Odyssey
Well-Known Member
I've been wondering about this for quite some time. I've read a fair bit about dog nutrition, and the downsides to regular parasite preventative products and yearly boosters etc. From what I've read, raw food is by far the best diet for the majority of dogs, though obviously there are exceptions. I'd be really interested to know what people did as regards feeding and general healthcare for dogs that lived in good health for longer than about 14 years. I understand that feeding dogs kibble, even high quality ones, is far from ideal as even the high meat/fish content ones are essentially "dead" due to the processing, and high temperature it's cooked at. Do some of you feed both kibble and raw, which I know is controversial, but is surely a lot better than just feeding kibble? What extras do you add, such as wet food, tinned fish, fruit and veg, and supplements?
Do most people still get yearly boosters done, and use conventional flea/worming products every month? I know there are no easy answers, there are pros and cons to most of these things, though it seems that yearly boosters aren't essential as we're led to believe, and that titre testing would be far preferable. People don't have booster vaccinations after their initial childhood ones, so why is it considered necessary for dogs? From the reading I've done, I believe many of these things we do that are considered necessary are in fact detrimental to dogs long term health, and reducing their lifespan. Surely it can't be good to put chemicals into our dogs on a monthly basis for 12 years or so. Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever flea treat, worm, or do worm counts. I know that lungworm, for example, can be fatal. I wonder if worm counts are a better option than routinely worming dogs, and will become the norm in time. Unfortunately I don't think natural worming/flea products are as effective as their chemical equivalents. I would be interested in debating these issues, while not criticising those who question the conventional wisdom.
Do most people still get yearly boosters done, and use conventional flea/worming products every month? I know there are no easy answers, there are pros and cons to most of these things, though it seems that yearly boosters aren't essential as we're led to believe, and that titre testing would be far preferable. People don't have booster vaccinations after their initial childhood ones, so why is it considered necessary for dogs? From the reading I've done, I believe many of these things we do that are considered necessary are in fact detrimental to dogs long term health, and reducing their lifespan. Surely it can't be good to put chemicals into our dogs on a monthly basis for 12 years or so. Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever flea treat, worm, or do worm counts. I know that lungworm, for example, can be fatal. I wonder if worm counts are a better option than routinely worming dogs, and will become the norm in time. Unfortunately I don't think natural worming/flea products are as effective as their chemical equivalents. I would be interested in debating these issues, while not criticising those who question the conventional wisdom.