Academic paper on behavioral challenges when dogs removed from litters too young

There is a new study that was just published in the August issue of Veterinary Record.

The Italian study compared the owner-reported behaviors of 70 dogs that were separated from their litters at 30-40 days with the owner-reported behaviors of 70 dogs that were separated from their liters at 2 months, and studied whether behavioral issues arose from dogs being separated from their litters at the younger age.

Based on the study's results, here are the percentage of dogs in the study that developed the specific behavioral problem for each group - the first number respresents those dogs that were separated from their owners early, the second number those that were separated later.

Destructiveness:             47/16

Excessive Barking:         63/21

Fearfulness on walks:    53/7

Reactivity to noises:       81/39

Toy possessiveness:         34/4

Food possessiveness:        34/7

Attention-seeking:          87/49

Aversion to strangers:    60/24

Stranger aggression:       23/4

Owner aggression:           17/9

Play biting:                        28/3

Tail chasing:                     14/1

House Soiling:                    26/10

Specific definitions of each of these is included in the study.

There is a further analysis in the study -- a large part of which shows that dogs that are bought from pet stores have significantly greater issues than dogs that were obtained from other sources.

From the discussion:

"The results of the present study indicate that early separation of a puppy from the litter is an experience that may increase the animal's chances of showing potentially problematic behaviors as an adult. Moreover, the effect can be further potentiated by the puppy's first environment"

There are certainly a few other factors that could have influenced the study. First off, there were only 70 dogs in each group - -so a pretty small sample size. Secondly, there was a significant difference in breeds of dogs involved (67% of the dogs that were not separated from their litters until 2 months were purebred dogs while 100% of the dogs in the early separation group were mixed-breed dogs).  The study didn't not attempt to take into account owner-behavior either.

However, the study is still worth examining -- in large part because nothing in the study is consistent with what you would hear from most professional breeders, behaviorists, and previous studies on the topic.

The study does show a very strong correlation (likely causal) between aggressive-types behaviors like stranger aggression, owner aggression, and possession aggression and dogs being removed from their litters at 30-40 days. The study also suggests that there are several fearfulness behaviors (fearfulness on walks, possession aggression, aversion to strangers) that may result from a lack of confidence that would be garnered by extending the time with their litters.  The differences in all of these behaviors is very significant between the early separation group and the not-early separation group.

This shouldn't be a surprise to most people -- but does highlight that there could be some other significant issues that lead to aggressive behavior that doesn't show up on anyone's dog bite 'statistics'.  In addition to increased aggressive behavior, it is also worth noting that removal from a litter too early (in this case before 16 weeks) has also been shown to decrease bite inhibition -- which is a major determinent between a dog that issues a "bite" and a full on "attack".

It is also likely very telling that dogs that were removed from litters early had a better chance of good behavior if the dog was not immediately put into a non-home environment in a pet shop. It seems clear that removing the dog from a its litter, where it would receive natural socialization, to another situation where it would receive less socialization enhances the problems (the study calls this an epigenetic impact -- which we've also discussed on this blog).  This would logically suggest that the same impact would be had on dogs removed from their litters and put on chains full time.

According to the study:

"In consclusion, early separation from the dam and littermates, especially when combined with housing in a pet shop, might affect the capacity of a puppy to adapt to new environmental conditions and social relationships later in life."

If we are going to have serious conversations about canine aggression, it is imperative that we drop the discussion of "breeds" being the problem, and start  listening to science and experts. Science has repeated told us that breed is not a significant differentiator in aggressive behavior, and that environmental factors, such as early removal from litters and early upbringing have a much more dramatic impact.  

If we were to focus on these environmental factors, which is substantiated by science as being a factor, instead of focsusing on 'breed' (which visual identification studies have shown us is unreliable), we would have a much greater impact on solving the dog bite issues in this country. The time to start is yesterday.

You can read the study in its entirety here (it's only 6 pages, so not long).

H/T goes to Sam the Dog Trainer, who posted a link  to this article via social media about the study.

Comments

[arrowhead]

'Malls and pet supply stores can generate foot traffic by allowing rescue groups to put adoptable cats and kittens in their stores.'

what do you have against shelter animals? why is it ok for rescues to force these innocent animals to languish in one of those horrible pet stores, while the commercially bred pets get a pass?

[Woody]

Here's the problem I have with puppies in pet stores, and commercial breeding in general-the math doesn't make sense. I do have a basic understanding of the economics of a supply chain. Generally, the producer of a product (breeder) needs to hold a 50% gross profit margin, the wholesaler (broker) needs to hold a 30% gross margin, and the retailer (pet store) needs to hold a 50% gross margin. When you look at the retail price for puppies and do the math backwards it just doesn't add up. I can't see how there is enough money left at the production level for proper vaccinations, veterinary care, weaning time, and quality food. Kmk-feel free to show me how this works-I'm genuinely open to hear it. I understand the concept of supply and demand. The generally accepted statistics used to promote shelter adoptions are that there are 17m people in the US annually that are looking for a pet and that are also open to adopting from a shelter, and that there are 4m pets put down in US shelters annually. That leaves a demand (market deficit) of 13m pets annually. (I would like to see a breakdown of those numbers by dog/cat/other) I have no problem with breeders doing it right-I have a problem with breeders doing it wrong. Those pictures of dogs living in horrible conditions weren't all photoshopped. And, kmk, if you want to have credibility and have your position heard by the rational people in the middle then you must first admit that there are both breeders doing it right AND doing it wrong-commercial or otherwise. Anyone who blindly defends their "side" comes across as a whackjob-regardless of the side or the issue. I'm not an AR wingnut-I don't consider myself and animal rights activist at all. I do make a distinction between pets and livestock because they aren't the same-they are very different products, and wildlife is something else entirely. Breeders have been hiding behind agriculture's skirt for far too long. Cows, pigs, and chickens are raised and produced for their physical qualities for short term use as food. Pets are raised for their psychological qualities-to be members of a family-long term. Pets offered for sale with poor health prospects or poor mental well being is exactly the same as farmers shipping tainted meat-neither is suitable for it's intended use. The treatment of pets along the whole supply chain must be structured to deliver a quality product for it's intended usage, and there is a lot of room for improvement in the industry.

[kmk]

The reason I have a problem with government telling pet stores they can't sell puppies and kittens is because the government should not be interfering with legitimate commerce that's not a criminal enterprise. What I find ridiculous is cities that have banned pet stores from selling puppies and kittens but allow the sale of marijuana! Good grief, can we return to the days where the city takes care of streets, parks, police/fire protection, and utilities (where applicable) and leave law abiding businesses and citizens the Hell alone?

I know a lot of very good commercial breeders whose dogs are sold to pet stores. If those little foo-foo dogs were my breed of choice I would have no problem whatsoever getting a dog from one of them. In fact it would be my preference because I wouldn't have to wait five years for a puppy and sign a contract the size of the phone book.

What, pray tell, is a "good breeder?"

Shelter euthanasia has been on the decline since the 1970s. the euthanasia rate at the shelter Albequerque might have declined anyway, even without the pet store sale ban. Besides, Albequerque passed one of the most heinous pet ordinances I've ever seen in my life a few years ago that also affected "good breeders". So much for that argument. I think they looked at Louisville, Kentucky's ordinance and said, "Hey, we can pass something even MORE STUPID than that". I participate in dog agility and there's a woman with Shelties who is a "good breeder" and moved to the Kansas City area from Albequerque to get away from their ordinance. I saw her at a trial today, in fact. I question the Albequerque numbers because coercive legislation almost always leads to more shelter deaths, not fewer.

As for the Richmond, BC information - 57% of the dogs that came into the shelter were purebred and half of them came in with a receipt showing they were purchased from a pet store? I'll have to go to the link, but that would be unheard of in the lower 48. First, the Canucks must be quite anal about saving receipts (why would you take the receipt to the shelter?). Purebreds generally make up 5 to 7% of the shelter population in the US and dogs from pet stores are almost never seen. much of our commercial industry microchips for inventory control so it would be easy to identify those dogs that came from commercial breeders or pet stores.

[Dara]

"...The correct term is "commercial breeder"."

To correctly breed and raise a puppy, no money is made, thus excluding it from being a vible commerical venture. The hours that must go into handling, socializing, desensitizing, and training a puppy from birth to 10 weeks are enormous. Multiply that by the number of puppies in a litter, and you are working for less than minimum wage. Properly done, breeding is done for the love of healthy dogs and the breed.

Breeding should only be done when the bitch and dog are old enough to have proven they have no genetics diseases (at least 6), and puppies must be kept with their dam and littermates until 10 weeks (see above). That is a lot of time and money put into handling and training the dogs, to ensure that they are in good health and good mind, and that their genes are worth creating more dogs from. (Remember to consider the multitudes of companion animals euthanized daily for lack of homes, poor breeding, and poor socialization.)

Sounds like kmk has her own little puppy mill thing going on.

[CristyF]

I would consider a "good breeder" to be a breeder that tries their best to produce healthy, sound puppies. You don't have to do much googling to learn about the genetic diseases different breeds are prone to. My mom's little dog, we believe he was a schnauzer/lhasa apso mix (a rescue, not bought), had to be put down at 6 years of age due to a neuro-degenerative disease. I think it was Canine Neuronal Ceroid-Lipofuscinosis, which has been reported in miniature schnauzers and other small breeds. I can't help but wonder, if more care was taken in all breedings to produce healthy dogs, not just "moar cute puppees, yay!", that maybe dogs like my mom's wouldn't have to suffer and die in their prime.

[CristyF]

I wanted to add also, maybe young dobermans wouldn't suddenly drop dead from heart issues, maybe young danes wouldn't get wobblers, maybe double merle breedings wouldn't take place producing deaf and/or blind aussie puppies, maybe there would be less incidence of luxating patellas, liver issues, heart problems, glaucoma, collapsing tracheas, and skin issues in small dogs, maybe there wouldn't be so dang many cocker spaniels with absolutely disgusting ear issues, maybe there so damn many dogs with hip displaysia,etc.! I could go on!

[Raegan O.]

I have found several articles citing this research as well as other articles, but I cannot find any information suggesting insight on how to address the behavioral issues. I have worked with a certified behavioral trainer & two other trainers. I'm searching for information. Anything that could be forwarded is greatly appreciated!

Thank you.