Journal Articles
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Use of an expert elicitation methodology to compare welfare impacts of two approaches for blood sampling European badgers (Meles meles) in the field.(Cambridge University Press, 2024-03-15) Colloff A; Baker SE; Beausoleil NJ; Sharp T; Golledge H; Lane J; Cox R; Siwonia M; Delahay RIn the UK and Republic of Ireland, the European badger (Meles meles) is considered the most significant wildlife reservoir of the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis, the cause of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). To expand options for bTB surveillance and disease control, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a bespoke physical restraint cage to facilitate collection of a small blood sample from a restrained, conscious badger in the field. A key step, prior to pursuing operational deployment of the novel restraint cage, was an assessment of the relative welfare impacts of the approach. We used an established welfare assessment model to elicit expert opinion during two workshops to compare the impacts of the restraint cage approach with the only current alternative for obtaining blood samples from badgers in the field, which involves administration of a general anaesthetic. Eleven panellists participated in the workshops, comprising experts in the fields of wildlife biology, animal welfare science, badger capture and sampling, and veterinary science. Both approaches were assessed to have negative welfare impacts, although in neither case were overall welfare scores higher than intermediate, never exceeding 5-6 out of a possible 8. Based on our assessments, the restraint cage approach is no worse for welfare compared to using general anaesthesia and possibly has a lower overall negative impact on badger welfare. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of badger welfare alongside other factors, including financial cost and efficiency, when selecting a field method for blood sampling free-living badgers.Item No evidence for sampling bias caused by capture method or time in Apteryx mantelli(New Zealand Ecological Society, 2023-06-14) Undin M; Castro I; Witehira R; Wood JSampling bias can have dire consequences for research. One potential source of bias is combining different sampling methods in the same study. However, combining methods can be unavoidable, for instance, when sampling method selection depends upon factors such as population density or terrain. A case at hand is the use of night-time encounter catching by people or daytime catching using certified dogs for studies of Apteryx mantelli, North Island brown kiwi, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Here, we compare these sampling methods to determine whether (1) combining them risks inducing a demographic bias to the sample set, and (2) they differ in regards to blood parameters used for comparing populations (packed cell volume, glucose, plasma protein, haemoglobin). Sixty-five birds were caught during the day from their roosts using a certified dog, and 62 birds were caught at night while foraging. The results suggest that both methods capture a comparable subset of a population, with the potential exception that more very young juveniles were caught using the day method. Furthermore, no physiological effects were evident from comparing haematological parameters. We also found no difference in blood sampling success between night and day, but observed that blood extraction was more difficult at night. Hence, we demonstrate that either method, or a combination of both, can be considered for future studies. Notably, we found that night-time encounter catching had a superior success rate in very high-density populations. Since this method also negates dependency on the limited number of certified dogs, we suggest that benefits may exist through increasing the utilisation of night-time encounter catching in A. mantelli research. We suggest that future studies should consider measuring the stress levels caused by each of the methods, and quantify the effects of habitat type and terrain on sampling success.
