It’s playtime (Source: iStockphoto)

Pampered pooches are so driven to play and please that these urges can overtake other instincts, such as being wary of strangers, a new study shows.

Socialised dogs don’t even seem to care who they play with, the study says, as long as the person plays by the same rules and general manner established by the dog’s owner during earlier play sessions.

“It could mean that if, over time, the dog and its owner develop a routine of games, the dog could generalise these behaviour routines to other play situations with another unfamiliar person,” researcher Lilla Toth says.

And, she adds, the dog is less prone to misunderstanding human intentions.

Toth, a researcher in the Department of Ethology at Hungary’s Eötvös Loránd University, and her team recruited 68 adult dogs of varying breeds for the study.

The dogs were all classified as family pets because they had all completed obedience and agility classes, they lived in their owners’ homes and they were regularly walked and otherwise cared for by their owners.

The scientists had each dog play both a fetch-ball game and a rag tug-of-war game with its owner and then an unfamiliar person, who stood nearby during all sessions.

Tail wagging

During the play sessions the researchers took note of each dog’s tendency for possession, willingness to retrieve, behaviours related to fear, avoidance and aggression, and the occurrence of play bows, when a dog crouches down on its front legs with its head held high and its tail wagging.

This bow is a visual cue that the dog would like to play.

The researchers then examined the effect that six factors had on the dogs’ behaviour: the familiarity of the play partner; the type of the game; the dogs’ gender, age and breed; and the ordinary amount of daily interaction between dog and owner.

In her paper, published online in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Toth says most of the dogs played with anyone in sight, so the factor related to the familiarity of the play partner was crossed off the list.

How much the dog played on a daily basis, however, did seem to affect how motivated or fearful the dog was during the study, so Toth advises owners to spend as much time with their dogs as possible.

“The more [owners] play with their dogs, and we mean the more types of games as well, the better,” she says.

The dog’s breed played a minor role, with breeds selected for fighting, such as terriers, occasionally tending to get more stimulated during the more competitive tug-of-war game.

Gender was a slightly more important factor, with males tending to be somewhat less tentative than females and more males than females preferring tug-of-war.

“That doesn’t surprise me,” says Lisa Peterson, an American Kennel Club spokesperson, “since females rear the young and have a tendency to be more leery.”

Driven to play

Peterson is also not surprised that both male and female dogs often seem to put aside their fears when their drive to play kicks in.

“Historically, dogs hooked up with humans some 15,000 years ago by pleasing us in exchange for food,” she says.

“They are motivated to play and to please, and these drives appear to be stronger than some of their other urges now.”

Peterson isn’t a big fan of tug-of-war games, though, since over time they can bring out those other doggy urges, such as competitiveness and dominance seeking.

If such games must be played, she says it isn’t so much who wins that matters, but who is in charge.

“All of us dog owners admittedly have knot tug toys,” says Peterson, who has bred dogs for more than 20 years.

“Just be sure to teach the dog to release the toy when playtime is over,” she advises. “You need to show it that you’re the boss and the top dog.”

Not a lot really because I think we choose our pets at any given time to suit our lifestyles rather than our personalities. For example, if we own a sheep farm, we presumably require a working dog or two. If we live in a small unit, we may opt for a toy dog breed. If we are seeking a guard dog, a large dog may be the most suitable choice – so I think it all depends on our needs at the time. Then again, sometimes, we don’t get to choose our dog at all and the dog chooses us! During my childhood, I can vividly remember bringing home many a stray dog that followed me home from school, much to my parent’s horror.

So do you agree with this latest research………………..

WHAT A DOG’S BREED SAYS ABOUT ITS OWNER

It is often said that dog owners come to look like their pets. Now it seems they think like them too.

A study of British dog owners revealrd that people tend to choose animals that mirror their own personality. Agreeable types are drawn to Labradors, a breed known for their friendliness, while hard-working and responsible sorts favour no-nonsense bulldogs.

But there were some surpises. The owners of Chihuahuas and other ‘handbag dogs’ beloved by celebrities such as Paris Hilton, are apparently most intelligent. The findings come from psychologist Lance Workman who questioned 2000 people, including 1000 dog owners, about their character traits. The results showed the two groups to be broadly similar. But within the dog owners, there were clear differences. Owners of corgis, the breed favoured by the Queen, scored highest on extroversion. Dr Workman said: “The Queen is probably more extrovert than she appears. It takes a lot to stand up in front of people and give a good talk.”

Hounds, such as foxhounds and beagles, are known for their even temperament and tend to be found buy the side of calm and consistent people.

Working dogs are owned by people who score higher on average on agree-ableness and intelligence. Labradors and Golden Retrievers tend to be paired with friendly sorts. However, toy dog owners buck the stereotype. Dr. Workman said: “One of the great things was that toy dog owners, who are often seen as airheads, came out pretty much on top when it came to openness, creativity and intelligence.”

Do you think this research is reliable or useful? What breed of dog do you have? Does your dog’s breed match your personality?

Nutrient supplements can severely compromise the health of your dog if they contain harmful, cheap fillers such as talcum powder, shellac, unstable oils and many other cancer-causing agents that have been found in cheap supplements. These companies are in business to make their shareholders money – not to make your dog healthier!

Unlike most ‘Off the shelf’ products – The formulas that I recommend  are not manufactured simply for profits, but for safe and effective clinical prescribing that I can rely on for my dog patients. As a qualified practitioner, my reputation rests on getting results so I would never consider recommending inferior products for my client’s pets.

I only ever recommend and prescribe safe and effective medicines and supplements that have been clinically tested and that meet the following criteria:

* They need to be Guaranteed to be free from harmful cheap fillers, toxic pesticide residues & dangerous heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium and aluminum, that are commonly found in other supplements.

* They need to contain therapeutic levels of each ingredient – not just a little bit of this and a tiny bit of that to impress you into buying the product and the nutrients used need to be the most easily utilized by the body (most cheap forms will just go straight through your pet!).

* They need to be natural forms of nutrients – not synthetic!

* The supplement companies that I rely on spend millions of dollars each year on scientific research to develop products with powerful biochemical activity & the highest absorption rates and to ensure their formulas contain nutrients & herbs in correctly balanced ratios to deliver optimal therapeutic results. Many cheaper, mass market producers compromise on the quality of raw materials & manufacturing processes.

* The companies I recommend need to use the best manufacturing processes when producing supplements – Avoiding the use of excess heat, moisture & compaction – which can reduce the biological activity of many nutrients and herbs. In addition, the companies I rely on do not use the common reactive binders, fillers & synthetic additives which many producers use and which may be unsafe and can cause short-term or long-term side effects.

* The treatments I prescribe have to have a very high percentage of success – my reputation as a practitioner relies on getting results! The supplements and herbal medicines that I prescribe cannot be compared to products available ‘off the shelf’ from retail outlets. In my clinical experience, these products usually have very limited effect or no effect at all.

Serious Quality Issues with ‘Off the Shelf’ Supplements

I have always been troubled by the safety and quality issues of these products (as described above) and, at the very least, have found that many of them have excessive binders which result in a reduced ability to dissolve or absorb their ingredients.

In addition, from many years of research, I’ve found that a large number of retail supplements do not contain the therapeutic doses of the active substances claimed on the label and, as I said, these mass-produced supplements are usually only manufactured to deliver profits to shareholders rather than health benefits to pets. Therefore, when it comes to dog wellness, I only ever use and prescribe nutrient and herbal supplements from companies that are at the fore-front in the field of integrative medicine that I feel confident will provide safe and effective results for my animal clients.

I wouldn’t ever give ‘off the shelf’ multi-vitamins, herbal supplements, fish oil capsules, glucosamine or any other cheap or inferior nutrient supplements to my client’s dogs or my own pets.

If you want effective solutions for your dog’s health problems or you want to try to prevent disease in your pet that may be caused by nutrient deficiencies – I recommend you only give them the highest quality herbal formulas and nutrient supplements available.

Why compromise their health?

Common plants that are poisonous to dogs include Apocynaceae species (Oleander), Viscum album (Mistletoe) and also Phoradendron (which is also known as Mistletoe); Euphorbia species (Castor oil plant, Coral plant, Petty spurge, Chinese tallow tree, Poinsettia, Zigzag plant, Naked lady, Acalypha, etc); Araceae species (Arum lily/Calla lily, Dieffenbachia/Dumb cane), some Solanaceae species especially Blackberry nightshade, Brazilian nightshade, Cestrum, Datura or Angels trumpet, Chalice vine or Golden cup, etc; Asclepias species (e.g. Balloon cotton bush, Red-head cotton bush, etc), Azaleas; the seeds and rhizones of the Zamia species (Cycadaceae and Zamiaceae) referred to as ‘Cycads’ and including the Sago Palm (refer to article below); Ranunculus species (Larkspur, Delphinium, Celery buttercup); Yew; Hemlock (Conium maculatum); some of the Verbena plant species (e.g. Lantana; the berries from Duranta repens) and many more plants that have toxic compounds can cause illness or even death in dogs.

The following article sadly illustrates what happened as a result of a dog eating a poisonous plant:

Atherton police dog dies after eating leaves of popular sago palm plant

Though trained like all other K-9 dogs to handle dangerous situations in the hunt for criminals, a German shepherd used by the Atherton Police Department recently died after eating the leaves of a popular garden plant.

The canine, named Lotty, died Nov. 30 after ingesting the parts of a sago palm in the backyard of her handler, Officer Dean DeVlugt, according to the police department.

When their work is done police dogs go home with their handlers and become “part of the family,” said police Lt. Joe Wade.

Lotty was usually “a bundle of energy” but gradually became lethargic after eating the plant over the course of a week or so, Wade said. Concerned, DeVlugt took the dog to the vet, but by then it was too late.

Veterinarians “tried valiantly to save Lotty, but the poison from the deadly plant shut down her liver,” Interim City Manager John Danielson wrote in a memo to the town council last week.

Sago palms look like short trees and have become a popular landscape option in recent years.

According to Redwood City veterinarian Cathy Jennings, who did not treat Lotty, a sago palm is on a list of eight plants considered common garden poisons for pets that she gives to all her clients.

The other plants include azaleas, Easter lilies, lantanas, mistletoe, nightshades, oleander and yew.

Jennings said it’s not uncommon for pets such as Lotty to die from eating such plants, especially around the holidays with so much mistletoe around as well as poinsettias, which are toxic but not deadly.

If a pet has eaten a poisonous plant, the owner should take it and a sample of the plant to a veterinarian, she said. A poison control hotline can also give advice, she said.

Lotty’s death hit Atherton’s police department hard, Wade said. She was almost 4 years old and had been with the department since she was 2.

“Everybody loved her, how can you not love a dog that’s so happy?” he said. “She was overly jubilant to be at work.”

Police dogs assist in searches of buildings and other locations to help find and apprehend dangerous suspects, he said. Lotty was specially trained to follow a scent.

I find the statements about homeopathy only ‘acting as a placebo’ to be quite amusing because this theory goes out the window when you are treating animals. Try telling a dog, cat, horse or any other animal that the pill they just took is useless (which is what many vets and doctors claim) – how would the animal know the difference between a pharmaceutical drug or a homeopathic remedy? They wouldn’t! Yet their response to homeopathic treatment can be incredible.

For example, the highly-resistant Cryptococcus fungal species that had been invading a 2yo cat’s sinuses since it was a kitten – causing excessive phlegm and respiratory problems which hadn’t responded to several courses of antibiotics – was totally cleared up with a homeopathic remedy that contained the fungus. Then there’s the case of the British Bulldog with candida infesting it’s whole body causing severe itchiness, crusty and sore skin patches and infection from all of the itching. Homeopathic medicines and dietary changes resolved this dog’s skin problems within weeks, despite him suffering for years. And then there’s the horse with chronic diarrhoea that  hadn’t responded to any of the veterinary treatments and neither the vets nor the owner knew what to do next. Specifically prescribed homeopathic remedies resolved the problem within days ……..and these are just ‘some’ of the cases that I have treated over the years and, although there have been many, many more –I’m sure  other practitioners around the world have just as many great outcomes when they have used individually-prescribed homeopathic medicines on their patients. 

The Swiss also believe in the power of Homeopathy and, not only do they include this safe and effective form of treatment in their national health service but they have also proven its effectiveness through extensive independent research. Some of this research has proven that homeopathic medicines have been more effective than conventional pharmaceutical treatments:

THE SWISS GOVERNMENT’S REMARKABLE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program. It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government’s “Health Technology Assessment”

The Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the “real world effectiveness” as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called “internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition). After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in “Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/Allergic Reactions,” of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government’s report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 “high quality” homeopathic studies but only nine “high quality” conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine,” has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or “unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be “effective” or “scientifically proven,” a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn’t is required. Ultimately, the Swiss  government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

REFERENCES:

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.
http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1 (This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general
practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html?cid=670064

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6.
http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678786.pdf

Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract

Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.

(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article “The future with complementary medicine”

http://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf

*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.

Dogs like sports celebrities too. They watch other dogs ‘play fight’ then hang out with the winners (Image: iStockphoto)

Dogs seem to enjoy watching other dogs compete against each other and gravitate towards the winners at the end of the game, according to a recent study.

The UK researchers, who publish their research in the journal Animal Behaviour, believe their discovery is the first demonstration of any animal eavesdropping play.

In this case, dogs appear to gain information about another dog or human’s social status and ability just by watching that individual compete.

Pooches excitedly rush toward victors when games finish, not unlike enthusiastic human sports fans at a stadium.

“I believe that within the context of a game, dogs prefer winners because they are likely to be a fun and effective partner with which to play,” says lead author Dr Nicola Rooney.

“One plausible function of play is that it serves as a ‘safe context’ in which to test one’s own competitive ability. An animal will learn more from playing with an able partner than with a lower quality one,” adds Rooney, a researcher in the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol.

She and colleague Dr John Bradshaw studied 18 canine spectators in a group that included labrador retrievers, springer spaniels and one golden retriever.

In an initial experiment, a dog was matched with a human competitor in a tug of war contest over a knotted rope toy. Each of the canine spectators was brought in on a leash to view matches.

For some games, the human competitor made it clear that he or she was playing by performing moves that dogs seem to associate with playtime.

These include play bows, where the person gets down on all fours with their forequarters lowered and arms outstretched; forward lunges, where the individual makes sudden, yet non-threatening, movements toward the dog competitor; and feet shuffling, which involves rapid movement of the feet while in a standing position.

After such competitions, the spectator canine would rapidly approach the human or doggy winner with a cheerful gait holding its ears and tail up, signifying a desire to interact with the victor.

When playful moves were omitted from matches, dogs were not as attracted to winners, since they probably thought the games were real competitions and the winner might pose a threat.

During a follow-up experiment, Rooney and Bradshaw repeated the first part of the study, only this time the spectator dog was confined to a crate and only heard the proceedings.

After matches, the listeners still gravitated toward the winner, which suggests that audio cues, and possibly other as-yet unidentified cues such as smells, might also allow dogs to identify winners and losers.

The research was partly funded by the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition, the research centre of a popular pet food company.

In related research, the scientists also determine that dogs like to win games, and that winning seems to improve the animals’ social skills, such as their “playful attention-seeking behaviours”, Rooney says.

She therefore advises that dog owners allow their pets to win at least some games, so long as play signals are included in the competitions.

But not everyone loves a winner. Studies over the past decade on Siamese fighting fish show that fish watching battles are more likely to approach losers than winners, probably because they view the winners as possible rivals.

VETS WARN ABOUT POPULAR DOG BONES

John Matarese
3.1.12

Dogs and bones. The two are almost inseparable: What dog doesn’t like chewing and then hiding a bone?

But a growing number of vets across the country are raising concerns about a popular dog treat that they say is injuring, even killing some pets: Cooked pork bones. Most dogs chew on rawhide bones, which shred to harmless fiber when chewed. But many stores are now selling pork bones, and dogs love them. Some people feel they are better, as they more resemble natural bones. But a growing number of online complaints list all sorts of injuries that owners blame on these bones.

Gene Balzer believed the packaging, which said the pork bones were good for his dog’s Bella and Reggie’s teeth. But then his dogs started getting sick, he said.

“It was actually in the vomit,” Balzer said. “There was little pieces of the bone in there. They were still sharp.”

What the Experts Say:

We found dozens of complaints from owners who spent thousands in vet bills, and even lost their dogs, after giving them pork bones. And x-rays show several images of where those pieces can end up lodged inside a dogs body. So we put them to the test. It took just seconds to send a pork bone splintering into shards. Emergency vet Dr. Kevin Fitzgerald sees these kinds of injuries on a weekly basis.. “I am an expert, ” Dr. Fitzgerald said, “and in 30 years I’ve seen a lot of problems with this type of food. Many of these sharp ones can cause perforations or lacerations as they go through.” He says brittle bones are among the most dangerous because of how dogs eat. “They’re gorging, they’re grabbing, they’re gonna swallow things in one gulp,” he said.

Regulations are Weak

The FDA investigated and recommended that processed and cooked bones never be given to dogs. So why are these potentially dangerous bones still in stores? We found the industry is largely self-regulated. The FDA requires pet food products be ‘pure and wholesome’ and ‘truthfully labeled.’ But these federal regulations apply only to the ingredients, not product safety. It’s something pet owners like Balzer want changed. “I really want to get this out there so other people don’t feed their dogs pork bones,” Balzer said.

Stores selling pork bones for dogs say they stand behind their products, and say they’re safe. But if you have any doubts about a product call your vet, before you give it to your pet.

That way he’s safe and you don’t waste your money.

What are your thoughts about pet shops stocking these potentially fatal cooked dog bones for pets?

Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DogNaturopath

The stubby legs appear to be the result of a wolf gene that got spliced back into the dog genome, say researchers (Source: iStockphoto)

The stubby, curved legs of dog breeds such as dachshunds, corgis and basset hounds stem from the mutation of a single gene early in the evolution of dogs, a study has found.

The genetic mutation which produces disproportionately short limbs is distinct from the trait that makes toy breeds like the Chihuahua or Shih Tzu so small.

It is believed to have occurred sometime after the ancestor of modern dog breeds diverged from wolves.

US and British researchers examined the genetic signature while examining DNA samples from 835 dogs, including 95 with short legs.

Their study appears in today’s edition of the journal Science.

They say while most dogs have only one copy of a growth-related gene, nearly 20 different breeds of short-legged dogs have a second, slightly altered copy of the gene called fibroblast growth factor 4 or FGF4.

This so-called retrogene appears to be a copy of a wolf gene that got spliced back into the dog genome some time after modern dog breeds diverged from wolves.

“We were surprised to find that just one retrogene inserted at one point during the evolution of a species could yield such a dramatic physical trait,” says the study’s lead author, Heidi Parker of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

“Our findings suggest that retrogenes may play a larger role in evolution than has been previously thought, especially as a source of diversity within species.”

Role in dwarfism

Previous research has found that the short legs of certain breeds is due to calcification of growth plates, called disproportional dwarfism.

Humans are also affected by a similar growth disorder, and the researchers believe this gene could be investigated for its possible role in some cases of human dwarfism.

“Our findings may prove valuable to scientists studying other aspects of human growth and development,” says co-author Elaine Ostrander, also of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

“The work also underscores the value of canine studies for uncovering new biological mechanisms that are likely relevant to human disease.”

Yours In Health,
Sar Rooney BHSc., DC., ND., DASc., GDSc. (Hons) Zoology, MATMS, MHATO
www.AnimalNaturopath.com.au

Does Fido’s owner look like this? (Image: Natl Human Genome Research Inst)

It’s official. Dogs look like their owners, a U.S. study suggests.

Researchers from the University of California, San Diego showed that people choose purebred dogs that resemble them. But they weren’t so fussy when it came to choosing a mongrel.

Psychologists Michael Roy and Professor Nicholas Christenfeld report their findings in the May issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the American Psychological Society.

The researchers explored the myth that owners look like their dogs by seeing if judges could match photographs of dogs with their owners.

The researchers photographed 45 dogs (25 purebreds and 22 mongrels) and their owners, separately. The researchers then showed 28 judges pictures of the owners, their dogs, and one other dog and asked to pick the true match.

The judges matched 16 purebred dogs with their owners but couldn’t find a link between mongrels and their owners.

The researchers also explored whether any resemblance had developed while the person had owned the dog, in the same way that a 1987 report suggested the facial appearance of married couples converged over time.

The other explanation would be that owners selected dogs at the outset that looked like them, the researchers said.

The researchers discounted the “length of ownership” theory when they found no correlation between the degree of resemblance and the time the dog and owner had been together.

This left the “selection” theory. The researchers said the fact that resemblance only occurred in purebred dogs, which have a more predictable appearance as puppies compared to a mixed breed, supported that theory.

The researchers said that a person was also likely to spend more time choosing a purebred puppy and thus be more likely to get what they want.

The research couldn’t establish that owners choose dogs on the basis of hairiness, size, sharpness of features, attractiveness, perceived friendliness or perceived energy level.

“The judges did not make correct matches by simply matching hairy people with hairy dogs, or big people with big dogs,” the authors wrote. “It may be that the judges used some other more subtle trait.”

The case with purebreds

According to Australian psychologist Dr Eleonora Gullone, who studies human-animal interactions at Melbourne’s Monash University, the study may have been biased by judges’ preconceptions about purebred dogs.

“People have preconceived notions of the personality of dog breeds,” she told ABC Science Online.

The researchers did find a trend that people with a friendly outlook on life were more likely to choose friendly-looking dogs.

While they said this association was only modest and not statistically significant, Gullone said this could be because of the small sample size.

Gullone also criticised the way the researchers declared a match: at least 15 of the judges would have to find a resemblance.

“That’s just one over 50% and I’m not comfortable with that,” she said.

The U.S. team said other research had found a link between owners and their dogs. They referred to 1999 research showing that women with long hair gave higher ratings of attractiveness, friendliness, loyalty and intelligence to dogs with floppy, rather than pricked ears.

Dog Naturopath, Sar Rooney’s comment: It seems to me that our tax-paying dollars are going towards funding research that really has no consequence and may not even be valid.

If YOU were a dog – what breed would you be?

Yours In Health,
Sara Rooney BHSc., ND., DC., DASc., GDSc. (Hons) Zoology, MATMS, MHATO.
Naturopathic Physician, Research Health Scientist & Canine Naturopath

Spot the personality (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Confirming dog owner suspicions, a new U.S. study reveals that dogs have personalities, and that these character traits can be identified as accurately as similar personality attributes in humans.

A team led by psychologist Professor Samuel Gosling of the University of Texas at Austin, reports on the first cross-species personality study between a human and another animal in the current Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Dogs (Canis familiaris) were chosen for the study because of their wide availability, the fact that they safely and naturally exhibit a wide variety of behaviours, are understood well by many humans, and can travel to research sites with ease.

The dog research consisted of three studies. For the first, 78 dog owners were recruited from dog parks to evaluate both themselves and their dogs using criteria common to human personality studies: extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness. The same evaluation of dog and owner was then carried out by a different person, who happened to be familiar with the dog.

For the second study, independent observers rated owners and dogs in a field-testing enclosure. And for the final study, photographs of human and animal participants were rated by a new set of independent observers.

After the three tests, the researchers determined that the judgments made for the dog personalities were as accurate as those made for the human personalities. While there was not 100% agreement for either human or dog evaluations, the responses of owners, peers, and independent judges all followed a similar pattern of consistency, which the researchers were able to chart mathematically.

The dog studies controlled for breed and appearance-based stereotypes, such as impressions based on size, sex, and age.

Gosling believes that more than half a human or non-human’s personality is inherited. The remaining percentage is formed by upbringing, events in life, and learning from chance happenings in the environment. As a result, animal studies could help to address some long-standing issues in human personality research.

“This includes such issues as understanding the social, biological, and genetic bases of personality and understanding how personality develops,” Gosling told Discovery News.

He said certain characteristics are associated with certain breeds: “So I can use these associations to make public statements to others. For example, if I want to convey a tough image, I will buy a rottweiller rather than a teacup terrier.”

Professor David Funder, chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of California at Riverside, agrees that animals have personalities, something that “every pet owner knows”.

Funder, however, was “surprised and impressed that Gosling was able to come up with ingenious methods to demonstrate and measure animal personality”.

Psychology Professor James King, at the University of Arizona and an expert on primates, said that research on chimpanzees and orangutans appears to support Gosling’s work, which King described as “elegant and well-executed”.

King said, “Tool using, culture, and language have recently been shown to not be uniquely human. Now, we are seeing that our personality and personality dimensions are also not uniquely human, but shared with non-human primates and even dogs.”

Yours In Health,
Sara Rooney BHSc., ND., DC., DASc., GDSc. (Hons) Zoology, MATMS, MHATO.
Naturopathic Physician, Research Health Scientist & Canine Naturopath