Quote:
Originally Posted by Belle Noir  I don't know, I have been lucky I guess because both yorkies and the papillon ears stood with no problem. All three of them had up ears when I got them, and though Sabre did need a little help because of the weight of his fur, shaving his ear down did the trick.
The papi is teething again, so we have a bad dog... (the family joke is we know when she's thinking about being a bad dog because one of her ears starts to flop), but her ears will go up again, and papi breeders say if they start with their ears up, they'll end with their ears up.
The Vit C I first heard about from a miniature bull terrier breeder, and then I have seen it off and on again through the years, primarily through the book of Wendell whatever his name is in one of those links, lol.
By the way, I did see that site, but I have no idea what this guys credentials are. How does he have the authority to "provide dog owners with facts about dog breed specific nutritional requirements based on 18 years of Pharmacological testing which identified each dog breed's specific nutritional requirements". as he states?
He says on his site " In the 1970's and 1980's the U.S. Government published many studies that confirmed his findings. These can be found in the 1985 National Research Council book, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs". What were these findings? Where were these finding published? In what journal were they peer reviewed?
We know it for a fact that two different breeds of dogs have different nutritional requirements. However, the fact remains that two different dogs within the same breed can have different nutritional requirements as well.
If someone is going to say something like that, I'm going to say where is your proof. And how, by the way, did he study the nutritional needs of 180 different breeds of dogs? With what groups did he work with? Where there any controls?
I read his site and pretty much dismissed them, because he likes to state many things as facts without backing them, or he uses facts to cause an assumption of cause effect with a number of his statements.
For example, in his free book he has this statement.
"Another negative aspect of giving vitamin C to a healthy dog is the risk taken when we replace one of the functions of a healthy dog's liver (producing the vitamin C that its own body requires).
By adding vitamin C to the dog's diet we can cause the dog's liver to stop working as it should. This can best be equated to feeding thyroid medication to a dog with a normal thyroid gland."
We DO know that thyroid medication can cause a reduction in thyroid production... Now where is the proof that supplementing Vit C can do the same thing in dogs? Because B is a fact, does not make A a fact, yet he has linked them, and taken something that is factual to back his argument.
That's fine. But I have never heard of this guy as any kind of authority.
As with anything, I highly suggest speaking to your vet, and with experienced breeders of your breed to find out if a course of action is plausible for the results you want. |
I love a good scientific controversy!
Evidently, dogs are capable of producing their own vitamin C, so it's not necessary to add it to the diet. Here is a quote from that National Research Council book, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, which can be found here (
Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985 with tiny, tiny print):
"There is no adequate evidence to justify recommendation of routine vitamin C additions to the diet of the normal dog."
Now, having said that, I haven't read up yet on Vitamin C toxicity or the benefits of adding Vitamin C to the diet to get ears to stand up, but I'll do that and get back to you
.