Benka, Valerie presentation

Views:
 
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

PowerPoint Presentation:

Valerie Benka, Project Manager, ACC&D o n behalf of ACC&D’s Scientific Think Tank Team Identifying and Prioritizing Marking Methods for Non-Surgically Sterilized Cats and Dogs

The objective:

The objective To identify a new method, or improve upon an existing method, to mark animals as non-surgically sterilized or contracepted.

Target Populations (our focus)::

Target Populations (our focus): Non-surgically sterilized cats, particularly free-roaming/feral populations Non-surgically sterilized free-roaming/ community dogs Dogs and cats who are temporarily contracepted and require re-treatment, with a focus on free-roaming/community populations Potential applications for: Surgically sterilized free-roaming cat and dog populations Rabies vaccination campaigns (free-roaming animals, esp. dogs) Even livestock and marked/monitored wildlife populations

Decision Tree (cats):

Is visual ID also required? Need information about the individual? Short (< 1 mo ): e.g., rabies vax campaign Paint or similar Recapture animal Updatable mark? May need RFID if required info exceeds tag capacity Duration of mark? Permanent: e.g., surgery, non-surgical sterilant Anesthesia used? Ear tipping Ear stud Decision Tree (cats) Medium (< 3 year): e.g., long-term contraceptive, 3-year rabies vax Add RFID to methods under “duration of mark?” RFID tag Yes No Yes Yes No No

Multi-Phase Process:

Multi-Phase Process Literature review of current marking techniques What currently exists and uses , pros, and cons of these options; findings from wildlife and livestock InnoCentive Challenge ( www.innocentive.com ) Crowd-sourcing innovation 367 participants from around the globe, 74 active solvers, 99 proposed solutions  2 winners, 2 runners-up Solutions provided foundation for Think Tank Scientific Think Tank Convened experts, professionally facilitated, included presentation on Dr. Leoci’s preliminary study findings Yielded consensus about desired/necessary features of mark and recommendations for how to proceed

PowerPoint Presentation:

Think Tank Participants Scientific and expert panel: Dr. John Boone Kelly Coladarci Bruce Earnest Dr. Amy Fischer John Friar Dr. Stan Gehrt Dr. Michelle Kutzler Dr. Cynthia Mills Anne Olscher Gene Pancheri William Perlman Dr. Sheilah Robertson Aileen L. Walden ACC&D representatives: Joyce Briggs Valerie Benka Research presentation: Dr. Raffaella Leoci Facilitation: Dorian Simpson Ed de la Fuente (Planning Innovations Group) Scientific Reporting: Dr. Tamara Golden (Golden Bioscience Communications, LLC) Many thanks to our Think Tank sponsor:

Marking Criteria: Minimum and Ideal:

Marking Criteria: Minimum and Ideal Criteria Minimum Ideal Visibility ~ 12 ft >25 ft Permanence >3 years Life of animal Behavioral Impact (i.e., interference with normal behavior, other animals, or humans) None None Application Time required <10 minutes 5 seconds Training required to apply mark Little None Humane/pain level No anesthesia, pain controllable/very brief No anesthesia, no pain Cost per application <$10 <$1 Application device cost Deferred discussion Deferred discussion Information Retrieval Ease of Retrieval Visual reading or simple device Visual + data capture Quantity of information Treated (yes/no) Type of treatment, date(s) of treatment, other Info retrieval device cost <$50 $0

PowerPoint Presentation:

Used for dogs and/or cats Observation/imaging Collars Microchips Tattoo Ear tags Ear notching Ear tipping Freeze branding Current Marking Methods Used for other species Leg bands DNA profiling Iris /retinal scanning Hot branding Paint

Solutions:

Solutions Focused on ear marking to enhance visibility To date, have ear tag options really been optimized? Opportunities for innovation: materials, shape, placement, analgesia, antiseptic/antibiotic, piercing mechanism Optional RFID technology

Solutions: Visible Component :

Solutions: Visible Component Ear stud with disk. Advanced material (e.g., flexible, non-reactive silicone). Disk potentially convex /concave to reduce contact with fur /skin . Bright center post, color- or shape-coded to ID procedure, date, location applied, additional desired information . Apply with ear piercing-type gun using local anesthetic/NSAID/antiseptic – e.g., Tri-Solfen . Use squeeze trap for cats. Outreach component (option for caretaker to have matching stud, community education about meaning of stud/colors).

Solutions, cont’d: Visible component:

Solutions, cont’d: Visible component Flexible (breathable? reflective?) ear wrap attached with 2+ thin posts, folded over ear Appropriately sized/shaped for individual animal. Color-coded or patterned to convey information. Apply with local anesthetic/NSAID/antiseptic – e.g., Tri- Solfen . Use squeeze trap for cats.

Solutions, cont’d: Technology add-ons:

Solutions, cont’d : Technology add-ons Optional add-on: SAW RFID/QR code External placement = extended range Possibility of adding RFID or QR code once optimal “tag” design is determined Value -add: “smart traps” release treated animals, auto-monitoring using detectors at feed stations

Next Steps:

Next Steps Tag and application design : Design and fabricate tag prototypes, accounting for myriad factors and outsourcing to experts. Study design : Controlled and field. Potential partner outreach : Identified broad potential partner categories, plus multiple possible partners within each. Explore opportunities for partnerships. Community considerations : Account for cultural and physical barriers to application/compliance in target communities.

Interested in learning more?:

Interested in learning more? Check out our complete Think Tank report and literature review of current marking methods in the 5 th International Symposium online proceedings. Questions/suggestions? We’d love to hear from you! Please contact Valerie at valerie@acc-d.org , (734) 780- 7817.

authorStream Live Help