TDG

i'm against making vaccination laws stricter in general, because i want to have control over what goes into my dog's body and i would not appreciate being forced to do something that can harm my dog in the long run. if the law was limited to establishing immunity in puppies, fine, but people need to be aware that indiscriminate yearly vaccinating isn't a good thing at all. for a good reference on vaccinations, have a look at this site: [url]http://www.critteradvocacy.org[/url]

pressure cooked bones are okay. as long as you can break them up with a blunt utensil (spoon, fork etc.) without effort, they are soft enough to be easily digested and don't do damage. personally i'm a bit wary of merrick products, since 1. i've read serveral reports of people finding non-food, foreign objects in the canned products, which makes me suspicious of their manufacturing practices and 2. they are still not coming forward with all of the information about why pets died from a specific batch of "go natural" brand dog food that was produced at the merrick plant for the US market.

maz, single source is fine, regardless if in respect to a single supplier source or a single source animal the product originates from. what you do [b]not[/b] want is a mix of various unknown ingredients (such as in "animal fat" or "meat meal"). as for "I thought rendering was generally not deemed acceptable." - you need to be aware of just what rendering is. as a very simple example, if you take a whole chicken, toss it into a pot of water and cook it, the resulting chicken soup is essentially the product of a rendering process. you could separate out the fat by letting the soup cool, set it aside, toss the remaining stuff in a blender to pulp the meat and bones thoroughly and then dehydrate the sludge until most of the moisture is removed. the two rendered products you are left with are chicken fat and chicken meal. the large scale industrial process works much the same, but of course there are many different levels of quality, depending on what ingredients are used.

i don't know, but i do know that permethrin is highly toxic to cats. dogs tolerate it better but it's still not something i'd want on mine. i don't even like using flea shampoos that contain permethrin or its derivatives.

advantix is a combo product of advantage (active ingredient imidacloprid) and permethrin. personally i would not use anything on my animals that contains permethrin, it's just too much of a risky substance. as a side note, advantix should not be used on any dog if he or she has any contact with cats at all, since it is toxic to them. frontline has fipronil as an active ingredient. to learn more, you can do google searches on imidacloprid, fipronil and permethrin.

oh man, too bad whoever is in charge of this site doesn't seem to care enough. it's easy to fix.

if you don't like the word "healthy" in that context, how does "free of genetic health defects" sound? ultimately the outcome is the same.

[quote name='maz']what is "single source rendering"[/quote] it's when only material from a single source ingredient are used, e.g. chicken parts [b]or[/b] beef parts [b]or[/b] sheep parts and so on. many rendering plants receive carcasses from diseased animals not fit for human consumption, roadkill, euthanized animals from farms, zoos, shelters, vet offices and other animal related businesses. these are rendered along with meat items past their due date that have been collected from grocery stores and other sources. all these items go into the same batch, complete with any plastic wrapping, styrofoam trays and other foreign objects. the results are "generic" products not defined by adding the species of animal to the name, such as "animal fat", "meat meal", and so on. here are some links that might be of interest: [url]http://www.mordanna.com/dogfood/index.php?page=links[/url]

you can't compare apples and oranges - i'm referring to healthy animals here. :) you are talking about very specific genetic health issues, in the same category as for example copper storage disease or a defect in zin c absorption in some breeds. there are always conditions under which normal nutritional principles don't apply, but that doesn't mean that nutrient X or Y is "bad" per se. as a side note--- how come each time i want to use the word "zinc" (withour quotation marks), i get an error when i try to submit a post??? it has happened to me a while back again when i was trying to make a post about things that can be the causes for skin problems...

[quote]However, a prong IS properly fitted high on the neck, just behind the ears. Otherwise, with a prong riding low on the neck, many dogs will pull just as hard as they would on a flat collar.[/quote] no, it's not properly fitted high on the neck, that is a misconceived idea i see quite often tho, especially by people here in the US who are training using traditional methods that [b]do[/b] inflict pain. the proper fit of a prong collar is around the middle of the neck in a snug fit, neither loosely drooping low on the neck nor up high right behind the ears. this is what i have learned from [b]all[/b] professionals i have worked with in germany, and what every trainer who has a clue will tell you: [i]When properly fitted, the prong collar should be at roughly the mid-way point on the dog's neck, with the chain portion flat, not sagging. Beware those who recommend fitting a prong collar (or any collar) up high, near the dog's ears - their intention is to cause pain by putting the collar in this nerve rich, muscle poor area of great sensitivity.[/i] [url]http://www.flyingdogpress.com/prong.html[/url] [quote]When using a properly fitted prong collar, you NEVER correct the dog by jerking on the leash, you let the dog correct itself in a controlled manner.[/quote] while that is correct, many advocates of prong collars who also suggest they should be fit high up on the neck do use leash jerks as a correction, openly stating that the pain they cause high up on the neck is exactly the desired effect they should have on a dog, and that the correction is not painful enough if the prong is fitted lower on the neck because of the muscle protection. other than that, it's not always the handler who is responsible for the jerking and why risk it at all? [quote]Since the prong applies pressure evenly around the neck, it is not concentrated on the front of the throat as with other collars.[/quote] that is also true, but an improperly fitted prong collar high on the neck is too much of a risk to the dog's health, plus a moderate stimulus from a snug fit on the midsection of the neck is enough of a negative reinforcement if the dog is properly handled. sure, some dogs are more sensitive to discomfort than others (namely terriers and working breeds), but you can adjust for that by the size of prong collar you use, [b]not[/b] by moving it to a far too sensitive spot ont he neck it was never intended to be placed on. [quote]My older girl wears a prong for leashed walks, it is a wonderful thing for me in her case. She no longer pulls and I can walk her without feeling like my shoulder is being dislocated.[/quote] so you are saying for you the prong collar is a permanent solution? i find that kind of surprising to say the least. but then i don't look at any training aid as a permanent solution, be it a prong collar, choke chain, head halter or specialty harness.

[quote name='ShatteringGlass']use a training collar (choke, pinch, etc) high on the dog's neck, right behind the ear's, like a show dog :D With most dogs, you'll find you'll have better control with the collar up high on the neck.[/quote] i'd be very careful giving such "advice" to someone who has never been instructed by someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to choke and pinch collars. it's easy to do a lot of damage that way, especially if someone is using a pinch (prong) collar, which should absolutely [b]never[/b] be put up "high on the neck behind the ears". that area is not well protected at all and the larynx can get damaged. why jerk around a dog anyway? they are smart and can be taught without yanking and pulling. if the original poster has a desire to properly train the dog, not just to walk nicely on a leash without pulling, buy a good book on clicker training and a clicker. it's great.

there isn't really any such thing as "too much protein". a dog is a carnivorous animal with a digestive tract designed for primarily utilizing protein and fat. however, what [i]could[/i] be a problem is poor quality protein (e.g. stuff like corn and soy gluten as a major source instead of good quality animal protein) and either a sensitivity or allergy to one or more ingredients in the food. i'm positive the dog is eating some brand of food that is very popular but not of particularly good quality.

might want to look into that. bad gas is a sign that something in the diet is not quite right. even just adding a probiotic supplement can often make quite a difference. make sure to pick a good quality human grade product tho, since pet supplements are not regulated and not subject to the same strict standards as human grade products.

matty, i will be addressing your post from the aspect of legislation in the US, so the following does not apply to all countries worldwide: [quote]I read some where in a new holistic dog book I just bought that all dog food companies do testing and they send them to a "central" testing place.[/quote] not all dog food companies do testing, and it's not required by any law. yet many manufacturers choose to do feeding trials and palatability studies to develop their products. the bigger companies also perform testing that is not directly related to food production, and some of that is what you see in the video on the site you visited. pet food manufacturers can follow either one of two procedures to ensure their foods provide adequate nutrition ("adequate" being very loosely defined by AAFCO standards, the Association of American Feed Control Officials, but i won't get into that at this point): 1. formulate their foods to meet the nutrient profile for the particular lifestage they are designed for and do a lab analysis to assure nutrient content. this does not involve any animals at all. 2. feeding trials that have to meet a few specific requirements (look [url=http://www.mordanna.com/dogfood/index.php?page=li101]here[/url] and scroll down to "Nutritional Adequacy Statement" for details. it is not required for these animals to suffer in steel cages or bare kennels during feeding trials, the conditions they are kept in solely depend on how much the manufacturer cares. [quote]So, where some of these dog food companies don't have the money to have their own testing facility do they have Iams test it for them?[/quote] there is no central place for testing, but third-party companies that will do feeding trials or lab analyses under contract exist. iams for example is using such contractor companies. and since they are contractors, it's very likely other companies would be using them too. [quote]It would kinda account for the hundreds of tests they perform.[/quote] sadly, they do not only do testing for their food products, but also many other things, some more and some less useful, and many unnecessary. [quote]In the book I have (and just as soon as I will find it I will quote what they say icon_lol.gif ) it said that kibble and dog food companies all have to perform certain tests on animals. I don't know how true that is.[/quote] not true at all, see above. pet food formulations can be lab analyzed to ensure they meet the nutrient profiles established by AAFCO. [quote]This book promotes raw feeding so maybe they are a little baised?[/quote] maybe biased, but maybe also just poorly researched. the author obviously has a certain goal (promoting raw feeding), but doesn't have all the facts straight, which for me immediately raises hte question if the "other side of the coin" is just as poorly researched. [quote]Any how, do you think maybe we are getting mad at Iams when its probably all dog foods that do these horrible tests? should we be mad at all dog food companies? I am just curious.[/quote] it would be unfair to lump all pet food manufacturers into the same category. there are some who do no animal testing at all, some who do research at their own facilities, and some who use third party contractors. and even the latter two can vary drastically in the way they house and treat their animals. i know that for example natura (innova/innova evo, california natural, healthwise, karma) has their own research facility and animals are cared for and treated really well. they do not live in lab conditions. then there are companies who use breeder sponsoring as a way of testing their food, and in that case it pretty much depends on the breeder how well the animals are taken care of. it could be a commercial operation that's pretty much a puppy mill, or a responsible breeder who truly cares and has a personal interest in working with a pet food company to improve a product. an example is the great dane lady who worked with eagle pack on a study about adequate nutrition for large and giant breed puppies.

there are two great books you should try to get a hold of. 1. dr. pitcairn's complete guide to natural health for dogs and cats and 2. before & after getting your puppy by ian dunbar the books are around $15 each, but you might be able to find them cheaper somewhere online.

i've been very disappointed with dogster recently. in the beginning when i joined, it was great and i loved it. it was even still ok when they added a limited number of approved advertisers. but with the google ads, it has really gone downhill. i don't particularly care for having ads for "puggles" or links to the website of that stupid timothy hampson kid in houston (who is a puppy broker for BYBs, remember the article in people magazine?) next to my dog on the same page. it makes me feel like i'm endorsing that kind of business. it has crossed my mind more than once recently to remove all my pets from dogster and catster...

now that you mention acidity, the natura rep i talked to last weekend told me that they were starting to use ascorbic acid instead of ascorbate in their products. ascorbate is buffered vitamin C, which is not acidic, while ascorbic acid is. that might have something to do with it. it does have herring in it, but i just went into the kitchen and sniffed the food in its container and while it does smell like something baked and fatty, it doesn't smell like fish to me either...

i'd email natura and ask about the different smell. i would expect the product to be uniform, unless they changed either the manufacturing process or ingredient composition. as for the "not mixing kibble and raw food" - it's an old wives tale that is perpetuated by many people but completely unfounded. some individual dogs might have trouble and do better when fed kibble and raw beef separately, but it's by no means something that applies across the board as "something that is dangerous and shouldn't be done". that being said - evo is [b]not[/b] a raw kibble. it's grain free and low carb, which is better for carnivorous animals than being stuffed with high amounts of carbs, but it is nevertheless cooked.

first things first - supplements are not bad in general. you have to look at the ingredient quality and sources tho. anything marketed for dogs, or pets in general, is not subject to the same strict regulations that apply to human grade stuff, so you have to be very careful. the main issue with supplements is that most of the mainstream ones use many synthetic vitamins, which are not recognized and utilized by the body the same way as those from natural sources. that addresses the concerns the author you cited has with the different components etc. so if you buy products, check the ingredients. some examples: dl-alpha tocopherol is synthetic vitamin E. the natural version, isolated for example from soy- or wheat germ oil, is d-alpha tocopherol. the best way to supply additional vitamins is from food sources. that way not only the vitamins themselves are isolated, but also certain compounds that increase utilization by the body. examples for this are alfalfa, cod liver oil, liver meal, nutritional yeast, etc. some supplement products include these things in very concentrated form. it is true that if certain vitamins or minerals are supplemented in excess, they can cause toxicity and absorption interferences with other vitamins and minerals. because of this, it's important to know what exactly you are giving and how much your dog needs. i think the book is very misleading, but to make a firm statement on that i'd have to read the entire thing. something many people do not take into consideration is that many of the foods we are eating every day are grown on soils that are already depleted and need massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, so the produce from these soils is low in needed vitamins to begin with, and often contaminated with all kinds of chemical compounds. so even these "whole foods" may not supply everything the body needs in the required quantities. the only way to get away from that are organically produced things, but not everyone can afford that. personally i think it's a good idea to add supplements to your own diet and that of your pets. you just need to be aware what these supplements are made from. what you find at grocery stores, drug stores and big box retailers like for example wal mart is often not worth the cost of the package it comes in. as for black GSD's statement - even "balanced high quality foods" don't always supply everything the individual dog needs. requirements differ depending on age, health status, genetics and many other factors, and commercial dog foods are not designed with the individual dog in mind. they cover the "averages", but for many dogs that is not good enough. and keeping your individual dog in good health according to his/her needs is certainly not a "waste of money" in my eyes. :)

i don't know all the brands in existence. you need to check the ingredient label. :) if there are a lot of things included that you've never heard of or can't pronounce, chances are it's probably not good. lol personally i only buy the "real" stuff simply because i feel better eating it and giving it to my dog, and also because i don't want to waste money on products that have a lot of cheap ingredients that aren't healthy. for anyone who needs a brand suggestion - i buy laura scudder.

AAFCO doesn't include different sizes or breeds in their nutritional adequacy statement, and the wording is mandated by AAFCO and not adapted in any way by the manufacturer. you can find more detailed information about that here: [url]http://www.mordanna.com/dogfood/index.php?page=li101[/url] foods are either labeled as suitable for "growth", "maintenance", "gestation/lactation" or "all lifestages", based on the nutrient profile they meet. this applies to all commercial dog food products out there. it's true that evo isn't a food you'd pick for a large or giant breed puppy, but the same applies to a number of other products as well - for example almost all regular puppy foods not formulated with large or giant breeds in mind.

cynologycollege.com does not certify people as professionals tho, it just "provides needed education". so if you take their "Diploma of Canine Nutrition Consulting" course for $623, you get a diploma that doesn't really say anything more than that you took their two courses on nutrition. it doesn't make you a canine nutritionist. monica segal is definitely the person i'd recommend talking to.

peanut butter is okay too - in [b]reasonable amounts[/b]. you need to be aware of two things: 1. many popular brands of peanut butter contain a lot of sugar or corn syrup, hydrogenated oils and so on. look at the ingredient list and avoid brands that have a lot of weird stuff added. real peanut butter contains nothing but peanuts and salt. examples for brands you want to [b]avoid[/b] are: - skippy (roasted peanuts, sugar, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, salt) - jif roasted peanuts, sugar, molasses, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, fully hydrogenated vegetable oils, mono- and diglycerides and salt 2. peanut butter is very high in fat. one tablespoon contains around 90-100 calories. if you know the amount of calories your dog consumes daily from regular food (not counting snacks), you can judge how much is safe to give per day. for an inactive 20 lb dog for example one tablespoon of peanut butter equals about 1/5 of their daily caloric intake and would be way too much.

be careful with oranges and any other citrus fruit, they are very acidic, not harmful in small amounts, but it can be irritating to the stomach. many dogs don't even like them.

you can add any kind of regular table apples raw or cooked, depending what your dog tolerates better. also, variety is a good thing, so give other fruits and veggies as well. :) if you feed them raw, you will have to pulp them really well in a blender or juicer tho, since dogs can't break down plant cell walls. so you'd basically be making a raw apple sauce for them. if you feed them cooked, the best way to preserve nutrients is to either bake the apples or steam them over boiling water in a steaming basket. if they touch the water, nutrients will leech out and be lost unless you feed that water as well. no matter if you feed apples raw or cooked, please remove the core and seeds. they can cause dogs to throw up and the seeds are not healthy. if you feed your dogs commercial food (especially kibble) don't overdo it with adding apples (or other fruit and veggies), since the most important thing in a dog's diet is protein and fat. extra fruits and veggies add carbs and fiber, which can interfere with nutrient absorption in the intestines if you give too much.