What are a few options for the absolute best, regardless of price, feeds for pregnant and lactating bitches. I would like to hear both RAW and Kibble options.
Thanks
Printable View
What are a few options for the absolute best, regardless of price, feeds for pregnant and lactating bitches. I would like to hear both RAW and Kibble options.
Thanks
Jack's raw diet or Origin kibble.
No Quarter, I use a simple formula that keeps mom and her pups super healthy....
Quality kibble high in fat
1/2 cup goat milk
1 egg yolk only
Liquid vitamin mineral supplement.....Centrum
Golf ball size of ground beef.....70/30
I don't start using this until after the bitch shows she's pregnant....usually a month after being bred.....we had a bitch from Floyd that always lost like half of her litter to whatever reason. On this feeding plan she raised 21 of 22
Mix the goat milk and egg yolk together....add like 5cc of Centrum...mix and pour over kibble....add ground beef ball....proven to work and helps the pups to come healthy fat and shiny...
Calcium pills, vitamins and I put the bitch back on puppy food ,kibble is what i use while she is pregnant .I continue it a couple weeks while she is nursing.My litters have always been healthy and the runts catch up fast..I like to watch the runt and if he or she is gaining and showing good strength I'm ok..Just what I do.
No "kibble" is an ultimate food. That is an oxymoron.
My bad Jack.
While I agree, I also think there is an "Ultimate Raw" option and an "Ultimate Kibble" option. There is a good better best in all things, including Kibble.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
RAW is not ALWAYS an option for everyone in every situation. You yourself did not feed RAW for all 20+ years that you owned a dog and for someone to be "restricted" to Kibble feed either part time or full time, does not disqualify them from owning, keeping, feeding and breeding dogs.
I prefer RAW myself, I believe 100% it is the best way to feed a dog. However, at the end of the day, these are animals and a quality animal grade food is legal, morally acceptable and for the most part healthy. There is nothing wrong with it outside of being inferior to other methods of nutritional fundamentals.
This idea gets insane at times. Guys say raw, then they say it's gotta be raw organic, then raw wild. I have stated before and I'll state it again. Some of the top breeders (producers of winning bulldogs) in the world, feed Premium Ole Roy. Not endorsing the stuff myself, but it's a fact and their dogs live 12+ years on average, fertility isn't a problem and there are no apparent problems associated with this method. Do I believe RAW is better than Ole Roy - Yep - sure do. But I'm sure not going to think less of my fellow man who feeds it if he is doing right by his dogs in every other way. I think it's petty to do so.
Never understood what the saying, "Doing right by his dogs," means exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Does it mean the man performed a good deed while standing next to a dog he owned? :lol:
Seriously, though, as far as the thrust of what you said goes, knowing what a good dog is will put any man in the winner's circle, regardless of what they feed.
Feeding the best feed to poodles won't make them whip bulldogs.
Still, feeding Ol Roy basically boils down to one of two things: ignorance or laziness (or both).
The person either doesn't know any better, or he doesn't give a shit, one or the other.
Neither of which is something to be admired.
It has also been my observation that most of the people who feed the cheapest shit they can feed tend not to give much of a damn about their dogs in other respects either. These are the types who also skimp on many other things (housing, straw, etc.) They may know what a bulldog is, and they may know how to win, but 99x out of 100 most Ol' Roy feeders tend to be on the "dog butcher" side, not the "conscientious owner" side.
So you can do whatever 'you' want to do, and of course think whatever you want to think, but I will continue to think less of any man who feeds this shit to his dog.
Because at the end of the day he is either ignorant, or he doesn't give a damn, there is no other explanation as to why anyone would feed Ol' Roy.
But yeah, the man may also know what a badass dog looks like. Trouble is, he just doesn't give a shit about their long term health, only how he can get away with "keeping them around" as cheaply as possible.
Feeding the cheapest shit one can get away with feeding is certainly not something I will ever admire in a dogman.
I personally tend to reserve my own admiration for those who not only know what a good dog is, they also do their very best for them nutritionally and in their housing as well.
Jack
There's not a lot I disagree with here Jack. For the most part, I agree with most of what you say. Your are king dingaling when it comes to stating things in an irrefutable manner.
However, there are other reasons and one is that a man with 100+ dogs, winning dogs, with no internal parasites, external parasites and dogs housed properly and dogs that have been "done right by" in many many ways, may just be feeding PREMIUM Ole Roy (I know - I know - not much difference in this and regular Ole Roy and I agree - BUT it is better than regular) for the cost effectiveness (meaning monetary only) angle possible.
If I wanted to argue against your "ignorance" stance, I would argue, that a man, breeding, handling and selling winning dogs, is not at all ignorant to be saving in feed increasing his profit margin. Actually sounds smart to me.
If I were to argue against "laziness", I would say a man whose yard is immaculate, FULL OF WINNING DOGS that have won ALL OVER THE PLANET, and every single animal on the yard looks like a thoroughbred, would contradict him being lazy in any way at all, except in the area of feed. A yard with 40+ animals, all in perfect condition, with numerous winners and champions, zero fleas or worms contradicts a lazy dogman.
Simply b/c a man is perceived to be lazy in your eyes b/c of what he feeds does not constitute the man lazy. One aspect of many aspects (the dogs are only one aspect of most folk's lives) of one man's life does not constitute a lazy man. If that logic holds true then every man on the planet is one lazy SOB!
Lots of factors to consider.
Where you a lazy dogman when you were feeding Canidae?
I see this thread evolving, so I hope that's acceptable here today, but here's another consideration for different angles concerning nutrition and what to feed.
How many of you guys have seen people feed 50$ and higher a bag of dogfood or feed almost ideal RAW diet and the dogs look great and do great and live a normal life span with little to no problems, but sooner or later - get the cancer?
How many of you guys have seen people feed cheap ass kibble and the dogs look great and do great and live a normal life span with little to no problems, but sooner or later, THEY LIVE TO BE 15+ freakin years old?
I know there are exceptions to all rules. I really get that. I also believe, 100% that feeding a properly designed RAW diet is the best way to go fro all dogs. I think it is IDEAL - no question about it.
However, I question the expense and trouble at times when I see so much living breathing proof that in a LOT of ways (not all) that it seems to not matter much at all. I've seen stud dogs reach ROM status on some of the cheapest shit food imaginable along with bulldogs winning in top competition on corn flakes (remember's Bill's keep - LOL?) and then I've seen just the opposite on performance canine designed PERFECT nutrition plan.
So where's the line? Is it this? A man HAS to feed RAW or he's a lazy piece of shit OR A man simply do the best he can? If a man's best isn't RAW, but it's his best, is he lazy? Is he a sorry individual? There's no way the majority of this board feeds RAW. NO WAY! The majority of this board feeds Kibble. So is the majority of this board lazy? I don't think so
I believe it's good to have extremes, but the fact is - these are dogs. We have some folks acting like they should be fed better than our children. I have some dogs I love and I have some dogs I love what they do, but really, don't like as individuals too much at all. They all get the same treatment. They typically get the best I can afford and offer. I find that to be lessening as time goes by, so dogs are leaving my yard to be cared for in a way I know will benefit them and me both.
Just stuff for discussion - that's all.
Lol nice thread .For the record I feed Diamond Naturals, Chicken and Rice formula.I don't like the Lamb and Beef , so I give them a bag of 4 Health, Salmon and Potatoe for different taste.Switch every other bag.None of these feeds cost 50 a bag.My dogs look and feel good so I can't complain .
For the record, I wasn't directing what I said at you at all ... didn't think you fed Ol' Roy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaman
Bama - I use to feed RAW, no matter what, but due to my job and my lifestyle interfering or limiting the time I can spend with the dogs, I had to go to a kibble. I started with Blue and then down to Taste of Wild, then 4 Health. I then dropped to the lower 4 health and got terrible results. Went back to the completely grain free 4 Health food and my dogs look fantastic. It's 37.99 a bag (30lbs) and more than I want to pay and more than I paid for RAW, but I don't have a choice.
I have too many dogs. Four of my dogs we relocated just this week to allow me more time per dog, but sometimes, life sneaks up on you and you have to do what is best for you and your family first. These dogs, as much as they fascinate me, are not THE priority in my life. One of them yes, but not THE ONE!
Good day
The man simply is selfish, and has too many dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
In a selfish sense, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Smart for himself, smart for his wallet, but NOT doing his best for the dogs.
You're simply defending your hero, nothing more.
There are two subjects you're confusing: (1) what's convenient/cost-effective and (2) what is BEST for the dogs.
The subject of this thread is ULTIMATE (best) :idea:
If you want to start a new thread about feeding cheap shit as being more cost-effective, that's fine.
But on the subject of BEST practices, Ol' Roy and this man's feeding methods don't belong here.
You just said it: he's lazy when it comes to feeding optimally.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
He is not even trying to feed "okay"; he is feeding PURE SHIT.
Why does he need 100 dogs that he feeds pure shit?
You don't need 100 dogs to have good dogs. You don't need 100 dogs period.
I have not been in as long, but I have bred winners all over the world with a lot fewer dogs than that.
You're rationalizing, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Just because a man is an icon in the game, does NOT mean he's a flawless human being or actually does his very best on every level.
It means he's been around long enough to know what a good dog looks like, bred a lot of winners, etc., but that does NOT mean it's "a good thing" to be a dog on this man's yard.
Sure, there are worse yards to be on.
There are also FAR better yards to be on :idea:
The last thing I would EVER want to do would be sentenced to be 1 of 100 dogs on a chain in Texas, fed Ol' Roy dogfood for the rest of my God-forsaken, human-deprived life.
By contrast, there are people whose yards (if I was a dog) I would be "delighted" to be on.
WHY? Because I would be WORKED WITH and FED TOP NUTRITION ... not be one of dozens strewn all over the place on a dog-farm.
No. That is your moronic parallel, showing that you understand nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
I never, at ANY time fed pure shit feed like Ol Roy.
I did, however, feed Diamond when I was GREEN and IGNORANT.
Then, as I learned, and after watching enough dogs fall apart, I CARED ENOUGH to start investigating how much FEED affects my dogs ... and I tried other feeds (Abady, etc.), and I made the switch to Canidae.
You see, back then, 15 years ago, Canidae was top nutrition, and that was part of my own stages of evolution TRYING TO FEED BETTER ... going from Diamond to Canidae (which used to be top nutrition, now it too is junk).
No one will EVER accuse me of deliberately doing the same stupid, sub-standard shit ... for 40-50 years in a row ... that is not "evolution" that is STAGNATION :idea: :idea:
When I realized how important nutrition was, I studied as much as I could.
When Canidae switched ingredients, I again switched to Nature's Variety ... TRYING TO FEED THE BEST FEED I COULD ... until I realized RAW was the way to go. Period.
And I have been feeding RAW ever since.
More than that, in the exact OPPOSITE of laziness, I WROTE BOOKS, PRODUCED MAGAZINES, AND PRODUCED DVDS trying to **HELP OTHER DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS ALL OVER THE WORLD**
So please don't compare me in ANY WAY to some lazy old man, who's fed the same sub-standard shit for 50 years straight, NEVER tried to improve, and can only write a book about "himself."
There are not many people who are as UN-lazy as I am ;)
Thanks,
Jack
You do have a choice. You could get up earlier or get rid of your dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Good for you. This is the right solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Right. Things can change.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
And the good dogman does what's best for his dogs, while the selfish dogman (dog hoarder) keeps WAY more dogs than he can tend to properly, feeds them all shit food, and gives them no life whatsoever.
Dropping down one's level of care "a little" (like what you're doing) is perfectly fine and understandable ... but just hoarding dozens and dozens of dogs, feeding them the cheapest shit they can survive on, is pretty wrong IMO.
Good dogs deserve better.
Jack
You are correct, I do have a choice. My bad. I am choosing to NOT feed RAW at this time b/c it does not fit my priorities in life at the moment.
I too think hoarding dogs is wrong and they deserve a good life, won't argue with you at all. Really not arguing with you about anything really. I don't condone feeding cheaply and am not defending it, I just don't think someone feeding dog food to dogs is a crime nor do I think it defines a person.
You missed your mark on assuming who I know. It's not GH. I assume you thought of him b/c of the blood I prefer, the "Texas" comment and the reference to a book. It is not him at all. Matter of fact, he has upped his quality of feed over the 20 years I've known him and feeds better now than ever as he's under 40 dogs now. The 100+ yard is a millionaire NOT in Texas and the other yard I referenced, of about 40 dogs, has more international winners and champions than any single yard of anyone on this board. So, while you assume incorrectly this assumption can lead to misconceptions about a particular individual (GH) that is not true at all. No offense taken on my end, but I did want to set the record straight.
Have a nice day!
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Every single person who does not do their best for their dogs has their reasons, some valid, some not, and all within the context of "how low" do they go.
"Feeding dog food" to dogs is such a simple way of putting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
The question thus becomes IS IT really "dog" food?
My position is that corn gluten meal, soy pulp, sorghum, beet pulp, etc. can NOT properly be called "dog food" by even the loosest definition. There is no known species of dog anywhere on earth that seeks such ingredients out in its natural foraging efforts for food ... so, really, hoarding a group of 100 dogs together and feeding them PURE SHIT (ingredients they were never meant to eat, all of which are known to cause health breakdown) *IS* a crime IMO, chaining dogs down and forcing them to eat crap they really can't process.
So we simply disagree here.
IMO, if you're going to call yourself a DOG man, and confine a group of dogs on your property, the term seems easier to say when describing a man who FEEDS THE BEST, SPECIES-APPROPRIATE FOOD HE CAN to those dogs, as opposed to trying to use this term for the lazy **** who feeds Ol' Roy.
My bad, then, and glad to hear that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Being a millionaire doesn't make a person a good dogman (or owner of dogs). One of the worst, most brutal dog-butchers I know is a multi-multi-millionairs ... who kills, culls, and leaves dogs down to die on a consistent basis ... doesn't give a damn, means nothing to him. Millionaires are often the worst, most despicable dogmen at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Great, the guy who feeds Ol' Roy has multiple international winners. Like I said, I know many highly-competitive dogmen who feed crap feed. They tend to be on the "dog butcher" side, and not on the good caregiver side. The old man whose property I used to rent won more fights than probably everyone on this board (plus your friends) put together ... but that didn't mean he was a good feeder or knew the first damned thing about nutrition (or cared).
It meant he knew what a good dog looked like, had the money to buy it, pay someone else to condition it, and bet whatever he felt like betting, damned near every weekend of his life since the mid-1960s.
Again, didn't make him an optimal caregiver, it made him a highly-active, well-experienced dogman, who didn't give much of a shit what he fed the dogs he had spread out over 5 different dog yards.
Jack
Jack do think the APBT was ever wild or do you think he was created by man ?
This is a sophomoric question.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaman
A pit bull's biological need to eat primarily raw, whole animals is the same as the wild dogs'.
Just because man made controlled breedings to eventually create different dog "types" does not mean the resulting animals are not still DOGS, with the same nutritional requirements as dogs.
Man did not turn wild dogs into cows, deer, or some new and different species of grain-eating animal.
All of the various breeds man created are still different breeds of meat-eating DOGS.
Jack
Lol Jack I don't disagree with you either .I really just wanted to see how fast you were lol..JK
Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaman
I just gave you a new avatar too ... how's that for fast, lol
Lol too fast for me jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Hope you don't mind me changing it back !
:lol:
soph·o·mor·ic
\ˌsäf-ˈmȯr-ik, -ˈmär- also ˌsȯf- or ˌsä-fə- or ˌsȯ-fə-\
adjective
: having or showing a lack of emotional maturity : foolish and immature
Full Definition
1 :conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature <a sophomoric argument>
2 :of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <sophomoric humor>
LOL....talk about an evolution within a topic.
Jack, your last reply to mine is one that I agree with you on, I think on all of it.
I agree with everything you say on this topic. It's just I don't want to classify someone as a POS b/c he doesn't feed as well as he could or should.
I personally don't associate with any POS dogmen. I think I do some things better than most I know and I know some I know do better than me in different areas of the dog.
There just isn't any perfect dogman out there. I have another friend who is as good as any, especially back in the good old days of the sport and he feeds around 30 and yes, it's kibble and it's as immaculate and professional an operation as any on the planet. His kibble is over $2/lb, but it is kibble. While I agree he could improve in feed, I have no criticism to offer b/c the WHOLE of the operation is so close to perfect.
I get you on millionaires too, but not all millionaires are butchers and assholes. Lots are, but not this one. Quality operation
Good discussion - to all - have a great day
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
A conversation evolves even more when a person invents things that were never said.
Can you show me where I called anyone a "POS" for feeding kibble?
I called Ol' Roy "pure shit" (and it is) ... and I called the people who feed it "lazy" (because they are) ... but I don't believe I ever called everyone who feeds kibble "pieces of shit."
Hell, sometimes I get lazy too and feed kibble for a couple weeks :lol:
I don't think this makes me a "piece of shit," but I do acknowledge that the reason I downgrade to kibble sometimes is because I am too lazy to go through the extra effort of feeding raw.
So it helps in any discussion to stick to what's actually said, and not invent things that were never said ;)
Jack
I can't lie. I cringe when my dogs eat kibble. The idea that it's good for dogs because it's labeled dog food is crazy.
What he said :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Well then Jack, I owe you an apology. I hate for anyone to do that and hate it even worse when I do. I do apologize. I hate saying something someone said and it's not reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
My bad
For the record, to everyone on this thread, I do not believe Kibble is BEST for any dog.
I believe, 100%, RAW feeding programs, when designed correctly, is the ULTIMATE most beneficial means to feed any dog. I really do.
I also believe there are different grades of Kibble and that most of it does indeed suck.
I was simply swapping ideas for conversation purposes only.
Still think overall, this was a good discussion
Have a great day
No worries amigo, it was a fun discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
I appreciate the post above, as it saved me the hassle of cutting & pasting your previous comments (on other threads) lauding the benefits of raw ... and proudly stating you would never again feed kibble. You sure did sound convincing in your commitment to feed raw exclusively for good :mrgreen:
I am sorry your situation has changed, but enjoy pouring those "little brown pellets" in front of your dogs again ... knowing you would never do such a thing to your kids or yourself ... but that somehow it's "okay" to do this to your loyal happy dogs ... who will never complain and who will never know the difference.
Unfortunately, however, you do know the difference ...
Jack
a lot of people in dogs like to shoot you a crazy look if you compare dogs to human beings. But this is more about athletes than anything. No athlete in the world eats that shit in the off season and especially when in preparation for a huge sporting event. If it was optimal, dogs wouldn't be the only thing eating it. Most of these animals take part in events that are so many levels beyond what humans could ever participate in. If you were going to compete in something even remotely similar to what you ask of your animals... How would you like to be fed? Rice all off season before I pump you full of the cheapest source of protein I can find for 6 weeks... Work the hell out of you and expect you to kick some ass out there. Hell no. Any real professional treats his body like it is his everything and is very conscious of anything and everything they eat. there was a huge boxing event last week, I'm curious what those guys diets looked like to prepare them for 12 rounds.
Have a great weekend Jack
:-bdQuote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
I would certainly add a lot of salmon oil to the bitch's diet, here is an interesting article about the benefits of fatty acids (i.e. fish oil) --
http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFil...on_and_dha.pdf
Impact of Maternal and Post-Weaning Nutrition on Puppy Trainability
RL Kelley*, AJ Lepine, MR Shyan-Norwalt. JR Burr, and GA Reinhart The Iams Company, 6571 State Route 503N, Lewisburg, OH 45338.
Introduction: Every breeder has the desire to produce a litter of healthy puppies that grows and develops to exemplify the characteristics of their breed. Unfortunately, this task is far easier to describe than to accomplish. Numerous factors, both reproductive and non-reproductive, influence the outcome of a breeding and ultimately the health and nature of the puppies. Reproductive factors include genetics (breed and genetic worth of parental selections), maternal age, health and maternal ability of the bitch, the size of the litter, and the bitch’s nutritional status. Non-reproductive factors include the environment in which the litter is born, the level and type of socialization that the puppies receive, the home environment, the ability of the owner to teach (train) expected behaviors, and nutritional support. Although nutrition remains important throughout the puppy’s life, it is especially critical during the early developmental windows of puppy growth (pre-, neo-, and post-natal). This manuscript will focus on the impact of maternal and post-weaning nutrition on the puppy’s learning ability with particular emphasis on essential fatty acids.
Maternal Nutrition: Numerous factors have been shown to impact the reproductive process in the canine. Maternal breed, health, age, reproductive history, and nutrition can all impact the outcome of a breeding and influence the health and well-being of the offspring.1 Historically, studies in canine nutrition have focused primarily on growth (puppy diets) and adult maintenance using nutrient classification (protein level, fat level) comparisons with little attention given to specific nutrients or more specialized lifestyles and life stages.
Nutritional management of the bitch during pregnancy and lactation is not a stagnant system, nor is it “one size fits all”. In fact, the nutritional needs of a bitch will be dependent upon her breed, the stage of pregnancy or lactation, and her litter size. While each bitch must be managed on an individual basis, there are general guidelines that can increase the likelihood of success for all bitches.
Many breeders fail to appreciate the nutritional demands placed on the bitch during pregnancy and lactation. Much as an umbrella protects someone during a rainstorm, optimal nutrition will help protect the bitch and her progeny from the various metabolic and environmental stresses that will occur during pregnancy and lactation. During the reproductive process, a bitch's diet must support 3 areas: 1) her body maintenance, 2) the growth of her reproductive tissues, and 3) the growth and development of her offspring. Compiled, the total nutritional requirement during pregnancy and lactation can increase several fold (3-5) above the bitch’s normal maintenance requirements.
A simple way to understand the relationship between a bitch, her puppies, and her diet is to think of the bitch as a reservoir, her diet as the tributaries, and her puppies as the down-stream water flow. The down-stream flow (nutrients for the puppies) can come from either the tributaries (maternal diet) directly or supplemented by reducing the level of the reservoir (bitch’s body tissues). So how does a breeder guarantee that the proper plane of nutrition is provided to the bitch? The truth is there is no guarantee. However, better breeders will strive to provide optimal nutrition by understanding the current knowledge of the subject.
Effect of Reproduction of on Maternal Essential Fatty Acid Status: A report by Kelley (2000) suggests that maintaining bitches on a diet containing the appropriate level of both n-6 and n-3 fatty acids increases litter size and decreases still-births.1 Additional efforts demonstrate that reproductive activity (parity number and litter size) reduces maternal essential fatty acids (EFA) stores in a linear fashion (Figure 1), particularly for the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3).2 Collectively, these findings suggest that maternal nutrient status is sensitive to diet and that dietary shortages could be a contributing factor for reduced maternal reproductive performance with increasing parity number.
Later efforts established that reductions in maternal EFA status could be attenuated via dietary intervention.3 A study utilizing 60 purpose bred Beagle bitches of similar genetics compared the effect of 3 diets differing in fat profiles on the EFA status of both the bitch and her pups and maternal reproductive performance over 4 sequential parities. This study produced 3 critical findings: (1) while maternal EFA status were influenced by the stage of reproduction, any reduction in maternal EFA status could be minimized by supplying the appropriate levels of both n-6 and n-3 fatty acids, (2) maternal EFA status, including DHA, could be maintained across multiple parities, and (3) puppy DHA status was dependent upon the maternal pre-breeding DHA status and maternal dietary DHA supply.
Figure 1. Effect of parity number on maternal EFA status in the canine.
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1
2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
CTL* 1 2 3 4 5
Parity Number
*CTL denotes nulliparous group (Parity 0)
EFA Status
Effect of Maternal and Post-Weaning Dietary DHA in the Canine:
Numerous studies in several species have demonstrated the benefits of DHA regarding the development and function of neurological tissues (see Lauritzen at al., 2001 for review).4 However until a recent study by The Iams Company, little attention had been given to DHA and trainability in the canine. These recent efforts examined the effect of supplying various DHA levels in both the maternal (throughout pregnancy and lactation) and puppy (post-weaning) diets. Thus the impact of the treatment was considered to span the entire development of a puppy through 16 weeks of age. To assess the effect of dietary DHA on puppy trainability, 28 litters were produced across 5 replications to undergo testing in a standard T-Maze between weeks 10 and 15 of age. All bitches were sourced from a single Beagle colony and had similar nutritional profiles and reproductive histories. Selected bitches (28 ) were assigned across 3 dietary treatment groups at breeding and maintained throughout gestation and lactation on their assigned diet. Bitches were fed ad libitum and diet was the exclusive source of nutrition. Fifty-eight puppies from these litters (20 Low DHA, 19 Medium DHA and 19 High DHA) were selected from these litters at weaning for trainability assessment through 16 weeks of age. All puppies were weaned onto and fed their respective maternal diet throughout the duration of the study. All puppies were fed based on energy needs to achieve a normal growth curve. Assessment of red blood cell (RBC) membranes demonstrated that treatments were effective in influencing the DHA status of both the bitch and puppies (nursing and post-weaning. Puppies received 1 week of training in the T-Maze at 9 weeks of age and were then tested twice daily (5 days/week) for 5 weeks. A Success Criterion in the maze was defined as a puppy achieving 8/10 trials correct for 2 consecutive sessions. A significant (P < 0.05) effect of dietary DHA level was observed with the greatest percentage of puppies (68%) achieving at least 1 success criterion when fed the High DHA diet compared to the Low DHA group, which produced the fewest successes (30%). While success rate increased in a dose-dependant manner, puppies from the Medium DHA group (42%) did not differ from the High or Low DHA group (Figure 2). These data demonstrate the importance of dietary lipid sources (fatty acids) on neurological function (trainability) and nutrient status in the canine during critical developmental periods.
Conclusion: Genetics and environment are key contributors to the development of the puppy and ultimately determine the characteristics that will be expressed as an adult. Environment can be continually modified (for better or worse) throughout growth and development, however, an animal’s genetic potential is, to a degree, fixed at the time of conception. Traditionally, nutrition has been characterized as the supply of necessary building blocks for organ and system growth. Clearly this remains vitally important; however, it is becoming increasingly evident that nutrition can also significantly impact the achievement of genetic potential in the puppy in ways not previously appreciated. Such is the case with increased puppy trainability with appropriate dietary concentrations of DHA. The benefits of improved trainability can have long-lasting effects by strengthening the owner-companion animal bond and thus increasing the likelihood of a puppy’s successful integration of the puppy into various environments, work or households. While better nutrition cannot overcome inferior genetics and/or training programs, it certainly should not be a puppy’s limiting factor. This clearly points to the importance of continuing to expand nutritional horizons beyond the current dogma and identify opportunities to fulfill the puppy’s genetic potential through optimal nutritional support.
Figure 2. Effect of Maternal and Post- Weaning Diet on Puppy Trainability
70 60
% of Puppies 50 Achieving a 40
Success Criteria
0
68.4 + 11
42.1 + 11
b
30.0 + 11
ab
a
30 20 10
Low Med High
Maternal DHA Level Differ subscripts denote significant difference at P < 0.05
References
1. Kelley, RL. Canine Reproduction: What should we expect? In: Reinhart, G.A., Carey D.P., eds. Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, Volume III. Wilmington, OH: Orange Frazier Press, 2000; 225-242.
2. Kelley, RL. Canine reproductive management: factors influencing litter size. [Annual Conference / Society for Theriogenology], 2001: 263-272.
3. Kelley, RL., AJ Lepine, J Ruffing, T. Vennard, and GA Reinhart. Impact of maternal dietary DHA and reproductive activity on DHA status in the canine. [Proceeding from 6th Congress of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids], 2004, 149.
4. Lauritzen, L., HS Hansen, MH Jorgensen and KF Michaelson. 2001. The essentiality of long chain n-3 fatty acids in relation to development and function of the brain and retina. Progress in Lipid Research 2001; 40: 1-94.
*********************************