Content uploaded by Xavier De Jaeger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xavier De Jaeger on Nov 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 13
KEY WORDS: Scratching, cat, pheromone,
feline interdigital semiochemical, behaviour,
claw marking
ABSTRACT
Objectives
The scratching of objects in the environment
is a normal part of the feline behavioural
repertoire, but it appears to be one of the
more disturbing problems reported by cat
owners. In fact, even in the presence of a
scratching post, a large majority of owners
still observe scratching on unwanted loca-
tions in the home.
Methods
The present study tested a solution contain-
ing a synthetic analogue of a pheromone
- the feline interdigital semiochemical - to
determine if it was sufciently attractive
to redirect any scratching behaviour to a
scratching post. Cat owners facing unwanted
scratching in the home were instructed to
follow a protocol consisting of the appli-
cation of this pheromone directly on the
scratching post.
Results
We demonstrated that 74% of the cats with
established unwanted scratching completely
stopped scratching on vertical surfaces in
the home, other than the treated scratching
post after 28 days of application. Moreover
this treatment also decreases scratching on
horizontal surfaces in these cats. This treat-
ment also appears to have a preventative
effect when applied in homes with a recently
adopted cat.
Conclusion
In summary, the application of a synthetic
analogue of the feline interdigital phero-
mone appears to be an innovative and ef-
fective solution to overcome the frequent
behavioural scratching problem in cats.
INTRODUCTION
Scratching of objects in the environment
is a normal part of the feline behavioural
repertoire. Cats scratch to condition their
claws by removing the frayed outer lay-
ers, to stretch and exercise their muscles,
as well as to mark both with visual and
chemical cues (1,2). When performed in
the home on the owner’s furniture, this
behaviour can be highly destructive and can
be a cause of great frustration for owners.
This can happen either on vertical (wall,
door frame, chair,...) or horizontal surfaces
(carpet, sofa, bed,...) as cats may choose
to scratch any surface, whether considered
Effect of a Synthetic Feline Pheromone for
Managing Unwanted Scratching
Beck A.1*
De Jaeger X.1
Collin J.-F.1
Tynes V.2
1 CEVA Sante Animale, 10 Avenue La Ballastière, 33500 Libourne, France
2 CEVA Animal Health, 8906 Rosehill Rd, Lenexa, KS 66215, USA
*To whom correspondence should be addressed:
@: alexandra.beck@ceva.com Tel: +33 5 57 55 42 07
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
14
“appropriate” or acceptable to their owner
(vertical or horizontal scratching posts) (3)
or not (4). Owner responses may range from
physically removing the cat so as to inter-
rupt the sequence and redirect it to another
location, to yelling or hitting the cat. This
will make the environment even more
stressful for the cat, possibly contributing to
an increase in anxiety-related behaviours,
avoidance behaviour, fear and ultimately
owner directed aggression, and damage to
the human companion animal bond. If the
bond becomes too severely damaged, the
owner may relinquish the cat to a shelter or
may simply stop allowing the cat access to
the indoors and maintain it as an “outdoor
only” cat. This leaves the cat vulnerable to
all of the dangers associated with outdoor
living such as injuries and diseases from
ghting with other cats, trauma from vehicle
strikes or predation by larger carnivores, all
of which negatively impact the cat’s quality
of life and life span.
According to a survey, 60% of the own-
ers report problem scratching from their pet
cats (3). Scratching furniture is also associ-
ated with an increased risk of relinquish-
ment (5). When cat owners do discuss the
condition with their veterinarians, the op-
tions that are offered may include education
about environmental enrichment, performing
regular nail trimming or placing plastic nail
covers. Another option, common in the US
especially for cats kept indoors, is surgical
declawing (onychectomy). One study dem-
onstrated that approximately 20% of cats in
the US have undergone this procedure (6).
Depending on methodology, over the past 10
years, different surveys have found 20-45%
of cats in different populations within the
US had been declawed (5,7,8). Declawing is
a highly controversial procedure and many
countries (most of the European countries,
Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan
and Turkey) have outlawed the procedure
or authorized it only under extreme circum-
stances. It is considered a needless mutila-
tion not performed for the animals benet,
and not consistent with the principles of
good animal welfare. In the United States,
some cities and municipalities have made
it illegal to perform this procedure unless
medically necessary. In 2015, two Ameri-
can organizations published new position
statements regarding declawing. Both the
American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) and the American Association
of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) state that
declawing is not a “medically necessary”
procedure for the cat and that scratching is a
normal feline behaviour and clients should
be better educated regarding the variety of
other options besides surgical mutilation of
their pets.
While the evidence that declawing
results in any long term negative behav-
ioural or emotional problems is ambiguous
at best (9), it is a major surgery, an amputa-
tion of digits, resulting in acute pain that is
performed primarily for the convenience, or
in some cases, the safety of the owner. By
one author’s estimation, about 40% of the
owners of declawed cats would probably
no longer have their cat if they had not had
it declawed but current peer reviewed data
regarding the risk of euthanasia for destruc-
tive cats remains limited (2).
A 2015 survey conducted of over 4000
cat owners demonstrated that while most
of them recognized their cats need for a
scratching post, the traditional types offered
were not usually the types preferred by the
cats. The study also demonstrated that when
cats were rewarded for appropriate scratch-
ing behaviour, they were more likely to use
their scratching posts (3). These data suggest
that deeper knowledge about cat preference
in a scratching post and more information
about how to encourage cats to use scratch-
ing posts, could prevent many unnecessary
surgeries and improve feline welfare.
When scratching on a surface, cats
produce a visible mark but they also leave a
chemical message from secretions produced
by the sebaceous glands in their interdigital
area (10,11). One of these chemical cues,
a type of pheromone, is a mixture of fatty
acids, and has been described as the feline
interdigital semiochemical (F.I.S) (12). A
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 15
semiochemical is a chemical substance or
mixture of substances used by animals for
the purpose of communication. Pheromones
are a type of semiochemical used for com-
munication between members of the same
species. The presence of the pheromone in
this case, likely allows any passing cat to
recognize that another cat has been here
recently. It is theorized that the emitting ani-
mal (the cat which marked the area) is more
likely to scratch again in the same areas, to
reinforce evidence of its presence to other
cats (13).
This study assessed the efcacy of a
solution containing a synthetic analogue of
F.I.S (marketed as FELISCRATCH by FE-
LIWAY®) in managing feline scratching be-
haviour on undesired surfaces at home. The
coloured product when applied on a post
actually mimics both the chemical (F.I.S.
component) and visual (lacerations) cues
naturally left by scratch marks, to encourage
cats to scratch again on the post.
We hypothesized that the application
of the product to a scratching post would
stimulate the use of the post and focus cat’s
scratching behaviour on this designated
area, while concomitantly limiting or even
stopping scratching on undesired surfaces.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of Cats
In total 195 cats were included in the
study. It was an in-home study performed in
the UK. Study participants were recruited
by a market research agency which provided
them with all instructions and performed the
phone interviews. Recruited cats were of
any sex, age or breed, living in households
of one or two healthy, non declawed cats,
without any lesions on the feet or pain in
the limbs or back that could impair scratch-
ing behaviour (as assessed by owners). All
selected cat owners granted their informed
consent to the research agency for their
cat(s) to participate into this study. Selected
cats received no medication within the last
3 months nor any pheromone-based product
within the last 4 weeks to manage or prevent
cat behavioural problems. The use of other,
additional calming products was not allowed
at any time during the study. No treatment
product was applied on the animals and the
assessment only focused on their behavior.
Cats were not submitted to any particular
procedure, handling or visits to the vet-
erinarian. All cats were client-owned and
stayed in their own home before, during and
after the study. Only households with cats
which already exhibited vertical scratch-
ing behaviour on unwanted surfaces were
recruited. In addition, a separate popula-
tion of recently adopted cats (less than 14
days) was also evaluated, to assess if the
tested solution could also help manage the
development of unwanted scratching over
time in recently adopted cats or kittens. In
total 166 “scratching cats” were included in
the study from 117 households that had all
experienced unwanted scratching on verti-
cal surfaces (such as on fabrics, furniture,
carpeted stair-risers) within the last year.
Some of these cats demonstrated unwanted
scratching on horizontal surfaces in the
household as well.
“Recently Adopted cats” (N=29) were
all adult cats or kittens that had been intro-
duced into a single or multi-cat home less
than 2 weeks prior to the study start and the
treatment initiation. To be included, cats had
to have demonstrated unwanted scratching
behaviour on vertical surfaces at least once
in the household and be the sole recently
adopted cat.
Study Phases and Product Application
In-home visits occurred for “scratching
cats” at Day -14 (D-14) for global
instructions and at Day -1 (D-1) for
scratching post and treatment product
placement (see Figure 1). In-home visits
occurred on Day 1 (D1) for the recently
adopted cats. All assessments and data
collection were performed by phone
(more details under subtitles Behavioural
assessment and Statistics and data
collection). Cat owners were instructed how
to record scratching marks on a daily log,
for use during phone interviews. A 14 day
baseline was included for “scratching cats”
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
16
to compare it to the treatment application
period, while “recently adopted cats”
scratching behaviour was just compared
with D1, due to the recent adoption and
need to introduce the product as soon as
possible following adoption. Since having a
scratching post at home has been described
as not being effective enough to prevent cats
from scratching in the home(3), the authors
decided not to include a placebo control
group in this study that would consist of
an untreated scratching post and preferred
enrolling a larger treatment group where
each cat was assessed compared to baseline
values. Moreover, the product has already
been shown to effectively induce scratching
in one placebo controlled study performed
on laboratory housed cats11. In consequence
this study was an open, uncontrolled study
and further controlled studies might be
needed.
New post introduction and treatment
application started from D1 in both
groups. Owners were all provided with the
same pole type scratching post covered
in rope (selected based on published
recommendations on cat’s preferences
for different posts (3), and were asked
to remove any previous posts from their
home at that time, in order to homogenize
environmental conditions between homes.
New posts were placed either near a
frequently used area for scratching, or
close to a cat’s sleeping or relaxing area.
This location may or may not have been
the same location as the previous post. The
pheromone product was supplied as ten
single-dose pipettes and was to be applied as
instructed, by drawing a single vertical line
on the scratching post once daily on Days 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 21, and 28 (re-applying
along the same lines to reinforce the visual
cue represented by the previous application).
Owners were instructed to not change the
location of the scratching post and were
asked not to try to attract their cat to the
treated post in any other way than applying
the product. The test product consisted of
0.5% of a Feline Interdigital Semiochemical
Analogue (together with a colorant and
0.1% of catnip to further contribute to attract
the cat to the post), in a 5 ml pipette/per
application.
Additionally, if no visible improvement
in scratching was observed at D14 (minimal
or no decrease in the frequency of unwanted
scratch marks recorded by the owners,
assessed by investigator judgment), owners
were offered to use the F3 Feline Facial
Pheromone Fraction (marketed as Feliway®
Classic spray) as an additional treatment.
Considering the time needed to send the
product to the owners who agreed with
this option, the treatment usually started
around D19. The rationale for this additional
treatment was to provide comforting facial
Figure 1: Study schedule
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 17
pheromone analogues to prevent cats
from marking with claws, as a pilot study
demonstrated improved efcacy when
combining the two pheromonal messages
to control scratching behaviour(14). If
they were willing to proceed, owners
were advised to clean the inappropriately
scratched locations (curtains, furniture,
door frames, etc) with a mild product such
as soap and warm water and allow them to
dry, before applying about 4 to 6 sprays of
Feliway® Classic to fully cover the area.
The spray was to be applied twice a day
every day between D19 and D28 onto the
areas where unwanted scratching continued
to occur, while continuing to apply the F.I.S
to the scratching post once weekly (see
Figure 1).
Then, after the last application on D28,
a nal assessment was made on D42, to
evaluate any possible relapse during this 14-
day period without any product use.
Behavioural Assessment
At each assessment point, owners had to
assess their cat’s scratching behaviour in the
period since the last phone call. Assessments
were done at D-14, D-1, D7, D14, D21, D28
and D42 (see Figure 1). Owners owning
two cats had to separately consider each
individual cat based on their observations.
Questions covered if cats had been using
the post to scratch, if they still scratched
on unwanted locations (vertical and/or
horizontal surfaces; in the same room as
the one where post was located, and/or in
Figure 2: Results of scratching on vertical surfaces, total “scratching cats” population (n =
166)
a) Frequency of unwanted scratching behaviour in the period since the last interview, *** =
p<0.001
b) Percentage of cats who stopped scratching on vertical surfaces.
c) Graphic representation of the statistical model results used to detect signicant differences
in gure b. Evolution over time of the probability to stop scratching on vertical surfaces com-
pared to the probability of still scratching. A signicant difference is observed when the error
bars do not overlap.
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
18
other rooms), how often, and where they
had stopped unwanted scratching on vertical
and/or horizontal surfaces. Questions about
product application were also included.
Statistics and Data Collection
Data was acquired from daily question-
naires completed by the owners and phone
interviews conducted every week. The
analyzed sub-populations were: 135 cats
exposed to the test product only and 31 cats
exposed to the test product + Feliway®
Classic spray. Only two data were missing
for two cats (none of them being treated
with Feliway® Classic) at D28 due to the
uncertainty of their owners concerning the
cat’s scratching.
During the weekly phone interviews the
owners were asked to estimate the scratching
frequency on a 5-point scale (0=No, 1=Yes,
once a week, 2=Yes, once every 2-3 days,
3=Yes, once a day, 4=Yes, several times
a day). To assess the change over time in
unwanted scratching on vertical surfaces in
the home, we used the weekly evaluation
of the scratching frequency instead of using
daily reports because this question was
conrmed as properly reecting the daily
quantication (see supplementary 1). In
fact we demonstrated that there is a strong
correlation between the answers to the daily
and the weekly questionnaires concerning
the severity of scratching.
Figure 3: Results of scratching on horizontal surfaces, total “scratching cats” population (n
= 166)
a) Frequency of unwanted scratching behaviour in the period since the last interview, *** =
p<0.001
b) Percentage of cats who stopped scratching on horizontal surfaces.
c) Graphic representation of the statistical model results used to detect signicant differences
in gure b. Evolution over time of the probability to stop scratching on horizontal surfaces
compared to the probability of still scratching. A signicant difference is observed when the
error bar do not overlap.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 19
To analyze the value of the scratching
frequency given by the owner, due to the or-
dinal nature of this score, two models were
used. The rst one adjusted a mixed model
with a time effect as xed covariate with
order one autoregressive variance-covari-
ance structure and a random animal effect.
The second method adjusted a multinomial
generalized mixed model with a time effect
as xed covariate and a cumulative link
function with no variance-covariance struc-
ture. Since the two methods lead to the same
conclusions, we only present here the rst
option: the mixed model. To evaluate the
proportion of cats who stopped scratching,
we tted a logistic model with a time effect
as xed covariate and a random animal ef-
fect with a logit link function (p=probability
of not scratching). To test if the introduction
of the scratching post per se could inuence
the results, it was considered as a variable
and introduced into the model. The ANOVA
and Student t-tests were derived from those
models. All pairwise comparisons were
tested and adjusted for post-hoc hypothesis
with Bonferroni method.
RESULTS
First, we tested whether some
parameters could inuence the scratching
on vertical surfaces reported by owners.
For this, we used an unsupervised Bayesian
Network Model to nd the potential relation
between all the variables available from
Figure 4: Results of the scratching on vertical surfaces for the “scratching cats” treated with
F.I.S only (n = 135).
a) Frequency of unwanted scratching behaviour in the period since the last interview, *** =
p<0.001
b) Percentage of scratching cats who stopped scratching on vertical surfaces.
c) Graphic representation of the statistical model results used to detect signicant differences
in gure b. Evolution over time of the probability to stop scratching on vertical surfaces com-
pared to the probability of still scratching. A signicant difference is observed when the error
bars do not overlap.
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
20
the questionnaire (supplementary 2). The
algorithm identied one single network.
No relationships were found between any
demographic data and scratching reported
on vertical or horizontal surfaces. This
means that scratching frequency reported
at any time was correlated with the value
at the next assessment time, but neither the
cat’s gender, breed, sexual status, age nor
the number of cats in the home did inuence
the results.
Then we assessed the effect of a solution
with synthetic interdigital pheromone
on the unwanted scratching in the home.
The results are rst presented on the full
“scratching cats” population (166 cats)
on the period of time from baseline to
D14, where cats were exposed to the new
pheromone treatment only (before the
possible addition of Feliway® Classic
spray). The number of cats that used to
scratch beside the scratching post decreased
with the treatment application, with a
signicant increase (p<0.01) in the number
of cats who stopped scratching on vertical
surfaces between the baseline (D-1) and
the rst 2 weeks of treatment (D7 and
D14) (Figures 2 b and c). For the total
cat scratching population, the ANOVA
revealed that their frequency of scratching
decreased signicantly with time [F(3,379)=
128.23, p<0.001]. The post-hoc Bonferroni
tests demonstrated that this decrease was
already effective from D7 since signicant
differences between (D-14 and D-1) and
(D7 and D14) were observed (Figure 2
Figure 5: Results of the scratching on vertical surfaces for the “scratching cats” who ad-
ditionally received Feliway® Classic from D19 (n = 31)
a) Frequency of unwanted scratching behaviour in the period since the last interview, *** =
p<0.001
b) Percentage of cats who stopped scratching on vertical surfaces.
c) Graphic representation of the statistical model results used to detect signicant differences
in gure b. Evolution over time of the probability to stop scratching on vertical surfaces com-
pared to the probability of still scratching. A signicant difference is observed when the error
bars do not overlap.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 21
a; p<0.001). At the same time as vertical
scratching observed in unwanted places
drastically decreased, we observed that
cats broadly used their new scratching post
treated with F.I.S. product: after only 7 days
of treatment, 79% of the cats had scratched
on their new post.
The use of this pheromone appears to be
also effective in managing the inappropriate
scratching on horizontal surfaces (Figures
3), with the number of cats presenting this
particular behaviour decreasing signicantly
after two weeks of treatment (Figures 3 b
and c). From D7 the proportion of cats who
did not scratch anymore was signicantly
different from D-14 and D-1 (p<0.001).
Moreover the frequency of scratching on
horizontal surfaces assessed by the own-
ers through the weekly scale presented a
signicant decrease with time [ANOVA;
F(3,369)=46.05, p<0.001]. The Bonferroni
post-hoc analysis showed a signicant dif-
ference between (D-14 and D-1) and (D7
and D14) (Figure 3 a; p<0.001).
As from D14 some cats were also
exposed to another pheromone treatment,
the results on the full study period are then
presented separately for the two subpopula-
tions, respectively:
- 135 cats (81.3%) treated with the F.I.S.
solution only (see Figures 4)
- 31 cats (18.7%) treated with F.I.S solu-
tion + Feliway® Classic spray (see Figures
5).
On Figure 4 c, a signicant difference
between D-1 and D7 is shown (p<0.001)
and interestingly there is a further signicant
decrease in the number of cats who stopped
scratching on vertical surfaces between D7
and D28 (p<0.001) when exposed to F.I.S.
solution only. Furthermore, to test whether
cats would relapse after the cessation of the
treatment, they were followed two weeks
after the end of the interdigital pheromone
application (Figures 4). The post hoc
analysis on the mean frequency score did
Figure 6: Evolution of the vertical scratching after 28 days of treatment in function of the
presence of a scratching post in the household, prior to treatment application. This gure
clearly shows that the percentage of cats that decreased or stopped vertical scratching (on the
scale 0-4) between D0 and D28 is similar in the two sub-populations. Amelioration is dened
as a lower score at D28 compared to score at D0. If score at D28 is equal to 0, case was clas-
sied as “completely stopped”.
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
22
not show a signicant difference between
the last day of treatment and the end of
the study period, nor any difference in the
number of cats who stopped scratching on
vertical surfaces (Figure 4 a; p=1). On D42,
74% of cats completely stopped scratching
on vertical surfaces which is similar to the
result at the end of the treatment at D28
(68%) (Figure 4 b). In fact, there was no
difference between D28 and D42 in the
number of cats not presenting scratching
(Figure 4 c; p=1).
In households who added Feliway®
Classic spray from D19 to D28, the
behaviour of the cats receiving both
treatments was observed in order to detect
the benet of adding Feliway® Classic
(Figure 5) in these cats. A signicant
increase on the percentage of cats who
stopped scratching on vertical surfaces was
detected between D14 and D28 (Figure
5 c, p<0.05). There was also a signicant
difference detected with the ANOVA of the
mean frequency score [F(6,180)=17,51;
p<0.001)] and the post hoc revealed a
signicant difference between the mean
frequency scores at D14 and D28 (Figure
5a, p<0.001). Conversely, as these cats
were “resistant” to the F.I.S. treatment, no
signicant difference was observed between
(D-14 and D-1) and D14 (p=1).
Within the full “scratching cats”
population (166 cats), 44.6% of cats had
no scratching post prior to the study, while
55.4% had at least one scratching post at
home. Amongst these, 70.7% had a “pole
scratching post”, similar to the type used
in our study. Within the population treated
with F.I.S. solution only, 43.7% of cats had
no scratching post prior to the study, while
56.3% had at least one scratching at home,
consisting in 71.1% of a “pole scratching
post” (Figure 6). For cats exposed to F.I.S.
product only, the ANOVA results show that
the preceding presence of a scratching post
did not signicantly inuence the amount
of reported inappropriate vertical scratching
(p=0.87) and this is true at any time of the
trial (p= 0.89). Even in the cat population
who previously had a “pole scratching post”
at home, results did not differ, supporting
the observed effects resulting from the
application of the product.
In the 29 “recently adopted cats”, the
number of cats scratching on vertical un-
wanted surfaces decreased with treatment
Figure 7: Vertical scratching in recently adopted cats (n=29).
a) Frequency of unwanted scratching behaviour.*** = p≤0.001
b) Percentage of cats reported with no episodes of unwanted vertical scratching in the period
since the last interview.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 23
(Figure 7 b). The ANOVA demonstrated
a difference on time [F(5,100)= 3.61 ;
p<0.001) and the post hoc test adjusted with
Bonferroni conrmed the decrease in the
frequency of scratching on vertical surfaces
between D-1 and D7 or even D28 (Figure 7
a, p≤0.001). Even for recently adopted cats
or kittens, the application of this new phero-
mone solution on a scratching post appears
to redirect the scratching behaviour to this
specic area.
Of the 117 owners enrolled in this study
due to their cat’s current scratching issue,
83% declared that the solution with syn-
thetic interdigital pheromone and catnip had
been at least as effective as they expected
for managing the unwanted scratching
behaviour. Indeed, we observed that 89% of
cats presenting this behaviour at the begin-
ning of the study had decreased or stopped
the unwanted scratching on vertical surfaces
at the end of the treatment with the test solu-
tion containing feline interdigital phero-
mone. On the other hand, in the recently
adopted cats, 91,4% of the owners had
noticed a difference in effectiveness from
Day 1 to Day 7 and the mean frequency of
vertical inappropriate scratching in the home
signicantly decreased throughout the study
period compared to adoption time.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that
introduction of a scratching pole treated with
a solution containing Feline Interdigital Se-
miochemical Analogue, blue dye and catnip
was very effective at decreasing vertical and
horizontal scratching of objects indoors.
This nding has the potential to impact the
welfare of cats.
In this eld study, the frequency of
unwanted scratching on vertical surfaces
and the number of cats who scratched on
surfaces other than their scratching post both
signicantly decreased after 7 days of treat-
ment. After 28 days of treatment 67% of cats
had completely stopped unwanted vertical
scratching. We also demonstrated that the
treatment efcacy lasted a minimum of 14
days after the last application in cats with no
additional treatment. The absence of differ-
ence in the proportion of cats who stopped
scratching vertically between D28 and D42
suggests that once the unwanted behaviour
is addressed, there is no further relapse,
during a minimum of two weeks. Moreover,
only 12% of the cats presented a rebound
in scratching frequency on vertical surfaces
between days 28 and 42.
Furthermore, this study also highlighted
that for refractory cats who did not sig-
nicantly improve during the rst 14 days,
the addition of Feliway® Classic spray
treatment to the previous feline interdigital
pheromone helped reduce the undesired
scratching: the number of cats who com-
pletely stopped increased from 13% to 55%
after 2 weeks of this additional treatment.
The comforting message brought by the
feline facial pheromone when applied as
a spray on a spot marked by a cat’s urine
or claws has been described as having an
inhibitory effect on this marking behaviour
(15,16).
The AVMA recommends that declawing
of domestic cats should be considered only
after attempts have been made to prevent the
cat from using its claws destructively (17).
Furthermore, some studies have reported
that preventing this natural behaviour can
result in stress and behavioural change
(6,18,19). To manage scratching on furni-
ture, the majority of products available are
either chemical deterrents or fear inducing
stimuli systems (Ssscat® Spray Deter-
rent). However, there are risks associated
with attempting to stop natural behaviours
without providing other suitable outlets for
the behaviour or encouraging alternative
behaviours. Another alternative consists in
placing plastic caps on the cat’s nails to pro-
tect furniture, but this option is controversial
too as it interferes with the natural behaviour
of cats. Here we provide evidence that the
application of a synthetic pheromone and
catnip on a scratching post can be sufcient
to redirect any scratching behaviour to the
post and prevent damage to the furniture or
home. This simple protocol may have an im-
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
24
portant benet to cat welfare by preventing
unnecessary declawing and/or punishment.
Providing scratching posts in the home
to encourage the natural behaviour in a
location that is acceptable to owners is
considered the ideal solution for unwanted
scratching but does not always completely
solve the problem as cats may continue
to scratch in other locations. Indeed, in
the present study, 55% of the participants
already had a scratching post at inclusion
and were still facing unwanted scratching,
although 85% of these cats were reported
to actually use the post (with 57% of cats
using it at least daily). Moreover, in another
study 69 % of the owners with a scratching
post reported inappropriate scratching in the
same area of the scratching post(3). This
may be due to some attractive effect of the
interdigital secretions deposited by previous
cat scratching that contributes to maintain-
ing this established behaviour (13). Indeed,
it has been previously demonstrated that the
feline interdigital semiochemical (F.I.S.)
itself increases the frequency and the dura-
tion of scratching on the places where it was
applied, compared to a colored placebo11.
One limitation of the study is the ad-
dition of catnip to the solution containing
the semiochemical, making it impossible
to distinguish which component was most
effective at attracting the cat to the post. The
product does contain a minimal amount of
catnip, but catnip does not reliably attract all
cats since about 33% of cats do not respond
to nepetalactone, the terpenoid compound
responsible for catnip’s feline attracting
abilities (20). Catnip is often recommended
for attracting cats to scratching posts (2,21)
but unwanted scratching of furniture and
unreliable use of scratching posts remains a
problem so it is highly unlikely that catnip
alone would be responsible for attracting
this high of a percentage of cats to the post
and maintaining their interest in scratching
the post. Moreover, in a previous study(12),
the placebo contained catnip as well, high-
lighting the specic effect of the F.I.S. com-
ponent within the product tested. Here, after
only 7 days of pheromone solution applica-
tion, 79% of the “scratching cats” and 87%
of the “recently adopted cats” had used their
new scratching post where treatment was
applied. In comparison, although data are
not available, cat owners frequently report
buying new scratching posts (from the most
simple models to very sophisticated ones)
that their cats never use, even once.
The lack of a placebo control does limit
the value of these ndings to some degree.
However, we clearly observed a decrease
in unwanted scratching with the use of the
product and this decrease was similar for
cats with a scratching post prior to the study
and those who did not have a scratching post
(Figure 6). This decrease cannot solely be
attributed to the introduction of the scratch-
ing post since 55% of cats included in the
study already had a post available before
inclusion, and 85% of them were using it at
least once a week, while still scratching in
other places in the home. At the end of the
28-day treatment period, 93% of cats which
already had access to at least one post in the
house before the study had decreased their
scratching outside the scratching post treated
with the pheromone, while 67% completely
stopped (Figure 6). This provides further
evidence that the effects of the scratching
post alone may not be as important as the
product application in the population of cats
that already had a scratching post. This dem-
onstrates the capacity of the tested solution
to reduce or stop unwanted scratching for
owners with a scratching post who still face
scratching problems.
Besides the limitation of the study it ap-
pears that the protocol treatment consisting
of introducing a scratching post and ap-
plying the product decreased the unwanted
scratching on vertical surfaces compared to
the initial stable baseline.
In addition, we also observed an
unexpected signicant decrease in the
scratching of horizontal surfaces (such as
carpets, chairs, etc), although cats were only
recruited based on existing scratching of
vertical unwanted locations (such as doors,
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 25
table legs, sofa, etc). It has been suggested
that territorial scratch marking is prefer-
ably performed on a vertical surface (22).
To our knowledge, no data are available in
the literature regarding the possible dif-
ferential motivations for cats to preferably
scratch vertical or horizontal surfaces. But
these study results support the benet of the
application of the F.I.S analogue solution
on a vertical scratching post, in decreasing
any scratching displayed inappropriately in
the home, either on vertical or horizontal
locations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we demonstrated that an inno-
vative behavioural therapy consisting of the
application of a colored solution containing
a synthetic feline interdigital semiochemi-
cal and catnip on a rope covered scratching
post is effective at redirecting and managing
unwanted feline scratching behaviour. In
some cases, this treatment can be combined
with the use of another feline pheromone
(the F3 fraction) for further benet. This
clinical study performed on a large sample
demonstrates for the rst time the effective-
ness of a treatment for redirecting unwanted
scratching behaviour in cats. Moreover, this
treatment presents a natural and humane
alternative to other current options that is
respectful towards the cat’s ethology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the cats’ owners for
their contribution to this research.
Funding
This study was funded by CEVA Sante
Animale.
Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed
in accordance with the Creative Commons
Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC
4.0) license, which permits others to dis-
tribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
non-commercially, and license their deriva-
tive works on different terms, provided the
original work is properly cited and the use
is non-commercial. See: http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Contributions
A.B. and V.T contributed to study design,
data interpretation, literature search, gure,
writing and editing. X.DJ. contributed to
data interpretation, literature search, gure,
writing and editing. J-F.C. contributed to
data interpretation, data analysis, gure,
writing and editing.
Conict of interest
This trial was initiated by Ceva Santé Ani-
male and the four authors of the paper are
working for Ceva Santé Animale.
REFERENCES
1. Heath SE. Behaviour Problems And Welfare. In:
Animal Welfare. 2007, pp. 91–118.
2. Landsberg GM. Feline Scratching and Destruction
and the Effects of Declawing. Vet Clin North Am
Small Anim Pract 1991; 21: 265–279.
3. Wilson C, Bain M, DePorter T, et al. Owner ob-
servations regarding cat scratching behaviour: an
internet-based survey. J Feline Med Surg. 2016;
10:791-7.
4. Landsberg GM, Hunthausen WL, Ackerman LJ.
Behaviour Problems of the Dog and Cat3: Behav-
iour Problems of the Dog and Cat. Elsevier Health
Sciences, 2012.
5. Patronek GJ, Glickman LT, Beck AM, et al. Risk
factors for relinquishment of cats to an animal
shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996; 209:582–588.
6. Morgan M, Melanie M, Houpt KA. Feline Be-
haviour Problems: The Inuence of Declawing.
Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The
Interactions of People & Animals 1989; 3: 50–53.
7. Patronek GJ, Beck AM, Glickman LT. Dynamics of
dog and cat populations in a community. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 1997; 210: 637–642.
8. Lockhart LE, Motsinger-Reif AA, Simpson WM,
et al. Prevalence of onychectomy in cats presented
for veterinary care near Raleigh, NC and educa-
tional attitudes toward the procedure. Vet Anaesth
Analg 2014; 41: 48–53.
9. Fritscher SJ, James H. Declawing has no effect on
biting behaviour but does affect adoption outcomes
for domestic cats in an animal shelter. Appl Anim
Behav Sci 2016; 180: 107–113.
10. Feldman HN. Methods of scent marking in the
domestic cat. Can J Zool 1994; 72: 1093–1099.
11. Cozzi A, Lecuelle CL, Monneret P, et al. Induction
of scratching behaviour in cats: efcacy of syn-
thetic feline interdigital semiochemical. J Feline
Med Surg 2013; 15: 872–878.
12. McGlone JJ, Plummer RR. Evidence for a cat
pheromone that modulates kitten scratching.
Laboratory of Animal Behaviour, Physiology and
Welfare, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
http://m.jtmtg.org/abs/t/63342 (2015, accessed 27
April 2016).
13. Mengoli M, Mariti C, Cozzi A, et al. Scratching
Vol. 16, No.1, 2018 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.
26
behaviour and its features: a questionnaire-based
study in an Italian sample of domestic cats. J
Feline Med Surg 2013; 15: 886–892.
14. AVMA Animal Welfare Division. Welfare Implica-
tions of Declawing of Domestic Cats. J Am Vet
Med Assoc https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/
LiteratureReviews/Documents/declawing_bgnd.
pdf (2016, accessed 25 March 2016).
15. Yeon SC, Flanders JA, Scarlett JM, et al. Attitudes
of owners regarding tendonectomy and onychecto-
my in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218: 43–47.
16. Atwood-Harvey D. Death or Declaw: Dealing with
Moral Ambiguity in a Veterinary Hospital. Soc
Anim 2005; 13: 315–342.
17. Grognet J. Catnip: Its uses and effects, past and
present. Can Vet J 1990; 31: 455–456.
18. Beaver BV. Feline Communicative Behaviour. In:
Feline Behaviour. 2003, pp. 100–126.
19. Pageat P, Gaultier E. Current research in canine and
feline pheromones. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim
Pract 2003; 33: 187–211.
20. Pageat P, Patrick P, Emmanuel G. Current research
in canine and feline pheromones. Vet Clin North
Am Small Anim Pract 2003; 33: 187–211.
21. Hart BL, Hart LA, Bain M. Canine and Feline
Behaviour Therapy. Wiley, 2006.
Supplementary 1: Bayesian network representation of the relations between daily quanti-
cations reported during the rst week and the weekly evaluation at D7. Each node represents
a variable (daily quantications). The size of the node represents the importance of the
variable. The arcs represent the strength of the conditional probability link between the
variables. The more distant and thin an arc is between two variables, the less the relationship
strength is. The color show the result of a hierarchical classication based on the distance
between the variables. Hence, this graph shows that the daily quantications are strongly
related to the weekly quantication and this variable summarize on its own the information
of the daily assessment. This analysis allows to validate the quality of the questionnaire and
to select the more relevant variable. It has been conducted with Bayesialab software.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018. 27
Supplementary 2: Bayesian Network representation of the conditional probability link between
weekly assessments of scratching on vertical and horizontal surfaces and demographic data of
the owners and their cats. Each node represents a variable. The size of the node represents the
importance of the variable. The arcs represent the strength of the conditional probability link
between the variables. The more distant and thin an arc is between two variables, the less the
relationship strength is. The color show the result of a hierarchical classication based on the
distance between the variables.This graph show that:
• The demographic data do not globally bring information.
• The demographic data and the scratching assessment are not probabilistically connected.
• The scratching on horizontal surfaces belongs to a separate class than the scratching on vertical
surfaces showing that there are probably two different phenomenon.
• The probabilistic relation between scratching on vertical and horizontal surfaces is very thin.
• The probabilistic relation of a weekly scratching assessment is directly connected to the week
before and the week after but indirectly with other assessments.
• The nal change in behaviour at D42 is only connected to the vertical scratching assessment at
D42 and not connected to the scratching on horizontal surface.
