# 30 lb puppy, 6 mo old, underweight



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

A student of mine has a mixed breed rescue dog who is underweight. The vet recommended SD large breed puppy. The dog is 30 lbs and 6 months old. They feed him several cups of SD but he's still not gaining weight and he poops a ton. I recommended a high protein food to help the dog gain weight. He's not SUPER underweight, but this is the same thing I saw with Hadley. When I put her on Evo she stopped having diarhea so much and has finally gained weight (so you can't see her ribs ALL the time). 

Since he's not a HUGE breed I think this would be okay for him, since he's 6 months. Thoughts?

Also does anyone else think it's weird the vet only thinks he'll be 50 lbs if he's underweight at 30, at 6 months? He's just muttly. Looks kinda like he could be lab/aussie mix.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

I don't think this mix would be underweight at 6 months and 30lbs. He's pooping a ton because science diet is really crap food and agree with your recommendation to go premium higher protein as well. He should only need around 3 - 3.5 cups total per day of a good quality kibble for this size vs. 5 cups of filler and corn i.e: Science Diet.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

I say he's underweight because you can see a bunch of his ribs.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

jesirose said:


> I say he's underweight because you can see a bunch of his ribs.


You failed to mention that part. Then yes, he is.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Would he eat it if you offered him 3-4 cups? That is about what I give my Labs at 6 months. Usually Pro Plan or Iams. I see thousands of dogs doing great on them. if you check the calories per pound, you will find the Science Diet isn't that much less than foods costing twice as much.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv (Aug 26, 2009)

i wouldn't try to put too much weight on all at once...you want it to be gradual unless its vital to the dogs life to gain quickly. Too much too fast can cause just as much problems as staying too thin for too long. I agree with going to a better quality of food. You might find that just making the switch to better food can help.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

Don't tell them to put them on Pro plan or Iams. They're both crap food! Go with your insticts and tell them to switch him to Evo!
At 6 months he should be fine on that.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

AFAIK They are going to go with Blue Buffalo Wilderness (42% protein). I think at 6 mo he will be okay too. They were concerned about his joints because he is technically a "large dog" but after talking about it I think they decided he will do better on the high protein overall.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

Blue Buffalo Wilderness is a good choice! He should be fine.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Kina_A said:


> Don't tell them to put them on Pro plan or Iams. They're both crap food! Go with your insticts and tell them to switch him to Evo!
> At 6 months he should be fine on that.


I really dislike flat statements like that when you don't have anything whatsoever to back it up. They certainly fail to give anybody any information. 

By the way, go back and read my post. I didn't suggest going to Iams or pro Plan. I simply mentioned them as what I knew. I also know dogs do very well on them.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

I have found that simply feeding more just ends up with lots of soft poop. Tell them to add in a meal instead. That may work.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I really dislike flat statements like that when you don't have anything whatsoever to back it up. They certainly fail to give anybody any information.


There's enough information to support my statement without my having to provide the sources! But if you'd like some, here you go.

http://www.dogfoodproject.com/ 

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/

http://www.dogfoodscoop.com/

http://www.5stardog.com/dog-food.asp

I still stand by my statement, Iams and Pro Plan are crap foods!


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

None of those sites have any data on how well dogs do on a food. Just because you don't like the ingredients, doesn't mean a food dogs thrive on is crap. It is all guess work.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv (Aug 26, 2009)

the ingredients are what makes it crap....a dog can "survive" on anything as long as its fed...that doesn't mean they will live as long, be as healthy, and be as active later on in life....I read somewhere that a dog that eats a more natural diet, or a high quality dog food can live more than 2 years longer (and be healthier during those two years) than dogs on crap kibble. People can "thrive" on McDonalds...but that doesn't mean that those people will be as healthy or as active as those that eat a more complete and healthy diet.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

The fact is, dogs eating what you call crap have long, healthy, active lives.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Northern_Inuit_Luv said:


> People can "thrive" on McDonalds...but that doesn't mean that those people will be as healthy or as active as those that eat a more complete and healthy diet.


I don't think "thrive" means what you think it means.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't think "thrive" means what you think it means.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

jesirose said:


> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


awesome Princes Bride reference


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> The fact is, dogs eating what you call crap have long, healthy, active lives.


Where's your comparisons with this statement? Where's the "facts" that back-up your claim that dogs do best on crap food. 

I will bet my house that these dogs are crapping like a horse (huge piles of yellow "soft serve" with chunks of kibble still in it) and just living somewhat an average life for health. I dare your "service dog" company to feed these dogs a decent food and report back in a month with there reactions. They might even save money cause they can feed 30-40% less at each meal cause it's more digestible seeing that's it's meat and.. food.

we are all tired of your same line - it's over.



Labsnothers said:


> if you check the calories per pound, you will find the Science Diet isn't that much less than foods costing twice as much.


Look into good calories and bad calories and how it relates to dogs and report back with what you found.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv (Aug 26, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't think "thrive" means what you think it means.


I only used the word because she had used it....I know what thrive means, but was trying to make a point


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

bully said:


> Where's your comparisons with this statement? Where's the "facts" that back-up your claim that dogs do best on crap food.


Try re-reading the sentence you quoted, but this time read for comprehension. It was not a comparative statement, and there was no mention of "best", or even "better".

If you so completely misconstrue a straightforward statement of opinion, one might reasonably question how well you understand the much more complex nutritional information you appear to rely upon.

Nutritious food for thought.



Northern_Inuit_Luv said:


> ....I know what thrive means, but was trying to make a point


The point fails spectacularly. People don't thrive on a steady diet of McD's, and dog's don't thrive on crap kibble--ergo, if the dog is thriving, the kibble is not crap.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv (Aug 26, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Try re-reading the sentence you quoted, but this time read for comprehension. It was not a comparative statement, and there was no mention of "best", or even "better".
> 
> If you so completely misconstrue a straightforward statement of opinion, one might reasonably question how well you understand the much more complex nutritional information you appear to rely upon.
> 
> ...


That was the point...but I obviously did a bad job presenting it...no need to be rude about it.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Try re-reading the sentence you quoted, but this time read for comprehension. It was not a comparative statement, and there was no mention of "best", or even "better".
> 
> If you so completely misconstrue a straightforward statement of opinion, one might reasonably question how well you understand the much more complex nutritional information you appear to rely upon.
> 
> ...





Flame much? You can disagree with someone and even point out flaws in logic without bringing their intelligence into question. Bully might have gotten a little ahead of himself and misread the line he quoted but do you really think he read it the first time for _non-comprehension_?

Nutritious food for thought.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

nico8 said:


> Flame much? You can disagree with someone and even point out flaws in logic without bringing their intelligence into question.


I've made no assumptions, nor cast any aspersions, about Bully's intelligence. I merely _questioned_ Bully's understanding. Was what I said incorrect in some way?

Why so defensive?


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Try re-reading the sentence you quoted, but *this time read for comprehension.* It was not a comparative statement, and there was no mention of "best", or even "better".
> 
> *If you so completely misconstrue a straightforward statement of opinion, one might reasonably question how well you understand the much more complex nutritional information you appear to rely upon.*
> 
> ...



I don't see the correlation between his misreading of a quote and any lack of understanding when it comes to nutritional information, or anything else for that matter. It seems like a bit of a stretch to connect the two.

What you said was merely your opinion so no, it wasn't right or wrong. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a bit overly defensive at times, but your post seemed more aimed at belittling those that you quoted than anything else. If this was not the case(or _intended_ purpose), then I rescind my comments.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

nico8 said:


> I don't see the correlation between his misreading of a quote and his "apparent" lack of understanding when it comes to nutritional information, or anything else for that matter. It seems like a bit of a stretch to connect the two.


I don't see it as the least bit stretchy. And I didn't refer to any "'apparent' lack of understanding of nutritional information". I merely posited that it would be reasonable to _question_ it. But that would be obvious if you had comprehended what I wrote, and had not inferred some meaning I didn't intend.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't see it as the least bit stretchy. And I didn't refer to any "'apparent' lack of understanding of nutritional information". I merely posited that it would be reasonable to _question_ it. But that would be obvious if *you had comprehended what I wrote*, and had not inferred some meaning I didn't intend.



Trust that I comprehended every bit of what you wrote and apparently I was correct in thinking that your main goal is to belittle and decry those who cross your path. Your tone is overly condescending and unappreciated.

The thread seems to be getting somewhat offtrack at this point and if you would like to continue this exchange please feel free to PM me.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't see it as the least bit stretchy. And I didn't refer to any "'apparent' lack of understanding of nutritional information". I merely posited that it would be reasonable to _question_ it. But that would be obvious if you had comprehended what I wrote, and had not inferred some meaning I didn't intend.


Yes, there does seem to be a lot of confusion. Nice of you to help correct it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

nico8 said:


> Your tone is overly condescending and unappreciated.


If you don't care for my "tone", you are free to ignore my posts. I do find it interesting that you were not sufficiently offended to comment on this little gem:



bully said:


> we are all tired of your same line - it's over.


I suppose it could be my fault for challenging a strongly held faith-based opinion.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Like I said, if you want to keep this exchange going please feel free to send me a private message. Otherwise let's leave the thread to the OP.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Try re-reading the sentence you quoted, but this time read for comprehension. It was not a comparative statement, and there was no mention of "best", or even "better".
> 
> If you so completely misconstrue a straightforward statement of opinion, one might reasonably question how well you understand the much more complex nutritional information you appear to rely upon.
> 
> Nutritious food for thought.


Sorry I'll re-type so you can understand: Please read slowly cause I really want you to get it this time.


"Where's your comparisons with this statement? Where's the "facts" that back-up your claim that dogs _have long, healthy, active lives_ on crap food."

Did you just quote Purina's commercial? Cause we've all seen it.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

Yeah, I would agree with putting him/her on a higher quality food. 

When I first got Harleigh she was on Pedigree or Purina, one of those, and was 36.6 pounds she looked horrible on that food and was a little bit underweight. I switched her to Chicken Soup and she has improved so much. And she poops less too! 

It doesn't even have to be a really good food. For instance, Chicken Soup isn't the top food brand and I know many won't use it because it is a Diamond product, but its a _better_ quality food then the stuff at grocery stores or Science Diet (IMHO) and not that much more expensive.

If they have money and don't mind using it. EVO is great! If I had the money, I would so switch Harleigh to that. But unfortunately that can't happen right now, maybe later on though! 



Labsnothers said:


> Would he eat it if you offered him 3-4 cups? That is about what I give my Labs at 6 months. Usually Pro Plan or Iams. I see thousands of dogs doing great on them. if you check the calories per pound, you will find the Science Diet isn't that much less than foods costing twice as much.


Your Lab ate 3-4 cups at 6 months? 

Harleigh only required about 1 1/2 to 2 cups a day (more on the 1 1/2 cup side though) when she was that old, actually she still is eating that much.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

nikkiluvsu15 said:


> Your Lab ate 3-4 cups at 6 months?
> 
> Harleigh only required about 1 1/2 to 2 cups a day (more on the 1 1/2 cup side though) when she was that old, actually she still is eating that much.


At what age was Harleigh neutered? That can greatly affect their metabolism.


----------



## BobSD (Feb 1, 2008)

I know most of you are more knowledgeable then I am , so this might be a stupid comment, but even if the pup had been dewormed, has it been checked for worms. bring in a stool sample and see?


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

bully said:


> "Where's your comparisons with this statement? Where's the "facts" that back-up your claim that dogs _have long, healthy, active lives_ on crap food."


Where are your facts that prove longevity increases with premium food?

I hate to say it bully, but some dogs do well on the grocery store brands. And that is not in anyway an endorsement. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have numerous posters stating that their dogs lived 10 to 15 years on these foods. I also know that most of the top show dogs in the country are feed these foods their entire lives. Breeders swear by them. 

At the end of the day, we don't have the research to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or another. Instead I base my conclusions off of a dog's anatomy and physiology and chose a diet that I believe works best within those restraints. But everyone has to make their own decision off of the information available to them.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> At what age was Harleigh neutered? That can greatly affect their metabolism.


Harleigh was spayed at 4 1/2 months, but believe me.. her metabolism has not changed. She's still a crazy, hyper puppy.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

nikkiluvsu15 said:


> Harleigh was spayed at 4 1/2 months, but believe me.. her metabolism has not changed. She's still a crazy, hyper puppy.


Energy level has nothing to do with metabolism. And since she was spayed so early, it makes sense why her required caloric intake is low. Most intact dogs need around twice as much food as neutered dogs of the same breed and age.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> At the end of the day, we don't have the research to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or another. Instead I base my conclusions off of a dog's anatomy and physiology and chose a diet that I believe works best within those restraints. But everyone has to make their own decision off of the information available to them.


Well said DobManiac. I think ,in the end, it comes down to what you feel comfortable feeding your dog with the limited information that we do have. Until more conclusive studies are done, anyone who says they're 100% right is 100% wrong.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I think if you look at the sales figures, the cheaper brands far outsell the premium ones. I think it is up to premium advocates to prove everybody else is wrong.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

After a week, the dog has put on a bit of weight and the parents are very happy with the new food.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I think if you look at the sales figures, the cheaper brands far outsell the premium ones. I think it is up to premium advocates to prove everybody else is wrong.



Sales figures? Really? Seriously? Cheaper brands outsell premium brands for a whole litany of reasons and none of them apply to this thread. It's not because they're healthier or more balanced or anything near that. It's because of brand awareness,availability,*price*...so on and so on. Your logic is flawed to the point of hilarity.

The premium advocates don't have to prove anything , just like the grocery store brand advocates don't have to. I'm wondering when you're going to realize that you're illogical nonsense is hurting your cause more than helping it.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> Where are your facts that prove longevity increases with premium food?
> 
> I hate to say it bully, but some dogs do well on the grocery store brands. And that is not in anyway an endorsement. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have numerous posters stating that their dogs lived 10 to 15 years on these foods.


I understand this statement don't get me wrong. It just sucks for the dogs that this was basically the only choice 10-50 years ago. Also it sucks for the dogs that owners can't see past an ingredient list and a TV add for what it is.



nico8 said:


> Sales figures? Really? Seriously? Cheaper brands outsell premium brands for a whole litany of reasons and none of them apply to this thread. It's not because they're healthier or more balanced or anything near that. It's because of brand awareness,availability,*price*...so on and so on. Your logic is flawed to the point of hilarity.
> 
> The premium advocates don't have to prove anything , just like the grocery store brand advocates don't have to. I'm wondering when you're going to realize that you're illogical nonsense is hurting your cause more than helping it.


Hard to believe, I know. I had know idea that cheaper products actually outsell the better products.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

bully said:


> Sorry I'll re-type so you can understand: Please read slowly cause I really want you to get it this time.
> 
> 
> "Where's your comparisons with this statement? Where's the "facts" that back-up your claim that dogs _have long, healthy, active lives_ on crap food."
> ...


The misunderstanding was not mine. But to get to your restatement of the question, we first need your definition of "crap food". Since you appear to be suffering from priapism related to Purina products, I take it you consider Pro Plan to occupy that category (correct me if I'm wrong on that). If so, I can introduce you to several generations of field trial/hunt test winners, raised on Purina products from weaning to grave. This is demanding work for a dog, and they break down rather quickly from inadequate nutrition. The proof is in the performance.

Is a raw diet better? Very possibly so, but no one can quantify _how much_ better. Is grain-free better? Perhaps, but that seems to be more of an individual (dog) thing. Many of the problems blamed on commercial feeds (allergies, dietary intolerance, etc) might just as accurately be laid at the feet of breeders.

Until those questions get answered definitively, I'll pass on the Kool Aid and continue feeding what my dog does well on. My dog's vet and I are quite familiar with what a healthy dog looks like. You do what you think is best.


----------

