Definition
Coprophagia – etymologically, the ingestion (phagia) of faeces (copro) – is a feeding behaviour disorder in domestic carnivores, with the exception of the physiological licking of young puppies' faeces by their mother.
|
Pica is a feeding behaviour disorder often related to chronic gastritis, resulting in the ingestion of grass, earth, stones, or licking of surrounding materials (walls, floor, etc.).
|
Predisposing factors
Faeces containing poorly digested or undigested feed materials (fat, muscle fibres, starch) are appetizing for both excreting animals and kennelmates. This is the reason why the cause for coprophagia should not be necessarily investigated in the eater but sometimes in a kennelmate.
|
Predispositions
- Some rustic breeds, such as Beauceron sheepdogs, hunting dogs and Nordic dogs, suffer more frequently from amylase deficiency (starch digesting enzyme) compared to other breeds, and are therefore more prone to coprophagia. When all possible causes for coprophagia have been eliminated, these dogs can be fed on a ration with low starch content or that has been treated by heat (cooking) and/or mechanical means (crushing) to improve digestibility.
|
- Dominated dogs tend to roll on the faeces of dominant dogs in order to be impregnated with the chemical messages (pheromones) they carry. Dominated dogs are also prone to coprophagia.
|
- Punishing or scolding a dog for being dirty, by the owner or breeder, may lead to a coprophagic behaviour.
|
Causes
Persistence of undigested feed materials in faeces may originate in:
|
Digestive parasitic diseases
|
Numerous digestive parasites may cause malabsorption-maldigestion in dogs, by disturbing the assimilation of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids present in the ration. Roundworms (Ascaris), hookworms (Ancylostoma), whipworms (Trichuris) and Giardia are the main parasites of the digestive system of dogs, frequently detected by collective parasitological coproscopy in kennels faced with coprophagia. Parasitological coproscopy therefore is the first examination to be carried out. Positive results for at least one digestive parasite are obtained in ninety percent of kennels experiencing coprophagia. It should also be pointed out that this feeding behaviour disorder contributes to the development of parasitic cycles in kennels and, thereby, to the contagion and perpetuation of the vicious circle of "maldigestion-coprophagia".
|
- Competition at feeding between several dogs may lead to an increase in the speed of food ingestion and overconsumption, and hence poor assimilation of nutrients. Conse-quently, undigested feed materials are present and intact in faeces which, therefore, present residual palatability.
|
- Boredom, confinement, stress and anxiety may induce transient coprophagia. Through imitation, the behavioural disorder quickly spreads to the whole kennel or breeding facility.
|
Numerous enzyme deficiencies – whether of pancreatic, hepatic, biliary or intestinal origin – enhance the excretion of undigested feed materials, associated with fermentation and putrefaction in the colon (causing bowel sounds and flatulence) and bacterial proliferation.
|
The most common enzyme deficiency in the canine species is exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, whether congenital (frequent in some large breed dogs such as German Shepherd dogs) or acquired (following acute pancreatis, for instance).
|
Clinically, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency results in polyphagia (increased consumption of food), loss of weight, and frequent mud-like, greasy and discoloured faeces.
|
This behavioural disorder is rarely attributable to a deficiency in food supply and uptake. Contrary to popular belief, pica is attributable to neither parasitism (it is generally believed that the animal purges by eating grass), nor deficient food supply or absorption. It is more likely due to a phenomenon which could be called "stomach irritation" inciting the animal to ingest or lick all sorts of apparently inedible materials and preferably rich in insoluble fibres (e.g. wood lignin) to "scratch" its stomach. Coprophagia could then form part of the pica syndrome and some coprophagic dogs can be classified amongst those potentially suffering from chronic gastritis. This is all the more important since chronic gastritis predisposes dogs to the gastric dilatation and volvulus (GDV) syndrome of large-sized dogs.
|
Although increasingly rare, ingestion of food of poor quality and digestibility leads either to a carbohydrate imbalance of the colon bacterial flora (cereals, vegetable fibres) or to the production of putrid wastes due to poor protein digestion (feed containing undercooked tendon collagen or keratin from hair, hide, horn or feather). Though disgusting for man, these faecal matters may present residual palatability for dogs and are therefore encourage coprophagia.
|
Fifty per cent (50%) of healthy dogs would enjoy eating cat faeces, if they could! Occasional consumption of cat faeces should not therefore be regarded as a feeding behavioural disorder in dogs. Likewise, ingestion of cow pat or horse dung by farm dogs would rather be pica than coprophagia.
|
Risks related to coprophagic behaviour
Coprophagia presents little hygienic risks for dogs whose gastric acidity is able to neutralize most potentially pathogenic bacteria. Collective food-borne diseases are exceptional in kennels.
|
The major risk which needs to be taken into account is that of the transmission of parasites in the event of coprophagia in kennels. Indeed, whether involuntary (feed bowls soiled by faecal matter) or spontaneous, coprophagia enhances the faeco-oral transmission of Giardia cysts or Coccidian or Cryptosporidia oocysts that can quickly become infectious.
|
Treatment
Choice of treatment depends on the primary cause once it has been identified. Prior to choosing a treatment, not only the breeding conditions (distribution of food, ration content, feeding behaviour of dogs, environment) but also the results of a genuine investigation, aiming at identifying the individual which first showed this behavioural disorder which then spread to the whole breeding facility, should be taken into account. It is now possible to differentiate between enzootic giardiasis (gradual spread of disorders), isolated pancreatic insufficiency (all dogs consume faeces from the same animal) and overconsumption diarrhoea (increased intestinal transit caused by competition at feeding or collective stress).
|
However, in cases of coprophagia and irrespective of the origin of disorders, the following measures should be taken.
|
Treatment of digestive parasitism
|
Irrespective of the digestive parasites identified and counted, it is important to consider that the whole breeding facility is potentially infested and to treat all the animals (sometimes for 5 successive days in cases of Trichurosis), without forgetting environmental sanitation and potential carriage of infectious elements in the coat of animals (e.g. Giardiasis in particular). The choice of the products to use depends both on the life cycle of the parasite in question and on its mode of action. "Blind" worming (without prior coprological examination) is therefore strongly unadvisable in cases of coprophagia in breeding facilities, not because of potential toxicity but rather of its inefficacy.
|
If the coprological examination results are positive, an anthelmintic treatment is sometimes sufficient to reduce coprophagia within less than a week. However, the anthelmintic treatment should be complemented by a behavioural treatment aiming at making the animals suffering from this disorder to gradually lose this habit.
|
Rapid removal of faeces is time consumming and necessitates the presence of the breeder during the implementation of an aversion therapy. Another means would be to associate the ingestion of faeces with an immediately uncomfortable and unpleasant stimuli (remote controllable collars, water pistol, etc.) causing aversion in dogs prone to coprophagia. To this end, the breeder may use a variety of other tips, such as spreading faeces with pepper or repellents (mustard, hot pepper, quinine) to dissuade dogs to do it again. Moreover, in some cases, the addition of brewer's yeast in the food ration could reduce the coprophagic phenomenon due to the change in smell of faeces.
|
The micrographic examination of faeces having residual palatability for kennelmates gives a lot of information about such palatability. Indeed, if the examination reveals maldigestion of proteins (persistence of non-hydrolysed muscular fibres in faeces), lipids (presence of fat stains in faeces) or amylase (persistence of starch grains), a dietetic treatment will allow feed intakes to be adjusted to the digestive capacity of the dog in question and, as a consequence, remove the source of coprophagia.
|
If the micrographic examination reveals digestion disorders in all the dogs with no sign of concomitant parasitic disease, it is strongly recommended to choose another and more digestible diet, usually low in fats and fibres.
|
It is also recommended to reduce the speed of ingestion. Insofar as possible, the breeder can provide the animals with unrestricted food to prevent competition at feeding or fractionate meals. He can also separate dogs at the time of meals, use an automatic feeder to regulate feed intake (e.g. poultry feeders), or even scatter granules on large dishes to incite dogs to nibble at food rather than to gobble it up.
|
Modification of environmental conditions
|
The presumption of psychogenic coprophagia can be retained once all other potential causes of coprophagia have been eliminated. In this case, it is strongly recommended to evaluate environmental conditions which may give rise to stress, boredom or anxiety in dogs. Recreation or entertainment (toys, agility, etc.) may prove quite useful. Avoiding inappropriate punishment or, in the worst cases, use of anxiolytic agents as complementary treatment to the aversion conditioning may also help.
|
Conclusion
Coprophagia in kennels is far from being inevitable if the origin of this phenomenon is thoroughly investigated. With the help of inexpensive additional examinations now available, veterinarians should be able to identify most of the causes of coprophagia or pica.
|
|
