1. Effectiveness of products in eliminating mule deer dominant buck urine odors from carpet using Canis familiaris as test subjects

2. The Piddling Facts
House soiling – 2nd most common behavioral problem among veterinary referral cases (Beaver, 1994).
A dog tends to urinate in areas already containing the odor of its own urine or the urine of other dogs (Hart, 2001)
Orig. evolved to identify territories (Bekoff, 2001).

3. The Nose Knows…Or Does It?
Past studies have focused on humans as subjects, but have not included the animals themselves as odor-identifiers (Beaver et al, 1989).
Dogs have about 3X more working olfactory receptors than humans (Wilson, 2001).
Dogs have an olfactory acuity X greater than humans, allowing them to sense odors at concentrations far below human detection (Wilson, 2001).

4. We tested the effectiveness of two odor-removing products
Nature’s Miracle: claims to enzymatically destroy odor molecules

5. Sea Yu Petrotech Odor Eliminator: claims to encapsulate odor molecules

6. Our odorant Carlton’s Calls Mule Deer Dominant Buck
Used to attract male deer for hunting purposes
Pilot studies showed significant interest by dogs

7. Methods Subjects: 10 dogs of varying ages, breeds, and of both sexes
Location: Granite Park Dog Park in Sacramento, CA

8. Methods Our four treated carpet samples:
Carpet 1 (negative control) had no treatment
Carpet 2 contained buck urine treated with Nature’s Miracle (9-day-old treatment)
Carpet 3 contained buck urine treated with Odor Eliminator
Carpet 4 (positive control) contained urine only

9. Methods For each dog, carpet squares were
arranged randomly in a line with 5
feet between each square

10. Methods
Dog owners walked their dogs by each carpet square (blind study – they didn’t know which treatments were applied to the squares)
We timed & recorded the amount of time each dog spent sniffing at each square

11. Results
Table 1: Mean amount of time (+ S.D.) dogs spent sniffing each of the four carpet sample treatments.
Carpet treatment 1
Carpet treatment 2
Carpet treatment 3
Time spent sniffing (sec)

12. Figure 1: Mean time (+ S.D.) dogs spent sniffing each carpet treatment
Results
Figure 1: Mean time (+ S.D.) dogs spent sniffing each carpet treatment

13. Results
The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks test showed that there was no significant difference in the amount of time that dogs spent sniffing between the four carpet treatments (H = 6.63, df = 3, P > 0.05).
We used Dunn’s multiple comparison test to look for any significant differences between samples and found none among any
carpet treatments 1 and 2 (Q = 0.23, k = 4, P > 0.05
carpet treatments 1 and 3 (Q = 2.26, k = 4, P > 0.05)
carpet treatments 1 and 4 (Q = 1.11, k = 4, P > 0.05)
carpet treatments 2 and 4 (Q = 0.96, k = 4, P > 0.05)
carpet treatments 3 and 4 (Q = 1.31, k = 4, P > 0.05)
carpet treatments 2 and 3 (Q = 2.19, k = 4, P > 0.05).

14. Possible Confounding Factors
The motivation for dogs to sniff the mule deer odorant was significantly reduced by the environment in which we conducted our study.

15. Possible Confounding Factors
Factors possibly causing these differences:
the novelty of the environment
the presence and social stimulus of conspecifics

16. Possible Confounding Factors
The wind factor (the study was done on a day where winds approached 32 miles per hour)
Other odors near our samples that could not be controlled

17. Suggestions for Future Research
More inclusive ethogram to account for expressed interest beyond sniffing
More uniform subjects in breed, age, and sex

18. Suggestions for Future Research
A familiar environment to the subjects
An enclosure where dogs are unable to socialize with other dogs or even detect their presence
Conduct a preliminary test of various odorants before choosing one for an odor-elimination study

19. References
Beaver, B.V., Terry, M. L., LaSagna, C. L. (1989). Effectiveness of products in eliminating cat urine odors from carpet. Journal of American Veterinary Medicine Association, 194(11),
Beaver, B., (1994). Owner complaints about canine behavior. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 204(12),
Bekoff, M., (2001). Observations of scent-marking and discriminating self from others by a domestic dog (Canis famliaris): tales of displaced yellow snow. Behavioural Processes, 55,
Hart, B.L. (1974, June). Environmental and Hormonal Influences on Urine-Marking Behavior in the Adult Male Dog. Behavioral Biology, 11(2),
Horwitz, D. (1999). Canine elimination problems. Proc. North American Veterinary Conference [Gainesville, Fla.] : Eastern States Veterinary Association, 1992-, 13,
Melese, P. (1994). Detecting and neutralizing odor sources in dog and cat elimination problems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 39(2),
Pal, S.K., (2003). Urine marking by free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to sex, season, place and posture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 80,
Wilson, J.F. (2001, December). The Nose Knows: How The Olfactory Influences Conduct. The Scientist, 15(24), 22.