I wouldn't run with a very young puppy as I tend to allow mine as much (or as little) exercise as they want. They know better than us when they've had enough. When one is running it's difficult to assess this.
and if you run on pavement it can be hard on their growing bodies.
Sorry but if you dont health test your dogs esp for illnesses that are prevelant in the breed then IMO you are not a responsible breeder, I dont care what breed you are breeding or have been in the year X number of years. The purpose of breeding is to better the breed and it is too easy to breed dogs that have recessive bad genes without knowing. NVM the fact that you cant just breed your dogs, even if you have a large kennel at some point you need to bring in DNA from outside of your lines and unless that breeder is testing there is no way to confirm you arent breeding those bad genes into your lines.
I wouldn't run with a very young puppy as I tend to allow mine as much (or as little) exercise as they want. They know better than us when they've had enough. When one is running it's difficult to assess this.
and if you run on pavement it can be hard on their growing bodies.
Pat Hastings has a method for evaluating puppies that I find really interesting and I believe several breeders on this forum may use at least some version of her methods or have at least referenced her. Her "Puppy Puzzle" DVD is interesting to watch if you find conformation evaluation interesting, lol. I'd have to rewatch the video to catch her exact comments around food, but they were more observational on her part I believe not nutritional studies.
Thanks I will take a look into her work!
Based on this table then I would feed adult food to a puppy and not puppy food. If that "growth and reproduction" composition is the determination of what would provide the optimal health of a puppy then most if not all high quality grain-free adult pet foods would meet the minimum requirements noted in the table (no maximum stated).
But as said before, to each their own.
Yes some will cross over for sure esp grain free foods as all of the energy your dog would get would be from the high fat and protein contents and not from carbs and grains. However lower quality foods need to be scrutinized to ensure that the puppy is actually getting the higher requirements listed.
The meat source is the important one… and yes, I have mixed meat like venison with fish...
And I do not do it so that I never have to worry about changing to different foods... so I also use freeze dried mixes along with many other things. While some may not think that fruits and/or veggies are important, I feel that they are... but again, feeding is a personal choice... just use a high quality food.
to each their own, but as I posted above, fruits and veggies are not beneficial unless they are served blended, as dogs cannot properly digest them whole, or chew them enough to break up the cellulose.
Everyone's input is food for thought-especially regarding the "need" for puppy food-I will surely keep that in mind. Funny enough, I was reading alot of your postings Tanza; about how you mix foods- I like that idea a lot- do you make sure the ingredients are similar?? What I mean is if I want to use venison as the main ingredient in one kibble can I use fish in another?? Lastly, I have been researching ingredients and funny enough, I am thinking of changing my mind to mixing Taste of the Wild with Canidae… Lots to think about and cram with ony a few weeks til the puppy comes home!!!!:D
There is no nutrional reason to mix foods, kibble is formulated to contain the nutrients needed by dogs (unfortunately they can contain alot of crap too), we used to mix my dogs food mostly because he liked a variety lol, my other dog couldnt care less about what the food is, she will eat anything.
Fruits and veggies are not a required part of a dog's diet, and they arent worth adding unless you take the time to blended them well, as dogs cannot digest cellulose and need it to be pre-digested/mixed up, they also do not have the jaw structure to chew them properly to break down the cellulose themselves.
your pups wont neccessarily do badly on a food that doesnt meet the requirements but that doesnt mean it is optimal either, I do agree that food is very personal however!
puppy food is specially formulated with different levels of protein/fat and nutrients that a puppy needs to grow, however kibble that are advertised as "all life stages" are generally puppy food so those are ok to feed.
Puppies just like human babies have different requirements to feed their growing bodies.
I really like both of the kibbles posted, however some dogs dont do well on that high of a protein content, but it's really trial and error on what works for your dog. I used Fromm puppy in the past and really liked the results.
Pat, that's interesting that you mention not feeding puppy food. I was watching Pat Hastings puppy puzzle recently and in the video she recommended against it and to feed adult food (she didn't recommend raw at that age either for the same reasoning). I can't remember the exact quote, but essentially her observations were that puppy foods (I believe because of the high fat) were more likely to lead to high growth rate-dependent conformational issues than less "rich" foods. It was food for thought (sorry about the pun) when I get my next puppy.
Im not familiar with Pat Hastings but puppy food is supposed to be higher in fat! What you are looking for in relation to growth rate and conformation issues is the phosphorus/calcium ratio and not the fat content. Generally you really only have to worrk about phos/cal content if you are raising a large breed dog.
When you say "only breeding the best of the breed" you are actually saying that it is about being as close to perfect as possible.
Every dog has recessive genetic conditions that can be passed on, just like with humans. Thing is to make sure there aren't any pups born that have a high chance of being homozygous for it. That makes it important to test, not only breeding stock, but also sibs etc, not only before breeding, but also at an older age.. But it makes it just as important to keep the inbreeding as low as possible and the population used as breeding stock as big as possible. This is why you should not only breed with dogs that are (nearly) 'perfect'. (same with using only champs or whatever..)About the testing of dr. Dodds. I didn't mean her judgement, I don't know her or her 'work', so I can't judge it. I meant the full panel she recommends being done. I don't see the need for that. And not because I'm a 'know it all', but because I talked about it with our specialist in endocrinology at the University and he convinced me.
About the cardiac exam, I'm honest enough to say I'm not sure I would go to a specialist (although we have a very handsome one at the uni with a very sexy accent
:D) with my bitch and/or dog for such an exam. Tillo for example is healthy. He's super fit and he goes to the vet every year for a small check up, including a (probably smaller) cardiac exam. If nothing shows up there, in my eyes there is no need to see a specialist. Am I being irresponsible now?
Btw.. we haven't got a "OFA" overhere, but I also talked to our ophthalmologist and he told me that all the eye exams that are being done on pure breds are in a database and those results are available for everyone. The owner has to sign for that before the exam is being done, so bad results can't be kept a secret. (ah well.. as long as all vets are being fair…) I don't know how it goes with other results..
Btw2.. in the Netherlands we just found out that there maybe are some things that perhaps could be a problem in our breed.. so the club is trying to obligate an eye exam and a Fanconi test being done before breeding. I'm not sure how far they/we are.. (Btw3: to get pedigrees for your pups it isn't needed to breed via the club, so if you don't want to test, you can breed outside the club)
Best doesnt mean perfect, or there wouldnt be any dog breeds lol breeding the best means breeding dogs that can contribute to the health/temperment of the breed. Obviously there will always be some recessive conditions that unless you can get them tested for genetically, will be passed on. Personally, dont care for conformation titles on dogs, I tend to put more emphasis on health testing then titling (unless thats what I want in a dog…)
I am not a big Dodds fan, sorry. She finds thyroid that other labs agree isn't there. Use the OFA approved labs yet.
For the rest, agree or not, you test, you report and you do the tests. Otherwise you are not, imho, responsible. Nothing is hurt by doing fanconi, eyes, heart, hips, thryoid and H/E. I'd vote elbows and patellas, but wouldn't consider the breeder unethical to forego those. The rest are basic.
And imho, if they aren't reported to OFA or CERF, your dog failed or you didn't do them. I wish, like Germany, all results had to be reported. Of course unethical breeders can still pay local vet and just not DO them if suspect will fail, but it would help.
x2
The point of health testing is to ensure you are only breeding the best of the breed and not passing on genetic conditions that weaken their health.
Of course, I agree, if you want to breed responsible you have to know as much as possible.. The danger with doing all these test, is that we are going to exclude lots of dogs from the gene pool if they aren't 'perfect' on all the points.
I dont think testing is about being perfect, it's about ensuring you are not breeding dogs with genetic conditions that could be passed on. There are always varying degrees, for example OFA hips, range in gradings, it's ok to breed a "fair" scoring, as long as you are taking into consideration the OFA scoring of other family members and the scoring of the mate/mate's family.