Main content

Improving the welfare of cats during handling and restraint

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Niel, Lee Moody, Carly Michelle 2018-09-04T15:25:53Z 2019-07-16T05:00:56Z 2018-08-28 2018-07-16 2018-09-04
dc.description.abstract This thesis aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for improving cat welfare during handling. First, a cat handling questionnaire suggests that veterinarians (n=344) and non-veterinarian staff (n=944), commonly use restraint involving immobilization for examinations and procedures when handling fearful and aggressive cats. Participants were less likely to use full-body with scruff restraint (known negative) on fearful (F) and aggressive (A) cats if they work: at a Cat-Friendly Practice (F: P=0.0001; A: P=0.0001), in Canada (F: P<0.0001; A: ns), as a veterinarian (F: P<0.0001; A: ns), or as a non-veterinarian who graduated in 2005 or earlier (F: P<0.0001; A: P<0.0001). Given a lack of scientific evidence to inform good handling, methodologies were validated to assess cat responses to handling by comparing full-body (known negative) and passive (control) restraint. Cats were categorized as friendly or unfriendly based on interactions with a stranger, given the hypothesis that unfriendly cats would display more avoidance behaviours than friendly cats. Conditioned place aversion (CPA) was validated for use with laboratory (n=10) and friendly shelter (n=26) cats, using a two-compartment apparatus; cats showed aversion towards the compartment where full-body restraint occurred (P=0.043; P=0.035). Shelter cats were used to validate behavioural and physiological response differences between passive (n=22) and full-body (n=25) restraint. Full-body restrained cats showed a higher respiratory rate (P=0.004), more lip licks (F1,42 = 6.18; P = 0.017), more side/back ear positions (P<0.0001), and a greater pupil dilation (unfriendly full-body vs unfriendly passive, P=0.0007), than passively restrained cats. These responses were then used to assess cat responses to scruff (n=17), clip (two clips applied to neck skin; n=16), and full-body (negative; n=19), compared to passive restraint. The number of negative responses were highest in full-body (respiratory rate P=0.01; ear P=0.0007, pupil P=0.004, vocalizations P=0.005) and clip (pupil P=0.01, vocalizations P=0.007, ear P=0.02) restrained cats. The results for scruffed cats showed mixed results in comparison to the other restraint groups. This thesis provides the first validated methodologies to assess cat responses to restraint, and suggests that clip restraint may be more negative to scruff restraint, showing a need for further research on alternatives. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Funding for the projects included in this thesis were obtained by Dr. Lee Niel from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Ontario Veterinary College Pet Trust Fund. Stipend funding for Carly Moody was provided by the Ontario Veterinary College PhD Scholarship (2014-2017), the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology (2014-2015), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada: Postgraduate Doctoral Scholarship (2015-2016), Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship (2016-2018), and the University of Guelph Aboriginal Graduate Scholarship (2016-2018). en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher University of Guelph en_US
dc.subject Animal Welfare en_US
dc.subject Animal Behaviour en_US
dc.subject Cat behaviour en_US
dc.subject Stress en_US
dc.title Improving the welfare of cats during handling and restraint en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US Population Medicine en_US Doctor of Philosophy en_US Department of Population Medicine en_US
dc.rights.license All items in the Atrium are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. University of Guelph en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
Moody_Carly_201808_PHD.pdf 1.576Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

The library is committed to ensuring that members of our user community with disabilities have equal access to our services and resources and that their dignity and independence is always respected. If you encounter a barrier and/or need an alternate format, please fill out our Library Print and Multimedia Alternate-Format Request Form. Contact us if you’d like to provide feedback:  (email address)