My Blog
NHD - Naturally Healthy Dogs - Natural Diet & Holistic Healthcare Choices
RSS

Recent Posts

Richard Allport Talk
DIATOMACEUS EARTH INFO. For Dogs
Oil of Oregano
Does Liver have a place in Your Dogs Diet ?
ETA & SDA - The TOP Inflammation-Busters

Categories

A Few Words
Allopathic
Diet
Diet & Vaccines
EFT
Frequent Questions
Hazards
Health Issues
Intro & About Me
Natural Alternatives
NHD Products
Personal Experiences
Promotional
PWA - PetWelfareAlliance
Therapies
Vaccinations
powered by

My Blog

Hazards

WHAT!....You feed BONES ?!?!?!

One of the biggest things which people worry about, and which makes some people turn away from the idea of feeding a natural, raw diet to their pet, is the idea of feeding bones.
 
We all remember the vets warning, “never ever feed your dogs bones” – but many will also remember dogs always having marrow bones and ribs when they were younger, and some who lived in the country or on farms etc. will also remember their dogs always having raw food or tripe for their food.
 
Whichever vets first uttered that warning, did the canine world a great dis-service by not clarifying that they were talking about ‘cooked’ bones……cooked bones where all the moisture is gone because of the cooking process, leaving them dry and brittle……which would, of course, pose a high risk of splintering and causing health issues.
 
                                                    raw chicken carcass
 
That is not to say there lies ‘zero’ risk in feeding raw bones, but there is risk in everything, dried pet foods known as ‘kibble’ harbour salmonella and bacteria and pets have choked on kibbles before now, there is risk in everything.
 
What is needed is basic good old common sense – you don’t start a new diet without researching first, talking to others who successfully follow that diet and have done so for a good number of years, even someone, such as myself, who will offer consultations and ongoing support, or joining a group for support incase you have queries and questions.
 
Raw bones still have all that lovely moisture in them, making them more pliable, add to that the fact that animals are killed at such young ages these days, thus having softer bones, and unless you neglect ensuring your dog knows how to eat a bone ‘nicely’ there is very little danger of a bone causing problems.
 
How do we ‘teach' a dog to eat bones ‘nicely’ ?
Some dogs ‘inhale’ their food and gulp it down so quickly that to just give them a bone one day would be foolish, but many dogs eat their food nicely and do eat small amounts at a time.
 
For dogs where there is a chance they may gulp, or the owners are unsure, there are 2 ways which both work very well:
 
 1.Whatever bone you are giving your dog, hold it and only give   access to small parts of it to the dog so he/she can only get small bits at a time – after a few times the dog will naturally eat it this way, and if you teach the word ‘gently’ whilst doing this, and use that reminder when you start letting the dog have the bone without you holding it, this works well.
.
 2. Give a really large, meaty bone as large, or larger than your dogs own head – like half a whole chicken, or a whole chicken – so the dog has to work and has eaten some meat already before it eats the bone, and has tired it’s jaws out a bit already and so will eat slightly slower.
.
What do bones ‘bring to the table’ for our dogs in their diet ?
.
-  important minerals such as calcium, phosphorus
.
-  protein containing essential amino acids, including lysine
.
- blood-forming nutrients including copper and iron [from the marrow]
.
- essential fatty acids
.
- fat-soluble vitamins [A, D and E]
.
Because a dogs digestive system is still the same as a carnivore and has not evolved [has adapted to a small extent but not evolved] they have stronger stomach acid than people and are therefore able to access nutrients which would simply be inedible to a person.
.
The action of chewing, crunching and tearing at bones releases feel-good endorphins in the brain, such as serotonin, which also creates a feeling of well-being and calm within dogs.
.
It is also good exercise,as when a dog is eating a bone, all it’s upper body muscles are being used, digestive juices are flowing, they are stimulated as they are fulfilling natural instinctual urges, which stimulates the flow of brain chemicals and these help tone the hormonal and immune systems.
.
Regularly being able to gnaw on bones also acts like a toothbrush and floss for our dogs and can prevent tartar and plaque build-up, which lead to bacteria on the teeth releasing noxious gases, givingour pets bad breath and eventually leading to gum and tooth disease,  periodontal disease, and as the bacteria from the diseased gums and teeth travel further into the body on food eaten, will lead to internal disease within the body such as Liver and Kidney disease and Immune system problems.
.
.
My dogs have loved their bones for over 10yrs now, above is my 4yr old German Shepherd Tye’s teeth – he has never visited a vet or needed his teeth cleaning.
.
Suitable bones to give your dogs are :
.
*  Beef, Lamb, Pork, Deer, Rabbit, Chicken, Turkey,Duck, Pheasant – and many other animals your dog may eat as small prey.
Avoid leg bones and knuckle bones from large animals, such as cows and large deer, as the more weight a bone has had to carry, the harder the bone will be and there is a chance there of your dogs teeth being chipped, or a small chance of splintering.
.
In some countries Pork can contain parasites, but in many countries, including the UK this is not a problem - check with your source if unsure and only feed human grade.
.
A great favourite with my dogs has always been chicken Carcass’s [as seen above], which are easily obtained from most Butchers  [what’s left once the butcher has taken his lot] which often includes organs, some skin and meat aswell as the skeletal structure].
.
Even if you don't 'go the whole hog' with feeding a natural raw diet, just giving your dog a raw meaty bone every day or every other day will give health improvements.

Fireworks

I was going to write a Blog last night, then saw a picture which shocked
me and because of that feel this is so important that I am using this
blog to try and reach as many people far and wide.
 
The picture I saw was of a dog who had to be put to sleep after being
found with half his face blown off by fireworks. The story behind it -
apparently a 52yr old man decided to throw the lit firework into his
neighbours garden, knowing the dog would 'fetch' it, the rest you can
guess.
 
The reasons behind the action one can only guess at, but there is Never
any excuse for making animals suffer because animals are Always
innocents, thinking and acting on different instincts to us.
 
This dog suffered terribly. Most of us have some sort of pet we care
about, and in years past I have heard of cats being made to suffer, so
it's time we pool our voices and stop the public sale of fireworks -
after all - it's well known animal abusers progress on to children
later on.....
 
Please join us and sign this petition and lets try and stop these killing
 'toys' getting into the wrong hands, as, sadly, the law at present
simply does not go far enough:
 
 
Thankyou
Julie

Micro-Chipping

I couldn't say this better, so won't:
.
From: H MCMURRAY
Sent: 25 October 2011 23:15
To: catherine@canine-health-concern.org.uk
Subject: complusory dog microchipping
Dear sir/madam
I am writing to you to make you aware of the dangers of
microchipping. Legislation is soon to be introduced making it
compulsory for dogs in Northern Ireland to be microchipped. I
believe they will try to bring in the same legislation in England.
Are you aware that various scientific studies have shown that
between 1% and 10% of laboratory animals have developed
cancers around the microchip implant.? Outside the laboratory
there have been documented cases of cats and dogs also
developing carcinomas at the implant site. This should not be
surprising, as foreign body tumor genesis (the growth of cancer
cells due to a foreign object being lodged under the skin of an
animal or human) is a well established medical problem.
Here is what Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology
Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center in New York had to say about RFID implants, "There's
no way in the world, having read this information, that I would
have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my
family members."
Please check out the following websites for scientific studies and
other cases of microchip implant-induced tumours.
Importantly, they also state that there has been no research
carried out to prove that these implants are safe.
These websites also contain all the latest information on the
whole microchip subject:
.
.
But cancer is not the only illness induced by Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) chips. There have also been cases of
adverse tissue reactions and haemorrhaging due to the chip
being implanted erroneously; the glass of the chip can break
or the chip can migrate to another part of the body when the
dog is playing.Any adverse reactions to implants are supposed
to be reported to the Microchip Advisory Board on behalf of the
British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA).
However, only one vet in the survey we carried out was aware of
this reporting procedure. But then why would they be aware as
nobody has ever told them there are any risks involved so they
will not be looking for any adverse reactions. M.A.G. have
admitted themselves that there is under-reporting in this area.
.
And who are the Microchip Advisory Board?
They are predominately made up of microchip manufacturers,
microchip distributors, and companies that run the microchip
databases.
There would appear to be a conflict of interest here.
Why would people making a lot of money from microchipping
want to highlight the dangers of microchipping?
There were various spurious reasons put forward by the
pro-microchipping lobby when trying to push this legislation
through but none stand up to close scrutiny.
The first was because it would help curtail dangerous dogs.
Apart from the fact this would involve forcing a law on
everyone to address a problem created by a miniscule amount
of dog owners, it is patently disingenuous as the sort of
people that own dangerous dogs will simply not get their dogs
microchipped or get them from illegal breeders. The next reason
wheeled out was that it would help if your dog was lost, but a
collar with an address and phone number does the same thing.
(If your dog is stolen, under the Data Protection Act, the
company who runs the microchip database cannot legally tell you
who has stolen your dog, so that argument is also fallacious.
Having a microchip is not proof of ownership)
The next reason given is that it would deter people from letting
their dogs roam. Well the only way to do this would be to fine
the owners and to make it substantial but if you do that the
owners would just take the dog to pound for rehoming or just
take it to the vets to get put down which would probably cost
less than the fine. If an owner doesn’t care enough and lets his
dog risk being run over on the road by letting it wander around
without a lead, then he doesn’t really care about the dog at all,
so he isn’t going to pay any fines.
The idea was partly sold to animal sanctuaries because they were
told it would help them re-unite the animals with their owners.
There is one major flaw in this argument. The vast majority of
animals, particularly dogs that 7 Heaven take in, from whatever
source (and presumably this will be the same for most charities)
are animals that have been given up by their owners.
You can microchip a dog up to its eyeballs but you can’t re-unite
it with an owner that doesn’t want it.In the genuine cases where
a dog escapes, a collar and tag with owner’s details will be just
as good for getting the dog back to its owner. In fact, it would
be better as any member of the public can read the details of the
tag and contact the owner whereas it takes someone with a
scanner to read a microchip. Someone would either have to
phone the dog warden and wait until he collected it and got it
back to the pound before the owner would be contacted or
whoever found the dog would have to get it to their nearest vet
or council to have it scanned and not too many people are going
to go to that trouble. In addition to this, if the dog has changed
hands, the microchip details may not be correct as every time a
dog gets a new owner that new owner must pay to have the details
updated on the microchip database.
So when all the arguments are dispelled the only reason left
would appear to be money. By the microchip manufacturers
own admission a profit of between 200% and 400 % can be
made per microchip. That, of course, is only for the charities
or vets that actually do the microchipping; it doesn’t say how
much profit the actual manufacturers will make.
Certainly the one thing that does not seem to be taken into
account is the dog’s welfare as the dangers are never mentioned
to the public.
We conducted a survey amongst Northern Irleand vets to get
their perspective.
Below are the results of that survey:
.
 *57% of respondents said they were never made aware
of the health risks associated with microchipping implants.
.
 *None (0%) of vets, who said they carried out microchipping,
informed the pet’s owner of the risks.
.
 *72% of respondents do not know the reporting procedure to
register any adverse reactions or problems arising from RFID
implants.(Clearly this is a major factor of why M.A.G. say there
is so little risk involved).
.
 *86% of respondents said they disapprove of anyone other than
a vet carrying out this procedure. The remainder said that those
carrying out implants must undergo proper training or be a
qualified veterinary nurse with additional specific training.
.
We also asked the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for their
opinion, taking into account their Guide to Professional Conduct.
Below are the points we put to them. Under the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons Guide to Professional Conduct section 1A it
says , “Accessibility, accountability and transparency are
expected.
Where is the transparency involved when clients are not told
about the risk to the animal?
Under section 1B(a) it says “Make animal welfare your first
consideration in seeking to provide appropriate attention for
animals committed to you care.
How is the welfare of the animal the first consideration when
implanting a microchip when it has no medical or health benefit
to that animal and, in fact, can have adverse side effects?
Under section 1B(b) it says “Ensure that all animals under your
care are treated humanely and with respect”
Carrying out unnecessary medical procedures with potentially
lethal side effects cannot, by any definition, be considered
treating an animal humanely or with respect.Under section
1D(f) it says “Ensure treatment options are offered and
explained, including prognoses and possible side effects.”
Nowhere in vet’s surgeries or animal sanctuaries is there any
literature explaining the possible dangers involved in
microchipping.Under section 1D(1i) it says ‘”obtain
the client’s consent to treatment unless delay would adversely
effect the animal’s welfare (to give informed consent clients must
be aware of the risks)” No consent forms are signed when
microchipping is carried out and no side effects are mentioned.
Under section 1D (2,c) it says “Avoid conflicts of interest.” How
can a conflict of interest be avoided when vets will make money
by carrying out an unnecessary medical procedure. .Under
1C(h,a) A veterinary surgeon must not cause any patient to suffer
by carrying out any unnecessary mutilation .Although
microchipping isn’t strictly mutilation it is an invasive procedure
which is not medically beneficial or necessary. This was their
response – a standard position statement that failed to address any
of the ethical issues‘The RCVS supports the compulsory
permanent identification of all dogs, on the grounds that the
accurate identification of dogs has a positive impact on animal
welfare and may assist in the control of dangerous dogs. 
Microchipping is the predominant form of permanent
identification, although the RCVS also acknowledges other forms
of permanent identification.”Please note they do not categorically
state they support microchipping only that it is one form of
permanent identification.It is clear that vet’s own ethical
guidelines are being ignored by the fact that no vet or
organisation that carries out microchipping is getting consent
forms completed or informing people of the risks. This could well
leave them legally liable if anything goes wrong.(There is an
on-going legal case in the USA where Merck, a microchip
manufacturer, is being sued after their implant caused cancer in a
cat)Then there is the crucial aspect of unique ID references that
RFID implants are supposed to ensure. I quote RFID news -
“There are a number of legitimate, very worthwhile potential
uses for ISO 11784/85 transponders, however national animal
registration databases relying on positive and unique
identification is not one of them.”
Here is also a quote from the CGCVE (The Spanish Veterinary
College) –“We are deeply concerned with the intention to use
the ISO standard for identification of companion animals.
The ISO standard, as it is written, cannot guarantee a
unique identification number for each animal.
Without unique identification numbers it is possible that the one
animal is registered in the database, and other animals with the
same identification number are also present in the market.
When this happens, the reliability of any central database is
destroyed.”
After reading this e-mail we would ask you to oppose any
proposed legislation aimed to makemicrochipping compulsory.
It is unethical to carryout a medical procedure that is not
necessary. Compulsory microchipping will not reduce the
number of stray animals, which is why it the legislation was
supposedly introduced, and the whole premise of a unique ID
is fallacious.
We would also appreciate it if you would sign our online petition
to amend the law in Nortehrn Irleand to remove the compulsory
microchipping component of the bill.
 
 
Thank you
Stephen McMurray
7 Heaven Animal Rescue Trust

Beware the Dangers of RoundUp Weedkiller !

An aquaintance has lost a dog recently and has another suffering and it has been positively confirmed that it was the inhalation of the spray in the air from a farmer spraying RoundUp weedkiller that is the culprit.

Do you know anything about RoundUp ?

It is freely available on the shelves at shops and garden centres which many assume means it's safe and o.k., and may keep their pets inside if/when they use it themselves, but if you are near farmland,
* do you know when the farmer sprays ?
* do you know when the council use it on your pavements and parks ?
* would you know the symptoms if you/your dog were affected by it ?

Did you know you and your pets can also be adversely affected from Pesticides ?
I can remember about 20yrs ago, just after moving house to another town, revisiting our previous town with our 2 dogs in the car, and taking a country route on the way home. We had to stop as the youngest, a new pup, was not a happy travellor and was sick.
We stopped by a cottage where there was also a large grassy verge leading into an open field, just so we had enough space to get the dogs out of the car and change bedding etc.
We had just got the dogs out of the car when someone came rushing
out of the cottage and told us not to let the dogs go near the field because other people's dogs had become ill and some had died from going in there because of whatever had been sprayed on it.

The following site, which covers many known bio-hazardous products,is not from an 'official' body, but is the kind of site where information is saved after the 'official' sites have been pressurred and closed down by big business - in my view this does not make it any the less true, and gives us the information we need to research further for ourselves and be aware:

There is also this information from the ISIS site:'EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity'

If you or your dog is exposed to chemical sprays it will cause liver, spleen and pancreas damage. Damage will also be caused to the pituitary gland which is very serious as it is the pituitary gland which affects all the adrenal glands and their level of function.
It damages the liver which is extremely serious, and alters the RNA so it is very difficult to clear and heal it.
The latest information and belief is that the surfactant they use to make it penetrate the leaves on a plant is, in fact, more toxic than the glycophosate itself - burns skin, damages respiratory tracts etc.

'If' you know when your animal has been exposed, diluted bleach or ammonia and plenty of water will apparently remove the toxins, but you need to know when they have been exposed to it so therefore need to know when sprayings are planned, and if exposure does occurr, as with most things it is then a question of time and the body's ability to repair.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Website Builder provided by  Vistaprint