Dog Seize Amongst Teeth Strength: It's Non What Yous Think

Scientists tracked downwardly the prove for a mutual contestation nigh seize alongside teeth strength inwards dogs – in addition to constitute it lacking.

By Zazie Todd, PhD

Have you lot always read comments nigh the strength of a dog’s jaw when it bites? These statements are oft made inwards relation to certainly types of dog, similar pit bulls. Maybe some people withdraw maintain it equally fact. But what if it’s non true?

H5N1 recent paper past times doc Gary Patronek (Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University) et al traced citations inwards the literature in addition to went dorsum to the master sources to investigate the truth of the published statements. They say they chose the literature on the strength alongside which a Canis familiaris tin seize alongside teeth for several reasons, including that this is a salient figure that jumps out at people in addition to is remembered, in addition to that the literature was large plenty in addition to slow to assess for accuracy.

They picked a topic on which people withdraw maintain been sceptical for some time. Writing on his spider web log inwards 2010, Stanley Coren PhD said,

“Let’s lay these numbers into a meaningful context. Imagine a seize alongside teeth forcefulness of 2000 pounds. To hit this, suppose that nosotros had a dog’s jaw in addition to wanted to press the upper percentage downwardly alongside this force, it would require our putting a pressure level equivalent to the weight of a subcompact automobile (like a smaller Toyota or Hyundai) on the hand jaw. That only did non brand sense.” 

In fact a Smart Fortwo weighs 1808 lbs, in addition to a Mitsubishi Mirage is 1,973lbs. So those are the cars nosotros tin think of if we’re going to role doc Coren’s analogy.

Patronek et al wanted to know what the prove is for this. They looked at papers from 1969 – 2009, in addition to 2 courtroom cases, that referred to canine seize alongside teeth strength. They went through the literature to draw the statements dorsum to the origin. So what did they find?

“We tracked each citation to 1 of seven master sources,” they write, “and did non honor verifiable prove (or information obtained from a controlled experiment) nigh seize alongside teeth forcefulness inwards whatever of the articles. In 2 of the master sources, statements nigh seize alongside teeth forcefulness were found, but at that topographic point were neither information nor a citation to back upwardly those statements. In 4 other master sources, none contained whatever contestation or information nigh seize alongside teeth force, despite existence cited past times other scientific articles equally though they had. The concluding master source was non a scientific article at all, but a paper article that in i lawsuit again provided no source for the information presented.”  [references omitted for ease of reading – run into link below]

In other words, at that topographic point is no prove for the contestation that a pit bull, or whatever other sort of dog, has a seize alongside teeth strength of 1800 or fifty-fifty 2000 PSI.

For scientists, this is a reminder to last careful to verify sources. Patronek et al are non suggesting anyone has deliberately misled – rather, that mistakes withdraw maintain been made, in addition to over successive papers past times dissimilar authors, they withdraw maintain been amplified. These days, alongside to a greater extent than articles available electronically, it is easier than always to verify master sources (although no academy library volition withdraw maintain everything).

H5N1 item work is what they telephone outcry upwardly ‘daisy-chaining’ – basically the role of secondary sources (rather than the original) in addition to non existence clear when information is from the introduction department rather than actual results.

At other times, however, they say it’s difficult to know why these mistakes occurred.

“Four articles specifically claim that the seize alongside teeth forcefulness of a “pit bull” type Canis familiaris tin last equally much equally 1,800 pounds per foursquare inch. There is non a unmarried master source reporting a Result that substantiates this claim. And what are nosotros to brand of cases where a source that literally did non incorporate whatever information nigh seize alongside teeth forcefulness was cited.” [references omitted]

I honor it interesting that the 4 articles referring to a pit bull seize alongside teeth strength of 1,800 PSI (and indeed almost all of the papers making comments nigh seize alongside teeth strength) are from the medical literature, non from journals on creature behaviour or biology.

Patronek et al signal out at that topographic point are consequences to this, non precisely for the scientific literature but also existent life (as inwards the courtroom cases they studied).

More generally, nosotros tin reckon what if people are afraid of certainly dogs because they’ve been erroneously told nigh this supposed enormous seize alongside teeth strength? What if people advert this information inwards back upwardly of breed specific legislation, fifty-fifty though it's wrong?

Preventing Canis familiaris bites is complicated. Breed specific legislation isn't the answer because whatever Canis familiaris tin bite. Fortunately fatal Canis familiaris attacks are incredibly rare in addition to involve many factors that could potentially last prevented. Programmes to educate children nigh Canis familiaris bites work to trim down risky behaviour around dogs. Better instruction for adults on dogs in addition to canine behaviour tin assist too. But approaches to dog seize alongside teeth prevention also necessitate to withdraw maintain into line of piece of work concern human relationship that many people think ‘it won’t occur to me’ in addition to and hence may non pay attending to information nigh dogs inwards general, or to their dog’s behaviour inwards the moment.

Patronek et al’s paper shows a commonly-held belief nigh certainly types of Canis familiaris is wrong. Flawed inquiry write-ups withdraw maintain given pit bulls in addition to other dogs a bad name, in addition to it’s of import to gear upwardly the tape straight.

The paper is opened upwardly access in addition to you lot tin read it at the link below. There is a handy diagram if you lot desire to follow the faulty references back.



Zazie Todd, PhD, is the writer of Wag: The Science of Making Your Dog Happy. She is the founder of the pop spider web log , where she writes nigh everything from preparation methods to the human-canine relationship. She also writes a column for Psychology Today in addition to has received the prestigious Captain Haggerty Award for Best Training Article inwards 2017. Todd lives inwards Maple Ridge, BC, alongside her husband, i dog, in addition to 2 cats.

Useful links:

• Check out what the Animal Book Club is reading this month
• Get merch  
• Support me on Ko-fi
• Visit my Amazon store

This page contains affiliate links.

Reference
Patronek, G., Bradley, J., & Cleary, D. (2016). Who is minding the bibliography? Daisy chaining, dropped leads, in addition to other bad conduct using examples from the Canis familiaris seize alongside teeth literature Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications in addition to Research, 14, 17-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.06.004
Photos: Matthew Lyon (top) in addition to Zuzule (both Shutterstock.com)

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.