stormie

Because it costs us more to buy it. It's not like it's the same vaccine we were buying years ago. It's a vaccine made by a company with a new name and a 3 yearly registration. But they shouldn't be charging triple - off the top of my head I think it worked out for us, about $8 more per vaccine. So with GST etc you would expect the cost of a triennial vaccine to be about 10-15 more than an annual. But yes, I have heard some vets saying they add more on, but not all are doing this.

well i have been really happy with the quality of mine and they are so helpful if you have any questions.lets know what you think.i have a dog with an allergy to chicken so the CC is great not all chicken based. Yep I have found them so lovely to deal with and have been so helpful with questions etc. I also have a dog allergic to chicken so it's great to find something reasonably priced from a company who really seem to value your business.

Not the restricted calorie, it is the light one. I did find that the pieces did feel full of air, almost like a puff cereal. Bell scoffed the lot of it which was a good sign. I might finish the bag off, only got the small one, then re evaluate. Thanks again for the advice. Ah right. I don't know that the Light follows the same 'fluffed' concept but maybe it does. The light one isn't really that low in fat. They have another one called 'Custom Care - Weight Loss' which our rep told us has the same fat level as the restricted cal. The Large breed Light is still 9% fat, where as their restricted Cal and Weight Loss is only about 6%. If you want to get weight off, Light is going to take a lot longer and you'd be better off going for one of the hard core prescription weight loss diets.

Just so you know, the Euk Restricted Calorie food has been recalled so you shouldn't be feeding that. The bag you bought should be disposed of and Euk called to get a refund The Euk food does have low fat, but another concept behind it is that the kibble pieces are 'fluffed' up, looking bigger, thus making owners feel like they are still feeding a substantial amount, but really, there's just a lot of air in the pieces. I'd just be feeding a regular diet, but just less of it and maybe feeding some lean meat like roo for variety. Seeing your dog hungry all the time when you're not used to it is hard, but IMO, a healthy dog is one who will be willing to accept food all the time. If a dog is turning down food and isn't hungry, it's being fed too much. But that's just my opinion

Yes, but what does it imply to you??? A conformation call is needed, that's what I'm going on about. Is there something wrong with my written language, that ppl keep missing it???? Could you just call pretending to be Joe Blow asking if you can their dog on your unpapered bitch?

Goodness, I was merely saying that if vets use a vaccine off label, as in, use it 3 yearly instead of annually, they are completely on their own if an animal gets sick. The vaccine company will say it wasn't the recommended dose and the vet could be taken before the Board, with very little to back themselves up. If they follow the guidelines if the vaccine, then atleast if something happens they have the guidelines of the vaccine company behind them. They used the correct dose as recommended on the label. That's all I was saying. The whole issue with regards to vaccine protocols is still being discussed and researched. It really is early days in the scheme of things and they are learning more all the time. It's being discussed at the ASAVA conference this month and they are saying we'll hear more after this in regards to where things are going. There's so much more than just getting things to change instantly. There's the issue of Vaccine companies not wanting to do the necessary studies in order to get their product registered for longer duration. Again, this isn't a matter of just vaccinating a bunch of dogs and titre testing them years later. To get a drug registered there's a massive process involving control dogs etc. Then there's the AVA. Yes, they've issued statements, but really, they're a bit wishy washy and don't really give vets a definite go ahead and their support, to use the annual vaccines 3 yearly. Once Vets know they are doing things by the board, without any doubt they could get done should something go wrong, things will change. At the recent ARH talk by a Specialist with regards to vaccine protocols, he very much advocated vaccinating more animals, but less often. It's about achieving herd immunity, which at the moment, we're not. We apparently only vaccinate 30% of the dog population - this does not achieve herd immunity. But throughout the whole talk, he could not tell Vets what they should be doing. It was all suggestion but to base what they do on a case by case basis. No one can be sure that if we vaccinate a dog in a parvo free area 3 yearly, that it's safe to go into a parvo rife area. This is the problem. No one has clear cut evidence to give us clear directions. Even the titre testing results we get, they are learning new things about. What they have believed to be adequate levels, they are now questioning. All anyone can tell the Vets to do, is to follow the manufacturers instructions on the Vaccines so if they go to triennial vaccines, use a registered vaccine to keep things above board and by the book. Also, just for the record, though I know people will argue this, but the research they're doing suggests that the reactions we see to vaccines are not actually the vaccines themselves, but rather the animals having a problem with their immune system, which when stimulated with a vaccine, then has a melt down.

I know the Nobivac 3 yearly is different to their annual in that it has a different strain of Parvo. But other than that, there's nothing different about it to make it last 3 years - it's exactly the same type of vaccine as the annuals.

At a recent seminar held by the Animal Referral Hospital,the question was asked to the attending vets (I believe about 100 or so where there?? Maybe more?) who vaccinated triennially and just over half raised their hand. I think that's pretty good seeing the AVA only released the new protocol about 12 months ago. Vaccines per se aren't the biggest revenue. We make very little from the actual vaccine. It's more the fact they come in the door for their vacc and we find things like lumps, rotting teeth etc which need surgery. Unfortunately, vets have very little support in terms of the 3 year protocol. The AVA says its acceptable, but needs to be determined on a case by case basis. The manufacturers of annual vaccines will NOT give any support, should a dog come down with parvo that was given their vaccine off label, ie, 3 yearly. The vets would really be out on their own, to explain why they used the vaccine off label. So most vets doing the new protocol will be using the registered 3 year vaccine. The other issue is, the cost involved and welfare issues with registering a vaccine for 3 yearly use. What's involved in the testing phase in order to get approval and registration is pretty horrific, so I'm not sure where I stand on companies doing more testing.

Ordered a bulk lot of this, expecting delivery after Aug 30th, so will let you all know how it goes!

Lablove, the Swine Flu vaccine was offered to the public for free, as an incentive by the government. We didn't have to pay the Dr for the vaccine like we would for others, so the $60 paid to the Drs would simply be the government paying for it instead and also for their time. Otherwise you'd have Dr's doing nothing but Swine Flu Vaccines all day, getting paid zilch, when they could have otherwise been paid for their time and knowledge by people going to see them for other things. So again, it's very easy to take things out of context and make industries out to be bad, but if you look into why something happens, you'll see it actually usually makes perfect sense and is quite reasonable.

Lablove, where do you think the drugs we have today originated from? Most of them, from plants. But rather than just grinding up the whole plant, like many 'natural' therapies do, scientist isolated the component of the plant which has the positive effect and purified it. So they're giving one simple substance, knowing what it does and exactly how it works, without any possible side effects that the rest of the plant may give. You're talking about removing chemicals and going to natural again. Just because something comes in the form of a plant leaf, doesn't make it good for you. Look at Lilys - they're natural, but let your cat chew on them and you have a dead cat. Please define chemical? Chemical - any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules. Glucose is a chemical. Yet we need that for survival. The body just recognises chemicals and substances for what they are - molecules arranged in a certain way. The body has no idea whether what you've just ingested is a piece of chocolate or an ecstasy tablet. It simply breaks it down and deals with each individual component in the way it knows how. The chocolate piece will just be digested and become glucose for energy and have some effect on chemicals in the brain, eg seratonin etc. The ecstasy tablet will be broken down and the substances dealt with in the appropriate organ and give the resulting effects on the brain. It doesn't happen because the body knows it's ecstasy - it happens because of the molecules within the tablet and what each does within the body and the resulting effects. Do some research into common drugs and where they originated from; natural sources. People think using colloidal silver is so much better than antibiotics but why? The silver is still killing bacteria and other things, exactly the same as what an antibiotic tablet does. Same action. So why is one better than another? I think its ironic you're targeting Drs and Vets, claiming they're only selling pharmaceuticals for the money and kick backs, when really, it's many of the natural companies selling all sorts of 'natural therapies' to gullible people which have no proven effects whatsoever. It was recently proven that so many of those natural Cold and Flu remedies have no evidence whatsoever, of doing what they claim to have done. So here you have companies making stuff with herbs and extracts, making money off a product that doesn't have any effect, yet it's the Dr and Vets who are selling proven medications which deal with real life illnesses, treat illnesses and disease who are getting slammed here for being money hungry? Hmmm....

lablove, if you want to help people, why don't you tell us the name of the food company you worked for so we know which one to avoid because they use dead pets? I have a very close contact in media and would be happy to pass on information in order for this to hit national tv.

*runs off to buy CHUM and PAL*

I always thought this was the case with us too, that all the bodies that the owners didn't take, were burnt, but people could have the option of having them done individually and having the ashes returned etc. Our cremation company takes all the bodies away, but apparently only the special cremates are cremated and the rest are buried. I did much prefer the idea that everything was cremated

Well, from my experience in the industry, I can tell you that we give drugs to help animals. We give drugs to dogs with heart disease and kidney disease and it gives them quality of life and extends their life. We don't run into the corner and snigger about how we're secretly killing the animals. I can also tell you that the animals we euth, the ones that aren't cremated, go to land fill, with all the other medical waste. They aren't rendered and aren't in pet food. As said in my previous post, maybe overseas they are rendered, but it doesn't mean they end up in a can. My sister works for a major pharm company in the human side and only has patient health in mind. But hey, she's obviously part of the big conspiracy we're all apart of, to make people and animals sick, so we can make money treating them. I get where you're coming from, but you have no scientific evidence - just a bunch of internet links from no reputable sources, purely scaremongering IMO.

Interestingly they never actually post a link to the video the writer of that article is talking about. Just because someone writes a story like that and puts it on the internet, it doesn't make it true. If you google 'Heroin is good for you', you'll find an article written by someone saying how great heroin is and all the benefits it has on your body. Found this... both are on the internet, so which one is real?

But just because they way they digest food is the same, it doesn't mean they need to eat the exact same diet? Many dogs live indoors and do not exercise any where near as much as what a wild dog would have, so their fat requirements would be much lower as would the general calorie requirement. We wash them more often, before shows, to smell nice inside, which can dry out their skin more. Artificial heating like air con can also dry them out more, increasing the need for more omega oils for healthy skin. We have dogs with different coat lengths, not really designed for the areas in which they live. Almost every way in which we keep dogs, is totally 'unnatural' so it makes total sense that the dietary needs of a dog will be different to those who are fending for themselves, living in the elements, catching their prey, regularly breeding etc etc.

Dogs digestive systems may not have changed but their nutritional requirements have. As I mentioned before, the needs of a Great Dane puppy compared to a Chihuahua puppy are very different. Grow the Dane puppy on a food to suit the needs of a Chi and you'd likely end up with terrible growth problems that effect its skeletal system for life. Most people do not have the ability to measure the amount of calcium and phosphorus which will be absorbed from each meal, in order to get these ratios right - something so important in large/giant pups. I love a raw diet. Many people would probably tell me though, that the diet I feed my dog is not good, because its not BARF or prey model exactly. But he's alive and he's as healthy as he's going to be. I will never believe, either, that commercial dry food is totally bad for our dogs. All our last 3 dogs (2 Goldens and 1 JRT) lived till the ages of 16, all being fed mostly supermarket food with table scraps and bones here and there. 1 Golden was pts due to spinal arthritis, the other actually died from eating a raw chicken frame which got stuck in her stomach, resulting in her aspirating her own vomit and damaging her lungs to the extent she couldn't maintain a high enough oxygen saturation rate to survive. The JRT died when a tumour in her liver ruptured. None of the dogs had any other health conditions through their long lives. People can put up all the links they want of people saying how bad pet food is, claiming its full of our dead pets etc, but my 3 dogs were evident enough for me that it wasn't poison for them.

Dogs are vastly different to the dogs that live in the wild. We've bred all types of different breeds that now have different nutritional requirements to each other. If we all turned our dogs out to run free, you'd see many die off and eventually you'd type of dog left remaining - one that was best suited to the environment and diet that was available. Growing Great Danes have very different nutritional needs to a growing Chihuahua. We've created the need for balanced, commercial foods with the breeds which we have created.

I think too, the difference in how horses are bred is quite different to dogs. Most horses are bred for a purpose. TB's, for eg, are bred to race and need to be of utmost health. I can't imagine any breeder or trainer wanting to race an atopic horse - it would be too expensive to run and never at peak fitness. It would be likely be culled, or sold off as a pet and not bred with. Same with with the dressage/show scene. Your horse needs to be able to work foremost, and an allergic horse is going to have a tough time concentrating when it's so itchy. A stallion used at stud generally wants to look good too. I can't imagine anyone picking a stallion to put over their mare that has alopecia and is forever scratching. It's a lot harder to treat horse allergies because the surface area is so much bigger so I just can't see it happening very often. Then you have the dog world, where we have so many different types of dogs. Realistically, most pets bred today are bred to look good as pets or show dogs, not really for a purpose like a work horse. In a lot of situations, looks and conformation are chosen first. Atopic dogs can have their symptoms treated far easily than a horse, so you may not know the stud dog you chose for your bitch is itchy, if the breeder doesn't tell you. If a dog or cat looks amazing and fits the standard, it is still bred, even if its a bit itchy here and there. Look at Greyhounds though. They are bred with for a purpose to race. Anything with a health problem is generally culled, because its of no use if it can't race its best. They just don't see HD is Greys and in fact, the breed itself is pretty healthy. Racers don't want an unhealthy grey!

Bridie is sounds like your girl might have a collapsing trachea? The honking sound is a classic symptom, as this sound usually comes from the trachea. If she's got any sort of air way problem, eg pneumonia, swollen tonsils, it will make her have to breath harder, which puts more pressure on the airways and makes the problem worse. Also, being overweight or pregnant exacerbates any sort of dynamic airway disease, again, because of the increase in pressure. She's had the pups now so her stomach is no longer big, but the stress of whelping, the increase in respiration at this time, could easily have made an airway condition worse. I would look into this further with your girl. Any difficulty in breathing, IMO, warrants a vet visit, regardless of the time, as the more they struggle to breath, the worse they can become as their airways struggle to cope as they gasp harder. I'm glad she's better this morning - I think you're really lucky.

Interesting. I've worked in a number of different riding schools/agistment places too and I'd say there was atleast one horse in each place that had an allergy of some sort. My friend's TB is pretty allergic and she spends a lot of time over the summer months treating his skin.

hahahaha well, sort of. It was all very quick and Orbit was pretty freaked out by the flash. So that shot was actually digitally created, putting the two together. But yes, he was quite a nice looking boy ;) We got to hang out while waiting for our turn. Unfortunately he wasn't a very 'doggy' person

Awww thanks guys ;) He does look a little bit lovely doesn't he eta: he's also the first pic in the Men section online

Mas - I believe allergies are relatively common in horses, too. I just don't think we hear about them so much because a) this is a dog forum ;) and b) the ratio of dog owners to horse owners is probably significantly higher. Qld Itch is pretty common, which is an allergy to the midgey bites. But yeah, if you look up horse allergies, you'll see its relatively common and they go through immunotherapy too etc. Also, the breeding that takes place with horses is quite different. Most people that have horses don't breed and I would say that most stud owners would not breed with an allergic horse.