Ideas PLEASE? Allergies? All types poultry?

[ladyjane]

I personally think it is easier to do the allergy testing first. Most of the time it is something environmental. The test is around $300 and totally worth it imo! I only did the environmental because my vet suggested that since that is usually the cause!

If there is nothing environmental, then you start looking at food.

As Wylie's Mom said, it usually is not food.

[107barney]

Allergy testing is definitely a good idea, but do not do allergy blood tests for food as they are unreliable and a waste of money. The last article I read on the subject said that not one veterinary dermatologist in the country would bless food allergy testing by blood. Not sure if this has changed so check with your vet.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by 107barney

Allergy testing is definitely a good idea, but do not do allergy blood tests for food as they are unreliable and a waste of money. The last article I read on the subject said that not one veterinary dermatologist in the country would bless food allergy testing by blood. Not sure if this has changed so check with your vet.

It is exactly what my vet recommended!

[Ellie May]

I think the one that is ruled out first should be decided on a case by case basis. Knowing that testing for enviro allergies is more likely to require a dermatologist (if doing skin allergy testing), I'd personally go down the food route first because I'd want to avoid the specialist if possible. And even with a blood test at a regular vet's office - I'd rather not pay hundreds for something that could be food related unless the dog is clearly suffering and medication isn't keeping them comfortable. Then if it's not food, I'd be more than willing to shell out the $$$.

Definitely haven't heard great things about food allergy testing by blood. My board certified vet source says nope on it. Would definitely not do it.