[OtherGuy]

I'd find a new Vet, as there is no evidence that Pano is negatively associated with the high-protein/high-fat diets that dogs thrive on.

While Dr Tim's makes some far better than average kibble formulas, the Kinesis kibble is not one of them. It only clocks in at 26 (protein)/16 (fat).This is a rather poor nutritional analysis. 26% is at the bare minimum level of protein established in the veterinary literature where dogs suffer muscle tears and slow recover from injury due to lack of protein. 16% fat is woefull inadequate. Dr Tim's targets this ration at dogs who are couch pototoes (literally). If you feed this little fat you will de-tune a dog and rob it of its natural vitality and stamina. This is because far too many calories in this type formula come from carbohydrates.

Look at the higher-end Dr Tim's products (like Momentum at 35/25). These (correctly) claim that they improve VO2 Max. What this means is that dogs fed these sorts of high-protein/high-fat (low carb) diets have dramatically higher aerobic capacity. These are not just marketing claims, as dramatically higher VO2 Max scores have been verified in scientific studies.

So ask yourself what's your goal? If you desire a fit, healthy, vibrant dog who has plenty of stamina, then feed a high-protein/high-fat diet. If you want a dog that sleeps all day and is de-tuned, then feed a high-carb diet.

That a Vet told you that an already high-carb formula had too much fat and too much protein and suggested an even lower quality food in contravention of all known veterinary science is most unfortunate.

I feed raw, as I feel it is the best means of eliminating carbs and feeding a natural diet that canines were shaped by evolution to thrive on. Were I feeding a kibble I'd look at ones like Dr Tim's Momentum and Fusion.

One problem with Dr Tim's is the lack of a red meat source. I'd supplement.

Since high-protein/high-fat rations have higher calories per cup than high carb diets you feed less food. Feeding less food (by volume) is kinder to the dog, off-sets (in-part) the higher costs, and results in far less waste that needs to be picked up.

The more you can reduce or eliminate carbohydrates from your pup's diet the better off that dog will be.

Best,

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

Thanks for the advice Bill, I did have him on Kinesis GF before which is higher in protein and fat. That said, his pano did get better after switching to Annamaet Encore so I'm not sure what made it better or if it was a coincidence but something made it better.

So would feeding Luke Momentum (or Orijen etc.) not be too much for him if I'm not working him like an Iditarod Dog?

Pano usually self-resolves, so getting better is the normal course of events. There is no support in the veterinary literature for the idea that low-protein /low-fat/high-carb diets cure or ameliorate the effect of pano.

Feeding Luke a food like Momentum (if you don't chose raw) is the best choice you could make. The difference would be that you'd feed far less food (fewer calories) than one would feed to an Iditarod dog.

You will see a difference in stamina and energy. Dogs convert fat into energy with great efficiency and it is sustainable energy. I think many people don't actually desire vital, fit, energetic dogs and unconsciously "drug" their dogs with high-carb rations that cut their dog's energy.

Even Dr Tim's website says of (regular) Kinesis that is is "for the dog that prefers to scale the couch instead of Mount Everest." Left out of that description is that feeding high carb foods is the driver of lethargy. I see that the GF version is 32/18. Better, but I'd like to see fat over 20%, and at 35/25 the calories from carbohydrates would be about as low as one could hope for in a kibble.

My only caution would be that dogs need to be conditioned to burning fat as their primary energy source, and that it would be wise to slowly transition over to such a kibble (as opposed to making an abrupt switch).

With the higher-fat diet you should also see a considerable improvement in coat condition.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

That's interesting, and seems to comport with most of the information I have read. I'll have to think about switching him to that. He does already have a ton of energy though so I'm a little concerned he'll have an amount of energy that is unmanageable for me until he is grown and I can run him more.

What would you consider a slow transition? A week?

At six months you can let him run a good deal. On foot it is very difficult for any but extreme atheletes to stress an athletic breed like a Border Collie.

I'd probabally take a transition even slower than that. The reasons are the pancreas needs to get used to producing different balance of enzymes to digest high-fat than high-carb meals and there are even intercellular changes with mitochondria that get activated to deliver sustained glycogen supplies.

The easy answer for the transition to a high-protein/high-fat kibble is to watch the stools. If they get begin to get soft, slow down.

Do keep in mind that fat has 2.25 times the number of calories per gram than either protein or carbohydrates. So as you transition you will also want to significantly reduce the amount you feed. Do not be alarmed if the dog begins to drop weight from a fat layer. This is to be expected along with an increase in muscle mass. It might sound conterintuitive, but a high-fat diet will help sculpt a lean-muscular body.

The results will be somewhat undercut if—as I presume since he coming out a shelter—Luke has been neutered. Still he will likely grow leaner and stronger than typical dogs and you may get questions about him being skinny (assuming you resist over-feeding), but just know that most folks are not used to seeing fit and athletic dogs. Just do watch the amounts fed. Don't be alarmed by the positive changes you will see.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

Oh wow I would not have considered transitioning that slowly. I'll keep that in mind and watch his stool.

I'll talk with the new vet and see if he think I can start running him more. That would definitely help get some of his energy out. He gets quite nippy when he has excess energy.

Also he is not neutered. I rescued him too young to be neutered. Thy wanted me to neuter him at 5 months but I was uncomfortable doing it that young from the information I had read. I am going to wait until he is 12 months to neuter him.

Good news on being intact.

Please do yourself (and especially Luke) a favor and look at the 3 major studies on spay/neuter. They are the Rottweiller study, the Golden Retreiver study and the Vizsla study. When you read about the catastrophic negative health consequences (mental, emotional, and physical) I think you will reconsider you plan to neuter Luke.

If circumstances require he be sterilized you might search for a vet who can perform a vascectomy (which spares the critically sex-hormone producing organs). Not many vets are trained to do this simple procedure, so (depending on local conditions) it might take a hunt. But what a blessing it would be for Luke's future health.

There is a crisis brewing inside veterinary medicine as the standard operating procedure of routine spay neuter keeps proving to have major negative health consequences in scientific studies (something those of us knowlegable about dogs knew from experience).

Most "civilians" are not aware of these studies but it is causing growing anguish and concern among informed Veterinarians. Read the studies yourself.

Neutering increases fear and anxiety (the number one cause of behavioral problems, including biting). It drives up cancer rates. It drives up obesity rates. It drives up hip dysplasia rates. And it drives up tears of the Canine Cruciate Ligaments (CCL) that are now epidemic in dogs.

Repairing a CCL runs between 3 and 6 thousand dollars per side (US) and they usually happen in pairs (as a dog that blows one side usually blows the other) and despite surgery the dogs are never the same.

I don't mean to sound alarmist, but you will see a great deal of pro spay/neuter propaganda that fails to inform dog owners of the known risks that are confirmed in the scientific literature.

As to the slow transition to a high fat diet, as I've mentioned it is due significant metabolic changes (restorations) that happen with fat burning vs carb burning. It is more than a change from one typical high carb kibble to another high carb kibble.

Too often one reads of people saying they put their dogs on a high-protein high-fat kibble and that their dogs "couldn't handle it" when the root problems were a lack of transition and overfeeding. So the advice is to set you up for success.

Best,

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

I just read those papers. That's some scary stuff. Since I rescued him from a shelter I may be legally required to neuter him at some point. I'll have to look into that. I'll definitely delay it as long as possible though. And I'll look into the vasectomy. I didn't know that was a possibility for dogs. Thanks again for the help I appreciate it.

I have always had dogs in my family when I was growingg up but this is the first dog that I have ever bought and been responsible for. So I'm trying to learn all I can.

It is scary stuff. Left out of studies is how much normal sex-hormones contribute to maintaining lean stong bodies (which is vital for good health) and what a great effect they have on dog's emotional well-being. You are very wise to inform yourself and Luke is a lucky dog to have an owner like you!

If the rescue insists on neutering I'd suggest negotiating for a vascectomy instead. That would fill the purpose of ensuring perminent sterization (ending any chance of unwanted reproduction) while protecting Luke's health.

I respect the work of those who work in shelters, but on the issue of requiring the most radical of all solutions to birth control there needs to be push-back from adopters in support of alternatives that don't cause the health risks and diminished physical vigor that is inevitable with castration.

I wish you all the good fortune in the world moving forward. If I can help you further it would be my great pleasure.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

Is there not a significant risk of intact male dogs taking off when they smell a bitch in heat? I've never been around an intact dog. Just female cats, and they kind of go crazy.

Agreeing with Jenny (above). I've kept intact male dogs since I was a kid (since 1970) and have never had an issue. Granted, my dogs have always been kept in yards with secure fencing and are trained and supervived. Plus relatively few females in the area I live in are kept intact.

An intact male will be interested in a female who is in heat (or is recently post-heat). I have never had a dog go "crazy" in such circumstances, but they are interested and would copulate given the chance.

One has to be realistic about how one keeps dogs. Insecure fencing with lack of supervision in an area with many intact females would very likely lead to roaming. Even if sterilized, a roaming dog is a danger to itself. A fertile dog on the loose that could impregnate females who are also on the loose is intolerable.

But I've never had a dog roam. Not ever.

There is an additional layer of responsibility required of those who keep their dogs intact. But most of those measures are things any responsible dog owner would do in any case. Against that you will maximize a dog's physical and emotional health and stave off the high risks associated with neutering.

A dog may reach full height by 12 months, but the full musculature development can easily take 3 years (more or less).

You sound like an athlete who hopes to run with his dog. All I can tell you is there is a world of difference in the physical condition of dogs who eat high-protein/high-fat meals, are intact, and who get good exercise. Given these advantages Luke will have the look (and actual endurance) of an elite athlete, and won't be a dog that would rather climb the couch that Mt Everest.

Assess your situation realistically.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

I just wanted to thank you all for the advice and update you.

I decided to slowly switch Luke to Dr. Tim's Glacier Formula which is 32% (89% of which is animal derived) protein 22% fat. I will keep him on that for about 5 months until he is 12 months old then slowly switch him to Momentum (It was Dr. Tim's suggestion that I maybe wait until he is 12 months to switch to momentum). I am hoping this will also help with his UTI's since Dr Tim said Kinesis' PH was around 7. Glacier should lower that since there is significantly more meat. (This is as far as kibble is concerned. As I mentioned in another post I am thinking about introducing some raw as well).

I haven't totally decided about the neutering yet. My (new) vet suggests that I should seriously consider it around 12 months mostly for behavioral issues. He seems to think that intact male dogs hump far too often. Right now I am simply going to keep an eye on him and see if any of the stereotypical intact associated behaviors (excessive humping, roaming, aggression) become problematic. If they never become out of control I may just opt for the vasectomy. Thanks again for the help. I'm sure Luke will be better off for it.

Per the other discussion, I'd still (slowly) work in some supplimentation of red meats (like beef heart or other). The lack of red meats is the biggest downside to Dr Tim's formulas IMO.

On the neutering, I think your vet is dead wrong. Almost all behavioral issues are made worse with neutering. Intact dogs retain a calm and confidence that increases their emotional well-being, where neutering drives up fear and anxiety related behaviors including biting and fear-aggression. This has been shown in veteranary studies. It is also known to experienced dog handlers.

I'd urge you take extreme caution before listening to this vet and putting Luke under his knife. It really isn't in your boys interest to be de-natured.

Best,

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

The problem with neutering is that it drives up fear-anxiety, which is the leading factor in bites on humans (not simple "aggression").

Dogs that are agressive towards people are scary, dangerous, and rare. Dogs that seem timid, but then suddenly snap and bite out of fear-anxiety are exceedenly common. These latter are not "agressive" dogs, but they are the most common type of biters.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

Echoing what I posted earlier (and knew to be true with regards to neutering) an article published this week in Psychology Today by Dr Stanley Coren, a Professor Emeritus in Psychology at the University of British Columbia in highlights says :

Given that one of the accepted behavioral reasons for spaying and neutering is to reduce aggression, the distressing results of these studies is that spayed and neutered dogs actually show considerably more aggression.

Depending upon the specific form of aggression (owner directed, stranger directed etc.) the size of these effects is quite large, varying from a low of around a 20 percent increase to more than double the level of aggression in the neutered dogs...

A different worrisome finding is that there was a roughly 31 percent increase in fearfulness for both sexes.

I must admit that I was astonished and greatly bothered by the direction of these results. Farhoody summarizes her findings saying "Our data showed that the behavior of neutered dogs was significantly different from that of intact dogs in ways that contradict the prevailing view. Among the findings, neutered dogs were more aggressive, fearful, excitable, and less trainable than intact dogs."

Considering the fact that one of the reasons recommended for spaying and neutering dogs is to correct a range of canine behavior problems, Duffy and Serpell's conclusions expose this to be a myth when they say "For most behaviors, spaying/neutering was associated with worse behavior, contrary to conventional wisdom."

The entire article is here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...vior-changes-when-dogs-are-spayed-or-neutered

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

I'm still not buying it. That's no different from anything else I have read, it means nothing to me. In 44 years, I have never seen a neutered dog act this way because of neutering. Ever. The only change I have ever seen is in the one we have now. It saved him from being euthanized. Thats my only experience in behavior change, so.....

We've had diametrically different experiences—and with over 45 years actively involved in high-level dog training have seen a lot of dogs and the bad results from neutering—but beyond this, the evidence shows in wide-ranging studies.

The scientific research shows neutered dogs are more aggressive, fearful, excitable, and less trainable than intact dogs.

I'd suggest that Kyle (Luke's owner) read the linked Psychology Today article as it incapsulates the information that every experienced dog handler I know understands as the typical (negative) impact on behavior.

I'd accept that it might be reasonable in some instances where an intact dog that is exibiting aggression and is a danger to people or other dogs to try neuthering as a less drastic option than putting a dog down (realizing this step may or may not work), but as a standard course neutering as a way to improve behaviors in typical dogs is a backwards move as neuthering generally exaccerbates bad behaviours on top of having very serious negative health consequences.

Bill

 

[OtherGuy]

I have no doubt that there has been "scientific research" done, but none of it was done on any of my dogs, or any I have ever known. Do I think it's impossible to happen? No, it probably could but it's not a real common occurrence. All the "research" I need is what I have seen with my own eyes, also over a 40 year period. Agreeing to disagree at this point..

Well Jenny, the two studies cited in The Psychology Today article that concluded there is a significant negative impact on behaviours from neutering looked at 15,984 dogs between them. Those are huge numbers for a study. Saying you haven't seen it on your own dogs with your own eyes just isn't following the scientific method, with due respect.

I've seen many (many) examples of negative behavior consequences myself, and do not know a soul amoung elite dog trog trainers and handlers in my circle who don't understand the negative impacts on behavior that flow from neutering. I could tell story after story.

So we will agree to disagree, but the scientific evidence is one sided in demonstating the harm.

Bill