Breeding 'allergic' Dogs

[persephone]

Love it how some people think they know better than Science

No...

I simply believe (yes, I am simple) that plants/animals'evolution has not caught up with the multitude of chemicals present in the environments in which we live.

We are continually warned about the dangers to us of compounds in cigarette smoke, painkillers, alcohol, exhaust fumes,additives ... We are told to wear gloves when cleaning, as these things can be dangerous if absorbed.... to avoid certain plastics ...

I assume from this that these things will do us harm.

If absorbed, they need to be broken down in our bodies ... doesn't this mean that our systems need to work harder to cope with the load?

With systems continually working to "clean up" the chemicals - bodies may well suffer .

I am not an expert in anything , but I do believe certain things.

[silverdog]

I believe that dogs/humans have compromised immune systems simply because we are 'bathed' in chemicals - from the air, our food, cleaning/deodorising things/exposure to plastics... medicines...the list goes on

So many dog owners throw chemicals at their 'pampered' dogs- internally, with endo/exo parasite controls, externally with baths/grooming products,and things used in kennels/houses to clean/disinfect...I guess vacc's come in somewhere ...

Dogs eat treats/foods containing prservatives, colourings, flavours....

Nobody's system was originally designed to cope with all these things..and it is now showing .

+1

[sas]

I believe that dogs/humans have compromised immune systems simply because we are 'bathed' in chemicals - from the air, our food, cleaning/deodorising things/exposure to plastics... medicines...the list goes on

So many dog owners throw chemicals at their 'pampered' dogs- internally, with endo/exo parasite controls, externally with baths/grooming products,and things used in kennels/houses to clean/disinfect...I guess vacc's come in somewhere ...

Dogs eat treats/foods containing prservatives, colourings, flavours....

Nobody's system was originally designed to cope with all these things..and it is now showing .

Oh another expert, awesome! Love it how some people think they know better than Science

Find me a study that that reports on the effects that all these things combined has on our dogs.

I doubt very much if anyone has ever looked into the whole picture, there are studies on individual products, but a total environment I seriously doubt. Science is not perfect, and every generation they discover more and more things that we have been slowly killing ourselves with.

Agent orange and napalm were considered okey dokey to use once.

mmm where was that bang head emoticon?

[stormie]

So how would you explain my boy, who showed symptoms of allergy from 9wks of age, having only ever had his puppy vacc, coming from a breeder who is a 'only when required' medicator?

IMO, the reason we're seeing more cancers, illnesses etc in our pets is because we now have the ability to diagnose them, where as in the past, we didn't. PEt care has advanced so much and people are willing to spend a lot of time and money to get to the bottom of an illness where as in the past, they most likely would have just been pts when they showed symptoms of something wrong.

Now, we can safely sedate animals to investigate things easier. We can test for all sorts of diseases, do biopsies, xray, CT, MRI etc, all of which are capable of giving a diagnosis. In the past, many animals would have had cancer, but we just wouldn't have had the easy means to actually diagnose it, so they just got sick a died.

We also have more and more drugs to treat conditions. Dogs in heart and kidney failure can be diagnosed then kept alive longer because of the drugs we now have access to. We can treat diabetes, which previously would have killed a pet relatively quickly. We can also treat adrenal problems and have special diets to deal with digestive problems etc.

So not only are we able to diagnose more conditions, we can treat them to, where as previously this 'simple' problem would have killed them. So eventually they have to die of something. Stats show our pets are generally living longer, so of course as they age more we're going to see more problems as they get older.

As for the 'more chemicals' in the environment issue, nope, I don't personally believe that is the CAUSE of the change in the body to release antibodies to certain substances. Just like I, along many Specialists, don't believe Vaccines to be the CAUSE of auto immune issues.

I believe a dog is born with a genetic predisposition to have a 'dodgy' immune system. Giving a vaccine (something which elicits an immune response, not just a normal drug) can then be enough to cause a meltdown with that particular animal, and result in physical symptoms of immune problems. I do not believe that any of these dogs with allergies or immune problems were born with perfectly normal immune systems which then went bad. And I base my beliefs on the studies done by Specialists in the fields, not just personal theory

[Guest]

Persephone I couldn't agree with you more, when you think about whats injected into them,plus flee collars, and all the chemicals in the food why wouldn't they have allergies, I have also read where dogs that are put to sleep, have been added to pet food, flee collars included as well as road kill, so is it any wonder we have mad itchy dogs.

And all the farm animals have drenches, and hormones fed to them, and the feed is sprayed with chemicals, so thats added to pet food as well

I would like to know if there is anyone on here that has never treated their dog with any chemicals and only fed natural food, and how many of them have allergies?

One of our dogs had lumps grow where they were injected with vaccinations.

I think pharmaceutical companies have a lot to answer for as well.

lablove

[Guest]

Stormie maybe its all the chemicals that the mother has in her system thats added to the vaccination that the pup has had.

I personally have just recently weaned myself off all pharmaceuticals that I was taking, and have never felt better, I just have a much better diet now and eat the natural things that cure the problems I had.

lablove

[stormie]

Stormie maybe its all the chemicals that the mother has in her system thats added to the vaccination that the pup has had.

I personally have just recently weaned myself off all pharmaceuticals that I was taking, and have never felt better, I just have a much better diet now and eat the natural things that cure the problems I had.

lablove

The mother of my boy never had chemicals in her system. She lives in a desert town and only ever had her puppy vaccs.

People are of course entitled to their opinions, but if you take to to research the disease and spend time listening to the Specialists, eg Internal Medicine Specialists, Dermatologists etc, you realise it's so much more complex than just a matter of a dog having too many chemicals put on it.

Remember too, when a drug is registered for use, they have to determine a safety threshhold. So they have lab dogs who are given a drug until it makes them sick. For example, it might take up to 10times the normal dose of Heartgard to make a dog sick. They do these tests because they need to know the safety. And they do it with many dogs. So there are dogs being pumped full of the general drugs we use, with no evidence that there was a negative immune response.

There are specialists in the field who are doing research on this all the time. The same with the Vacc issue. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the chemicals and drugs we use are a problem. Like I said before, a Specialist who recently spoke on the issue of Vaccines, who recommends vacc'ing less often, said there's nothing to suggest Vaccinated too often can cause a problem. But rather, their research is more pointing to the concept that that dog already has some sort of immune problem which only takes on vaccine to trigger the problem.

Another Small Animal Specialist who specialises in Immune Mediated diseases feels the same way. And all this is based on research.

[Guest]

I'm sorry Stormie but all human and animal,drugs have side effects, and pharmaceuticals is a multi million dollar business, who also pay Dr's and probably vets a good bit for selling their chemicals/drugs .

I have read quite a bit about what chemicals can do to humans so I should think that it wouldn't be much different for animals.

Poor Lab dogs what they must go through.

lablove

[stormie]

I'm sorry Stormie but all human and animal,drugs have side effects, and pharmaceuticals is a multi million dollar business, who also pay Dr's and probably vets a good bit for selling their chemicals/drugs .

I have read quite a bit about what chemicals can do to humans so I should think that it wouldn't be much different for animals.

Poor Lab dogs what they must go through.

lablove

Of course they can have side effects,but generally they relate to the site where the drugs work, or on the organs that metabolise the drugs. Generally they don't effect the immune system unless they are specific immune suppressants.

All I'm trying to say is that there's so much more to it than just a case of giving a drug effects the immune system. The body is so complex and it's not a simple case of everything that enters the body, effecting the immune system, because this isn't the case.

And no, Vets don't get paid by the companies for selling their drugs.

Anyways, at the end of the day, I listen to the professionals - the Dermatologists who have studied their way to be Specialists in the field. If they say feel allergies are genetic and shouldn't be bred from, then this is what I believe to. If people want to ignore the advice of professionals then fine, but to knowingly breed with an allergic dog and hide behind a theory that it's only allergic due to chemicals, vaccines etc used on it in the past, is, IMO, really irresponsible.

Edited August 15, 2010 by stormie

[Greytmate]

I would go a step further.

Not only would I not breed from an allergy prone dog, but I wouldn't breed a mostly white to another mostly white (in breeds such as greyhounds, staffies, danes etc ).

Not only are these dogs way more prone to allergies, but there is a higher chance of deafness if the ears are not sufficiently pigmented.

I have never met a greyhound with contact allergies that wasn't white.

[~Anne~]

I agree that the environment we now live in, and our dogs live in, has to be in the debate somewhere as a detrimental factor, however both dogs and humans are now living longer on average. There is a much larger picture in the debate then simply environment, diet or genetics. I would think it is a combination of all three, and others as well.

For anyone to single out commercial food (this one seems to be the most common thing blamed), genetics or environment is wrong and giving an inaccurate view im my opinion at any rate.

Edited August 15, 2010 by ~Anne~

[Crisovar]

I would go a step further.

Not only would I not breed from an allergy prone dog, but I wouldn't breed a mostly white to another mostly white (in breeds such as greyhounds, staffies, danes etc ).

Not only are these dogs way more prone to allergies, but there is a higher chance of deafness if the ears are not sufficiently pigmented.

I have never met a greyhound with contact allergies that wasn't white.

I have had many mostly white dogs and have bred them and never had an allergy issue.

All quite closely bred too shock horror.

My allergy dog is a blk & tan pound puppy.

[OSoSwift]

I do not think dogs that are allergic animals should be bred from.

But many people do and will continue to.

I also think that mnay more things are picked up because we have the ability to do so. MAny years ago an allergic or chronically ill child would have just had a"weak chest" or been a "sickly" child. These days they are diagnosed and have a name to put to a disease. Dogs are the same. Years ago they would have been euthed or not treated and therefore not well enough to contribute to the gene pool.

My very allergic dogs parents had no allergies to grasses food or otherwise, his brother also has had no problems.

[sas]

Persephone I couldn't agree with you more, when you think about whats injected into them,plus flee collars, and all the chemicals in the food why wouldn't they have allergies, I have also read where dogs that are put to sleep, have been added to pet food, flee collars included as well as road kill, so is it any wonder we have mad itchy dogs.

And all the farm animals have drenches, and hormones fed to them, and the feed is sprayed with chemicals, so thats added to pet food as well

I would like to know if there is anyone on here that has never treated their dog with any chemicals and only fed natural food, and how many of them have allergies?

One of our dogs had lumps grow where they were injected with vaccinations.

I think pharmaceutical companies have a lot to answer for as well.

lablove

I'm sorry but that entire statement just made you sound like you believe everything people tell you including the abolsutely absurd comment of roadkill and dogs pts being added to our dogs commercial feeds.

Farm animals do not have hormones added to them, that was stopped in the 70's....another example if you lack of knowledge in this area.

With your theory every animal used in a commercial or companion sense should be allergic.

[sas]

My very allergic dogs parents had no allergies to grasses food or otherwise, his brother also has had no problems.

They don't have to have had problems....genetics goes beyond just the parents.

[stormie]

Persephone I couldn't agree with you more, when you think about whats injected into them,plus flee collars, and all the chemicals in the food why wouldn't they have allergies, I have also read where dogs that are put to sleep, have been added to pet food, flee collars included as well as road kill, so is it any wonder we have mad itchy dogs.

And all the farm animals have drenches, and hormones fed to them, and the feed is sprayed with chemicals, so thats added to pet food as well

I would like to know if there is anyone on here that has never treated their dog with any chemicals and only fed natural food, and how many of them have allergies?

One of our dogs had lumps grow where they were injected with vaccinations.

I think pharmaceutical companies have a lot to answer for as well.

lablove

Actually you'd be hard pressed to find a dog here who has never had chemicals cause it probably would have died of parvo or worm or flea burden.

Most people who own large/giant breeds would advise against feeding raw to a growing pup, due to the damage you can do to their joints if you get the ratios wrong.

But I can tell you about dog I know who was raised on a raw diet, only received its puppy vacc's and no other chemicals, yet died at around 2yo of an aggressive cancer. How would you explain this? I know of another Dane that the breeder raised on a raw diet that also has allergies.

Can you provide evidence of your accusations against pet food companies, claiming they use the bodies of dead pets and road kill? I would like you to name the pet food company which is doing this. Animal bodies need to be disposed of in a certain manner but if what you're saying is true, then the companies who dispose of the bodies are lying and breaking the law.

Also, drenches and other drugs used in farm animals have with holding periods and cannot be used for meat until after this time. The place I get my raw food from is pet quality yet they still abide by with holding periods and do not use any animal that has been given lethal injection as its against the law.

I'm curious though, seeing you're so against any form of chemicals, you must raise your own animals to feed your dogs? Because human grade meat has been fed antibiotics and would have been fed on grains grown with chemicals. So if what you say is right, every dog who has ever consumed both commercial dog food or raw human grade meat from a supermarket, should have an allergic dog. This clearly isn't the case, so how come only some are and some aren't? Genetic predisposition maybe?

[stormie]

The thing is, is that a living body never went to school to learn what's good or what's bad. It simply just deals with whatever its presented with and has no idea whether what's just been put in, is natural, artificial etc. If you define 'chemical' its just a substance. Glucose is a chemical, yet it's something the body deals with every day, with no ill effects. There's no differentiation between 'natural' and artificial because the body doesn't know.

I could go and eat a whole lot of the plants in my backyard, which are natural, but still die, because they're poisonous and the way the body reacts to them is bad.

When you give a drug, like a NSAID, for example, the body doesn't say 'oh, here's a non steriodal', it just takes it for what it is - a whole bunch of molecules joined together in a certain way, and processes them accordingly.

It's simply in our brains, we think of things as being good or bad, but this does NOT happen in the body.

The digestive tract is also considered a place for foreign material. So giving a worming pill, which works within the GI tract, has no measurable effect on the immune system.

Having the skin surface broken by the bite of a flea, whose mouthparts contain a tonne of bacteria, would quite probably have a more measurable effect on the immune system, than if you were to apply a flea product like Advantage, which stays on the surface of the skin.

People are always going to have their own opinions on this, which I get, but I just more needs to be understood about how the body actually works, rather than just sprouting out stuff that in theory, sounds good, but really, makes no sense at all.

[poodlefan]

Personally I'm not sure I'd mate a dilute colour dog to a dilute colour bitch in any breed.

[persephone]

OK- the body does a fantastic job of processing all sorts of substances.

However- I do still wonder , there are no long-term studies done, over generations of dogs/humans... because so many of the things present today have not been around all that long.

No, I do not 'know' they are changing the way bodies work- how can I?

I still do believe though that there are cumulative effects on living beings, from being in close proximity to the chemical load the modern planet carries .

I do not believe that dogs/any animal euthed with the green dream are added to pet food ...and would be most suprised to know of any dog/cat added to same.

[Mas1981]

I just have to wonder why dogs in particular are so badly affected by allergies, there are so many of them around, yet when I had horses I had never heard of an allergic horse??

My horse lived until 27, never had allergies, was vaccinated ( more so than many horses here in oz as he had to have horse sickness and tetanus vaccines) he ate a 'commercially prepared food" and had hay and grass, was dipped and sprayed for ticks almost daily as bilary is very common in the country I am from and yet he never had a sick day in his life?? So i guess my point is what is it about dogs that makes them so prone to allergies??