Heal the Dog

We are seeing far too many dogs with less-than-ideal relationships with food (inappetence, extreme pickiness, etc.). A dog’s individual interest in food can directly predict responsiveness in various contexts involving reinforcement. That individual relationship can form - or fail to form - during the first eight weeks of life, the critical developmental window Scott and Fuller established as the period during which experience can create lasting behavioural patterns.

Group feeding - benefits, competition, and unequal outcomes

Group feeding has genuine merit. It has been demonstrated that the presence of littermates stimulates food intake in young puppies, supporting early growth. Shared feeding also introduces puppies to a natural social dynamic around resources - something with real developmental value.

However, importantly, the outcomes across a litter are not equal. Research has identified large within-litter variation in competitive behaviour around food, with quieter, less competitive puppies measurably disadvantaged in group feeding situations from as early as the nursing stage. Bolder puppies lead; quieter ones learn early to be passive around food. Human intervention has mixed outcomes regarding reducing overt competition, but there is no strong evidence that it builds food motivation or confidence in the quieter puppy.

These are not simply feeding habits - they are behavioural patterns forming during the most sensitive developmental window of the dog’s life. The research tells us those patterns persist.

Beyond individual inequality, group feeding makes appetite socially driven rather than individually motivated. The puppy responds to what the litter is doing rather than developing its own relationship with food. For puppies destined to live alone, in particular, that social dependency has nowhere to go.

What then happens when pups join their new families - the social trigger disappears overnight, littermates are gone, and the puppy has no individual food motivation to fall back on because it was never asked to develop one. New guardians then see disinterest or pickiness, become understandably anxious, and begin hand feeding, switching foods, adding toppers, and most importantly, emotionally investing in their pup's disinterest - inadvertently teaching the puppy that disengaging from food generates attention and variety (not that variety is a bad thing, of course)

The practical solution - combining both

The answer isn’t to abandon group feeding, as said; it absolutely has its benefits; it is to introduce individual feeding alongside it. Retaining some communal meals preserves the social and developmental benefits. Adding individual meals - particularly in the final two to three weeks before puppies join their new family gives each puppy valuable experience: food is finite; it is not just socially motivated but individually too; it arrives in a specific place, and a person is involved.

For individual meals to do their developmental job properly, physical separation matters. A puppy eating too close to their littermates is still eating in a social context. True individual feeding means each puppy eats alone with a guardian present - calm and consistent.

For puppies going to a two-dog household, structured paired feeding can occasionally be utilised (individual bowls, physical separation, human present), building the individual relationship with food while introducing the social context the puppy will actually live in.

The continuity principle - it is well established that significant mismatches between breeder and new home environments can be directly implicated in behavioural difficulties post-adoption. Small adjustments pre-adoption cost the breeder very little but give the puppy and new guardian maximum benefits.

* We mustn’t forget that there may be numerous reasons why a puppy or dog is not eating well (including medical). I’m describing here, ways that breeders may support the development of a healthy, individual relationship with food.

Rapid growth is more often a consequence of excess calorie intake than of excess protein. Energy-dense puppy diets make overfeeding easy, driving accelerated growth, heightened growth signalling, and potentially less favourable long-term health outcomes.

Many puppy kibbles, for example, hit or exceed 400 kcal per 100 g. Convenient, yes - but that energy density makes it easy to overshoot, contributing to excessively rapid growth, increased IGF-1 signalling (and higher IGF-1 is associated with reduced longevity), and a greater risk of developmental orthopaedic disease in susceptible dogs.

Appropriate growth is steady and moderate. A lean puppy will still reach its genetically determined adult size; just arriving there more gradually, with better-conditioned joints and connective tissue along the way. Feeding guides tend to overestimate, so adjust to the puppy in front of you.

This is where fresh feeding has an edge - a higher moisture content and lower calorie density means a puppy can eat a satisfying, generous-looking meal without the energy overload of dry diets. Fresh diets also tend to be markedly lower in carbohydrate, resulting in reduced insulin/IGF-1 signalling, which drives the growth acceleration we’re trying to avoid.

The “immediately friendly equals well-socialised” myth

There’s a widespread assumption - particularly in Western dog culture - that an immediately friendly dog is a well-socialised one. But sociability and social health aren’t the same thing.

A dog that rushes up to every stranger isn’t necessarily confident. It can equally reflect overarousal (due to varying emotions), a lack of impulse control, or a lack of clear social boundaries.

Natural reservation and fear are not the same thing. This distinction matters enormously, and the two are frequently collapsed, which is a significant equivocation with real consequences for dogs.

Fear-based reservation tends to involve active avoidance, visible stress signals, and an inability to recover. Natural reservation looks quite different - the dog may be calm, observant, and fully functional - simply withholding engagement until they’ve made their own assessment. Conflating the two pathologises a healthy characteristic.

Some breeds were never bred for indiscriminate friendliness: Chow Chows, Akitas, and many Nordic and Eastern breeds among them. Applying a universal social template to every dog and finding them wanting does a real disservice to both the individual and the breed. The Eurasier standard, for example, describes the breed as reserved with strangers, but without signs of aggression - and in my experience, that’s accurate. There’s a spectrum, as with any breed, but natural reservation was genuinely one of the things that drew me to them.

The pressure for dogs to be immediately friendly with strangers largely serves the stranger, not the dog. A dog that takes their time is exercising due diligence. Appropriate social boundaries. Something we’d readily respect in a human.

There’s also a persistent assumption that reservation in adult dogs signals inadequate early socialisation. Sometimes that’s true - but a well-socialised dog of a naturally reserved breed, or any breed, may still be reserved. Socialisation does shape confidence and resilience, but it doesn’t necessarily alter how much social contact a dog seeks, or from whom.

Every dog deserves to be read as an individual - not measured against a template, or unrealistic expectations that we wouldn’t apply to other humans.

“Considering both the substantial body of literature advocating in favor of des*xing as a means of population control and the widespread use of des*xing in shelters and by private practice veterinarians over the last 40–50 years, the body of evidence investigating the effectiveness of des*xing to actually achieve population control in companion and shelter dogs is surprisingly slim, and the evidence from such studies does not generally support the existence of an effect of des*xing programs. There is also evidence that dogs being relinquished to shelters may be more strongly correlated with the existence of behavior problems than with population size.”
Urfer, S.R. & Kaeberlein, M. (2019). Des*xing Dogs: A Review of the Current Literature.

Even if des*xing were proven to reliably reduce shelter populations, the ethical question would remain. We shouldn’t consider the universal removal of s*x hormones of any species to be ethically unquestionable simply because it is convenient at a population level - routinely removing a major endocrine organ carries documented consequences for physical health and behaviour that deserve more scrutiny than they typically receive.

Robust guardian education, accountability, and responsible breeding practices are a more defensible solution than making des*xing the default. There is a meaningful difference between breeding practices and the responsibility with which they are carried out - unless the argument is that companion dogs should cease to exist within a generation, which is a philosophical position, not a welfare one.

For those where reproductive management is genuinely necessary, s*x hormone-sparing alternatives such as vasectomy and ovary-sparing spay preserve endocrine function while addressing reproductive capacity - a more considered approach than routine gonadectomy.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/12/1086

Did you know some dogs are just wired to be more curious than others?

My 17-month-old Eurasier Hiro is the most curious and inquisitive dog I’ve ever lived with. It’s the trait I would say most defines him.

Curiosity in dogs comes down to a few key factors:

Genetics & breed - some breeds are simply more observant and investigative by nature. Eurasiers were developed from breeds that needed to stay alert and engaged with their environment - Samoyed and Wolfspitz (Hiro’s grandfather is a Samoyed, which may be explanatory). The third breed, Chow, is notably more reserved and tends toward calm observation rather than active participation.

Age - adolescent dogs (roughly 6–24 months) are at peak novelty-seeking. The brain is highly plastic at this stage and dopamine-driven exploration is in full swing.

Early socialisation - dogs appropriately exposed to a wide variety of environments and situations as puppies approach the world with curiosity rather than fear. They’ve built a bigger library of things that feel safe to investigate.

Confidence & security - curious dogs are rarely anxious dogs. A dog that feels safe and securely attached to their owner is free to explore. We see a similar “secure base” effect in children.

Individual character also plays a role, like humans, dogs vary in openness to experience, and some are simply born more switched on to environmental curiosity than others.

If your dog is endlessly curious, it’s a healthy sign; it usually means they’re confident and well-adjusted.

What trait most defines your dog?

“Maybe I should just castrate him so other dogs leave him alone”

I hear this regularly from clients - and as the owner of a young intact male myself, I get it. Being targeted by castrated males is frustrating and stressful for everyone involved. The logic seems simple: intact males get targeted because of their hormonal scent profile, so remove it, remove the problem. However, castration isn’t a guarantee that other dogs will respond positively; targeting behaviour isn't exclusively purely hormonal, and if your dog has suffered socially due to this, removing testosterone can further reduce confidence, potentially worsening social interactions.

Younger, intact males tend to fare worse. Peak testosterone combined with limited social experience means they’re both more provocative to other dogs and less equipped to defuse the situation. This may improve with maturity.

The subtle pressure of constantly justifying your choice to other guardians is exhausting. At some point, “if you can’t beat them, join them” can start to feel tempting - not because it’s the right decision, but because it’s the path of least resistance. Is that a good enough reason for such an irreversible, impactful procedure?
Knowledge is your best defence - both for making the decision and for fielding the opinions. The evidence base for keeping males intact has grown significantly, with links between early castration and joint disease, certain cancers, and increased anxiety. The more informed you are, the less those conversations will wear you down.

Before committing to surgery, consider:
Better situational management: avoiding situations where conflict is likely isn’t a defeat; it’s sensible.

Advocating for your dog - taking a front seat when others won’t recall their dog, and in interactions - an off-lead castrated male repeatedly targeting your dog is their recall problem, not your dog’s existence problem.

Working with your dog (maybe with a professional) to help him stay calm and better able to defuse moments of tension is worth prioritising - a dog who doesn’t mirror or amplify (often inadvertently) the other’s intensity is much less likely to turn a tense encounter into a full confrontation.

Some guardians use odour-masking products with mixed results - probably not a reliable solution, but a low-risk thing to try in the meantime.

If all else fails, a temporary hormonal implant lets you assess the effect of castration before committing to anything permanent (results are not always an accurate predictor though).

Your intact dog isn’t the problem, even if others may treat him as though he is.

Here’s something many don’t realise about s*x hormones - they are not exclusive to either s*x: male or female.

In a male dog's brain, an enzyme called aromatase converts testosterone into estrogen. Yes… estrogen. Female dogs produce testosterone in the ovaries, adrenal glands, and brain. The brain also doesn’t just receive s*x hormones; it can also manufacture them via neurosteroid synthesis. The brain has all the enzymes needed to build testosterone and estrogen from cholesterol, on demand in response to stimuli (stress, threat, social encounters etc.).

So when it comes to the old story (for male dogs) - that “testosterone = aggression” - the knowledge that estrogen in the male brain can both increase and reduce aggression, depending on which receptor (ERα/ERβ) it binds to, shows just how reductive this view has been.

Blood testosterone levels don’t predict which dogs will be aggressive. What matters more is what the brain is doing with that testosterone, how much it’s converting, how sensitive the receptors are, and how that shifts with environment and social experience.

Also, neutering removes the go**ds, but it doesn’t touch the brain’s own production system. The hormonal conversation in the brain doesn’t just switch off (nor does it compensate for the huge systemic loss). How that conversation shifts post-neutering may partly explain the increases in anxiety and fearfulness we often see.

So testosterone and estrogen - These aren’t exclusively male and female hormones. They’re a shared, dynamic system - running in both s*xes, produced locally in the brain, responsive to the environment, and far more complex than the story we’ve been telling.