There is currently a lack of research examining the health and welfare implications for competitive agility dogs. The aim of this study was to examine if jump kinematics and apparent joint angles in medium (351 mm - 430 mm to the withers) and small (< 350 mm to the withers) agility dogs altered when distances between consecutive upright hurdles differ. Dogs ran a course of nine hurdles; three set at 3.6 m apart; three at 4 m apart and three at 5 m apart. Both medium (P=0.044) and small (P=0.006) dogs landed closer to the hurdle when consecutive hurdles were set at 3.6 m apart, with small dogs jumping slower at this distance (P=0.006). Results indicate that jump kinematics, but not apparent joint angles, alter when the spacing between hurdles differs. These findings may have implications for the health and welfare of agility dogs and should be used to inform future changes to rules and regulations

Birch, E

Boyd, J

Doyle, G

Pullen, A

English

 There is currently a lack of research examining the health and welfare implications for competitive agility dogs. The aim of this study was to examine if jump kinematics and apparent joint angles in medium (351-430 mm to the withers) and small (&lt;350 mm to the withers) agility dogs altered when distances between consecutive upright hurdles differ. Dogs ran a course of nine hurdles; three set at 3.6 m apart; three at 4 m apart and three at 5 m apart. Both medium (P=0.044) and small (P=0.006) dogs landed closer to the hurdle when consecutive hurdles were set 3.6 m apart, with small dogs jumping slower at this distance (P=0.006). Results indicate that jump kinematics, but not apparent joint angles, alter when the spacing between hurdles differs. These findings may have implications for the health and welfare of agility dogs and should be used to inform future changes to rules and regulations. </jats:p

E. Birch

J. Boyd

G. Doyle

A. Pullen

Crossref

Comparative Exercise Physiology

Small and medium agility dogs alter their kinematics when the distance between hurdles differs

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)

1  Short Communication  1  2 Small and medium agility dogs alter their kinematics when the distance between 3 hurdles differs 4  5  6 E. Birch a, J. Boyd a*, G. Doyle b, A. Pullen a 7  8 a School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, 9 Southwell, NG25 OQF, UK  10 b School of  Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, Stratford, London, E15 11 4LZ, UK  12  13  14  15  16 * Corresponding author. Tel.:+44 115 848 5345. 17  E-mail address: jacqueline.boyd@ntu.ac.uk  (J. Boyd). 18  19                    2  Abstract 20 There is currently a lack of research examining the health and welfare implications for 21 competitive agility dogs. The aim of this study was to examine if jump kinematics and 22 apparent joint angles in medium (351 mm – 430 mm to the withers) and small (< 350 mm to 23 the withers) agility dogs altered when distances between consecutive upright hurdles differ. 24 Dogs ran a course of nine hurdles; three set at 3.6 m apart; three at 4 m apart and three at 5 m 25 apart. Both medium (P = 0.044) and small (P = 0.006) dogs landed closer to the hurdle when 26 consecutive hurdles were set at 3.6 m apart, with small dogs jumping slower at this distance 27 (P = 0.006). Results indicate that jump kinematics, but not apparent joint angles, alter when 28 the spacing between hurdles differs. These findings may have implications for the health and 29 welfare of agility dogs and should be used to inform future changes to rules and regulations.  30  31 Keywords: canine, biomechanics, welfare 32                       3  Introduction 33 Dog agility is a sport, testing both the dog’s fitness and the owner’s ability to navigate a 34 predetermined course in the fastest time with the least faults. Within the UK, interest in the 35 sport is growing rapidly, with one competition seeing entries increase annually, from 2,200 36 dogs in 2013 to 2,700 dogs in 2014 (The Kennel Club, 2014). With this increasing popularity 37 and participation, research is required to investigate the long term health and welfare 38 implications for the canine athlete.  39  40 Due to the increasing popularity of agility, the physical demands placed upon the canine 41 athlete to progress in the sport are increasing. This observation, coupled with an increased 42 knowledge of injury risks (O’Cannapp, 2007; Levy et al., 2009; Cullen et al., 2013), suggests 43 that scientific research is required to inform and develop existing regulations in contrast to 44 them being based on arbitrary figures.  In the UK, The Kennel Club (KC) is the major 45 governing body of agility competitions, with the minimum distance between consecutive 46 obstacles in a straight line currently set at 3.6 m (The Kennel Club, 2014). Conversely, under 47 Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) regulations, the minimum distance between 48 obstacles varies based on the dog’s height classification; 4 m for small dogs and 5 m for 49 medium and large dogs (FCI, 2012). To date, no research has examined how the distance 50 between obstacles affects the jump kinematics of small and medium dogs and 51 correspondingly how this may affect the health, welfare and active longevity of the dog.  52  53 A recent study by Birch et al., (2015) examined the effects altering distances between hurdles 54 had on the jump kinematics of large agility dogs (> 431 mm at the withers). Significant 55 differences were observed, with dogs taking off and landing closer to the hurdle when 56 consecutive jumps were spaced at 3.6 m apart compared to 5 m apart. Additionally there were 57 significant differences in apparent neck, back and shoulder angles upon landing when hurdles 58 were spaced at 3.6 m apart (Birch et al., 2015). These observations might, in part, explain 59 why injuries in agility dogs are commonly reported in these locations (Cullen et al., 2013; 60 Levy et al., 2009; O’Cannapp, 2007).  61  62 As a consequence of kinematic differences being identified in large agility dogs, the aim of 63 this study was to examine whether medium (351 mm – 430 mm to the withers) and small 64 (< 350 mm to the withers) agility dogs also demonstrated altered jump kinematics as the 65 distance between hurdles altered. Specific areas of study were: (1) how take-off distance, 66 landing distance and speed altered when the distance between hurdles increased in medium (n 67 =17) and small agility dogs (n = 11), (2) how apparent neck, lumbar spine and shoulder 68 angles differed between the three distances and (3) how this compares to existing findings in 69 large agility dogs. 70  71 Materials and Methods 72 The study was undertaken in accordance with Birch et al., (2015), analysing data collected at 73 The Kennel Club International Agility Festival, 2013. The study gained full ethical approval 74 from Nottingham Trent University’s School of ARES Ethical Review Group (ARES 60, 75 2/10/2012). All dogs had a veterinary screening prior to being tested with no dogs being 76 4  withdrawn from the study (Table 1: Breed demographics). Dogs were filmed using high 77 definition video cameras (JVC GC-PX10 HD, 300fps) over nine upright hurdles: three set at 78 3.6 m apart, three at 4 m apart and three at 5 m apart (Figure 1A: Layout of hurdles used in 79 the study). Each dog ran the course of nine hurdles once, being stopped and restarted between 80 each set of three hurdles. The height of the jump was set in relation to current KC regulations; 81 small dogs jumped a hurdle set at 350 mm and medium dogs jumped a hurdle set at 450 mm. 82 Each dog was tested in the height category that it normally competed in with handlers 83 advised to run their dogs as they would during competition.  84  85 Data analyses were conducted using Dartfish software (Dartfish, 2014; Figure 1B: Mean 86 take-off and landing distance for medium dogs over the 3.6 m distance. Figure 1C: Mean 87 take-off and landing distance for medium dogs over the 5 m distance) and were analysed 88 independently by two researchers. Linear distances and apparent joint angles were measured 89 in single frames from the video, with the foot of the hurdle wing (0.48 m) being used to 90 calibrate distances. Take-off was determined as the frame immediately prior to the dog 91 leaving the ground and was measured from the hurdle wing to the tip of the trailing hind limb 92 toe. Landing was determined as the frame immediately after the dog first makes contact with 93 the ground and was measured from the back of the leading carpus to the hurdle wing. The 94 bascule phase was determined as when the dog was midpoint over the jump (Powers, 2002).   95  96 The apparent neck, back and shoulder angles were measured during the take-off, bascule and 97 landing phase of the jump. Apparent neck angle was that which formed between the top of 98 the skull, C2 and the top of the scapula. Lumbar spine angle was that which formed between 99 T13, the top of the ilium and the base of the tail. Shoulder angle was that which formed 100 between the top of the scapula, top of the humerus and the elbow. Pearson correlations 101 assessed inter-observer reliability and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to 102 assess for any differences. Tukey’s post hoc tests determined where the differences lay with 103 means (± standard error) used to report these differences.   104  105 Results  106 There were high levels of inter-observer reliability for take-off and landing distances 107 (medium; r[78] = .989, small; r[72] = .990, P < 0.001) as well as for apparent joint angles 108 (medium; r[381] = .865, small; r[297] = .888, P < 0.001). Significant differences were seen in 109 landing distances for both medium (F[2,48] = 3.338, P = 0.044) and small (F[2,33] = 5.954, 110 P = 0.006) dogs between the 3.6 m, 4 m and 5 m distances. Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed 111 medium dogs landed significantly nearer to the hurdle in the 3.6 m distance compared to the 112 5 m distance (3.6 m; 0.83 m ± 0.06, 5 m; 1.09 m ± 0.08, P = 0.035). Small dogs also landed 113 nearer to the hurdle during the 3.6 m distance compared to the 5 m distance (3.6 m; 0.6 m ± 114 0.06, 5 m; 0.93 m ± 0.07, P = 0.005). (Figure 2A: Mean landing distances for small and 115 medium dogs).  116  117 When examining speed, landing speed differed for small dogs (F[2,30] = 6.061, P = 0.006) 118 with Tukey’s post hoc tests revealing dogs land faster during the 5 m (5.42 m/s ± 0.25) 119 distance compared to the 4 m (4.49 m/s ± 0.25) and 3.6 m (4.31 m/s ± 0.24) distance (P < 120 0.05) (Figure 2B: Mean landing speeds for medium and small dogs).  121 5   122 Discussion 123 This study demonstrated very high levels of inter-observer reliability adding to the validity of 124 the study. The findings suggest medium and small dogs demonstrate similar jump kinematics 125 to large agility dogs, whereby dogs land closer to the hurdle when consecutive hurdles are 126 closer together (Birch et al., 2015). The similarity in take-off distance for medium (3.6 m; 127 1.14 m ± 0.08, 4 m; 1.22 m ± 0.08, 5 m; 1.25 m ± 0.06, P > 0.05) and small (3.6 m; 1.06 m ± 128 0.05, 4 m; 1.02 m ± 0.05, 5 m; 0.91 ± 0.06, P > 0.05) dogs could potentially be a 129 consequence of the distance between hurdles being proportionately greater for them in 130 comparison to large dogs. Indeed, large dogs typically ‘bounced’ (i.e. did not add a stride) 131 between the 3.6 m hurdle distance compared to medium and small dogs who were able to 132 include additional strides. Powers (2002), identified that successful show jumping horses take 133 off further from the jump during a puissance competition compared to unsuccessful horses. 134 Thus, medium and small dogs, due to their ability to add strides between hurdles, may be 135 more able to adopt an optimum take-off distance compared to large dogs at the 3.6 m 136 distance. When examining medium dogs, landing distance differed significantly but speed did 137 not. This potentially could lead to larger impulses upon landing in supporting the dog’s body 138 mass against gravity. This illustrates how the distance between hurdles has potential for 139 health and welfare implications in medium dogs.  140  141 There were no significant differences in apparent joint angles between the three distances 142 (P > 0.05) for either medium or small dogs. This observation may be a consequence of the 143 wide diversity of breeds within medium and small height categories. Within the medium and 144 small height categories, 32% were cocker spaniels and 32% terriers, with the remaining 36% 145 consisting of other breeds. In contrast, 80% of large dogs in Birch et al., (2015) study were 146 border collies and working sheepdogs, illustrating the larger diversity of breeds in small and 147 medium height classifications. Anecdotally, there are breed and conformational differences in 148 jumping styles, with this divergence likely being reflected in the large standard deviations of 149 apparent joint angles for these dogs. Indeed, the high rate of inter-observer reliability 150 supports the notion of different jumping styles, as opposed to an increased difficulty in 151 measuring apparent joint angles for small and medium dogs. One study has previously 152 identified that forelimb conformation differed significantly between elite and non-elite agility 153 border collies illustrating that differences in conformation may affect jumping ability even 154 within the same breed (Birkbeck et al., 2012).  155  156 The findings from this study support previous research and add to the knowledge of how 157 spacing between hurdles alters the kinematics of agility dogs. It would be useful to determine 158 breed specific jumping profiles in healthy agility dogs for future research as well as assessing 159 if level of ability impacts upon take-off and landing distances in medium and small dogs.  160 The research suggests that competitive rules and regulations should no longer be based upon 161 arbitrary figures and rather, on scientific observations to ensure optimum canine health and 162 welfare. 163  164 Acknowledgments 165 6  The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Steve Croxford, Rachel Mowbray (Pet 166 Rehab), Emma Fretwell (Pet Rehab), Natasha Wise, Sue Gibson, Becky Gibson and 167 Alexandra Haskins as well as all the handlers and their dogs during data collection. The 168 authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful and thought 169 provoking comments.  170  171 References 172 Birkbeck, L. Boyd, J. and White, C., 2012. A Comparison of conformational traits of elite 173 and non-elite agility Border Collie dogs: a preliminary study, Poster presentation at ICEL 7. 174  175 Birch, E. Boyd, J. Doyle, G. and Pullen, A., 2015. The effects of altered distances between 176 hurdles on the jump kinematics and apparent joint angulations of large agility dogs. The 177 Veterinary Journal. In Press.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.02.019 178  179 Cullen, K. A. Dickey, J. P. Bent, L. R. Thomason, J. J. and Moens, N. M. M., 2013. Survey-180 based analysis of risk factors for injury among dogs participating in agility training and 181 competition events. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 243, 101-1024. 182  183 Dartfish., 2014. http://www.dartfish.com/en/  (accessed 12 February 2015) 184  185 Federation Cynologique Internationale., 2012. Agility regulations of the Federation 186 Cynologique International. http://www.fci.be/en/Agility-45.html (accessed 12 February 2015) 187  188 Levy, M. Hall, C. Trentacosta, N. and Percival, M., 2009. A preliminary retrospective survey 189 of injuries occurring in dogs participating in canine agility. Veterinary and Comparative 190 Orthopaedics and Traumatology 22, 321-324. 191  192 O’ Cannapp, S., 2007. Shoulder conditions in agility dogs. Focus on Canine Sports Medicine. 193 http://www.akcchf.org/assets/files/canine-athlete/Biceps-injury.pdf.  (accessed 12 February 194 2015) 195  196 Powers, P., 2002. The take off kinematics of jumping horses in a puissance competition. 20th 197 International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sport, Extremadure, Spain, 1-5 July 2002,  198 https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/667/589 (accessed 3 February 2015). 199  200 The Kennel Club., 2014. Agility. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/activities/agility/ 201 (accessed 12 February 2015) 202  203 Appendix  204 Table 1: Breed demographics 205 Height category Breed Type Number of dogs Medium Spaniel (cocker & springer) 6 Medium Terrier  4 Medium Miniature poodle 1 Medium Kelpie & border collie 3 Medium Duck tolling retriever  1 Medium Miniature schnauzer 1 Medium Shetland sheepdog 1 7  Small Spaniel (cocker) 3 Small Toy poodle 1 Small Terrier 5 Small Swedish vallhund 1 Small Bassett fauvre de bretagne 1   206   

5345. 17 E-mail address: jacqueline.boyd@ntu.ac.uk

Small and medium agility dogs alter their kinematics when the distance between hurdles differs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)