sandgrubber

I would say food grade or livestock grade. Just avoid the pool stuff. My local feed store sells it in 50 lb bags for chicken farmers. That's in the US, but I imagine Ozzie feedstores carry it too. If you're going to do your whole yard, you'll need a fair amount, so buying local will be more economical than paying the shipping for an online purchase. Another non-toxic approach, which I don't know if you can find in your area, is beneficial nematodes. They will kill fleas, ticks, and ants! eg,, http://www.arbico-organics.com/category/beneficial-nematodes They work well in the American South, so would probably work in northern NSW.

p.s. here is the sort of finding you can expect from scientific study of such a subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22647210 J Small Anim Pract. 2012 Jun;53(6):314-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01220.x. The effect of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours in dogs--a systematic review. Beauvais W1, Cardwell JM, Brodbelt DC. Author information Abstract A commonly-stated advantage of neutering bitches is a significant reduction in the risk of mammary tumours, however the evidence for this has not previously been assessed by systematic review. The objectives of this study were to estimate the magnitude and strength of evidence for any effect of neutering, or age of neutering, on the risk of mammary tumours in bitches. A systematic review was conducted based on Cochrane guidelines. Peer-reviewed analytic journal articles in English were eligible and were assessed for risk of bias by two reviewers independently. Of 11,149 search results, 13 reports in English-language peer-reviewed journals addressed the association between neutering/age at neutering and mammary tumours. Nine were judged to have a high risk of bias. The remaining four were classified as having a moderate risk of bias. One study found an association between neutering and a reduced risk of mammary tumours. Two studies found no evidence of an association. One reported "some protective effect" of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours, but no numbers were presented. Due to the limited evidence available and the risk of bias in the published results, the evidence that neutering reduces the risk of mammary neoplasia, and the evidence that age at neutering has an effect, are judged to be weak and are not a sound basis for firm recommendations.

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THINGS!!!!!! Scientists try to falsify hypotheses. The scientific evidence is all over the map for health consequences of desexing. You can pick and choose your articles to 'prove' your point of view, but the scientific picture is ambiguous. For a good synopsis see http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2013/04/benefits-and-risks-of-neutering-an-evidence-based-approach/

Those milk teeth hurt, no? My experience has been that they grow out of it faster than you can train them out of it. Solution: wear shoes. Or is this an older pup?

Agree. That dog doesn't look the least stressed. If the kid was really putting weight on, it would move or object, not sit there relaxed with tongue lolling out. Not that I want to be caught siding with Sara Palin ;)

I would use an e-collar before I used a vibrating collar. But not until the dog is at least 6 mo., and only with help from an experienced trainer. I used to have a collar that both did electric stim and vibration. The dogs were fine with the electric side of the thing (always used on very low setting) but they HATED the vibration function. You're likely to find the pup learns most commands well using hand signals. Recall is the hard one to teach a deaf dog. . . and the place where a remote signaling device is useful.

Many years back I tried to work out evacuation plans for a boarding kennel in WA. The sorts of problems AlphaBet described in her excellent post had me tearing out my hair. Others didn't seem to think it was much of a problem . . . dogs could go to the showgrounds or to other kennels . . . problem solved. Seems to me that prevention of catastrophic kennel fires requires more than individual kennels making evacuation plans (which they may or may not be able to execute). Laws should be changed to permit evacuation in sheep or cattle transport vehicles in case of fire emergency. Even a stakebed truck would be better than leaving animals to be killed. Livestock transporters might be willing to volunteer services for emergency evacuations. .. or is that unrealistic? I don't know any livestock transporters. Some location (fairgrounds? showgrounds? racetrack? fenced sports fields?) should be designated as an evacuation sites. Phone trees or the internet equivalent should be set up to call in volunteers in case of such emergencies . . . to take in animals or tend to animals kept at evacuation centers. Some sort of network of kennel owners might allow for accommodation of animals that must be evacuated. Maybe councils should require an evacuation plan before granting a kennel license and state or national organizations should work up a basic plan format that was logistically workable..

I wouldn't want to comment further without better facts. Looks like a minefield of prejudice. AR nut. Middle-Eastern owner. Pet shop. Selling puppies in pet shops should be banned. But false accusations -- if the staff were, indeed, changing the water -- are not helpful.

Oh you people who love to criticize and who assume others are doing the wrong thing. The chooks are now running free in the yard. The dogs aren't bothering them. It's taken months to get the dogs to realize the chickens are 'our' chickens and not something to chase. It can be done.

Also list the pups that died because the some idiot did homeopathic vax and his dog got Parvo, spreading the infection far and wide.

If I remember correctly, stage one generally doesn't require treatment and many dogs don't progress. Not saying it isn't realistic to save. See video

Was there a lot of booze at the BBQ?

Someone asked about cancer back on page one of this discussion. Yes, Flatties have high risk of cancer. See: Review Article Breed-Predispositions to Cancer in Pedigree Dogs Jane M. Dobson Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 941275, 23 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/941275 Dodson's data crunching lead to the conclusion that somewhat over half of all flatties die of cancer, putting the breed at #2 for cancer mortality after only the Portuguese water spaniel. Histiocytic Sarcoma is particularly common, mostly affecting older dogs. See also Mortality in a cohort of flat-coated retrievers in the UK J. Dobson*, T. Hoather, T. J. McKinley andJ. L. N. Wood http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1476-5829.2009.00181.x/abstract;jsessionid=96EA63B5BA3B5944627A599240F7FB76.f03t02

I doubt the research has been done. It would be a difficult study to design and very expensive to execute. In the end you'd have some information about one breed or a few breeds . .. many many health factors vary greatly between breeds, and even between bloodlines within a breed. Who would sponsor such research? On the other hand, many breeders prefer older studs for health reasons. If an old guy is still vigorous at 8 or 10 or 12, you have a strong indication of good overall health. In my opinion, an older bitch who has thrown a few litters has the advantage that you have an idea of what she throws. If the breeder is conscientious about keeping tabs on the pups they place, the health information gained via this route is (IMO again) of the same order of importance as basic health testing. For example, it's possible that a bitch has good hip/elbow scores but tends to throw pups with HD or OCD. You can't know this on the first or second litter unless litters are spaced more than a year apart.

This is a deviation to the "Puppy Farms" topic that has been running in the News forum. People seem to talk a lot about bitches being "bred to death". I associate these words with regulations limiting a bitch to three or four litters. My experience as a breeder tells me that well cared for bitches love having puppies, and the fourth and fifth litter does them no harm whatsoever. Personally, I've never pushed it to a sixth or seventh litter, but I certainly wouldn't condemn someone who did. As I understand the science: 1) the over-use of popular studs does and has done far more harm to the genetic diversity of different dog breeds than does using a bitch to produce, say, 50 pups. 2) breeding back on back is actually healthier for the reproductive system than long pauses between litters . . . presuming the bitch receives good nutrition, gets exercise, and lives a happy dog life between litters. Breeding until a bitch is six or seven years (for a breed with an expected lifespan of 10 or 15 years) causes no health problems, though it may end out with saggy boobs that don't do well in shows, and fertility is likely to begin declining. As I understand the breeder aspects, excellent brood bitches are few and far between. By this, I mean you may have to run on several pick of litter bitch pups and do a few trial litters from some of them before you get a girl who has excellent conformation, excellent temperament, and passes health tests . . . and on top of that, free whelps without problems and is a good mother . . . and throws quality pups. Of course, this will vary, depending on lines and breeds, but you get the general picture. If you find that rare, ideal brood bitch, why not give her all the love and care you can, and let her have several litters? That is NOT breeding her to death!!!!

It is easily available but discussion of its use on the forum is inappropriate. Not only because giving a dose as a volume per kg without reference to be concentration of the liquid is meaningless if not potentially extremely dangerous, but also because the use of parasiticde treatments are covered by a legislated restraint which means that the instructions applied to them on the label cannot be altered unless authorised by legislation. An exemption applies to a registered veterinary surgeon to alter the instructions for well accepted uses where an acceptable registered alternative does not exist or is not practical - using ivermectin off label to treat demodectic mange - yes, using it to save money on heartworm prevention, no. As an aside related to the commonly discussed 6 week interval, although it take several months for an adult heartworm to develop, juvenile worms can be present from as little as 52 days post infection. Yes, this is more than 42 days but it leaves only a small margin for error in dosing compared to the recommend monthly dosing. Oops! I thought I specified 1% solution. You're correct, it's wrong to specify a dosage without specifying the concentration. I'm correcting my post. There is lots of discussion and documentation available about tolerances. I like using the liquid because unlike tablets, where the same dosage is used for a 75 lb dog and a 150 lb dog, you can dose precisely by weight. Heartworm meds are a prescription medicine in the US and you must test annually to get your prescription renewed. Strange, cause you can buy all sorts of vaccines over the counter. Heartworm prevention can get quite expensive. People on limited income often loose their dogs to heartworm cause they can't easily afford the medication.

This was posted locally along with an ad for Maremma pups -- strongly voicing the point that these pups were livestock guardians, not suitable for house pets. Thought some folks would find it amusing . . . maybe some others will be offended

When I joined DOL Forums there were dozens of new posts a day and a lot of lively conversation. Seems like everything is lagging now. Only five topics got new entries in General yesterday. Is it just me, or has much of this site's traffic wandered off to social media or elsewhere?

In the US, heartworm meds are prescription medicine and expensive, hence many of us simply buy Ivermectin for livestock and give it to our dogs monthly to bi-monthly. The dose most people use is 0.1 cc of 1% solution / 10 lbs . . . somewhat above the dosage in Heartguard tablets. Can you buy Ivermectin over the counter in feedstores in Oz? It seems to be a good solution. Note, I'm in Florida with a climate roughly equivalent to coastal QLD near the NSW border. We have a few mozzies year around, loads of 'em in spring, summer, and fall, and serious problems with heartworm in untreated dogs. edited to add concentration.

Apparently this was a false report, encouraged by PITA, and the reality is more complex. Catholic doctrine on animals going to heaven seems to be ambiguous. See: http://factually.gizmodo.com/pope-francis-didnt-say-that-all-dogs-go-to-heaven-1671221288 bottom lines from the above article. The NY Times printed a long confusing retraction of the report. "Some outlets that re-reported the story from the New York Times even got statements from PETA, who applauded the Pope. "PETA Christian is deeply touched and encouraged that Pope Francis has acknowledged that other species are called along with human beings into eternal life with Christ," PETA Director of Christian Outreach and Engagement told Buzzfeed. So I guess if we've learned anything valuable from this story it's that PETA has a Director of Christian Outreach and Engagement. No word yet if they're still deeply touched and encouraged by the Pope now that the truth has come out. The battle over whether dogs (and people) have souls rages on." On the other hand, Francis did turn a report, begun by his predicessor, that had criticized US nuns for being overly liberal (ie, not spending sufficient time enforcing rules on contraception, etc.) to a report that praised them for compassion.

Yup. Gun stuff in the US is scary. In Florida, where I live, they are now working on legislation to make it legal to carry concealed weapons on university campuses. Looks like it is going to pass because the gun lobby folks have convinced people that this will make things safer. The guys licensed to carry concealed weapons are supposed to prevent crime! To get a license you have to have no felonies, be over 21, and pass some rinky-dink gun safety course. Teaching kids to shoot is pretty common. Semi-automatics are all over the place. Not funny as it is, I have to laugh when a half-wit cop shoots himself in the foot.

Personally, I believe we are all animals and as Benedict apparently said when an animal (human or otherwise) dies, it “just means the end of existence on earth.” But it's good to see people who believe in Heaven allowing for dogs to go there too. If there is a heaven and dogs aren't allowed, I don't want to go :) I've met a lot more evil people than evil dogs.

If I were to choose a breed for average temperament, I'd get a flattie . .. .They stand out as the extreme for playful, sociable, and fearlessness in Svartberg's benchmark study of breed temperament. (see attached table, source noted on attachment. This was a huge study . . . something like 15000 dogs put through a standardized behavioral test).

Good to see this coming from the Vatican! The harsh, judgemental positions past Popes have taken have left a bad taste in my mouth. Francis seems much more Christian, in the good sense of the word. Not just in this. His "who am I to judge" comment about homosexuality was the last thing I would have expected to hear from a pope.

I don't want pretend resistance - I want actual resistance. Should be detectable with a titre test even. There's plenty of medicine that works and can be shown to work with double blind study - and they still don't understand how / why it works. So the fact that it is not "fully understood" doesn't mean anything one way or the other. All the studies I've seen that do double blind studies on the performance of homeopathic remedies - show the same result as the control group - ie the one which did not get the "active" therapy. And that's pretty scary. Scientific studies routinely dismiss the concepts of homeopathic medicine, veterinary and otherwise. See, eg: http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2014/10/new-systematic-review-of-veterinary-homeopathy-still-no-reason-to-believe-it-works/ Quote from the above: "This systematic review emphasizes that even with the darkest of rose-colored glasses, it is impossible to see the scientific study of homeopathy as anything other than an utter failure to find real, meaningful benefits, and that the best thing medical researchers could do for patients, human and veterinary, is to give up on this failed idea and move on to more promising research."