This method assumes the Poisson distribution and the log link function to estimate the relative risk ratio (RR) for the double space allowance (Treatment B) against the single space allowance (Treatment A). The model included the effects of time (the eight days of observation, as repeated effect), period (two time periods, morning vs. afternoon), treatment (double space allowance vs. single space allowance), and the interaction between period and treatment. The dog nested within the couple was considered as subject repeated effect. The effects of length of permanence in the shelter (≤5 years vs. >5 years) and of order of treatment (whether the pair was housed in a 4.5 m2 /head vs. a 9 m2 /head enclosure first) were tested using the same statistical
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
309
Table 2 Ethogram used in the study. Posture
Standing
Only paws are in contact with the ground, hind legs and forelegs more or less extended (grouped into STATION) Flexed hind legs, rump in contact with the ground, forelegs extended (grouped into SITTING POSTURE) Flexed hind legs and forelegs, head held upright, sternal recumbence, the forelegs are held straight on the ground in front of the dog (grouped into SITTING POSTURE) Sterno-costal recumbence (grouped into RECUMBENCE) Sterno-costal recumbence with ventrally flexed. rounded back and head near the abdomen or the hind paws (usually during sleep) (grouped into RECUMBENCE) The dog goes from recumbence to a standing posture (grouped into STATION) The dog goes from a standing posture to recumbence (grouped into RECUMBENCE) The dogs is not visible
Sitting Sphinx Lying Rolled up Standing up Lying down Out of sight Behavioural pattern
Passive
Active visual exploration Passive gazing Resting/sleeping
Active
Movement Locomotion Exploring Fear signs
Barking
Growling
Teeth baring Attacking/jumping on
Tail wagging
Playing
Allogrooming Other positive interactions Selfgrooming Eating Drinking Defecation Micturition Other Location
The dog is still and fixes its gaze and attention to a stimulus. The stimulus is recorded as being people, animals, inanimate objects The dog is still and its eyes are open, but its attention does not appear to be focused on anything in particular The dog, with its eyes closed, is lying in sternal sterno-costal lateral recumbency or rolled up or in a sphinx posture The dog changes the position of one or some of its body parts respect to another one, without changing its location in the space (grouped into MOVING) The dog moves from place to place using one of its species specific gaits (walk, trot, canter) (grouped into MOVING) The dogs moves from place to place, while keeping its head low in order to sniff at features of the environment (grouped into MOVING) The dog exhibits fear signs, such as tail between legs, crouched posture, lowered ears, trembling. The eliciting stimulus is recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) A dog vocalization produced by irregular oscillation of vocal folds (the sound source) and by turbulence of airflow in the vocal tract resulting in a mostly noisy sound with more or less harmonic components, depending on context (Molnár et al., 2006). The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs The dog is emitting a low-frequency broadband vocalization, usually associated with agonistic encounters (Faragó et al., 2010). The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog retracts its lips showing its teeth. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog launches itself towards someone/another dog, with mostly hind leg propulsion, moving forward with the forelegs leaving the ground before the hind legs (McDonnell, 2003) with stiff posture and pilo-erection. In some cases the hind legs can maintain contact with the ground. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS) Rhythmic moving of the dog’s tail from side to side. The recipient/recipients is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) Activities appearing to have no immediate use or function, involving a sense of pleasure and elements of surprise. These activities are mostly modified versions of serious survival activities distinguished from the “serious” analogues by postures or expressions denoting less serious intent (McDonnell, 2003). The recipient/recipients of social play is/are recorded as being either a person/people or a dog/dogs (social play grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS; solitary play grouped into OTHER) Nibbling, biting, licking or rubbing parts of another dog’s body. The recipient/recipients could only be a dog/dogs, as the shelter staff was allowed near the pens but not into them during observation sessions (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) The dog solicits non-aggressive interaction, for by whining, jumping on the fence, or sniffs or contacts the other dog or people (grouped into POSITIVE INTERACTIONS) Nibbling, biting, licking or rubbing parts of own body
Out of sight
The dog ingests solid matter (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dog ingests a liquid, usually water (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dogs voids faeces through the anus (grouped into MAINTENANCE) The dog voids its urinary bladder content to the exterior (grouped into MAINTENANCE) Any other behavioural pattern The dogs is not visible by the observer
Indoor area Outdoor area Open bed Basket
The dogs is in the indoor area of the pen The dogs is in the outdoor area of the pen, but not on the open bed or in the basket The dog is on the open foldable fabric dog-bed The dog is in dog bed shaped as a plastic basket
method. The former was done because Wells et al. (2002) found that dogs who had been in the shelter for more than five years spent more time at the back of their kennels, more time resting, and less time barking than dogs housed in the shelter for shorter periods of time. The latter because it was supposed that dogs placed
into a more restricted environment after previously experiencing more space would be affected by the lack of space more severely than those that had experienced the smaller pen first. Moreover, analysing for order of treatment could be useful in ruling out the hypothesis that any differences in behaviour observed were due
310
S. Normando et al. / Behavioural Processes 103 (2014) 306–314
to the fact that the pen used in Treatment B differed more in size (even if it had the same shape) from the smaller ones in which the dogs had been housed before the experiment, than pens used for Treatment A. To test the difference between percentage values (i.e., preference for one of the two types of bedding and other behavioural patterns performed by dogs while barking) a chi-square statistic was used. Social interactions were analyzed as divided in interactions towards people (i.e., shelter staff only, given that no visitor was allowed near the dogs during observation) and interactions towards other dogs using a chi-square statistic. p values
