sandgrubber

What makes you think the diet is horrible? Until long term feeding studies are conducted, it's damn hard to say what is a good diet. The marketing department of the pet food industry is doing a fantastic job making people feel guilty about not paying $6/kg and up for dog food, but there's precious little evidence that the high price stuff is better. I prefer to avoid imports, avoid companies that spend big on advertising, avoid fancy shaped and multi-colored biscuits and go for something plain that targets country people and working dogs.

I fed raw for many years...even picked up ~100kg of chicken frames and ~50 kg of horse carrots a week for delivery to other raw feeders. I moved and lost my source of good, cheap raw, and left my big freezer behind. I now feed what most would consider a mediocre dry food (Coprice) and throw in occasional eggs, vegetables and scraps. To be honest, the biggest differences I find are 1. Dry food is MUCH less hassle. 2. It is a lot easier to regulate a dog's weight on dry food (Labradors pig out on frames and portion control is tedious). My dogs continue to be healthy, my old girl is 14 yr 5 mo,. Coats are glossy, poos well formed. Until I see a well conducted study or two that shows raw feeding is worth the trouble and expense, I wouldn't consider going back to BARF.

https://www.popsci.com/smelling-machine Clip from article: Each year, poachers traffic thousands of tons of illegal wildlife products through the world’s biggest ports. Detector dogs like the ones I work with are among the most effective means of finding that contraband. Trained canines can sniff out minuscule amounts of ivory, rhino horn, tiger bone, and other illegal products with greater than 90 percent accuracy. But these amazing canine workers will push themselves too hard if you let them. In searching cargo containers, trained animals can encounter toxic substances, dangerous machinery, and extreme heat. Some have even died on the job. There is a way to make things safer (and more efficient): drawing air from shipping containers, running it through scent-trapping filters, and then giving that odor to sniffer dogs in a controlled environment. That way, customs officials can search inside a container without anyone actually opening it up

Please realize that a lot of dog people are highly opinionated about dog foods. There is pathetically little hard evidence behind many of the claims that this or that commercial food is "rubbish". And some foods condemned as toxic are fine (avocados, for one). A little human food, eg fruits, veg, will do no harm, though it's not good for it to become a major component of the diet. In Oz, pumpkin is used instead of banana for stomach distress, but I think banana would be much the same. If you do feed raw meat, use only very fresh, human grade. Meat that has gone off can make a little one very sick (salmonella).

No way is this parvo. They don't bounce back that quickly, they have incredible stomach pains and vomiting /diarrhea, and the smell is shocking. Yes, you can get a false positive on the test due to vaccination. Vaccinations are generally given ~4 weeks apart, so probably too early for a second jab. Have you considered going to a different vet? I wouldn't feel comfortable with one who is recommending euthanasia for a puppy that seems to be on the mend.

Sardines in oil are fine. Just more fat, so could lead to weight gain. Dribble the oil over other stuff if you want her to eat it. Most dogs LOVE meat or fish flavored oil/fat. I seem to remember that oil preserves some nutrients (vitamins A or D?) better than water. Yes... Worry less. You'll be fine.

I'm a dummy with Facebook, sorry. The link opens for me. I'll see if I can fix something. It's Trisha at Blackhills Labs.

A good review of three recent studies on this topic http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2018/12/evidence-update-grain-free-and-other-beg-diets-associated-with-heart-disease-in-dogs/

Apart from the bare bones of protein, fat, and basic nutritional requirements (no pun intended) no one knows much about dog nutrition. Lots of people are shouting this and that, but there's pathetically little scientific evidence backing all the claims about what is a good diet. There is a lot of marketing b.s. drummed up by the pet food industry to make you feel guilty if you don't buy the high price stuff. There are some dogs who don't do well on this or that grain, but other dogs who do fine. Corn is vilified, but apart from being a little less digestible, there's little evidence it's bad. Similarly, byproducts and meals aren't necessarily bad, and some may be quite good. I've know many dogs who lived to a healthy old age on supposedly 'crap' supermarket dry foods, plus occasional table scraps, eggs, and waste foods. It is VERY well established that overfeeding is bad. It seems that there are a many deceptive small companies buying from large manufacturers and bagging as super special. Apart from keeping weight down, I'd say don't be suckered in by super premium claims. Find something that your dog likes and you can afford. Avoid companies that don't have their own manufacturing plants and an established reputation.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10217273907509918&id=1539015007 Not sure how to get the video to show up from Facebook... Kiwi version of a dozen or so Labbies taking a dog mud bath and afterwards shots of a once-yellow Labrador

Wise. Labs vary greatly in bone and muscle mass.

I wouldn't overthink either. A 6 rating at 5 mo is hardly life threatening. But patterns established at 5 months are likely to persist. The once-desired "fat healthy baby" has a higher likelihood of being obese in adulthood than a slimmer baby. At 5 months, there's little chance that a tummy bug or some such will lead to dehydration and a dangerous downward spiral, so fat padding isn't needed for survival of maladies. Most labs are born gutsers and skilled beggers. Don't let the little cutie manipulate you into overfeeding.

A note on methods "Eight beagles were successively fed each diet for one month. After a 14-day transition period onto each new diet, they were monitored for voluntary physical activity, and then urine, stool, and blood samples were collected and analyzed." Noble ambitions, but a pretty pathetic study. I wish there was support for a more convincing study.

Uni Melbourne The study that revealed a significant statistical association between the use of Advance Dermocare and diagnosis of megaoesophagus in dogs. The findings also showed a subsequent decrease in the number of megaoesophagus cases following voluntary withdrawal of the product from the market indicating that Advance Dermocare was linked to the 2017/ 2018 outbreak.

As a Lab person, the only thing I'd add is that when in doubt, it's better too thin than too fat. Vets have told me for years that my old girl was OK on the weight scale. She started going downhill as she approached 14. The new vet suggested taking some weight off, which I have done. Four months later, she's OK without pain meds, though muscle atrophy still leaves her wobbly. I'll see if I can find the reference. One of the most impressive feeding trials I've ever seen was done with Labbies, starting as puppies and going for 10 YEARS!! It compared restricted calories (20% less if I remember correctly) to a normal diet of dry kibble. Decent sample size. Long term, the lean dogs did markedly better on all health indices. P. S. The article is javma_220_9_1315.pdf. It came up as #1 when I Google "restricted food intake study dogs"... 25% reduction... I remembered wrong.

Like humans, dogs are showing more cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc because 1. They are living longer 2. Many of them are too fat Diets may cause problems here and there, and no question, there are some shady practices among producers/marketers of dog foods. But zoo wolves, fed on mainstream, grain containing dry food brands live longer than their wild relatives. It's unfortunate that there are few objective studies of raw vs processed foods as affecting dog health. But there's no denying that a lot of dogs live long healthy lives on relatively cheap dry foods.

Who cares? It sounds like she's a lovely dog. If her mother is a Labrador, and the area doesn't have pure dingos around, she's unlikely to have a lot of dingo blood... probably less than ACDs and kelpie.

Hard to help without pictures of the actual dog. I find it hard to believe the dog shown has ANY lab blood and too much bone for a kelpie.

Many of these studies? Can you name any other study that systematically compares raw to cooked to extruded? Of course you find pet food companies sponsoring... sadly, no other funding source is stepping forward. The KC's? The (R)SPCA? Some government? Meaningful health research gets bloody expensive.

No, it's not a strong study. Let's hope it's followed by studies that explore the same questions, but are stronger in study design.

Please give reference for gut health claim. Also, note that a large fraction of DOL posts discussing "raw" feeding refer to commercially packaged raw products. Had this study used more basic raw foods, it would have been very hard to replicate, ans open to criticism about using the wrong version of "raw" . Anyone who has fed raw knows there's immense variation in how fatty, how fresh, and how meaty the products are depending on source, and I doubt anyone will deny that organ meat differs substantially from muscle, skin, or bone. Not to mention the amount and types of fruit and veg. The "junk food" comment isn't valid. Junk food is high sugar/fat, without mind to balance. Dry foods can be criticized for favoring cheaper ingredients with handling characteristics that work for industry, but they are formulated for balance. Yes, the study is imperfect. I'd love to see other studies with larger sample sizes and different dietary formulations. But as someone who gave up feeding raw a decade ago and has seen no adverse effects, and who has known many dogs to live to a healthy old age on commercial dry foods, I find it credible.

https://wp.me/p3UoTm-2m0 Linda Case has a review a study that compared four types of dog diets. I'm pasting a short clip, but encourage reading the whole thing. "Take Away for Dog Folks: This study found that dogs accepted all three types of foods – extruded dry, moderately cooked, and raw – and remained healthy. Contrary to expectations (and claims), the raw food that was tested in this study was not significantly more digestible and did not result in less defecation or produce better quality feces. Although all four foods altered gut microbial populations, the shifts caused by the raw food are generally considered to be negative changes rather than positive. However, the complexity of the gut microbiome coupled with numerous factors that affect gut health prevent any conclusions about these changes."

Why does this keep happening?

BTW, it's not true that once on seizure meds, it's for life. My old girl (a Lab) had focal seizures at 6 yrs. She got put on phenobarbital after a cluster (apparently triggered by flea meds, but very frightening). I gradually reduced her dosage over two years (against veterinary advice) and then stopped altogether. She's now 14. She has very mild seizures a few times a year... muscles tense up, walks funny then lies down for a minute or two but stays conscious and wags tail...but they are infrequent and not a big deal. For me the bottom line is that seizures are complicated and not predictable. But the label "epilepsy" is not particularly useful... it encompasses a wide range of conditions. You have to play it by ear... and you may have a better sense of where your dog is at than the vet does.

I'd wait and watch. I may be wrong, but I think that relatively mild (not grand Mal) seizures do very little or no lasting damage. A few per year can be weathered. The meds aren't nice.