Premium dog food

Wibbs

DogsFirst wrote: »

But dogs are scavenging carnivores with lysozymes in their saliva that destroy these bugs (thats why french soldiers used to let dogs lick their wounds to clean them), very acidic stomachs of ph1 (helps digest the protein meal quickly which fits their lifestyle) and not to mention have evolved alongside these bugs.

Is this all dogs these days DF? The reason I ask is that I have known people that have tried raw diet and their dogs just couldn't take it(like adrenalinjunkie on this thread). So are the saliva and stomach PH's consistent across all breeds including some of the toy breeds? Has selective breeding possibly influence some breeds digestion needs. Given how strongly some breeds differ from the standard "dog" shape, I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

DogsFirst

Wibbs wrote: »

Is this all dogs these days DF? The reason I ask is that I have known people that have tried raw diet and their dogs just couldn't take it(like adrenalinjunkie on this thread). So are the saliva and stomach PH's consistent across all breeds including some of the toy breeds? Has selective breeding possibly influence some breeds digestion needs. Given how strongly some breeds differ from the standard "dog" shape, I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

Has some breeding affected some dogs needs? Possibly but it is impossible to say by how much if at all. Breeders have over the years selected for body size, shape and colour but never for a processing ability of plant matter, faecal size, pH of stomach or generally anything internal bar behaviour. These things are of no consequence to most people thus dogs have evolved little (digestively speaking) from their free roaming proto wolfdog ancestors.

Some digestive differences have popped up for all the wrong reasons, such as it is vital larger breeds with inbred orthopaedic issues be maintained on a diet of low calcium, at least 25% lower than what is currently recommended in most dry foods (currently set by AAFCO at 0.8% but modern thought says this is still far too high and grossly aggravating the joint issues) Nap (1993), Goodman (1998), Lauten and Goodman (1998), Lauten et al. (2002)

Also some breeds are obviously genetically more susceptible to food allergies (such as the gluten sensitive setters, white coated breeds, shepards, golden retrievers, boxers, poodle etc, who also tend to have issues with cooked proteins, all issues concerning the GALT tissues of the gut lining/skin), a genetic mishap (but I have too, damn gluten).

Asides these differences some dogs do display some sickness and sus of raw dog food. However this is a complex situtation that is often mis understood. exposure to a variety of flavours and odours whilst in utero, from mothers milk, and in the diet while young will greatly increase the pups ability to try new foods. Serpell (1995) demonstrated how a variety of small breed dogs (poodles, daschunds, Yorkshore terriers and Cavalier King Charles spaniels) were reared on specific diets until two years old, one of which provided a limited flavour experience in the form of a nutritionally complete puppy food and two of which provided a variety of prepared and fresh foods. “Those fed a variety of flavours showed an immediate preference for the novel food but the flavour restricted groups preferred their usual food”.

Kuo (1967) hand reared Chow Chow pups birth to six months of age on one of three diets. Those reared on a single protein diet would eat no novel food. Those reared on a mixed vegetarian diet would eat no animal protein. Those reared on a varied diet would eat any new food. In short, variety while young reduces pickiness.

Thus in the past it has been easy to conclude from our dog turning his nose up at new food that he simply doesn't like it but this says little for the nutritional value of the food item offered. He is in fact doing himself out of a food that he would ver much “like” if his little brain would give him the chance. However not trying new and potentially lethal foods in this way has done well by dogs up to this point and if it stops him eating a variety of things that will lay him out (poisonous mushrooms and insects) I'm all for it. Get that food in there (minced up) whilst very young, preferably beginning with the pregnant bitch.

Some dogs will get sick. That happens. You're (dry fed) dog most likely has never been exposed to such a nutrient explosion in his life and thus it explodes on your floor!! Like a man that hasn't eaten in weeks or drank in days, tiny bits at a time, certainly with the notoriously pickier breeds. But I have never met a dog that wouldn't eat fresh food and in fairness, visa versa. You can literally get a dog to eat anything, especially mt. dogs and labs (genetically predisposed to be eating machines to bulk up asap to enable them to dive into freezing waters around Labrador, Canada).

Don't start on something too rich, cook and dice the veg (20% of diet ideally) and slowly slowly catchy monkey!! Best start on a white diet - you know the way, chicken/turkey with boiled rice etc for a few days then start getting exotic....

As a general blue print, or sweeping statement, a dogs a dog. We're now buying food for goldies, labradors and pointers, like they're a world apart nutritionally! The confusion in us has cost millions. Feeding dogs is like feeding humans. We don't feed Kerry men and Cork men, even Irish people and French.

Hope this helps, sorry if a bit long, bit pressed for time so not much editing....

Wibbs

The pickiness thing applies to humans too apparently. The more varied the mothers diet when pregnant and breastfeeding the less picky the child and subsequent adult.

DogsFirst wrote:

Also some breeds are obviously genetically more susceptible to food allergies (such as the gluten sensitive setters, white coated breeds, shepards, golden retrievers, boxers, poodle etc, who also tend to have issues with cooked proteins, all issues concerning the GALT tissues of the gut lining/skin), a genetic mishap (but I have too, damn gluten).

Well I dunno about mishap. Gluten tolerance was our adaptation with the coming of agriculture, just some of us didn't get it(I'm in that boat too, though not so severe). Similar with lactose tolerance. Many human populations don't have it. Indians as an example. If you were to give a Cro Magnon some tea and toast, it's likely he'd not thank you, invent toilet paper on the spot and head for the nearest hole in the ground. And if a bloke, invent a magazine to read...

Genetically we've evolved as a species more in the last 10,000 years than on the preceding 40,000 and a good chunk of that were adaptations to diet. One could argue quite well that although "We don't feed Kerry men and Cork men, even Irish people and French" we do feed ourselves in different populations in different ways. On average a chap from Mumbai would not do well on a heavily milk and beef based diet, whereas on average a chap from Cork would. Same human, different responses.

Now we look at dogs. Dogs have been our evolutionary partners the longest of any domestic animal. Archaeologically for at least 35,000 years and the genetics looks pretty convincing as far back as 100,000 years. Not a single event, more like a succession of different events back and forth with the wolf over that time. The populations have been pretty stable for most of the last 10,000 years(with a few notable exceptions), so it would make some sense to posit that certain breeds may have co adapted to local human diets more than others. The old style scraps from the table and hunting/farming leftovers could have affected certain breeds and this may be why some are more prone to intolerances than others?

I'm quite sure a pure wolf would get a serious case of the liquid sit downs on a diet of grain based kibble, no matter what the quality, yet a pomeranian say might do quite well. And vice versa, a pom on a wolf diet might suffer on it. The genetic difference between them is tiny, not unlike modern human diversity and we're very "inbred" as a species, yet the differences(never mind behaviourally) are quite obvious.

Mechanical adaptations for a start. A wolf has thicker enamel as a given and larger teeth in general. It also has a much stronger bite. Defensive bites have been measured at twice that of a german shepherd*. An offensive bite is going to be higher again. This is going to have an affect on how efficiently they process bones as an example. Far more safely than an aforementioned pomeranian, which would be more equivalent to a 4 month old wolf cub in capabilities(if not younger).

So when dog owners note a dog not doing well on the raw diet, no matter how slowly it's introduced, IMHO it's not always a case of "oh well they should, you know". Recent adaptaions in the dog line might explain why some breeds are well noted for all sorts of dietary issues and why some may not do well on the extreme of one diet or other. Just like humans. Never mind actual genetic damage due to excessive, nay daft inbreeding in some breeds.

I wonder has anyone done research on the genetics of these conditions and their genetic ages? TBH I'm quite surprised that any dog can tolerate gluten. It's not a protein they'd ever encounter in the wild in amounts to cause a reaction one way or the other. Do northern breeds suffer more from it? You would think they would given their working background and diet is more along the lines of their wild cousins.

Actually I'm also curious why there are any veggies at all in the raw diet(or any diet)? Wild dogs, beyond seeking out grasses and such as emetics rarely if ever eat vegetation. Wolves don't eat stomach contents, which is the usual explanation. Not according to the books I've read on them(some humans do, the San people as an example). If domestic dogs require veggies for a balanced diet(and it really seems they do), then that might add credence to the notion of dietary adaptation in our friendly old doggies. Though I suppose if one was to feed a pet full carcasses(skin, organs, marrow etc) they'd get all the nutrition they'd require.




*contrary to popular, shepherds on average have stronger bites than either pitbulls or rotties.

DogsFirst

Yes you're spot on, mishap would be the wrong word to use I just didn't want to get into the whole thing, it's a big subject, one that is very close to my heart, certainly regarding dogs.

We can see populations like African Americans who were used to eating gluten free food until the slave trade in the 1600's brought them to America and a gluten wall, hence the far higher incidence of diabetes, skin disease, breathing issues including asthma etc. Also is happening the Aboriginees in Australia. You can't do better than the book by Braly and Hogan (2003) called "Dangerous Grains". Nobody knows more about the whole affair that this group of doctors. Brilliant read.

They highlight while humans have been eating gluten for 10,000 yrs as you say in the form of some wild grasses, only in the last 2000 years have we really developed and selected the the wheat for what it is today. Before that wheat was 4-6% gluten, a negligible number that would not cause much chaos to popualtions. We then focused on spongier, more elasticky strains of wheat (makes better bread and glues) over time and wheat now contains 50% gluten. But wheat today is no unnatural that it cannot survive in the wild on its own. So humans have only recently been hammered with a gluten load in the last 2000 years. Initially Germanics (northern Europeans), then Americas etc. Hence these pops are the best at digesting it, moving down the line to the Aboriginals who first set on it 80 years ago (and one of the main reasons beer is killing them).

So yes while idiosyncrasies pop up all over the place between populations as you rightly pop out, with some populations better at some stuff than others, it is purely a matter of time exposed (coupled with the removing of genetically unprepared individuals by natural selection). But, the fact remains, as a basal diet, basal requirements, we all need the same to keep going, little population differences after that can be expected. And the same can be expected in dogs, though this remains completely unproven and absent in the literature today as it is so new to humans todays.

I was more focusing on what is the correct basal diet, dry food of >50% cereal/carbohydrate or a more natural, carnivorous diet. As with a Kerry man's body and a Chinese mans body needing extremely similar building blocks (to the point of being identical) proteins and fats to maintain normal development. Then the population effect kicks in, mainly with what to avoid due to lack of exposure.

I'm not sure about the fossil records. You mention "Archaeologically for at least 35,000 years" but the oldest recorded dog near humans burial remains seem to be from a site in Germany, 12,000 years ago with another at around 15,000 years ago in dispute. Have you got something I can read on this 35,000 yr ago figure?

Indeed dogs themselves only diverged from the gray wolf 100,000 years ago (Vila et al. (1997)). They certainly weren't dogs back then, they very much gray wolves 100,000 years ago. And the hypoth of multiple origins is slowly falling by the wayside, current evidence suggests a single origin in Asia some 15,000 years ago (Savolainen et al. (2002)) with few disagreeing today (Bradshaw "In defence of Dogs").

How long they were protodogs inbetween is completely up in the air and really is just semantics. In short it is likely that a good while before 12,000yrs ago dogs mooched around after humans but selection at this time, and indeed until only recently, was initially for favorable behavioral traits in the dog (such those that weren't scared of humans, less agression etc), smaller body size (need less food so humans don't mind them hanging around, a wolf needs 1kg of fresh meat a day!), and then recently in the last two thousand years for all the mad stuff we see today regarding dog phenotype (which at one stage was useful but now just gets in the way of modern living, collies and cars, poodles and barking, protecting breeds and aggression...). But never were dogs selected for their omnivorous traits.

At this point a hoarde of readers (if any are left, think it's just you and me Wibbs!) will point out all the omnivorous traits of a dog, for which I have dedicated a whole chapter of a book thats in print and I'm not getting into it now. If I do I'll open a new thread as it's really interesting...I think.

I recommend to the public that cooked veggies (destroys fibre, allows access to nutrients) be included to a small degree as invarbiably the public won't aim to vary the diet like a canine professional determined to feed ideal food (lots of meats and organs, cartilidge and bone). Thus if they just feed chicken carcass every day, over time it may lead to stuff missing. Best to say "a varied meat diet with a little cooked veg". Covers most bases in as little words. Cooked veggies contain a good few (but certainly not all) proteins, vitamins and minerals that the dog needs, and if not including too much fibre (such as raw veggies), won't upset the gastro flow. So get 'em in there. Also cheapens the mix a little for people.

Re wolves/dogs not eating the stomach contents, you're dead right. That point was first established by Tom Londsdale, a vet from Sydney. Toms a great guy, has been at the whole "feed your dog fresh" for 20 years. His site is full of info he's had a hard time of it, losing serious amounts of cash and fighting a losing battle against vets and the commercialisation of pet food.

Take a look at this youtube video I found. Feral dogs (dingo X domestic mutts) have taken down a sheep . As you mentioned and as we can see, once the tasty organs are gone (spleen, liver, heart) the dogs carefully but determinedly tease the nutrient dense adipose tissue that surrounds the rumen (stomach) of the animal (2min 04seconds). They don't want to burst it or they would tuck right in. Why would an animal eat such a foul mix?! Hyenas do actually, but they're crazy feeders, honestly, anything goes....msut go find a hyena thread.......

Warning: this video shows dogs doing what comes naturally.
Enjoy!

Wibbs

DogsFirst wrote:

I'm not sure about the fossil records. You mention "Archaeologically for at least 35,000 years" but the oldest recorded dog near humans burial remains seem to be from a site in Germany, 12,000 years ago with another at around 15,000 years ago in dispute. Have you got something I can read on this 35,000 yr ago figure?

Yep http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-dogs-wolves-russia-domestication-animals-science-evolution/

Indeed dogs themselves only diverged from the gray wolf 100,000 years ago (Vila et al. (1997)). They certainly weren't dogs back then, they very much gray wolves 100,000 years ago. And the hypoth of multiple origins is slowly falling by the wayside, current evidence suggests a single origin in Asia some 15,000 years ago (Savolainen et al. (2002)) with few disagreeing today (Bradshaw "In defence of Dogs").

Actually it's more the other way around. More evidence in the last 5 years is showing up the recent Asian origin to be not the whole story. Too simplistic for a start. Kinda like the pure out of Africa hypothesis for man. Genetic evidence throws it a wobbler for a start. The genetic clock is far older than 15,000 years. The skull above is twice as old.

DogsFirst

Hey! Great link!! Cheers. I no longer trust Nat Geo to do anything but go for the sensationalist stuff, and I'd never stand by a thing that they say but I'm reading the paper from the guys they mention here, really interesting.

No genetic data on the above skull, bit sus that, that is normally the first thing they harvest with such a find. For every true human fossil skull found there's a 100 fakes in the back room. Will watch that space though, many thanks.

All that aside, I'll stick with the "dogs used to be wolves 100'000" years ago. Looks pretty safe. All the stuff in between is so new and so constantly updated that it's really not worth getting into it too deep, leave it to the colleges. Even if domestication is that old (and it's beginning to look likely) and from multiple wolf populations (every single wolf species, and there are 37, are obligate carnivores) it makes little difference to the argument that these things are still carnivores, lets say "for the most part". It's all I care about as a nutritionist.

I love this sort of chat!

Wibbs

DogsFirst wrote: »

Hey! Great link!! Cheers. I no longer trust Nat Geo to do anything but go for the sensationalist stuff, and I'd never stand by a thing that they say but I'm reading the paper from the guys they mention here, really interesting.

+1 on Nat Geo alright.

No genetic data on the above skull, bit sus that, that is normally the first thing they harvest with such a find.

Well it was first excavated in the 1970's so it's possible preservation techniques compromised any remaining DNA, never mind human contamination from handling, or the site environment may not be conducive to preserving DNA of that age. Few sites are as the hunt of ancient human DNA has shown.

For every true human fossil skull found there's a 100 fakes in the back room.

Welllll.... I dunno, maybe way back in the day, but a lot less nowadays.

All that aside, I'll stick with the "dogs used to be wolves 100'000" years ago. Looks pretty safe. All the stuff in between is so new and so constantly updated that it's really not worth getting into it too deep, leave it to the colleges. Even if domestication is that old (and it's beginning to look likely) and from multiple wolf populations (every single wolf species, and there are 37, are obligate carnivores) it makes little difference to the argument that these things are still carnivores, lets say "for the most part". It's all I care about as a nutritionist.

It makes a difference the longer the domestic dog has been around and the novel diet it was exposed to in that time. Exposure that may have subtly changed it's dietary needs. Just like the owners.

I would disagree with this somewhat;

As with a Kerry man's body and a Chinese mans body needing extremely similar building blocks (to the point of being identical) proteins and fats to maintain normal development. Then the population effect kicks in, mainly with what to avoid due to lack of exposure.

One could argue that a human and a chimps body needs "extremely similar building blocks (to the point of being identical) proteins and fats to maintain normal development" but the delivery of those nutrients is quite different. Not unlike for individual human populations. That "population" effect can be quite marked. If such an effect is present in humans, then it's hardly a stretch to see that similar, if lesser effects might be seen in some domestic dogs. As I said try feeding a wolf on dry food. Some of these eejits in the US with "pet" wolves(and even f2 and F3 hybrids) have tried and the animals health suffered almost immediately, with some reports of deaths due to dehydration from diarrhea and developmental issues due to a too low a level protein in the food. Yet many pet dogs live long and healthy lives on quality dry food as people here will attest. So some changes appear to have occurred in the domestication process and not unlike the wolf model applied to training being somewhat bogus, I'd add the wolf diet is sometimes just as questionable if taken to extremes(as these things tend to be). Plus one size hardly fits all. Just as with people. The dietary needs and makeup of a lapdog with a severely reduced muzzle and dentition are surely going to be different to a working german shepherd that actually herds sheep(as some still do on the continent and if you wanna see what a GSD should look like compared to the near crippled "showdog" lines...). The latter requiring more "wild" a diet.

On that score has any research been done on the levels of stomach acid in wild versus domestic canids? Or even between breeds?

However I do agree with you that dry foods with bad grains should be avoided like the plague and raw and natural whole foods should be added in. Much as I'd suggest humans should really dial back on refined wheat products and eat more raw and wholefoods.

I love this sort of chat!

Ditto

DogsFirst

Wibbs wrote: »

It makes a difference the longer the domestic dog has been around and the novel diet it was exposed to in that time. Exposure that may have subtly changed it's dietary needs. Just like the owners.

I would disagree with this somewhat;

Granted it would. But to force a significant antomical/evolutionary change in diet less than say 30,000 years you need major changes in diet, not a subtle scrap of bread here and there. Like say dogs fed dry food consisting of 50% cereal (no matter "good quality" or not). Normally this would drive a major change which over time would be reflected in the dogs make up but human breeding as vet medicine as it is means dogs live long and "healthy" lives on such food, reducing the "let the weaklings" path that is necessary for evolution.

Your focus on protodogs feeding on human scraps and suspecting this to drive such a change is misled. You only have to look at the natural diets of wild / feral dog populations today who, when not fed sadza / porridge by their owners will be the most effective scavenging carnivores for many miles around, out competing vultures to carcasses. They feed on humans faeces (the more poor their diet from villagers the more faeces they will eat to get their protein fix, so even if the villagers aren't directly feeding them a high protein diet the dogs will find it from them). Fleming et al (check this link out Wibbs you'll love it, and it should really seal the deal on this one) 13'000 wild dogs stomach samples in Australia, covering all 6 climatic regions, made up of mostly wild dogs (dingo/domestic dog hybrids) over 30 years. All in all 3% of their diet was plant matter (seeds and berries, which came largely from the stomachs of dogs feeding in the tropics on small birds where stomach are actually eaten as they are so small) the rest mammals and other animal protein. I also have feral dog papers to verify this but can't remember names.

So regardless of their evolutionary path, dogs are still going about their ultra carnivorous ways when humans butt out. Any examples of omnivorous feeding today I am ready to contend! I have had every single example in the last two years during my seminars for vets, they really want to get you!!

Wibbs wrote: »

One could argue that a human and a chimps body needs "extremely similar building blocks (to the point of being identical) proteins and fats to maintain normal development" but the delivery of those nutrients is quite different

You could try and argue that and I suppose it's a point but its not really plausible and is taking my point to an extreme. While chimps are mammals and extremely similar to us their systems do not run the same. First off they are nearly vegetarian, incorporating meats now and again. Humans benefit from that bit more amd is why vegetarians need to monitor their protein intakes, whats missing etc.. Chimps produce vastly different amounts of hormones, more of certain types than others, their blood and muscles require vastly different amounts of ammino acids and minerals to shape them the way they are. If you want your chimp baby to look like a chimp adult you'll be needing to feed him the correct stuff. No two omnivorous species are the same in this respect. But within a species occupying similar niches, you can bet your bottom dollar that, bar some idiosyncs, the basics are really really similar.

The basic, basal feeding niche of a dog, dogs everywhere in every living room, hand bag and mountain top, is largely animal protein.

And the point about Kerry and Cork men was purely to highlight the ridiculousness of golden retriever and lab food!

I'm a member of a dingo action group in Australia. And you're right re wolves having an issue, idiots pick these up, keep trying to make pets of them. The only dingoes with pancreatitis / gingivitis that I personally and a friend of mine, the dingo expert of 30 years, resident of Charles Sturt University, Dr. David Jenkins has ever seen has been dry fed dingoes. Still I contest that dogs would not fare much better. I see not one reason why dogs have had the evolutionary chance to adapt to any noticeable degree to gluten/casein/ cooked proteins.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet many pet dogs live long and healthy lives on quality dry food as people here will attest. So some changes appear to have occurred in the domestication process

To me this is a typically unfounded and convoluted support of the dry feeding debate. What people attest to is as irrelevant as a nameless testimonial on a dry food website.

Pet dogs are living longer but nobody (outside of biased sources) would ever pin this on their nutrition. In fact, every single canine nutrition book ever written, from those that spent years researching the matter full time, would completely disagree. And I would too. All these nutrition books have their examples of when dry fed populations have been compared to fresh fed, they pale in comparison. Have you ever ever seen a reputable reference to contrary. Never. And the evdence is building. I have the results of a large scale comparison of 200 dry fed dogs changed to raw food three years ago which will I will publish as soon as possible.

If you collect 100 random dry fed dogs and 100 random fresh fed dogs and compared their bloods for say immunoglobulins, which do you honestly reckon would appear stronger? I mean Americans are living longer, reckon they got their diet right? Chronic illness is at an all time high in dogs. Cancer rates are through the roof. Dogs are 25 times more likely to suffer pancreatitis than humans. 25 times!!! The most painful death you can imagine as the body digests itself. 4/5 dog have gum disease by 3. Diabetes?!! In dogs? Anal gland issues, chronic joint issues, allergy......carnivores allergic to cows and chicken??!!!!! More tellingly vet bills in the US jumped from $6bil in 1991 to $18.2bil in 2001, which was twice the rate of inflation (www.consumerreports.org/pets). Saga pet insurance found the average cost of the annual vet bill for English pet onwers doubled from 2006 to 2009, once again increasing at double the rate of inflation (“Paws for a moment, vet fees double in last three years!” http://www.saga.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases, 3rd Sep 2010). I even found a UK pet insurer that will cease insuring dogs at 7 years of age (less than halfway)!

So no, I wouldn't be saying they're perfectly healthy, that's completely incorrect. My friend smokes and seems perfectly healthy. In fact he plays soccer for a prominent football team. What does that tell you about smoking?

That sweeping statement is the same used by vegans with dogs who feed an "all vegetable" diet on their dogs, and they are "perfectly healthy"......

Opinions are like....well you know the saying.....I have absolutely zero time for them. They are to blame for the insipid rise of the issues dogs face today.

Wibbs wrote: »

The dietary needs and makeup of a lapdog with a severely reduced muzzle and dentition are surely going to be different to a working german shepherd that actually herds sheep, The latter requiring more "wild" a diet

Facial organisation as a result of intense breeding means absolutely nothing to the internal requirements of said animals, unless said breeders were focusing on them, which they haven't. All it means is that you want a dog that fits in your hand bag and has some adorable facial deformity you better tweak how you get the good stuff (bones) in there.

Wibbs wrote: »

On that score has any research been done on the levels of stomach acid in wild versus domestic canids? Or even between breeds?

Very little, only pertaining to gastro intestinal illness, which is not what you're looking for. Good idea though, will have a snoop and claim the idea as my own!



This is taking up way too much time Wibbs, its been a pleasure, I think I might dabble in a few other threads!! Like 2 hours today!!!

Nice to debate with someone informed though, see you down the line!

Wibbs

Oh don't get me wrong DogsFirst, I do think commercial petfood has a lot to answer for with dogs(and cats). I've seen it in my own dogs over the years. The only one where I (stupidly) followed my vets recommendations on diet barely made it to 8 years of age and his last years were anything but healthy. My dogs before and after reached into their middle to late teens, died peacefully at home, on very limited commercial food(only for convenience sake the odd time), scraps from the table and stuff from my butcher.

I also find this pet insurance a new thing and chronic illnesses in so many breeds that require it. And WTF is going on with dental decay in dogs? That's all sorts of crazy. Like in modern humans it's down to diet and there is no way any vet or other expert can say any different. There seem to be way more "chronically well" dogs out there than there should be.

I'd even get more controversial and ask a couple of other questions... one biggy. Why do we need to immunise dogs every year? Other than flu vaccines and the like human vaccines are very much more longer lasting. Why are our dogs so different? Are these viruses mutating so rapidly that they require yearly boosters? I'd really like to read the studies on that.

I'd throw in spaying male dogs as a bit dubious IMHO too. Castration is a pretty big deal on more than one level, especially on a young dog whose bones haven't fully formed, never mind the tendency to obesity and attendant problems. Among other things testosterone helps build and maintain muscle mass and bone density. The latter in a big way. Might go a long way in explaining joint problems in castrated males. In humans decreased(never mind absent) test leads to osteoporosis, fatigue, low mental state and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. How they can sell this as an advantage, nay a recommendation in dogs is beyond me. Oh and the notion it protects against prostate cancer? Nope. it increases the risk. Up to eight times the risk in some forms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516571

DogsFirst

With you all the way on vaccinations. Canine Health Concern founder (can't remember her name) wrote a great book on vaccinations in dogs. Summed up with the following stat: Dogs get over 50 vaccinations in their 15 years, humans average 10 in 80. Annual boosts for any virus is completely unsupported by the literature and vet councils and many studies now proving it to be immunological ruinacious. Does this change the practice?! "Do no harm" they swear before opening their practice. I despise this.

From a behaviour point of view I'm all for the neutering of dogs before the sex hormones course, certainly for public ownership, it would save so much stress and lessen the workload on refuges and pounds inundated with one year old dogs. Re health issues, yeah thats a tricky one, I'm sitting on a fence there, interesting reference though.

Wibbs

DogsFirst wrote: »

With you all the way on vaccinations. Canine Health Concern founder (can't remember her name) wrote a great book on vaccinations in dogs. Summed up with the following stat: Dogs get over 50 vaccinations in their 15 years, humans average 10 in 80. Annual boosts for any virus is completely unsupported by the literature and vet councils and many studies now proving it to be immunological ruinacious. Does this change the practice?! "Do no harm" they swear before opening their practice. I despise this.

The problem is that to get health insurance to pay vet fees, you have to have the vet stuff up to date, so one hand seems to be washing the other a little too much IMHO. Even if clear evidence came out in plain black and white that these vaccinations are unnecessary, even possibly detrimental, this setup would make it damned difficult to dial back on. It's advantageous to both to continue as before.

From a behaviour point of view I'm all for the neutering of dogs before the sex hormones course, certainly for public ownership, it would save so much stress and lessen the workload on refuges and pounds inundated with one year old dogs. Re health issues, yeah thats a tricky one, I'm sitting on a fence there, interesting reference though.

Problem being that doing it before full development is where many of the risks appear to be(skeletal growth not stopping as normal, lowered metabolism, possible obesity etc). Secondly behavioural problems are behavioural problems and can be reduced if not eliminated. On the references, here's a few more;

Cardiac tumours in dogs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225598
4 to 5 times the risk for spayed females compared to intact. Slightly higher rate for castrated males. Thus, neutering appeared to increase the risk of cardiac tumor in both sexes. Intact females were least likely to develop a cardiac tumor, whereas spayed females were most likely to develop a tumor

Bone cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9691849
"A twofold excess risk was observed among neutered dogs."

Cruciate ligament injury, a damned expensive and long winded and distressing injury.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15577502
"Females that had ovariohysterectomy and males that had orchiectomy had a significantly higher prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament rupture than the sexually intact dogs. Larger dogs had an increased prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with smaller or medium-sized dogs, with the increased rupture rates for sterilized animals holding across breeds and sizes. Sterilization of either gender increased the prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament injury, suggesting a potential effect of gonadal gender on prevalence of injury of this ligament."

Prostate cancer in male dogs(often cited as a reason to spay).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3506104
"In this study, therefore, castration at any age showed no sparing effect on the risk of development of PC in the dog"

These aren't links from hippies channeling crystals either. There's enough of that guff out there. These are peer reviewed studies and there are a few more where they came from.

On the sterilisation front, an important one given how many unwanted dogs there are, why don't more vets do tubal ligations and the like? The "snip" for dogs, rather than remove the gonads? You'd end up with sterile dogs, less trauma at the time and a reduction in later side effects.

DogsFirst

Hey W good references, now we're talking.

Re cruciate I did my anterior cruciate in June, last game of the season. Actually I did the unfortunate triad (complete tear of cruciate, partial medial ligament and cartilidge damage) from a planted food. I swear the noise from my knee is with me to this day. Worst pain ever. Reason I'm telling you is that, just back from Australia, I had no health insurance and am going TODAY to get it fixed...well the meeting before the job. Scared and angry at cost.

Cruciate damage in domestic dogs is so common, have a great stat somewhere for the rise of said injuries in the last 40 years (coincidence) and the moneys spent. I have had many a pup going for surgery, the recoup is torturously slow for the poor thing, all crated up. Like paneosteitis, I got a lot to say about that!!!!........

Anyways, off I go.....

Bullseye1

I need a coffee and a biscuit to have when reading these posts

DogsFirst

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I need a coffee and a biscuit to have when reading these posts

Agreed. Good reading I hope, otherwise what are we doing here!