Rumen BİNEV, Ivanka STOYCHEVA, Krasimira IVANOVA UZUNOVA, Andrey IVANOV, Anton ROUSENOV, Toncho PENEV, Thonka MITEVA

Studies on Socialization Characteristics Using Two Temperament Tests in German Dogue, Doberman and Riesenschnautzer Puppies

Araştırmanın amacı, German Dogue, Doberman ve Dev Schnautzer köpek ırklarında sinir sistemi faaliyeti tipinin (mizaç) bunların sosyalizasyonlarının (çevreye adaptasyonu) ölçüsüne etkisinin incelenmesidir. Hayvanların davranışlarını incelemek üzere iki test uygulanmıştır: ayna testi ve Queinnec testi. German Dogue köpek ırkına ait yavruların en yüksek sosyalizasyon becerisine sahip olduğu ve bunları Dev Schnautzer ve Doberman ırklarının takip ettiği görülmüştür. Bu durum, German Dogue köpek ırkına ait bireylerin özel bir davranışı oluşturabilmek için en az eğitim süresine ihtiyaç göstereceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Dev Schnautzer sosyalleşmek için ortalama bir beceri göstermiştir ve bulunduğu çevreye Doberman’dan daha kolay, German Dogue’dan ise daha zor adaptasyon gösterecektir. Agresyona ve kötü huylu mizaca en fazla yatkın olanlar Doberman ırkından olduğu için eğitilmesi en zor olan köpek yavruları da Doberman ırkından olacaktır.

GERMAN DOGUE, DOBERMAN VE DEV SCHNAUTZER KÖPEK YAVRULARINDA SOSYALIZASYON ÖZELLIKLERI ÜZERINE İKI MIZAÇ TESTI KULLANILARAK ARAŞTIRMALAR

The object of study was the influence of the nervous system type (temperament) of dogs from the German Dogue, Doberman, and Riesenschnautzer breeds on the extent of their socialization (adaptation to the environment). Two tests were used to examine the animals’ behavior: the mirror test and the Queinnec test. It was established that puppies of the German Dogue breed possessed the highest socializing capabilities, followed by the Riesenschnautzer and Doberman breeds. This means that the representatives of the German Dogue breed would require the least amount of training time in order to form specific behavior. The Riesenschnautzer exhibited average ability to socialize, and will adapt to the environment more easily than the Doberman breed and with more hardship than the German Dogue. The puppies that would be hardest to train were the ones from the Doberman breed, as they are most prone to aggression and ill temper.

PDF

___

Arata, S., Momozawa, Y., Takeuchi, Y., Mori, Y, 2010. Important behavioral traits for predicting guide dog qualification. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Science 72, 539-545.
Campan, R., Scapini, F, 2002. Les causes proximales du comportement. In: Ethologie. Approche systematique du comportement, De Boeck, Bruxelles, Belgium, pp. 35-98.
Denkov, V., 1996. Dog Encyclopaedia, Horizon Publishing House, Sofia, pp. 30-35.
Diederich, C., 1998. Les tests comportementaux chez le chien. Le point de vue du chercheur, Le monde veterinaire 59, 19-27
Diederich C., Giffroy, J. M., 2006. Behavioural testing in dogs: a review of methodology in search for standardisation, Applied Animal Behavioral Science 97, 51-72.
Giffroy, J. M., 1998. Evolution des relations comportementales entre l’homme et le chien. “Le chien dans la societe”, Séminaire de la Société Francophone de Cynotechnie,, Paris, France.
Haverbeke, A., Rzepa, C., Depiereux, E., Deroo, J., Giffroy, J. M., Diederich, C., 2010. Assessing efficiency of a new behavioural modification programme on fearfulness and aggressiveness of military dogs. Applied Behavioral Science, 123,143-149.
Houpt, K.A., 2007. Review article genetics of canine Behavior. Acta Veterinaria Brno 76, 431-444.
Keeling, L., Jensen, T, 2002. Behavioural disturbances, stress and welfare. In: Jensen P. (ed.): The Ethology of Domestic Animals. An introductory text. CABI Publishing, UK, pp. 79- 78.
Ley, J.M., Bennett, P.C., Coleman, G. J., 2009. A refinement and validation of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (MCPQ). Applied Animal Behavioral Science 116, 220-227.
Mitsulov, A., 1993. Dog breeds in Bulgaria, Sofia, pp. 11; 62-63, 112-113.
Montagnier, H., 1998, Le chien et l’enfant. Aspects medicaux et comportementaux. Le chien dans la societe, Séminaire de la Société Francophone de Cynotechnie, Paris, France,.
Petkov, A., Enev, E., Sivkova, S., Varlyakov, I.., Oblakov, N., 1999. Canine Behaviour, Stara Zagora, pp. 161-183.
Queinnec, G., 1996. Les troubles du comportement et leur correction. Le comportement social du chien, Séminaire de la Société Francophone de Cynotechnie, Lyon, France, pp. 76-120.
Renaud, S., 1996. Test utilizes pour l’analyse du caractere. Le comportement social du chien, Séminaire de la Société Francophone de Cynotechnie, Lyon, France, p. 30.
Saetre, P., Strandberg, E., Sundgren, P.E., Pettersson, U., Jazin, E., Bergstrom, T.F., 2006. The genetic contribution to canine personality. Genes, Brain, Behavior 5, 240- 248.
Uzunova, K., 2006. Investigation of some hygienic and technological parameters of rearing facilities for dogs, PhD Thesis, pp. 108-113.
Uzunova, K., Semerdjiev V., Stoyanchev, K., Russenov, A., Tsandev, N., Yonkova, P., 2008. Effect of temperament type on socialization among companion dogs, Trakia Journal of Sciences 6, 33-35.
Uzunova, K., Mitev, Y., Miteva, Tch, Vashin, I., 2009. Prediction of the behaviour of puppies using tests with regard to their humane treatment and welfare, Trakia Journal of Sciences 7, 51-53.
Uzunova, K., Radev, V., Varliakov, I., 2010. Socialization of puppies – a marker of their future behaviour, Trakia Journal of Sciences 8, 70-73.
Vastrade, F., 1996. La socialization du chiot et son evaluation. Le comportement social du chien, Séminaire de la Société Francophone de Cynotechnie, Lyon, France, pp. 157-177