Thoughts on food and food rewards

corgipower

The point being that it is a very typical issue with the breed. What you call obsessive is drive and competing for resources, also very typical for the breed.

There is something important to be noted here, I think, and that is of all of the breed groups, the OCD pathology seems to be very highly prevalent in the herding breeds, compared to other breeds. Due to their intense drives, their intense personalities, and their overall, well, intensity (!), when you hear of these types of things happening, the highest probability of dogs that live with these issues are indeed the herding dogs. A lot of it really is linked to what makes a herding dog a herding dog. Any breed of any dog can be afflicted, as part of it is indeed personality-based as well, but the herding breeds definitely take the cake for things like this, and this level of arousal.

DPU

I also expect that trainers who advocate food base training don't have the knowledge either but yet I see things like throw roast beef at the dog to make the dog perform, make the driver even stronger so the dog learns fasters.  But at what costs to the dog.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much my question, more or less. Maybe the cost to the dog is nothing, maybe it's something small, maybe it's something deceptively large.... I guess it changes with every dog. I'm exploring possibilities, here.

Kim, I don't think anyone at home right now is interested in doing anything about Penny's food thing. Out of the three dogs, she's by far the least annoying, best behaved, and therefore most pleasant to have around. Everyone adores her at all times, even when she's being mental about food. The only one that has to deal with her at her worst is my mother, who finds it easier while single-handedly taking care of 8 animals and juggling all her other commitments to just manage manage manage. I don't blame her. It most certainly is easier to manage than attack with training.

Interestingly, Pyry and Jill were brought up differently to Penny. Penny was pre clicker-training and pre positive training, even. And even when we all got over the traditional methods and went to treats, I still didn't use them with Penny because I found them more trouble than they were worth. Jill and Pyry did get taught with treats and are fine and dandy. I do not believe treat training caused this problem, because I never even used it. When it comes down to it, all dogs have their highest drive. Jill's is play, and Pyry's is prey, and Penny's is food. Jill and Pyry will never be the way Penny is about food. Just as she'll never be the way Jill is about playing and the way Pyry is about hunting. And I guess just as Penny gets stupid about food, Jill gets stupid about playing fetch and Pyry... well, Pyry never gets stupid about anything, but he does get EXTREMELY intense when there's potential prey about that he thinks he can get and the last time he found a big, slow lizard he was throwing himself aggressively at the girls so they'd leave him alone with the hapless lizard.

I do know that this is a matter of drive. But what I'm thinking is that maybe the highest drives should be rewarded only for super important things. For example, I avoided food with Penny because her food drive is too high for most of the things I wanted to teach her. It could be bits of dry toast and she'll be dancing around desperately trying to get it. If she was the kind of dog that didn't somehow automatically have a great recall, then maybe I'd use food as a reward for recall. I want that to be the best of the best after all. But in low-key learning, all food is too hot for a practical reward. If I have to wait several minutes for her to calm down even enough to listen to me, then I don't feel like I'm doing her any favours by choosing that reward. Maybe I'd be better off using her second-highest drive, being affection in her case, because then the training session is more relaxed and she's more attentive and she's not getting fixated on any behaviour that happens to get her a piece of cat kibble or something. Same thing for Jill. Mum has been working on her recall and focus using fetch, and it's working really well. However, for more everyday things, she's most responsive to praise, like Penny. It's about the right level of reward to make her want to do it, but calmly and we're all relaxed. And Pyry's second-higest drive is food, so he learns really well with clicker-training and treat rewards.

I don't really want to do less exciting food with Penny because as far as she's concerned, there is no less exciting food. There's exciting food, more exciting food, seventh heaven exciting food, and not food.

Incidentally, I haven't decided if I want to work on this or not, yet. I'll wait and see how she goes once she's on her own again, and then if it changes when the pup comes. If it comes back to normal Penny manageable level, I'm happy to leave it at that. I feel that for Penny to be blase about food at all would be cause for me to worry, and in the past, it has made me very worried if she's not dancing and wuffing in excitement about food or treats. That's her. Food is her super high drive. But if she continues to be so compulsive about it, or starts again so that she won't go to bed until she's checked every bowl three times, or won't go for a walk until she's checked every bowl again, or tries to steal at risk to her own safety all the time, then I might be wanting to change things.

ron2

All hail Satan ... and pass the roast beef. So many dogs, so little time ...

I think it is irresponsible to make fun of an idea when it is based on real experience and observations of dogs that are put in extreme situation.  I am not psychologist or an animal behaviorist but it is very easy to get my experience and see what I see.  The prevailing knowledge on obsessive compulsive behavior is like the blood letting in the middle ages and the humoral theories in that it is the best that current science can offer.  I don't know any better but I think there is always a predisposition of OCD and the interaction with the environment escalates it.  Food base training can escalate the condtion.  There is an assumption here that drivers in dogs can not be changed or influenced by the humans.  I believe that assumption to be wrong.   

I have seen true OCD in dogs and I have seen the making of OCD in dogs because of the environment they must interact in.  Of course humans can not be blamed for the predisposition but they surely can be blamed for not creating an environment or not using the appropiate training methods that would increase the escalation. 

So Corvus, Kwplee, and myself all have the same question and yet there is still no answer, maybe an attempt was given but it did answer the direct question.

I've always thought that one should let the dog tell you what the dog will work for. Sit down and draw up a list of the dog's ten favorite things, in order from "wow" to "ok". It's not uncommon for dogs to get too worked up about their "wow" reward to be able to learn when it is used, so if the dog goes totally nuts about oh, food, or a tennis ball, then you need to use something of lesser value for training. A "trainer" who tries to tell you that you must use food, or must use a tug toy, or must use praise, regardless of what your dog actually responds to, is not a good trainer. I do sometimes think people get stuck using food as a default, just because it's easy to use, when in fact that particular dog might learn faster for some other motivator. My own training got dramatically better when I started using many more "life rewards" in the process instead of mechanically doling out treats.

corvus

I don't really want to do less exciting food with Penny because as far as she's concerned, there is no less exciting food. There's exciting food, more exciting food, seventh heaven exciting food, and not food.

DPU

 is like the blood letting in the middle ages

Doctors still use leeches and maggots for treatments because they are effective. Maggots will eat gangrenous and dead tissue and thereby clean to wound in question.

DPU

I think it is irresponsible to make fun of an idea when it is based on real experience and observations of dogs that are put in extreme situation

It was a humurous response to yet another implication or direct accusation, even, that I and others like myself are creating OCD or are harming our dogs in some way because we give treats to train. And I will leave it at that as a serious response would get me some red ink.

corvus

This is just the tip of the iceberg of my see-sawing ideas on food at the moment, folks. I'd love to have a lovely, deep discussion about the merits and possible disadvantages of food both in training and in everyday living with dogs. Let's discuss some wild possibilities just for the sake of it. I haven't made my mind up about food yet, and I need lots of input.

We are sooo glad to give you much needed imput.... we are a pack of Rhodesian Ridgebacks, we happiliy admit it we are very food driven. Mom may feed us more than enough but we respond to food bribes and treats waaaaay maore than anything else...'spcially the dumb clicker... hee hee it is a hoot to watch mom point the stupid thing and heap praise on us as we ignore her.... but heeeeey give the woman a cookie and ALL of us are happy !! She does feed each of us in our crate, it just makes it so much nicer not to have to deal with the dork pup when he thinks he is starving. There are 8 of us now and next month there will be 9 , Kota is getting a new puppy to train and go home with him in the summer !!

the dogs of Bwana

ron2

DPU

 is like the blood letting in the middle ages

Doctors still use leeches and maggots for treatments because they are effective. Maggots will eat gangrenous and dead tissue and thereby clean to wound in question.

And the use has gone from 'a cure for all illness" to something very specific.  Very similar to what I keep saying.  Keep food in its right place.

I see once again, the core questions of this thread is being avoided.  Makes me wonder why anyone would advocate something when they don't fully understand the what the consequences may turn out to be.

DPU

ron2

DPU

 is like the blood letting in the middle ages

Doctors still use leeches and maggots for treatments because they are effective. Maggots will eat gangrenous and dead tissue and thereby clean to wound in question.

And the use has gone from 'a cure for all illness" to something very specific.  Very similar to what I keep saying.  Keep food in its right place.

But see, what you consider its "right" place and what I and others may consider its "right" place are seemingly different.  For me, the right place is at meal times, for teaching new behaviors, and for working for. 

What has it gotten me?  A dog that can be taken to any crowded public place from festivals to county fairs and be welcomed due to his good behavior-a dog who can walk within a foot of a kid with a corn dog at said fair and look to me when I ask him rather than eat the corn dog-a dog that is a total velcro dog that loves to be near me (whether I have food or not)-a dog that I have called off running deer when he is off leash-a dog that I have called off a pack of yapping dogs while off leash-a dog that is intelligent and a very quick learner-a dog that can go to the dog park, be snarked at by other dogs, and not respond in kind-a dog that our vet loves, loves, loves (and has told me so repeatedly)-a dog that still loves going to the vet after having painful things done to him during/after his elbow dysplasia-a dog that through a painful disease and recovery has chugged along with the best of attitudes, a dog that does not have any crate or seperation issues even though he has had to endure quite a bit of crate rest due to his elbow issues, and still trusts me despite the fact that I was the one who had to hold him down during many of his ED treatments.

Food has a different place in each home with each dog.  There is no one "right" way to use food just as there is no one "right" training method to use.

sillysally

Food has a different place in each home with each dog.  There is no one "right" way to use food just as there is no one "right" training method to use.

All that you have accomplished could also be accomplished without using food, that is my point.  It may take more time but it will cause less distress on the dog when the reward of food is withheld and not forthcoming.  I see food training no different than reward-correction training or that much different from any of the "right" training metods.  For trainers to deny or minimize this is inexcusable and shows their inability to observe dog behavior objectively.  My dogs and fosters are taught by a truly unique training method, just by making slight change to existing methods.   So many dog owners have behavior problems arising directly and indirectly from food.  I've witness this in my dogs.  There is so much we don't know about dogs and the eventual effect of playing around with their basic survival needs.  It may be because of how long I have had residence dogs, observing from puppy to old age.  Maybe its because of the multitude and variety of dogs that I have in my care.  Maybe its because I see dogs stripped of all normalcy and then I bring them back.  Whatever it is, I seem to see what others miss.

DPU, I'm wondering if using treats is less stressful if you don't withold them. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't withold treats. I usually ask my dog to do something for a treat, but it's usually something easy and if for some reason she doesn't get it within, like, 10 seconds max, I ask her to do something I know she knows and she does it and gets the treat. However, she will sit and stare at someone who's eating for 15 minutes and not get a bite. Is this different to witholding a treat for a few moments? Is it better or worse? I am thinking that food should be treated with more care than it often is with dogs, but they are exposed to food they can't have all the time throughout their lives. How is that different to witholding a treat?

I'd like to hear what people think about the possibility that food could be used like a hammer in some cases. We often say how we wouldn't use a sledgehammer when a small chisel (or other tool of finesse) would do the job. We generally say that about corrections, but could it apply to the other end of the spectrum with rewards? Is there a reason to use the highest class of rewards (be it food, play, prey, or even affection or whatever) when a lesser reward would do the job? Or to put it another way, is there a reason to use a lesser reward over a high reward? Do you think there are side effects of using high value rewards or low value rewards? 

DPU

sillysally

Food has a different place in each home with each dog.  There is no one "right" way to use food just as there is no one "right" training method to use.

All that you have accomplished could also be accomplished without using food, that is my point.  It may take more time but it will cause less distress on the dog when the reward of food is withheld and not forthcoming. 

That's assuming the dog is distressed by not being given a treat every time he's asked to sit.  Perhaps some dogs are, but Jack is not.  He is happy if it is a treat, and he's also happy if it is praise, or a toy, or permission to go outside.  Heck, he's just happy. The food is the biggest motivator, but his body language is hardly that of a distressed dog if I ask him to sit during a walk and he doesn't get a treat for it.

sillysally

That's assuming the dog is distressed by not being given a treat every time he's asked to sit. 

That is a very logical assumption to make.  The dog is aware there is a treat to be had, the dog performs and when the expectation is not realized, then there is disappointment.  Some dogs don't exhibit this but it doesn't mean it is not there.  Its sort of like the human saying this frustration "builds character" and then dismisses it.  I had a cancer dog who also had nerve problems in the rearend.  She never exhibited any discomfort but surely pain and the frustration of not be able to move like she use to was for certain there.  I think it is something everyone needs to be aware of and observe closely cause it can surely escalate with repeition and the problems would arise later in life and the human would not make the association.

I think a lot of you are forgetting about Pavlov's Theory & Classical Conditioning.

"While studying digestive reflexes in dogs, Russian scientist, Pavlov, made the discovery that led to the real beginnings of behavioral theory. He could reliably predict that dogs would salivate when food was placed in the mouth through a reflex called the "salivary reflex" in digestion. Yet he soon realized that, after time, the salivary reflex occurred even before the food was offered. Because the sound of the door and the sight of the attendant carrying the food "had repeatedly and reliably preceded the delivery of food to the mouth in the past," the dogs had transferred the reflex to these events. Thus, the dogs began salivating simply at the door's sound and the attendant's presence. Pavlov continued experimenting with the dogs using a tone to signal for food. He found that the results matched and the dogs had begun to salivate with the tone and without food.

What Pavlov discovered was first order conditioning. In this process, a neutral stimulus that causes no natural response in an organism is associated with an unconditioned stimulus, an event that automatically or naturally causes a response. This usually temporal association causes the response to the unconditioned stimulus, the unconditioned response, to transfer to the neutral stimulus. The unconditioned stimulus no longer needs to be there for the response to occur in the presence of the formerly neutral stimulus. Given that this response is not natural and has to be learned, the response is now a conditioned response and the neutral stimulus is now a conditioned stimulus. In Pavlov's experiment the tone was the neutral stimulus that was associated with the unconditioned stimulus of food. The unconditioned response of salivation became a conditioned response to the newly conditioned stimulus of the tone."

This exact experiment can be traced to Food Rewards with Training (and why it is obvious). The reason why it works is because the dog's become CONDITIONED to do something.

When you argue against this and move more into an Operant Conditioning theory you then are then giving dogs more benefit of the doubt. This is when people tend to cross the line and humanize dogs. I think a lot of the concerns that are raised here are way too complex to think about when in reference to a Dog. Human child maybe, but certainly not a DOMESTIC PET.

If you are training a dog and use food three times then take it away for the fourth, then yes the dog will wonder where the treat is. But if you condition the dog (which is through series of trials and after a long period of time) the dog will soon do things automatically because he/she is CONDITONED to (not because he/she WANTS to).

Dogs can rebell since for most it is not an instinct to become submissive; but dogs do not get frustraited/emotional.

corvus

DPU, I'm wondering if using treats is less stressful if you don't withold them. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't withold treats. I usually ask my dog to do something for a treat, but it's usually something easy and if for some reason she doesn't get it within, like, 10 seconds max, I ask her to do something I know she knows and she does it and gets the treat. However, she will sit and stare at someone who's eating for 15 minutes and not get a bite. Is this different to witholding a treat for a few moments? Is it better or worse? I am thinking that food should be treated with more care than it often is with dogs, but they are exposed to food they can't have all the time throughout their lives. How is that different to witholding a treat?

I'd like to hear what people think about the possibility that food could be used like a hammer in some cases. We often say how we wouldn't use a sledgehammer when a small chisel (or other tool of finesse) would do the job. We generally say that about corrections, but could it apply to the other end of the spectrum with rewards? Is there a reason to use the highest class of rewards (be it food, play, prey, or even affection or whatever) when a lesser reward would do the job? Or to put it another way, is there a reason to use a lesser reward over a high reward? Do you think there are side effects of using high value rewards or low value rewards? 

I agree completely, and I think certainly there's no reason to always use the highest class of rewards, even within the various categories. For my dog, at least, using top-of-the-line rewards (let's say, a chunk of steak) can get him all riled up and excited, and while that might be beneficial for something like teaching a recall, it's counter-productive if we're doing something where he needs to focus, like "stay." However, if we're working in  an environment with a lot of distractions (such as teaching a "don't growl at people while out on a walk";), a very high value reward is necessary to really make sure he's focusing on what the two of us are doing and not on his distracting surroundings.

Similarly, I don't think anyone would argue that dogs should be allowed to share in all of the things we eat? (That would lead to some costly vet bills.) So while I suppose you could argue that you shouldn't eat in front of your dog, that seems a little extreme to me. And yet it could still be considered "withholding" from the dog.

DPU, are you familiar with the concept of "hiding" a reward? Basically, the dog shouldn't know whether or not he's getting a treat until after he's already gotten it, or not. Sure, if you take a big filet mignon out, wave it around, and then hold it over your dog's head while expecting him to do something, the dog's going to get a little excited. But if you have your hand in your pocket, ask your dog to do something, and then slip him a small treat when he does it, do you really think he's distressed that you're "withholding" something? Always showing the dog a potential reward is not a good way to train, anyway, since the dog quickly learns that if you don't have food you're not worth listening to. In an ideal situation, the dog never knows whether or not there are food rewards available, so he never knows whether or not you're withholding things from him. Does that make sense?