Environmental Factors Associated with Success Rates of
Australian Stock Herding Dogs
Elizabeth R. Arnott*, Jonathan B. Early, Claire M. Wade, Paul D. McGreevy
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
This study investigated the current management practices associated with stock herding dogs on Australian farms. A
parallel goal was to determine whether these practices and the characteristics of the dog handlers were associated with
success rates. Success rate refers to the proportion of dogs acquired by the farmer that were retained as working dogs. Data
on a total of 4,027 dogs were obtained through The Farm Dog Survey which gathered information from 812 herding dog
owners around Australia. Using logistic regression, significant associations were identified between success rate and seven
variables: dog breed, housing method, trial participation, age of the dog at acquisition, electric collar use, hypothetical
maximum treatment expenditure and the conscientiousness score of the owner’s personality. These findings serve as a
guide to direct further research into ways of optimising herding dog performance and welfare. They emphasise the
importance of not only examining the genetic predispositions of the working dog but also the impact the handler can have
on a dog’s success in the workplace.
Citation: Arnott ER, Early JB, Wade CM, McGreevy PD (2014) Environmental Factors Associated with Success Rates of Australian Stock Herding Dogs. PLoS
ONE 9(8): e104457. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457
Editor: Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, University of Missouri, United States of America
Received April 9, 2014; Accepted July 10, 2014; Published August 19, 2014
Copyright: ß 2014 Arnott et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its
Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was supported by Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, PRJ 007 806 (http://www.rirdc.gov.au/), to CMW PDM, and by
Meat and Livestock Australia, (http://www.mla.com.au/) to CMW PDM. The funders assisted with data collection by promoting the survey to their contacts or on
the websites. The funders had no role in study design, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: Meat and Livestock Australia is a commercial funding source. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing
data and materials.
* Email: Elizabeth.arnott@sydney.edu.au

influences that affect behaviour. There is a growing body of
evidence that canine learning and welfare are significantly
influenced by husbandry practices and training methodology
[14–17]. Furthermore, research examining working dogs in the
police and military sectors indicates that individual handler
characteristics and their relationship with their dog may have an
effect on performance outcomes [15,18].
Identifying factors associated with stock herding dog success and
failure will enable producers to adapt their practices to gain
maximum financial return from their dogs. However, the possible
incentive to reduce cull rates of dogs is not limited to profit
maximisation. In the sustainable agriculture paradigm, farming
practices must be socially responsible as well as economically
viable to sustain productivity over time [19]. Thus, the impetus to
optimise the management of farm dogs should be to respond to the
growing public awareness of the welfare issues associated with food
production. In Australia, for example, the economics related to
public opinion have had consequences for producers of export
cattle [20], wool [21] and eggs [22]. In recent times, proposed
changes to codes of practice that impact Australian stock herding
dogs have caused controversy and disagreement among stakeholders [23]. Therefore, objective information is required to
establish what may be considered appropriate care of stock
herding dogs to safe-guard their welfare.
This paper reports the findings of the Australian Farm Dog
Survey. The questionnaire was designed to explore the current
canine management and training practices on Australian farms

Introduction
The Australian cattle and sheep industries function in a climate
of increasing input costs, competition with subsidised international
markets and variable commodity prices [1]. To maintain
profitability, producers have had to invest in various methods to
improve productivity. Investments have occurred in areas such as
livestock genetics [2], pasture improvement [3] and marketing [4–
6]. With an estimated 270,000 stock herding dogs working in rural
Australia [7,8], these animals represent a significant component of
the labour force in the livestock industries. Therefore, a similar
investment to optimise their performance and efficiency may be
warranted.
Australia has 91,000 livestock producers [8], who employ an
average of three to four working dogs [7,9]. It is currently
impossible to quantify the number of herding dogs bred and the
proportion that are successful. It has been estimated that an
average of 25% of working dogs recruited for training in Australia
fail to graduate successfully [10]. The cost associated with
acquiring, keeping and training an unsuccessful herding dog for
twelve months, prior to its eventual dismissal, has been estimated
to be in excess of AU$1,000 [11]. This degree of performance
failure represents costly wastage.
Behavioural issues are the leading cause of performance failure
of dogs across several working sectors [10,12,13]. Addressing this
so-called behavioural wastage demands a focus on both the
behavioural genetics of these dogs and on the environmental
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

1

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

housing, recent veterinary expenses and trial participation and
performance.
Section 3 was available to those participants who reported that
they bred working dogs. Questions related to the breed and
number of dogs in their breeding program, the purpose and aims
of their breeding program, the degree of in-breeding they are
willing to employ and the age and price of their pups at sale.
Section 4 investigated the workload of the dogs by asking their
owners, ‘‘at peak times, how much time does your top dog spend
working on average, each day and each week?’’ Respondents
could select ‘‘less than two hours’’, ‘‘two to four hours’’, ‘‘four to
six hours’’ or ‘‘more than six hours’’ per day and from one to seven
days per week. In addition, they were asked how often their dogs
were exercised (including time spent off the chain or out of the
cage) during off-peak periods. The response options were; ‘‘less
than weekly’’, ‘‘weekly’’, ‘‘twice weekly’’, ‘‘three to five times each
week’’, ‘‘daily’’ and ‘‘at least twice daily’’.
Section 5 asked for the reason, destination and age of dismissal
of up to three dogs that the respondent had stopped working with
due to failure and due to retirement. They were asked to report the
percentage of the dogs they acquire or retain for work that become
successful working dogs. The options were ‘‘less than 50%’’, ‘‘50–
64%’’, ‘‘65–79%’’, ‘‘80–99%’’ and ‘‘100%’’.
Section 6 was modelled on Section 4 of the Australian Animal
Welfare Strategy (AAWS) Working Dog Survey [10]. Questions
related to the method and equipment used to train stock herding
dogs and the dog-training education of the respondent. Respondents were categorised as using positive reinforcement if they
described using ‘‘food treats’’, ‘‘patting’’ or ‘‘verbal praise’’ when
training. In addition, respondents were asked ‘‘how much time is
spent with the dog during an average training session?’’ The
options were; ‘‘I don’t have formal training sessions’’, ‘‘less than
15 minutes’’, ‘‘15–30 minutes’’, ‘‘30–60 minutes’’ and ‘‘greater
than one hour’’. Respondents were also asked to select how many
training sessions they give per month from the options: ‘‘I don’t
have formal training sessions’’, ‘‘less than eight’’, ‘‘eight to 15’’,
‘‘16–30’’ and ‘‘more than 30’’.
Section 7 asked the respondents to estimate the yearly routine
costs of owning a working dog and, secondly, what they would be
willing to spend on their best dog to allow it to return to work from
illness or injury. They could choose a response from one of six
categories ranging from ‘‘AU$200 or less’’ to ‘‘more than
AU$5,000’’.
Section 10 requested basic demographic information from the
respondents but also asked them to choose one of four descriptions
to reflect their general attitude towards, and perception of, their
working dogs. These were; ‘‘companion’’, ‘‘workmate’’, ‘‘employee’’ and ‘‘a workplace resource only’’. Finally, the survey
contained the ten-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) human
personality test which consists of 10 short-phrase items rated on
a five-point scale from ‘‘disagree strongly’’ to ‘‘agree strongly’’
[24]. The BFI – 10 is an abbreviated version of the 44 item Big
Five Inventory (BFI-44) which is designed to measure and describe
personality in terms of the five personality dimensions ‘neuroticism’, ‘extraversion’, ‘openness’, ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’. As the validity of the measurement of the agreeableness
trait has been found to suffer in the abridged version of the BFI, an
additional item was added to the test to measure this trait [24]. A
twelfth phrase, taken from the BFI-44, was added to further assess
the openness trait. This was decided after consultation with the
Working Kelpie Council members who believed that for the
population in question, Australian livestock producers, openness to
ideas and actions was more relevant than openness to fantasy and
aesthetics. Without the addition of the twelfth item, the BFI-10

and the characteristics of the farmers who handle and breed the
working dogs. These variables were analysed to explore potential
risk factors for herding dog failure.

Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
Approval for this study was granted from the University of
Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number
15474).

The Questionnaire
Prior to publication of the questionnaire, advice was sought
from members of the Working Kelpie Council of Australia to
ensure that the question terminology was appropriate for the
target audience. A pilot distribution of the survey to 125 solicited
participants led to some minor modifications prior to widespread
distribution.
The online version of the Farm Dog Survey was administered
for a three-month period from 10 March 2013 to 10 June 2013.
All promotional materials indicated that a hard copy of the survey
with a reply paid envelope could be provided to participants on
request.
The target population for the survey was all stock herding dog
users in Australia. Participation was encouraged with an incentive
in the form of the opportunity to win commercial working dog
food in a prize draw at the end of the survey period. An
introductory message gave participants the option to respond
anonymously and the assurance of confidentiality if they chose to
leave their details to enter the prize draw.
A link to the online questionnaire was posted on the websites of
the University of Sydney, Meat and Livestock Australia and the
Working Kelpie Council of Australia. It was advertised through
features in multiple rural newspapers, on two national television
programmes and in two agricultural magazines with Australiawide distributions. The committee of the 2013 Casterton Kelpie
Auction (one of Australia’s leading working dog auction events)
promoted the survey in a mail-out to past and present vendors and
purchasers. The researchers also recruited survey participants, in
person, at herding dog trials during the study period.
The online version of the Farm Dog Survey was constructed
using the survey system Qsmart (Torque Management Systems
Limited, Auckland, New Zealand). The entire questionnaire had a
maximum of 143 items divided into 10 sections. However,
participants had fewer questions to answer if they responded in
the negative to questions about certain activities, such as breeding
or trialling of dogs. Furthermore, the participants had the option
in three sections of the questionnaire to give details on up to three
of their dogs. Choosing to answer these questions for one or two
dogs reduced the number of questions to be answered by 28 or 56,
respectively. The logic system of the online survey allowed for the
redirection of participants to questions of relevance. Sections 8 and
9 of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate the value they
placed on various physical and behavioural traits in the working
dog and were not relevant to the current report. The remaining
eight sections are summarised below. For the complete questionnaire see Questionnaire S1.
Section 1 gathered details on the size and location of the
respondent’s main property, the numbers and types of livestock
produced and the number of working dogs used.
Section 2 asked the respondent to give details on one to three of
the dogs they currently work with most often. These details
included the dogs’ signalment, usage, origin and purchase cost,
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

2

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

For the 864 dogs most recently failed by respondents, 89 per
cent were for non-health related problems. Table 2 details
respondents’ reasons for dismissing the dogs.

assesses openness with an emphasis on fantasy and aesthetics
rather than ideas and actions [24]. Participants were scored from
one (low expression) to five (high expression) for each of the five
personality traits according to their average ratings on the twelve
statements.

Logistic Regression
A total of seven factors emerged from the two regression
analyses as significantly associated with canine success rates; dog
breed, housing style, trial participation, age at acquisition, use of
electric collars, hypothetical maximum treatment expenditure and
owner conscientiousness score.

Calculations and Analysis
The outcome variable of interest was termed ‘‘success rate’’.
This was defined as the percentage of the dogs acquired by
respondents for training or immediate use as a herding dog that
ultimately became successful working dogs. The converse of the
success rate was considered the ‘‘cull rate’’. As the survey
respondents selected from success ranges, for example 80–99%,
the midpoints of the ranges were used to calculate the overall
mean success rate. To achieve adequate sample sizes within the
levels of the variables and to allow for meaningful comparisons
between outcomes, the success variable was collapsed to a binary
outcome; below average success and average or above average
success.
Logistic regression was used to compare the respondents’
reported success rates with 22 variables that related to their
gender, age, personality and view of their dog, their dog training
methodology and experience, their involvement in breeding and
breeding practices, the work demands on their dogs during peak
periods, the frequency of exercise they provide their dogs and the
number of dogs they own.
A second logistic regression was performed to compare the
reported success rates with 11 variables describing the dogs the
respondents currently work with most often. These variables
related to the dogs’ breed and sex, their origin, cost, age and
training level at acquisition, the type of work they perform,
participation in working dog trials, housing and veterinary
expenses. Logistic regression was used for this analysis as every
generalized linear mixed model analysis that included owner as a
random factor failed to converge.
In both cases, the logistic regression initially contained a full
model and used stepwise backward elimination. The least
significant dependent variables were removed from the model.
The Wald test was used for dropping terms and significance was
set at p,0.05. The Wald test is equivalent to an F statistic when
the data are balanced but is a standard statistic for unbalanced
data such as these. For the significant explanatory variables
remaining in the final model, the means of their fitted values were
calculated to measure the mean probability of average or above
average success.
Additionally, the variables dropped from the models were tested
for significant associations with success rates (p,0.05) by chisquared analysis.
Analysis was performed using the program Genstat, 16th
Edition (VSN International Ltd, Hemmel Hempstead, UK).

Canine Factors
Dog Breed. The breed of the working dogs currently used by
the respondents was significantly associated with success rates of
recruited dogs. It can be seen in Table 3 that owners of a cattle
dog crossbred reported below average success significantly more
often than other dog breed owners and had the lowest mean
probability of reporting average or above average success rates.
Housing methods. The way in which respondents housed
their stock herding dogs was associated with the cull rates they
reported, exposing a significant difference between owners who
housed their dogs on a chain and those who provided either an
individual pen or a group pen for their working dogs. As indicated
in Table 4, the highest probability of having average or greater
success rates belongs to respondents housing their dogs in a group
yard/pen while the respondents housing their working dogs in a
group cage or on a chain have the lowest probability of having
average or greater success rates.
Working dog trial participation. As seen in Table 5, 267 of
the 1,806 herding dogs described participated in working dog
trials. Forty-three of these dogs were used only for trials. The
remaining 84% performed herding work outside of competitions.
Dogs competing in working dog trials had a significantly greater
chance of falling into the group of respondents reporting average
or above-average success rates.
Age of dog at acquisition. Respondents who had acquired a
dog when it was older than six months of age reported below
average success rates significantly more often than those acquiring
pups at a younger age or breeding their own working dogs.
Table 6 details the probability of average or greater success for
respondents according to the age they acquired dogs.

Owner Factors
Use of electric shock collar (e-collar) in training. The
vast majority of respondents (93%) do not use e-collars to train
their working dogs. However, Table 7 indicates that below
average success rates were reported significantly more often by
respondents who do use e-collars.
Hypothetical maximum expenditure to save best working
dog from illness or injury. Figure 1 shows a positive

association between the amounts of money respondents would
be prepared to spend to treat their best dog to return it to work
and the frequency with which they report success rates that are
average and above (p,0.001).
Owner personality – conscientiousness score. Of the five
personality traits tested, only conscientiousness was significantly
associated with respondents’ self-reported canine recruitment
success rates (p = 0.007). All respondents scored between two
and a half (n = 9, SE = 0.17, reference level) and five (n = 178,
SE = 0.03) with a mode score of four (n = 281, SE = 0.03). As
indicated in Figure 2, a trend was observed of increasing success
rate with increasing conscientiousness score.

Results
The Sample
Eight hundred and twelve responses were received of which
98.6% were online submissions. The respondents submitted details
for 1,806 of the dogs currently working, 864 dogs they had most
recently dismissed and 1,357 dogs they had most recently retired.

Canine Success and Failure
The mean success rate reported by survey respondents (n = 812)
was 80% (SE = 1.4%). Table 1 shows the range of success rates
reported by respondents.
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

3

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Table 1. Estimates by Farm Dog Survey respondents of the percentage of dogs they acquire for stock herding work that become
successful working dogs.

Success category

Success Rate

Number of responses (%)

Below average success (,80%)

Less than 50%

60 (7.4)

50–64%

87 (10.7)

65–79%

158 (19.5)

Average and above success ($80%)

80–99%

364 (44.8)

100%

143 (17.6)

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t001

The highest probability of reporting 80% success or more was 0.66
(n = 264, SE = 0.03) and applied to respondents who exercise their
dogs at least twice daily. In contrast, the mean probability of
greater success for those exercising their dogs less than weekly was
0.57 (n = 5, SE = 0.22).
Respondent’s view of their working dogs. In chi-squared
testing a significant association was found between the view
handlers took of their dogs and their reported recruitment success
rates (p = 0.006, X2 = 12.4(3)). Fifty-four per cent of respondents
viewed their dogs as ‘‘workmates’’. These respondents had the
same probability of average or greater success (p = 0.63, n = 436,
SE = 0.02) as respondents who viewed their dogs as ‘‘employees’’
(p = 0.63, n = 77, SE = 0.06). A probability of average or greater
success of 0.65 (n = 172, SE = 0.04) belonged to the 21% of
respondents who viewed their dogs as ‘‘companions’’. Figure 5
shows that respondents who viewed their dogs as ‘‘a workplace
resource only’’ recorded the highest proportion of below average
success. These respondents has a probability of average or above
success of 0.59 (n = 114, SE = 0.05).

Chi-Squared Analysis
Of the 26 variables dropped from the regression models, five
were found to be significantly associated with success rate during
chi-squared testing; training level at acquisition, insurance status,
training with positive reinforcement, canine exercise frequency
and the handler’s view of their dog. Table 8 lists the variables
dropped from the regression model that were not significant in chisquared analysis.

Canine Factors
Training level at acquisition. The variable related to the
prior training level of dogs upon acquisition by respondents was
dropped from the regression model but showed a significant
association with success rates when tested during chi-squared
analysis (p = 0.03, X2 = 8.8 (3)). Figure 3 shows a trend of
increasing probability of average or higher success rate as the
extent of training at acquisition decreases. The majority of dogs
were acquired unstarted (n = 967, SE = 0.02), 27% were bred by
the current owner (n = 494, SE = 0.02), 13% were started at
acquisition (n = 226, SE = 0.03) and the smallest group were the
fully trained dogs (n = 118, SE 0.05).
Insurance status. Chi-squared analysis revealed a significant
association between success rate and positive dog insurance status.
However, Table 9 reveals that relatively few respondents report
insuring their dogs.

Discussion
Working dog success rates may be definitively measured by
several of the organisations raising and training guide dogs
[12,25,26], detection dogs [27,28] and military dogs [13]. These
facilities can keep records of the total number of dogs purchased or
bred for training, follow a testing protocol to assess the progress of
these dogs and elect to pass or fail them based on the results.
Although the validity of these protocols is rarely established [29],
they permit quantification of recruitment success beyond what is
currently possible for stock herding dogs. The current results
address some of that shortfall and provide the greatest insight, to
date, into the success rates of Australian herding dogs and the
reasons given for their failure.
The reasons for culling working dogs are overwhelming
described as behavioural in nature in the current, and in previous,
studies [10,13]. To address this, several authors have examined the

Owner Factors
Use of positive reinforcement in training. Although
dropped from the regression model, the use of positive reinforcement in dog training was significantly associated with success rate
in the chi-squared analysis (p = 0.01, X2 = 6.3(1)). Table 10 shows
that the majority of respondents employ some form of reward for
at least part of their training. This group of respondents had an
increased probability of reporting average or greater success rates.
Exercise frequency. Success rate was positively associated
with exercise frequency (p = 0.003, X2 = 18(5)) as seen in Figure 4.

Table 2. Reasons Farm Dog Survey respondents failed dogs (n = 864) that they acquired for stock work.

Dismissal reason category

Reason for dismissal

Number of dogs (%)

Behavioural reasons

Lack of working instinct/natural ability

469 (54.3)

Temperament problems

223 (25.8)

Training problems

79 (9.1)

Medical reasons

Health problems

80 (9.3)

Inadequate fitness/stamina

13 (1.5)

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t002

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

4

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Table 3. Breeds of dogs owned by survey respondents who reported either below average success rates (,80%) or average and
greater success rates ($80%) of dogs acquired for stock work.

Variable

p-value (Wald test)

Dog Breed

0.027

Mean probability of
average or greater success

Standard error of the
proportion

Number of responses

Border collie

Reference level

0.60

0.03

288

Border collie cross

0.434

0.52

0.04

127

Cattle dog

0.670

0.67

0.09

24

Cattle dog cross

0.013

0.30

0.10

20

Coolie

0.558

0.58

0.10

26

Coolie cross

0.788

0.63

0.11

19

Kelpie

0.050

0.66

0.01

1,078

Kelpie cross

0.179

0.64

0.04

151

Other

0.309

0.68

0.06

71

Summarised are the p-values emerging from stepwise backward elimination logistic regression analysis, the probability of average or greater success and the number of
each breed reported.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t003

Arnott et al. [11]. This study does not imply causation between the
variables investigated and working dog cull rates. The results serve
to document common working dog management practices on
farms and the associations serve to direct further research into
areas of potential benefit to the dog-handler dyad.
A working dog is at risk of underperforming if good health and
welfare are not adequately maintained. A link between compromised welfare and performance has been well demonstrated as
frustrated, apathetic or fearful animals have difficulty learning and
concentrating [15,35–37]. Welfare may be compromised by failing
to meet a dog’s needs for socialisation [38], stimulation [39,40]
and comfort [37] or by causing it fear [41] or pain [42]. However,
the exact ‘‘needs’’ of the dog are yet to be definitively established
[43]. Identifying management practices that were associated with
below average success in herding dogs, leads one to consider the
impact the practices may have on canine welfare and, subsequently, on learning and performance.
Confinement of dogs, and other animals, can result in
behavioural abnormalities [44,45]. Although optimal housing for
working dogs has not been established, the influence of housing on
performance is likely to be significant. Beerda et al. [45]
investigated the effects of social and spatially restricted housing

heritability of behavioural traits valued in working dogs [30–33].
Heritability estimates for behavioural traits, although often low to
moderate, are usually sufficiently high for genetic gain to be
possible through selective breeding. Low heritability estimates may
result from imprecise behavioural evaluations but also emphasise
that the environment’s role in the manifested behaviours is
significant. The current study identifies non-genetic factors with a
possible effect on stock working dog success rates.
The nature of survey data requires a consideration of their
accuracy. For example, respondents were asked to make
estimations of their culling history which are undoubtedly subject
to recall bias. High cull rates and certain management practices
are at risk of being under-reported due to the human tendency
towards ‘‘Socially Desirable Responding’’ [34]. The assurance of
anonymity given to survey respondents was intended to at least
partially mitigate this outcome. An additional limitation of the
study, which must be acknowledged, is the recruitment method
used to enlist participants. A random sample of herding dog
owners could not be assured. Despite this, the sample achieved was
representative of the Australian farming population in several
aspects. For a comparison of the characteristics of the survey
participants with those of the Australian farming population see

Table 4. Housing style provided to dogs owned by survey respondents who report either below average success rates (,80%) or
average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs acquired for stock work.

Variable
Housing of dogs

p-value (Wald test)

Mean probability of
average or greater success

Standard error
of the proportion

Number of responses

584

,0.001

Individual shelter on chain

Reference level

0.56

0.02

Group shelter with yard/pen

,0.001

0.77

0.03

151

Group cage

0.855

0.53

0.09

30

Individual cage

0.111

0.62

0.02

488

Individual shelter with yard/pen

,0.001

0.71

0.02

457

Indoors with humans

0.094

0.65

0.05

96

P-values emerging from stepwise backward elimination logistic regression analysis, the probability of average or greater success and the number of dogs in each
housing design are reported.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t004

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

5

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Table 5. Total numbers of dogs participating and not participating in working dog trials that are owned by respondents reporting
below average (,80%) and average or above average ($80%) recruitment success rates.

Variable

p-value (Wald test)

Dog trial participation

0.034

Mean probability of average or
greater success

Standard error of the
proportion

Number of responses

Yes

Reference level

0.70

0.03

267

No

0.034

0.62

0.01

1,539

P-values emerging from stepwise backward elimination logistic regression analysis and the probability of average or greater success are reported.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t005

the frustration which can arise from kennelling and may result in a
well-rested, well-adjusted working dog capable of reaching its
potential.
Respondents who kept a dog individually in a yard or pen also
had a significantly higher probability of average or greater success
than those respondents chaining their dogs (p,0.001). A
significant difference was not revealed for individually caged dogs
(p = 0.11). Data were not collected to establish if the pens and
yards provided dogs with advantages of size, hygiene, environmental complexity or perceived freedom of movement compared
to cages and tethering. As previous studies have often focused on
laboratory, shelter and military dogs [48–50], tethering has not
closely been examined. A study of sled dogs comparing tethering
to penning described some differences in the behaviour of the dogs
in the two environments. However, conclusions could not be
drawn on the relevance of these differences to the welfare of the
dogs [51].
A small proportion of the dogs described (5%) were kept inside
the house with the handler. Although the probability of these
respondents reporting higher success rates was greater than those
who chained their dogs, this difference failed to reach significance
(p = 0.094). Although the standard error suggests a disparity
between the sample and true population means, it must be
considered that there may be a real tendency for decreasing
success rates among dogs kept in the home when compared to
those kept in outside group or individual shelters. Although the
home environment is expected to meet the dog’s needs in terms of
comfort and human socialisation, some professional dog trainers
suggest a training-related disadvantage associated with this
arrangement. When trained responses are not required, out of
work periods, isolating the dog from the handler reduces
generalisation (animals giving trained responses to cues similar to
those used in training) [52].

on dogs. When challenged by novel or startling stimuli, dogs that
had been chronically stressed by restricted housing conditions,
displayed behaviours considered indicative of uncertainty, aggression and excitement. These behaviours can all be reasons for poor
performance and even dismissal in herding dogs [46,47].
This study documented the canine housing methods employed
by Australian farmers. It was assumed that, regardless of housing
style, some form of shelter was supplied to the dogs, in accordance
with current codes of practice [23]. No information was gathered
about the size of enclosures, the lengths of tethers or the numbers
of dogs combined in group housing. Most of the dogs reported in
this study were kept on chains. The prevalence of chaining, as a
method of housing working dogs, can be explained by the low cost
involved as minimal infrastructure is required. However, the
greatest probability of achieving higher success rates was among
respondents who housed their dogs in group pens or yards. There
are several benefits to this style of kennelling which could confer an
advantage to the dogs. Firstly, freedom from tethering or caging
gives the dogs the ability to exercise more choice and control
within the environment. Secondly, the dogs are provided with the
enrichment of conspecific socialisation, including play. Multiple
studies report an increased risk of repetitive behaviours in
individually housed dogs which are believed to indicate compromised psychological wellbeing [38,48]. Hetts et al. [49] showed
that, compared to dogs housed in social isolation, dogs housed in
pairs vocalised less, had fewer stereotypies and longer sleep
duration. However, in the current study, owners who housed their
dogs in group cages did not report success rates that were
significantly different to owners who chained dogs (p = 0.53). It is
possible that this could reflect an issue with stocking density or
enclosure size, but the very small sample size (n = 30 for group
cages) makes it unwise to draw conclusions. It appears that the
group pen environment benefits welfare by ameliorating some of

Table 6. The age dogs were acquired by owners who report either below average success rates (,80%) or average and greater
success rates ($80%) of dogs acquired for stock work.

Variable
Age dog was acquired

p-value (Wald test)

Mean probability of
average or greater success

Standard error
of the proportion

Number of responses

0.002

Less than 8 weeks

Reference level

0.66

0.03

312

8–12 weeks

0.827

0.67

0.02

524

3–6 months

0.149

0.61

0.04

158

Older than 6 months

,0.001

0.56

0.03

318

Owner-bred

0.473

0.65

0.02

494

P-values emerging from stepwise backward elimination logistic regression analysis, the probability of average or greater success and the number of dogs in each age
group are reported.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t006

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

6

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Table 7. The number of respondents who report using electric shock collars in training and report either below average success
rates (,80%) or average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs acquired for stock work.

Variable

p-value (Wald test)

Use of electric collar in training

0.001

Mean probability of success

Standard error of the mean

Number of responses

No

Reference level

0.65

0.02

759

Yes

0.001

0.39

0.07

53

P-values emerging from stepwise backward elimination logistic regression analysis and the probability of average or greater success are reported.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t007

some to travel up to 30 km per day while working [53]. Working
dog enthusiasts frequently refer to the need for their dogs to
display ‘‘stamina’’, ‘‘heart’’ and ‘‘endurance’’ [46,47] which can
only be expected of a dog who is allowed to maintain its fitness
[54]. However, respondents were only asked the frequency, and
not the nature, of the exercise. The questionnaire described
exercise as ‘‘time spent off the chain or out of confinement’’. This
would include any time interacting with the outside environment
or handler and is not limited to aerobically demanding activity.
Therefore, the benefits of ‘‘exercising’’ the working dog should be
considered greater than merely physical conditioning.
Lefebvre (2009) reported that military working dogs had lower
cortisol concentrations when receiving exercise and human
contact twice daily compared to twice weekly. It was hypothesised
that the cortisol elevations in the latter group of dogs indicated
compromised welfare due to more prolonged periods of social
isolation and a subsequent effect on the dog-handler bond. These
issues may be pertinent to the success of herding dogs that are not

Logically, the importance of the style of housing provided to the
dogs diminishes with the time they are required to be housed.
Stock herding dogs have periods of frequent and intense work
during peak activity on farms [11] but, for most dogs, this activity
level is not maintained all year. During off-peak periods on farms,
where stock handling tasks are at a minimum, the dogs are at risk
of long periods of kennelling. The significance of these off-peak
periods is suggested by the finding that the number of hours
worked during peak periods on farm was not significantly
associated with reported success rates (p = 0.11, X2 = 6.11(3)).
However, the frequency of exercise provided to the dogs during
off-peak periods was significantly associated with success rate
(p = 0.003, X2 = 18.0(5)). A positive correlation existed between
the probability of having average or above average success rates
and increasing frequency of exercise (from once weekly to at least
twice daily).
The benefits of keeping the dogs physically fit and conditioned
for work are clear especially when considering the requirement for

Figure 1. Success rates and respondents’ estimates of maximum expenditure to save their best dog. A comparison of the proportion of
respondents prepared to spend different amounts of money to save their best dog from a hypothetical illness or injury who report either below
average success rates (,80%) or average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs they acquire for stock work. Error bars = 6 SE(p%). a) reference
level, b) significant difference from the reference level (p,0.05).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.g001

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

7

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Figure 2. Probabilities of average or greater success and conscientiousness of handler. Mean probabilities of respondents with
conscientiousness personality scores from two and a half to five (as measured by the BFI-10) reporting an average or greater success rate ($80%) of
the dogs they acquire for stock work. Error bars = 6 SE(p).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.g002

given regular stimulation and positive interaction with their
owners. The result may be a dog that under-performs and is
therefore at an increased risk of being culled.

The importance of enrichment and human interaction are also
suggested by the positive correlation between success rates and
participation in working dog trials. It could be argued that the

Table 8. Variables dropped from the regression models that were not found to be significantly associated with respondents’
success rates in chi-squared analysis.

p-value

X2-value (degrees of freedom)

Origin – external breeder or home-bred

0.47

1.51 (2)

Purchase price

0.10

10.7(6)

Sex

0.43

2.73 (3)

Veterinary costs in the last five years

0.79

1.06 (3)

Work type – utility, mustering, yard or trial only

0.09

6.54 (3)

Absence of dog training education (including books, training schools)

0.42

0.66 (1)

Attendance at dog training school(s)

0.44

0.60 (1)

Age

0.16

7.88 (5)

Agreeableness score

0.32

11.49 (10)

Breeder status

0.52

0.41 (1)

Certification in dog training

0.58

0.31 (1)

Extraversion score

0.16

11.74 (8)

Extent of inbreeding employed

0.65

2.48 (4)

Gender

0.50

0.45 (1)

Neuroticism score

0.38

8.59 (8)

Number of dogs owned

0.09

4.83 (2)

Variable
Canine Factors

Owner Factors

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t008

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

8

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Figure 3. Training level of dogs at acquisition and respondents’ success rates. Comparison of the proportion of dogs acquired with four
different training levels by respondents who report either below average success rates (,80%) or average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs
they acquire for stock work. Error bars = 6 SE(p%).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.g003

benefit in Belgian military working dogs who engaged with their
handlers in sporting activities off duty. The authors suggest that
the performance benefits may arise from an improved handler-dog
bond. Therefore, the increased success rates associated with trial
participation by farm dogs could be related to the additional time
handlers spend with the dogs to prepare for, and participate in,
competitions.
The respondents’ perceptions of their dogs as companions,
workmates, employees or solely workplace resources were
associated with success rates. The dog-handler bond, again,
emerges as a possible influence on the effectiveness of the working
dog. The relationships between working dogs and their handlers
are arguably more complex than those that arise in a companion
animal setting not least because they must operate at a distance
from one another. This complexity also reflects an inherent
conflict that exists for working dog handlers in ‘‘the definition and
treatment of animals as functional objects, on one hand, and
sentient individuals, on the other’’ [18]. That working dogs exist to
perform a function with economic implications bears a similarity
to other production animals. Wilkie [55] examined the issue of
farmers’ attitudes to these ‘‘sentient commodities’’. She proposed a

increased probability of average or above success rates for
respondents competing in trials is associated with the work that
is required of their dogs. There may be a perception that trial dogs
require a less extensive skill set than dogs engaged in farm work
and, as a result, they are subject to less selection pressure and fewer
culls. However, 84% of the dogs competing in trials are also farm
working dogs requiring that they are able to perform both roles
adequately. In addition, there was no significant association
between success rates and the types of work performed by the
respondents’ dogs - mustering, yard, utility and trial only (p = 0.09,
X2 = 6.5(3)). A second hypothesis is that the benefits of trialling
arise from being owned by handlers with greater training
knowledge or experience. However, while there was a significant
association between trial participation and attendance at dog
training schools (p,0.001, unpublished data), there is no such
relationship between the attendance at training schools and canine
success rates (p = 0.44, X2 = 0.6(1)). This is consistent with the
findings from previous studies that trainer experience did not
appear to be a major determinant of working dog performance
and obedience in search dogs [16] and military dogs [39]. That
said, Lefebvre et al (2007) identified a welfare and performance
Table 9. The insurance status of respondents’ dogs.

Variable

p-value

X2-value (degrees of
freedom)

Insurance status

0.04

4.1 (1)

Mean probability of
average or greater success

Standard error of the
proportion

Number of responses

Insured

0.67

0.04

155

Not insured

0.63

0.01

1,651

2

Summarised are the p-value, X value, the mean probability of average and greater success ($80%) and the total number of dogs in each insurance category.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t009

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

9

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Table 10. The number of respondents using positive reinforcement during dog training.

Variable

p-value

X2-value
(degrees of freedom)

Use of positive
reinforcement in training

0.01

6.3 (1)

Mean probability of
average or greater success

Standard error
of the proportion

Number of responses

No

0.55

0.11

22

Yes

0.63

0.02

790

Summarised are the p-value, X2 value and the mean probability of average and greater success ($80%).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.t010

Somewhat surprisingly, owners who acquired dogs that were
considered fully trained, had the highest probability of reporting
lower than average recruitment success rates. This was also the
finding for respondents acquiring dogs over six months of age. The
highest probability of being in the greater success group belonged
to those respondents who acquired unstarted dogs and dogs less
than six months of age or bred their own dogs. This may be
another example of the importance of the dog-handler bond as, by
necessity, more time must be spent with an untrained animal to
reach a point of competency. Farmers may also opt to purchase an
older, fully trained dog if they feel they do not have a lot of time to
spend with a dog. There is also the possibility that older, fully
trained dogs are purchased by farmers who do not have the
confidence, knowledge or aptitude to effectively handle and train
dogs which may compromise their success rates. Finally, it must
also be considered that a breeder willing to sell a dog older than six
months has identified it as an animal not worthy of keeping as
breeding stock or for their own purposes.
The nature of the time spent with the working dogs and the
methodology of training do appear, at least by association, to be

model to describe the human-livestock interaction defined by the
quadrants ‘detached detachment’, ‘concerned detachment’, ‘concerned attachment’ and ‘attached attachment’. These states were
defined by certain perceptions of the animal which may alter for
an individual over time and circumstance. Each shares a
commonality, respectively, with the descriptors ‘workplace resource only’, ‘employee’, ‘workmate’ and ‘companion’. Wilkie [55]
asserts that how farmers perceive and relate to livestock goes to the
core of the practice of ‘stockmanship’. Equally, how farmers
perceive their working dogs is likely to have implications for the
quality of their ‘dogmanship’. Whether they form a social
relationship with, or remain detached from, their dog may affect
the training and care of the animal. Additionally, the performance
and perceived potential of the dog may affect the handler’s
relationship with the dog. The results from this study show a
positive correlation between the degree of ‘‘attachment’’ by the
owner to their dogs and the probability of average or greater
success rates. Whether respondents who have an attachment to
their dogs produce fewer underperforming dogs, or are less willing
to cull underperforming dogs, is unclear from the current data.

Figure 4. Frequency of exercise during off-peak periods and respondents’ success rates. Comparison of the proportions of owners
providing exercise to their dogs at six different frequencies, during off-peak farm work periods, who report either below average success rates (,
80%) or average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs they acquire for stock work. Error bars = 6 SE(p%).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.g004

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

10

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

Figure 5. Respondents’ views of their dogs and their success rates. Comparison of the proportions of respondents viewing their dogs in one
of four ways who reported either below average success rates (,80%) or average and greater success rates ($80%) of dogs they acquire for stock
work. Error bars = 6SE(p%).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104457.g005

advantage as, regardless of the training method used, consistency
and timing are crucial to effective training [57,59].
The current study cannot confirm that the use of e-collars
causes dog training failure. The respondents may be resorting to
aversive training techniques when experiencing performance
problems with their dogs arising from other factors. Nevertheless,
the results do suggest that e-collars are not providing a solution to
the performance problems.
The probability of a respondent reporting average or greater
success rates increased with the amount of money they estimated
that they would be prepared to pay to treat their best working dog
to allow it to return to work. In the Farm Dog Survey, successful
dogs lost to illness or injury were considered ‘‘retired’’ and were
not included in the cull rates. Therefore, this association reflects an
attitude of the owner to their dogs that influences other areas of
their management that may ultimately affect their success rates.
Owners prepared to invest substantially in the treatment of their
dog may appreciate the value of the dog to their farming enterprise
which has been estimated to be approximately $40 000 over the
dog’s working lifetime [11]. Similarly, respondents who insured
their working dogs reported significantly lower cull rates. The
decision to insure the dogs also indicates recognition of the value of
the dogs. This recognition may translate into a preparedness to
dedicate more time and resources into their working dogs and, in
doing so, increase the chances of the dogs working successfully.
Purchase price of the dogs failed to reach significance when tested
for an association with recruitment success rates. However,
respondents who had purchased the most expensive dogs did
report average or greater success rates more often than other
respondents.
The breed of dog respondents employed was associated with
reported success rates (p = 0.027). Cattle dog crossbred dogs were
the only breed group differing significantly to the reference breed

relevant to the success outcomes of the dogs. Use of positive
reinforcement in training was significantly associated with average
and above success rates. The effect of training method on
obedience has also been investigated in companion dogs. Hiby et
al. [14] employed an owner questionnaire to identify training
outcomes. The owners’ assessments of their dogs’ obedience were
positively correlated with the use of rewards in training. When
specific training tasks were examined, such as heeling or giving up
an object, reward frequency was associated with higher levels of
obedience.
To be categorised as using positive reinforcement in training,
Farm Dog Survey respondents were not required to do so
exclusively. Many described also using training methods involving
negative reinforcement, negative punishment or positive punishment. Seven per cent of respondents (n = 53) reported using
electric collars in training. Twenty-one of these lived in states of
Australia where the use of the device is prohibited. The prevalence
of e-collar use reported by Farm Dog Survey respondents is double
the estimated prevalence for the British general dog-owning
population [56]. This may reflect a different attitude to training
working dogs compared to companion dogs. In the current study,
training with an electric shock collar was significantly associated
with reports of below average success rates (p = 0.001). There is
considerable evidence that aversive stimuli used in dog training
can be detrimental to performance and welfare [15,17,56–58]. In
a comparison of e-collars and positive reinforcement used in
training, significantly fewer owners using e-collars reported success
[56]. When an e-collar was compared to a pinch collar and a pretrained ‘‘quitting signal’’ in an obedience exercise, the dogs trained
with an e-collar learned the fastest [42]. However, the study design
resulted in the e-collar stimulus being administered with the
correct timing more reliably than the other two training cues. As
noted by the authors, this factor may have given the e-collar an
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

11

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

(p = 0.013). Cattle dogs are frequently selected for a forceful style
of work which can include nipping or biting livestock. These
behaviours could be inappropriate if used in the wrong context
and may be difficult to control for a handler. However, purebred
cattle dogs had one of the higher probabilities of being associated
with average or above success (0.67) so it is difficult to explain why
the cattle dog crossbreds had a comparatively low probability of
success (0.30). No such disparity existed between other purebred
and crossbreed groups and no further details were gathered on the
parentage of the crossbreds. The small sample size of cattle dogs
and cattle dog crosses may have affected the results.
Efforts to improve working dog success rates have focused
largely on improving the suitability of the dogs particularly with
respect to their temperament and genetic predispositions. However, there is a growing interest in the role that the owner or
handler personality has in influencing a dog’s potential. Kis et al.
[60] found that owner personality (as measured by the BFI) did
appear to play a role in their dog’s performance and behaviour
during a simple interaction task. The current respondents showed
a positive relationship between increasing conscientiousness scores
and increased probability of belonging to the higher canine
recruitment success group. None of the other four personality
dimensions were significantly associated with success rates. In the
human psychology literature, conscientiousness is frequently
associated with positive outcomes for people [61,62]. Barrick
and Mount [61] examined the Big Five personality traits for their
relationship with job performance in people across five occupational groups. Conscientiousness was consistently associated with
success in all job performance criteria across all occupational
categories. The trait encompasses characteristics of perseverance,
organisational ability, ambitiousness and self-discipline [63]. These
attributes may lead a handler to work harder to make a dog a
success. It is also worth considering that an aspect of this human
personality trait is inherently effective in communicating with
dogs. For example, consistent behaviour has been attributed to the
conscientiousness trait [64,65]. As previously discussed, consistency plays an important role in effectively communicating with
animals. Confusion and distress result if it is impossible for an
animal to reliably predict the outcome of their actions [35].
Similarly, Arhant et al. (2010) demonstrated correlations between
owner inconsistency and disobedience, fear and anxiety in their

dogs. Therefore, the typical behaviour of a working dog handler
with a conscientious personality may foster the desirable traits of
obedience and emotional stability in their dogs.

Conclusions
The current study shows that a number of husbandry practices
and human traits are associated with canine outcomes. The
significance of housing, exercise frequency and training technique
suggests the importance of addressing canine welfare standards.
Factors such as handler personality, view of their dogs, involvement in dog trials and the training level of the dogs when acquired
infer a need to foster the canine-human bond to optimise success.
These findings demand recognition of the role the dog handler has
in influencing results. They should help avoid the animals being
charged with the sole responsibility for success or failure. The
study findings provide a guide for areas of further investigation for
optimising care and management of Australian stock herding dogs.
The insights also have potential relevance to companion dogs and
other working dog sectors. Future research will be crucial in
providing robust evidence for working dog codes of practice rather
than relying on recommendations for arbitrary or purely cosmetic
change.

Supporting Information
Questionnaire S1 Farm Dog Survey.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments
We thank the Working Kelpie Council of Australia for their valuable
assistance. We also appreciate the kind support of the Rural Agricultural
Society of New South Wales Foundation and the 2013 Casterton Kelpie
Auction Committee.

Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: ERA JBE CMW PDM.
Performed the experiments: ERA JBE. Analyzed the data: ERA.
Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: ERA. Editing and critical
revisions of manuscript: JBE CMW PDM.

References
12. Goddard ME, Beilharz RG (1982) Genetic and environmental factors affecting
the suitability of dogs as guide dogs for the blind. Theoretical and Applied
Genetics 62: 97–102.
13. Evans RI, Herbold JR, Bradshaw BS, Moore GE (2007) Causes for discharge of
military working dogs from service: 268 cases (2000–2004). Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 231: 1215–1220.
14. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2004) Dog training methods: their use,
effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare 13:
63–69.
15. Haverbeke A, Laporte B, Depiereux E, Giffroy JM, Diederich C (2008) Training
methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team’s performances.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 110–122.
16. Alexander MB, Friend T, Haug L (2011) Obedience training effects on search
dog performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132: 152–159.
17. Rooney NJ, Cowan S (2011) Training methods and owner-dog interactions:
Links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 132: 169–177.
18. Sanders CR (2006) ‘‘The dog you deserve’’ - Ambivalence in the K-9 officer/
patrol dog relationship. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35: 148–172.
19. Ikerd JE (1996) Sustaining the profitability of agriculture. The economist’s role
in the agricultural sustainability paradigm. San Antonio, TX.
20. Phillips CJC (2005) Ethical perspectives of the Australian live export trade.
Australian Veterinary Journal 83: 558–562.
21. Wells AED, Sneddon J, Lee JA, Blache D (2011) Farmer’s Response to Societal
Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 24: 645–658.

1. Keating BA, Carberry PS (2010) Emerging opportunities and challenges for
Australian broadacre agriculture. Crop & Pasture Science 61: 269–278.
2. Allan MF, Smith TPL (2008) Present and future applications of DNA
technologies to improve beef production. Meat Science 80: 79–85.
3. Bakker DM, Hamilton GJ, Houlbrooke DJ, Spann C (2005) The effect of raised
beds on soil structure, waterlogging, and productivity on duplex soils in Western
Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 43: 575–585.
4. Polkinghorne RJ, Thompson JM (2010) Meat standards and grading A world
view. Meat Science 86: 227–235.
5. Broderick S, Wright V, Kristiansen P (2011) Cross-case analysis of producerdriven marketing channels in Australia. British Food Journal 113: 1217–1228.
6. Morales LE, Griffith G, Wright V, Fleming E, Umberger W, et al. (2013)
Variables affecting the propensity to buy branded beef among groups of
Australian beef buyers. Meat Science 94: 239–246.
7. McNair Ingenuity Research Pty Ltd. (2012) Quantitative Agricultural
Readership Survey.
8. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) Australian Social Trends, Dec 2012. ABS,
Canberra.
9. Arnott ER, Early JB, Wade CM, McGreevy PD (2014) Estimating the economic
value of Australian stock herding dogs. Animal Welfare 23: 189–197.
10. Branson N, Cobb M, McGreevy P (2009) Australian Working Dog Survey
Report. Canberra, ACT: Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestries,
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.
11. Arnott ER, Early JB, Wade C, McGreevy PD (2014) Estimating the economic
value of Australian stock herding dogs. Animal Welfare In press.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

12

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457

Management and Success of Australian Stock Dogs

22. Barnett JL, Newman EA (1997) Review of welfare research in the laying hen and
the research and management implications for the Australian egg industry.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 48: 385–402.
23. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries
(2013) The Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing
Businesses. In: Industries DoEaP, editor. Melbourne: Victorian Government.
24. Rammstedt B, John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal
of Research in Personality 41: 203–212.
25. Batt LS, Batt MS, Baguley JA, McGreevy PD (2008) Factors associated with
success in guide dog training. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical
Applications and Research 3: 143–151.
26. Guide Dogs Queensland (2008) Withdrawn Guide Dogs.
27. Maejima M, Inoue-Murayama M, Tonosaki K, Matsuura N, Kato S, et al.
(2007) Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug detection
dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 287–298.
28. Rooney NJ, Gaines SA, Bradshaw JWS, Penman S (2007) Validation of a
method for assessing the ability of trainee specialist search dogs. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 103: 90–104.
29. Overall KL, Juarbe-Diaz S, Dunham AE, Branson N (2012) What do we really
know about working dogs? A critical review of the literature.
30. Schmutz SM, Schmutz JK (1998) Heritability estimates of behaviors associated
with hunting in dogs. Journal of Heredity 89: 233–237.
31. Courreau JF, Langlois B (2005) Genetic parameters and environmental effects
which characterise the defence ability of the Belgian shepherd dog. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 91: 233–245.
32. Arvelius P, Malm S, Svartberg K, Strandberg E (2012) Measuring Herding
Behavior in Border Collie - Effect of Protocol Structure on Usefulness for
Selection. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research.
33. Arvelius P, Klemetsdal G (2013) How Swedish breeders can substantially
increase the genetic gain for the English Setter’s hunting traits. Journal of
Animal Breeding and Genetics 130: 142–153.
34. Paulhus DL (2002) Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a
Construct. In: Braun HI, Jackson DN, editors. The Role of Constructs in
Psychological and Educational Measurement. Mahwah New Jersey: Erlbaum.
pp. 49–69.
35. Seligman ME (1972) Learned helplessness. Annual review of medicine 23: 407–
412.
36. Vincent IC, Leahy RA (1997) Real-time non-invasive measurement of heart rate
in working dogs: a technique with potential applications in the objective
assessment of welfare problems. Veterinary Journal 153: 179–184.
37. Rooney N, Gaines S, Hiby E (2009) A practitioner’s guide to working dog
welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 4:
127–134.
38. Taylor KD, Mills DS (2007) The effect of the kennel environment on canine
welfare: a critical review of experimental studies. Animal Welfare 16: 435–447.
39. Lefebvre D, Diederich C, Delcourt M, Giffroy JM (2007) The quality of the
relation between handler and military dogs influences efficiency and welfare of
dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 49–60.
40. Lefebvre D, Giffroy J-M, Diederich C (2009) Cortisol and behavioral responses
to enrichment in military working dogs. Journal of Ethology 27: 255–265.
41. Horvath Z, Doka A, Miklosi A (2008) Affiliative and disciplinary behavior of
human handlers during play with their dog affects cortisol concentrations in
opposite directions. Hormones and Behavior 54: 107–114.
42. Salgirli Y, Schalke E, Boehm I, Hackbarth H (2012) Comparison of learning
effects and stress between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar,
pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs. Revue De
Medecine Veterinaire 163: 530–535.
43. Stafford K (2012) Canine welfare: We know everything, don’t we? Veterinary
Journal 192: 257–257.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org

44. Fox MW (1965) Environmental factors influencing stereotyped and allelomimetic behavior in animals. Laboratory Animal Care 15: 363–&.
45. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, Van Hooff J, De Vries HW, Mol JA (1999) Chronic
stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. I. Behavioral responses.
Physiology & Behavior 66: 233–242.
46. Gedye J ([2000]) Training notes for farmers re:Kelpies. [Ballarat].
47. Parsons AD (2010) The Kelpie. Camberwell, VIC, Australia: Penguin Group,
Australia.
48. Hubrecht RC, Serpell JA, Poole TB (1992) Correlates of pen size and housing
conditions on the behavior of kenneled dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
34: 365–383.
49. Hetts S, Clark JD, Calpin JP, Arnold CE, Mateo JM (1992) Influence of housing
conditions on beagle behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 137–155.
50. Gaines SA, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2008) The Effect of Feeding
Enrichment upon Reported Working Ability and Behavior of Kenneled
Working Dogs. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53: 1400–1404.
51. Yeon SC, Golden G, Sung W, Erb HN, J RA, et al. (2001) A Comparison of
Tethering and Pen Confinement of Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare
Science 4: 257–270.
52. McGreevy P (2009) A modern dog’s life. Sydney: UNSW Press.
53. Hampson BA, McGowan CM (2007) Physiological responses of the Australian
cattle dog to mustering exercise. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology
4: 37–41.
54. Love SB, Davis MS, Goad C, Murphy K, Aichele DB, et al. (2010) Predictive
haematological and serum biomarkers for canine endurance exercise. Comparative Exercise Physiology 7: 109–115.
55. Wilkie R (2005) Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous
nature of human-livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural
Studies 21: 213–230.
56. Blackwell EJ, Bolster C, Richards G, Loftus BA, Casey RA (2012) The use of
electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and
risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training
methods. Bmc Veterinary Research 8.
57. Arhant C, Bubna-Littitz H, Bartels A, Futschik A, Troxler J (2010) Behaviour of
smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner
behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 123: 131–142.
58. Blackwell EJ, Twells C, Seawright A, Casey RA (2008) The relationship between
training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by
owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary BehaviorClinical Applications and Research 3: 207–217.
59. McGreevy P, Boakes R (2005) Carrots and sticks: principles of animal training.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Kis A, Turcsan B, Miklosi A, Gacsi M (2012) The effect of the owner’s
personality on the behaviour of owner-dog dyads. Interaction Studies 13: 373–
385.
61. Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The big 5 personality dimensions and jobperformance - a metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology 44: 1–26.
62. Shiner RL, Masten AS (2012) Childhood personality as a harbinger of
competence and resilience in adulthood. Development and Psychopathology
24: 507–528.
63. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) The 5-factor model of personality and its
relevance to personality-disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders 6: 343–359.
64. Hofstee WKB, Deraad B, Goldberg LR (1992) Integration of the big-5 and
circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 63: 146–163.
65. Saucier G, Ostendorf F (1999) Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five
personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 76: 613–627.

13

August 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 8 | e104457