What Do You Want From Science?

[moosmum]

Not research into dogs but research into owners, fitting in with JulesP suggestion on dangerous dogs.

I agree with this one whole heartedly!

Another area I would like to see researched will likely offend many here.Regardless,I feel its an area we owe at least a properly researched look. Health in pedigree dogs deserves real research into the benefits/drawbacks of introducing other breeds into rare,endangered or weakened (Health issues) pedigree lines.

My own research and observation leads me to believe results can bring unexpected bennefits not only physicaly,but mentaly and I wonder about the "silent" effects of closed lines.

What are the mental effects of closed lines/inbreeding as opposed to selective and limmitted out crossing?

What effects are had on open populations when severely inbred dogs are introduced? Do effects dissipate over generations or contribute to over all decline in health over time in open populations?

Before I get jumped on for this sugestion,I am NOT anti- pedigree! I AM for understanding ideas before dissmissing them out of hand.A more thorough understanding of this relatively recent ideal of closed lines forever and long term effects is deserved,not only on pedigree populations,but the over flow effects on non pedigree animals.

[corvus]

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. Keep them coming. :)

I actually asked Emily Larlham about this at her seminar on the weekend. She only told me verbally so I don't have links unfortunately but she said that studies have shown that cortisol levels are unreliable. She said they tested cortisol of abused and non abused women and both could either have high, normal or low levels and there was no real pattern. I would be interested to find out more.

Cortisol is considered one of the most reliable measures of stress in animals that we have. There are plenty of studies that show it returning measures that make sense. The biggest problem with it (apart from how fiddly and expensive it is to do it right) is that it measures arousal, but not necessarily emotional state. Most of the time it's a good surrogate if controls are used. I know a research group that are just tying up a 3-year study on indicators of emotional state in dogs in shelters. They were looking at a suite, matching up behavioural indicators with physiological indicators. I'm working on one method of measuring emotional state. It's pretty exciting stuff, but probably years off being useful to dog owners. Cortisol isn't much use to dog owners and shelter managers, either. Behavioural indicators IMO can be deceptive. Sometimes a dog will appear perfectly happy until you put the tiniest bit of social pressure on them, and then they fall apart spectacularly. It's fascinating and a little disturbing.

Also, there's this here about dogs in cafes in Australia: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/puppy-love-finds-acceptance-in-cafes/story-e6frg6nf-1226443431235

And this might be of interest: http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/10012/20120523/dogs-aggressiveness-psychology.htm

[Sheridan]

measure stress and pain in dogs

I think a blood test for cortisol (hormone) gives an idea. You'd have to train the dog to be cool about having it's blood taken first. or some way of measuring what's in the blood while doing the "experiment".

Or you might be able to do a mass testing of dogs at dog club - and then compare steroid levels with collar types. But it would be hard to attribute cause from that.

I was thinking it could be fairly straight forward for vets to report to an online database - patients that come in with neck injuries or trachea problems and what kind of collar they came in with and what their owner says they usually wear. With humans you can see some nice bruising and swelling - it's a bit harder to see that in dogs.

I actually asked Emily Larlham about this at her seminar on the weekend. She only told me verbally so I don't have links unfortunately but she said that studies have shown that cortisol levels are unreliable. She said they tested cortisol of abused and non abused women and both could either have high, normal or low levels and there was no real pattern. I would be interested to find out more.

How would you use cortisol to measure stress in a dog that already has an overdose of cortisol (Cushings) or not enough cortisol (Addisons)? The results would be daft.

[Little Gifts]

People are living longer and I'd like to know how best to get our dogs to live longer (whilst remaining healthy). Cats live longer, as do horses and turtles and oodles of other animals. Why? What's missing in dogs or what are we as owners doing wrong?

We just don't get to keep them for long enough.

[Teebs]

To cure IMHA

[sandgrubber]

Most of the things I'd like to see have been mentioned (ie, polygenetic disorders, better understanding of dangerous dogs). One that hasn't been mentioned is research on the dog major histocompatibility system (ie, the part of DNA responsible for most immune system disorders). Specifically, some regard MHC/DLA homozygosity as a better indicator of inbreeding problems than pedigree-based indices such as the COI. If this can be definitively shown, it would be good to see further research into the technology done so that it becomes an affordable tool for breeders. This sort of research is actively going on. Hope it yields results we can use.

[Jigsaw]

Does the fact that some smaller breeds have an area centralis and others like herding breeds have a visual streak http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s953902.htm influence the way that some breeds of dogs react to others, i.e., smaller breed dogs watching other dogs - misinterpreted by larger dogs as a threat? But is this due to the retinal differences?

Edited August 23, 2012 by Jigsaw

[WreckitWhippet]

Some research without an "agenda" would be nice oh and some research that doesn't lump every mongrel bred dog that happens to resemble a breed in with our pedigree dogs.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

All research has an "agenda" ie you put up a theory, design a test, and then run the test. And at the end - the theory is supported - or not supported (which includes "inconclusive").

So without an agenda - the research would be aimless waffle.

It does get a bit tricky if some dog food company funds research into "best diet" for dog - and the result is raw or barf and not their product. They may choose to sit on the results then and not publish.

I thought the research on whipping horses was interesting - the conclusing was they alter their stride but run slower...

[Weasels]

I always figure as long as I'm being accused of bias by people from both sides of an argument equally I'm doing OK.

[moosmum]

Some research without an "agenda" would be nice oh and some research that doesn't lump every mongrel bred dog that happens to resemble a breed in with our pedigree dogs.

I assume this comment is aimed at my post. I don't want to de-rail this thread,but I'm honestly interested to hear why you would view this area of research as "pushing an agenda" or incompatible for breeders of pedigree and pure breeds of animals.

The benefits of pure bred,pedigree animals are irrefutable and recognised.There are surely going to be negatives as well that desereve research and recognition not only for a balanced view,but ensure best practices are clearly understood so those effects can be minimised.

The only threat I see to pure bred,pedigree animals is if these negatives are dismissed or covered up so that fanaticism rules policy.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

The benefits of pure bred,pedigree animals are irrefutable and recognised

This could be the theory you want to test with a scientific study.

But first you would have to define what you meant by "benefit"

I'm thinking stuff like

predictable temperament - ie a particular ANKC recognised pedigree (with an ancesteral record etc) is supposed to behave in this measurable way - and measure that and compare it with dogs that are called that breed or look like it but don't have papers or an ancestry traceable back to an ANKC dog.

predictable coat - shedding, non shedding, soft, scratchy, undercoat, (stripping coat - what is it border terriers have?) etc. And you'd have to define how you'd measure and compare these.

predictable lifespan? predictable health costs? predictable trainability (how long does it take to learn particular tasks - though there are a lot of environmental factors in this).

what else would you include as a "benefit", and how would you measure or test it to compare with non pedigree dogs?

I'd be quite interested too. And also in the differences between ANKC dogs and working lines for some breeds. Some working lines have good records of their ancestries - and some don't. And some have good records of their performance and some don't.

I would like to see some research on trainability - for things that you want a pet dog to be good at, and random trick training too. Ie any dog can be trained but some are easier than others (whether they're more of a people pleaser or just a bit spechul).

for a bit of fun - which (pedigree breed) dogs are best at training their owners?

[WreckitWhippet]

I can sum it up in one word

" McGreevy"

[Sheridan]

1345838822[/url]' post='5939246']

I can sum it up in one word

" McGreevy"

[corvus]

I think everyone knows Paul McGreevy is my PhD supervisor. As such, I doubt anyone here knows him nearly as well as I do. I imagine it will make no difference to the hate, but seeing as he's not here to defend himself, I'm happy to vouch for him. His research is driven by an 'agenda' as much as any research is. He's passionate about animal welfare. That's his agenda. It's not really much more complicated than that. He's not the threat some people seem to think he is. He's open-minded and very approachable and reasonable and while he's a bit of an optimist about what science can achieve and what animal owners and trainers can be convinced to do, he is pretty grounded in reality. He's really not an extremist. He stirs up trouble throwing rocks at accepted practices he doesn't think should be accepted. He sees problems with purebreed dogs, but not insurmountable ones. I have absolute faith that he knows what he's on about. He's proven that to me over and over. I think the haters if they ever put their hate aside and spoke to him personally and gave him a sporting chance would be pleasantly surprised. I personally love working with him and would be happy to collaborate with him well into the future.

As for the breeds thing, guys, if you want pedigrees to be treated separately study participation has to go way up. It's as simple as that. I had over a hundred breeds in my survey results and only about 1500 responses. Most breeds I couldn't treat separately because there weren't the numbers, let alone treating pedigree dogs separately. Time and again DOLers have been asked to participate in studies and they take it upon themselves to rip into the study, knowing nothing of how it has been designed and why and how it will be analysed. You are getting the chance to participate. If you choose not to, it's pretty hypocritical to then turn around and complain that studies are not representing your pedigree dogs accurately enough. We can only work with what data we get.

Edited August 25, 2012 by corvus

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

where's the like button? I like Corvus's post. I have read one of Paul's books and I've been to a 2 day seminar and talked to him on the phone. I have to agree with Corvus - his main agenda is the welfare of animals. He's not a Peta - all animals should live free in the wild to kill or starve as best they can.

But if he's going to say a practice is cruel or counter productive (eg you could train faster using a different method), he wants the science - well defined and executed studies with large sample sizes - to back it up.

So I really don't understand Pavlova's reaction or why Sheridan thinks it's funny.

[WreckitWhippet]

The only thing McGreevy is interested in is the end of the pedigree dog

[Rilla-My-Rilla]

Simple question. What does the average DOLer want out of science? If you could make a wish list of the 5 things you would most like to see more research done on in dogs, what would they be?

1. Raw, natural diets such as 'Give Your Dog A Bone'/BARF VS commercial dog food

2. & 3. More research about holistic animal care, and the affects of conventional vaccinations, and for it to be actually put out there where it is easy to find

4. More studies done on how much nutrition really plays an overall part in animals (and humans) - although this has probably already been done, once again though - it is generally hard to find

I can't think of anything for number 5 right now :)

[corvus]

The only thing McGreevy is interested in is the end of the pedigree dog

I suspect you just said a lot more about yourself than Paul McGreevy. :laugh:

I promise you, he's not interested in ending pedigree dogs. He's VERY interested in the long-term health of pedigree dogs. He doesn't think that necessarily means ending them. I hope you don't! He has the desire and the means to be a big help. Propagating hatred towards him in pedigree dog circles is probably at best unnecessary and at worst counter-productive. But hey, what would I know? I've only hung out with him talking dogs for the last 2 1/2 years.

[Sheridan]

1345882390[/url]' post='5939685']

1345869724[/url]' post='5939551']

The only thing McGreevy is interested in is the end of the pedigree dog

I suspect you just said a lot more about yourself than Paul McGreevy. :laugh:

I promise you, he's not interested in ending pedigree dogs. He's VERY interested in the long-term health of pedigree dogs. He doesn't think that necessarily means ending them. I hope you don't! He has the desire and the means to be a big help. Propagating hatred towards him in pedigree dog circles is probably at best unnecessary and at worst counter-productive. But hey, what would I know? I've only hung out with him talking dogs for the last 2 1/2 years.

When someone who has hung out with McGreevy for 2 1/2 years qualifies a statement about his interest in the long term health of pedigree dogs by saying he doesn't "necessarily" think that means "ending" them, then I think Pav's concerns are well justified.