Search :
 Go
Currency : 
Customer service

Anti-bark spray collar: citronella scent vs. odourless spray

Veterinarians are seeing an increasing number of canine behavioural problems. When drugs or surgery cannot treat these problems, owners must commit a lot of time to correcting the behaviour. Some owners are unable or unwilling to do this, so instead they abandon their pet and start over with another, only to encounter the same problem later on.

Of all behavioural problems, nuisance barking is one often cited by owners (Diaz & Houpt 1996). In a phone survey conducted by Cornell University, barking was named as one of five undesirable behaviours. However, we must also consider whether these findings are consistent with requests for veterinary consultations. In Beaver (1994), another survey showed that while nuisance barking accounted for 12.9% of owner complaints, it only accounted for 3.2% of cases referred to behaviour clinics. According to this author, behaviours that do not annoy the neighbourhood are not a priority for most dog owners. According to J.P. Samaille (1997), public nuisances, like barking, are a problem for 35% of owners.

Campbell (1976) notes that 20% to 40% of owners lack the training to control barking. By this we mean that owners choose an inappropriate modification technique or do not have the time or patience required to modify this type of behaviour. For example, the owner must simulate situations with the help of another person. As soon as the dog barks, the owner must distract the dog by clapping his hands and then leave the room while calling the dog with the command "Come." This procedure enables the dog to satisfy his need to alert his master. Since owners are often not very precise in their words and gestures, the anti-bark spray collar seems to be a valuable tool for interrupting the barking and eliminating a public nuisance.

With your help, we recruited a number of dogs and owners willing to participate in a study comparing the effectiveness of citronella spray to an odourless spray. The study had three aims: 1. Identify the differences or similarities between the two types of odours with regard to reducing the number of barks; 2. Count the number of barks after removing the collar to determine if there is any residual learning; 3. Determine whether dogs get used to either odour after using the collar for eight weeks.

Unlike earlier subjective studies, our study used a meter composed of a PIC 12C508A microchip and a 24LC16B memory device to count the number of barks. The memory logged the number of barks per hour and per day for a period of seven consecutive days. Another electronic component was used to access the memory of the meter attached to the collar.

The statistical analysis of the two groups (citronella vs. odourless) showed that both sprays were equally effective at interrupting a dog's barking. It was interesting to note, however, that the citronella spray was slightly more effective since the animal tended to bark less even when the collar was removed. This observation supports the hypothesis that there is indeed residual learning, although the difference is more noticeable with the citronella group. Finally, the dogs did not seem to become accustomed to either odour from the beginning to the end of the study.

In conclusion, the use of an anti-bark spray collar enables dog owners to confidently train their dogs at their own pace. According to our study, a spray is effective at reducing the amount of barking up to 98% of the time, for certain dogs. While the odour does not modify the effectiveness, citronella does seem to be more effective for most dogs. One week after removing the collar, 67.7% of the dogs barked less, regardless of odour, but further study is needed to confirm this residual learning. Finally, it was interesting to note that most owners were satisfied with the decreased frequency of barking during the eight weeks of training. Once again, the citronella collar was rated slightly higher: 85% of the owners using the citronella collar were satisfied, compared to 80% of the owners with the odourless collar.

If you would like a full copy of the article published or have any other questions, please contact me. By the way, we are continuing this study at another level, that is, we are studying the effectiveness of anti-bark collars in a veterinary clinic. We also want to determine the effectiveness of the spray as it relates to the different causes of barking. I would like to close by sincerely thanking all the people who referred barkers to us for our study.

Richard Beaudet