49 Day Litter Assessments - Page 1

Has anyone any got any practical experience of using 49 day litter assessments to evaluate the characteristics of their pups?   How accurate have they been in identifying temperamental traits?

My opinion is, that unless its a proven, repeat breeding, 7wks is much too early to make an assessment.

Police forces in the UK who breed their own pups, use this method, but I don't have any experience of it myself and just wondered if any breeders who have used it, had any comments for or against.

I think they are a great tool when used the correct way.  It is to be done by a stranger in an unfamiliar place.  It is a more objective way of looking at the pups who as a breeder you've probably been evaluating subjectively since day one.  You may see weakness you didn't notice before such as the dog that is a little timid about a new place when they rule the roost at home, the dog that is very social with new people at their home but more interested in their surroundings when away, a pup who may bring a toy back to you but not to a stranger, etc.  Of course it is just a snapshot of the pup and each pup is entitled to have an off day.

Sachsenwolf, have you used it on a litter yourself?  I am really interested in the outcome of selection using this technique. 

Since this appears to be your first litter, you might try Cornell or Tufts for information on academic links to the latest behavioural development research.  There are a lot of conflicting opinions on puppy testing.   Actually any large college with a good research library should have access to academic databases on site. 

It does appear, however that you have answered your own question above, so perhaps research is a moot point here?  

this is a very interesting topic and one that has so many variables that it's hard to say anything definitively.  i'm not a behaviorist but i find the subject fascinating and imo it really depends on how you end up using the information you get from the test.   right now i'm reading an older book (originally written in 1965) on how guide dogs, specifically gsds, were bred and raised.  this program began testing at around 6wk and continue testing until 12 wks - i believe the tests were done weekly. they used 2 types of tests: 1) new experience response tests, and 2) response after training tests.  these tests were all designed based on natural abilities & the types of things the dogs would be doing as adults. after reading recent articles on this subject it appears that this method is no longer used and has been replaced with one test at 7 weeks, then the pups are moved to puppy-raiser homes and returned and retested at 12 months. the success rate of the first and most time consuming method was around 95%; the 2nd method i blieve is around 30%. it's interesting to note that most guide dog programs no longer use gsds because they are passing at an even lower percent.

this leads me to believe that gsds need the early imprinting that happens during that critical phase between 7 & 12 wks so using a 49 day temp. test might help appraise where a pup is at in it's development, but it's far too small of a picture to really know the pup enough to say for sure what s/he will become. i think this plays into the alpha dog theory when you look at the entire dynamic of a pack you will actually see that a dog might be dominate in one situation but not in another that the "alpha" role changes depending on the situation, so if the 49 day test favors a particular trait the dog that is strong in that trait will appear to be "alpha". 

imo the problem with these one day tests is they try and over simply a very complex reality.  that said i do think they are better (most the time:) then not doing them.  the biggest trap to watch out for is 'pigeon-holing' and then treating the pup differently because of the test results.  many people will accepts these results as written in stone and they are not.  if you are going to use this testing method, from my pov, it's  best use is for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each pup at that moment and then use the results to devise an imprinting/early training program that will focus on strengthening those weaknesses and at the same time developing confidence by exercising the pups strengths.

Dhuinulfr,

Thanks for the suggested research.  This is deffinately not my first litter, but as with all livestock breeding, you never stop learning, and I am always looking to use anything which may help improve my results.

I was hoping that someone who has used this method, could share their experience of how successful  (or not) 49 day assessment was in pinpointing  character traits in members of their litter.

It is always difficult to determine how much environmental influences play a part in adult temperament, but at 49 days environment should not hide genetic traits should it?

Justcurious,

Interesting that you mention guide dogs in your post, as I do have some experience of assessment for their stock.  I bred a litter of labrador retreivers about five years ago, which were inspected by a representative from Guide Dogs for the Blind, here in the UK.  He was acting as an agent for the guide dog breeding programme in US, and was looking for future breeding prospects to improve their success rate.  He explained that he was concentrating on certain bloodlines which had been successful here, and applying a basic assessment test to litters from those lines.  He selected two pups from the litter, but unfortunately I could not get any follow-up on how successful their careers had been....Very frustrating.

It is very difficult to seperate environmental and genetic influences on temperament, as they seem to affect each other from birth (or perhaps before).

It's too bad you haven't gotten any feedback about your pups it would be good information to have. The book I'm reading now is "The New Knowledge of Dog Behavior" by Clarence Pfaffenberger.  I'm enjoying it very much. It was originally written 1965 but Dogwise is still publishing it.  My copy is used, pub. in 1972 but is identical to the new copy, no additions have been made.  Dr. J. Paul Scott, one of the people Pfaffenberger worked with, published a book in 2002 entitled "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog" I haven't read it but am considering buying it after reading about his work in Pfafferberger's book and because there are so few studies done with domestic dogs.

The breeding program Pfafaenberger discusses in his book took place in the 1950's & 60. Interesting, he says their most successful litters during this time had a very high coefficient of inbreeding of 48%.  He also said they managed to breed these dog with no physical or temperamental faults, so inbreeding/line-breeding when done well can yield excellent results.  Anyway about understanding environmental and genetic influences he said: "Because we inherit every physical, mental, temperamental and emotional trait ... nothing that ever happens in our life will add or take away from what we inherited, unless it is removed by surgery. ... Despite the fact that environment has a profound effect on every living thing and modifies the manner in which inherited traits are used, only what we inherit determines what we can be. ... What is often referred to as an "ideal climate" can help an individual reach his potential or nearly his potential.  Poor environment can cripple the development of an individual until he can never achieve the potential he was born with, even if an ideal climate is later provided." p 17-18

He talks a lot about how early socialization makes a huge difference because it can bring out genetic potential and how it can help ensure later success; he also says without any stimulation a pup will surely be stunted. He quotes Dr Scott: "As different as are the inheritance of different breeds of dogs, all, when given proper socialization from three weeks of age to sixteen weeks of age, will reach a satisfactory level of behavior.  Social relationships are formed through the process of learning. They begin at a point were the first capacity for learning appears. It is important to remember that, while previous learning may be altered by subsequent learning, subsequent learning will never obliterate previous learning." p 132

To sort of summarize Pfaffenberger's position: the 1st 3 wks there is no learning but there is neurological development, sort laying of the tracks in preparation for the 'great awakening' at around 21 days. Then the period from 21st to the 28th day is critical for the mother/pup relationship, if the pup experiences some trauma during this week it will scar the pup for life with no recovery creating a nervous dog, so if a pup needs to be removed for it's mother it is best done before or after this week. Starting at week 4 and going through 7 not only canine socialization needs to continue but imprinting of humans is critical otherwise the pups will become aloof and uninterested in bond or working with humans.  At this age you can actually start introducing new stimulus - sights, sounds, textures, changes in environment ... - to encourage curiosity (a sign of intelligence); and even begin some training, but the 5th or 6th wks is a very good point to start exposing them to all sort of "startle response" situations, human bonding exercises as well as some fetch, sit and come exercises to imprint the concept that cooperation with humans is a very positive thing for

(to continue) ... for the pup. This will bring out any willingness & intelligence the pup has inherited while the "startle response" experiences if done well can stabilize the temp by sort of sensitizing and teaching the pup to stay calm yet curious instead of panicking, as much as is capable of given the genetics that is. 

Another interesting thing they found: even when they did 'everything right' (i.e. good breeding, early socialization, proper training ... ) they still had dogs fail when tested in the final stage of their training (I believe this takes place around 15 months old). Training the dog to take responsibility to make decision to lead - to keep the owner safe even if it goes against what the owner is telling the dog to do - is the most important quality for a guide dog, so passing this test is vital. Some of the dogs who failed were the top in every other aspect of training but when faced with this situation, commonly encountered by a guide dogs, they would get confused and were unable to take responsibility so failed as guide dogs.  What they found when looking over their data was if a pup, who had finished it's puppy testing period (this happened at 12 wks of age), had not placed in a home within in a week the chances of successfully completing their training drop each week they remained in a kennel.  They concluded that the testing process was very social and when it stopped and no social interaction was given in it's place when these pups matured they were not able to take the responsibility required of a guide dog. But if socialization was continued at least 1 hr once a week this problem no longer occurred - I find this just fascinating.

So it would appear that the period from 3 wks to 16 wks can make or break a dog no matter how well breed the dog is; but at the same time a dog with a poor genetic make up is severely limited no matter how great the environment s/he is raised in. Be sure socialize will still help a genetic weak dog the best s/he can be and perhaps these dogs need it even more. Anyway it appears that this time period lays the foundation on which all else is built. It is the time to solidify the good qualities and suppress the unfavorable qualities.  This is why I think even doing one test at 49 days is better than nothing because it can help the breeder and new owner understand what can be done to encourage the favorable traits and balance or control the unfavorable ones.  Even though it is such a small amount of info it still can tell you enough about the pup to help taylor a program based on a simple snapshot of the genetic make up; a program which you can always modify as you learn more about the pup.