stormie

If you go down the adult path, just make sure the calcium and phosphorus levels in the one you chose, are similar to that of a Large Puppy formula, as is the ratio between the two things.

I guess that's the thing, Tris, whether its a tumour or an epulis, both of which can grow quickly and be bad, the outcome is likely going to be the same, ie, no surgery and just keep him comfortable during his retirement. Even if its a benign mass or even a tooth root abscess, surgery would still likely be needed once it grows too big or gets worse and from the sounds of him, it just wouldn't be fair. So I think you're doing the right thing and you'll know when it's getting too difficult for him to deal with

If they think it's the ACL, they should be able to tell you without xrays. It's diagnosed by feeling for drawer in the knee which should otherwise be stable. I've had dogs where when conscious, get no draw from the knee but as soon as they're sedated there's tonnes of drawer and a very obvious complete tear.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I. The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines. We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???. Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me Fiona But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles. This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective? Annual: Companion® C3 Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles Trienniel: Nobivac® DHP Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges? Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money! To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died. So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that. As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer. Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no. Thanks for the info Stormie, much appreciated My concern with the registered triennial was to ensure that the vaccination wasn't a "hot shot" lacing my dog with a big dose on the basis that a heavy dose of vaccine will last longer because the triennial protocol I didn't understand it meaning double dosing for a longer interval between vaccinations which the registered triennial does give that impression. I would like to know why the registered triennial is a different formulation with a higher particle percentage for what reason given that the same companies annual formulation is different???. Personally, I wouldn't do a registered triennial yet, until these questions could be answered as an altered formulation doesn't make sense to me, neither does the registered triennial having a different parvo strain added.........what???, their annual is then not providing proper protection Fiona Yep I totally understand and these were our concerns at first too. We were thinking that the triennial was the equivalent of giving 3 annuals in one shot, which defeated the purpose of doing the minimal vaccine. As to why they have different strains in their vaccines, I'm not sure. All I can think of is that the registered vaccine, being newer, has later discovered strains of the viruses which may not have been formulated into a vaccine back when they registered their annual vaccine. Perhaps it's too expensive for them to change their annual to the strains that are in the trinniel? As to why there are a higher number of particles, again I can't answer that for sure, but as I said, I'm guessing it may just be something to do with the fact it's a different strain of the virus in the vaccine and in order to get adequate titre levels, that was the amount of particles required. Again, I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure how significant the amount of virus particles are, whether 1million is all that much of a difference to 2million etc. Perhaps when a dog encounters the real virus in the environment, it may be 10 to the power or 10particles, so maybe what's in the vaccine isn't that many? Again, I don't know. I totally understand not wanting to use it because as I said, these were our concerns as well. But we had to weigh up both sides, that is, the risk of using an annual off label when we have little to know support, plus the fact boarding most local kennels would not accept the annual vaccine on a triennial basis. So until we get more definitive answers and support from the AVA, we've moved over to the triennial for most, unless of course they still want the annual, or even to titre test.

I'm not a fan of the Hills food for a Large breed. I'd be going for something like Eagle Pack Large/Giant Puppy. Remember it's not just the protein you need to look at - it's the fat and more importantly, the calcium to phosphorus ratio. Most of the growth and joint problems which occur are usually from incorrect amounts of calcium/phosphorus or too many calories going in, which speed up growth and damage joints. Protein is necessary for muscle development in order to support Puppy while it grows. I know a few people who raise their Danes on Euk Large Puppy and are very happy with the way they grow - I used that and Eagle Pack for Orbit (Dane) and were very happy with both. Unfortunately however, both these brands are experiencing supply issues - Euk as of now is having problems and EP has been, but I believe they're expecting relief from this within a week or two.

We have been in our clinic just over 12months now and adopted the new protocol when we came here. So it will be interesting to see what this coming year is like, but we're only getting busier so I can't see us suffering much of a loss so far I've said this before but I think the fact that you have a vet being open and up front with clients, earns you more clients. People aren't afraid to come to you thinking they're gonna be ripped off so they are more likely to come up for littler things for peace of mind. And then they tell their friends about you and you end up with a larger client base.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I. The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines. We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???. Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me Fiona But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles. This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective? Annual: Companion® C3 Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles Trienniel: Nobivac® DHP Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges? Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money! To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died. So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that. As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer. Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I. The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines. We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

I have a Cool Champions one and Orbit doesn't like it. Digs it to the side also.

Haha of course... just like the time he was called out to Rachael Sanna's place in Glossodia when one of her mares was about to foal. Because a rider of her status with horses worth as much as hers would definitely call out a small animal vet like him over an experienced equine vet, in the event of a potential problem. ;)

For me, its about risk assessment. I think there's a higher chance of something happening which would require me to need to grab hold of Orbit quickly, than the risk of another dog getting caught up in a collar. I would never let him off lead out of his backyard without a collar.

I think this is what tlc is referring to - having CC's on but being offlead, even if someone is supervising.

Well plenty of them will probably be of Orbit because yes, I have done that in the past and probably still will. If I walk him to an oval, park or river in a check, I'm not going to take his collar off when I let him offlead. If that makes me irresponsible, then fine.

Is it anti Check Chain/Prong collar day today or something?

I don't understand. Surely if the dog is not walking/working/ training, then it's at home or in the yard not being watched all the time, and thus unsupervised. When else would you see other peoples dogs in a CC if they aren't being walked or out somewhere? I used one on Orbit all the time, before we got our Volhard, whether it be for walking, school, whatever. It was his collar and when I needed a collar, I put it on. If I took him to a park for a run, he was wearing his CC. Is this what you have a problem with? Dogs can get caught up in any collar during play, not just CC's. It's the risk you take if you go to dog park to let your dog play with another dog, unless you remove all collars all together.

I'd rather chip them while they're young rather than wait till they're older! I think the younger they are, the less of a deal they make of it. Have to say I think it's a little dodgy to not chip the puppies prior to being sold. It's a simple procedure which the puppy is going to have to endure anyway, whether it be at 6wks or 12wks. Yes they may yelp when the needle goes in but generally 5mins later they've forgotten about it. We see it a lot with BYB puppies - not chipped or vacc'd because the 'breeders' didn't want to spend the money and tell the buyers they'll sell them for $50 cheaper.

My dogs are nudies too. Flat collars for when outside the house. I think people like the look of CCs, makes a dog look 'tougher'? I see them a lot on Great Danes and Staffys around here. I don't think they make CC Moose's size. Wow really? I use one on my Dane a lot but it has nothing to do with toughness - it's because I have more control than a flat collar or martingale and when your dog weighs more than you do, that's handy to have. I would say most people with Danes and large dogs actually DON'T want them to look tough, due to the misconceptions that because they're big, they must want to eat people's small dogs. The school that I used to take Orbit to liked CC's and would show people how to use them correctly. In the right hands, they are a great training tool.

The Zydax people claim that it has more of the active ingredient bitsies in it that the others

Also be aware that most dog tick preventatives are toxic to cats, just in case you also have cats

What upsets me about stuff like this is that that lamb so obviously wasn't near Bondi Junction. I missed the beginning so now sure how it broke its leg, but it had to wait longer for treatment so it could get to Bondi to be on the show.

Yep makes sense. I think 0.2mg/kg is initial dose and 0.1mg/kg is then maintenance? So yep, makes sense.

Umm I started a topic on this just before

Yeah I'm way wrong with my maths 0.1mg/kg isn't 0.25mg anyway its 2.5mg. Should have used my calculator

Off the top of my head, the dose rate for Meloxicam (metacam) is 0.1mg/kg. So that would mean 0.25mg for your dog. So I'm guessing the 0.25 you're seeing on the invoice is not 0.25ml, but actually 0.25mg. No idea why they'd use 20mg/ml Metacam though - surely that'd be a pretty hard amount to draw up?

Isn't it great that Snowy is now a guaranteed lovely dog who will play nicely with children because he doesn't have any Pitt in it.