Staranais

I know it was carcasses as they were mincing while I was there, I just didn't think to ask what they were Just chicken carcasses minced up? That sounds OK then. Perhaps I am just paranoid.

If i were you, I'd ring and ask what is in it. If it's whole ground carcasses then you can probably replace a reasonable proportion of his diet with it. If it's just meat alone, you probably don't want to replace too much of the diet with it (unless you're going to feed bone as well), or there possibly won't be enough calcium or phosphorus in the diet for him. If it was me, I'd also want to know what sort of meat went into it - some meat is fattier than others, etc. Edited to add: Actually, I'm not sure I'd feed pet mince at all unless I knew for sure what was in it, and trusted the butcher. One of the benefits of making your own diet, IMO, is that you know exactly what goes into your pet's food. That's not the case with pet mince - could be anything ground up in there. Perhaps that's just me being paranoid, but hunks of meat and bone are also better for teeth, too.

NRM = no reward marker. Sorry for the jargon! A NRM is a word that signals to the dog that he hasn't earned a reward this time. The advantage of using a NRM (instead of just not giving the dog the reward) is that it pinpoints the moment the dog did the "wrong" thing and lost the chance to earn the reward. Makes it much easier for the dog to work out what's going on. So it's sort of like a clicker, but in reverse. It's not supposed to be an inherently aversive sound - it's not a growl, or telling the dog off. It's just supposed to be information, given in a neutral, calm tone. Some people don't like using a NRM, but I find it really enhances communication with the dog & wouldn't be without one.

Ah I see now. I've dabbled in both ways, and I did get far better results teaching heel offleash - but then again I'm pretty hard to frustrate! Doing it that way may not be everyone's cup of tea I suppose. Of course, if a person has to use a leash merely to stop the dog from running off then I really do think that they need to work on motivating the dog better rather than tying him up to stop him leaving. Sounds like a good seminar though, I would have liked to have been there to see Uta's method first hand. Oh just saw your edit. Yup, it can be frustrating for the dog to get too many NRM, although I have also found that some frustration also builds drive for the reward, so I don't see anything wrong with allowing the dog to fail sometimes. But if you're giving too many NRM and the dog's getting overly frustrated, then I'd simply say simplify the exercise. Start with a smaller "step", one that the dog can be successful at, and only move on when the dog's got the hang of that one. Assumed the OP knew that but perhaps I was wrong - sorry OP if you were confused!

Why would I want to limit or prevent mistakes when training competition obedience? I'd rather let the dog make the mistake and mark it as a mistake (immediate NRM and start over with no reward). That way the dog can learn that the mistake is unrewarding, and he then knows that it's not worth repeating. Preventing the dog from making mistakes might mean the exercise is learned more quickly, but letting the dog experiment a little to find out which heeling variations get rewarded and which don't leads to the dog ultimately having a truer understanding of the exercise, IMO. Lots of ways to skin a cat and all that, but I just don't see the advantage of using a check chain when teaching a competition heel to most dogs, over teaching it offleash?

Yes, that's right. It will help her understand what you want, since you can mark the exact moment she does the good thing, and then give her the big reward. If you just use treats without marking the behaviour first, she'll be confused exactly what earned the reward. You can also get a dog that "sign tracks" (spends more time watching for the reward instead of doing what she's supposed to do, since she's never sure when the reward will appear). Using a marker like a clicker helps to correct that problem as well. I'd guess that she doesn't really understand what "heel" means. If you're across the other side of the room and tell her to "heel", could she find heel? I'm also thinking that she's probably unenthusiastic about the reward you're offering. Make it something really special, reserve it just for heeling if you have to. Your dog should be excited when you tell her to heel, since she should know she's got a chance to get a really super reward. I'm A-OK with using a correction collar to teach loose leash walking, but don't think it has a place to teach competition heeling, at least not for the vast majority of dogs. JMO.

I'd probably start again, teaching heel offleash as if it was a brand new exercise. I'd want to keep her excitement and motivation level high with a reward she really likes, special food or a toy, but make her responsible for finding and keeping the heel position to earn the reward. So I'd probably teach her to play the "find heel" game, or practice just a few steps at a time, then mark the behaviour and release her to the reward. Like Nekhbet says I'd do lots of short sessions to keep her excitement high, and only gradually build up how long you expect her to heel for, only raising the criteria when she's both keen and accurate in her heeling. I taught competition heeling as a completely offleash exercise from the start with my last dog. I figured if he wouldn't stay with me offleash, then there were problems (with either his motivation or his understanding of the exercise) that sticking a leash on wouldn't really fix (it might cover the problems up like a band aid for a bit, but that's all!) I think I'll do it that way with my next dog, since it worked really well for us.

Wow, what a saga! I'll have my fingers crossed for Diesel's speedy and complete recovery.

In my opinion, a good raw diet can be a great way to feed a pup, but a bad raw diet can be really bad. I definitely don't want to discourage you from feeding raw, but I would encourage you to do your research before you jump right into raw feeding a tiny puppy. There are plenty of good commercial foods you can feed while you're making the switch, so it's not like it's either raw food or a terrible diet. What are you feeding right now? Remember that you can also always go "half way" - kibble at one meal, raw bones or meat at another - so that can help both you and pup make the switch (best not to mix the two in the same meal, from what I understand). Remember to switch foods really slowly with little puppies or they can get terrible tummy upsets. & at only 10 weeks old, I'd probably ask your breeder for advice about diet before making any switches.

I agree. "Over-use" is different to giving the recall command when you're in a position to enforce (and reinforce it) and I do much of this in the teaching/training phase. I read that post as the OP not wanting her dog to associate the "come" command with a bad thing (getting put outside), rather than her just not wanting to use the command too often? ETA: Oh woops, just seen that the OP clarified that already. Silly me.

Agreed. If she's not better today (or she starts going downhill), I'd definitely be looking for a second opinion.

Yes I agree, dental health is (IMO) a combination of both genetics and diet. As a pet owner, you can't affect the genetics, but you can affect the diet. Bones are good, and some dogs that are predisposed to dental disease do benefit from having their teeth brushed as well. Be careful with feeding big leg bones from cows, dogs can get fractured molars from those, especially if they lie round in the yard for a while and get all dried out.

I'd also be concerned about your neighbours laying snail bait, and the snails wandering into your garden. I'm not sure how long snails live after eating bait - long enough to wander next door?

I've read the book, was a few years ago though so can't remember everything. But from what I do remember, it sounded like a rather disorganised version of prey drive training. I'll give you a link to a review... the reviewer is spot on in my opinion. http://www.kateconnick.com/library/behandog.html

Did Tyson's papers say "American Staffordshire Terrier" or "Staffordshire Bull Terrier", Nicole? They're two separate but related breeds, the AST is quite a bit bigger and leggier than the SBT. 36kg is about twice as big as most purebred SBT, but could be quite normal for a large male AST. It's pretty easy to get the two breeds mixed up, especially since some people refer to them both as "staffies". Like most other posters have said, there's really no way of knowing what your new boy is without getting papers from a registered breeder, though either way, he's still pretty darn cute.

Well I'm no expert, but if his mum looked like a staffy, then perhaps his dad might have been a crossbreed? Because that really is pretty big for a young staffy - even full grown staffies aren't supposed to be that heavy, and he's only 6 months old! He's certainly a cutie though, thanks for posting pictures. He looks like quite a character. If you're curious, you could always post a "guess the breed" thread in the general forum, and people will have a go at guessing what else (besides staffy) they think might be in him. Though without getting papers from a registered breeder, there's really no way of knowing for sure who his ancestors were.

Hi Nicole, welcome to the forum. I'd say that was pretty large for a purebred Staffordshire Bull Terrier (= proper name for an "english staffy") Where did you get him from & did you see his parents? He's a very handsome pup regardless!

I wouldn't. The way it works is that the pup's maternal antibodies have probably worn off enough by 12 weeks for the vaccine to work - so pup will probably become solidly immune by 13 or so weeks (i.e, a week or so after he is vaccinated at 12 weeks). However, some pups don't lose their maternal antibodies quickly enough for the 12 week vaccine to work. Those pups will not become immune until a week or two after they get their final vaccine. So for some period between 12 weeks and whenever they get their final vaccine, those pups are still at risk of catching parvo etc. We can't tell if the 12 week vaccine has worked in your particular pup or not, so it's just safer to assume that he's still at risk until after his final vaccination. Get pup out of the house by all means, socialise him, but just be careful where you take him and which dogs you let him associate with until he's had his final vaccination. You could call and ask your vet too, since I'm unfamiliar with the exact vaccine brand & protocol you're using, but that's my understanding of how it normally works. There are also lots of trainers on this board who can give you advice about socialising safely, if you wanted to start a topic on that. Hope that makes sense.

The repeated puppy vaccination (every 2 weeks on the old schedule) is pretty much designed to hedge your bets - you vaccinate repeatedly to try to ensure pup becomes immune as soon as he possibly can. If you're sure the pup isn't going to come into contact with parvo etc until after he gets his final vaccine, then technically you might as well only get the final one, and not waste money on the earlier ones. But most people can't be sure of that - most like to take their pup out and about at least a little before that, since socialisation is important! Remember, parvo is a really hardy virus too. It's easy to bring virus back into your house on your clothing or shoes, so keeping pup at home isn't really any guarantee he won't be exposed to it. If you just did the 8 and the 14 weeks vaccination like you're suggesting, what happens if pup doesn't become immune from the 8 week vaccine (as many pups don't), then loses his maternal antibody protection at 10 or 12 weeks (as most pups do), and then comes into contact with parvo at 13 or 14 weeks? If you have done a 12 week shot as well, puppy would have been protected in this scenario. Those two extra weeks of protection can be pretty crucial to a pup. Hence the recommendation to get the full course of puppy vaccines, whichever brand you choose to use, to ensure that young pups become immune as soon as possible. There's no guarantee either way, but this is giving your pup the best chance of immunity if there's any risk they many be exposed to parvo, hep or distemper virus. I really can understand people not wanting to vaccinate older dogs, or wanting to vaccinate older dogs minimally - from what I've seen, they have a lot of good science on their side that says that most dogs don't need many or any more C3 vaccines after they are a year old. But IMO puppy vaccination is a different thing altogether - it's just not something to skimp on since the risk of parvo etc to a young pup is so much higher than any risk of vaccine side effects. Hopefully those new high titre puppy vaccines will make this all a thing of the past in a few years time.

Oh, how cute . Shut up ....... please , Jeff. :D I have seen the way YOUR dog takes out the garbage. Hhhhmph!!! It would be helpful if the garbage STAYED in the garbage bin!! ETA: Ok .... so who dobbed? I asked for Jeff not to be told. Staranais? Not me! Promise!

Can you please PM me or post the study, Morgan? I've only been able to find papers that say exactly the opposite (no more health issues within a few months of a vaccination), so would love to have the reference. Thanks!

Also, the high titre puppy vaccines are relatively new so I imagine many vets simply don't know about them yet. Perhaps also some vets don't want to use them yet because they are so new. Some vets may want to wait until they're convinced that they work as well as the old vaccines, or until they're sure that there are no more side effects etc (I believe these vaccines do have more antigen in order to break through maternal immunity). I don't know a whole lot about them myself yet, as far as I'm aware they've only been released over here (NZ) in the last few years. I'm also unsure if you can get high titre vaccines for kennel cough (parainfluenza/bordetella). So you might still need to go back to the vet a few times to get those, even if you do get the high titre that protects against parvo, distemper & adenovirus. I'm not sure which brands they are in Australia, and not sure if they cost more or not. Hopefully an Aussie DOLer can help.

Because the first vaccine doesn't always "take" in some pups, due to those pups still having maternal antibodies in their systems (which they get from the mum's colostrum, protects them against pathogens but also causes the vaccine to fail as the antibodies neutralises the vaccine before it can have much effect on the pup's immune system). Unfortunately you can't predict exactly when the maternal antibodies wear off (it depends how much colostrum the pup had, and how much antibody was in the colostrum, so can be different for different litters and different pups within one litter), or else we'd probably just vaccinate them once as soon as they wore off sufficiently for the vaccine to work. So you give one vaccine at 12 - 16 weeks to ensure the pup becomes immune, since you know the maternal antibodies will definately have worn off enough for the vaccine to work by then. And you give earlier doses in case the pup has lost maternal antibody protection sooner. If you didn't give the earlier doses, the pup is at risk from when he loses the maternal antibody protection (can be as early as 6 - 8 weeks in some pups), to when you vaccinate him at 12 - 16 weeks. Vaccine manufacturers are starting to make new vaccines that can break through maternal immunity to at least some extent, so with those vaccines, you may just need to give one dose, or may be able to finish vaccinating earlier. Don't know much about them myself yet, especially not the ones available in Oz.

If she was mine, I probably wouldn't vaccinate her for parvo, distemper, or hepatitis again. From everything I've been taught I believe adequate immunity against these 3 viruses lasts at least 3 years in most dogs after vaccination, so annual boosters for these diseases aren't generally necessary. If you're concerned she may lack immunity to those three viruses, you could always get a yearly titre to prove to yourself she's still got an adequate level of circulating antibody against them. (A low titre doesn't necessarily mean she's susceptible, but a high titre indicates that she's almost certainly immune so vaccinating is pointless). If you think it's likely that she could get kennel cough at the shows, perhaps you could just vaccinate against that. From what I know that vaccine doesn't last nearly as long as the others, so will generally "wear off" within a year or two. And it's probably nice for her not to get a full blown case of kennel cough, since she's an old lady. :rolleyes:

Thanks for finding all that Stormie! Am keen to hear anything more you can find out. :rolleyes: That's really interesting that they've tweaked the vaccines. I remember reading over some papers a few months ago about vaccine schedules, and in the serology papers I read, the vast majority of dogs were shown to have adequate immunity against parvo, adenovirus and distemper 3 years after their puppy series - this was using the old annual vaccines. So I wonder if Intervet and Fort Dodge have tweaked the vaccines because they think the new recipe genuinely offers better immunity, or if they have simply done it for marketing purposes (so they can be justified charging more because they can legally market the vaccine as a "newer, different" variety?) If I didn't attend obedience etc, I think I'd be perfectly content vaccinating every 3 years even with the old annual vaccines, after puppy shots and perhaps a booster at 1 year. I'm convinced that this gives adequate immunity in the vast majority of dogs. The only trouble is that using the annual vaccine like this is technically "off label" use, & dogsport clubs won't necessarily accept that your dog is still covered by the vaccine unless the vaccine is a licensed 3 year variety. I wonder if more vets will start to offer the 3 year vaccine (and start to offer it cheaper) as more and more dog owners start demanding it?