Dataset Information

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs.

ABSTRACT: Knowledge regarding training, competition, and management routines of agility dogs is lacking. Through a retrospective online questionnaire, Finnish owners and handlers of 745 competition-level agility dogs provided information on training routines and management of these dogs during one year free of agility-related injuries. Competition routines were collected from the national competition results database. Most dogs trained agility 1-2 times a week, with a median active training time of 18 min a week. Dogs competed in a median of 2.1 runs per month at a speed of 4.3 m/s. Common field surfaces were different types of artificial turfs and dirt surface. Warm-up and cool-down were established routines, and 62% of dogs received regular musculoskeletal care. Moreover, 77% of dogs underwent conditioning exercises, but their frequency was often low. Additionally, dogs were walked for a median of 1.5 h daily. Pearson's chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate the association between a dog's competition level and training and competition variables. A dog's competition level was associated with competition (p < 0.001) and training frequency (p < 0.001); dogs at higher levels compete more but train less than dogs at lower levels. This study provides information on training, competition, and management routines of competing agility dogs.

SUBMITTER: Inkila L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8772780 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs.

Inkilä Leena L Hyytiäinen Heli K HK Hielm-Björkman Anna A Junnila Jouni J Bergh Anna A Boström Anna A

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20220117 2

Knowledge regarding training, competition, and management routines of agility dogs is lacking. Through a retrospective online questionnaire, Finnish owners and handlers of 745 competition-level agility dogs provided information on training routines and management of these dogs during one year free of agility-related injuries. Competition routines were collected from the national competition results database. Most dogs trained agility 1-2 times a week, with a median active training time of 18 min ...[more]

PMID: 35049835

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand relative frequency of adverse health events, defined as injuries or infectious diseases, in dogs participating in agility and to determine health research priorities of agility dog owners.ProceduresAn internet-based questionnaire distributed to agility dog owners included items related to experiences with infectious diseases and injuries in agility dogs, reasons for retirement of dogs from competition, and ranking of health research priorities. Frequencies of infectious diseases in US geographic regions were compared with Chi-square tests. Research priority rankings were determined as median and interquartile range (IQR) for each topic. Rank-based tests (Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney) compared rankings between participants in different agility organizations, between veterinarian and non-veterinarian competitors, and between respondents who had competed in national championship events and other respondents.ResultsThere were 1,322 respondents who had competed in canine agility in the previous 6 months, with those respondents reporting a median time competing in the sport of 13 years (IQR = 8-20 years); 50% of respondents had competed in at least one national championship agility event in the preceding 5 years. Overall, 1,015 respondents (77%) indicated that one or more of their dogs had been injured and approximately one-third (n = 477, 36%) indicated that one or more dogs had likely acquired one or more infectious diseases as a result of agility activities. Specific types of infectious diseases acquired varied by geographic region in the US. Research priority rankings were similar regardless of preferred agility organization or respondent experience. The highest-ranking research topics were identification of risk factors for specific types of injuries, improvements in equipment and understanding of safe course design, and physical conditioning programs to prevent injury.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAgility competitors prioritize research in areas that advance understanding of injury prevention in their dogs. Research priorities are nearly uniform among competitors regardless of their preferred agility organization or level of experience, providing a strong rationale for agility organizations to collaborate in research initiatives that improve safety and well-being for dogs competing in the sport. There has been little published research focusing on the high-priority research areas identified by competitors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe risk factors associated with demographics, training, and competition for iliopsoas injury in dogs participating in agility competitions, as well as describe owner reported treatment and return to sport following injury.ProceduresAn internet-based survey of agility handlers collected risk factor data for dogs participating in agility. Owners were asked questions about demographics, training, and competition as well as injury treatment and recovery if applicable. Associations between variables of interest and iliopsoas injury were estimated with logistic regression. The final risk factor model was built via modified backward selection, with all variables in the final model showing significant associations at p < 0.05.ResultsOf the 4,197 dogs in the sample, 327 (7.8%) reported iliopsoas injury. The final model identified six risk factors for iliopsoas injury. A higher risk of iliopsoas injury was observed for the Border Collie breed, dogs with handlers who are veterinary assistants, dogs competing on dirt, dogs competing on artificial turf 6+ times a year, and dogs that trained with the 2 × 2 method for weave poles. Dogs that were not acquired with agility in mind were observed to have a decreased risk of injury. Factors like number of competition days and jump height were not significantly associated with risk of iliopsoas injury. Owners sought veterinary care for 88% of dogs with iliopsoas injury, including specialty care for 63%. Treatment most often included rest, home rehabilitation, formal rehabilitation, and/or oral medications. Most dogs (80%) were able to return to sport within 6 months, while 20% were out for longer than 6 months, or retired.Conclusion and clinical relevanceIliopsoas injury can necessitate a significant amount of time off from training and competition, and even lead to retirement of dogs competing in agility. Some of the risk factors identified in this study can inherently not be modified (breed, intended use, and handler profession), but can be taken into consideration for injury prevention strategies. Competition and training risk factors that can be modified, such as weave training, may help to inform guidelines for best practices in management of the agility athlete.

Project description:IntroductionDuring agility performance, dogs complete a preset obstacle course. The teeter, also known as the seesaw, is the only dynamic contact obstacle. Dogs handle dynamic obstacles differently than static obstacles due to the need for increased coordination and postural control. No studies have been performed evaluating dogs' abilities or biomechanical strategies to navigate the teeter. The goal of this study was to describe and quantify variability in teeter performance across a sample of dogs of differing body mass and breeds.Materials and methodsTwenty dogs of various body masses and breeds were recruited. Handlers were instructed to line their dog up approximately 5 m from the teeter and to handle the obstacle in a way to best reflect the dog's typical performance. Repetitions were filmed using a GoPro Hero 11 at 240 frames per second. Data were post processed and footfalls were manually tracked using XMALab. Descriptive statistics were used to describe both central tendency and variability.ResultsMean total obstacle completion time (from dog breaking the plane of the teeter until teeter contact with ground) was 1.31 s (sd = 0.38) and mean total footfalls on the teeter was 18.3 (sd = 3.4). Footfall patterns varied across all phases of teeter performance, with particularly noteworthy variation during descent while the teeter was moving. Some dogs were nearly completely stationary while the teeter dropped while others continued to take steps toward the end of the obstacle as the teeter was in motion. Smaller dogs had more total footfalls and longer teeter completion times than larger dogs, and dogs with a stopped contact behavior took longer to fully exit the teeter after it contacted the ground.DiscussionThese data imply that dogs use a variety of biomechanical strategies to perform a dynamic obstacle. Results of this study provide insight into teeter performance and variables that can be utilized for evaluation in future biomechanical studies. This study also provides initial data on biomechanical strategies used by dogs on dynamic surfaces, which may offer insight into dynamic stability and postural control in dogs and how that may influence injury development during sport.

Dataset Information

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs.

Publications

Part I of Finnish Agility Dog Survey: Training and Management of Competition-Level Agility Dogs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets