Search

Simple Summary Little is known about the ability of reptile owners to meet the needs of their pet animals. In this study, 220 pet reptile owners in Portugal reported their knowledge of reptile behaviors and the provision of essential husbandry needs (temperature, lighting, diet and refuge). Although two-thirds of respondents scored very good to excellent in terms of interpreting their pet reptile’s behaviors, 85% failed to provide at least one of the four husbandry needs. Moreover, behaviors indicative of poor welfare and captivity stress were considered ‘normal’ by some respondents. These results suggest that many pet reptiles in Portugal live in, at best, ‘controlled deprivation’ and are at risk of suffering poor welfare throughout their lives. Despite this, none of the respondents reported their reptile’s welfare as very poor, and a single respondent reported it as poor. We suggest that poor welfare and abnormal behaviors in pet reptiles have become accepted as normal, precluding the search for ways to prevent them. These results suggest that campaigns aimed at challenging the current norm for adequate reptile welfare are warranted. In particular, the predominant view, propelled by the exotic pet industry, that reptiles are low-maintenance pets needs to be actively refuted. Abstract The ability to meet the needs of each species in captivity is at the heart of the ethical debate on the acceptability of keeping reptiles and other animals as pets. Little is known about the ability of reptile owners to understand their pets’ behavior and to meet their welfare requirements. In this study, we surveyed pet reptile owners in Portugal (N = 220) to assess their behavioral knowledge and the provision of essential husbandry needs. Although two-thirds of respondents (68%) scored very good to excellent in terms of knowledge of their pet reptile’s behaviors, only 15% of respondents met four essential reptile husbandry needs (temperature, lighting, diet and refuge) and 43% met two or less. None of the respondents reported their reptile’s welfare as very poor, and only a single respondent reported it as poor. Logistic regression model showed that while snake owners had fourteen times higher odds of reporting adequate husbandry provision, lizard owners had the highest odds of reporting good or very good welfare despite providing less of their animals’ basic husbandry needs. These results suggest that many pet reptiles in Portugal live in, at best, ‘controlled deprivation’ and are at risk of suffering poor welfare throughout their captive lives. Moreover, behaviors indicative of poor welfare and captivity stress were considered ‘normal’ by up to one quarter of respondents. We suggest that the frequency of these behaviors in pet reptiles has led to their acceptance as normal, precluding the search for ways to prevent them. These results suggest that campaigns aimed at challenging the current norm for adequate reptile welfare are warranted.

Part 2 of this narrative review outlines the theoretical and practical bases for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of conventional medicines and homeopathic products. Known and postulated mechanisms of action are critically reviewed. The evidence for clinical efficacy of products in both categories, in the form of practitioner experience, meta-analysis and systematic reviews of clinical trial results, is discussed. The review also addresses problems and pitfalls in assessing data, and the ethical and negative aspects of pharmacology and homeopathy in veterinary medicine.

For many years after its invention around 1796, homeopathy was widely used in people and later in animals. Over the intervening period (1796-2016) pharmacology emerged as a science from Materia Medica (medicinal materials) to become the mainstay of veterinary therapeutics. There remains today a much smaller, but significant, use of homeopathy by veterinary surgeons. Homeopathic products are sometimes administered when conventional drug therapies have not succeeded, but are also used as alternatives to scientifically based therapies and licensed products. The principles underlying the veterinary use of drug-based and homeopathic products are polar opposites; this provides the basis for comparison between them. This two-part review compares and contrasts the two treatment forms in respect of history, constituents, methods of preparation, known or postulated mechanisms underlying responses, the legal basis for use and scientific credibility in the 21st century. Part 1 begins with a consideration of why therapeutic products actually work or appear to do so.

Background Current estimates of the UK dog population vary, contain potential sources of bias and are based on expensive, large scale, public surveys. Here, we evaluate the potential of a variety of sources for estimation and monitoring of the companion dog population in the UK and associated demographic information. The sources considered were: a public survey; veterinary practices; pet insurance companies; micro-chip records; Kennel Club registrations; and the Pet Travel Scheme. The public survey and subpopulation estimates from veterinary practices, pet insurance companies and Kennel Club registrations, were combined to generate distinct estimates of the UK owned dog population using a Bayesian approach. Results We estimated there are 9.4 (95% CI: 8.1-11.5) million companion dogs in the UK according to the public survey alone, which is similar to other recent estimates. The population was judged to be over-estimated by combining the public and veterinary surveys (16.4, 95% CI: 12.5-21.5 million) and under-estimated by combining the public survey and insured dog numbers (4.8, 95% CI: 3.6-6.9 million). An estimate based on combining the public survey and Kennel Club registered dogs was 7.1 (95% CI: 4.5-12.9) million. Based on Bayesian estimations, 77 (95% CI: 62-92)% of the UK dog population were registered at a veterinary practice; 42 (95% CI: 29-55)% of dogs were insured; and 29 (95% CI: 17-43)% of dogs were Kennel Club registered. Breed demographics suggested the Labrador was consistently the most popular breed registered in micro-chip records, with the Kennel Club and with J. Sainsbury's PLC pet insurance. A comparison of the demographics between these sources suggested that popular working breeds were under-represented and certain toy, utility and miniature breeds were over- represented in the Kennel Club registrations. Density maps were produced from micro-chip records based on the geographical distribution of dogs. Conclusions A list containing the breed of each insured dog was provided by J. Sainsbury's PLC pet insurance without any accompanying information about the dog or owner.

Twitter is increasingly used in education. In this article, Twitter was evaluated for its potential to aid veterinary students in their preparation for final examinations. "#VetFinals" revision sessions were facilitated by experts on a variety of topics. The initiative was evaluated through consideration of potential participants, session content and student experiences. In analysis of nine sessions, 52 students participated from eight veterinary schools. During a session, the facilitator tweeted 66 times on average, primarily asking a general question. Students on average tweeted 84 times, mostly in response to facilitators. They also asked novel questions and responded to fellow students. Focus groups and interviews with 11 students suggested that: sessions are useful for preparation/self-testing to succeed in exams; the facilitator and session style impact on learning; the sessions feel like personalized learning; there are elements of safety and exposure leading to some fear of tweeting; peer-learning promotes competition; a community of learners was formed; Twitter has become a part of normal professional life. Whilst not all students will take part in this type of social media use, many found it beneficial. The importance of the facilitator suggests the need for faculty development.