sandgrubber

The sick puppy thread has been going off track. Though I'd move a bit of the discussion to the health thread. DNA testing has its good side, but it worries me, especially as breeders are increasingly being held liable for breeding dogs with genetic defects. Take exercise induced collapse in Labradors. A simple recessive gene. Not the worst of diseases by a long shot... many affected dogs never show symptoms. It's estimated that 39% of Labs carry the gene... mostly as a single copy. Everyone wants to say their pups are clear of genetic diseases. So do we take a big chunk out of the breeding pool to get rid of it? Is that wise, given that a large number of dogs have already been removed from breeding because they are PRA carriers. And what comes next? Maybe some undesirable coat and eye color genes? Or genes that may result in a higher risk of some cancer or some form of epilepsy. If you drop 30% and then drop 30% of the remainder, you end up with less than half of the original breeding pool. And do it again and you're down to 34%. It gets scary.

I'd rather see a review that quantified the increase in risk. In the studies I have seen it's not large.

Actually, it's not that simple to balance whole, natural foods. Say you feed chicken carcass with skin and some fatty tissue. Hard to guess what the ratio of fat to protein is. Very likely there's too much fat for some individuals and some breeds. Similar problem with lamb flaps. The stuff they sell for raw feeding is, in some cases, more meat byproduct than meat.

29 kg would be heavy for a Lab at 6 months. If you have to press hard to feel the ribs, it doesn't count. But if you feel the indentations just running your hand along, I'd say you're good. Ask someone knowledgeable to check for you if you're not sure. Too lean is better than too fat for retrievers.

Human physicians work with only one species, and the variation among dogs is MUCH MUCH greater than the variation among humans.

You gotta be fair to vets and help owners take more responsibility for their dog's health. The vet school curriculum covers many species and I doubt that many schools spend much time on breed specific issues. If you breed collie type dogs, do your genetic testing and if your pups are likely to be ivermectin sensitive, give puppy buyers a BIG warning. If you breed Labs, likewise, warn buyers of the dangers of overfeeding. And so on.... There are loads of breed specific problems with sheep, cattle, and pigs as well. Can't expect anyone to master the whole gamut. Older vets in small animal practices tend to learn this stuff as they go. You're kidding yourself if you expect someone fresh out of vet school to know all the ins and outs of dog health.

I thought you might like this story from The Washington Post. Custom wood kennels and memory foam beds: Welcome to the wild world of modern pet furniture https://wapo.st/2LtOzRB

https://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmEtusivu.aspx?Lang=en I think the Finns have made a useful start in this direction... through their kennel club. One problem with strong emphasis on testing is that search for optimal genes will worsen popular sire syndrome and narrow gene pools. Another problem is the many things, eg., epilepsy, succeptibility to allergies, unstable temperament, bloat, skin problems and cancers, etc. for which genetic testing isn't well developed. IMO it's crazy that most pedigree systems track births, but no death records are kept. I would really like to be able to select a pup... or a sire... knowing that the bloodlines have a high proportion of individuals living to a healthy old age.

Many Frenchies, lagottos, bulldogs, and other pricey breeds are bred for $$ as well. But every breeder is different. Some of them take health seriously, some put higher value on showing, some are sentimental and lack clear priorities. I'd guess some x-breeders put health and temperament first, particularly in x-breeds like puggles (not the baby echidna kind) intended to keep the temperament of a brachy breed but move away from the flat face.

There is no 'they'. All breeders, including cross breeders, are individuals.

Another lesson to be learned is that a few months of feeding trials, probably using beagles, isn't adequate to determine a food is 'nutritionally complete' for long term feeding or for all breeds and mixed breeds. Unfortunately, long term, multi-breed trials would be extremely expensive.

Old style breeders who do not show are often called BYB by some segments of the fancy. This includes people who disagree with prevailing extreme interpretations of breed standards. Not to mention people who choose to have a litter out of a much loved family dog. IMO this is a healthy antidote to the popular sire syndrome. Australian legislation is working against family style dog breeding, whether it be done by owners of grand champions or people who just want to have a pup by a favorite bitch or dog. Animal rights groups tend to vilify them all as BYB's, with the implication that you are somehow unethical if you don't have an institutional style kennel. If you mean scum bag or mercenary or cruel or whatever, say what you mean. Don't slam the back yard as a place to breed dogs.

Small claims isn't a bad option. If you have good veterinary documentation, you should win and can likely get some reimbursement for veterinary costs. From a legal perspective you were sold a defective product. Read up on the process. Please don't vilify back yard breeders, though. The middle ground between back yarders and commercial breeders is being wiped out in Australia. Personally, I prefer the old style small breeder who has an occasional litter, keeps the whelping box in the house, and lets the dogs free in the back yard. Concrete floored kennels and loads of red tape are not improving dog welfare. Sounds like you're dealing with a crooked and unethical breeder. Such are to be found among commercial breeders as well.

No experience with it. Given it's active ingredient is a milk protein, I'd be surprised if dosage needs careful control. I'd do a bit of research... maybe you can get the same effect from some dairy product.

Flea bath and flea powder products are mostly based on synthetic premetherin (sp?). Mostly harmless, I guess, but caused nasty seizures in one of my dogs. Flea products are generally poisons that don't cross the body/brain interface... except for some dogs they do.

What is the active chemical?

To test, get a flea comb.

I'd guess the problem is worse with dogs cause one mating can produce several pups

They wouldn't sell it if they didn't make money. Overall, buying pet insurance is betting that your pet is considerably less healthy than average.

Haven't seen a flea or a tick since I moved to New Zealand, and there's no heartworm. I do worm for intestinal worms. It seems like the responsible thing to do with so many sheep around... a bit like vaccination. You don't want to get it, and you don't want to spread it.

Scary! Poor guy! Hope there's some way the dogs' owner can be forced to do a lot of restitution. The accompanying video about dangerous breeds is stupid.

It does vary. My old girl had horrible seizures after being dosed with synthetic pyretheroids (flea med, general insecticide) but was fine with Bravecto.

They mean the dry varieties, which are widely used in place of grain in grain free dry (possibly also moist) foods.

For a good critical review of this, written by a vet, see: http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2019/06/fda-update-on-grain-free-diets-and-heart-disease-in-dogs/

A month or so ago there was a flurry of reporting on DCM associated with grainfree dog foods. A more thorough, but still inconclusive, study has come out. For more information on the foods and breeds affected see http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2019/06/fda-update-on-grain-free-diets-and-heart-disease-in-dogs/