sandgrubber

I know vets aren't rolling in cash, and I can't remember meeting any vet who didn't love animals. Yes, the dichotomy between young and old vets is a gross simplification. There are complaints/situations where newer protocols have much better results than older protocols. There are old vets who don't read the literature; there are young vets who barely scraped through in vet school. There are both young and old vets who are enthusiastic about treatments for which there is very little scientific evidence. But it's not conspiracy theory to say that in a market with a few suppliers who note one another's action and many, independent buyers, price will not be determined by competition but by producer's calculation of what the market will bare. You learn that in Economics 101. Because people are willing to pay a lot to keep their pets comfortable, prices are high. Nor is it conspiracy theory to say that pet medicines are a high-profit segment of the pharmaceutical industry; or that the pharmaceutical industry takes an interest in what is taught in vet schools, and spends a fair amount to try and influence what and how much vets prescribe. Marketing in a big part of the pharma budget.

I didn't know that was the cause of tape worms so I just did some googling. Apparently it's caused by swallowing an infected flea, which means your dog could do that while they're out and about and don't have to have fleas themselves, and the Advocate won't stop that from happening. I'm not sure what the likelihood is of that though so am contemplating stopping the all wormer unless there's some kind of indication that my dog has worms, as I'd rather not give him stuff like that unnecessarily There are no simple recipes . . . what's best/cheapest depends on your area, what's around, and how your dog responds to various parasite treatments. Bottom line is make sure to control/avoid heartworm and/or paralysis ticks if they're in your area, cause they can kill your dog. Everything else, watch and adjust treatments to take care of problems as they occur. A lot of people just do a general wormer every quarter. I can't see giving it monthly, as in HeartGuard Plus. Worms are gross and you don't want your dog to build up a large burden of worms. But a few worms are no big deal. Note general wormers often don't work for tapeworm. It requires a different, and more expensive, chemical (fenbendaxole). But tapeworm, isn't all that common, and you'll notice white rice-grain like things in your dog's poop if they have it. Usually people don't treat for tapeworm until they see evidence it's there. I find the best way to check for fleas is to get a flea comb and run it through the dog's coat. Flea treatments can be tricky. All flea treatments are essentially poisons that are not supposed to affect dogs. But some of them affect some dogs . . .eg., cause seizures. In some places fleas have become resistant to some flea meds, eg., Frontline. Heartworm: If your dog is ok with Ivermectin (many herding dogs are not . . . there's a genetic test available if you're in doubt), the 1% livestock formulations are dirt cheap. You can find dosage recommendations all over the internet; some of them recommend higher dosages than others. The stuff is so cheap that I can see no point of going to 6 mo. applications. I give my girls an egg with Ivermectin injected into the yolk once a month. One $40 bottle has is going on two years for three Labradors. The only trick is measurement . . . the required doses are generally a fraction of a ml (eg, small insulin syringe). It's very easy to use too much. Ticks are deadly if you're in a paralysis tick area, otherwise just obnoxious. If you do live in a paralysis tick area you should read up on the problem and keep your dog medicated (I don't, and have forgotten which treatments are recommended). Otherwise . . . use tick preventatives if you find a lot of ticks. I live in an area that is awful for both fleas and ticks, and have dogs that don't tolerate some flea meds. I find Bravecto works great for both. It isn't cheap, but it works where other meds have failed, and giving one tablet every three months is convenient.

Given the often unfortunate tendency for trends to spread from the US to Oz, I don't think this stuff should be ignored. In the years I spent in Oz I went to a lot of vets. The older ones tended to stick to pretty basic meds and were ok with home remedy stuff like vinegar for yeasty ears . . . the younger ones seem to be more influenced by big pharma, and would recommend Epi-Otic rather than the home-made version. Some of the veterinary chain practices seem to have heeded advice from practice managers to sell as many products as possible, thus increasing profits. Display counters with everything from (overpriced) flea and tick meds, to sequined collars. Also important to keep in touch with what is being taught in vet schools, and how much influence big pharma has on the curriculum.

I'm not sure whether a dead snake would work at all. I did tracker work for a few years. People I worked with said that dogs got VERY confused by suicides: they follow the track up to near the body and then go wandering trying to figure out where the scent trail went. Dead people don't smell the same as living ones. I would guess the same is true of snakes.

NOT a reasonable fee. It's essentially a fee for seeking an alternative diagnosis, or for changing practices. Highly anti-competitive. If it isn't banned by law, it should be! If the charge were $5 for the five to 10 minutes it takes the staff to pull files and email copies, it would be reasonable. But $40 is far above actual costs.

Was checking up on economics of the pet meds industry. Some may find this article interesting http://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2014/12/18/drug-companies-loosen-purse-strings-to-woo-vets/20492301/ A clip from the first few paragraphs of the article For five days, the action never stopped at the McCormick Place convention center, as more than 9,000 veterinarians and technicians flocked to see the latest medicines and attend clinical workshops organized by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Around the show floor, the world's biggest drugmakers had set up exhibits two stories tall, with enough flashing lights and giant twirling logos to resemble a Detroit car show. The vets, the nation's last line of defense against unsafe drugs getting to animals, were receiving a blizzard of meals, books, electronic gadgets and speaking fees from drugmakers. The convention revealed just one of the many ways corporate money influences pet health care — from research to treatment to sales — threatening the objectivity of those prescribing drugs to your dog or cat.

Drug prices are mostly set by the drug company's calculation of what people are willing to pay. The most spectacular example of this is Ivermectin and pyrantel paomate . . . the two active ingredients in HeartGuard Plus. If I buy Ivermectin for cattle, a dose sufficient for a dog costs under 50 cents. Pyrantel is equally inexpensive when you buy the large bottle as sold for treating human babies for pinworm. For most pet meds, the active ingredient costs far less than the marketing and packaging. So it makes sense that price has little relationship to the quantity of meds. As for research costs . . . most pet meds were developed for human or livestock applications. The main research costs are a set of trials to establish safety and effectiveness, and some marketing research.

thesciencedog blog recently put up a post describing studies of trachea sold as dog treats. The studies show that thyroid tissue tends to come along with the trachea, and the result can cause hyperthyroidism. Chicken necks came up in the discussion . . . apparently there's some risk of getting excessive thyroxine from feeding them as well. https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/got-gullet/ Quoting from near the end of the article: "The knowledge that the presence of animal thyroid tissue in foods can cause hyperthyroidism is not new information. Outbreaks of diet-induced hyperthyroidism in people are well-documented and are the reason that “gullet trimming” as a source of ground beef was outlawed in the 1980’s. Yet, these tissues are still allowed in the foods that we feed to our companion animals. Why is this?"

That's going to confuse the issue on e-collars! Put a tracker on your dog and get busted by the RSPCA!

+1. It's great to hear the follow up stories. Great that it was just one of those things and he's looking good and healthy.

Correction is not, or should not be, a euphamism for punishment. Correction has a place in training. Punishment does not. An unskilled trainer may simply punish when he intends to correct . . . in which case he is simply being cruel and not actually teaching the dog anything :D . try google and read through some other definitions for punish . . . many of the definitions you find use words like retribution, inflict, cause to suffer. One definition I turned up said: "treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way." Another: "to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or foul". The Wikipedia definition above does not specify a motive for punishment. The motive for correction is implicit in the word . . . to correct. Dictionary definitions of correct generally say something like "put right" . . . or "free from error" and seldom say anything about inflicting pain or unpleasant outcomes. Cruel and unusual punishment is a much heard phrase (due to the US Constitution) . . . I've never heard anyone speak of "cruel and unusual correction". You make corrections to a machine when it is off track. Punishing a machine would be pointless. I would say a spanking is a punishment . . . but not a correction . . . it tends to be done when a parent is angry and isn't particularly good at preventing a repeat of the behavior, though it may cause fear. etc., etc., etc.

IMO if it ain't shocking it ain't a shock. I have used e-collars. I find them more trouble than they are worth. But at the low settings that are used for most training (not aversion training), they are about as shocking as a light pin prick. My dogs were far more bothered by the vibration mode (which is a vibration, rather like you mobile phone's vibrate mode) than by the electric signal. As for 'correction' vs 'punishment' . . . a correction is done to correct, systematically, and unlike a punishment, must not be anger-based or aimed to hurt.

Yea I have to agree, my boy was having some anal gland issues for a while, vet advised to increase bone consumption for a short period and it worked perfectly. ...and again I learned something new :) wrt 'digestible' bones: all natural bones are somehow digestible respectively can provide nutrients / minerals, the problem with the cooked / BBQed ones is that they tend to splinter forming sharp objects that can cause internal injuries. My dogs got fat eating chicken frames. :) Our source delivered frames skin-on with big globs of fat. It's kinda hard to divide frames into smallish bits. 1 1/2 per day is too much. 1 was too little. I find weight control much easier with biscuits.

While the VIC dog laws are absurd, the "Calgary Model" is not universally applauded in Calgary. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/relationship-between-breed-specific-laws-and-dog-bites-unclear-studies I'd encourage anyone attending to ask the hard questions.

let's crunch some numbers: ... one of my food packages for the dog states: 350 kcal/100 g metabolizable energy; feeding my dog (17 kg) 250 gr equals approx. 900 kcal (it's actually 875 kcal, but let's keep it easy) or 3.7 MJ - only a part of this energy is transferred into heat as the dog runs respectively does physical work over the day. Now let's assume I roll out my entire garden hose in the garden and we have a sunny day with 25 deg C air temperature (yes, there will be temp variation - let's keep it simple) - the garden hose holds 17 kg water (to allow comparison with my dog's weight - it would need to be a pretty long garden hose so...however, dogs body - like humans - are mostly made out of water so it will allow for some comparison). After 2-3 hours laying in the sun the water in the garden hose gets pretty hot and hit peak temperature of approx. 50 deg C where it stays for a while till the sun goes down. At this peak point where it reaches 50 deg C the energy intake into the hose via radiation equals the energy outtake via conduction (laying on the grass) and convection (via the air). Now, just to get the hose to the 50 deg C (we know this is easily possible) it needs at least the following heat energy: delta temp. x mass x heat capacity of water...if I got the math right that equals approx. 2.5 MJ (assuming a tap water temp = 15 deg C, heat capacity of water = 4.18 kJ/kgK)...in approx. 2-3 hours. The real heat intake via radiation will be even higher as I neglected the losses via conduction to the ground / grass and convection to the air (and the amount the hose radiates back - but that is really negligible). Now we have 2.5 MJ in 2-3 hours (0.8 MJ per hour) vs 3.7 MJ metabolizable energy (where only a part is transferred in heat energy) in 24 hours (0.15 MJ per hour)...pretty impressive figures indicating the heat intake via radiation can be indeed significant higher than the metabolizing energy. Of course the dog would try to find some shade (if they allowed to do so), but also here the indirect radiation will allow for some substantial additional heat intake every creature has to cope with. You could argue now that the looooong garden hose will provide much more surface compared to the compact body of a dog thus the radiation into the dog's body is significant less...well, then look at the old water solar heater drums on the roofs, the radiation does the job here too. Here is a question for you: lets assume we could breed a dog with a coat that provides a 'perfect' insulation and with 'perfect' I mean an insulation where heat transfer in both direction is close to zero. Equipped with such a coat the dogs natural temperature regulating system (panting = evaporation cooling through the mouth / nose) just has to cope with the metabolizing energy depending on the activity level - it wouldn't matter whether it is too hot or too cold outside because there is no heat transfer through the 'perfect' coat at all....so why would you take this coat off for summer? There's a MAJOR difference in geometry between a dog and a garden hose. Compare surface to volume ratios... simplify by assuming both are cylindrical. The dog has a radius of what, say 100 mm. The hose more like 20 mm. If you follow through the geometry, the hose would absorb 5x as much energy per unit length as the dog. If the dog is 1 m long and the hose is 10 meters, there's a fiftyfold difference in surface/volume. a major factor in absorbtion of radiation/kg mass. Also note that the hose cannot cool itself using evaporative cooling. Moreover, anyone who leaves a dog in direct sun on a hot day is guilty of animal cruelty. "Perfect insulation" is about as realistic as perpetual motion. If we could create perfect insulation in smallish objects, we could have freezers that required almost no energy, and the cost of approaching absolute zero would be vastly smaller. To obtain even a freezer that doesn't cost the earth to cool requires 50+ mm of rigid, closed cell foam like substance . . . probably much more effective insulation than the thickest of dog coats. (Has anyone seen anything written on the R value of dogs' coats? Would be interesting to have this information to model this question). A perfectly insulated dog would cook; more rapidly if it was active and ate a lot. Dogs evolved to thermoregulate in environments that are, on average, at least 10 degrees below the dog's core temperature (Average global temperature is around 14 C . . . warmer in say, savannah regions where many dogs seem to originate . . . but still nowhere near a daily average of 39C. I don't think anyplace on earth even has an average daily maximum temperature above 35 C. Remember, Iditerod dogs begin to suffer overheating when temperatures go above freezing. here's a relevant link . . . looks like daily averages above 30 C are few and far between. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/warmest-places-on-earth-average-annual-temperature If you have 3.7 MJ a day (btw. work energy degrades to heat . . . remember entropy) energy input and zero energy output you're going to end up pretty damn hot. p.s. the study of mammology regards panting as more effective than sweating in two dimensions. First, panting is easier to regulate. Second, it doesn't cause loss of electrolytes (salt in sweat). On the negative side, panting requires energy and generates heat. As usual, biology is complicated ;) . See, eg., https://books.google.com/books?id=Ugq5BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=evaporative+cooling+mammals&source=bl&ots=waPfv9hE_B&sig=ichtssKbQKKqcclmz1ZC2fCic6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCGoVChMIv9mhlerdyAIVRuUmCh1OaQAd#v=onepage&q=evaporative%20cooling%20mammals&f=false

I was reading about this just recently for a uni assignment. I was reading specifically about the thick coats of camels but it can be applied to other animals, like dogs, who have thick coats in very hot environments. Basically, thick coats actually reflect heat energy from the sun, rather than absorb it, so it's like having a special coat on that bounces heat away from you and keeps you cool underneath. This links to your humidity theory well because these desert animals with thick coats don't have to deal with humidity. So I would agree with you that it seems that thick coats struggle with the Australian humidity, rather than the heat. Please give references. The fraction of incoming solar radiation that is reflected is called "albedo" in physics. It aligns pretty closely, but not exactly, with color. I have never seen comparison of sun effects on a white vs. a black dog . . . would be helpful to know. Also recognize that there are other reasons for a thick coat. In the case of camels, abrasion by wind blown sand could be pretty nasty. Another set of question marks is raised by the definition of "double coat". Thin overcoat over thin undercoat is quite different from thick undercoat with water-shedding overcoat. The physics of boundary layers . . . and insulation generally . . . can be complicated as they get into turbulent flux, an area that drives even rocket scientists crazy. It's quite possible that evolution has come up with some coat patterns that are superbly suited to desert conditions . . . but may not look like it.

I agree completely, though I live a long way from SA and dislike Facebook. Would be worth adding a few notes about who should write (or phone?) and who they should write to. btw. as used in aversion training, e-collars are often shock collars. But I agree, in other training the word "shock" is inappropriate, and the aversive delivered by a properly used collar is less strong than a yank on a choke chain or a sonic correction.

that's the point, take away the coat and the skin respectively the blood will absorb the sun radiation heating up the whole body (pretty the same like a reverse AC heating up a room in winter (with the cooling agent = blood) - unfortunately, for the dog in this case the heat transfer happens in summer. Problem for the dog's skin is that it can't dispatch the surplus heat via radiation (as you pointed out), nor via evaporation (like humans), so the only way is panting (via mouth) and a little bit via convection over the skin which is minimal due to the still very low temperature difference and the low heat coefficient of air as the major drivers for convection. We all deal with thermodynamics on a daily basis though few people understand it. Cooling via panting is actually pretty effective, at least if it isn't humid (evaporative coolers don't work well when it's muggy). The dog's nose contains some nice equipment for evaporative cooling . . . these are good at bringing down the core temperature. Lots of blood transport involved. The brachy breeds are handicapped in this and handle heat very badly, hence they tend to overheat, and airlines tend to ban them. I still don't get your model. Are you saying that heat gain from solar radiation is higher than heat gain through metabolism?. In most cases this isn't true, and hot dogs can and do seek shade to avoid radiative warming from direct sunlight. They're not dumb! The full model must recognize that warm blood metabolism generates a fair amount of heat, and requires a relatively constant core temperature to stay alive. Dogs that evolved in cold climates have wonderful insulation. Unfortunately, this backfires when they are put into hot, especially hot-humid (so the evaporative cooling system gets crippled) environments. Usually Temp(dog) is higher than Temp(air) and the dog has no trouble shedding body energy. When Temp(air) gets higher, it gets harder to keep energy in balance. Having a thick coat makes it harder to keep balance. Blood is a cooling agent when it moves from the dog's nose--cooled by evaporative cooling--to the core, brain, etc.. Elsewhere, muscles etc. generate heat from metabolism, and the circulatory system evens out temperature between parts of the body. There's also some amazing blood warming stuff that goes on in the feet and allows dogs to walk on frozen ground for hour after hour. Try playing around with your mobile phone or a lightbulb -- both of which are warmed by internal energetics (electricity not metabolic, but heat is heat. . . it behaves the same regardless of how it was generated). Not a bad analog for a dog that is heated by metabolic processes. Experiment with putting fabric over the body . . . stick a thermometer in. You will see that they tend to heat up when given an insulating layer: in the case of the phone, by a few degrees; a lot more in the case of the light bulb.

Bad analogy. Heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas. You want insulation to keep your house around 20-25C when ambient is 30C +, to prevent heat from flowing in. Your dog is NOT a refrigerator. A dog's temperature is well above ambient except on days where it's above 39 C. Removing insulation allows body heat to get out! There are devils in the details. A dual coat is like wearing a weatherproof parka over a thick jumper. It is not clear whether raking the undercoat . . . which amounts to trading a thick jumper to a thin one . . . is more effective than shaving off the outer coat. it is actually a very good analogy. You are right that the heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas - but you miss the impact of transferring energy via radiation and a body that is absorbing the energy...you have to look at the whole energy balance. The dog's body can absorb a lot of heat / solar energy, but to get rid of the same amount (so you have a balance of energy going in and out) the temperature needs to be significant higher than the outside temperature. If this is the case, then your theory works. Unfortunately, in this case the dog would be already dead as his body temperature has to be much higher than the normal body temperature of 38-39 deg. ??? Energy lost by radiation is proportional to temperature to the 4th power. Very hot objects (the sun, fires, red hot metal, etc.) loose a lot of energy via radiation. Dogs, at 39 C do not loos much energy this way. You can find all the equations for this stuff on Wikipedia . . . look up "Thermal Radiation".

The physics is absolutely clear. Unless the air temperature is higher than your dog's body temperature, clipping will cool the dog. Where outside is cooler than inside, insulation keeps heat in. The double coat is like a good jumper or a blanket. Clipping removes the insulation and allows body heat to escape. If you want to win shows . . . clipping may be bad. A think coat provides some protection against scratches and mozzies, and may allow a wet dog to enjoy evaporative cooling for longer (like a wet sweater). But if it's not a century day, dogs are warmer than air temperature. Clipping and undercoat stripping make it easier to shed body heat. ...that's only a part of the physics - you forgot the heat / sun radiation; take the car as a simple example: you have an outside temperature of 25 deg C - no AC running. According to your theory the temperature inside the car should never exceed 25 deg C. We all know that this is not true, the car will absorb the solar energy and it won't take long and the temperature inside the car is much higher than outside. Without the coat the dogs body will absorb much more heat energy, however, beside a small fraction he can get rid off via convection and radiation, the biggest part has to be discharged by his 'radiator' (=tongue). So the poorer the insulation, the more work his specific cooling system has to do. Another example: according to your theory the bitumen should never have a higher temperature than the air - again, we all know that this isn't correct. The 'physics' you cite works for us humans - but only because we can get rid of the heat via our skin respectively by sweating. Ask your vet if you don't believe this. I taught energy balance physics at a college level and at one point was pretty familiar with the animal literature on the subject. 'My theory' is based on Newtonian physics. They hold for cars, people, potatoes, rocks . . . you name it. Here's a short lecture: 1. There are three modes of energy exchange: radiant, conductive, and convective. Insulation cuts off convective and slows conductive exchange; the convective term is generally more important than the radiative when air circulates freely around the body, when the body is in motion, or when the wind blows. 2. Insulation blocks both conduction and convection. It might indirectly affects radiative transfer if the insulating substance absorbs radiation (ie, albedo). 2. The dog in a hot environment is a body radiating at around 39 C in an environment that is typically cooler than the dog. 3. The dog's coat color, and perhaps to a small extent texture, will affect the absorption of energy, particularly solar radiation. 4. The coat depth and thickness and physical structure block the conduction and convection of heat from the dog's body. The thicker the coat, the more heat exchange is blocked. 5. A dog that wants to stay cool will often dig a hole in a cool, shady, moist location to enjoy conductive heat exchange from the ground and escape heat gain from radiation. You are correct, sweating and panting also affect a dog or human's energy budget. Evaporative cooling. The car heats up because the windows allow solar energy to come in. Once absorbed and turned to heat, this energy can no longer go through the glass, as glass is not transparent to energy radiating off bodies whose temperatures are below, say, the below the boiling point of water. Road tar gets hot because it is very effective in absorbing energy (low albedo). If you park you car in a garage on a hot day, it will be the same temperature as the garage. Put shades on the windows and it won't heat up so much. Dogs coats are NOT transparent, so the car example is irrelevant.

Can't read the posters and the URL gives me a 404. I pulled one article on post clipping alopecia. It said the dog's hair dissapates heat in summer. That is FALSE! Hair creates dead air space, thickens the boundary layer, and interferes with convective energy transfer (ie it insulates).

Bad analogy. Heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas. You want insulation to keep your house around 20-25C when ambient is 30C +, to prevent heat from flowing in. Your dog is NOT a refrigerator. A dog's temperature is well above ambient except on days where it's above 39 C. Removing insulation allows body heat to get out! There are devils in the details. A dual coat is like wearing a weatherproof parka over a thick jumper. It is not clear whether raking the undercoat . . . which amounts to trading a thick jumper to a thin one . . . is more effective than shaving off the outer coat.

The physics is absolutely clear. Unless the air temperature is higher than your dog's body temperature, clipping will cool the dog. Where outside is cooler than inside, insulation keeps heat in. The double coat is like a good jumper or a blanket. Clipping removes the insulation and allows body heat to escape. If you want to win shows . . . clipping may be bad. A think coat provides some protection against scratches and mozzies, and may allow a wet dog to enjoy evaporative cooling for longer (like a wet sweater). But if it's not a century day, dogs are warmer than air temperature. Clipping and undercoat stripping make it easier to shed body heat.

^ This! If breeding dogs was so lucrative, the market would be flooded with pups! It's a lot of work, a lot of risk, and a lot of investment. Sure, when things work out you may get a return of $20k for an investment of $3000. But you have no guarantee of this outcome. You may end up with a singleton and need to do a Ceasar. Puppies are fun and loveable. But a large litter turns your life upside down. Very few employers would respond well to "can I take 8 weeks off, my dog is about to have puppies". Also, there are longer term costs. You may have to run on two or three pups before you get one you want to breed from. You may end up supporting your bitch for six or eight years after she is retired. You may be restricted in where you can live (eg., kennel zone in WA). Think of it as a bit like other labors of love that can potentially make a little money . . . restoring antique cars or boats, potting, orchid breeding . . . etc.