Beyond Cortisol! Physiological Indicators of Welfare for Dogs: Deficits, Misunderstandings and Opportunities

TL;DR

This paper discusses the limitations of cortisol as a welfare indicator for dogs and explores alternative physiological measures, emphasizing a systems approach and the importance of context for accurate welfare assessment.

Contribution

It highlights the shortcomings of current biomarkers like cortisol and proposes a comprehensive, evidence-based framework incorporating multiple physiological indicators for better welfare evaluation.

Findings

Cortisol alone is insufficient to assess canine welfare accurately.

Alternative indicators like heart rate variability and oxidative stress show promise.

Considering factors like age, breed, and sex is crucial for interpreting physiological data.

Abstract

This paper aims to initiate new conversations about the use of physiological indicators when assessing the welfare of dogs. There are significant concerns about construct validity - whether the measures used accurately reflect welfare. The goal is to provide recommendations for future inquiry and encourage debate. We acknowledge that the scientific understanding of animal welfare has evolved and bring attention to the shortcomings of commonly used biomarkers like cortisol. These indicators are frequently used in isolation and with limited salient dog descriptors, so fail to reflect the canine experience adequately. Using a systems approach, we explore various physiological systems and alternative indicators, such as heart rate variability and oxidative stress, to address this limitation. It is essential to consider factors like age, body weight, breed, and sex when interpreting these biomarkers correctly, and researchers should report on these in their studies. This discussion identifies possible indicators for both positive and negative experiences. In conclusion, we advocate for a practical, evidence-based approach to assessing indicators of canine welfare, including non-invasive collection methods. We acknowledge the complexity of evaluating experiential responses in dogs across different situations and the need for continued work to improve practices and refine terminology. This will enhance our ability to accurately understand welfare and improve the wellbeing of dogs, serving to inform standards of animal welfare assessment. We hope this will promote more fundamental research in canine physiology to improve construct validity, leading to better practices, ultimately improving the lives of dogs.