What's new
Mastiff Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Welcome back!

    We decided to spruce things up and fix some things under the hood. If you notice any issues, feel free to contact us as we're sure there are a few things here or there that we might have missed in our upgrade.

Food in training

Glasgowdogtrainer

Well-Known Member
So as we're not hijacking the thread on alpha rolling, I've posted this here. To clear up a few things-

Food can be a powerful reinforcer in animal training, but the animal has to be willing to work for it. For dogs who are food driven, I still ask the owners not to feed the dog on the morning they are coming to meet me for training as the dog will be hungry and will work for it's breakfast, this means they will get the most from their training session. If your dog isn't willing to work for food and it is not stress which is causing the lack of appetite, then yes, I'd say withholding a meal or two until your dog is willing to work for it's food is a good option. Your dog needs to eat, he won't starve himself, so offer the food until he is willing to work for it. You can still offer the food by all means, but if they're not willing to work for it I don't think the dog is hungry enough for it to be an effective motivator, and if it's not sufficiently motivating it can't be used as a reinforcer.

It's along the same lines as a dog who has crazy ball or tug toy drive. We should never satiate the dog with the ball or the tog toy, the dog must be willing to work for it. a dog who has been playing ball for 30 minutes non stop is less likely to work for the ball than a dog who only gets one or two throws every few minutes. a dolphin with a belly full of fish is less likely to work for food, so when using food we need to train when the animal is hungry. And I do understnad that a dog doesn't need to chase a ball to live, I've just used the example to illustrate a point.

Occasionally, clients will question it beforehand but i ask them to bear with me and when they see the result and their dog's much improved behaviour, they accept it.

The analogy I give is that you don't expect to be paid for sitting with your feet on the desk all day. Your dog's job is to be the dog you want it to be, whatever that is. They payment for that is their food and play. Giving your untrained, unruly, obnoxious dog food in a bowl every day, same time, day in day out is payment for no work. Once they are the dog you want them to be, whatever timescale that takes, they have earned their food in a bowl but it's my experience it's easier to help them on their way by paying them when they do something we like, as this is how they learn.

It's not closed minded when I was a traditional trainer, subscribed to pack theory, dominance and used many, heavy physical corrections, but have now rejected those training and husbandry options as I've learned ways which are as or more effective and don't require me to use physical force and hurt my dogs or my clients dogs.

Also, my training philosophy is about what is minimally aversive to the dog. If the dog isn't particular food motivated but is nuts about a ball or tuggy, I'll use the toy. If they don't like either food or toys, I'll use their acquirement to eat as a motivation to train. For me the question I always ask is "Is there a less aversive alternative?". Making a do a little hungry in order to train it so it has a happier life, yes, as an alternative to using a prong, shock collar, rattle bottle or spray can, I'll choose slight hunger every time.
 
Last edited:

joshuagough

Well-Known Member
Good post & your more on track with that explination.

I still side with correction using a flat collar & leash (a choker is what I use, I don't care for wear marks on my dog from flat rubbing collars). I'm not into prong collars but for females trying to leverage a huge dog it has it's place.

I think the product on the feild tends to be built proof with a variation of the older style of training. I don't jerk my dog around by the neck & I don't yell nor show emotion to the dog. I used high tones for recall and high energy for praise. As I said before with both styles the object is to get the dog from treats or correction to obeying the command via voice a.s.a.p .

Post up some video's of the finished product of the dogs you train, results are what people judge regardless of how you get there.

Thanks for the clarification.
 

Duetsche_Doggen

Well-Known Member
So as we're not hijacking the thread on alpha rolling, I've posted this here. To clear up a few things-

Food can be a powerful reinforcer in animal training, but the animal has to be willing to work for it. For dogs who are food driven, I still ask the owners not to feed the dog on the morning they are coming to meet me for training as the dog will be hungry and will work for it's breakfast, this means they will get the most from their training session. If your dog isn't willing to work for food and it is not stress which is causing the lack of appetite, then yes, I'd say withholding a meal or two until your dog is willing to work for it's food is a good option. Your dog needs to eat, he won't starve himself, so offer the food until he is willing to work for it. You can still offer the food by all means, but if they're not willing to work for it I don't think the dog is hungry enough for it to be an effective motivator, and if it's not sufficiently motivating it can't be used as a reinforcer.

It's along the same lines as a dog who has crazy ball or tug toy drive. We should never satiate the dog with the ball or the tog toy, the dog must be willing to work for it. a dog who has been playing ball for 30 minutes non stop is less likely to work for the ball than a dog who only gets one or two throws every few minutes. a dolphin with a belly full of fish is less likely to work for food, so when using food we need to train when the animal is hungry. And I do understnad that a dog doesn't need to chase a ball to live, I've just used the example to illustrate a point.

Occasionally, clients will question it beforehand but i ask them to bear with me and when they see the result and their dog's much improved behaviour, they accept it.

The analogy I give is that you don't expect to be paid for sitting with your feet on the desk all day. Your dog's job is to be the dog you want it to be, whatever that is. They payment for that is their food and play. Giving your untrained, unruly, obnoxious dog food in a bowl every day, same time, day in day out is payment for no work. Once they are the dog you want them to be, whatever timescale that takes, they have earned their food in a bowl but it's my experience it's easier to help them on their way by paying them when they do something we like, as this is how they learn.

It's not closed minded when I was a traditional trainer, subscribed to pack theory, dominance and used many, heavy physical corrections, but have now rejected those training and husbandry options as I've learned ways which are as or more effective and don't require me to use physical force and hurt my dogs or my clients dogs.

Also, my training philosophy is about what is minimally aversive to the dog. If the dog isn't particular food motivated but is nuts about a ball or tuggy, I'll use the toy. If they don't like either food or toys, I'll use their acquirement to eat as a motivation to train. For me the question I always ask is "Is there a less aversive alternative?". Making a do a little hungry in order to train it so it has a happier life, yes, as an alternative to using a prong, shock collar, rattle bottle or spray can, I'll choose slight hunger every time.

If you were giving "heavy" physical corrections and hurting dogs, that sounds like a PERSONAL problem not a training method problem.

IMO that's common sense. Dogs are individuals who have their preferences as to what motivates them, as do people. For example my GM Thor could easily been trained using "positive methods" ie click and treat. Even as a 8 months old, why? Because he has a "soft" personality. Something that has not changed to this day at the age of 7. With him "less is more." Now, Stone my newest recruit (same breed) has a strong persona. From the day I brought him home at 8 weeks I could tell he was going to be more work and rightly so at 9 months now. So with him "more is less" If I had use those "positive reinforcement" methods with Stone I'd be in serious trouble. He LOVES a challenge and TESTS DAILY, in the hands of the inexperienced or weak individual he'd be a HUGE liability. Thus I use, in your words an "aversive alternative" ie prong.

The training tool is just that a tool that is only as dangerous as the person using them. Your admission is a perfect example. Even your new " less aversive alternative" has its risks. No matter which method a person uses to train, the outcome should be the same a bonded, balanced, well behaved, partner. If anything we should be demonstrating and encouraging other pet owners the benefits of well trained dog. Many of those common pet problems usually occur through.....lack thereof........training.

Your condemnation to those of us that use an "aversive alternative" is quite shallow....among other things. While you play innocence preaching an "open mind" your smug tone tell us just how IN-tolerant you are....
 

Glasgowdogtrainer

Well-Known Member
In my experience, it doesn't matter how "hard" or "soft" a dog is, they still respond to non aversive training. While positive reinforcement is an element of what I use, it's not the same as force free training. Prong collars are aversive, they work by positive punishment and must me, at least, unpleasant enough for the dog to want to avoid their application by definition.

As I've said before, if you want to use aversive training tools to train your dog then it's your choice, I just don't need to.
 
Last edited:

Mooshi's Mummy

Well-Known Member
Ahhh I would like to see you try food/treat training a TM, who is NOT food driven no matter how much you starve her nor is she toy driven, she does NOT do play, not ever. She doesnt care for her food at the best of times and chooses herself to go 2 or 3 days without eating from time to time. I have offered her fresh roasted chicken for training and watched her turn her nose up at it. My TM is a gold certificate Good Citizen but let me tell you it was the most frustrating thing to get and HARD friggen work and no amount of baiting her was going to help. My Akita is a different story, but he is seriously DA and again no amount of bait is going to make him otherwise. He is an Akita, its part of his make up, he was socialised to death but the day came that all that went out the window, through no fault of me or him. So whilst I like the idea of a dog working for food, its not always going to be possible. There are always exceptions and a TM is one of those exceptions.
 

Duetsche_Doggen

Well-Known Member
In my experience, it doesn't matter how "hard" or "soft" a dog is, they still respond to non aversive training. While positive reinforcement is an element of what I use, it's not the same as force free training. Prong collars are aversive, they work by positive punishment and must me, at least, unpleasant enough for the dog to want to avoid their application by definition.

As I've said before, if you want to use aversive training tools to train your dog then it's your choice, I just don't need to.

Glad we can agree on something! Now quit criticizing those that do.

Well trained dog is all that matters........
 

Glasgowdogtrainer

Well-Known Member
It's not a criticism if all you are doing is mentioning that the use of aversive training methods isn't necessary. We can train a dog by hitting it with an iron rod, might lead to a well trained dog but I'm sure no one here would condone that, so , no, a well trained dog isn't all that matters, the ends don't always justify the means.
 

Geisthexe

Banned
As a trainer you learn to use all avenues to teach your clients animal what they are paying you for. So using compulsive training, positive/negative reinforcement, passive to old school style. You know you have a basket of answers to the one problem.
Problem with none punishment training is the owner / dog is not actually learning the command aka PetSmart style.
Problem with arrogant trainers who think they are the only way is THEY DON'T LEARN THEMSELVES

Most of your famous trainers all over the world train with food ..
They will take a non food motivated dog starve it for a day and use training with food to be there only way to feed the dog and slowly start food time back into the dogs routine. Most companion trainers or owners do not understand that concept but it actually works, yes does the dog loose a little weight they do but in the end they are making a more motivated working dog.
Food motivated dogs are easy to work and can moves much faster in there training bc they will start focusing much faster.

I personally do both .. I have had dogs come into my home either mine or a clients dog for board/train and ill see there food level go from there.

I tell my students to never feed before training and not to feed before I come to teach. The reason is if the belly is full there is no motivation in the dog. Dog eats it wants to sleep.

On using devises like a prong. I have a few clients on them like older folks who get a dog to big for them .. Ex. I have a lady who purchased a GSD he is a lot of dog for this woman who had hip surgery a year ago .. It's made her training easier on her and as we go we will be working off of it ..
Well thought I would chime in on the subject ..
Happy training!

Deb V


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kate Williams

Well-Known Member
We follow the NILF method as well if he doesn't work on his morning training, his meal is delayed till he decides it's time to work. He's never missed a meal. He's eaten one or two hours after our two other dogs because he was being stubborn but he's motivated when it comes to food. I agree with that method 100%. I don't withhold his food I simply don't hand it over till it's paid in full. Of course he nibbles on treats so often he's probably never really hungry but he responds well. I used meals to teach him wait at 6 weeks of age while just visiting him at the breeders.
 
Last edited:

Glasgowdogtrainer

Well-Known Member
Ahhh I would like to see you try food/treat training a TM, who is NOT food driven no matter how much you starve her nor is she toy driven, she does NOT do play, not ever. She doesnt care for her food at the best of times and chooses herself to go 2 or 3 days without eating from time to time. I have offered her fresh roasted chicken for training and watched her turn her nose up at it. My TM is a gold certificate Good Citizen but let me tell you it was the most frustrating thing to get and HARD friggen work and no amount of baiting her was going to help. My Akita is a different story, but he is seriously DA and again no amount of bait is going to make him otherwise. He is an Akita, its part of his make up, he was socialised to death but the day came that all that went out the window, through no fault of me or him. So whilst I like the idea of a dog working for food, its not always going to be possible. There are always exceptions and a TM is one of those exceptions.

What training methods did you use as, as far as I know, the KC scheme doesn't allow the use of choke chains or prongs, I'm genuinely interested
 

Mooshi's Mummy

Well-Known Member
What training methods did you use as, as far as I know, the KC scheme doesn't allow the use of choke chains or prongs, I'm genuinely interested
No prongs or chokes allowed and I dont abide them personally either. That is just my opinion and will never criticize anyone that does, just to be clear. Praise worked for me, most of the time, and a firm voice. TM's are VERY sensitive to the tone of your voice, VERY. Happy = they will do it. Harsh = they will NOT! She is an absolute nightmare in the show ring as well, no amount of food or bait is going to get her moving. A firm command however using the word MOVE and she will after that she gets lots of praise. A reward is offered but if she takes it then its a miracle. These are stubborn dogs, used to thinking for themselves and an ancient breed to top it off. So someone telling them what to do just does not compute, and there aint a whole lot you can do with food and in my house toys are useless.
 

ruthcatrin

Well-Known Member
Making a do a little hungry in order to train it so it has a happier life, yes, as an alternative to using a prong, shock collar, rattle bottle or spray can, I'll choose slight hunger every time.

is not the sames as

http://glasgowdogtrainer.wordpress.com/2012/05/

The first thing I advise for training a dog is to stop feeding him for a few days.

Not feeding breakfast so you can use pieces of the meal for training treats through out the day is not the same as deliberetly withholding several meals. I don't care how lacking in food drive a dog is, thats cruel. Its far more cruel than using a choke, prong, or a shock collar that, when used correctly, provides instant feed back for the dog on what was wrong. If you're having so much trouble training the animals that you have to starve them to make them obey you then you shouldn't be in the business of training.
 
Last edited:

Duetsche_Doggen

Well-Known Member
It's not a criticism if all you are doing is mentioning that the use of aversive training methods isn't necessary. We can train a dog by hitting it with an iron rod, might lead to a well trained dog but I'm sure no one here would condone that, so , no, a well trained dog isn't all that matters, the ends don't always justify the means.

What you put in is what your going to get out. I would not call an abusive trained dog "well trained." It will show one way or another......

So if a well train dog isn't the end result......Why train at all?
 

Geisthexe

Banned
It's not a criticism if all you are doing is mentioning that the use of aversive training methods isn't necessary. We can train a dog by hitting it with an iron rod, might lead to a well trained dog but I'm sure no one here would condone that, so , no, a well trained dog isn't all that matters, the ends don't always justify the means.

You are completely incorrect ...
You take an abused dog and train it you will still see the abuse either from them being struck in the head to its demeanor.
You can train a dog thru what most like to call a heavy hand aka abuse and see the dogs personality change. No eye contact tail between legs etc
Training with compulsion, or pos/neg reinforcement .. Trained correctly you will see a winning hand on the training the animal has and the goal you an client desire.
Using prongs or chokers are a better choice to get something needed if you have a strong, hard headed dog.
I have used chokes on my dogs for years bc it's what we trial in so if never a hard correction you still have a positive nature in the dog.

Just my 2 cents .. Happy Training!

Deb V


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MarkTrehll

New Member
i don't agree with food, but with some treats in dog training it's important, and then slowly slowly not giving it...even though, if the dog "is a gooood boy" he deserves everything in the world