Tag Archives: research

12/23/12

Television is Good for Puppies

ResearchBlogging.orgNot only do puppies respond to television, but watching the tube may have a positive role in their development.

3.5 week old border terrier puppy watching TV.

Researchers conducted controlled studies which exposed puppies to video images between 3 and 5 weeks of age. This was based on the principle we commonly call ‘socialisation‘ – that exposure to stimuli in puppyhood (particularly from about 3 weeks until  12-14 weeks) creates adult dogs that are less fearful and less anxious, and so impacts upon the temperament and coping style of the dog. The authors said, “puppies that are not exposed to particular kinds of environmental stimuli during this period have an increased likelihood of developing a fearful response to those stimuli, which may present clinically either as inappropriate avoidance behaviour, fearful withdrawal, or fear-related aggression”.

Because puppies at 3-5 weeks show no sign of fear when approaching objects, but start to have fearful responses at 5 weeks, and most puppies will display fear often as 7 week olds, it was theorised that exposing puppies to stimuli at 3-5 weeks may help shape future behaviour in a positive way.

Particularly, these researchers considered that puppies raised in sterile kennel environments (i.e. Dunbar’s ‘lemon puppies’) could be bettered though audiovisual stimulation. In other words, television as a remedy to the sub-standard socialisation in kennels.

In this experiment, puppies were raised in a ‘commercial’ establishment in a barren pen, with two meals a day, housed with mum.

The experiment used 7.16 minutes of video were 50% ‘animate’ (people, dogs, etc) and 50% ‘inanimate’ (such as traffic, vacuum cleaner, etc).  The television was played as ‘normal’ – not loud and not with modification to the colour composition of the screen.

Continue reading →

11/16/12

Research Finds: Hungry Dogs are Hungry

Some Thoughts About Dogs welcomes guest blogger Michael D Anderson from NerdWallet.

Photo © Ruthless Photos.

Biologists at the University of Vienna published a study last month about dogs’ temperament in relation to their owners. The study hypothesized that without their owners, dogs would be more likely to view ambiguous events as negative ones. This is a common feature of human cognition – you’ll often hear that depressed people “see the glass as half-empty.”

The abstract of the study is available here.

The Vienna researchers found that, unlike in humans, when presented with ambiguous stimuli, dogs don’t have a negative judgment bias when they’re in distress. This is a jargon-loaded, awkward way of generalizing on the following: These scientists found that, when hungry, dogs don’t become emotional if their owners are absent—they go right to the bowl of food because, following one of the experiment’s stipulations, these dogs hadn’t eaten in at least three hours.

Experimenters measured how long it took each of 24 dogs to approach a bowl—the study had initially included 32 animals, but the scientists decided to exclude dogs that had unusually extreme separation anxiety.

In training—before the two testing days—the biologists conditioned the dogs to identify one side of the testing room as positive—where a bowl had food—and the other side as negative—where a bowl was empty.

On testing days, they refreshed dog’s memories about the room, but then they changed up locations a bit. They established near-negative (i.e. closer to the original negative location), middle and near-positive locations. At the beginning of each test, they approached one of these new locations with a bowl.

The experimenters then tested for “latency,” or long it took the dogs to approach the bowl, when the owner was present and when he or she was absent. The owner, they said, had an effect. The dogs took longer to approach the near-negative location and shorter to approach the near-positive; in tests without the owner, they approached at the same rate to each respective location.

What I don’t understand is how the biologists so tightly connect dogs’ approach to food—which they measure as “latency”—to their mood. The idea, I think, was that dogs should take longer to approach a bowl—even if the location is near-positive—when the owner isn’t there. The idea is that the dog is distressed without the owner around—they’ll start barking, toileting, or whatever else instead of going right to the bowl.

But these dogs were hungry: as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, owners were asked not to feed their dogs in the 3 hours before the study.

The whole premise of this experiment is odd. What they pose is that dogs are less temperamental than humans: emotional distress or not, they’ll logically discern where the food is. What I think they meant to ask is whether or not dogs behave any different after domestication: Are they still primal? The answer, I think, didn’t even require extensive experiments: yes, they’re hungry, owner be damned.

 

Further reading:

“Animal Behaviour: Cognitive Bias and Affective State”

“Bias in Interpretation of Ambiguous Sentences Related to Threat in Anxiety”

“Dogs Showing Separation-Related Behavior Exhibit a ‘Pessimistic’ Cognitive Bias”

 

This article comes from NerdWallet, a consumer-focused, analysis-driven website dedicated to dissecting the data behind the story.

02/6/12

Environmental Enrichment and Stress

Just read an absolutely fascinating study called “Enriched environment experience overcomes learning deficits and depressive-like behaviour induced by juvenile stress“, that Dr Sophia Yin made reference to recently on Facebook. It’s an absolutely fascinating read, especially after writing about the over-emphasis of socialisation just days ago. I almost have to eat my words… Almost…

Rat Yawning - Do rats yawn in stress like dogs?

Dogs yawn when they’re stressed – I don’t know if rats do, too, but this study used biochemistry to measure rat-stress.

 

Basics of the Study

This study used rats to investigate the role of stress on adult behaviour (particularly surrounding anxiety and depression).  Two groups of rats were stress during their juvenile period (27-29 days) through ‘forced swimming’, elevation, and restraint. (A third group of rats was used as a control.)  One group of the ‘stressed’ rats was given environmental enrichment, by enhancing their cage environments with toys, shapes, colours, and allowing them activities outside of their cage.  The other groups did not receive environmental enrichment.

The Findings

In short: Environmental enrichment seemed to ‘neutralise’ the anxiety experienced by the stressed rats, and sometimes reduced their anxiety further than rats with no stressful incidents and no environmental enrichment.

In long: Continue reading →

12/14/11

Questioning Working Dogs (McGreevy)

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

McGreevy posed some interesting and deep questions regarding working dogs, their welfare, and the morals of owning working dogs.  Dogs have served us in a number of ways:  Police dogs, pastoral dogs, customs, quarantine, racing, sledding, security and guarding, vermin control…  These dogs are admired and placed on a pedestal, but there are ethical questions surrounding their work.

 

Herding and Pastoral Dogs

Dogs that herd find this itself, work itself, rewarding.  These dogs can be punished from being removed from work (negative punishment).  Why do dogs find work so innately rewarding?

Part of the reason may be the conditions that many working dogs live in.  McGreevy showed a slide with dog kennels from a working farm.  These dogs were on a chain, attached to metal (i.e. hot) kennels, confined to an area with their own faeces, and surrounded by flies and fleas.  Of course these dogs want to work, if that means they get to leave these substandard conditions.  Obviously, there are welfare issues associated with this treatment.

McGreevy called for more research into pastoral working dogs, particularly in regard to the financial contributions these animals make to farmers.

 

A smooth Collie goes through sheep herding practice.

 

Continue reading →

10/27/11

McGreevy’s Thoughts on Dog Breeding

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Throughout Paul McGreevy’s two day seminar, he expressed a number of opinions regarding dog breeding. Being a dog breeder myself, I anticipate I paid particular heed to his comments.  I find that, in the current climate of dog rescue and puppy farms, dog breeders are constantly under scrutiny and, in general, I find myself a little defensive to conversations surrounding dog breeding.

However, McGreevy had some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas surrounding dog breeding, and he presented them in a very amenable way.  That is: McGreevy didn’t breeder bash!  He approached matters surround breeding dogs in a matter-of-fact way.  Indeed, he spent more time blaming the system of dog breeding (i.e. breeding purebred dogs to a standard) for the problems in dogs today than critiquing breeders themselves.  Fundamentally, McGreevy believes that the system for breeding dogs need to change in order to emphasise the health and temperament of dogs, and not their physical appearances.

 

Bitch with puppy

Couldn’t resist including a photo of my current singleton litter.  See here border terrier mum with her 2 day old puppy.

Domestication and dog breeds

Domestication and selective breeding have changed dogs from their wolf ancestors.  For example, dog skulls have changed a great deal from the skull of a wolf, and there is also much variation between dog breeds.  Not surprisingly, the brains of dogs have changed too, with a wolf brain weighing three times as much as a dog brain.  Considering that the dog’s brain is part of its central nverous system, it is reasonable to assume that there may be implications for the dog’s entire nervous system.  McGreevy said, “We are only just beginning to learn what we’ve done.”

One thing is for sure: We don’t have a wolf in our lounge room.

In times gone by, breeding dogs were selected on the ability to perform tasks, such as herding, retrieving, carting, or any other purpose.  These days, selection is mostly based on conformation, and emphasis is being place on ‘beauty’ traits such as coat and colouration instead of structure.  McGreevy believes that this current system ineffective, as 150 years of breeding dogs ‘to standard’ has resulted in a host of inherited disorders.  Considering this, McGreevy believes that the dog breeding system needs to change.

 

Current dog breeding practices are cruel

McGreevy asserted that inherited disorders are a form of cruelty.  He also put forward that, considering that the main reason dogs are euthanised in shelters is due to their temperament, breeding for good temperaments is imperative.  Neither of these traits are overly considered in the current breeding system.

McGreevy believes that breed standards often are in contradiction to animal welfare.  He used the British Bulldog as an example.  He criticised the standard for asking for a head that is “the larger the better”, while at the same time calling for a narrow pelvis – an obvious problem for the whelping abilities of the breed.  Furthermore some of the points in the standard are actually unhealthy (for example, loose skin in Shar Pei has been found to correlate with joint problems, and the skull shape of a dog influences its vision).  In McGreevy’s opinion, dog breed standards have been written in a manner that is sometimes contradictory to dog well being.

 

Continue reading →