sandgrubber

She whelped at 63 days. We did a Ceasar .. . because it was a large litter of large puppies and she has a history of loosing a pup or two in whelping. 10 healthy pups.

Smackos are WAY too salty :D and I don't like the grittyness in most biscuits. The roo mince I buy is often made from little grey kangaroos . . . which taste much gamier than the red roos. It has been inspected for hyatid, though. As for chicken carcasses, I occasionally make soup from them, and when a nice fresh one comes through with a big breast remaining on it, I sometimes use it to make curry chicken (well cooked). Haven't gotten sick from it yet. Btw, a lot of the things we eat are unfit for human consumption.

There are a couple hundred species of ant in Australia. You're not going to be able to get rid of all ants on your property, and to target the problem species, presuming the ants are the source of the problem, it would help to know something about where it nests and what it feeds on. With the right information you may be able to find a highly specific poison, eg, something that the adult ants will take back to their nests and poison their young. The modern, highly targeted poisons of this sort work well with social insects and can be used in ways that aren't dangerous to dogs. But they require some information on the target species. Most ants hate water. If you just want to keep the ants out of the dogfood, I'd suggest setting the food in dishes set inside a larger dish of water. I do this sometimes in the cattery when the ants start eating the canned food. Alternatively, just leave the food down for 15 minutes and then take it away. The dogs will learn to eat fast. If you have ant trails forming, sprinkling talcum powder over the trail sometimes disrupts the ants food search.

Here's one of the groggy girl post Ceasar and the 10some. And a few pups up close. And for good measure a shot showing how the puppies entertained themselves while we were at the vets. I don't much like getting 'em to pose in their first days.

My sympathy. Try a kennel zone in WA . . . you get the same thing from three sides. It's hard to keep kennel dogs quiet, especially on holidays when it's crowded. 95% of them are find, but you always seem to get one or two who don't respond to any attempts to quiet them. We exercise dogs throughout daylight hours, and some of them still bark all night -- eg, we have a little JRT with doggy dementia who will not shutup. There are some kennels that do such lovely things as locking dogs OUTSIDE in the exercise yard all night, resulting in fence fighting and other great sounds. On the other hand, I have learned to enjoy and mostly sleep through chorus bark/howling by the greyhounds and the Rotti pack nextdoor. But that's not all night.

Jarrah had 6 males and 4 females. All chocolate. Doing well. Ended up doing a Ceasar on day 63 after frozen semen implantation.

I used to see a basset at dog school - and totally agree with you. The basset pictured in this book is by FAR a better looking dog. The basset? They show six breeds of Basset, most of them rough coats. Where have they all gone?

Looks like you all were right. It's day 59. Jarrah's temperature has dropped to 37 degrees. Unfortunately the air temperature is 39 . . . all six of my dogs, and the whelping box, are now in my bedroom, the only air conditioned room in the house.

One of my vets told me that Salmonella can kill pups with immature immune systems . . . eg, below 4 mo of age. If this is right, don't feed the pup any meat you wouldn't eat yourself. Be very cautious about 'off' chicken. I think necks are better than wings. More meat and smaller bones. I have heard stories about pups getting wing bones stuck . . . but it depends on the pup, how much it chews, etc.. If the pup tends to swallow whole problems are more likely.

another round of Congrads. Tua must be much relieved to get them out of her belly. Looks like a tired and contented mum.

My view if the dog can work, show us It's complicated, and the world changes. It's inspiring to see a kelpie or BC working sheep, or a huskie pulling a sled or cart. But what would you say about a Labbie who aces Guide Dog training and ends out with a full-time job . . . but has a hard mouth, no interest in birds, and doesn't like water? or becomes a sniffer dog, or a truffle hunting dog? or simply acts as the welcoming committee for a boutique winery? Or a bluey who isn't all that good with livestock, but makes a wonderful guard dog? As for the breeds whose work was fighting or bear baiting, or some other awful blood sport, so glad most of them no longer do the work they're bred for. Or hunting runaway slaves (Filho brasilieoro). What of the dogs who were originally cart dogs or spit dogs . . . and the RSPCA saw their work banned in the 19th or early 20th century . .. . I think many would be happy if something like their work was brought back as dog sport. Many dogs like to have a job to do and most people like to see a dog doing a job. As the landscape changes, the function of dogs changes. Much as I admire old-fashioned working dogs, I don't think we need to direct all breeding to creating museum replicas of 19th century working dogs: Especially given that most puppy buyers just want a healthy companion with some-sort-of personality and a certain look. Great if some breeders want to concentrate on the work described in the breed standard . . . but no need to condemn those who take another path. And I think we need to work harder to develop new jobs for dogs to do as their historical functions become obsolete. I am in favour of temperament testing . . . ring presence is not a great sorter for temperament. But I think there's room for tests that go broader than testing for the breed's historical function.

perhaps because it's about as useful as breeding for the broadstick of 'niceness'? Left brain talking here. From running a boarding kennel, affability is a trait I associate with Staffies and Labs. . . . breeds that are far apart on many other scales but are overt in their love of people. Happens that they are the most successful breeds in terms of pedigree dog registrations in Australia over the last decade. So I'm happy to see someone playing with the term.

In my opinion this thread has become a good measure of the understanding of science and science education by the Australian Pedigree Dog owner community. I'd say the rating is about 4 out of 10. I say this as a retired Uni lecturer in the sciences who has overseen a few PhD students . . . and who also happens to breed dogs. Holy Moly!!! Yes there are behavioral tests up the yin yang. My guess is the student can give you an impressive bibliography detailing them and reasoning showing why her test is different and serves a needed function. Her dissertation research proposal shouldn't have been approved without in depth literature review. Affability isn't a selection train that breeders often talk about, and it strikes a chord with me. I'm happy to see someone floating a new behavioural test exploring another dimension. Yes, science comes with biases. Researchers aren't automatrons. They have histories, opinions, etc. that affect the way they shape their hypotheses. And University professors, schools and departments have funding sources, which may affect who they cooperate with and what PhD research they support. The MDBA studies are also conducted by people with biases. BIG DEAL!!!! If you don't like the study you are free not to participate.

I would say, go for a breed that isn't awful and a breeder that has conscientiously selected for good scores over generations. I started out lucky: my foundation bitch was sound . . . of 150+ pups sold to date, I've only had two pups with clinical HD. But all my girls are OFA excellent and most of the dogs I use are as well. Btw., don't go out of the frying pan into the fire: watch for OCD as well as HD. It can be equally as devastating. See http://www.offa.org/elbowstatbreed.html . Also . .. temperament can cause more problems than health. Go for a breed you find likable. In answer to the question of why huskies score so well . . . dogs not long removed from a tough working environment, or selected for running/pulling performance . . . are likely to score well. I'll bet dingos would have good scores if anyone scored them :D .

Another thing you need to consider is whether you would be able to find good homes for pups. I'd recommend talking with other GSD breeders to find out whether there is a surplus or a deficit of GSD pups in your region. If people are having a hard time placing pups, I wouldn't touch breeding with a 10 foot pole.

As others suggest + desex

They are great ideas, going to try some over this week. The chicken stock water block sounds fantastic! All the above, plus, cheap paint rollers. Dogs like the long shape and the fluff, but, unlike stuffed animals, there's no stuffing to pull out.

I wish more breeds did formal temperament screening . . . for many of us, the only temperament testing done is in the show ring. I don't think that the combination of a) not showing aggression or noncompliance; and b) behaviour that shows liking a crowd and showing off in public is a good basis for selecting temperaments that should be passed on. With Labbies, gun work has greatly declined but other tasks, eg, sniffer dog work, guide dog / therapy dog work, has picked up. The breed standard hasn't changed with the function of the breed. Fortunately, many of the attributes desired of a gentleman shooter's retrieving dog -- biddibility, lack of aggressive tendencies, soft mouth, good nose, and being an attentive and loving companion -- carry over well into new roles.

There is a lot of luck in breeding. My first few litters were a breeze. I breed Labbies in WA, so there's a huge market of quality puppy buyers looking for pets. No puppy deaths until litter three. Have never lost a bitch or more than 30% of a litter. After ~150 pups have only had 3 that showed such serious defects that I had to pay out on my puppy guarantee. I've had more people come back looking for a second pup than puppy buyers reporting problems. I probably don't make enough of selling pups to pay ALL the costs of breeding dogs, but still, my girls tend to have large litters, and the revenue from puppy sales is a nice side feature. If the first litter had been very sad in some way, I probably would have thrown in the towel. But, in general, I get so much more positive out of breeding than negative, that it balances out in a way that makes me go on.

I can't help you, as we're in WA. But I'd add that care for diabetes is not difficult for a kennel. . . . at least one that ordinarily feeds twice a day. I'd rather give insulin jabs than try to give tablets to some dogs that hate and avoid them. If you have a kennel that you like, otherwise, have a chat with the manager and see if anyone is willing to learn. Many breeders, and many people with livestock, have given sub cutaneous injections. Most kennels can do special food, particularly if you supply the ingredients.

This has nothing to do with the original post, so my apologies. I don't know how long you have been breeding, but some temperament traits are obvious without any tests, and observation will tell you whether they are hereditary or not. Most experienced breeders do know what traits are hereditary in their own breed, so they are a good source of advice for those who do not know. People who do not understand this, and cannot observe it, imho, should not be breeding. Judge not and yee shall be not judged (Somewhere in the Bible). Evil to them who think evil (some long dead queen of England). I have been breeding for around 10 years. Have had no temperament problems with my own dogs, though some of them are so lovely I'd like to be able to clone their personalities and implant them in some people I wish I didn't know. My concern is the occasional whacko aggressive, nervous, bossy, or otherwise cussed dog who ends up being a pain in the posterior in the boarding kennel -- and who obviously causes distress to an owner who shows every sign of being good dog owner. Example . . . have a sweet German lady who keeps miniature poodles and has for decades. Her present pooch, in contrast to the last three, bites everyone, including her owner, shows affection to no one, and spends all her time in the boarding kennel hiding under the bed. This poor woman has kept the dog for 10 years. Colloquially, I'd say the dog has a screw loose . . . would love to know if it was a genetic defect. . . and how breeders could prevent cursing puppy-buyers with responsibility for such dogs. Could go on with half a dozen other examples. Yes, they might have turned out differently in the hands of the right owner. But some dogs seem to require a lot of effort to keep them from going over the edge, while others seem to be pretty healthy in the mind with owners who do everything 'wrong'.

Given that my bitches all jump in a mucky pond and roll is sand on a regular basis, I figure disinfectants are a waste of time. No way can I wash of the belly and teats before Mum gets back in the whelping box every time. My focus is keeping clean so there's no good pockets of filth to support massive growth of bacteria, ets. If there were a problem that needed disinfected, I'd use a very strong oxidant (bleach for example) at high concentration, sprayed on vertical as well as horizontal surfaces, let it sit for 20 minutes, and then wash it off with a lot of water so as not to burn the dogs.

... This OP study claims it will help people re the behavior of companion dogs. Yet the highly significant factor of human influence on dogs' developed & developing behaviours, is dealt with only in passing. When there's actually an extensive research literature on it & I've referred to a few. This OP study does not have a clear hypothesis....rather a mix of premises. Somehow, one behavioral assessment tool (which is a contradiction in terms)....somehow associated with the collection of dogs' DNA....is going to lead people to an 'ideal' companion dog as expressed in what Australians have said in a survey. (Sounds like advertising copy.) . . . My concern about the OP study is that it's being funded by private organisations to provide a behavioral assessment instrument for their use....& presumably to other members of the public. That's the primary purpose. If the OP study, were simply a report to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then welcome to the critque which would follow (given if it were accepted for publication). But this study is going to drop, immediately, a behavioral assessment instrument re dogs, into the Australian community & 'mixing' that with collecting DNA. When the premises behind it all, should first be the subject of expert scrutiny (as for any study, I hasten to add). Without seeing the research proposal submitted the the PhD committee, I don't see how any of us can make such statements. Scientists are often awkward in communicating with the general public. . . that is, apart from the fraction that thrive on working the media. Seems likely that a PhD student communicating to potential participants in a study will not present the study background in it's full rigour, nor, for the post-modernist, give a full description of context. If she did, she'd probably turn off most possible participants, cause formal hypotheses are a real turn off to the non-science public and a lot of people won't give a hoot about her biases or funding sources or personal biases (any more than I worry about the politics of blood donation when I go in to a Red Cross collection point). Lots of PhD projects want to drop something or other on the Australian public, many with funding from some group with an axe to grind (perhaps an ARC sanctioned axe). Most of what they drop are stones in a pond, going straight to the bottom. Only a minority have any effect on real events. Personally, I want to know more about genetic influences on behaviour and the more these are linked to DNA or RNA, the better. There are some behaviour traits I see as worse than HD/OCD or epilepsy. If we find a way to test for them as a spinoff from a study that worked on behaviour assessment and happened to collect DNA samples on the side, fine and dandy. Btw, my own critique of what I've seen is that it's pretty obvious that the Australian public likes affability in dogs. Why else would Labbies and Staffies be rising breeds in breed registration statistics? . . . at the expense of GSD's, dobermans, and other 'guard' dogs. Also clear that Ozzies don't want to be bothered with long coats from the trends in Goldie registrations and the extreme difficulty finding a good home for an Afghan hound pup.

Out of curiousity, how do you intend to present the results?

Agreed and while I havent looked at it for a while because I dont work in the field any longer there have been several studies with aggressive prisoners[ murderers] They found that when babies cry and they are comforted and soothed by their Mum that they secrete seretonin so their body learns how to produce this as they grow to counteract stress and testosterone.Without that experience regardless of genes they grow up as individuals which are anti social or more prone to violence or depression because their bodies never learned as babies how to manufacture the chemicals they need. Regardless of breed its about how they are reared ,socialised and handled as babies and based on the fact that certain traits suit different people trying to tie this to breeds is missing a very large chunck of the info required to determine what dogs make the best pets. Another part is how capable the owner is at bonding with a dog too. Actually, the guys with hard to remember names from Cordoba have done a lot of work showing that behavioural traits can be hereditary . . . and are responsible for a very interesting finding of colour-linked aggression in Cocker spaniels. I don't know anyone who would deny that how a dog is raised, treated, and trained has a major influence on behaviour. Assigning relative strength of genes vs environment is a can of worms . . . you can frame definitions and tests to 'prove' (or if you're a scientist, 'falsify') either point of view. If I wanted to add weight to the genetics side, I'd do a trial with a bunch of pups raised in different ways and try to teach them to herd sheep. I'll bet the pups from herding dog backgrounds would do well and Labs, Staffies, poodles, etc. would have a hard time catching on . . . perhaps with a few exceptions in each group. As for human psych . . . I may be showing my age (and I seem to have been way off in understanding the reasons for the study in question). It's been 30 years since I've had much to do with psych. At that point, no ethics committee in the US would have permitted a study that looked for the genetic basis of criminality. I think this was due to fear of eugenics lingering after WWII. The study Steve discusses is entirely PC by that standard . . . I have never seen much fright about finding possible 'nurture' reasons for criminality. Such studies generally provide rationale for preschool, parenting classes, and other humane programmes. But the larger point is tolerance of scientific research. I am bothered by everyone jumping on the bandwagon to condemn some PhD research with limited information on the study's intent, management, etc. If the results are published in the open scientific literature, they are available to us all. If they show something we don't like, we have the opportunity to examine study methods and contesting validity . . . or re-examining our understanding and perhaps learning something. Science is full of studies that point one way, only to be followed by studies that point in the opposite direction. Even if the study were framed by PITA maniacs to 'prove' something you know is not true -- and I see NO evidence that this study is -- it's only a drop in the ocean of research findings. The louder and clearer a study voices unjustified conclusions, the easier it is to overturn the study in subsequent research and bury the falsified hypothesis.