This commentary belongs in what I mentally think of as my “Field of Dreams” file. These topics arise from discussions with those who work with companion animals that almost inevitably include a recurrent theme: The old approaches have reached a point of diminishing returns because the needs and expectations of the animal and human populations have changed a great deal since these initially were implemented in the 1950s-80s. At the same time, we all know that it takes more energy to change than to remain the same, so change often occurs very slowly. Still, it never hurts to plant the seeds of change…
Given my status as a grandmother, naturally an article in the May, 2013 Discover magazine entitled “Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes” immediately caught my attention. The article is one of the many that increasingly explore the role of the epigenome in human and nonhuman animal behavior and health. Put very simply, it’s the epigenome that determines whether particular genes in particular individuals do something and, if they do, what they do.
Originally what’s now called the epigenome was among what was referred to “junk”, that part of the DNA that wasn’t made up of genes. Later when the epigenome was discovered, researchers naively believed that it only functioned during fetal development where it oversaw the formation of the right kind and number of cells to produce a functioning heart, kidneys, lungs, and other vital parts. But later research revealed that it functions throughout our lives, can do amazing things, and is affected by outside factors such as diet, chemicals in the environment, and of particular importance to those interested in behavior, even parenting strategies. Additionally, apparently changes in genes triggered by the epigenome get passed from generation to generation, including behavioral strengths and weaknesses. So by the third generation, even though any changes still aren’t written in stone, they may be more resistant to change.
Because the majority of epigenomic studies have been done in animals, this got me thinking about the increasing potential for parenting mismatches in companion animals. Compared to the emphasis placed on human-orchestrated socialization protocols, the behavioral implications of same-species parenting often are overlooked in early companion animal development. Unlike the parenting of young children about which much has been written, many still view animal parental care as primarily nutritional. The role of the bitch, queen, or mare is to provide milk until the young can eat on their own. Anything they need to know about functioning in that or any other environment they can learn as they go from us. Or so this kind of thinking goes.
But if we acknowledge the influence the behaviors of, for example, canine grannies may have on their grandpuppies thanks to the epigenome, how beneficial would the legacy conferred by grannies bred and raised in the following non-pet environments confer on puppies destined to be pets?
- Function-specific kennels such as those who breed animals primarily for show, field, protection, or military work with the leftovers being sold as pets
- Puppy mills
- Farms, woodlands, city streets from which free-roaming animals and their offspring are rescued
Logic says not very much.
This got me thinking about wet-nursing in which woman who can’t or don’t want to nurse their infants for some reason hire (or buy or force depending on the culture) another woman to do this for them. Although some may perceive the wet-nurse as strictly fulfilling the infant’s nutritional needs, references to wet-nursed children as “milk siblings” and other references to “milk kinship” long have acknowledged that something behavioral and emotional also is going on. Now it seems likely that part of what was and is going on is related to the epigenome.
Going back to those pups whose parents and grandparents lived in environments quite different from those of most pet dog ones: As long as special-function-bred pups, those born in puppy mills or possessing multigenerational free-roaming roots are often taken away from their moms as soon as they’re able to eat solid food, providing canine wet-nurses with strong companion breeding could benefit those puppies destined for the pet dog market. So instead of taking pups away from their perhaps inappropriately behaviorally predisposed moms in favor of unsupervised littermate “education” (think Lord of the Flies), the litter would be cared for by carefully chosen canine wet-nurses instead.
One major obstacle to this approach is the same one that routinely plagues our capitalistic society: the belief that time is money. The aforementioned organizations supplying the bulk of the puppies to the American pet-dog market want to place the maximum number of animals at the lowest cost/animal. But if rectifying the effects of insufficient and/or inappropriate maternal care results in increased costs to the adopter or buyer as the puppy matures, eventually the word will get out. And when that happens, potential adopters or buyers will shy away from those sources. As a result, those organizations will have to hold those animals longer and their costs per animal will rise accordingly.
But other possibilities do exist. For example, rescue, puppy mill, and non-companion animal breeders could offer potential adopters or buyers the option to pay a surcharge for a puppy who has received this additional care. Or perhaps instead of placing these behaviorally immature and unprepared animals in socialization classes that may confuse and overstimulate them, owners and adopters could arrange daily meetings with adult animals with quality parental skills instead. These adults would first build the youngsters confidence by teaching them self-reinforcement and self-control. Then they would serve as models of appropriate responses in the human environments defined in the standard socialization protocols.
Even as I write this, though, I remember a comment made at a meeting of trainers and behavioral consultants when I suggested using well-behaved adult dogs as models in classes: “Great idea. Do you know anyone who has one?”
Therein lies the reason why the content of this commentary resides in the Field of Dreams file. For all our talk about pets as members of the family, “fur-babies,” or “fur-kids”, the reality is that our approach to the raising and teaching of puppies would make a good canine parent weep. Ours is a method ham-strung by a problem-oriented, anthropocentric (i.e., human-centered) view designed to fulfill human rather than canine needs. We do what we do because it’s the easiest and most convenient for us. As long as that’s the case, and as with all aspects of our interactions with animals, there’s little incentive to invest the additional energy required to change.
So until that bittersweet day when it takes more energy for us to resolve the problems the current approaches cause our animals than it saves us, they’ll just have to do the best they can.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
It’s great to find soeonme so on the ball