Summary:CANINE - ETHOLOGY

The development of neonatal dog behaviour

The thorough scientific research as published by Scott and Fuller in 1965 was focused on the early demonstration of possible genetic varieties with pups at the age of 0-16 weeks.

The results as recorded by them, became the basic for further research on dog behaviour and thus may be known.

Scott and Fuller as well as later behaviourists agreed upon that the pup could hardly show any relevant essential behaviour during the first three weeks of its life, because of the absence of the working senses. Eyes and ears are still closed, and so they also excluded the olfactory sense.

They based these statements on a earlier myelination test. Later research established that their anatomical and physiological knowledge is dated and that they most likely based themselves open the investigation of the wrong nerve.

In their own work 'Dog Behavior - the Genetic Basis' (1965) prove is given of the existence of a discrimination ability by young pups with eyes and ears still closed on a "for a dog strong-smelling expedient resembling citronella oil"....."but they will lick at a glass bar dipped in fish or meat gravy".(page 86).

The main objection is however that pup behaviour is not related by them to its early development stage, it was referred to as fully developed adult behaviour.

It gave me enough reasons to be critical of their work as a basis for behavioural development and to assume that olfactory ability is present in a earlier stage than supposed.

In 1983 I finished my Biology studies with a research on the development of neonatal behaviour in dog puppies.

The stated hypothesis was: offering a scent-imprint to a new-born pup give a recognition of this imprint at a later age.

An opportunity to investigate the assumptions and findings with kennel breeders had to be abandoned because of the variability in methods of breeding and conditions.

The CPB-TNO (Central Institute for the breeding of laboratory animals - the main institute in Holland) gave full co-operation and thus the opportunity was presented to obtain the best possible method in gathering objective data.

The method was a double-blind-system scent offering procedure.

As soon as the pups were born, they were offered (blindfolded) a scent, that would be able to be recognised at a later stadium. For the method of testing the Campbell Test had been chosen, which is strictly subscribed for to be tested at 7 weeks. However I found that between 5 and 7 weeks pups learn a great deal of the basis of their later social behaviour and therefore I wanted to test a group at 5 weeks and a group at 7 weeks. In the Campbell test the pups must, among others things, come forwards to a person, therefore the smell had to be a human one.

The finest results would be obtained by offering one small dose, so a period of 30 seconds under the armpit of the future tester (an "overdose") was chosen.

For the matter of a control-group, the "split-litter-method" was decided upon, by which half the litter was functioning as an experimental group (got scent stimulus) and the other half as a control-group. After the stimulus, the Experiment group was placed back with their mother and littermates.

In doing so, identical breeding conditions were guaranteed.

The assistant knew when the pups were due and saw to it that the litter was divided, the exterior characteristics of the treated pup were laid down in sketches intended for this purpose and the pups were photographed as well, to prevent later errors.

In total 102 pups were involved, at testing time 47 were left, due to mortality or absence.

Just before my testing time another Biologist Drs.J.H. Frijlink had tested more than a 1000 pups of the same population of Beagles with the same test under the same conditions, in order to obtain data about the development of evasive-/flight behaviour at various ages. There were no restrictions for not using these test results as a blind Control group.

Thus the Control group could be extended to 344 pups.

Methods of Measuring

The quantities, usually measured at imprinting are:

• approaching
• following
• nestling / looking for support

The test in which these items are included, has been developed and described by William Campbell. The test is primary meant to give a picture of the basically agonistic behaviour of the pup. In other words: whether a pup is extremely fearful or aggressive.

The test ultimately carried out, was a translation which I adapted later to become more readable.

The test consists of 5 separate sub-tests, upon which may be scored separately:

1. approaching (an imprinting quantity)
2. holding on the back (a socialisation quantity)
3. following (imprinting)
4. stroking (socialisation)
5. holding from the ground (socialisation)

Scoring was given in a range from 0 to 4, depending if a pup is rigid or take flight (scoring a 0) up to an enthusiastic towards humans open pup (scoring a 4). The scoring variations are only objective measurable by a well-trained tester.

Campbell summarises the sub-tests to give a total view of the pup's basic behaviour.

For some reasons this is not advisable: as imprinting (as a non-learning process, but probably a physiological change in the limbic system / rinencephalon and the amygdala) and socialisation (a learning process) differ so extremely, it is not advisable to add the results of the different sub-tests together.

It is however possible to summarise the separate imprinting and socialisation sub-tests.

Results

It is beyond this summary to give all the test results.

Colleagues/friends at the University of Groningen (faculty of Mathematics) have checked and sublimated the test results in several ways.

No significant variations (differences) were noted in the test results of the Experimental group and the related Control group.

Based on these data, the 0-hypothesis should be accepted (no influence of scent).

No significant variations (differences) were noted in the test results at 5 weeks and 7 weeks of the Control group and the related Frijlink group. Thus the relating Frijlink group could serve as a blind-control-group.

At comparing the test data of the Experimental group and the relating Frijlink group (as a blind-control-group) the imprinting-units appear to be scoring in utterly significant way.

At the same time there is a significant variation in the socialisation sub-tests, corresponding with data of Fox and Stelzner (1966), about a quicker way of socialising of pups that were raised by hand or had been with man from birth on.

Based on these data the 0-hypothesis should be rejected.

Discussion

The reason why the Control group did not score significantly different was an obvious one: the pups had probably taken some scent back to the nest, where they were replaced, thus giving the "control group" a scent-imprint as well.

Later visit at a laboratory where the pups were fully isolated from human influence for the first three weeks (as from the known literature, behavioural development was then supposed to start), and later contact with breeders, confirmed these suppositions.

Summarised:

Pups are available to take up scent from the moment of birth and recognise it when it is presented 5 weeks later. An impact of that kind we only know by the term of Imprinting.

This has numerous implications:

As imprinting takes places at birth the Scheme of Development of Dog behaviour had to be rewritten, as done by myself.

Breeders have to be involved with the development of pups behaviour towards man, from the first day that the litter is born.

Breeders can be held responsible if deprivation behaviour is due to lack of socialisation during the first weeks at the breeder’s place.

The test that was used - now transformed to the Socialisation Test - has proven to be useful for breeders and breed clubs to get an image of the pup's basic behaviour. Not as a stigma how it will become in future, but as a "direction of use" how a pup should be treated to avoid undesirable behaviour.

Or as stated: early plasticity affords greater adaptability.

During this last 15 years I have noticed that a greater knowledge and awareness of this true development of neonatal behaviour has referred to more preventive means to maintain what a dog is for over a 15.000 years: MAN'S BEST FRIEND

Jan de Wit

©Mr. Jan de Wit, Holland

Return to Puppy Socialisation and Habituation (Part 1)