Effect of feeding toy and the presence of a dog owner during the feeding time on dog welfare

Worakan Boonhoh; Tuempong Wongtawan; Prarom Sriphavatsarakom; Natalie Waran; Phatcharaporn Chiawwit; Noppharat Tanthanathipchai; Naparat Suttidate

doi:10.14202/vetworld.2023.1721-1726

Effect of feeding toy and the presence of a dog owner during the feeding time on dog welfare

Vet World. 2023 Aug;16(8):1721-1726. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2023.1721-1726. Epub 2023 Aug 24.

Authors

Worakan Boonhoh^{1

2

3

4}, Tuempong Wongtawan^{1

2

4}, Prarom Sriphavatsarakom⁵, Natalie Waran⁶, Phatcharaporn Chiawwit², Noppharat Tanthanathipchai², Naparat Suttidate^{1

2

4}

Affiliations

¹ College of Graduate Studies, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160, Thailand.
² Akkhraratchakumari Veterinary College, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160, Thailand.
³ Center of Excellence in Innovation on Essential Oils and Bioactive Compounds, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160, Thailand.
⁴ One Health Research Center, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160, Thailand.
⁵ Department of Preclinic and Applied Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, 73170, Thailand.
⁶ Faculty of Education, Humanities and Health Science, Eastern Institute of Technology, Hawke's Bay, 4142, New Zealand.

Abstract

Background and aim: A conventional feeding bowl is the primary method that dog owners use to feed their dogs, but this may not encourage natural behaviors and may even exacerbate unwanted behaviors. This study aimed to compare a conventional feeding bowl to a feeding toy in relation to behavior, cortisol levels, and heart rate variability (HRV).

Materials and methods: The behaviors of four dogs were recorded and analyzed while being fed using either a stainless bowl (B) or a feeding toy (T) and either alone (A) or accompanied by a dog owner (O) for 30 min with each treatment (BA, BO, TA, and TO treatments). The dogs that were fed alone with the stainless bowl (B_C) or the feeding toy (T_C) were fed for 15 min/day for 7 days with their treatment, and serum cortisol levels measured on the first and last days of treatment. The dogs fed by the stainless bowl (B_H) or the feeding toy (T_H) with the owner present for 15 min for each treatment had their heart rate (HR) and HRV recorded by Polar^® H10 during feedings The results were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measure ANOVA, and Student's t-test.

Results: The dogs spent more time eating and interacting with the feeding toys than stainless bowls. The activity of the dogs was higher when using feeding toys, particularly with the TO treatment. Cortisol levels were significantly lower on day 7 than on day 1 of the T_C treatment. The dogs' HR was higher during T_H treatment than during B_H treatment. All HRV parameters were decreased significantly when feeding the dog with the toys.

Conclusion: The results of this study support the idea that feeding enrichment supports the natural feeding behaviors of dogs as they mimic hunting and playing behaviors. This reduced unwanted behavior, cortisol levels, and HRV, and increased food consumption, eating duration, and active behaviors. The presence of the dog's owner is important because it can enhance feeding and active behaviors, and feeding enrichment can improve the dog's welfare and the dog-human relationship.

Keywords: cortisol; dog behavior; dog welfare; dog-human relationship; feeding toy; heart rate variability.