Bitches not getting pregnant - Page 2

Pedigree Database

 
Rik

by Rik on 03 February 2021 - 14:02

I have to disagree on feeding a vet recommended food. 99% of vets offices (in the U.S.) I have been in promote Science Diet, which unless something has changed has (or did have the last time I bothered reading the ingredients) a very poor list.

most kibble is, after all, processed raw left overs with some cheap vegetable and fillers thrown in. unless the processing somehow nullifies the added hormones and antibiotics, I'm not seeing how it is better.

I do think there are high quality processed foods, but they still are based on raw to start.

one very popular kibble I used actually had hair, from using hides, sticking out from the bits. guess they didn't cook it hot enough.

arra

by arra on 10 February 2021 - 19:02

raw food is sure the best, you need a good mix, it has to be with organ meat and green tripe from beef. Chicken and turkey necks are o.k . I only feed raw to my puppies, never have a problem and certainly don't have any fertility problems in my dogs. I do think that food is most important but also how you keep your dogs. Females should be around males and should be kept in good shape, physically and mentally . No stress and not fat:)

Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 11 February 2021 - 02:02

It used to be that whenever you went into a vets surgery over here you saw they were promoting Hills Science; then about 10 or a dozen years ago (maybe longer) they virtually all changed to having Royal Canin on their shelves. Currently it seems a bit more mixed, but then I don't get as many opportunities to visit different vets' practices these days. But its certainly food for thought as to which company is offering the greater incentives !

And maybe they at the one point just got the message that however good for particular problems Science Diet was, nobody had animals that would actively choose to eat it.

I long for the good ol' days of 30 - 40 years ago when you could visit a UK vet and not be faced with a wall of merch.

Dunno about this supposed connection between what you feed and fertility rates. I have always thought (and, as far as I can be sure, seen evidence that) any decent dietary regime that suits your dogs and your pocket would result in puppies being born; that how many and what quality of puppies depends mainly on genetics, + good environmental management (including - but not solely - what & how you fed); and that ill-fed, malnourished bitches taken into the pounds still managed to produce plenty of puppies, even if many were not very healthy puppies !


by ValK on 11 February 2021 - 22:02

Hundmutter
genetics are permanently forming/changing process and is derivative of prolonged environmental conditions, including consumed type of food.
if from generation to generation have been fed by certain processed food and did born and live all life in greenhouse environment, you cannot expect from later descendants the genetic qualities on par to their distant ancestors, whose food and life was very much different.
Arra is absolutely correct - there are no packed food which can beat natural food even if one, from human point, is of lowest quality.


by jillmissal on 11 February 2021 - 22:02

I have to disagree on feeding a vet recommended food. 99% of vets offices (in the U.S.) I have been in promote Science Diet, which unless something has changed has (or did have the last time I bothered reading the ingredients) a very poor list.

Ingredients aren't nutrition; nutrients are nutrition. 

The only reason you think those ingredients are "poor" is due to marketing from boutique companies. 

 

most kibble is, after all, processed raw left overs with some cheap vegetable and fillers thrown in

utterly false and again, only an idea due to marketing propaganda from competing companies. 

 

I do think there are high quality processed foods, but they still are based on raw to start.

Not sure what this means; everything is raw until it's cooked. And there is zero evidence to support any claims about benefits to raw diets. 


by jillmissal on 11 February 2021 - 22:02

It used to be that whenever you went into a vets surgery over here you saw they were promoting Hills Science; then about 10 or a dozen years ago (maybe longer) they virtually all changed to having Royal Canin on their shelves.

The two brands are very, very similar and it's just whatever each clinic decides to carry. In recent years RC has expanded their business line which is why you see RC more than you used to. 

The two brands are, despite all the hysterial attempts at debunking, the gold standard when it comes to canine nutrition. 


by ValK on 11 February 2021 - 22:02

jillmissal
let your dog to be a judge.
when making your meal try to cook little more than you need and share it with you dog for awhile .
after that give to your dog to choose between a bowl with food from your table and a dog's dry food and let us to know result.
same experiment you can make with totally raw food if you willing to go into effort to obtain it.
b.t.w. arra have mentioned green tripe. in natural environment on the carcass of killed herbivore prey the first thing predators getting to is a belly and its content.

Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 12 February 2021 - 03:02

Jill, I have no real objections to RC, in fact have used the breed specific variety; I DO think it relies on that reputation to be a bit overpriced however. And I really do not enjoy being 'told' what food to buy by a vet. Most gp vets are not skilled nutritionists, so they are just swallowing what they are told, right or wrong, too.

As for Hills, I literally, in a lifetime in dogs, have only met about 2 people who said their dogs would willingly eat the stuff when prescribed it. Cats ditto. None of the dogs I have fed wanted to eat it, at least initially. Some gave in, some never did. Somewhere in the process the manufacturer really needs to investigate palatability, because switching an animal to the food can really be a life-saver in certain medical conditions, I know that.

About half the owners who said this are experienced and qualified animal owners, not beginners or 'furbaby moms & dads', so they know what they are about when switching diets. I realise this is anecdotal rather than empirical, but it is a view which is also often said / posted by people who are complete strangers to me, on sites like this - so it is hard to credit they are all imagining their pets' preferences.

 

ValK  I don't think the original question got into the genetic qualities of puppy versus puppy; just the non-appearance of ANY puppies.


Rik

by Rik on 12 February 2021 - 09:02


if rice, barley, beet pulp, sorghum, gluten meal, soybean are the "gold standard " of dog food ingredients then I defer as I'm not a nutrition scientist and I don't think it beneficial to debate the issue with anyone else who is also not one.

and of course all meats start off as raw, isn't that what I said? you said raw was bad, but I guess it becomes good when processed?

talk about not understanding, yea, I'm right there with you.

Rik


Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 12 February 2021 - 11:02

Rik, strictly speaking Jillmissal is maintaining there is no evidence to prove Raw diets are 'better'; that is not claiming Raw is 'bad' for dogs, just that it isn't necessarily an improvement in their diet. I am inclined to agree with that myself; I think the only time raw feeding is demonstrably better is if it is consistently done REALLY carefully and knowledgeably. Too many owners and too many firms selling 'raw' products don't do that, so they waste any small advantage they might have gained. And yes there are some risks. But there are always risks.

However I agree with you about foods' origins; there is nothing difficult to understand about every ingredient being raw to start with, is there ? Even if elements were to be 'cooked up' from chemical ingredients in a test tube, those ingredients would still have had to start in a natural / raw state somewhere, 'cos everything does. While I don't necessarily agree the cooking process improves anything in terms of content - because it is provable that cooking reduces some vitamin levels etc - I don't believe it is inevitable that all cooking destroys all the valuable content of any food; and it can certainly improve other factors such as palatibility, storage & longevity, clean handling etc. (Which is why hoomans turned to cooked foods as soon as fire was available, and are not turning back in convinced droves to a completely raw fresh diet !)






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top