Posts made by starrlamia

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.

@Patty:

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.

@Nemo:

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!

@Nemo:

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.

@tanza:

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.

@Chealsie508:

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!

http://www.dognutrition.com/puppy-vs-adult-dogfood.html

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.

@Janneke:

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…)

@DebraDownSouth:

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.

someone has way too much time on their hands :S i really hope that isnt an adult sending you those emails, yeesh!

@DebraDownSouth:

The article said basically what I tried to explain… if the breeds of the dog aren't in the data base, you are pretty much out of it. Also, btw, if you read the history of the development of the amstaff, terriers are in it... so the make up also makes sense.

I guess if you think the test will well you 1 part GSD, 2 parts chihuahua, 1/2 part fox terrier and 1/2 part Chow, you will think they are awful because they don't. They can give guidance and tell you the dominant breeds if those breeds are in the data base. And the more mixed, the far less likely to get much useful. So I guess I will agree and say it has limited use for any very mixed dog and for those not in the database. But I know several people who KNEW the parentage of their mixed dogs, sent in for fun and got accurate reads. But these were dogs with only 2 breeds mixed, not several breeds.

So if you have a dog that the breeds you suspect are in the program, I'd say worth a try.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/dnacaninebreedidentifcation.htm

I just find it fun, and the more people who test, the more samples they have, the better they will get. New technologies take a while to perfect… so understand the limitations and use the company that has your suspected breeds.

I am aware of the makeup of the Amstaff, so yes, having terrier in there makes sense (esp the boston terrier considering it's bully history) but border collie is way in left field, nevermind the fact that any terrier group could have shown up and been considered "accurate" because terriers (as with other breed types) are so closely related they are often mistaken for each other Genetically, however if a result such as a scottish terrier came up… id say it is far from accurate.

If you want to do it for fun, by all means, but that hardly makes the results something to live by.

@DebraDownSouth:

The tests are VERY reliable for the breeds they actually have. The link you gave on the Amstaff… well as someone pointed out, they don't have that breed LISTED so they match closest. Most of them DO list basenji. The person shouldn't have used that lab. (NOTE, in 2010 they added it, but they didn't in 2008 when video done).

Research shows very reliable on actual breeds they have listed. Worth the "under 100 bucks" for most.

http://www.canineheritage.com/general_info.html

So if you have a dog you think is a foxhound and they don't have that breed on the dna list, you probably are NOT going to get good results.

Considering the heritage of the Amstaff bulldog should have been number one.
In any case the tests are definately NOT accurate. The majority of results I have seen from these tests have been really inaccurate, and it isnt surprisingly really when looking at canine DNA makeup. I would hardly take the results of any of the testing to heart. It is till very new, and breeds are so diverse, yet the DNA differences so tiny.

interesting article. I found a bunch on DNA and junk
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416810535466706.html

@tanza:

I don't think that any of us have found those tests very reliable…

the DNA tests are definately not reliable, Ive seen people with purebred pedigreed dogs come up as completely different ones.

this is from one of the forums im on, he is a purebred with papers Amstaff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a4CDvK868w

@TwinPeaks:

My opinion is still the same - not a matter of the cost it is a matter of the ethics of the RESULTS! I have done my research - I am not DEAD wrong about other breeds. I am not lambasting the test as you suggest. I am however suggesting that the masses are not correct mostly uninformed. I am suggesting to not denigrate the breeders who may decide to not test at this time. Why is the program stopped. Why is the marker the best that can be done? If there is a gene why not continue until the gene is found? Who said it was a SHE?

they should continue further testing, but if the current test for fanconi is reliable, in a breed where it is common, why would you not test for it so you can avoid developing it in the dogs you produce? It's like saying "Other breeds can develop hip dysplasia too why should I screen my dogs for it?"

@TwinPeaks:

I have another view on this Fanconi testing - and a breeder who elects to not test.
Most people commenting do not understand that the gene has NOT been found. The results of this testing do not indicate fanconi gene because the gene HAS NOT BEEN found!!!!!!!!
Also the program has been haulted. No further work is being done to FIND the GENE should it even exist. Do you people know that OTHER BREEDS can contract Fanconi not only the basenji? Are the other breeders forced to submit to this testing??
Get your facts straight before negatively impacting a Basenji breeder with impecable credentials. The harm you do is irrepairable.

but a reliable test has been developed to show whether you may have a dog who will develop it (or carry it etc), why you would want to bypass a test that is so simple and inexpensive that is just irresponsible IMO.

I feed it raw to my guys.

my dog can slip out of the easy walk harness if he tries hard enough, but martingales work well for slipping collars.

make the experience a good one! Besides practicing giving the needle like a pro, make it a good time for your dog, involve treats and praise. Peanut butter is a good idea, or maybe a kong if you have one? I would also get a special treat that you give only after the needle is done, so that your dog associates it with an extra special something!

My suggestion would also be to try a diet change, what are you feeding?