I have a nine-month-old mix — we got her at a rescue center and they do not know for sure her breed. We were told that she would weigh between 25 and 35 pounds (by our vet). Well at 55 pounds of solid dog I have a question – How many times a day should we feed her and how much? The vet thinks she has the following breeds mixed – Husky, Welch Corgi, Lab and Pit bull. She has short hair and seems to shed about every 4 months.
Nancy
Goodyear, AZ
You illustrate in your question the reason why I never try to guess how big a puppy will be when full grown. This is especially true of non-purebred dogs. Dogs are like people. Some grow early, and others grow late. Either can be normal, and this makes it devilishly hard to guess how big a puppy will be when it is an adult.
The tallest person in a sixth grade class may be among the shortest of the cohort during high school graduation. And the shortest person in the sixth grade could be among the tallest in the twelfth. In general I refrain from speculating on the final size that I expect juveniles of any species to reach.
But your question was about feeding. How much should a dog (or cat, or human) eat? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to that one. Different lifestyles, activity levels, and baseline metabolisms all come into play. The type of food eaten is important, too. Active dogs that eat low calorie food need to eat large amounts in order to survive. Sedentary indoor cats that eat calorically dense diets can get by on close to nothing.
Formulas exist to calculate energy needs for pets. I haven’t used them in years, but I do recall that they involve body mass to the 3/4 power. I also recall, vividly, that the formulas are useless. They make great theory, but real life is more complicated–and at the same time more simple.
I recommend that you feed your pet the amount of food necessary to grow, thrive, and maintain a healthy body weight. That may sound obvious, but it is true. The only method that truly works in my experience is trial and error. If your pet is overweight, feed him less. If your pet is underweight, growing or training for the Iditarod, feed him more. Tinker until you get it right.
Two meals daily is the standard for dogs in the United States, but this rule isn’t set in stone. Some animals, most notably small breed puppies, should be fed more often (young Yorkshire Terrier and Chihuahua puppies should be fed at least four times each day to prevent low blood sugar). I have some patients that eat three square meals every day. Others eat only one (although I generally don’t recommend one meal each day due to an anthropomorphic opposition to going 23 1/2 hours without food).
For most pets the number of meals fed doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as the total amount of food offered. Your dog, as you mention, is “solid”. To me it sounds like you’re doing things right.
Cats and dogs with food allergies most commonly suffer from skin and ear problems. Gastrointestinal upset also is possible.
Numerous studies have been performed to assess the most highly allergenic food ingredients. A paper published in the September, 2002 issue of Advances in Small Animal Medicine and Surgery attempted to tabulate the results of 22 different studies into a cohesive set of data. This “study of studies” has the advantage of large sample sizes that are likely to be statistically significant. It has the disadvantage of being authored by Philip Roudebush of the Hill’s Science and Technology Center. Although I can’t see any evidence of data twisting in the paper, readers should be aware that the data were tabulated by a person employed by a pet food manufacturer. Consume as many grains of salt as you desire while reading the results.
The leading food allergens in dogs as determined by the study of studies are listed below. Numbers in parentheses indicate percent of food allergy cases caused by each ingredient. They do not indicate the likelihood that a pet will suffer an allergic reaction after consuming the ingredient.
Beef (34%)
Dairy (20%)
Chicken (20%)
Wheat (16%)
Egg (7%)
Lamb (5%)
Soy (5%)
Corn (3%)
Pork (2%)
Rice (2%)
Fish (1%)
In cats, the following allergens were found to be most problematic.
Beef (29%)
Dairy (29%)
Fish (23%)
Lamb (7%)
Chicken (7%)
Wheat (5%)
Corn (5%)
Egg (4%)
A different study of studies was published in April, 2006 in the online journal Critical Reviews in food Science and Nutrition. The authors were Belgian, and in a quick review of the matter I could not find evidence of links to pet food companies. Here are their conclusions.
The leading allergens in dogs as determined by the authors are beef (36%), dairy (28%), wheat (15%), egg (10%), “diverse” (includes corn, rice, “biscuit”, chocolate [They're feeding chocolate to dogs in Belgium?! Don't they know it's potentially toxic? And isn't Belgian chocolate too good to give to dogs?], and gluten) (10%), chicken (9.6%), “canned foods” (8.6%), soy (6%), “dry foods” (6%), pork (4%), rabbit (1%) and fish (1%).
The authors concluded that the leading allergens in cats are “commercial foods” (ingredient causing allergies undetermined) (25%), beef (20%), dairy (15%), fish (13%) “diverse” (includes penicillin, “brand’s essence”, gluten, and viscera) (11%), lamb (7%), poultry (5%), barley and wheat (5%), additives (2%), rabbit (1%) and egg (1%).
Percentages in both studies may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Readers are invited to post links to additional studies in the comments section.
Photo: may cause allergic reactions in dogs. That leaves more for me!
To answer this question I will rely in part on my own original research. I tested the corn-as-a-filler hypothesis personally.
When I was a freshman in college, dinner was served family style each night in the dormitory’s cafeteria. At that time I had not yet ascertained that I was destined to be a clinician rather than a researcher. Therefore I decided to undertake an experiment.
One night my table was served a portion of canned corn. A large volume was left over at the end of the meal. In the name of science I consumed the leftover canned corn. It amounted to at least two cups. In order to ensure the validity of my experiment, I took care not to chew the corn.
The next morning a scientific breakthrough occurred. I discovered, decisively, that unchewed corn is not digestible.
The key word, however, is unchewed. The outer husk of a corn kernel is not digestible by cats, dogs, or humans. Ground up corn is a different story.
I remember learning in nutrition class in vet school (and to answer, in advance, the skeptics who will bring up links between pet food companies and veterinary nutrition departments, I have this to say: give me some credit. You don’t think I’d see through that?) that corn is actually a good source of protein for pets.
When I was in Ohio (remember folks, it was Ohio. Not Hawaii, and certainly not Rio) on Iams’ dime, various Iams representatives pointed out that the price of corn has skyrocketed in the last year as demand for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels has taken off. They state that if corn were just a filler they would be wise to seek out a more economical filler.
I also asked about the future of grain-free diets. Dan Rajczak (head of Iams and and Eukanuba) states that the company is investigating these diets at their Louisville, Ohio research center. If their research shows these diets to be more optimal for pet health (and perhaps more profitable?), Iams may begin to move away from grains.
But enough about corn and grains. I also found out where the names Iams and Eukanuba come from. Iams is the last name of the company’s founder. Eukanuba apparently is something that young men in Dayton, Ohio would say when they saw an attractive woman about a century ago. In other words, Eukanuba means hot chick.
And that wraps up the Iams thread. Tomorrow the Vet Blog will be back to feline Q and A. Dog lovers, fear not. I’ll start adding in some dog topics again soon.
Photo: A scientific experiment waiting to happen! By Vassia Atanassova.
Tomorrow I will be part of a small group that will meet with the President and CEO of Iams and Eukanuaba, Dan Rajczak. He will give us a brief presentation. A question and answer session will follow.
I realize that it is late notice, but I am wondering whether my readers have any questions they would like me to present to the leader of such a major pet food company.
Please post them in the comments section. Post them quickly — the meeting is in 14 hours. And be polite. I’ll check in tomorrow before the meeting, and I’ll post later to let you know how it goes.
Full disclosure: Iams/Eukanuba has paid for me to fly to Dayton, Ohio for this meeting.
Some dog foods state that they are for PUPPIES. What do you think of a dog food that states it is for puppies and adults? I always thought puppy food had additional vitamins, etc. Until my six-month-old Yellow Lab puppy is at least one year old, I’m going to keep her on puppy food. Do you agree?
Diane
Rehoboth, Delaware
Commercial puppy foods often have more calories, protein, and vitamins than adult formulas. The proportions of nutrients in puppy formulas also may differ from those in regular formulas. The added nutrients and altered proportions are designed to promote healthy growth.
Paradoxically, large breed puppy formulas are designed to slow growth slightly (although not affect final adult size)–this helps to prevent symptoms of hip dysplasia later in life.
It is my opinion that many companies use puppy formulas mostly for marketing purposes. Plenty of evidence shows that most adult formulas also can provide ample nutrition for the growth of puppies. Although puppy formulas may be tailored for young dogs, many dog foods are appropriate for multiple life stages.
I generally recommend that large breed puppies (such as Labrador Retrievers) stay on large breed puppy food until they are 12 – 18 months old. I recommend this because of the hip dysplasia-reducing effects of these diets.
However, that benefit may be marginal. Most puppies can in fact do fine eating regular high quality dog food.
I have said many, many times on this blog that in my opinion there is no one “right” food for any dog, cat, or human. We can thrive by eating almost any food that is adequately nutritious. This is true for puppies as well as adult dogs.
When I was reviewing the Health and Science section of the July 31, 2009 issue of The Week for Monday’s article about cats purring, another blurb caught my eye. It’s totally off topic, but I can’t resist commenting. I’ll return to juicy veterinary topics tomorrow.
The content in the short article has been published thousands (or perhaps hundreds of thousands) of times over the last ten years. It keeps being repackaged as a new story and sold to the public as a revolutionary discovery–even though it is old, old news. I guess the editors believe that the human quest to live forever will make us forget that this story was published in one form or another last year, and the year before, and the year before, and . . .
Living longer by going hungry
If we eat a lot less, will we live longer? It works for monkeys, says The New York Times. After studying a group of rhesus monkeys for 20 years, scientists found that those that were fed one-third less food aged much more slowly than their peers, which were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. The calorie-restricted monkeys also showed less deterioration of muscle and brain matter, conditions that typically come with aging, and appeared to be on course to live up to 20 percent longer than the norm. For humans, that might mean extending life spans by seven to 15 years. “We were frankly blown away by these findings,” says lead research Richard Weindruch, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
Dr. Weindruch, were you set up to look silly in that quote? Surely a researcher in your field is aware of the dozens of studies and countless (dare I say mercilessly incessant stream of) news articles documenting this completely unsurprising fact in basically every species imaginable–except humans (more on that soon). You could not plausibly have been “blown away” by this new set of results.
The article continues . . .
The results dovetail with other research indicating that caloric restriction can extend the lives of mice, dogs, yeast, fruit flies, and worms.
You don’t say?
I remember a decade or so ago when the first study showed that calorie restriction increased life span in rodents. I realized that I might be able extend my life span significantly, if only someone would lock me in a cage and starve me.
No study of this matter has been performed in humans, because almost nobody willingly starves him- or herself. In fact, people who voluntarily refuse to eat are considered to suffer from pathology: anorexia nervosa.
The hope of these types of studies is that chronic starvation activates genes that extend life span. Ideally, some day we will be able to activate these genes without having to go hungry. Then we can all live to be 130, and collect Social Security for half of our lives. (My apologies to the youthful Americans who will be stuck paying for this. One day you also will have the opportunity to stick it to a younger generation.)
Meanwhile, I’m going to start my day with an omelette.
Photo: say goodbye to longevity! By Mattia Luigi Nappi.
Last week Anders asked a video question on the vet blog. Here it is again in case you missed it.
I am reminded of an aphorism: all things should be enjoyed in moderation, except for moderation itself, which should be enjoyed in excess.
The good news, Tailer, is that there is nothing wrong with an occasional treat here and there. The bad news is that it’s generally not a good idea for any creature to exist solely on treats.
Unless the nutrition information for the treats specifically states that they provide complete and balanced nutrition, it is safe to assume that they do not. Feeding nothing but treats could lead to nutritional deficiencies. Some treats are very high in carbohydrates–some experts believe this predisposes cats to diabetes. Excess treats also put some cats at risk of obesity (although it is clear from the video that Tailer’s weight is fine).
Anders, I recommend that you encourage Tailer to eat more of his regular food. Use the treats only as treats.
I want to start by setting guidelines for comments on this post. The subject of pet food in general, and raw food in particular, has a knack for triggering strong emotions. People on both sides of the raw food debate have been known to post comments to this blog when they are angry or offended.
I strongly encourage you to comment on this post. I want to hear your opinions. You are free to disagree, respectfully, your fellow commenters or with me. However, I insist that all comments be respectful. They must be respectful to fellow commenters, and they must be respectful to me.
Thank you in advance for not forcing me to delete any comments.
And now, as promised, here is what I think about raw food.
In my opinion, raw diets are neither better nor worse than commercial diets. Raw diets undoubtedly work better for some individuals. Commercial diets work better for others.
Let’s break this subject down by analyzing some of the arguments that have been cited against and for raw diets. I’ll start with the argument that my malpractice insurance provider never lets me forget.
Raw diets pose health threats to humans and pets.
This claim has been the subject of much ballyhoo over the years. It is true that improperly prepared raw meat can spread parasites such as tapeworms (although not the most common type of canine and feline tapeworm), Toxoplasma gondii, and Trichinella to pets and humans. Improperly prepared raw meat can spread bacterial ailments including Salmonella, E. coli and Campylobacter.
The above statements are facts. Whenever a client asks me about raw food, I feel compelled to bring these facts up. If I do not and a client or patient becomes sick from raw food, I could be sued.
But if one looks a little harder at these risks, it turns out that with care they can be managed. The phrase improperly prepared is critical. A client once confessed to me that she had contracted Salmonella three times from her dog’s raw diet. That confession said more about her than about the diet.
And let us not forget that any food, if not properly prepared, can spread disease. The most recent outbreak of Salmonella in the United States was due to contaminated peanut butter. Inadequately washed raw vegetables are thought to be the most common means of Toxoplasma transmission. Commercial pet foods occasionally are tainted with Salmonella or melamine.
Life is full of risks that must be managed. I love carpaccio, steak tartare, ceviche and sashimi. I realize they have the potential to make me sick, so I only eat them when I feel that I can trust the maker. People who feed raw (or, for that matter, commercial) diets should be no less cautious.
Raw diets often are not nutritionally complete and balanced.
Any home made diet (and, for that matter, many a cheap commercial diet) has the potential to be nutritionally inadequate. If people who make raw food for their pets do their homework, then this shouldn’t be a problem.
Commercially prepared raw diets are overpriced.
This argument is neither here nor there for me. It is every person’s right to decide how much to spend on pet food. As long as the commercial raw diets are balanced and nutritionally complete, then in my mind price is a private matter between the manufacturer and the consumer.
And, of course, one could argue that plenty of conventional commercial diets also are overpriced.
Studies have shown that cats and dogs can survive for many generations eating nothing but one type of high quality commercial food. This proves that the food in question contains all of the nutrients that cats or dogs need.
Indeed, these studies have been performed. And in my opinion they are significant.
However, most of these studies were funded by the manufacturers of the food in question. Such conflicts of interest cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, these studies do nothing to prove that pets can’t survive equally well or better on other diets.
Dogs and cats evolved to eat raw food. Wolves eat raw food. Therefore, raw diets are superior to commercial diets.
People who employ this argument occasionally throw in tidbits about digestive enzymes. For instance, I have heard it said that cats lack the necessary enzymes to digest carbohydrates. (If that were true, then the carbohydrate content of cat food would be irrelevant. Carbs would simply pass through cats undigested, like cellulose does.)
I also have heard the argument that canine and feline digestive enzymes are tailored to raw protein. Therefore, according to the argument, raw food is more digestible than cooked. (In fact, the enzymes that digest protein are very versatile. They generally can handle either type of food.)
In my opinion the evolutionary argument in favor of raw food is weak on a couple of levels. First, dogs aren’t wolves any more than humans are chimpanzees.
Second, even if dogs and cats descended from strictly predatory creatures, the current incarnation of both species survives mostly by scavenging. If you doubt this, I recommend that you spend some time (as I have) observing unowned dogs and cats in developing countries. That is as wild as either species gets.
In countries such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, Laos, Botswana, Swaziland, Cambodia, Peru and El Salvador I have observed the behavior of feral cats and dogs. They subsist largely on human leftovers. I have never seen a dog or a cat living independently on a prairie or in a jungle, forest, swamp or nature preserve. They generally live among people.
Both species have evolved to live among humans. We generally eat cooked food, and they often eat our leftovers. It is highly likely that their recent evolution has adapted both species to eat both cooked and raw foods.
Frankly, I don’t really care what cats and dogs evolved to eat. I care whether what they eat can lead to optimal health. In my experience, both commercial and raw foods are capable of meeting this expectation.
Raw food prevents and treats canine (or feline) allergies (or autoimmune disease, or inflammatory bowel disease, or some other dreaded problem).
To this argument I say prove it. I am not aware of any well-run studies that document definitive health benefits from raw food. I am skeptical about health claims that are not backed up by hard evidence.
Might the claims of raw food health benefits some day be proved? Sure. And if they are, I reserve the right to endorse raw food. In fact, if the claims are proved, I promise to endorse raw food.
But until I see good scientific studies proving the superiority of any type of food, I cannot in good conscience advocate the use of one food over another.
A note to commenters: I welcome links to studies that cite health benefits of any type of food. However, I will be skeptical of any link that points to a pet food manufacturer’s website or a raw food advocacy site.
My pet had constant problems with allergies (or dental disease, or autoimmune disease, or inflammatory bowel disease) until I switched to raw food. Now my pet is in perfect health.
That’s great, but it doesn’t prove anything about raw food or commercial food in general. There is no doubt that some pets enjoy better health when fed a particular type of food. But one pet’s experience with a particular food does nothing to prove that the food will have benefits for other pets.
The other day I met an 18-year-old dog who had eaten nothing but Alpo his entire life. I don’t generally recommend Alpo, but I couldn’t reasonably claim that Alpo hadn’t worked well for that pet. And, even though that dog had thrived on Alpo for so long, I still don’t recommend the use of Alpo in general.
And that leads me into my take-home message. Raw food is probably better for some pets. Commercial food is probably better for others. Neither has, in my opinion, been proved conclusively superior in general.
Feed your pet what works best for him or her. There’s nothing wrong with properly prepared raw diets. But there’s also nothing wrong with high-quality commercial food.
Live and let live.
Photo: my pal Buster eats nothing but Science Diet and table scraps that Aunt Laurie sneakily gives him.
One of my cats, Nashville (aka Bug), does not
properly chew his food. I would guess, with his
dry food, he maybe chews two out of every 10 pieces
he eats. The rest of them he just swallows whole.
He doesn’t usually eat particularly fast, just
one piece at a time. I’ve had to avoid giving him
certain kinds of treats because he has choked on
them due to not chewing them. Could there be any
particular cause for him not wanting to chew food?
He does not have any dental problems that we are
aware of, and this has been going on since he was
a kitten (he’s now almost 2). Thanks!
Sabrina
Spokane, WA
Bug’s behavior is not abnormal. People still debate whether dogs are natural predators (they appear to share a common ancestor with wolves) or scavengers (dogs in the wild (wild dogs are common–they roam freely in towns and cities in developing countries) obtain most of their food by scavenging). Please pardon the double parenthesis.
Cats, however, are carnivores. Although they will scavenge if afforded the opportunity, their main source of sustenance is prey animals. They capture and kill their prey. They use their teeth to tear off pieces of meat and internal organs. The pieces are swallowed whole.
Cats’ teeth are designed for this purpose. They have few molars. Their molars, unlike ours, aren’t designed for chewing and thoroughly macerating food. It isn’t normal for them to spend much time chewing.
It generally isn’t harmful for cats to swallow food without chewing it. In fact, I know several cats who have no teeth. These cats often consume hard food and swallow it whole.
I always recommend avoiding treats or foodstuffs that cause difficulties for individual pets. But, for the most part, swallowing unchewed food is normal feline behavior.
Some people may use this fact to discourage feeding dry food or any form of commercial cat food as “unnatural”. However, I have yet to see any reputable evidence that dry cat food is bad for cats. I have seen theoretical evidence, I have seen plenty of material published on thoroughly biased advocacy websites, and I have seen anecdotal reports from forums that are not scientifically run. But I haven’t seen any solid studies that scientifically document health problems caused by commercial cat food. At least not yet.
We have a 5 year old Cane Corso. Can the brand/ type of dog food make a difference on his teeth? They started bleeding lately and he will only eat his food if we put water in it and leave it to get mushy. Please let us know if there is anything we should be doing differently.
Heather
The most common cause of bleeding in the mouth is dental disease. Since dogs don’t brush their teeth, they are prone to infections of the teeth, gums, and bones in the mouth that can become severe.
Pets with advanced dental disease may prefer soft food to dry food. They may also experience bleeding from the gums.
This sort of dental disease is very painful. It also poses a serious health risk.
Dogs that eat dry food generally develop dental disease more slowly than those that eat soft food. However, all dogs are at risk for dental disease. If your dog is unable to eat hard food, then you should continue to feed him soft food until a vet can evaluate him.
Speaking of vets, I recommend that you take your dog to one as soon as possible. In addition to dental disease, problems such as fractured (chipped) teeth, tumors in the mouth, exposure to rat poison, and foreign objects lodged in the oral cavity can cause the symptoms you describe.
Whatever is causing your dog’s symptoms needs to be addressed. The problem is likely to get worse over time. Your dog almost certainly is in pain. He needs to see a vet.
You have questions. Veterinarian Eric Barchas (pronounced bark-us) has answers, plus stories from the vet’s office, commentary on pet news and more. This blog is brought to you by Dogster, Inc., makers of the hydrant-famous Dogster and the unnecessarily feared Catster. You can ask Dr. Barchas a question. If he can answer it he will.
This service is provided for educational purposes only. This blog is not a substitute for the regular veterinary care for your cats, dogs or other pets, that a licensed veterinarian provides through regular, routine office visits. Dogster.com is not an emergency consultation facility and does not provide advice or consultation regarding immediate emergency attention. If your pet has been in an accident, or is in immediate medical need, you need to contact your regular veterinarian or local animal hospital immediately.
I have a nine-month-old mix — we got her at a rescue center and they do not know for sure her breed. We were told that she would weigh between 25 and 35 pounds (by our vet). Well at 55 pounds of solid dog I have a question – How many times a day should we feed her and how much? The vet thinks she has the following breeds mixed – Husky, Welch Corgi, Lab and Pit bull. She has short hair and seems to shed about every 4 months.
You have questions. 