Jed

It annoys me too when behaviourists and vets push one food (usually dry food they sell, surprise, surprise!!) very heavily and to the exclusion of all else. What really ticks me off is that they tell people not to feed raw, as you say, without giving any valid reasons. Because they are in a position of authority, people tend to listen to them whether they have any knowledge of the subject of food or not!! My vet recommends dry food, because she says it is balanced, and it is easy for people to feed. And they wont be feeding the dog an unbalanced diet which will be detrimental to it. I can understand that. She doesn't know a lot about raw food, but doesn't bag it either. If someone feeds it, and is happy, and the dogs are well, she is happy. I have often suggested to my puppy buyers they go for a premium dry food, because it is obvious on talking to them, that raw is "too hard". I think half the problem with raw food is that it is all made too complicated for some. Like preparing a 10 course dinner for royalty. It isn't that hard. Off my soapbox now, and back into the kennel!!

Maybe it's because of the "droopy undies" avatar? :rolleyes:

Jejune, before you begin beating up the owner, if this IS the same dog, it has been missing for a month - and as a stray, it was not having regular meals, in fact, it was probably having no meals at all, which would lead to the condition it is now in.

Chugga chugga chugga Might be because someone without the properly approved and certified licence to drive a train thinks they are the driver? And the conducter? And the fireman? Could be the passengers don't like the train leaving the rails in charge of the unlicenced driver, and heading for them thar hills goin chugga chugga woo woo thump? Could be!! woooooooooooo woooooooooooooooo

Lillysmum If you spent more time considering the content of your posts before you hit the "reply" button, no one would feel the need to disagree, and then you wouldn't need to make endless posts justifying your position, which would be a relief to everyone. Oh, and if you do your sums, you will see that "one or two" is considerably more than that! Not everyone on this forum agrees with everything others post, but we seem to mostly be able to disagree amicably - because most people clearly qualilfy their remarks, which is what you should also do.

That it can poison dogs - the diarrohea is a symptom that they are getting too much. I always thought the excess was excreted, and therefore no harm would result, but apparently not, and if it is not excreted, problems can arise. Apparently if they are overdosed, some is excreded, but some is not. I am not sure what the symptoms are, but I gather they can die from it. I didn't pursue the matter much. Didn't!! It wasn't a throw away comment, and I would presume there have been some studies done on it, for the vet to say that (never makes remarks without proof). IMO, good vets have a lot of information you will never find on the net. So, I tend to listen!! My vet is not anti natural remedies, and if she sees something which she thinks is of benefit, she will investigate it in a scientific way. Having said that, my cat turned up one night with a big scrub tick. Her hind end was paralysed, she had no voice, and she was drooling. All bad signs at 1am. No vet in this area is open at 1am, so I elected to inject her with Vit C and hope for the best. 5 ml intramuscularly. At 6am, she had improved so much, I elected to try another Vit C injection. 7mls intramuscularly. By 1pm, she was almost normal, and was normal by 6pm. She had no adverse reaction to the C. I have friends who regularly feed C as part of the diet, and they give 1 small tablet per day, with no problems. I think the problems arise when mega-doses are given, or maybe small doses over a long period.

No, Lilysmum, you categorically stated that whatever you said in each sentence was FACT. This is only one of your remarks. Every statement in the above is written as a statement of absolute and impermeable fact. There is definitely no indication that it is only your personal opinion, and your experience with one dog. I am not going to rehash your whole post. Every statement you have written is a statement of fact, and nowhere have you indicated that this is simply your personal opinion. It is obvious that you have written the post as facts, when they are not. Several posters have pointed this out to you. How many dogs? What sort of kibble? You should clarify, and try harder in future not to come across as the hudu guru of dog feeding. Bommy, for instance has found the major difference between raw and dry is that her dog died from eating raw food, and many others die as well, but I notice she tempers her statements with comments about that being her opinion. Although she has PROOF that raw diets can kill, she states her opinions, and leaves it to the reader to make judgement, and a decision, when she would probably be justified in a diatribe against raw feeding. On the other hand, I could cite instances of bloat from dry food, and other problems, and Bommy and I could each say we are correct - but no good purpose would be served. Lilysmum, I have fed my dogs on pretty well everything a dog can and will eat for over 40 years, and between my own dogs and rescues, probably more dogs than you've seen. With experience, I am not about to smack people over the chops with my opinions - because - in the end, they are only my opinions, as yours are. What bothers me (and a lot of others) about your posts is that you are prepared to categorically state x or y - and by your assured manner, induce someone to feed something to their dog, or to do something, which may be to the detriment of the dog. You seem to be totally oblivious of this fact, and continue to mindlessly argue about the criticism you receive, instead of quietly contemplating what you are actually putting on this forum.

Is he thin? He just may not need a lot of food. Some don't. I had an exploratory done a while back, because we weren't getting any closer to the solution to the problem. Dog was fine, problem was revealed. Expensive though!! Try the liver sprinkles. IMHO, they work with a lot of dogs.

I guess she has demodex? As her immune system builds, it will go. (Voice of experience!!) Also, check with a naturopath or vet about vitamins. Dogs can acquire toxicity from vitamin c, if they are having too much. There is an inclination to believe that the excess passes through the dog, but not always. Vets occasionally see dogs which have been poisoned by C over a period. A normal dose should be ok though.

Unless your dacshund is thin, or unwell, why not let him continue to eat what he has been having? It doesn't look too bad, and he has voted with his mouth against what he doesn't like. Because he is a dog doesn't mean he can't have food tastes. If he was my boy, I'd simply feed him what he likes, not having what he wont eat wont kill him. You may be able to broaden the scope of his food somewhat by trying more things which he will probably eat. From personal experience, I know daccies are very strong willed, and it may be better to bend a little, than to try to impose a food regime on him which he dislikes. My daccy, which had very selective tastes lived until 23 years on a raw diet, so don't despair. He is already getting a reasonably balanced diet - beef/chicken/veges/yoghurt -- add sardines once a week, an egg, maybe a change of veges, leave out the rice (which he doesn't need, dogs are not natural carbohydrate eaters). He is basically getting pretty good diet now. Why not go to the BARF website, and have a look there? It will give you some ideas, and I am sure he will eat different raw foods, which can only be good. Remember, the trick is balance - if he isn't getting something he needs today in his diet, and he has a good choice, he will probably get it tomorrow. Don't sweat the BARF thing - meat, bones, vegs or fruit, yoghurt or cottage cheese, a bit of fish. Lilysmum Is this your opinion, or do you have some facts and figures to back this up. By "processed foods", to what precisely do you refer? Tins? Dry food? Which brands? How much more and how often? What additional volume do they pass? Urine and bowel output - for both natural and processed diets please - also please specify which types of processed food Are the dogs you refer to in perfect health, or do they have kidney problems? Again, please direct us to the studies which prove this. Volume of water consumed by dog on dry food compared to volume consumed by dogs on raw diets? Did you ask the dog? Or, did you get scientific, and ask the person who will speak to your dog for $300 to ask the dog? If not, your reasons for saying this are?? Please quote type of processed foods, and statistical results of scientific survey? Quite a few dogs "seem hungry all the time" no matter what they are fed. Most dogs I know would continue to eat until they could hold no more, given a choice, and eat again as soon as they could. I am sure you have the results of the scientific studies, and statistics you have used to make the above statements to hand, to be able to give such detailed reasons why raw is best. So, I know it wont be any problem for you to post those results here so we can all be well educated. I look forward to it. Bommy Exactly - I feed mostly raw - but others feed "processed foods" with good results - we each have our reasons for feeding as we do. I don't see much point in vehemently criticising a method of feeding which we don't use, and don't like!! We should be presenting our opinions, not a diatribe. Considering there are scientific studies for and against each type of food, and as well, we all have our own opinions based on experience.

"Eau de Canine" - about $20 - but a short spray hides a lot of smells, and a bottle lasts for ages!! From good pet shops

I think a parvo test would be positive for parvo - from the vaccination - up to 4 - 7 days from date of vaccination. Everyone has a different opinion. Mostly when you get a + for parvo following vac. you will find it is the vaccination which is causing the positive reaction. You will certainly get a positive result from a parvo test 3 days after vaccination (know, coz I've had one!!) Yes, some of a litter cn be infected and some not. It seems to depend on the amount of maternal immunity each pup receives, and I believe - the "toughness" of each pup. It is quite common for some of a litter to be infected, just as the pup which seems to be the worst with parvo will survive, and the one which doesn't look too bad will suddenly die. And - the runty one which you expect to succumb survives, and the big strong healthy one dies. If you have parvo, or think you have, my commiserations to you, and I'll cross all my fingers and toes, and do an LB, and light a few candles.

I'd get some blood work done on him to make sure he is AOK. There are some digestive problems which are difficult to spot, but which will stop the dog from eating normally. Malabsorption for one. With any problems like this, there are some symptoms - wind, diarrohea etc., but you may need a specialist vet to arrive at a diagnosis. If he is OK, it may simply be that he will fill out when he is 2, and he may never be a "big eater". Some or all of these things may work too Slice liver thinly. Bake in a slow oven until it is hard (leave the house while doing this, it stinks) and when dry, put in an airtight container, grind it between your fingers, and sprinkle over his food. You can use liver treats too the same way Vegemite - which may be unobtainable, or too expensive in UK - smeared on the food works well. Vitamin/mineral shots from the vet. I am not sure what they are called in UK, but your vet will know. Try him on milk + a couple of raw eggs mixed through it, or cook rolled oats and add milk and eggs to that. Add a little Glucodin. Whole eggs are fine. If he has never had cows' milk, he may be intolerant to it. Pups have an enzyme, lactase, which enables them to digest cows milk - it goes from the system as they mature, but if they are fed cows milk from puppyhood, they retain the ability to digest it. In any case, most dogs can digest cows milk, but if he is not used to it I'd begin with a little just in case. BBQ chicken! Try cooking him a stew with some fairly fatty meat, add a few veges, thicken with flour and water, and feed warm. Or thicken with flour and water and rolled oats. You can also add about 1/2 a small tin of premium canned dog food for fussy eaters .... they come in tiny tins here (at about the same price as caviar!!) and are good for tempting appetite. Cut up lamb flaps and lightly fry them - so they are browned on the outside. Pour the fat over them and feed warm. What does he normally eat? I once had a dog which was like this. She would eat something new for a couple of days, and then refuse it. She also had intermittent diarrohea - not terribly bad - we visited 17 vets for varying diagnoses - often worms (which was not the case) before we found one who diagnosed her correctly. At this stage, although her coat was glossy, she was skeletal. We were lucky to save her.

I have been feeding a raw diet forever. When dry food was "invented" - in the seventies, I think - I did feed some of that too, ditto, tinned food when it was "invented". For a time, and then reverted to raw. My dogs eat a raw diet - basically what Billinghurst recommends. However I keep a bag of dry food so that if I am home late, I can feed them easily and quickly. I do not buy barf patties, I process veges and add to the meat daily. My rationale is this. 1 You can't see what is in dry food. And some of the ingredients don't look too wholesome to me. 2 If the premium foods are made of the good things they say they are (and I have no reason to doubt that) they are simply what I am feeding, processed, and persented in pellet form. Why not feed the food in its original form? There are a lot of arguments about types of food. My daughter, for instance, feeds premium dry food, changing brands regularly. Her dogs look great, and have no health problems. Her rationale is that it is too difficult to provide a balanced diet, she is often home late, and the dry food suits her lifestyle. My dogs do well on what they eat, are rarely ill, are bright eyed and bushy tailed, do small dry droppings which are easy to collect, and seem to live to a ripe old age, and mostly die of "old age" stuff, although I have lost a couple to cancer...in old age. I couldn't be bothered arguing about food - people feed what suits them and their dogs. However, beware of people advising you to change a diet you are happy with, and also beware of vets badgering you to feed dry food which they sell. Some vets know a lot about dog nutrition, because they have made the effort to find out, but the majority don't. Only basic nutrition is taught at Uni, and most vets are at sea when nutrition is mentioned - which is why they suggest dry food! Also, a couple of dog food reps give them lectures on the benefits of their particular food. Dry food is pretty safe, because it is balanced, but if you feed a variety of raw food, making sure you are not feeding anything which is toxic to dogs, or too much of any one thing, you wont go too far wrong. The same applies to vitamin/mineral supplements. They are ok - but change sometimes. I feed my dogs kelp, and when it runs out, I don't buy any more for a while. You don't need to be a dog food guru to feed them correctly. Just make sure there is plenty of variety - and do go and check Ian Billinghurst's site. Do the research, see what suits your dog, and don't be swayed by others - unless they can prove they have the necessary expertise and experience. :rolleyes:

Sunny 70 This sounds like a great idea Sunny 70, but I wonder would it cause some of the morons who produce cross bred pups to dump them if they couldn't advertise them? Unfortunately, this is a big subject, and a big problem - and there is no "one size fits all" solution, as the govt. seems to think. I have some issues with early desexing - anaesthesia is one - although they are becoming safer and safer. Spey incontinence is another, plus controversy about growth rates etc. However, the biggest reason is my gut instinct. Don't argue, I have learned never to argue with my gut instinct. When it says "no" I NEVER do it. It's instinctive. However, my rescues, cat and dog all get desexed - any age - when Ive been broke, I've been able to get 5th year uni students to do it for experience, and a six pack!! ALL rescues ought to be desexed - to stop some moron getting a cheap dog, and making more, or being too idle to desex and getting more. A different type of person takes rescues generally - and there is a larger % of them (or the ones I've seen) who I wouldn't trust to desex. Please don't read this as discrimatory - there is a huge difference between the people who buy cavvies, and the people who buy boxers too!! not worse - just different. I sell boxers to people I wouldn't even consider for a cav, ditto my rescues...which after all, have ranged from chi x, cattle x kelpie, maremma x, purebreds, to bull arab x camel (hard to home those latter ones, I had to suck up to a childhood friend to get shot of the last one, but they love her). We all want the same end here - a huge reduction in the number of dogs in the pound. Instead of arguing about early desexing, which not turn our collective giant intellect to trying to solve the problem? I've had my 2 cents worth. Anyone else got any ideas which don't involve mandatory desexing of all pets?

Buying from a reputable registered breeder is best. Ask if there is any ulcerative colitis in the lines, and also cardiio myopathy. I'd maybe ask about cancers too. Look for older, well dogs in the kennels. Preferably related to the pup you are interested in. Good choice, by the way Have you had this delightful breed before?

Peibe And - no votes in it. Their answer would be "we brought the law in - councils can now enforce it. " Councils will not enforce it, due to, as you rightly point out, the cost. Pounds and the way animal laws are enforced are entrenched, and no one wants to put in the hard yards to change, because of the initial expense and work involved. So, they will bring in more laws, without giving it much thought. Those laws are partially driven by PETA supporters on RSPCA and animal welfare boards, and will, in the future, directly impact on responsible breeders producing decent purebred dogs. Most of the laws we have now disadvantage purebred breeders, whilst advantaging puppy farmers. It would be easier for me to get a licence to keep 400 bitches, as an agricultural enterprise, than to get a permit to keep 8 dogs as members of the family. And - the checks following approval would be less. PETA etc doesn't care, their stated long term goals are to stop the keeping of pets. They wil succeed. Governments are so facile, interested only in the next election. Peter Batty is currently poncing about on TV (election on 9/9), telling everyone about his faaantaastic plans for a water grid. What was he doing 5 years ago, when blind Freddy could see there would be NO WATER because 100 people a day were moving to Queensland. The water supply is finite. Why wasn't he DOING something about a bloody water grid 5 years ago? Because he is only interested in his political future, not the future of the state, or the people. It is the people who have to wear the results of politicians loony toon decisions. Don't ask me about the power, the hospitals, or the ambulance service GRRR

Peibe Agree Peibe - the first problem needs more enforcement - maybe by councils when annual registrations become due? ie - "microchip number"? on council registration forms. And, perhaps some enforcement via checking the odd ad in the paper, and publicising that ads will be checked, and fines issued. If the first problem was addressed, and microchipping as I suggested became law, breeders would have no choice .... and I think they would stop breeding. I know some breeders will not take dogs back, and we need to change this. Sunny70 I don't either, but I don't think the answer will be found by the government taking advice from the people who are now advising them, including animal lib --- it will simply be a case of cobbling up quick fix laws to keep the public happy, without really addressing the problem. BSL was brought in as a "quick fix" for dog attacks. Keep the public happy. Not only has it not reduced dog attacks, it has caused untold grief to people and dogs which would NEVER have caused a problem. It is a difficult question. The obvious answer would be for NO ONE to breed pups for which there were no homes. And to sell e pups only to people who had genuine empathy for dogs, and who were committed to making the dog a part of the family, not a hairy accessory dragging itself around the back yard. I wish!! I have given this a lot of thought - and I can't see any other solution which might work without causing a lot of unforseen longterm problems - to a minority group. Once the microchipping solution did work, there would not be as many dogs in pounds. Also, education in the key. I am not a fan of the RSPCA, but their long term education on desexing has worked. 10 -15 years ago, no puppy buyer initiated conversations about desexing. Now 90% of them bring it up, and state they wish to have their pet desexed, which is wonderful

Whilst I am not denigrating rescue, or rescuers, I would like to point out, from the perspective of a registered breeder, and a rescuer, that there are obvious differences. The difference in rescue dogs/pups vs registered pups is all in the expectations of the new owners. People who want reg. pups have higher expectations - they want to see health tests, pedigrees, ancestors, and to know that the breeder is with them. They will search all manner of websites to find ancestors, they pore over photos, they revel in seeing a hoary old grandma tottering around at 12! They are happy to pay for that. Should something go wrong, it is usually ALL the breeder's fault, from house training problems, grooming, pulls on the lead, to fell down dead at 15 years... "what about your health guarantee??" With rescue dogs - buyers are aware that there is little history, in fact, even the breed may not be known, and they accept a dog which needs them --- and they don't pay as much either. They wll then more readily accept there could be a problem with the dog, and do not automatically blame the rescuer. I personally would not do anything to my pups which I even remotely though could or might lead to any problems ... I don't vaccinate with anything except C3 for that very reason. If mandatory desexing becomes law, there will be no apparent problems, or obvious reduction in the gene pool for some years - about 10, I reckon. But there will, over time, be a reduction in the gene pool, and those who are strongly advocating early desexing for dogs not kept in registered breeders premises ought to be considering the long term good of the dog world. There is plenty of evidence of breeders selling an entire dog on the condition it remains entire in case if need --- and the need is often there!! I find the number of dogs dumped extremely distressing, but mandatory desexing seems to me to be another of the government's "slap a bit of jam on a piece of rotten bread and no one will notice" hasty legislations which in the end will benefit no one except those who espouse the PETA cause, and make no mistake, they are earnestly working towards their ends. A lot more earnestly than breeders are working to stop them. The solution is simple - ALL pups must be microchipped prior to sale, as they are in NSW, with the name/address/phone no of the owner, and the breeders name/address/phone, AND the breeder's driver's licence number. So that the breeder can be traced years into the future. Should the dog end up in the pound, the breeder should be asked to take the dog and rehome it or keep it. There would be no charge for advising the breeder it was in the pound. If the breeder could not/would not take it back, they would be asked to contribute to its upkeep in the pound. Responsible breeders would be delighted to receive a call, and the opportunity to take the dog back. The others - including huge puppy farms who sell via pet shops - would, I feel, think carefully about what they were doing when 100 odd of their production lobbed up on their doorstep in a couple of years .... and kept doing it. Over a couple of years, that would see an enormous reduction in pound dogs - because breeders would stop breeding them if they were going to get them back. That doesn't solve the problem of idiots who have a bitch, don't desex it, and it has a litter or two. Most breeders know others in other states who would take their dogs and rehome them if it became necessary. What mandatory desexing will do is cause the responsible breeders to stop. I will, because I don't think it is always in the best interests of the dog, and I would like to see further research done on it. A lot of others will stop for the same reason. That will then leave fewer registered/responsible breeders and more of the other sort. It's not too hard to ensure the home you find for your pup/rescue dog is a lifetime one, by carefully checking the prospective purchaser. Like everyone else, I have the odd failure, not many - and I have an agreement that the dog must be rehomed to my satisfaction, or come back. If I have to rehome it, I have more resources to do that than the average pet owner, and due to long practice, feel I am better able to assess the new owner.

Cooking bone in mince (which you would feed for the calcium) destroys the calcium. Onions Raw potatoes Grapes Raisins Chocolate TOO MUCH garlic. A small amount is ok, and is said to repel ticks and fleas. Liver, hearts, kidneys etc are fine. If you feed large amounts, they are too rich, hence diarrohea. A little is good for dogs.

You've had some good advice about feeding. With the not eating, try a few of these - one at a time! Brown the mince in the microwave with a bit of water, and feed just warm - smells better warm - but remember, once you cook bone in mince, you destroy the calcium, and he will digest raw mince better, so don't keep doing it. Mix 1/2 teaspoon of vegemite in 1/4 cup of hot water and pour it over the raw mince. Buy some liver treats - the flat ones are best. Crumble up a small amount, so they are like breadcrumbs, and sprinkle over the raw food. And - if all else fails ... this is the recipe I use for little mummy dogs who are so overwhelmed by motherhood, they decide to starve to death, or not-as-plump-as-I'd-like-dogs. Cook some quick rolled oats in the microwave. Add milk and mix to the right consistency, which is runny, not gluey, add a teaspoon of glucodin powder (supermarket) and a beaten up egg. Serve that warm too. No need for puppy milk, just use ordinary full cream (or full cream powdered). Maybe, coming from a farm, he has been having milk, and will welcome it.

I'm glad King is doing ok, cross my fingers for him. Thrive D is fine. With the old horse, providing it has good teeth and no worms, and access to roughage (ie, grass, hay etc), you will do better with a high protein food. Also consider boiling whole barley and linseed (not together) and adding Denkovite (calf milk powder) + soy bean meal, and mixing this through the food, which I presume is chaff etc, or hay. This will make a wet feed, and you can add some molasses. More or less balanced, and the remainder of the ration - depending on what you are feeding, will balance it more. Bit of a hassle, but the results are worth while.

Geez, Raz, don't start, we'll be having haemoroid jokes till Christmas. Did you hear about the accoutant woud couldn't get it out? He had to resort to logs. Yes, peculiar country - 1080 causes a lot more suffering, o a dingo or fox imho, than Phenol/Dettol to a toad. And - how about all those little bunnies, dying by inches from myxomytosis? Very nasty way to go. Maybe the RSPCA would prosecute the DPI for spreading it around? I think people ought to be encouraged to kill toads with some effective spray. The reason a lot wont is because they don't know of any effective way, except freezing, and who wants some poisonous ugly bug eyed toad in the freezer with the prawns, the icecream and the fruit cake?

Can you imagine your friendly vet's face when you rocked up with a bag full of toads for the green dream? :D He'd probably take them out the back and whack them with a golf club!! Yes, that's terribly cruel. I quite fancy the fern hook (like a scythe with a long handle) - one blow is all it takes. Unfortunately, we had so many, I got RSI after a couple of weeks. And I certainly wouldn't use Dettol. They are hopping around the garden all day, lying around in the mulch, I am sure they must have all sorts of germs and nasties, so I give them a little wash with pine disenfectant - $2 for 2 litres. They must really like it, they sit on the lawn enjoying their little wash. Still there a couple of days later. Spose we could all take them to the RSPCA?? And they could euthanase them humanely, or put them in THEIR freezer If you keep at it, you do eventually reduce the population. I found only very small ones last summer, and only 1 this winter, compared to the end of the first summer when I found huge monster ones everywhere. More will always come. If everyone made an effort, I think the population would evenutally reduce.

Got my fingers crossed for King and you, and sending good vibes your way.