Staranais

For those forum members that have successfully raised puppies on raw food, I'd be really interested to know what % RMB you use in the diet, compared to what % meat (and other ingredients). I'm asking about this as a few of the resources I've read recently (vet school essay...) recommend that a pup's diet be about 0.8 - 1% calcium, and about 0.7% P (a ratio of about 1.3Ca:1P). Now, from what I've been able to find, apparently fresh chicken rmb are approximately 1.2% Ca, and 0.65% P. Assuming 100% bioavailability, that's 1.4 times "too much" calcium, and only slightly too little P, in a diet that's only RMB (I realise the pup would have other nutrient deficiencies, but I'm just interested in Ca and P right now.) From what I've found, meat, egg and liver all have negligible Ca, and only around 0.2 - 0.4% P. So I guess according to the theory, at least 2/3 - 3/4 of a raw fed pup's diet should be RMB, and less than 1/4 - 1/3 should be meat/egg/organs, for optimal Ca and P levels. But am wondering how well this actually works in reality, hopefully some of you who have raised raw puppies can enlighten me!

Thanks very much everyone!

If that works for you, I'm happy for you. My only concern is that you can't control the level of fear that your dog is subjected to by other dogs. If the other dog decides to maul Penny, then you may be in trouble trying to get it off before it does her severe damage. I know it hasn't happened so far, and I hope it never will. But my point is just that it could - some dogs do attack even submissive dogs without warning. I know, I've owned one. Yeah, and years ago I even took him to public dogs parks before I knew better. I had very little experience of aggressive dogs, had just adopted a severely dog aggressive adult dog, and it took me a few nasty dog park incidents to work out that he really wasn't a good dog park candidate. (Hey, in my defence, my obedience school instructors were telling me to "socialise" him with as many other dogs as I could to fix his problems!) I guess when you've only owned a couple of dogs (and I include myself in that category), you tend to base your knowledge of dog behaviour on what you've seen. I'm now very wary of dog parks because I've seen some really nasty things. You're not, because you haven't. This is an interesting thread, though. I appreciate your different persepective on dog behaviour etc. I just don't think it's very universal (and to be fair, you have just admitted that yourself).

Yes, you've discovered my secret identity... I guess that's the problem with getting an adult dog, you can't raise them the way you want & sometimes they can come with interesting behavioural baggage! I still wouldn't have swapped him for the world, though.

Thanks K9, I misunderstood the protocol then. I thought there was very little interaction with other dogs, so I was wondering how a pup learned what was "normal" canine behaviour. Lots of non-rewarding interaction makes much more sense to me! That doesn't seem like much of a down side - I was never able to go to dog parks with my Monster (RIP) and we always managed to keep ourselves occupied!

Yeah, that was my understanding too, that the neutralisation programme allowed very little or no actual play with other dogs. Maybe I got the wrong impression? Easy to do just by reading a webpage. Thanks for your answer, Aussienot.

Yes, I thought someone would shoot down my examples No offence to you, Quickasyoucan. What I'm getting at is that sometimes it may be unavoidable for a dog to be transported alone. Yes, routinely I'd like to use a crate. What if I'm sometimes in a situation where I can't? I can think of several situation where that might potentially occur, given that I plan to take my dog many more places than I can take my crate! Or make up your own example as you please. My point was that, on those rare occasions where, due to bad planning or bad luck, I can't act like an alpha "should" (I bet even real wolf alphas muck it up sometimes), will a socialised dog be able to cope better than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at dog-dog communication? Edited to add... just saw Kavik's post, thanks, it sounds like we have the same type of concern/question.

Yes, those are the two options I'm tossing up between too. Careful socialisation, or full neutralisation to everyone outside my immediately family. Why do you think you won't neutralise, Kavik?

I've been following this thread with real interest (pre-puppy research!), and have one question to ask please. I definately understand the benefit of socialising a dog to have a low value for other animals and non-family humans, especially if it's going to be a working or competition dog (which is what I'm after), I don't need to be convinced about that! And I understand the risk that indiscriminate socialisation can pose to a dog's temperament, if it gets attacked or scared by another dog. What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? I should clarify that I'm not talking about chucking your dog into a dog park and letting the dog sort out any problems by itself (some people may be able to get away with that sort of thing, but one severely dog aggressive dog was enough for me.) I won't be routinely relying on my dog to deal with strange dogs by herself - I know that this is my job as alpha. I'm just talking about the situations during the life of your dog where having your dog around other strange dogs will be unavoidable, or will accidentally occur, even if it's just for a few seconds: e.g. you're out hiking with your dog in the bush, with your dog running 10m ahead of you, and suddenly you run around the corner into another group of hikers with their dog running ahead. Or e.g your dog needs to be transported with other dogs (in the back of a van) on occasion without you being right there. If the other dog is rude or pushy or aggressive towards your dog, will a "socialised" dog be more able to diffuse the situation than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at communicating with other dogs? Is this an issue, or am I over thinking things? I'd welcome answers from both K9 Force and anyone who has done his puppy neutralisation program before.

Thanks heaps Pip and Laffi! You guys rock. I've signed up to the K9 kitchen group, will have a look around/post there later on today. The pig report says that approximately 8 - 12% of bone is Ca, with 4 - 6% being Ph. Another study I found indicated that approximately 36% of chicken neck is bone, and 50% of chicken back is bone, the rest presumably being chicken meat. (It's Felicetti, L., Kearney, C. C., Woodward, L., & Dierenfeld, E. S. (2008). Proportion of soft tissue in selected bone cuts fed primarily as enrichments to large carnivores. Zoo Biology, 27, 154 - 158, if anyone is interested.) The dissertation abstract reckons that canned dog foods had a availability for absorption for calcium of maximum 21% and phosphorus of maximum 44% - wouldn't be suprised if this is different for RMB, but this is a good start. Any more info is very welcome!

Thanks for trying to help, pip. The first link referred me to Tom Lonsdale's book which apparently says that "raw food has the perfect balance of nutrients and minerals if fed as part of a prey model diet, eg a whole rabbit", which is pretty vague so isn't helpful in itself, but could be useful if he references actual studies on the amount of Ca and P found in various rmb in his book? I don't have access to this book, does anyone else? Pottenger's cats aren't very helpful, since they really just prove that cats need more nutrients than are found in cooked meats and milk alone, which is widely accepted by everyone nowadays. I can find good information on the Ca:P content of cooked bone powder, but that's likely to be quite different to the Ca:P content of the average chicken carcass or chicken neck. Plus can't find anything solid on how bioavailable the Ca or P in raw meaty bones is.

Was wondering if anyone out there had any links to information on the Ca:P content of fresh meaty bones, and/or the bioavailability of calcium and phosphorus in fresh meaty bones (to dogs or humans)? Am trying to write an essay for vet school and so far can't find squat on this topic anywhere! I need actual scientific studies please, not just links to unreferenced websites or pro/anti raw feeding books. I'm especially interested in chicken necks/carcasses, but information on any type of bone would be very useful.

Hey Steve, can I please ask who has written the nutrition courses? Doesn't say on the website (not that I could find, anyway)!

nDNA is nuclear DNA, it's the regular DNA found in the nucleus of most body cells, that codes for most of the proteins you make. nDNA is the DNA that an animal gets from both parents - one copy of each gene from mum, one from Dad. So the nDNA gets scrambled up each generation, giving each offspring a unique nDNA code. You share half your mum's nDNA, a quarter of your maternal grandmas, only an eighth of her mum's, and so on. mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is different. It doesn't recombine during sex - it is present in tiny asexually reproducing organelles (mitochondria) that are found outside the nucleus of most of your cells. Like Corvus says, you only inherit these organelles (and hence their mtDNA) from your mother. That makes mtDNA really good for some studies - because it doesn't recombine each generation, the only variations between different animal's mtDNA will be caused by gradual mutations over the years. Your mtDNA code should be the same (or very similar to) your Mum's and Grandma's, and your Grandma's mum and Grandma, but will be quite different to the mtDNA of an unrelated individual. So it's very good to use when tracing lineages or the relationship between different animals & species. mtDNA is also great for use in forensic cases or ancient DNA investigations, since there are multiple copies per cell, making it far less prone to degradation than nDNA is.

I don't think African wild/painted dogs are actually very closely related to our domestic dogs, Poodlefan. They're in a different genus (Lycaon, not Canis like the dog and wolf). So although they are really interesting, their behaviour probably can't be expected to be particularly similar to our dogs. I agree with the rest of what you've said, though. Makes more sense to study true wild/feral dog populations like Dingos, rather than wolves, since they're much more similar genetically to domestic dogs than wolves are.

Those dogs have still been socialised with people as youngers though, right? I doubt you'd find nearly the same degree of bonding if the dog hadn't been socialised with people as a pup. If he'd only been socialised with his canine parents, siblings and other close relatives, I suspect he'd find it quite hard to fit into human society, as he wouldn't view humans as "family". Although I do think you're quite right that dogs are also genetically more "social" than wolves are. It's quite amazing, when you think about it, that many people take their dogs to dog parks all the time with few aggressive incidents. Imagine doing that with an adult wolf! Tkay - I've heard that SAR dogs often find it difficult to distinguish between the scents of near relative humans, so perhaps you are onto something with your siblings smell similar theory? It's also been shown scientifically that mice prefer to mate with other mice with very disimilar immune systems to their own, (i.e, not close relatives), and apparently they work this out by smell. Could be different for different species, though.

The selfish gene is great. :p It it very well written, and explains very clearly why we should expect to see animals preferentially doing things that will benefit themselves and their families, at the expense of strangers and more distant relatives. (The one major exception is with social animals, when an animal can reasonably expect generosity on its part to be repaid by the recipient at a later date). The question I think is relevant here is how do animals recognise their families? Animals don't automatically know who is a family member and who is not. They don't recognise adult siblings if they were separated from them at birth, for example. Birds and mammals only learn who their family is by following a few general rules. For example: if you grow up with someone, they're probably "family" and worth treating altruistically. Or: if it's in your nest, it's probably your egg, so is worth incubating. Or: any baby animal in your possession is probably related to you, so could be worth nurturing. Or: if the lamb is on your birth site right after birth, it's probably your lamb, and worth raising. These rules are inexpensive to apply and normally work, or at least have normally worked for most of our evolutionary history. Hence, animals not been under pressure to evolve greater powers of discrimination - despite the fact there are rare circumstances where they can "misfire". Put a fake egg in a chickens nest - she'll incubate it. Give a woman a kitten, and she'll often nurture it. Give a ewe a new lamb early enough, and she'll treat it like her own (and on the other hand, if a first born lamb wanders away the birth site while its twin is being born, a young ewe often won't go find it and it will die). In a wolf pack, very young pups only socialise with their siblings and the rest of their family/pack. The assumption that "animals you socialise with in puppyhood are your family" is generally quite correct, as young wolf pups don't have a chance to wrongly imprint on other animals. Since this rule generally works really well for wolf pups, they've had no need to evolve greater powers of discrimination. In modern times, most puppies interact with humans as well as other dogs. In fact, most of us take particular care to socialise our puppies, as we know that an unsocialised dog will not be happy interacting with strange humans or dogs. So dogs don't "know" that we're not part of their family. We fit the criteria of a family member using the mechanism nature has given them to judge, so they treat us as family. Just my theory.

Will PM you :p

I've seen some good results with fear aggressive dogs using purely positive methods (counterconditioning/desensitisation in fearful situations, along with NILIF etc to set boundaries & establish confidence in the human pack leader). IMO fear aggression is very amenable to correction by purely or mostly positive means, since the dog would rather not be having to aggress in the first place - he or she is only behaving aggressively to ward off a perceived threat. Remove the dog's perception of the threat, and you'll often remove the aggressive behaviour. Of course, that's very different to a dog that is aggressive due to prey/rank etc, where the dog seems to enjoy the effects of the aggression (or even enjoy the behaviour itself). I have no video evidence though, so won't mention names.

You've hit the nail on the head. I'm at vet school right now, and the lectures we have received on dog training have (so far) have been VERY positive-only focused. For example, we were told that choke chains are OK "in the right hands", but headcollars were a more humane and less risky way to manage pulling (the risks associated with head collars were not mentioned). Pinch collars were not mentioned except to show us a photograph (there was a muted "oooh" of shock from the class at the typically gruesome looking picture) and to be told that the lecturer "didn't really like them" as they worked via pain. E-collars were explained as devices that worked via shock and pain, and therefore could only be justified as a last case resort, but that they often did more harm than good anyway. Either the lecturer didn't understand how these tools could be used appropriately to help some dogs, or else she didn't want us to know about it for some reason? I rather suspect it was the former, as she seemed very genuine. All the other papers we've done on the vet course so far have been really good - the information presented has been detailed, in depth, and the lecturers have been even handed about controversial issues. I don't understand the bias in this one section of this one paper! *back to lurking"

Hey... you can always track me down on Facebook. :cool:

Thanks for all your kind thoughts, everyone. I'll be away from DOL for the next wee while, but in the future if/when I get a new pup I will hopefully "see" you all back here again.

Hi folks, I know that obituaries are normally posted in the "rainbow bridge" section of the forum, but I normally only frequent the training section of the forum, so I thought I'd post here so that people who know me don't miss it. My staffy Monster passed away last night unexpectedly, at 9 1/2 years of age. When I came home from uni in the afternoon he was lying in the yard, just like he'd gone to sleep. He was perfectly happy and healthy - he'd spent the morning playing in the park, and the previous evening doing Rally-o at obedience school. I first came to DOL nearly 4 years ago (!) wanting to learn new ways to manage dog aggression. Monster was the first dog I'd owned, and when I got him he was a bundle of uncontrolled dog aggression and predatory energy. Since then, he improved enough for us to get our CGC title, compete successfully in two obedience ribbon trials, and train Rally-o. He was always brimming with enthusiasm and life, and was sweet natured enough to win the hearts of many people who thought they didn't like "THAT type" of dog. Thanks very much to everyone who has shared their training knowledge and suggestions, debated training ideas with me, and critiqued us on youtube, over the last 4 or so (!) years I've been on DOL. It has been very very much appreciated. RIP M-dog, you'll be missed.

Fair enough, just didn't want to hijack your thread. FYI I've used Suprelorin in the past. Found it decreased marking (my boy's not allowed to mark in the house regardless, but the implant decreased the amount he marked when he was outside), but it didn't do anything for his dog aggression. It also shrunk his balls a little. The balls and the marking gradually went back to normal probably about 8 months after he got the implant. I didn't see any other effects from it. I'd be happy to use it again (pending further information about the thyroid issue!)

Hi Mel, Can you please explain why you think the implants might affect the thyroid? All I know about Suprelorin (deslorelin) is that it's a gonadotrophin releasing hormone analog & I wasn't aware that GnRH had any effect on the thyroid. Or is there another reason you're concerned - have there been tests showing an effect on thyroid hormone levels or something? PM me if you prefer because it's kind of off topic. Just want to know out of curiosity, since haven't heard that about these implants before Thanks!