# ENS continued



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

It seems science is finally catching up with common sense.










one of the older threads here on this subject...
http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f10/early-neurological-stimulation-13756/


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I couldn't believe you started another thread on ENS Daryl.....but now I see why. LOL Have they figured out yet that Batagglia scammed everyone because they they all get ENS in the whelping box?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

What a truely great scam though. If you are writing your doctoral thesus, this is exactly the kind of subject that you want to find to write about. LOL

It is funny how many people believed this shit, both on the non producing types and the breeders themselves.

Of course, I am sure that I know a few that don't do shit, but will make that claim so that people like Maren will buy the pup. LOL


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I would've tacked it at the end of one of the other ENS threads, but you can't respond to older posts anymore. I've tried to inquire posters about their comments, or update puppy pics, that sort of thing, several times to find the post is too old. One of the recent board changes that suck, IMO.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Seems Batagglia cost taxpayer millions, and created mass public delusion.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Thank you for posting that Darach.

You may not believe it but there are on-going courses for English over here in Switzerland (not many) for talking to the unborn babe in English.

Battaglia is an old Eastern Switzerland name!!!!!

I have thought of teaching expectant mothers!!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Thank you for posting that Darach.
> 
> You may not believe it but there are on-going courses for English over here in Switzerland (not many) for talking to the unborn babe in English.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Thank you for posting that Darach.
> 
> You may not believe it but there are on-going courses for English over here in Switzerland (not many) for talking to the unborn babe in English.
> 
> ...


Sorry, just seen this, meant Daryl not Darach.

Darach is my husband's dog - my bad!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"

That is what ENS is about for sure. Good call Gillian.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Nothing does ENS like 2 young boys under 8 years old. That and just keeping everything real around a litter. I'm sure exposure at a young age for a pup does affect how a pup is as an adult. But it is the real stuff like the mother dog snapping at the pup to stop it from suckling during weaning or the clang and crash of pots and pans while you are cooking dinner and the screaming kids in the back ground. Normal stuff not artificial stuff.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I'm going to say that it is all genetics!

I have two GSDs - one is wary but having seen something once, is ok the second time, or having had a sniff / look at it.

The other took everything in his stride from day one

The Landseer had no problems - very curious dog

The Fila Brasileiro had a "sinking" at about 5-6 months but overcame it pretty quickly

The Briard had no problems except for twilight delusions which he soon overcame. He did once bark at a statue in the town at 7 months, much to the horror of the passers-by!


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm with you on the genetics, Gillian. But I'm one of those nuts that believe genetics is by far the biggest contributor to what a dog is or can become.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Sorry, just seen this, meant Daryl not Darach.
> 
> Darach is my husband's dog - my bad!


Don't feel bad, I keep thinking Gillian is a guy name.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I get most letters with "Herr Gillian Schuler" over here!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Unfortunately, the "study" doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Note that this is presented as basically an abstract with no detail in the material and methods for the design of the experiment. From what it sounds like, it has no negative control group. You can't raise pups in a "rich environment" and then call it different than the experimental group, particularly when 3 of the 5 activities that comprise Battaglia's ENS protocol would be practiced if a breeder picked up the pups each day to inspect them anyways. That's not a control group. 

Better experimental design would be take 20 females that all have the same sire and closely related dams (sisters would be best) and split those in half. Mate them all with another male who is the same and raise half in a sterile type kennel environment with no human contact (with any human contact at all, you are going to get the supine, head up, and head down positioning) and the other half in a rich environment, which would include ENS with human contact. That way you get similar genetics, but different environment. So this presented abstract gets a C- in study design. :wink:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

In a vacuum, in space, with no gravity, tasteless food, and so on... Every study has it's flaws, no matter how you look at it. In fact "looking at it" can affect the results of the study, as in the "observer effect". So, Mr. B. made his fame and fortune on shit that happens, and has been happening for 100's of thousands of years, by giving it a fancy name and providing no supporting proof.

Part of the problem, is perhaps, that our puppy whelping environments can sometimes become _too sterile_, and cause negative effects for lack of stimulus. That, and we're too soft on them.

I remember one cold frosty morning that a litter was whelped a couple days unexpectedly early at my Colorado facility on concrete and straw. Those pups were immobile and hard as rocks when I found them that morning, brought them into the laundry room in the house, and all eleven lived, vibrant and healthy pups. Mother did all the work warming them up, I only picked them up to move them inside.

Maren, do you believe that all the vaccinations (in general) do anything to help _improve our immune systems?_


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

We really need to see the full material and methods described for this study. Having done four years of benchtop research myself in undergrad and grad school (and a little bit in vet school), experimental design is critical. You must have appropriate control groups or it simply doesn't show anything. Like in the experiments I did back in grad school, that'd be like me dosing an experimental group with part of the dose of a chemical but not the whole dose, but still trying to say it was a negative control group, then saying the chemical had no effect because it was the same as the control group. It doesn't fit and you cannot draw conclusions. 

So what does vaccinations have to do with ENS? I don't get where you're going with this. I'm personally a minimal vaccinator myself. With the exception of my certified therapy dog, who is required to get the full set each 3 years by our therapy dog club, my dogs only get the 3 year rabies after they have acceptable titers for distemper/parvo.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm just saying you can't create a control group by pulling them out of a natural process that their livlihood depends on, by causing _underdevelopment_ of their neurological system. You can find flaw with _any control group_, no matter what.

There are interconnected biological processes that have a lot more to do with the overall development of the dog than just "improved immune system, cardio" or whatever, that you could NOT in fact compare the resulting sterilized, underdeveloped "blob" (control group) to the "super pup" or average "fido" or anything else for that matter.

Similarly, we don't use feral children in all of our control groups for social psychology studies. We have to presume "normal is normal" and let it be not so sterile that it's _unfunctionally compareable_.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

But in animal studies, you can indeed do just this, unlike it human studies where one must rely on case studies because of ethics. The only way you guys who are like "it's ONLY genetics that determines performance" are going to tease that apart is by making the environment as neutral as possible. If genetics was the sole contributor to performance, a pup with no environmental enrichment/ENS should perform to the same level of a pup with similar genetic makeup with environmental enrichment/ENS. Then you could make that claim. In addition, neutral and "normal" are not necessarily mutually inclusive. And one could argue that there's not one "normal" way to raise puppies either. I prefer puppies raised in the house because my own dogs are house dogs, not in a kennel out back. But not everyone may prefer that. 

Anyways, all the "it's ALL genetics" theories are just nice, but genetics, especially with something complicated like behavior, don't generally operate outside the realm of environment. In case I'm not being clear, I don't think it's just genetics or just environment. It's the environment acting on the genetics. Epigenetics proves that and I wish more breeders read up on epigenetics in general. Or even just regular genetics. Sadly, I think many reptile or rodent breeders as a whole have a firmer grasp of the basics of genetics than dog breeders when I see a lot of terminology misused out there and then further confusion is passed around. Oh well, moving on...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

When we ask rats and snakes to do what our dogs are asked to do, and these people respond with rats and snakes that can do it, then that argument will hold water.

I know enough retards that create beautiful snakes to know better.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Some folks do have huge pythons and even hots, like cobras and vipers, to protect drugs. And there is the pouched rats who detect mines with great success. But the point is that when your average herp breeder (who I know all too well is often a few bricks short of a load) can figure out Punnett squares and talk about what's heterozygous and co-dominant with some intelligence and coherence when I've heard dog breeders say things like "fear is a recessive trait" and "white is a more recessive trait than black on a German shepherd because it's a darker color," it makes me ](*,). Most people get basic genetics in public school 2-3 times before they graduate high school. It is not that difficult. Like if you're confused, say you're confused or don't know. But when they say stuff that's just outright wrong in an authoritative way, drives me crazy.#-o


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm not confused, I just don't see the point of a control group in the manner you were describing. That's why the mention of lack-of-gravity, lack-of-flavorful food, and anything else that might me termed as an "environmental" influence.

Genetics serve no purpose at all without Environment which to be expressed, that should be obvious. Environment even helps influence genes whether or not to be expressed at certain developmental stages (not just prenatal).

A 100% sterile environment simply is _no environment_, and therefore cannot be done. And, since it can't be done, both groups were treated in equal terms, by having both been raised in a _stimulus rich environment,_ which doesn't mean the same as putting Q-tips between the toes in Carmen B. fashion anyway.

I don't ever state, "it's ALL genetics", but I do believe that genes are prerequisite to how development occurs, while environments are many and varied. Genetics are the limiting constraints, the stabile factor between the two. What drives me crazy is hearing the less frequent "it's ALL environment" argument, as if you could make gold from shit.

There is, an easier said effect of environment on genes, "natural selection", which either allows or disallows perpetuation of whatever genetic codes are in place, inferior or not. When environment begins _artificially enabling _contunuance of unsuitable genetics, that's where the trouble begins. That's where immunization was came into my thoughts. If we're too soft on life, we're condoning weakness until it becomes proliferate throughout. When human intervention tricks mother nature, mother nature can dish back tricks of her own.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

So what difference does the best genetics make anyway when the end users are just as happy with poor genetics because they don't know the difference? ENS was never done by most people because it actually produced results anyway. It was done by those that think it is a viable marketing tool for the ones that don't know the difference between good and bad genetics in the first place. I would lay you odds that most people that say they do ENS have never done it.... they just go along with what is popular for the day and don't want to be left out.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I bet Suttle doesn't do this shit anymore.


----------



## kristin tresidder (Oct 23, 2008)

whenever i read these threads, i'm never sure if you guys think that ENS doesn't work, or that it does, but it shouldn't be done because it has the unfortunate effect of bolstering weak dogs and having an undesired effect on genetics overall... seems everyone goes back and forth.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

ENS occurs naturally on some level, just not under the "super dog" protocol, unless the pup were somehow able to be life sustained in a totally sterile environment with no stimulus at all, like being in a coma.

Perhaps another way to _disprove the idea,_ would be to give the stimulus rich environment only to the control group, and only Q-tips and wet rags in a dark room with tasteless mush for the Carmen B. group, and see how they fare with that.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

It would be interesting to tease apart the different components of the protocol and see which ones have the most effect, as I wonder how Battaglia had the ideas of the Q tip and wet rag. In the rodent literature, which is where the protocol came from, it was simply removing the pups from the mom for a few minutes to handle and weigh them on a daily basis (been there, done that!) that had effects. Though there are those in the literature if I recall correctly who thought it was perhaps the extra attention from the mother upon return to the nest (extra licking and handling) that had a big part in the effect and not just the stimulation itself. :-k


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

If the nature didnt intend for the environment to have such a huge effect on the way dog's brain develops, it would have designed brain to be fully developed by the time pups are born.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I bet Suttle doesn't do this shit anymore.


 How much do you want to bet? 8-[


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Is it true that you still scream in puppies faces doing tugwork ??


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Is it true that you still scream in puppies faces doing tugwork ??


With some puppies I do that for sure. That which does not kill them seems to make them stronger.
There are some puppies that cant take that so I dont do it, but most of our puppies have no trouble with it so I show them flashes of things like that from time to time.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

An example of such conditioning: 

object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2RLgSxNdiC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f10/ens-continued-15121/http://www.youtube.com/v/2RLgSxNdiC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

I thought to embed one must copy and paste. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Just copy and paste the URL ;-) Maybe my copy and paster is different than yours?! hahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/v/2RLgSxNdiC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Candy Eggert said:


> Just copy and paste the URL ;-) Maybe my copy and paster is different than yours?! hahahaha
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/v/2RLgSxNdiC8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param


Thanks, however, the purpose of embedding is so that one can watch the video without actually leaving the site. Ok, no biggie. Thanks again!


----------

