sandgrubber

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.

Not saying the tests are accurate, but some purebred dogs are crosses if you go back to the mid 20th century. Mary Roslin Williams comments extensively about hound blood in Labrador lines, and notes that on some estates, dogs of different breeds were run together and often it was unclear who sired which litter.

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it: Christmas pet adoption ban at German shelters - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46522116

Have you tried feeding pumpkin? It has a reputation for stabilizing dogs' digestive systems

Conclusions from a literature review at skeptvet.com Bottom Line This review provides a concise survey of the probiotic research in dogs and cats to date, including an appraisal of the significant weaknesses and limitations on the existing studies. The bottom line is consistent with my own view of the literature. There are few studies, and those that have been done have significant limitations and often conflict. There is reasonable evidence for some clinical benefit in acute diarrhea associated with stress or antibiotic use. There is no high-quality, consistent evidence for most suggested uses of probiotics. The unregulated probiotic products on the market today are plagued with inaccurate labeling and poor quality control. This means that even if probiotics might be beneficial in some cases, it is unclear if the actual products available could achieve these benefits. There do not yet appear to be significant risks to probiotics, though the evidence for this safety also quite limited.

I'd not be very worried. It's a shock for a baby puppy to be taken from its litter mates and sometimes it takes a few weeks to get their self confidence in line. If shyness persists for months, sure, it needs looking into. But at first, relax, take it slowly, don't push. Let her curiosity and playfulness draw her into things. If she pulls back, let her.

Not clear if this is restricted to the US Too Much Vitamin D In Dog Food May Have Poisoned Pets, Spurring Recalls And FDA Alert https://n.pr/2QfLasj

There are people who prefer not to deal with a baby puppy and will want a nearly grown dog. I wouldn't expect much of a discount unless there is a problem with the pup. Was he run on, and didn't come up to show quality? Didn't sell sounds unlikely as cav puppies are generally on wait list.

All over the place. Depends on breed, age, why rehoming, breeder's emotions (I've given away dogs when the new home is fantastic) and financials. Not easy to generalize.

Confused. The AmStaff isn't the same breed as a bull terrier. If you just want the type, why not go for a staffie? Much greater selection, less worry about breed regulation. Same wiggly bum.

All the things said above, plus, if the dog doesn't have papers, it will be vulnerable to being classified as a pit bull, with all the associated legal problems. Another breed problem may be dog aggression. AmStaffs are not bred for fighting, nor are most pitties, but both breeds have tendencies to be dog aggressive, and it can require a lot of work to keep this in check.

Some breeders, especially the well known ones, get so much email they throw up their hands. It's not like they are commercial enterprises, and often they have more calls for pups than they can handle. Try phoning... or the relevant breed club.

Oops.... This is an old thread... No need to repeat myself

Yes, pain relief can be a little pricey, and yes, Big pharma charges $1++ per tab for pills that cost pennies to produce (don't blame the vet for that). If you're not willing to pay for it, giving her her wings is kinder than continued and worsening pain. There's no easy cure for HD in an old dog.

My mob bunch up my carpet runners almost daily.