# Anyone who feeds kirkland puppy food....



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Could you please look at your bag and tell me what the suggested feeding amount is for a 5 month old, 18 pound puppy?

I store my dog food in different containers and threw out the bag


----------



## engin33ring (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm sure you're get a kick out of this:

I just got a puppy and also bought the kirkland puppy food. I didn't realize I needed to save the feeding schedule until I read your post lol.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

haha, well you don't HAVE to go by the schedule, especially if your puppy is still a brand new baby, then your probably really can't overfeed him. But I have to switch over to scheduled feedings because shes getting fat


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Actually over feeding a puppy is very bad, the the larger the breed, the worse. Dog food bags often assume much more exercise than most dogs get. Go by its ribs. Your dog definitely should be narrower at the waist than the hips and chest. You
should be able to easily feel the ribs, but not see them. Each dog is different.
Standard recommendations are a good place to start, but each dog must have its
food and exercise adjusted to its individual needs. Here is a link to a good
illustrated guide, http://www.longliveyourdog.com/twoplus/RateYourDog.aspx


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Actually over feeding a puppy is very bad, the the larger the breed, the worse. Dog food bags often assume much more exercise than most dogs get.


What I meant is that BABY puppies don't tend to overeat and get fat. And by saying you don't HAVE to go by the schedule, well I said that because of the reason in the quote above. Its just a general guideline that you don't have to stick rigidly too.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Again, I disagree. Many breeders send puppy home overweight. They should have a waist at 7 weeks.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Again, I disagree. Many breeders send puppy home overweight. They should have a waist at 7 weeks.


Interesting. I've never seen it personally.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I see it every year when we get our new puppy to foster for a service dog school. The longest possible active life is a very high priority for them. Nobody else is a position to know the best practices. 

As I said, fat puppies are the norm.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I see it every year when we get our new puppy to foster for a service dog school. The longest possible active life is a very high priority for them. Nobody else is a position to know the best practices.
> 
> As I said, fat puppies are the norm.


I think I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I really doubt that a momma dog nursing her puppies makes them fat. I think that when momma dogs nurse their puppies, they are at the perfect body shape/weight they are supposed to be. And at eight weeks old they are just finishing up with nursing.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

You really think those following such traditional practices know more than the professionals that have been breeding hundreds of puppies a year for a long time? They have the puppies fully weaned by at least 6 weeks and nice and lean. They go to their homes at 7 weeks. The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> You really think those following such traditional practices know more than the professionals that have been breeding hundreds of puppies a year for a long time? They have the puppies fully weaned by at least 6 weeks and nice and lean. They go to their homes at 7 weeks. The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


Nor is a service dog company. Service dogs, while great and I am not in any way maligning them, are not the be all end all of dogs. Your personal experience with them, while commendable, does not dictate the one true way and trump everyone else's experiences with dogs


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> You really think those following such traditional practices know more than the professionals that have been breeding hundreds of puppies a year for a long time? They have the puppies fully weaned by at least 6 weeks and nice and lean. They go to their homes at 7 weeks. The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


The natural feeding and weaning process between mother dogs and their puppies is "traditional practices"? I think the mother dogs have been having and taking care of their puppies for a much longer time, and I'm sorry yes they do know better how to take care of their own young than the service dog people.

It is not good to take a puppy away from its canine family so early.



RaeganW said:


> Nor is a service dog company. Service dogs, while great and I am not in any way maligning them, are not the be all end all of dogs. Your personal experience with them, while commendable, does not dictate the one true way and trump everyone else's experiences with dogs


well said.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Some people are interested in what highly educated , highly experienced professionals do, and some aren't.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Some people are interested in what highly educated , highly experienced professionals do, and some aren't.


Interested, and following blindly without thinking for yourself, are two different things. There is no need for you to have this all-superior attitude that you do, and stop putting people down just because they aren't buying into it.

btw, there are plenty of OTHER highly educated and highly experienced people out there who do things DIFFERENTLY.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Some people are interested in what highly educated , highly experienced professionals do, and some aren't.


You my friend are a sheep blindly following this Godly "service dog company" and yet still haven't posted any REAL evidence from them and all their great studies you've been preaching about. What's their contact info - I call them myself.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I am careful to protect then from the likes of you.


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

this thread certainly needs to be close. it's not in the spirit of this forum. can't we all just get along???


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I am sorry for instigating something, that was not my intention. I am interested in what educated, experienced professionals are doing. I am interested in what the person who has had their first dog for three weeks is doing. I think your experience with a guide dog company gives you a valuable angle. But that doesn't mean that they, nor you, have The Right Answer. There isn't One Right Answer. You said it yourself: The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> I am sorry for instigating something, that was not my intention. I am interested in what educated, experienced professionals are doing. I am interested in what the person who has had their first dog for three weeks is doing. I think your experience with a guide dog company gives you a valuable angle. But that doesn't mean that they, nor you, have The Right Answer. There isn't One Right Answer. You said it yourself: The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


Raegan you are fine, you havn't said anything inappropriate as far as I can tell. It is fine with me if a mod thinks this thread should be closed? I don't think its THAT bad, but the question has been answered so....


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I am careful to protect then from the likes of you.


What is wrong with you? Do you fancy yourself a royal personage?



RaeganW said:


> Nor is a service dog company. Service dogs, while great and I am not in any way maligning them, are not the be all end all of dogs. Your personal experience with them, while commendable, does not dictate the one true way and trump everyone else's experiences with dogs.


Well put.

Labsnoothers, raising puppies who are going to be service dogs does _not_ make you an expert in canine nutrition; it makes you, if anything, an expert in raising puppies who are going to be service dogs.

There are plenty of people on here (experts in behavior, experts in training, experts in breeding, experts in showing) who do not think that foods like science diet, which often uses corn meal as a first ingredient, are healthy for dogs. Touting yourself as the voice of experts everywhere is not going to get you very far.

I have to wonder what your agenda is. Do you run searches on here for any threads that have the word "food" somewhere in them, just so you can go and post a pro-science diet ad there? Because it's starting to seem that way. Do you receive special discounts for using science diet exclusively, the way some vets do? Do you get kickbacks? Do you get rebates?

Maybe you should consider toning it down. You don't need to post on _every single food thread_. Because, believe it or not, there is absolutely nothing you can ever say that will convince most of us that feeding our dogs a diet of primarily corn meal, meat by-products not fit for human consumption, unidentified animal fat, and carcinogenic preservatives is the best we can do for our pets.

To the OP, I'm glad you got your answer. That's pretty handy that someone else had the exact same thing come up.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I am careful to protect then from the likes of you.


What do you think he/she is going to do to them? Why do you not want people to get their own info. If your source of info is so good, why on Earth would you prevent others access to that same info?  
Or maybe you don't want Bully to teach them something about canine nutrition. 
All the secrecy is starting to make wonder...
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, this is just getting kind of... weird.


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

my dog is a service dog. she's the best. lazy. but she does her job daily.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

SandyPuppy said:


> What do you think he/she is going to do to them? Why do you not want people to get their own info. If your source of info is so good, why on Earth would you prevent others access to that same info?
> Or maybe you don't want Bully to teach them something about canine nutrition.
> All the secrecy is starting to make wonder...
> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, this is just getting kind of... weird.


What I am really afraid of is Bully or others taking up peoples time with the material here that even I know has no validity. They are much more inclined to believe the nutritionists they work with at the large veterinarian schools plus their own unpublished research. 

There seems to be many on the net that fear a rational voice.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> There seems to be many on the net that fear a rational voice.


We only fear yours now



Labsnothers said:


> They are much more inclined to believe the nutritionists they work with at the large veterinarian schools plus their own unpublished research.


These schools are funded by your cheap food brands - of course they like them.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> I see it every year when we get our new puppy to foster for a service dog school. The longest possible active life is a very high priority for them. Nobody else is a position to know the best practices.
> 
> As I said, fat puppies are the norm.





SandyPuppy said:


> I think I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I really doubt that a momma dog nursing her puppies makes them fat. I think that when momma dogs nurse their puppies, they are at the perfect body shape/weight they are supposed to be. And at eight weeks old they are just finishing up with nursing.





Labsnothers said:


> You really think those following such traditional practices know more than the professionals that have been breeding hundreds of puppies a year for a long time? They have the puppies fully weaned by at least 6 weeks and nice and lean. They go to their homes at 7 weeks. The way it has always been done may not be the best practice.


Actually, Labsnoother is correct as far as breeding practices. Most breeders being weaning at 3 weeks, and the puppies are fully weaned by 5 1/2 to 6 weeks. But this is generally because the mothers either refuse to nurse the puppies anymore because the teeth and nails are coming in, or the mothers simply start to dry up. Most people on the forum have an idealized image of how breeding works. That the mother will stay close to the puppies, and teach them valuable lessons until they are 7 or 8 weeks old. In most circumstances that isn’t the case. Once those puppies start scratching and biting at her nipples and stomach, she doesn’t wish to spend a lot of time with them.

I've been reading a lot on weaning puppies on to a raw diet and feeding the lactating female a raw diet. Those mothers will willingly feed the puppies for a longer amount of time which helps to boost their immune systems. And it always their digestive systems to become more mature before introducing real food. 

Many breeders are even stating that these puppies walk and open their eyes sooner. They also stay lean and muscular, as opposed to fat. But this is only based on their experiences; there aren't of course any studies or research to back it up yet. Funding is everything.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> Actually, Most people on the forum have an idealized image of how breeding works. That the mother will stay close to the puppies, and teach them valuable lessons until they are 7 or 8 weeks old.


Its actually from their siblings that they learn the valuable lessons.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

SandyPuppy said:


> Its actually from their siblings that they learn the valuable lessons.


Exactly, the learn bite inhibition and get a great start on doggy socialization.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

I think they also learn about limits and some correct dog behaviors from the mother. 
I received Sandy at 10 weeks old and she already knew how to bite very gently, and also the correct way for her to approach other dogs, among other things I'm sure I'm not even aware of.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

SandyPuppy said:


> I think they also learn about limits and some correct dog behaviors from the mother.
> I received Sandy at 10 weeks old and she already knew how to bite very gently, and also the correct way for her to approach other dogs, among other things I'm sure I'm not even aware of.


Most of that is dog manners that they learn from being in the pack or litter. The mothers will occasionally stick their head in to check on the puppies, but they don't stick around long. They know if they do the puppies will try to feed.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

SandyPuppy said:


> I think they also learn about limits and some correct dog behaviors from the mother.
> I received Sandy at 10 weeks old and she already knew how to bite very gently, and also the correct way for her to approach other dogs, among other things I'm sure I'm not even aware of.


Possibly because your dog is naturally submissive in nature.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Here's the thing that keeps bugging me about Labsnothers rabid stance that the guide dog school (which has yet to be named) does their own independent research and has decided that Science Diet is the best food ever.

Guide dog schools, many (if not all) of which are non-profit entities, have little motivation or, more importantly, money to do independent nutritional research to narrow down the best food. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure they do health screenings and vet checks on the dogs. I doubt, however, they have a lab analyzing anything as far as the quality of their nutrition.

Science Diet has promotional deals with shelters, veterinarians, and I'm sure guide dog schools nationwide. If you're a non-profit entity, and you're getting the food for free or at little cost, and the dogs aren't getting sick. That's good enough. Until I see evidence to the contrary, anything to indicate that this mystical school that shall not be named, is any different than every other not for profit shelter/school out there, I will continue to believe what is perfectly logical. That this school that runs on donations and volunteer labor, feeds the food that is donated or given to them dirt cheap because it is good enough. There has been nothing in any post to indicate this mystery school operates any differently than every other not for profit.

No one, not in a single thread, has said that Science Diet is going to kill your dog or make them sick. It's good enough. Purina is good enough. All that has been maintained is that Science Diet is NOT the best there is. One can only assume that your rabid defense of this food is, at it's root, defensiveness at a perception that we're attacking the care you give your dogs. That's no one's intent. We all do what we think is best. Some of us alter our dogs, some don't. Some vaccinate, some don't. Some feed Purina, some feed a highly analyzed balanced raw diet. 

There is a lot of room on this board for differences of opinion. The tone of your posts, though, is not one of opinion. You're not coming from a position of giving your personal experience. You are trying to come from a position of absolute authority without ever showing that you are qualified to do so. It's ok if you believe Science Diet is the best, but maybe you want to allow room for people to make up their own minds rather than jump on every thread posting "facts" that aren't facts at all.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

You would do best not to speculate on what you know little about. 

I have never said Science Diet is the best. It is one of several common brands with a very successful record in professionally manged programs. Far from the toxic waste many suggest.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> You would do best not to speculate on what you know little about.
> 
> I have never said Science Diet is the best. It is one of several common brands with a very successful record in professionally manged programs. Far from the toxic waste many suggest.


We all give up. We all realize WHY it's been successful in 1000's of professionally managed programs. 

*It has nothing to do with quality.*


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> You would do best not to speculate on what you know little about.
> 
> I have never said Science Diet is the best. It is one of several common brands with a very successful record in professionally manged programs. Far from the toxic waste many suggest.


Actually, you leave no room for anything but speculation since you refuse to give any real information on this mystery school that does tons of nutritional research they never share with anyone. And I'm not speculating wildly about something I know little about. Until/unless we know what school you're talking about, there is no reason to believe they operate any differently than every other not for profit, meaning that they operate on donations, meaning that they aren't looking for the best food for the dogs. They're looking for a food that's good enough and cheap/free. That's not disparaging, that's just the way non-profits have to work to survive. No one judges shelters for feeding Science Diet and handing out "puppy packs" from the company. 

Again, no one has said these foods are toxic waste. What has been said, and had not in any way been refuted with anything but vitriol and rabid defensiveness, is that these foods are not the best out there. I'm not sure why you find this stance so threatening, why you are so enraged by the thought that other people might decide to feed their dogs Evo, or Orijen, or even a raw diet.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

bully said:


> Possibly because your dog is naturally submissive in nature.


Why would you say that?

Believe me, there is correct way and a wrong way for a dog to approach another dog; just as there are correct ways for people to approach other people. 

Dogs generally approach from the side in a somewhat submissive position, head down and tail about midway I think. They should never run directly at an unfamiliar dog and charge right into that dog's personal space. That can be seen as an aggressive move. And they might get their ear snatched off. 

But of course familiar dogs approach each other in multiple ways.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Ayanla has hit the nail on the head.

I would add that suppose they do have some source of funding to do a rigorous nutrition study. No holds barred, double-blind excellent-science study (or even any research at all, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt to the extremem). Why aren't they publishing this? That's kind of the point of doing research. It doesn't mean anything untit it's been published in a peer-review journal. Keeping it to themselves may do them good, but it's by far not the best option. Publishing a study like that would bring a lot of benefits to a non-profit.

I'm going to quote Ayanla's post in it's entirety, because it's that good you should read it again: 



Ayanla said:


> Here's the thing that keeps bugging me about Labsnothers rabid stance that the guide dog school (which has yet to be named) does their own independent research and has decided that Science Diet is the best food ever.
> 
> Guide dog schools, many (if not all) of which are non-profit entities, have little motivation or, more importantly, money to do independent nutritional research to narrow down the best food. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure they do health screenings and vet checks on the dogs. I doubt, however, they have a lab analyzing anything as far as the quality of their nutrition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terrie (Sep 11, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Actually over feeding a puppy is very bad, the the larger the breed, the worse. Dog food bags often assume much more exercise than most dogs get. Go by its ribs. Your dog definitely should be narrower at the waist than the hips and chest. You
> should be able to easily feel the ribs, but not see them. Each dog is different.
> Standard recommendations are a good place to start, but each dog must have its
> food and exercise adjusted to its individual needs. Here is a link to a good
> illustrated guide, http://www.longliveyourdog.com/twoplus/RateYourDog.aspx


You seem to know a lot. 
I feed my 17lb 4 month old pup 2 cups Wellness kibble per day. Everyone here has told me that is way too much. But the thing is that her ribs are almost visible. If she stretches out or curls up in a ball, they are very visible and her pelvic/hip bone is always visible. And she has gained weight/grown since I got her.
I got her 2 months ago and then she was 6-7lbs and about half the size she is now. So she has gained weight and size but still looks pretty skinny and she also doesn't exercise much. I suppose she looks like the "ideal" size in the link you provided. But if she is looking ideal, do I still need to reconsider how much I'm feeding? I feel if I reduce it, then she will be too skinny.

What can I do?


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

The real question is who else has the resources to do such research? 

Each school has thousands of dogs in its program. The schools only feed the dogs for a very limited part of their life while in training. You are speculating the schools don't have the funds to direct different people to feed different diets and keep track of how the different groups of dogs do? 

It is possible some of the work is published, just not in a form free on the net. I think if you try to access the JAVMA from the AVMA site they ask for your membership number or something. My local library doesn't carry it. The more I think about it, there must be tons of good stuff out there I have never found.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> The real question is who else has the resources to do such research?


Dog food companies.



Labsnothers said:


> Each school has thousands of dogs in its program. The schools only feed the dogs for a very limited part of their life while in training. You are speculating the schools don't have the funds to direct different people to feed different diets and keep track of how the different groups of dogs do?


Yes. Not-for-profit = doesn't have profit. Research is expensive; it's not as easy as saying "You three feed Brand A, you three feed Brand B, you three feed brand C and tell us how your dogs do." Many, many worthwhile projects get shut down because the funding runs out. I know two people who couldn't get their PhD because their advisor's project ended early.



Labsnothers said:


> It is possible some of the work is published, just not in a form free on the net. I think if you try to access the JAVMA from the AVMA site they ask for your membership number or something. My local library doesn't carry it. The more I think about it, there must be tons of good stuff out there I have never found.


Very true. Often times you can find the abstracts for free though. A university library will be more helpful than a public library if you're really interested in reading papers. One of the UC schools would be a good start, I would try there.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> The real question is who else has the resources to do such research?
> 
> Each school has thousands of dogs in its program. The schools only feed the dogs for a very limited part of their life while in training. You are speculating the schools don't have the funds to direct different people to feed different diets and keep track of how the different groups of dogs do?
> 
> It is possible some of the work is published, just not in a form free on the net. I think if you try to access the JAVMA from the AVMA site they ask for your membership number or something. My local library doesn't carry it. The more I think about it, there must be tons of good stuff out there I have never found.


What you are talking about is anecdotal evidence, even if it's "thousands" of dogs. Asking people what their dog eats, and then doing a basic vet check, is not a scientific study.

A scientific study of different diets would be done with controls. Type, volume, and frequency of food would be recorded on a daily basis including treats and supplements (ideally there would be no treats or supplements to cloud the results). There would be regular blood tests to check for deficiencies. There would be fecal examination and weighing to determine digestibility of the food and volume of fecal matter. There would be other testing that I'm not even aware of (because I'm not a vet or researcher) Dogs would be followed their entire life span, or at least a significant number of years, with health issues noted and life span recorded. Only after obtaining a volume of data for a variety of foods could conclusions be drawn, and even then, due to the nature of testing on a living being outside of the lab, it would only be a correlation study. I am entirely confident that this guide dog school is not running these types of nutrition studies. This kind of research takes teams of scientists and lots of money and man hours. The school probably doesn't even give a thought to what the dogs are eating while in the foster home, outside of perhaps making note of it on their chart, so long as they are of a healthy weight at their checkup. 

I am making a logical conclusion based on available information. Guide dog schools are non-profit groups. Non-profit groups don't generally engage in expensive, rigorous, scientific study.

So let's look at a health survey about these guide dogs that you have been professing are so incredibly healthy.

http://www.morrisanimalfoundation.org/pdf/GuideDogHealthSurvey-FINAL_12-12-08.pdf

Some highlights (for those who don't want to read):


> ...Skin problems occurred in 30 percent of current guide dogs and 40 percent of previous guide dogs...
> ...Ear-related health issues were reported in 21 percent of current guide dogs and 35 percent of previous guide dogs...
> ...Cancer and/or tumors affected 28 percent of previous guide dogs...
> ...Gastrointestinal disease was reported to have occurred in 14 percent of current guide dogs and 19 percent of previous guide dogs...
> ...Based on 612 responses, the average age of death for a guide dog in the survey was 10 years 7 months...


The average life span of a Labrador Retriever (most popular guide dog breed): 12.7 years.
The average life span of a dog in North America, averaging across all breeds: 12.8 years.

Please, do tell me again how healthy and thriving these guide dogs are.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

SandyPuppy said:


> And at eight weeks old they are just finishing up with nursing.


I think they stop nursing at 4-5 weeks, not 8.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Holy crap, excellent posts Ayanla! Really, really good work.

I'm going to bookmark this thread.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

jesirose said:


> I think they stop nursing at 4-5 weeks, not 8.


They start the weaning process at 4-5 weeks, but they aren't completely weaned until 8 weeks.



Terrie said:


> You seem to know a lot.
> I feed my 17lb 4 month old pup 2 cups Wellness kibble per day. Everyone here has told me that is way too much. But the thing is that her ribs are almost visible. If she stretches out or curls up in a ball, they are very visible and her pelvic/hip bone is always visible. And she has gained weight/grown since I got her.
> I got her 2 months ago and then she was 6-7lbs and about half the size she is now. So she has gained weight and size but still looks pretty skinny and she also doesn't exercise much. I suppose she looks like the "ideal" size in the link you provided. But if she is looking ideal, do I still need to reconsider how much I'm feeding? I feel if I reduce it, then she will be too skinny.
> 
> What can I do?


If she is ideal at the current amount you are feeind, why would you want to reduce it? 
The way you are describing her does not sound ideal to me. She sounds a little bit on the thin side if you can see her ribs and pelvic bones. No one here should be telling you that 2 cups is too much. You judge by the way your dog looks not by how many cups it eats.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Given a chance puppies will continue to nurse as long as the mother will let them. 

My friends keeping breeding stock introduce puppy chow wet down with water to a soup at 4 weeks. By 6 weeks, they are on all dry food, and in their home at 7 weeks, waist and all. At 14 months they are getting their hip X-Rays and very few score less than OFA good.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

SandyPuppy said:


> They start the weaning process at 4-5 weeks, but they aren't completely weaned until 8 weeks.


I don't know where you’re getting this information from. I personally know a lot of breeders. And weaning starts at 3-4 weeks, and the puppies are fully weaning by6 weeks at the latest. They are usually still getting wetted down kibble, but the mother is no longer breast feeding. 

Once the puppies get too big the bitch just doesn't have enough milk to feed all of the puppies. You can really wear her out by forcing her to breast feed for that long an amount of time. But I blame a lot of that on kibble. There just isn't enough protein, fat, and calcium for her to stay healthy while lactating for a long period of time.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

jesirose said:


> I think they stop nursing at 4-5 weeks, not 8.


That depends on the puppy and the bitch. I once had a puppy that refused to touch anything until 8 weeks old, then she weaned herself cold turkey. Some bitches will nurse longer than others, also.

I had a bitch that never ran out of milk and still wanted to be involved in it all, and usually her pups weren't fully weaned until 7 weeks or so. I start weaning around 4 weeks or so.


----------

