Yesterday’s patient was a well-fed Shih-tzu. About four years old, this little specimen of her breed was the picture of health—except for the prominent pudge about her waistline. When questioned about her diet, by way of treading delicately in the direction of her “excess baggage,” her owner fessed up to little Chi-chi’s problem with food:
“Doctor, she just does not like to eat. I have to hand feed her at every meal.”
OK, so this conversation was NOT going in the direction I’d expected. Instead of the, “I know she’s a bit on the plump side,” confession I was trying to extract (this is how I gain entry to the subject in most cases), this owner was concerned that her fat pet was too thin.
So you know, hand-fed pets are not uncommon in my practice. Owners of pets who may be fat, thin or perfectly proportioned will often surprise me with their interesting explanations as to why Fluffy needs extra hand-holding at mealtime.
It’s not a modern phenomenon, this hand-feeding thing. After all, Marie Antoinette famously fed her pooches with her fingertips. It does, however, seem to be more common among all classes these days, now that pets pervade all socioeconomic groups in most so-called, “developed” nations.
It seems a humanization thing, or a close-connection thing—perhaps even a “love” thing in an Italian mother sort of a way (food IS love in many cultures, you know). My Cuban-American roots help inform me of this latter perspective, to which I too fall prey (why else would I so enjoy cooking for my dogs?).
But there’s more here than meets the eye, especially when it comes to our commonly warped view of what normal eating behavior might be among our canine and feline family members.
In this latest case of hand-fed nonsense (and I’ll always consider it such in an otherwise healthy pet), the owner’s take on her pet’s body image didn’t quite meet the rail-thin Vogue standard she clearly kept for herself (high heels, skinny jeans and Miami-tight cashmere sweater). What’s up with that?
It seems that pudgy pets are considered the new normal for many pet owners. Indeed, most of my hand fed patients are rarely thin creatures that must be tempted to eat (though this more understandable version is also out there).
No, these pets are usually the animals that self-regulate their food intake in a normal way. They’re not the chocolate Labs with abnormal food consumption drives. They’re not the perpetually-ravenous rescue dogs with artificially induced, must-eat-now-lest-I-never-see-another-meal behaviors.
Nope. These are mostly normal animals with confused, coddling owners behind their strange, adversarial relationship to food.
They’re easy to spot—once the owner fesses up to the behavior. But it’s much harder to fix than you would think.
“Just let her eat what she wants for one week. Let’s see what happens,” was my take this time.
“But, Doctor, she won’t eat anything! Maybe she’ll eat a half a cup and that’s all! She’ll get sick.”
Hmmm…I didn’t go to vet school to practice psychology. Too bad I didn’t take a minor in this subject, I often muse. Perhaps then I’d be better equipped to help my patients when it’s clear their biology has nothing to do with what really ails them.
Add Comment66 Comments
To play devil's advocate, there are reasons to hand feed a healthy dog. It helps in bonding with new additions who are skittish or aloof, for one thing. It teaches that the dog that she needs to look to you for good stuff. And, if a dog wolfs down her food super fast, doling it out one piece at a time might not be a bad idea. The key is measuring out a meal's worth of kibble, first.
Disclosure: My dog is lean and reasonably healthy for a nine year old Boxer. She works for most of her food, which she usually gets from my hand. (Not exactly the same thing as hand feeding, but worth mentioning.) I do not, however, stuff her like a Strasbourg goose, which is what your client above seems to be doing.
Shelly November 30th, 2008 09:37:31 AM
My dog is a slightly-too-plump 25-pounder (she should be closer to 23), and we still get dog park comments of "Tut tut, you need to get some MEAT on them bones!" Sorry, but just because the majority of corgis that you see are sausage-shaped doesn't mean that they're supposed to look like that!
The situation seems even worse among cat owners, where a 25-pounder is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. I'd say less than half the cats that come into the practice I work at are a healthy weight.
Megan November 30th, 2008 10:08:24 AM
Yeh, it's dangerous. I have a friend who is a physician. She has a fat cat. She thinks it's cute. I try to talk to her about the health implications for her kitty, but she gets a stressed out look and tells me she doesn't want to hear about it. She's a fabulous person but is tickled pink about her rotund kitty and giggles affectionately when mentioning her cat's weight. I don't get it. She doesn't hand feed that I know of but I think she free-feeds dry food.
My mom hand feeds her young dog sometimes and I try to get her not to. The dog however, truly does not like to eat. You can't motivate her with food for training purposes. She rarely nibbles from her bowl and is on the thin side. But I'm afraid of the implications of begging her to eat anything, including human food. She's obviously eating enough to sustain herself and her sky high energy level.
Stefani November 30th, 2008 10:30:27 AM
Megan: I know the feeling of a nice skinny corgi! All the ones around here look like round tubby barrels and it's really not that hard to keep them in shape.
I do have an overweight pet rat which is having to lose weight because of a medical problem. My mom's dog is waaaay too fat. I think she's a 14 pound Miniature Pinscher, she's a very old dog though.
ashleigh November 30th, 2008 11:02:41 AM
Why is it that chocolate Labs seem to have the abnormal food consumption drive as compared to other dogs? I have 2 chocolates--one a normal lean weight, the other is on the tubby side, despite regulated feedings (no hand-feeding here), a walking program for exercise (she has hip dysplasia, which is aggravated by her weight, I know), and rare, if ever, treats. But she still seems to never lose weight, and even packs it on despite further reduced portions in winter, when our exercise is reduced due to weather conditions. Is there any known genetic component? It sure seems chocolates are more prone to obesity than the black or yellow Labs.
Shellie November 30th, 2008 12:15:57 PM
I *wish* I could get my collie boy to gain weight. :P While he's happy to snack on treats for training, more than 1/4 of a cup or so (and this is a boy who should way 70 pounds) of anything with actual nutritional value and he's apparently full. He doesn't LOSE weight, but he is a SKINNY MINNIE. (Lest you think I'm exaggerating, he has ribs that are easy to feel even through his thick coat and which are visible when he's soaked down (he's a smooth). Hip bones are WAY more prominant than I like and it only takes him having an off day or two to have visible spine over his pelvis. He just apparently has the Teenaged Boy Metabolism From Hell- his daddy's owner promises (and provided photographs of Daddy at the same age:P) that it will go away with time. I'd handfeed him if it'd get him to eat though!
Cait November 30th, 2008 12:50:56 PM
HA! My favorite OMG case (insert head shaking in disbelief here) was a cat owner who told me his cat wouldn't eat unless he was petting the creature.
When I arrived I found a very obese cat who he had trained to eat in response to his petting. The guy had been gone for a long period of time and the cat was not any worse for wear--it was motivated by a need for him to feel important to his cat's well-being.
I've seen this food freakish behavior used when people are attempting to create a bond or get acknowledgement from an animal in private homes to zookeepers.
When you figure out a good motivation to stop it--let me know. In the meantime I'll have to post my new slant on the topic especially during this holiday season.
Ark Lady November 30th, 2008 01:01:57 PM
I just wanted to reinforce Shelly's earlier comment about the behavioral advantages to hand feeding in some situations. As a dog trainer, I recommend hand feeding in multiple situations: when a dog is new to the home, would benefit from earning his or her food rather than getting it for 'free,' or is resource guarding his or her food dish (either for safety's sake, or as a first step toward fixing the problem). In all of those cases, I recommend that the owner measure the appropriate amount of food into a bowl or bag, then hand feed that amount and only that amount.
Just to be clear, I'm a positive reinforcement trainer. I do not use traditional punishment methods (no choke chains, pinch collars, rolled up newspaper, etc.), and work hard to find the enjoyable things that motivate the dogs I work with. Often, this comes in the form of food, which can bring about concerns in terms of health and weight gain. We always recommend reducing breakfast or dinner on class days and substitute healthier treats (in canine terms, not human!) whenever possible. So I suppose there's another situation where hand-feeding can be done in an responsible manner.
To quote my Psychology 101 professor, causation is not correlation. If I feed the correct amount of appropriate , healthy food and treats, it doesn't matter whether I feed those things from a bowl or from my hand. And, behaviorally, there are potential advantages to feeding from the hand. If, on the other hand, I am feeding incorrect amounts of unhealthy food and treats, it would be just as damaging from a bowl. It may be that the clients you describe feel the urge both to hand-feed and to over-feed because they have an inaccurate view of canine behavior and/or health, but the two urges are separate, and in my opinion only one of them is harmful.
By the way, I wanted to mention that I am a definite Dolittler fan! It is very rare for me to read something I don't completely agree with, and I look forward to further entries about hand-feeding, over-feeding, and every other topic you cover. I do hope, though, that you'll reconsider your opinion of hand-feeding 'nonsense,' which seems to me like a pretty harsh word for a practice that does have its uses, behaviorally speaking!
Dana November 30th, 2008 01:12:02 PM
Just a FWIW on this-I always make sure I compliment folks who DO kep their dogs lean, and I often get asked by people with normal body condition dogs if I think they are too skinny. I point out why the pet ISN'T skinny, and then hear that the client has been accosted by friends/family/spouse/strangers on the street about having a dog that is TOO THIN. So I have to wonder about what people in general think is normal these days--especially when we consider that what is "normal" for us is also heavier than in times past.
I also have a client with a giant breed dog that has pretty much been trained to not eat unless its home cooked and hand fed. I have offered to take this dog's leftovers since he is offered things I only eat on special occasions. The owners finally had kids which did allievate the issue somewhat.
DrSteggy November 30th, 2008 02:05:26 PM
Cait; it sounds like your dog is probably at a good weight for his age, size, and activity level . Being a little underweight is much better than being a little overweight. There has been a clinical study that followed dogs through their lifetime, and found that the thinner dogs (they were matched with litter mates and fed 30% less) lived an average of 2 years longer, and developed age related problems such as arthritis 1 1/2 to 2 years later. There have also been studies on humans that show the same thing, thinner people develop problems later, and live longer. So, if your dog is a little thin, don't worry!
Sassy November 30th, 2008 02:21:31 PM
The obesity paradox; fhttp://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSPAR36336520070613 Wonder if it applies to pets?
Casper November 30th, 2008 06:09:58 PM
I wonder what a new veterinarian might say to someone (like me, who has been hand-feeding since January) whose dog is very fit, if not on the thin side? I've referenced my dog's unique weight/eating situation a few times, in various comments. A very fit, active, puppy-like 10-year-old Great Dane, she eats a large amount of food, yet it is extremely difficult to keep weight on her. (Most of the time she's been the picture of physical fitness. But she can easily become truly "thin".) She's healthy, with bright eyes, white teeth, and a shiny coat. She eats at least 6 cans and anywhere from 2-8 cups of dry food per day, and as many treats as she wants. Simply put, I try to cram as many calories into her as I can each day. My veterinarian is also one of my oldest friends. She's the only one I've allowed to look after this dog in the past 9 years. On those three occasions, my dog came home noticeably thinner. So I guess all those "helpful veterinarian feeding tips" weren't so effective, huh? ;-) (She's always very apologetic, knowing the weight can come off in days, but takes months to put back on.) In any event, there's been no indication of anything wrong until earlier this year, when routine bloodwork came back with barely measurable thyroid levels. We both found this rather amusing because, aside from her thinness, high activity level, and huge appetite, I've been lamenting that ever since we permanently moved to the beach house, nearly three years ago, my dog absolutely adores the chilly basement. That pretty much addresses all the usual signs of hyopthyroidism in dogs: lethargy, obesity, inappetance, and heat-seaking. Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope. :-) My vet. put my dog's case on VIN earlier this year, with no relevant suggestions being offered. (There was only the suggestion the test results were wrong and to re-test. We did do, of course, but with the same results.) Without going into any more detail, this particular dog is quite diffident, and is literally afraid of her own shadow...including the one she makes leaning over her food dish. When her weight dropped frighteningly-low by January (under 90lbs, with spine, hips and some ribs visible), I decided to try hand-feeding her again. (I'd had limited results for short periods in the past.) This time, it worked like a charm, and I can get way more food into her each day, than hoping she won't get scared away from her dish. Most meals now are 1 or 2 cans each, with a cup or two dry food "chaser". I feed five times a day and I had her back above 100lbs by the summer. However, I have begun re-desensitizing her to her food dish, again. As a result, some meals do go uneaten, and she's dropping weight again. So, it's a balancing act. Well...it has been for the past 9 years.
Marjorie November 30th, 2008 06:11:58 PM
Oh, and I should mention we also looked into the possibility of Cushings, adrenal tumor, etc. ...Nothing. Healthy as a horse. :-)
Marjorie November 30th, 2008 06:13:55 PM
Casper, I read that story and wondered if there's an additional element: activity level. I don't know too many obese men who've had heart surgery, but I have known some very fit men who've had by-pass surgeries, and all of them lived very active, rather stress-filled lives, and were back to normal activities way too soon after their surgeries, it seemed to me. I wonder if they consider the actual post-operative activity level of the patients (not just the reported activity level), in their analysis? I've been downright scared for some of the "normal weight" men I've seen go through by-pass surgery.
Marjorie November 30th, 2008 06:21:14 PM
Dr Steggy: Keep complimenting your dogs whose owners keep them lean... I had a vet tech a yr or so ago chastise me because she felt my dog was too thin. She even showed me the recommended feeding on a bag of dogfood. I have 3 labradors and they are well exercised and lean. On my next visit I mentioned the incident to my vet and asked her if she thought my boy was too thin. She said she thinks some of the techs are so used to seeing overweight Labs/Dogs that they don't know anymore what they should look like. My vet thinks their weight is perfect and wished more owners followed my lead.
Elizabeth - From Nova Scotia November 30th, 2008 06:26:59 PM
I also forgot to include the Mirtazapine story. :-) Knowing of my dog's ongoing difficulty in gaining weight, my friend (the vet.) had been bugging me, for some time, to try an experiment with Mirtazapine. She explained it has the side effect of increasing appetite. She'd found this had worked for every dog with which she'd tried it, and wanted me to give it a go. I'm not a huge fan of drugs, and avoid them at nearly all costs...hence the reluctance on my part. But when my dog's weight was in the 80's this January, I finally agreed to give the drug a try. (I was skeptical because her appetite wasn't the problem, and I'd already started hand-feeding her, and was doing so 5 times a day, at that point. I joked with the pharmacist. What was I going to do if the drug did increase her appetite? Feed 10 times a day?!?) If something is white for other dogs, it tends to be black for this dog. So, it didn't really surprise me when, far from increasing my dog's appetite, she was now off her food entirely, once on the drug. My friend was in disbelief, though. Alas, I continued the drug-free hand-feeding with relative success, gaining probably 15lbs over 3 or 4 months.
Marjorie November 30th, 2008 06:40:33 PM
We had an interesting problem with well meaning neighbors.. They were trying to convince me that Socks was getting fat.. I didn't want to cut back on his food, as he doesn't usually finish what I give him.. and the scale hasn't gone up.. It all changed when he had a haircut.. He turned into a scrawny muscular guy.. Now they worry about my not feeding him.. ughhh.. When I got him, I trained him to tolerate a bunch of important grooming, and healthy rituals.. The scale was one of them.. Now that I'm emailing this, he finished the food in the bowl, and is throwing it around to let me know he wants more.. What a guy.
barri November 30th, 2008 07:15:04 PM
I'll tell you, it helps a LOT to hang around with agility/obedience/tracking folks! Or any other performance sport that appeals to you... most of your friends will have fit and muscular dogs, and the few who have even slightly pudgy pets get teased about it... sounds like just the opposite of what folks report when they take a perfectly fit dog to a dog park or such, and people think the dog is too thin! :-) And a reply to the people who think you should feed the amount listed on a dog food bag: Remember, they're trying to sell as much dog food as they can!! Marjorie, I feel your pain - I've fostered a few rescue Danes who sound like your girl. They were all timid, anxious dogs and my theory was that they worried themselves thin! The good news is that her thinness is probably a big part of why your 10 year old Dane is still so healthy and active. It may have taken some years off of you, but it's actually been really good for HER! :-)
Barb November 30th, 2008 09:15:22 PM
Hey Cait,
I also have a skinny young smoothie boy, Fawkes, and at 17 months, he's only 61lbs. And like your smoothie, when he sits or lays a certain way, I can clearly see his spine or ribs. My feeling is that as long as he's healthy, I'm not going to get too fussed up about it. I've noticed that, barring underlying health problems, every one of my skinny, greyhoundy juvenile collies become a solid citizen by age 5 and then it's a battle to keep the weight off.
chrisj November 30th, 2008 09:25:14 PM
I complained one time to the vet, that one of my pups seemed picky and didn't want to eat very much. He was otherwise healthy & active. The immediate response was to cut his food in half for a few days! I gasped, followed the advice, and sure enough, he started finishing the bowl, including when I began to increase it again. I still have no idea as to the psychology behind it.
This summer, 2 littermates were brought together (live in separate homes) on vacation, both slowwww eaters, almost annoying. Both seemed to quickly change their ways around "each other" and devoured their normal meals "pronto". I know mine has continued the behavior at home, and stopped teasing my other dogs by deliberately having lots "left to eat". Can't figure that one, either!
Barbara Albright
Pocket's Story from NH December 1st, 2008 12:23:56 AM
I'm glad you made an entry on this.
I have both a dog and a cat at ideal weight (think 3 on the body condition chart) and my friends are so used to seeing pudgy pets that they call mine skinny and worse yet, one time even anorexic. I was immensely horrified and irritated. Not only is "fat" normal now, "ideal" is apparently abnormal and too skinny.
Horrifying.
Linda December 1st, 2008 03:29:06 AM
I'll join in with the rest here:
* Hand feeding does have training atvantages, and if the food is mesudred in advance, there won't be a problem with over-feeding.
* Julie was always a lean a fit boxer, but I always got comments from people that she was "too skinny". Goodman came to me on the thin side, but now he is more or less his ideal wight. Guess what? People keep commenting that he is too thin (he is not). Goodman has one rib that sticks out a bit too much (apprently it broke and didn't heal properly- that was before I got him), which causes even more comments about how thin he is (no, he is just a muscler lean dog).
It really helps when the vet comments on the good wight of the dog- after hearing all the time that he is too thin, it is nice to be re-assured that he is healthy.
Xslf December 1st, 2008 06:25:43 AM
I get comments from people about my greyhounds being too thin all the time, and when I say they are not I'm told "Well, they should be spoiled more after their hard lives on the tracks." My female never raced - I got her at 8 months when a kennel was shut down (she's 11 now) and my male raced for less than 6 months at one of the better tracks for a pretty decent operation (he wasn't underfed or abused) before pulling a hamstring and being retired, and has lived with me for 6 years now (he's 8). They have a nice, reasonably cushy life that involves warm, soft sleeping places and enough good food for dogs who don't have a high activity level anymore (15 walks are all my female will even do anymore, even when I do have time). A number of adopters get a grey with pity on their minds and feed it too much, ending up with a sausage on stilts, which is just silly. One person told me the "I have to hand-feed him" line and I just laughed, as the dog was at least 10 pounds overweight. Luckily their hearts and lungs are so big extra weight like that isn't so life-shortening, like it is on an acquaintance's Rottie. The poor dog should weigh about 80-85#s and at almost 100#s this dog is having trouble even on a 15 minute walk (wheezing, not hip-related issues, although those will come soon enough, I'm sure).
Kate December 1st, 2008 10:09:27 AM
sorry -that should say 15 minute walks there (in reference to my female gray)
Kate December 1st, 2008 10:12:04 AM
Oooh, I love the too-thin argument. Here's a post on this (with pics of my own pooches included). My dogs are always called too thin. Today the staff laid into me on Vincent's leanness. Meanwhile, he spent the whole weekend chasing goats and eating raw, free-range chicken. He's the picture of health (never mind his behavior problems).
Dr. Patty Khuly December 1st, 2008 11:22:45 AM
Thanks for posting those photos, Xslf - Goodman and Julie look like they're both at an absolutely perfect weight. They're beautiful dogs!
Barb December 1st, 2008 11:33:18 AM
oops--the photos in the above-cited post didn't make it to Dolittler 2.0. I'll take more and add them here á la xslf (whose dogs, by the way, are not too thin).
Dr. Patty Khuly December 1st, 2008 11:54:45 AM
As to the hand-feeding as a behavior mod tool I'll take my lumps--I should have allowed for this possibility. It is not always nonsense in an otherwise healthy pet, I'll concede, as long as 1) it's done as part of an intelligently applied behavior regimen 2) it's not the primary (or frequent) feeding method. After all, it's OK to hand feed your pets occasionally--just for fun. For pets who are chronically "underweight," I really don't see the need as long as the pet is otherwise healthy.
Sure, some pets have "too thin" bodies for their breed, but it's the rare pet who suffers serious issues as a result, whereas the converse (too fat) can be devastating. Overall, I believe way too much is made of pets who are just plain "skinny minnies" as a result of their genetics. "Pleasant plumpness" is absolutely overrated.
Dr. Patty Khuly December 1st, 2008 12:22:49 PM
I would definitely rather have a dog on the thin side than on the plump side, even though being super lean can cause unforseen problems. My Boxer recently had surgery to remove a large tumor on her butt. Because she's got very little fat in that area, and no loose skin to speak of, it was apparently difficult to close the incision. On the other hand, she came through the surgery just fine, which is not exactly a given with a 9yo Boxer. If she'd been overweight, I don't know that she would have done so well or recovered so quickly.
All that said, it does get aggravating to constantly be told that your dog is malnourished. I even had my very own netkook following me around a few years ago, accusing me of abusing and starving my dog. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cat-sidh/sets/379556/">This is not a starving dog</a>, though she does a very good impression of one when she wants to.
Shelly December 1st, 2008 01:29:10 PM
I went to a dog behavior seminar given by a well respected behaviorist who believes dogs should ALWAYS be made to work for their food and not be fed out of a bowl. Working to him meant out of your hand or out of a Kong. My puppies breeder suggested to all of her puppy buyers hand feeding as a way to help with the bonding process. Owning very high energy dogs, I find training a good way to tire them out, so use meal times as training time. My dogs are lean and in great shape. My vet once suggested I talk to his clients with overweight pets about keeping them thin. Hand feeding does not necessarily equate to pampering or overfeeding.
CLynch December 1st, 2008 01:52:32 PM
My dog is one of the "I don't wanna eaaaaat!" types. Fine. Don't wanna eat? Don't eat. Eventually, she'll get hungry enough. Maybe I'm lacking in sympathy, but a few missed meals won't kill anybody.
She'd often eat maybe a quarter of what I wanted her to eat in a day -- ie, the recommended amount for a reasonably active young dog, and was a bit underweight (as per my vet!) but only a few pounds. (35-38 is perfect for her, she was coming in at about 32-33).
When I first got her, we were strict about her meals. She had her dish down for 5 -10 minutes, and if she didn't finish it in that time, it went back in the bin and she could have it again at dinner. Took about a week, but she learned to eat when she was served, and none of this "mouthful here, mouthful there" grazing. I don't take the food away anymore, but she's gotten pretty good about eating when it's put down, unless there's something else going on (ie, I went away for the weekend and she was under the sole care of my boyfriend... who she adores, but who's never been left in charge overnight before. She went off her food a little, but went back to it when I got home.) If she starts grazing again for no good reason, we'll try another week or so of "eat now or else!" :)
Worked pretty well for me!
Donna December 1st, 2008 02:22:41 PM
I wonder if this desire for plumpness in our pets is because for some people they're replacements for babies? And young babies are supposed to be plump, with pudgy legs full of rolls....
hornblower December 1st, 2008 07:05:17 PM
Couple of points to make:
First: Have to disagree with you, Dr. K, even on your clarification. I'm a firm believer that a bowl has no place in a dog's kitchen. Dogs should work for their food! With the exception of raw food (which requires work to eat!) food shouldn't just magically appear from the floor. My guys get their food from my treat bag, treat balls, kongs, and other treat dispensing items. They only get a bowl when mom has worked a long, long day and simply has no time (which happens very rarely) and then they are required to go through a five minute behavioural routine followed by a five minute down-stay before receiving their dinner.
Secondly, I get comments all the time about how skinny how my dogs are. For the record, they are in PERFECT physical condition. Perfect muscle tone, very little fat covering, and the rott mix I take to work with me daily is short haired, which of course really shows her physique. Everyone knows I run a rescue, so I'm constantly asked if she "just came in, the poor thing!" When asked why she's so skinny, I simply reply "she's not skinny, she's just not FAT."
As far as the refusal to eat deal, I find a second dog in the house solves that problem quick. Single household dogs suffer from this problem more than multi-dog households. We actually take in problem eaters for a week or two, away from their lenient owners (the only other occasion my guys are bowl fed, to provide an example for the new guy in the house) and while my guys snarf down their food the new pup looks around, realizes they're coming after his bowl next and either eats his whole bowl right there right then, or gets his eaten by the others, and eats his the next day immediately. We feed a grain free, 70% meat, highly palatable food, so it has nothing to do with taste and everything to do with competition. When they return home, the instructions are five minutes on the floor, and up for the evening. Five minutes again in the morning, and then again in the evening. So far, we have a 100% success rate.
Finally, in regards to the recommended feeding guide on the bag. It has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer. In fact, those feeding guides are regulated by AAFCO using a formula based on fat and protein calculations. Unfortunately, it does NOT take into account digestibility or quality of ingredients. Instead of relying on testing of the particular food, it relies on kcal/cup and protein ratios. This means that the higher end foods in particular are seriously over estimated on the bag. I firmly believe that THIS is one of the leading causes of obesity in pets today. For example, the Orijen cat bag suggests that a 12lb cat eat 2/3 cup of food per day. My 22lb cat (who is NOT overweight, he's just the size of a large beagle) eats about a 1/2 to 1/3 per day depending on the season. If I fed him the recommended amount, he'd be HUGE. For a 75-110lb dog, the recommended amount is 3 3/4 -5 cups! My 85lb active retriever eats 1 1/2 - 2 cups depending on the season.
One quick note to Marjorie - try adding an enzyme like Prozyme to your dane's food - it's inexpensive and aids in digestion - I'm also curious what food you're feeding. To be feeding that many calories and not gaining weight, they must be empty calories. Have you considered home cooked instead of canned? Less water weight = less filling = more calories.
Kim December 3rd, 2008 01:45:19 AM
Hi, Kim. :-) (I apologize in advance if this ends up, yet again, being another gigantic block of text.) To answer your question, you did read the part where I mentioned that I was a (very!) successful dog trainer for 30 years and specialized in working with dogs with some of the most difficult behaviour problems imaginable for at least the last decade (thus have loads of experience dealing with just about every dog-related problem there is, including feeding issues); my best friend of over 30 years is also my veterinarian (who we see clinically, and socially, countless times per year, thus she is more-than-aware of my dog’s weight issues, and has tested and suggested pretty much everything); my veterinarian friend has never been able to get my dog to eat, on those few occasions when she's looked after her (…so much for those handy, dandy veterinarian feeding tips); and that I feed the highest quality, high calorie foods available? Before I had this particular dog, I probably would have given all the usual suggestions for either getting dogs to eat, or to eat more. But there’s nothing like experience to prove the fallacy of many old wives’ tales. I have a healthy, happy, fit dog who drops weight easily, and goes through periods where she simply won’t eat or, conversely, even when eating large amounts of food, barely puts on weight. I used to have a lot of venom for my dog’s former owners. At around 8-12 months of age and her current height, she came into a local shelter as a stray, under 80lbs. (Just to compare, I believe her ideal weight would be around 125lbs.) That means someone had purchased a purebred Great Dane puppy 6-10 months earlier, and just kept her locked away, untrained and unsocialized, and starved her. While she was at the shelter, awaiting release to me, she dropped down to 69lbs. (Staff figured her weight loss was simply due to the stress of being at the shelter.) It’s now 9 years later, and I eventually realized her former owners probably didn’t actively starve her, as we all assumed. Knowing what I go through, and that I’m the ONLY person, so far, who’s been able to maintain her weight, I’ve softened my view of her former owners. They probably just didn’t know WHAT to do. Who would? When all you know are the tired old tricks, and those tricks don’t work at all… …well… …you end up having to be a bit more open-minded. I trained dogs for 30 years and thought I’d seen it all…until this odd duck came along. What’s black for “normal” dogs is white for her. And that applies to just about everything. There are so many stories I could tell you, from the past 9 years. Medications that didn’t work or had the opposite effect than they should. Her newly-discovered (alleged) hypothyroidism, yet with polar opposite symptoms. There are just too many examples to list. Still, I’ve been reasonably successful in keeping her weight on, over the years, through a combination of strategies. It’s not as though she’s unhappy or unhealthy. She’s just inexplicably resistant to weight gain. As I’ve explained many times before, the question I’m asked most often is, “How old is your puppy?” When I’ve replied 6, 7, 8, and 9, I’ve had to clarify that I mean “years” not “months.” The asker is suitably dumbfounded that my “puppy” is actually a 9 (or now 10)-year-old Great Dane. As I tried to explain (and as it relates to this thread) I’ve been hand-feeding since January because my dog was losing weight. She does this about once every year or two. But this time, her weight dropped to a skeletal 80-something, and I HAD to take action. I tried hand-feeding as a last ditch effort, and it has worked remarkably well. Sure, most of the time, feeding issues are caused by owner ignorance or indulgence. I openly grant that. I’ve been training dogs probably longer than some of the people here have been alive. Most "helpful" feeding suggestions presume the dog is ill, and that one is just trying to get it to eat 'a' meal. Others assume the owner is indulging the dog. Most suggestions don’t involve a real maintenance diet or real “solution”…just a temporary fix. Other suggestions, like getting a second dog, are ludicrous. While there’s no doubt the competitive angle can encourage an uncommitted eater to get the job done faster, no person in his/her right mind is going to take-on the lifelong responsibility of owning a second dog, just to get the first one to eat. Since I'm not, in any way, interested in home cooking for my dog, I'm afraid the best quality available commercial brands will have to do. (oh, my poor, poor, dog) You name the top brands, and she’s either eaten them in the past, or is currently eating them. I spend over $400/month on her food, alone. I have not fed grocery store dog food brands since the 1970’s…not that I’m ag’in’ ‘em. I just don’t feed them. (For the kids out there, I’d explain about the first premium dog food introduced to my area around 1980 or ’81, but this is already too long.) As for supplements, I’m highly sceptical of most. I did try “Missing Link” which my dog wouldn’t touch and, since it’s a powder that must be mixed with food, it meant she wouldn’t eat her food, either. Sigh. Of course, that attempt could only last as long as I was willing to watch my dog lose more weight. (Keep in mind my dog can lose 10lbs easily, inside a week, but it takes months to regain that lost weight.) I’m currently supplementing her with a joint health chewable…which she absolutely detests. The manufacturer touts them as being very tasty, but I had to train my dog to eat them. Otherwise, she wouldn’t touch ‘em. Trust me, I understand the disbelievers. Before this dog, I had never come across one like her in all my 30 years training some of the most difficult dogs imaginable. Shortly after agreeing to take her, 9 years ago, I quickly realized she was a praise-motivated dog; completely uninterested in toys or food rewards. I did try different foods, though. She wouldn’t eat bacon or cheese or bread. She won’t touch raw meat or bones. She likes to chew carrots, but won’t ingest them. (She leaves a pile of orange “dust” for me, on the floor.) She does, however, like peanut butter, and I feed her as much of that as she’s willing to eat, since it’s loaded with calories. I’ve found a few commercial treats she’ll reliably take, as well. I just love when average Joes think they know so much about dogs and announce, “All dogs love…” (insert food item here). For example, I was at a friend’s BBQ when another guest asked if he could give my dog a piece of steak. I smiled and said he was welcomed to try, but that she likely wouldn’t take it. He, and some of the others around, guffawed at the idea a dog wouldn’t eat steak. (My husband and I, of course, maintained a kind of smirk. We know this dog.) The man handed her a chunk and, amazingly, she took it. No sooner had smiles broken across everyone’s face than my dog spit the chunk out, into the dirt, and walked away. Elapsed time: maybe two seconds. Another (smarter) (hehehe) dog quickly snapped-up the dropped morsel. The disbelievers were a bit sheepish, after that demonstration. I remember being in a pet supply store, on the way to my cottage. It was a hot day, so I had to bring my pooch into the store with me. The salesperson asked if she could give my dog a piece of ‘Benny Bully’s’ (it’s dried liver, for those who aren’t familiar with the brand). I said, “Sure, but don’t be surprised if she won’t take it.” The woman almost hissed-back, sceptically, “All dogs love ‘Benny Bully’s’.” My dog sniffed the piece of liver, and turned her nose away. The salesperson tried again. I tried. No go. The woman was speechless. She’d never seen a dog turn down ‘Benny Bully’s’. And I guess that’s the point. SHE’D never seen it. That’s a far cry from it not being possible. Sorry for the incredible length of my “comment”. But I felt I needed to give more detail, to dispel some of the (apparently pervasive) myths that feeding problems in dogs are owner-caused. That is simply not at all accurate. In my case, I have a mix of obstacles, making the solutions anything but straightforward. Not the least of which is the fact that as a long-time dog trainer, I will say this is the single most diffident and nervous dog I’ve ever encountered. She’s no easy keeper, that’s for sure. I’ll admit, there was a part of me that was desperately hoping something simple, like the Mirtazapine experiment, would solve the problem. Imagine being able to just feed my dog a few meals a day, from her dish, and she’d eat it & gain weight, like pretty much every dog I’ve owned or trained over the past 30 or 40 years. Wow. That would be somethin’! If only… ;-)
Marjorie December 3rd, 2008 11:36:51 AM
(sigh) What is it??? I'm using the latest version of Vista. Is that it? I'm not manually inserting html code for paragraph breaks. Is that it? My computer has the latest 'everything'. Why can't I get paragraph breaks??? :-)
Marjorie December 3rd, 2008 11:39:29 AM
Marjorie, it works if you manually insert the HTML paragrah tag. Sigh.
Stefani December 4th, 2008 01:02:59 PM
I toss the treats and dry kibble (not raw meat!) across the room. My dogs know: "go far" and trot back and forth across the room for food/treats. Gives the dogs exercise while I'm enjoying interacting with my dear housemates.
Linda C December 4th, 2008 03:06:49 PM
Thanks, Stefani. I'm surprised (and a little impressed) that everyone is savvy enough to have tried that.
Okay...so assuming simple html works, here's a picture of my girl at probably her heaviest weight...despite the massive food intake: (fingers crossed)
Marjorie December 5th, 2008 10:17:13 AM
My best friend is a veterinarian. She says that dogs are overweight for one reason, and one reason only: because human beings have thumbs. Hard to argue.
Dr. Jill December 5th, 2008 09:44:37 PM
Maybe my cat is the one like the slender Great Dane. Tonkinese spay, nine years old, small boned, a lean 6 and 3/4 pound flying machine. She tested allergic to a BUNCH of ingredients., including rice As a result she is free-fed her choice of two different limited-ingredient kibbles, since she eats one variety for a while, then starts leaving that and eating only the other. There seems to be no danger of obesity from free-feeding kibble. A wet food "offering" of an ounce or two is made twice a day. The wet foods are the high poultry-content, no grain, expensive brands (EVO, Old School, Natural Balance). Sometimes she simply doesn't deign to eat the wet food. No supermarket brands of treats, cat food, or coat supplements are used. Alternate days she gets the squeezed out contents of a Trader Joe's 100 mg Salmon Oil gel cap, sprinkled over a freeze-dried salmon filet cat treat. (Her vet says this is okay. and a good kind of fish oil to use.) If she seems to be totally going off her feed, I resort to bits of freeze-dried chicken cat treats re-constituted in water.
She will NOT eat treats from a hand. The above salmon fillet is put into a Japanese porcelain condiment dish, from which she will accept treats. The closest thing to hand feeding that she sometimes accepts is to hold a dish near her head, from which she will decide to eat, or not.
Miss Kitty's Mom December 6th, 2008 05:19:22 PM
Marjorie,
I wasn't implying that you were an indulgent or otherwise inept pet owner. The last paragraph was the only one directed solely at you.
However, given the energy behind your response, I'll give you this;
First, Prozyme is not a supplement. A supplement is not going to put weight on a dog. And frankly, IMO, missing link is for those not feeding a decent food in the first place. Prozyme is a combination of digestive enzymes (amylase, protease, bromelain, cellulase and lipase) for dogs and cats who don't produce enough enzymes on their own for whatever reason, and helps them to get more nutrition out of every bite by helping them to break it down.
Secondly, to have a dog consume that many calories per day without weight gain DOES suggest a medical problem of some sort, be it thyroid, pituitary, digestive or otherwise.
Third, I really don't appreciate the tone "Since I'm not, in any way, interested in home cooking for my dog, I'm afraid the best quality available commercial brands will have to do. (oh, my poor, poor, dog)"
I was not the one who posted paragraph after paragraph lamenting how my dog was having long term weight loss issues and I had run out of options. One assumes, when reading such a post, that perhaps the writer would appreciate the suggestions of someone who has spent the past ten years involved in pet food, natural feeding and nutritional therapy.
Lastly, I was not suggesting you adopt a second dog. As I clearly outlined in my post, we use this technique as a starting point to get a "picky eater" eating, when Fifi's mom comes in and scoffs at my suggestion that perhaps it is HER neurosis that is causing the issue, and not Fifi's. When Fifi comes back a week or two later, a pound or two heavier, and eating whatever I hand her, Fifi's mom has learned a valuable lesson and sticks with the methods necessary to continue the behaviour at home (I believe if Dr. K had a magic stick she could wave to get this particular group of owners to "see the light" she would). This, also, was not in reference to you or your situation.
I apologize if this post comes off a bit abrasive, but as I said before, I really don't appreciate being rebutted in an argument that doesn't exist. I'll also apologize for attempting to offer some suggestions and experience... generally that's what we do here - I wasn't aware the format had changed along with the template.
Kim December 6th, 2008 09:58:03 PM
Wow.
Kim...While my, admittedly lengthy, comment was intended only to better explain my very unique situation, as it relates to why I'm currently hand-feeding (holding the dish in my hands, in my large, evenly-lit livingroom, rather than my dog eating from her dish, as she's done for the previous 8 years) ...I.E. the subject of this post... I see that you're not interested in an equitable exchange of ideas among those you view as your equals. Rather, you seem to believe you have great insight. Your commentary is interspersed with obvious sanctimony, as in, "I'll also apologize for attempting to offer some suggestions and experience... generally that's what we do here - I wasn't aware the format had changed along with the template."
Come on, Kim. Whether or not I agree with your accusations levied at me, that statement reminds me of a story about a pot, and a kettle. I'm pretty sure at least one of them was black.
In your original remarks to me, you wrote, "I'm also curious what food you're feeding. To be feeding that many calories and not gaining weight, they must be empty calories."
No, Kim. I don't (to use your words) "appreciate the tone" of your summary statement that I "must" be feeding "empty calories" to my dog. You don't know what you're talking about! Thus your "advice"...well-meaning as you may believe to be...is, at best, misguided (and pretty darn insulting, at worst). I mean, why would I take the advice of someone who assumes I'm feeding "empty calories" to my dog, when I'm feeding the best quality 'dog food' currently available on the planet? Since your conclusion is inaccurate, I would naturally wonder what else you're saying that's completely inaccurate.
The "home cooking" mantra is unconvincing, to say the least. When I meet another 10-year-old Great Dane that is similarly so healthy, happy, and bouncy that it's routinely mistaken for a puppy AND is fed a home cooked diet, then I may reconsider home cooking. I have yet to meet a home cooked/raw fed dog the same age as mine, which is as fit as mine, with as much energy, has as shiny a coat, and teeth as white as my commercially-fed dog. You know what they say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." As far as I'm concerned, the zealots are all talk, with little actual substance. I don't have a problem with home cooking/raw feeding. I'm just not convinced it's markedly "better" than a good-quality, commercial diet.
You also included this tidbit, as a rebuttal, "First, Prozyme is not a supplement."
As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of supplements. However, 'Prozyme' is, indeed, a S-U-P-P-L-E-M-E-N-T, by the very definition of the word:
sup·ple·ment (spl-mnt)
n.
Something added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the whole.
You wrote, "Secondly, to have a dog consume that many calories per day without weight gain DOES suggest a medical problem of some sort, be it thyroid, pituitary, digestive or otherwise."
Really? What is your diagnosis, then, doctor? Because nine years of bloodwork, fecals, radiographs and ultrasounds...by what you clearly inferred must then be iept veterinarians...have come back completely NORMAL, save the recent low T4, as mentioned in my comment. Even a brief outline on VIN produced no relevant theories.
Additionally, you wrote, "I was not the one who posted paragraph after paragraph lamenting how my dog was having long term weight loss issues and I had run out of options." (Mental note: never try to explain anything in detail. There are those who will only use that attempt against me.) What I actually described was a WEIGHT-GAIN-RESISTANT dog who is normally in perfect condition, but can easily lose weight, due to A COMBINATION OF FACTORS, which apparently my "paragraph after paragraph" comment STILL failed to convey. 'Not gaining weight' and 'refusing to eat' are two different things, entirely. Each has it's share of theories about causes and solutions. Not all theories are relevant, or even accurate.
More to the point, hand-feeding has worked better than anything I've tried, to date. I wish I'd tried it, as a method of feeding meals, years ago with this particular dog. I might have been able to avert some periods of weight loss or, dare to dream, been able to maintain a slightly higher body weight, overall. I don't like hand-feeding. But there's no denying that it's working better than any of the other countless strategies.
Like many commenters here, I've lamented, to my veterinarians, many times over the years, the numerous "skinny dog" comments I've received. Those vet's have always said my dog is in excellent condition: an example for other dog owners, actually. Still, I would prefer another 20lbs on my dog. Achieving that has proven to be impossible, for a number of reasons. ...Hence the recent hand-feeding. As I mentioned in "paragraph after paragraph," I'm the only person, so far in this unusual dog's life, who's been able to maintain her weight at all. She drops weight like a stone, in anyone else's care, and may even be why her owners abandoned her, in the first place. If I couldn't get my 32" tall Great Dane above 80lbs, I might give it away, too.
As for your comment, "I was not suggesting you adopt a second dog...we use this technique as a starting point to get a 'picky eater' eating..."
What you're describing isn't a "solution" to being a picky eater, nor is it particularly unknown, as a temporary fix. If it ever seems to work permanently, then you (and, by extension, the owner) have achieved some other change, in addition to the initial/temporary motivation of the second dog: A change you, then, likely could have employed without the need for a second dog at all.
Once the motivation of the second dog is removed, a dog will eventually revert back to its old ways, unless something else has changed, as well. Expectation, alone, is sometimes enough to get owners to behave differently. Once they believe something is possible, they can make it happen. This is what I assume you're getting at, when you say you demonstrate the dog will eat. What the dog won't do is keep eating without the second dog motivation, if the owner hasn't also changed, as well.
As an experienced dog trainer, there are countless examples I could give, where environment TEMPORARILY changed/improved a dog's behaviour. For instance, a person can walk up to me with his/her 'out of control' dog, and I just take the leash, and the dog immediately sits calmly at my side, often to the owner's amazement. That doesn't mean I've solved the problem. It simply means, in that particular environment (in my presence), the dog's behaviour is different/better. Once the dog is alone with the owner again, the dog will revert, unless the owner has changed how he/she interacts with the dog. My example sometimes convinces dog owners that it is they who must change, not the dog. But it is this change (in the owner's behaviour) that has the only lasting effect.
In addition, if a "picky eater" is successfully converted via behaviour modification, it really wasn't all that picky to begin with. The dog was merely presenting its fussiness in response to an owner-created environment of indulgence, or some other, similar, owner-related cause. Thus, when dealing with a dog with true palatability issues, the usual "advice" is useless, since it assumes the cause is primarily the owner.
Marjorie December 7th, 2008 10:24:55 AM
Marjorie,
It's not a wonder that you're still struggling with this issue, given that you're obviously the one with all the answers, and when those fail - well, <shrug>.
As I stated before, out of the hundreds of rescue dogs and thousands of clients I've dealt with, I have yet to have a dog that would meet your standard of "picky eater," at least because we've managed to overcome the issue in every case. Your statement regarding picky eaters vs. "true palatability issues" is ridiculous. Palate is learned at a young age, but can be overcome by behaviour modification techniques, not only in dogs, but also in cats and even humans. There are dozens, if not hundreds of studies in this regard - I would really be interested if you could find one that backs up your argument.
Regarding the home cooking/raw, your mind is obviously already made up, so why bother to try something that might actually work for your dog. As for the hundreds of thousands of healthy dogs who enjoy a homecooked/raw diet (including Dr. K's pups, if I'm not mistaken), perhaps you should listen and look with a less pre-biased opinion - maybe you'll learn something new. Hundreds of my clients are on homemade diet for their dog or cat, and they are certainly among the healthiest bunch. A processed diet is harder to digest - kibble can take up to 12 hours to pass through the system, while real food can process as quickly as 4. The result is smaller stools due to higher digestion rates, meaning less food is required on input.
And I stick by my statement that there must be an underlying medical issue that simply hasn't been discovered. You quoted 6 cans of food per day (approximately 3100kcal) and 2-8 cups of kibble (860-3440kcal) for a total of 3960-6540kcal per day. Given that a dog of 125lb only needs to consume 3000-3500kcal/day (the low end for a moderate activity level, high end for high activity level) your dog is at least consuming the daily recommended amount, and at peak almost double. And you suggest this is simply a dog with a "weight gain issue?" I'm sorry, but that's like a 125lb woman eating 4lbs of beef daily - and not gaining a pound. Hmmm... somehow I think science would be all over that one.
Since you're apparently always correct (and obviously don't seem worried about reading and comprehending what I post anyways - or you wouldn't prove half my points with your rebuttal), I won't bother to converse with you further. I prefer to stick to scientificly proven arguments, and I really don't come here for this kind of discussion. Best of luck to you and your dog.
Kim December 7th, 2008 06:57:00 PM
Kim, I'm relieved you're finally going to stop offering your "advice"...along with it's thinly-veiled, insulting summary statements. Useful, relevant(!!!!), EXPERTLY-DERIVED AND SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE suggestions would have been welcomed. That's not what you offered, though, was it?
Still, I have to laugh at your first assertion. Are you seriously suggesting that a dog who refuses to eat because of owner-indulgence can simply be placed in a room with another dog for a few hours/days, and that one experience, alone, will resolve its eating issues for the rest of its life?
...Seriously?
You're actually suggesting that's how it works. (shaking head in disbelief)
Nothing else needs to change. Just the memory of that one experience, ages ago, where another dog challenged it for its food, that one time, has the dog eating heartily, with no issues, 1, 5, and 10 years later? Nothing else changed in the environment, including the owner and/or how he/she interacts with the dog.
Wow.
...Just...
Wow.
That's not even close to plausible.
As such, not much more needs to be said on that subject.
Second, I can't resist pointing out your basic calculation errors. Each of the manufacturers suggest a range of 3/4 to 1 1/2 cans per 15 lbs. (Or did you not know this?) Few manufacturers publish the actual caloric content of their foods (mostly only veterinary brands) so, at best, you're just using some generic theory about calorie contents. (Dr. Khuly did a post on this very subject, not too long ago, asking why manufacturers don't make this information available, and encouraging them to do so.) So, while it's true that my veterinarian and I seek out formulations with the highest calories (when known), the very highest ones (such as a neoplasia diet) are simply too high in fat and protein to be a maintenance diet. (I'm permitted to feed one serving of a neoplasia diet per day.)
Most manufacturers (well, all that I know of) recommend the 3/4 - 1 1/2 can per 15 lbs, range. That means this dog should eat anywhere from 5.25 to 10.5 cans per day, if she's only eating canned (which she isn't). Being super-active and fit, any competent dog owner would naturally lean towards the maximum daily amount, I would think. Five to seven cans, therefore, is right in line with the manufacturers' recommendations, if not on the low end. Your "calcultions" did offer some levity, though. Thanks for that! ;-)
By comparison, my last big male, at around 180lbs, only ate twice a day, with maybe 4 cups of dry food each.
I'm not really sure how being a weight-gain-resistant dog somehow makes me some kind of ignorant, indulgent, or negligent dog owner (albeit one who's apparently blind to the panacea-like nature of home cooking). I've come across the occasional loser who *thinks* (and I use that word loosely) I'm not feeding my dog enough, or the home cooked/raw zealots who have no science to back them, but just "believe" commercial diets are the cause. Yeah...Uh, science is your friend, folks! Use it.
I joined this discussion, merely mentioning that I'm currently hand-feeding my weight-gain-resistant dog FOR THE FIRST TIME IN EIGHT YEARS (and it's working like a treat!!!), while admitting that she is a VERY unique case and, as such, is not likely relevant when compared to the average dog and owner, with run-of-the-mill eating or weight problems.
I even went so far as to explain in greater detail, the puzzling results of various tests and experiments. Her recent T4 results (with 8 years of normal bloodwork behind her) alleging hypothyroidism, yet with not just 'no signs of hyopthyroidism', but 'the complete opposite' symptoms. The Mirtazapine experiement, with it's totally opposite results in this one dog, but no others. Her sometimes staggering food intake, yet resistance to weigh gain. Her reluctance to eat anything, at times, to the point of starving herself to death (if her former owners, the shelter, or I, would have let it continue, unabated). (Once all the ribs, vertebrae and hips are showing, you can't just "trust" the dog "will eventually eat.") For goodness sakes, it's why this dog is with such an experienced trainer, like me, in the first place! No one else could handle her. The shelter staff had given up. THEY called ME, or did I not mention that?
While I wasn't necessarily looking for them (since most commenters are not terribly experienced in this area), expertly-derived suggestions for real solutions (not just a temporary fix) would have been welcomed and considered. On the other hand, what I didn't expect were your insulting remarks, Kim, such as I "must be" feeding "empty calories," along with obtuse, 'oh, I don't know, but there's something medically wrong with your dog' kinds of repeated comments. Such commentary is inaccurate, useless and, not surprisingly, unwelcomed.
Honestly, Kim, I don't know why you even bothered. I can't imagine going to some web site, and offering such pointless "advice", much less to someone with decades more experience than I have. At best, it seems you needed to share your "home cooking" mantra, as though that is the solution for all things. (You know what? It's not. And you have absolutely no science to prove that it is.) Other than that, you've offered zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing of any credence or use that gets me in any way closer to putting more weight on my dog or being able to reliably maintain her weight without so much effort on my part. I hope that's not the kind of "advice" you make a habit of giving (especially unsolicited) because...really...what's the point? Even people who know nothing about dogs or canine behaviour or canine nutrition can say "change the diet" or "something's medically wrong." Sheesh.
Marjorie December 8th, 2008 11:29:57 AM
FYI:
EVO Can 13.2 oz - 475kcal
Innova Can 13.2oz - 488kcal
Nature's Variety Instict 13.2oz - Chicken 501kcal; Beef 527kcal; Lamb 589kcal; Rabbit 532kcal; Duck 586kcal; Venison 548kcal
Nature's Variety Prarie 13.2 oz - Chicken 514kcal; Beef 494kcal; Lamb 556kcal; Venison 475kcal
Nature's Variety Prarie Homestyle 13.2 oz - Chicken 354kcal; Beef 367kcal; Lamb 385kcal; Salmon 352kcal; Turkey 351kcal; Beef and Bison 364 kcal; Pork 341kcal
Wellness Can 12.5 oz - Chicken 445kcal; Duck 410kcal; Whitefish 335kcal; Lamb 407kcal; Turkey 438kcal; Venison 481kcal
Wellness Core Can 12.5 oz - 496kcal
California Natural Can 13.2 oz - Chicken 520kcal; Lamb 520kcal; Salmon 488kcal
Merrick 13.2 oz - Harvest Moon 322kcal; Campfire Trout 330kcal; Cowboy Cookout 394kcal; French Country Cafe 321kcal; Grammys Pot Pie 394kcal; Mediterranean Banquet 380kcal; New Zealand Summer 362kcal; Puppy Plate 389kcal; Smothered Comfort 330kcal; Thanksgiving Day Dinner 432kcal; Turducken 364kcal; Venison Holiday Stew 384kcal; Wild Buffalo Grill 370kcal; Wilderness Blend 344kcal; Wingaling 330kcal; Working Dog Stew 382kcal
Go! Natural 13.2 oz - Chicken 355kcal; Salmon 419kcal; Grain Free Chicken/Turkey/Duck 509kcal; Grain Free Trout 441kcal
Canidae 13 oz - All Life Stages 450kcal; Lamb 419; Chicken 426kcal; Platinum 327kcal;
Fromm 4-Star 13 oz - Chicken 450kcal; Duck 507kcal; Tuna 406kcal; Pork 507kcal; Salmon 408kcal
Do I really need to go on? Because I can. :O)
Your suggestion that these figures are not available is ridiculous. Yes, there are some companies who choose not to post them on their website (personally I consider any company that does not offer full disclosure one to be avoided from the outset) - but they do post their email addresses and their phone numbers. I suggest avoiding those who won't answer your questions.
And in regards to your second assertion that my methods for getting "picky" dogs to eat is somehow lifelong, I once again refer you to my last post and suggest that you read and comprehend my posts before responding.
What we're generally dealing with in the beginning is an owner who feels that their dog is beyond help. We simply prove that it is in fact, an easily correctable issue, thus providing us suddenly with an owner who is committed to staying the course necessary to overcome Fifi's previous bad habits rather than giving in to her manipulative learned behaviours. You provided a perfect example of this yourself - when an owner presents an unruly dog declared to be "untrainable" and when you can suddenly get it to sit calmly, walk nicely, obey a leave it, and perhaps even perform a decent stay without distraction within a matter of minutes, the owner is then forced to own up to the fact that perhaps they were at the very least partially to blame for Fido's issues - and it is THEY who need to do the work. As I said before, reading comprehension, very important. It should be noted that at NO TIME did I mention this in reference to your individual situation, so why you continue to bring it up is a puzzler.
For the record, a 180lb male SHOULD only eat about 8 cups of high quality food a day - so I'm not sure why you're using this as an example. A low to moderately active 180lb dog should consume about 2900-3600 kcal/day. Precisely in the range of what you were feeding him. This should illustrate my point, if nothing else.
I also don't recall even suggesting that you were negligent, ignorant, or indulgent. I suggested close-minded, perhaps (although not so bluntly), but I would never assume based on the information provided that you were any of the things you accuse me of referring to you as. Frankly, I resent the accusation and I would appreciate it if you would stick to the facts at hand.
If you're interested in scientific studies regarding raw feeding, I suggest "See Spot Live Longer" which is a summary of studies performed by the North American Raw Petfood Association. The book is a culmination of 20 years research. I also suggest you do some research on the nature of live food, and ask a human nutritionist if he or she would ever support a "100% nutritionally complete" kibble for people. The answer will invariably be an across the board "NO." There are a thousand reasons why, none of which I'm going to waste my time on here, as you're not going to read them anyways.
Science is not always our friend... science brought us ethoxyquin, BHA, BHT, menadione, agent orange, nuclear bombs and chemical weapons. It's also brought us the higest cancer rates in history. Cancer rates in dogs are approaching (I even believe have surpassed) 50%. That means 50% of all dogs will die of cancer. Certainly there are many contributing factors, but our dependence on processed food (check out CNN's recent special "America's Killer Diet") is certainly one of them in humans, why wouldn't it be in dogs?
As for why I bothered, well, I'm sorry I did, quite frankly. And how your "decades of experience" as a dog trainer suddenly makes you at all educated in small animal nutrition remains to be seen. I do respect your experience, just not in this field. Should I ever post about a dog with a behavioural issue I'm struggling with, feel free to chime in, I (apparently unlike others) welcome all points of view. Even those that oppose my own. Just please, come with facts, not conjecture.
And as for why I bothered to post again... I frequent this board a lot - and I don't appreciate the slander. I do reserve the right to defend myself and my statements -- and I stand by all of them.
Kim December 8th, 2008 06:49:45 PM
(sigh) You're beyond ridiculous, Kim. Slander? (It's 'libel', by the way.) If anything, your hostile, inaccurate accusations levied at me are the basis for libel. I just wouldn't be so silly as to suggest Internet message board comments, like yours, are libelous. (laughing) My reputation is excellent, and not that quite that fragile. I guess yours isn't so stellar or you wouldn't feel so threatened.
However, I can't go on and on repeatedly correcting your spurious assumptions, incorrect information, absolutely useless information(!), much less do anything about your pervasive pomposity or sanctimony. Your famously-lacking references to your degree in (canine) nutrition pretty much says it all. [Myself, I worked as a veterinary technician while I was in university, deciding whether to become a medical or veterinary doctor, before switching fields (to physics).]
For the record, it is downright irresponsible to offer dog training advice in my specialty (serious behaviour problems, such as aggression) over the Internet. Without actually meeting the dog and owner, it's impossible to know what, precisely, is going on, much less offer any kind of advice that is even likely to be helpful (at the very least, not harmful). Oh...wait a minute...that won't make sense to you at all.
You go on to write absurdly puzzling things like, "For the record, a 180lb male SHOULD only eat about 8 cups of high quality food a day - so I'm not sure why you're using this as an example. Yet you know nothing about that dog, his activity level, his metabolic rate, or what kind of food I was feeding him. That demonstrates who you are, precisely. The scary part is that you completely missed the fact that I included it to demonstrate that one of my much larger dogs ate much less, and was perfectly healthy, in contrast to this smaller dog's need for many more calories, just to maintain her weight. DID I SERIOUSLY JUST HAVE TO WRITE THAT?!? THAT WASN'T OBVIOUS TO YOU?!? Well...that only further demonstrates you can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
You begin with a list (of what I can only assume are Google search results) of dog food brands I don't feed. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about AND your "helpful information" is useless to me...in every sense of the word "useless".
As for the rest, it's more of the same. ...Has nothing to do with me or my situation, and offers no relevant (much less helpful or expertly-derived) "advice."
I've done my best to explain, in detail, why what you CONTINUE TO REPEATEDLY WRITE is not only inaccurate (especially in those areas particular to my situation) but not helpful and, at times, needlessly hostile & insulting. You're clearly not an expert in canine nutrition, nor are you an expert in behaviour modification. As such, you have demonstated yourself to be someone from whom I would never consider taking advice. Why you continue to "offer" it, is puzzling, to say the least.
You also wrote, "I won't bother to converse with you further." Yet another untrue thing you've written. Case closed.
Marjorie December 9th, 2008 08:14:44 AM
I'm sorry, but detail? What detail would that be? Asside from sweeping assertions... such as study in behaviour and physics gives you an experience in nutritional therapy.
My example above was to negate your assertion that this information is not available. You are incorrect. It is readily available. You suggested you feed "the best quality available commercial brands" and so I used a good sampling of those brands to illustrate my point. It's worth noting that you've defended your choice of food and yet have failed to state just what foods you do in fact use, with the exception of N/D, which has less than desirable ingredients to say the least. If you require kcal information about the foods you do use, feel free to post the foods, and I'd be happy to provide the information. And while a few of the amounts did in fact come from online sources, the majority came from company literature I get on a monthly basis - although I do believe it is all available online (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong ;O)
It's also very telling that you choose only to respond to previous issues that you repeat over and over again, and refuse to acknowledge any new information provided.
As for the "contrast" provided between the two dog examples provided by yourself, they only serve to underline my point. In addition, while you claim that it's inappropriate for me to make caloric intake assumptions about a dog, you yourself refer to feeding guides on cans as a reference (which, for the record, are not calculated by the manufacturer, but by AAFCO using a calculation regarding protein/carb/fat content and do not take into account digestibility or ingredient quality/cooking processes).
Once again, a clarification is required - "slander" and "libel" are synonyms. They mean the same thing, except in a court of law, so unless you're considering pursuing legal action (for somethign which you still haven't been able to quote - and I do encourage you to quote me on even a single occasion during which I implied you were anything other than closeminded and perhaps misinformed). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_(disambiguation).
I also never stated that I had a degree in Canine Nutrition (in fact, to my knowledge no such degree exists). I have, however, taken classes in regards to small animal nutrition through many avenues over the past ten years, including several universities - and I too have worked as a veterinary technician... however, I couldn't work in a clinic that pushed toxic food - there is a reason that our own doctors are not allowed to sell drugs, and I believe that prescription food falls under this category. Take a good look at what our veterinary community is required to learn about nutrition (from the pet food companies, no less - thanks, Royal Canin for the recent $3 million donation and newly formed chair to the OVC) and then tell me that the majority of them are qualified to recommend a diet to their clients.
As for your reputation, I have to say, if this is the way you handle someone questioning your methods, or perhaps approaching you with an idea that is, say, "outside the box," I'd be interested to know what your reputation really is in the real world.
In regards to your assertion that providing online training advice is "downright irresponsible," I suppose you would then extrapolate that same assertion to the online Virtual Vet Hospital here on this board? I would suggest before you begin slinging mud you take a look around and see just who and where it may stick. Not only does this board welcome opposing viewpoints and discussion from all sides, we do generally offer advice to one another on occasion about a myriad of issues - from training to food to medical care. Whether it's taken or not, it's always handled with respect, and perhaps this is the part that you have misunderstood. Just because it's written here doesn't mean that I'm standing at your door, wagging my finger at you - I'm simply providing you the facts as I interpret them (I'd like to note that I've yet to see a fact noted in a single reponse).
Don't bother responding unless you're actually going to address, point by point, my post herein. It's getting very tiring trying to wade through the ranting - for example, accusing me of libel, and then suggesting that you wouldn't be "so silly" as to accuse me of libel. Providing me a perfect example of a dog eating what amounts to an average amount of calories, and then suggesting that this somehow backs up your assertion that your other dog is therefore "normal but different" when she consumes double her recommended intake. It's one thing to say "perhaps she does have an issue, but we haven't been able to find it, so this is how we carry on..." it's another entirely to say "we haven't been able to find anything abnormal yet, so she's completely normal... and that low T4 result, well that can't be a symptom of something else, it must just be a fluke."
Kim December 9th, 2008 06:53:02 PM
Kim...you start off by writing,
"Asside from sweeping assertions...study in behaviour and physics gives you an experience in nutritional therapy."
You really do seem to like jumping to bizarre, nonsensical conclusions based on details you've gotten all muddled up in your mind.
Unlike you, I have NEVER claimed to have any notable expertise in the specifics of canine nutrition. Not once. Unlike you, I don't counsel others on what they should feed their dogs, and have never done so, in over 40 years working in the field. I certainly would never, ever, come to some web site's comment section and give unsolicited nutritional advice when I'm not, in any way, an expert in that field, much less having never met or examined the individuals involved.
I prefer to rely on ACTUAL experts for that kind of information, and would caution everyone to avoid taking advice from inexpert individuals, especially via the Internet.
In your haste to write another insulting thing about me, you failed to realize I was pointing out that YOU had yet to provide evidence of YOUR expertise in nutrition (more specifically canine nutrition). One would think such expertise would naturally be the minimum basis for providing nutritional counselling. YOU are the one inundating ME with YOUR so-called nutritional expertise. If it were the other way around, I'd admit I'm not an expert and shut up. Then again, I wouldn't have counselled anyone in the first place. That's just how I roll. I don't give advice in areas where I have no expertise.
All I did do was to offer additional details about my educational and experiential background, aside from what I've already provided. You apparently jumped to the conclusion that I inferred some sort of canine nutritional expertise, by doing so. Yet this is just something you imagined (which explains a lot). Not once did I imply that had anything to do with canine nutrition. It wasn't even in my thought process. You imagined that, and you alone. If anything, I was demonstrating I have no credible canine nutritional expertise EITHER.
You did write, "I also never stated that I had a degree in Canine Nutrition (in fact, to my knowledge no such degree exists)."
Yet (it's right there in black and white) what I actually wrote was,
"...famously-lacking references to your degree in (canine) nutrition..."
Yes... I expected too much to think you'd realize that the word 'canine', in parentheses, indicates I wasn't limiting my comment to a degree specifically in "canine nutrition," but rather some sort of degree in nutrition, with the possibility of a specialty in canine nutrition, or something like that. What I would think would be obvious to anyone, is if I meant solely "canine nutrition" I would've written it that way, without the parentheses. Apparently, I really, really, have to spell every, single thing out for you.
Still, the best you could come up with was 'having attended some classes'.
Wow.
...Just...
...Wow.
That's your expertise? Some classes? No veterinary degree? You're not even an RVT? You don't have a degree in biology or chemistry or anything that could even be loosely related to nutrition, much less in dogs?
Wow.
You also wrote, "It's worth noting that you've defended your choice of food and yet have failed to state just what foods you do in fact use..."
If you'd even once asked, Kim, what kind of food I was feeding (hopefully under the guise of genuinely wanting to provide some form of informed assistance), I would've told you. But you didn't do that, did you? It's almost as if by asking a question, you are somehow admitting there's something you don't know, and therefore doing so must be avoided at all costs. You simply don't ask questions or consider that you might not know everything. That is painfully evident in your commentary.
You repeatedly jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions, then write something insulting about me or dog food companies or veterinarians or whatever target is in your sights at that moment. It doesn't seem to even occur to you to get the facts first.
Had you been more open-minded, and considered that maybe you're not understanding the whole picture, maybe you wouldn't have made so many errors in judgement. But you are so convinced you know everything, you keep jumping to wrong conclusions, or those that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
There are too many examples to list. You didn't ask what kinds of food I'm feeding, and then listed a bunch of irrelevant brands and their estimated caloric contents. Whoopee.
Similarly, I specifically mentioned the Dr. Khuly post (which you apparently didn't read) where she talks about the calorie contents of foods not being available. I never meant to imply they weren't available anywhere. For goodness sakes, a person could look it up in the company's literature or in veterinary manuals (if those are readily available to him/her); write to the company and request that information; have the food tested in a lab; or do a Google search and see if the company now makes that information available online. I wasn't suggesting the information is not available anywhere. It's not available on the packaging, as it is in human food products. Making that information available to the public would be much more convenient and useful to the consumer.
It seems to never have occurred to you I could have meant anything other than what you hastily concluded. That is what is so repeatedly confounding and frustrating in attempting to have any kind of meeting of the minds with you, Kim. You keep jumping to these wild conclusions.
Additionally, I will say it was about 3 or 4 years ago, the last time my veterinarian and I did a search for high calorie foods. There are some brands that didn't even exist then. (For instance, the name switch from 'Prairie' to 'Intinct' didn't happen until around the time of the 2007 pet food recall.)
You did add this deliciously-absurd bit,
"Once again, a clarification is required - 'slander' and 'libel' are synonyms. They mean the same thing, except in a court of law, so unless you're considering pursuing legal action (for somethign which you still haven't been able to quote - and I do encourage you to quote me on even a single occasion during which I implied you were anything other than closeminded and perhaps misinformed). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_(disambiguation)."
...A statement which would make no sense to anyone who can read, since...
On December 8th, 2008 06:49:45 PM, you, Kim, are the one who wrote,
"I frequent this board a lot - and I don't appreciate the slander."
To which I replied, on December 9th, 2008 08:14:44 AM,
"(It's 'libel', by the way.)"
Your defensive assertion the words are interchangeable (they're not) and then accusation that I'm the one who's pushing for legal action, pretty much says it all. It's laughable to anyone who can read. YOU brought up the legal issue of slander, then backpeddaled about semantics once I corrected you on the terminology. You then accused me of being the one to bring it up in the first place. The fact that you cite a wikipedia page as your 'source' only further harms your credibility. (And is just too funny for words!)
Hmmmm... What else is particularly comical to me? I really can't go line by line, although there's a lot of juicy nonsense in there to lambaste. Oh, yeah, this part, where you wrote,
"In regards to your assertion that providing online training advice is 'downright irresponsible,' I suppose you would then extrapolate that same assertion to the online Virtual Vet Hospital here on this board?"
You supposed wrong. ...But, what else is new?
Insofar as the virtual hospital is concerned, I will say this: While any veterinarian giving actual veterinary advice without seeing the patient is going to open him/herself up for litigation, I don't see anything wrong with laypeople sharing their experiences. It's when they begin to counsel others that it can become a problem. Without real expertise, that advice isn't worth the paper it's not printed on, anyway. Sharing experiences, and encouraging others to do their own, credible research, is one thing. Giving advice without any expertise or having even seen or examined the individual is probably not helpful, and may even be irresponsible or dangerous.
Just as I clearly wrote, it is most assuredly extremely dangerous to give training advice to owners of dogs with serious behaviour issues, via the Internet. There is no argument about that. I don't have a single contemporary who would be willing to give training advice over the Internet, when it's a case of serious behaviour problems (especially aggression).
I just L-O-V-E-D when you continued on that tirade,
"I would suggest before you begin slinging mud you take a look around and see just who and where it may stick. Not only does this board welcome opposing viewpoints and discussion from all sides, we do generally offer advice to one another on occasion about a myriad of issues - from training to food to medical care."
"...We.."? This is your board, and you speak for everyone? Really? Huh. I didn't know that.
"Whether it's taken or not, it's always handled with respect..."
...mirror, mirror, on the wall...
"...And perhaps this is the part that you have misunderstood. Just because it's written here doesn't mean that I'm standing at your door, wagging my finger at you - I'm simply providing you the facts as I interpret them..."
Kim, you haven't even attempted to obtain a single "fact" about me, my dog, what we're feeding, etc., etc. You just keep jumping to conclusions. You are so full of yourself it seems to border on pathological at times. "...The facts as I interpret them"?!?
Marjorie December 10th, 2008 01:29:42 PM
Once again, you've resorted to insults rather than a rebuttal. I have better things to do.
Kim December 10th, 2008 01:51:31 PM
Priceless!
Marjorie December 10th, 2008 01:56:42 PM
... I don't understand why people argue over the internet. Its pointless.
Kathleen January 3rd, 2009 12:32:28 AM
Had to scroll down a bit to finally post. I guess the enthusiasm/opiniated nature is just indicative of how passionate we are about our pets, which is a wonderful thing, even if we can get a bit snippy with eachother. Anywho, I have a question about kittens. I have heard various things from various sources. I recently adopted 2 kittens - one is 6 weeks, the other is ten. I feed them both the same food (a mix of wet and dry kitten food as I am slowly transitioning them to dry, wet for a special treat). They are on Nutro Max Cat wet, Science Diet dry. This is at the recommendation of the shelter I got them from. The ten week old is a healthy weight and very active. The six week old is active as well, but is quite the tub. He eats as much, and often quite a bit more than the other. I don't think he is capable of grooming his lower half as a result of that big ol kitty tummy he is sporting. Is this healthy? I certainly don't want him to be malnourished, but I also don't want him becoming unhealthy at such a young age. Maybe I am just overconcerned - does anyone have advice in this? I would sincerely appreciate it! Thanks!
Ash April 29th, 2009 07:21:17 PM
My puppies breeder suggested to all of her puppy buyers hand feeding as a way to help with the bonding process. Owning very high energy dogs, I find training a good way to tire them out, so use meal times as training time. My dogs are lean and in great shape. My vet once suggested I talk to his clients with overweight pets about keeping them thin. Hand feeding does not necessarily equate to pampering or overfeeding.
tower defense May 8th, 2009 02:29:31 AM
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
sare July 2nd, 2009 11:23:36 PM
AVI to MOV MAC
sadf sf sd July 23rd, 2009 02:52:46 AM
Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.
AF September 16th, 2009 08:55:00 PM
I like to read this article. Really this article very useful for me. I'll wait for the next article
Khairuddin Syach Weblog and Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa
Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa September 27th, 2009 07:14:26 PM
MBT Shoes will be bought ine a conference call to discuss third quarter results on Nike Air Force 1 Eastern Time. The call will be webcast and can be accessed at the Investor Relations,Corporate Profile page of Nike Air Jordan web site The event will be archived on the Company's Nike Air Max web site and available for Nike Dunk SBtwelve months following the call.http://www.airjordanzone.com/specials.html
MBT shoes November 10th, 2009 05:42:04 AM
<p>I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it's really helpful.<br />Thanks for this nice post, i like it very much, write this article more. <a href="http://www.buddyugg.com"><strong>cheap ugg boots</strong></a> now!Free shipping!</p>
sdasdas November 12th, 2009 01:21:28 AM
<p>Good post, I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it's really helpful.<br /> <a href="http://www.buddyugg.com"><strong>cheap ugg boots</strong></a></p>
asdasd November 12th, 2009 01:23:00 AM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.
tiffany jewelry November 13th, 2009 12:02:52 AM
Rolex Watches<a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-air-king-c-1.html>rolex air king</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-datejust-c-9.html>rolex datejust</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-day-date-c-7.html>rolex day date</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-daytona-c-6.html>rolex daytona</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-gmt-c-11.html>rolex gmt</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html>rolex submariner</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-yachtmaster-c-13.html>rolex yachtmaster</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/a-lange-sohne-c-14.html>a lange sohne watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/alain-silberstein-c-23.html>alain silberstein watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/bell-ross-c-15.html>bell ross watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/breguet-c-16.html>breguet watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/breitling-c-17.html>breitling watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/bvlgari-c-25.html>bvlgari watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/cartier-c-18.html>cartier watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/omega-c-20.html>omega watches</a><a href=http://www.watchgy.com/patek-philippe-c-22.html>patek philippe watches</a>
replica rolex December 3rd, 2009 01:45:59 AM
I think this is what calls "bonding", that's why it calls man's bestfriend.
medical records company
medical record retrieval
medical recordsretrieval
jess December 12th, 2009 04:07:27 AM
Bonding to your pet is nice especially the dogs.
SEO Cheltenham
Marketing Cheltenham
james December 21st, 2009 07:15:58 PM
I love dogs and like to play with them but sometimes I get bitten. I need to build rapport with them more often.
lose weight in a week
burn the fat feed the muscle review
James December 22nd, 2009 03:15:12 AM
To edit Panasonic AVCHD, edit Canon AVCHD, edit Sony AVCHD, edit JVC AVCHD, this software is your best choice.Nowadays, AVCHD is the popular hd(high-definition) video format for DV(Digital-Video)like panasonic, sony, canon, JVC, etc.Panasonic AVCHD Editor is currently the most superior edit panasonic AVCHD software, which can edit your avchd video at your will. Panasonic AVCHD Editor is such a powerful editing software that it provides the intuitive editing function such as trimming, cropping, adjusting effect and adding watermark. No matter you are a professional or not, you can master it soon. So just download Panasonic AVCHD Editor to have a try.Friendly tips: AVCHD is a format for the recording and playback of high definition video. Video is compressed in MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 format, and audio is recorded in Dolby Digital.
cynthiachen December 29th, 2009 01:26:43 AM
Add Commment