Data collection for TeamMate was carried out over a period spanning May 2014 to the second half of 2018 (Figure 1). Enrolment of dog owners and dogs was completed in May 2016. In total 126 owners associated with 116 farms participated in the study and 641 working farm dogs were enrolled.
1.1 Farming properties and dog owners
All farms were located in Otago and Canterbury, on New Zealand’s South Island (Figure 2).
Table 1 summarises the number of farms, dog owners and dogs by types of terrain and stock present on the property. The median property size was 1511 ha (IQR = 501 – 4500 ha). Stock types and numbers were reported for 115 farming properties. The total number of stock animals on farm ranged from 12 to 36 000 animals, with a median of 4320 stock animals per farming property (IQR = 2220 – 6350).
Eighty-four percent (106 of 126, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 78% – 91%) of working farm dog owners were male, 58% (66 of 113, 95% CI = 49% – 67%) were the farm owner, 19% (22 of 113, 95% CI = 12% – 27%) were the farm manager and 19% (21 of 113, 95% CI = 11% – 26%) were employees. Sixty-three percent (75 of 120, 95% CI = 54% – 71%) had participated in training relating to farm dogs. Figure 3 shows the owners’ age ranges and years of experience working with farm dogs. At the time of enrolment the median number of dogs per owner was four (range 1 – 9).
[[Table 1]]
1.2 Farm dogs
1.2.1 Population features
Population features of all dogs enrolled in TeamMate are summarised in Table 2. The median age of enrolled dogs was four years (IQR = 2 – 6). Mean body weight across all enrolled dogs was 26 kg (n = 608, SD = 6), with some differences seen between types of dogs (Figure 4). Median BCS was four out of nine (n = 634, IQR = 3 – 5), with a range of one to seven.
More females than males were neutered (Table 2). In females, 15 dogs were reported to have been neutered due to medical issues such as vaginal prolapse, pyometra or problems with pregnancy or whelping, four to prevent unwanted pregnancies and two due to their temperament. It should be noted that though seven female dogs were reported to have been neutered due to ‘prolapse’ or ‘vaginal prolapse’, these cases are more likely to be mis-identified cases of vaginal hyperplasia. In fact, one case was reported as ‘Prolapse / vaginal hyperplasia’. Four males were reported to have been neutered due to unspecified behavioural issues, four to prevent fighting and unwanted mating, three due to prostate disease and one to both stop mating and correct an unspecified body weight issue. Six females and one male had no recorded reason for being neutered.
The main modes of work New Zealand working dogs are trained to carry out are outlined in Table 3, and the distribution of working roles between the Heading dog and Huntaway types of dog is seen in Table 4. Note that ‘Heading dog’ and ‘Huntaway’ refers to the type of dog, while ‘Head’ and ‘Hunt’ refers to specific tasks carried out by working farm dogs. While the naming of the dog types is related to the work these dogs normally do, there is an amount of overlap in the tasks dogs in this dataset have been trained to carry out.
Table 2 shows the origins of all dogs in the study. Of the 466 dogs that had been acquired from another person, money was exchanged for 216 or 46% (95% CI = 42% – 51%). One hundred eighty-two of the remaining dogs were given at no cost and 51 dogs were traded. Trades involved alcohol (typically cases of beer), exchanging for another dog, or various other items. The median age at acquisition was 12 weeks (n = 466, IQR = 8 – 104). Fifty-four percent (n = 250 of 466, 95% CI = 49% – 58%) of the dogs had received no training prior to arriving with their current owner, 22% (n = 102, 95% CI = 18% – 26%) had been partly trained and 19% (n = 90, 95% CI = 16% – 23%) were fully trained. Twenty-four dogs had no record of their level of training on arrival. Across all purchased dogs in which money was exchanged the median price was NZ$800 (n = 216, range = NZ$26 to NZ$8000). Figure 5 illustrates the range of purchase prices stratified by level of training at the time of purchase.
[[Table 2]]
Table 3: An overview of the modes of work commonly done by New Zealand working farm dogs. Dogs can be trained to carry out one or several modes of work.
Mode of work
|
Description
|
Head
|
The dog circles around to the head of the herd and uses its positioning to gather, stop and redirect animals. This type of work is typically, but not exclusively, carried out by Heading dogs.
|
|
|
Hunt
|
The dog uses its bark and position to apply pressure to the herd from behind in order to move the animals forward. This type of work is typically, but not exclusively, carried out by Huntaways.
|
|
|
Yard work
|
Any work done in stockyards and runs.
|
|
|
Catch
|
Separating one or several specific animals from the herd.
|
Table 4: Number and percentage (with 95% CI) of Heading dogs (n = 314) and Huntaways (n = 308) stratified by the ways in which they were trained to move stock. Data were collected from 641 working farm dogs enrolled in TeamMate. Percentages do not add up to 100% as many dogs were trained to carry out more than one mode of work.
|
Heading dogs
|
|
Huntaways
|
Mode of work
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
Head
|
291
|
93 (90 – 96)
|
|
81
|
26 (21 – 31)
|
Hunt
|
17
|
5 (3 – 8)
|
|
284
|
92 (89 – 95)
|
Yard work
|
52
|
17 (12 – 21)
|
|
253
|
82 (78 – 86)
|
Catch
|
132
|
42 (37 – 48)
|
|
44
|
14 (10 – 18)
|
Not reported
|
17
|
5
|
|
16
|
5
|
1.2.2 Husbandry practices and feeding
Table 5 summarises a range of variables related to husbandry and housing of enrolled dogs. Of 34 dogs that did not have bedding in their kennel five were noted to have rejected the bedding provided to them and 13 to have bedding in winter. Six of the 333 dogs that were reported to not wear a coat were reported to have rejected it.
Table 6 shows the types of food dogs had been fed in the six months prior to enrolment in the study, and Table 7 shows what combinations of foods dogs were fed at their most recent meal prior to enrolment. ‘Meat sourced on farm’ refers to livestock, and occasionally game animals, that have been killed and butchered on farm.
[[Table 5]]
Table 6: The numbers and percentages of dog owners stratified by the types of foods they reported to have given to their working farm dogs during a 6–month period. Data were collected from 126 working farm dog owners participating in TeamMate. Note that percentages do not add up to 100% because many owners fed more than one type of food.
Food fed to dogs
|
Owners
|
% (95% CI)
|
Meat
|
107
|
85 (79 – 91)
|
Source
|
|
|
Sourced on farm
|
105
|
83 (77 – 90)
|
Purchased
|
16
|
13 (7 – 19)
|
Treatment
|
|
|
Frozen
|
100
|
79 (72 – 86)
|
Fresh
|
27
|
21 (14 – 28)
|
Offal
|
28
|
22 (15 – 29)
|
Cooked
|
25
|
20 (13 – 27)
|
Fresh
|
1
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
Commercial dog food
|
113
|
90 (84 – 95)
|
Dry dog food
|
111
|
88 (82 – 94)
|
Wet dog food
|
54
|
43 (34 – 51)
|
Other commercial food
|
27
|
21 (14 – 29)
|
Not recorded
|
8
|
6 (2 – 11)
|
Table 7: The number and percentage of working farm dogs stratified by the types of foods comprising their most recent meal at the time of their enrolment to the study. Data were collected from 641 working farm dogs enrolled in TeamMate. Combinations of foods that were fed to fewer than 10 dogs are combined and listed as ‘Other combinations’.
Most recent meal
|
Dogs
|
% (95% CI)
|
Meat only
|
242
|
38 (34 – 42)
|
Dry commercial food only
|
207
|
32 (29 – 36)
|
Meat and dry dog food
|
85
|
13 (11 – 16)
|
Dry and wet dog foods
|
25
|
4 (2 – 5)
|
Wet dog food only
|
14
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Meat, dry and wet dog foods
|
13
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Dry and other commercial foods
|
10
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Other combinations
|
30
|
5 (3 – 6)
|
1.2.3 Clinical examination
The prevalence of abnormal findings in each of the main categories, and the prevalence of abnormalities in Heading dogs and Huntaways can be seen in Table 8. For those dogs in which at least one abnormality was recorded, the median number of abnormalities per dog was three (IQR = 1 – 4). Note that recorded abnormalities in this study include anything that deviates from the ideal, including signs of previously healed injuries and normal wear that do not necessarily represent reduced health or welfare at the time of examination. As no clear differences were seen between Heading dogs and Huntaways in the prevalence of the major types of abnormalities, the remaining results are presented for the entire population without stratification by type of dog.
Twenty-nine percent of dogs (183 of 641, 95% CI = 25% – 32%) had at least one musculoskeletal abnormality in the hind limbs, 20% of dogs (130 of 641, 95% CI = 17% – 23%) had an abnormality in the front limbs and 7% of dogs (44 of 641, 95% CI = 5% – 9%) had an abnormality in the spine or tail. Lameness on trot was observed in 12% of all dogs (83 of 641, 95% CI = 10% – 16%) or 26% of dogs with a musculoskeletal abnormality (78 of 272, 95% CI = 21% – 31%). Table 9 and Table 10 show the prevalence of a range of musculoskeletal abnormalities in the forelimbs and hind quarters (including the tail), and the number of those dogs that were also lame when trotted up. Twenty-three dogs (n = 641, 4%, 95% CI = 2% – 5%) had abnormalities relating to the ribs and spine (excluding the tail) that could not be categorised as belonging to the front or hind part of the body. They are therefore not represented in the tables. Twenty-one dogs (n = 641, 3%, 95% CI = 2% – 5%) showed signs of pain on manipulation of the spine. Ten of these 21 dogs were also lame on trot-up (48%, 95% CI = 26% – 69%). One dog was recorded to have a swelling at the sacroiliac joint and to also be lame in the hind quarters. Additionally, one dog had an abnormal curvature of the lumbar spine, and one dog was recorded to have a protruding 13th rib on the left side. These two dogs were not observed to be lame.
Table 11 shows the prevalence of the different types of skin, eye and reproductive system abnormalities. Fifty-eight dogs (n = 641, 9%, 95% CI = 7% – 11%) had a callous and/or a healed scar with no other skin abnormality present. Ninety-three percent of dogs with skin callouses had them on the legs (93 of 100, 95% CI = 88% – 98%). Of dogs with a healed scar, an open or healing wound or both, 65% (100 of 153, 95% CI = 58% – 73%) had them on the face or ear, 35% (53 of 153, 95% CI = 27% – 42%) on the legs, 11% (17 of 153, 95% CI = 6% – 16%) on the torso, 8% (12 of 153, 95% CI = 4% – 12%) on the foot (including nails) and one on the tail. Types of skin abnormalities categorised as ‘Other’ included six dogs with missing nails, eight with poor coat condition, three that were missing part of an ear, two with pruritus, and one dog that had abnormal wear of the nails on one foot.
Table 12 shows the prevalence and placement of recorded clinical abnormalities relating to the teeth. Abnormalities classed as ‘Other’ included eight dogs with periodontitis or tooth abscesses, three dogs were observed to have a focal enamel defect and one had several retained juvenile incisors. Additionally, three dogs had gingivitis and two dogs had soft tissue injuries in the mouth.
Ocular abnormalities categorised in Table 11 as ‘Other’ included four dogs with conjunctivitis, two with evidence of uveitis, and one with signs of both conjunctivitis and uveitis. Four dogs had tumours related to the meibomian gland, seven were blind or had reduced vision, two had brown discolouration of the iris, two had corneal ulcers, two had one missing eye, two had conjunctival discharge, and one dog had a unilateral deformity of the third eyelid.
Nineteen females and one male dog were recorded to have mammary tumours. In females, reproductive system abnormalities classed in Table 11 as ‘Other’ included nine females with mammary hyperplasia, two dogs with an extra nipple, one dog with vaginal discharge eight weeks post whelping, and one dog was recorded to have vaginal prolapse. As mentioned above, the case reported as vaginal prolapse is likely to be a mis-characterised case of vaginal hyperplasia. In males, six dogs were cryptorchid, three had testes of unequal size, one had an enlarged prostate, one had scar tissue on the penis and one dog was described as having ‘small, soft testicles’.
Four dogs had one swollen popliteal lymph node, three had one or two swollen prescapular lymph nodes, one had one swollen mandibular lymph node and one dog had one swollen inguinal lymph node. Four dogs had an unclassified heart arrhythmia and two had a heart murmur. One dog had been diagnosed with a diaphragmatic hernia following an accident and one had a slight unilateral wheeze on auscultation. Three dogs had umbilical hernias, one dog had an anal gland abscess and one was reported to have haematuria.
Table 8: The number and percentage (with 95% CI) of dogs that were recorded to have at least one abnormal clinical finding, stratified by body system. Numbers and percentages are shown for the entire population (n = 641) along with numbers and percentages of the two main types of dog: Heading dogs (n = 314) and Huntaways (n = 308). Data were collected from 641 working farm dogs that were enrolled in TeamMate. Percentages do not add up to 100% as many dogs were recorded to have more than one type of clinical abnormality.
|
All dogs
|
|
Heading dogs
|
|
Huntaways
|
Type of abnormality
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
Musculoskeletal
|
272
|
42 (39 – 46)
|
|
121
|
39 (33 – 44)
|
|
143
|
46 (41 – 52)
|
Skin
|
272
|
42 (39 – 46)
|
|
129
|
41 (36 – 47)
|
|
138
|
45 (39 – 50)
|
Oropharyngeal
|
227
|
35 (32 – 39)
|
|
122
|
39 (33 – 44)
|
|
96
|
31 (26 – 36)
|
Ocular
|
66
|
10 (8 – 13)
|
|
35
|
11 (8 – 15)
|
|
30
|
10 (6 – 13)
|
Reproductive
|
45
|
7 (5 – 9)
|
|
15
|
5 (2 – 7)
|
|
27
|
9 (6 – 12)
|
Lymph nodes
|
9
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
|
2
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
|
6
|
2 (0 – 3)
|
Heart
|
6
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
|
5
|
2 (0 – 3)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
Hernia
|
3
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
|
2
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
Respiratory
|
2
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
Gastrointestinal
|
1
|
0 (0 – 0)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
Urinary
|
1
|
0 (0 – 0)
|
|
1
|
0 (0 – 1)
|
|
0
|
0
|
Other
|
3
|
1 (0 – 1)
|
|
3
|
1 (0 – 2)
|
|
0
|
0
|
Any abnormality
|
476
|
74 (71 – 78)
|
|
230
|
73 (68 – 78)
|
|
235
|
76 (72 – 81)
|
[[Table 9]]
[[Table 10]]
Table 11: The number and percentage (with 95% CI) of working farm dogs with reported abnormal findings associated with the skin, eyes and reproductive systems. Data were collected from 641 working farm dogs that were enrolled in TeamMate. Types of clinical abnormalities that were recorded in fewer than 10 dogs are combined and listed as ‘Other’. Note that dogs could be recorded to have more than one clinical abnormality.
Type of abnormal finding
|
Dogs
|
% (95% CI)
|
Skin
|
|
|
Callous
|
100
|
16 (13 – 18)
|
Scar
|
98
|
15 (13 – 18)
|
Laceration
|
68
|
11 (8 – 13)
|
Inflammation
|
31
|
5 (3 – 6)
|
Mass
|
30
|
5 (3 – 6)
|
Alopecia
|
28
|
4 (3 – 6)
|
Infection
|
12
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Other
|
21
|
3 (2 – 5)
|
Eyes
|
|
|
Opacity
|
37
|
6 (4 – 8)
|
Scarring
|
10
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Other
|
25
|
4 (2 – 5)
|
Reproductive system
|
|
|
Mammary tumour
|
21
|
3 (2 – 5)
|
Other
|
24
|
4 (2 – 5)
|
Table 12: The number and percentage (with 95% CI) of working farm dogs that were recorded to have clinical abnormalities related to the teeth. Types of abnormalities are shown stratified by location in the mouth as well as combined. Data were collected from 641 working farm dogs that were enrolled in TeamMate. Types of clinical abnormalities that were recorded in fewer than 10 dogs are combined and listed as ‘Other’. Note that dogs could be recorded to have more than one tooth abnormality.
|
Front teeth
|
Back teeth
|
General
|
|
All locations
|
Type of abnormal finding
|
n
|
n
|
n
|
|
n
|
% (95% CI)
|
Tooth fracture(s)
|
84
|
13
|
7
|
|
104
|
16 (13 – 19)
|
Tooth wear
|
55
|
8
|
17
|
|
80
|
12 (10 – 15)
|
Tooth / teeth missing
|
36
|
2
|
4
|
|
42
|
7 (5 – 8)
|
Tartar
|
2
|
3
|
21
|
|
26
|
4 (3 – 6)
|
Malocclusion
|
1
|
1
|
17
|
|
18
|
3 (2 – 4)
|
Tooth discolouration
|
9
|
1
|
1
|
|
11
|
2 (1 – 3)
|
Other
|
8
|
4
|
0
|
|
12
|
2 (1 – 3)
|