# High Calcium and Phosphorus



## Onyxmom2 (Jan 10, 2011)

Hi, looking for ideas, comments. We picked up a beautiful male Dane from Germany about 4 weeks ago. He's 4 mos. Was at the vet couple days ago and he's concerned about RAW feeding and his test results. He did a HemaTrue and Dri-Chem. Phosphorus is 9.3 and calcium is 11.1, says it's from too much raw meat and wants us to feed 50% raw and 50% kibble. 
Thanks for any input!!


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

The phosphorous comes from meat. Meat is actually low in calcium so it has to be from bone. 

Personally, I would feed all kibble to that breed until it is mature.

Unless you do some calculations and precise measuring you will never get it right and with that breed your just taking chances. No upside and all downside.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> The phosphorous comes from meat. Meat is actually low in calcium so it has to be from bone.
> 
> Personally, I would feed all kibble to that breed until it is mature.
> 
> Unless you do some calculations and precise measuring you will never get it right and with that breed your just taking chances. No upside and all downside.


Interesting because a bunch of GD breeders feed raw and their dogs are fine. 

I wasn't going to answer because I'm sure DaneMama or Corgipaws could answer a ton better, but anyway. Lots of GD breeders wean to raw and feed raw for the duration of their dog's lives. I personally don't think you need to have it down to an exact science. Those ranges sound ok to me personally. Kibble is 1.0 phosphourous:1.5-2.0 calcium. You just want a bit more calcium in the body. From reading around and personally it seems that the extra bone is popped out without the host taking the calcium from it. I believe it helps self regulate calcium intake.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Raw feeding is actually ideal for danes, considering the growth is slower. That's really what you want. Follow the protein guidelines and you should be fine. I'm sure Natalie, corgipaws and someone else with giant breeds will have more good info on it. But I know none of them have had any issues raising such big dogs on raw.


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

I'm glad this topic came up. What is the ideal ratio in a kibble? And what "should" the dogs level be (ie what is the normal range)??


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I have to call BS on the vet. 

We've raised 4 danes from puppyhood on PMR and have never had any cases of growth issues like HOD or PANO. 
We've never taken any kind of special care in feeding PMR to our puppies, just mostly meat, some bone, some organ. We try not to feed it too bone heavy, but that's how we do it across the board here, so I wouldn't call that special treatment. 
A lot of the dane puppies I've seen on inappropriate kibbles definitely have the beginnings of knuckling over, or show really overly knobby knees. It's much EASIER to feed a giant breed puppy PMR than it is to find the just right kibble that will promote a nice slow and steady healthy growth rate. 

That said, if you must feed kibble, do NOT feed a puppy formula. Even "large breed puppy" formulas are inappropriate. Look for a Ca ratio of no greater than 1:1.

A lot of the people who bought pups from my last litter use Nutri Source Grain Free Large Breed Chicken Adult, at my recommendation and so far no growth issues reported. 

I would not worry too much about what the vet said as long as there are no signs of any issues. Most vets are not well versed in what is normal for a raw fed dog, and as long as you're feeding a well balanced raw diet of mostly meat, some bones, and some organs, I'd be surprised if any issues arise.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

lauren43 said:


> I'm glad this topic came up. What is the ideal ratio in a kibble? And what "should" the dogs level be (ie what is the normal range)??



Around 1.25/1 ratio, and calcium of around 1% is fine for all applications including growth. Dogs only require about 2% total mineral content.
High phosphorous even when the calcium ratio is fine is still problematic when it comes to renal care, even for healthy dogs because over time it will effect them.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

CorgiPaws said:


> I have to call BS on the vet.
> 
> We've raised 4 danes from puppyhood on PMR and have never had any cases of growth issues like HOD or PANO.
> We've never taken any kind of special care in feeding PMR to our puppies, just mostly meat, some bone, some organ. We try not to feed it too bone heavy, but that's how we do it across the board here, so I wouldn't call that special treatment.
> ...


So in this diet of " mostly meat, some bones, and some organs" what is the typical analysis?


----------



## Khan (Jan 17, 2010)

I second CorgiPaws post. I do not have a GD; but I have a Bullmasitff. Close enough to a Giant Breed! Khan has been on Raw since he was 5mo and he's just turned 3. He has not had any huge growth spurts, he has continued to grow slow and steady, and his weight has NEVER been an issue. 
I am not at all against kibble; but I do think that the "industry" has used different marketing strategies to lead people to spend more for "specialized" foods. The concern as CP stated is you need to have a Ca ratio that will promote slow and steady growth. Even in the "puppy formulas", these ratios are too high.


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

That Khan is just one good looking boy. If I ever end up getting a bullmastiff (which I definitely plan to) I hope he/she looks just like your boy, beautiful!!!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

monster'sdad said:


> So in this diet of " mostly meat, some bones, and some organs" what is the typical analysis?


I think you're a little too hung up on numbers. 
I don't know exact analysis numbers, what I know is I have 7 very healthy dogs and when you don't mess with nature, you don't need to be paranoid about numbers and percentages because it just WORKS. It's when you start feeding processed and unnatural diets that exacts start to matter because you're really playing with fire. 
I've never seen a PMR fed giant breed with growth disorders. Ever. And I am very much so involved with the Dane community.

Further, I've personally witnessed HOD with a Ca ratio of 1.2:1, and most giant breed breeders I know don't recommend higher than 1:1. Protein content is not a concern. Ca ratio is, and making sure to not overfeed calories.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ybur said:


> "Don't mess with nature". I'm kind of curious about that comment. If we didnt mess with nature would you have a stubby legged corgie?
> I don't know if a dog has "evolved" the ability to consume vegetation and glean nutrition from it but I know that dogs (not wolves) have done very well on a varied diet...
> I am not trying to open a can of worms but I kind of dislike this precise comparison between gray wolves and dogs because-- they are no longer precisely the same.


I'm speaking in terms of diet, and maintaining health, not conformation traits. 
Without mentioning the gray wolf, there's plenty of things that tell anyone with common sense that canines as we know them are made to eat a carnivore's diet. 
They lack the ability to grind plant matter.
They do not efficiently and adequately extract and utilize nutrients from raw vegetation. 
They do not have the ability, on their own, to cook plant matter to make it biologically available. 

For every creature on this planet, there is a proper NATURAL diet. No species, no living thing, is MEANT to eat highly processed foods. Can they? Well sure. Humans can survive on fast food and ice cream. Dogs can survive on processed kibble. Fish can survive on brightly colored flakes. But, it doesn't change the fact that a natural diet is still superior, and that had NOTHING to do with classification of carnivore/herbivore/omnivore. 

This thread was not started to be a raw vs. kibble debate. Some one came questioning if PMR was suitable for a growing giant breed. I'm simply saying in MY first, second, and third hand experience they have nothing to worry about. That the issues they might be concerned about generally come about from inappropriate Ca and calorie intake from processed kibble, and NOT from raw meat. 

I choose to feed raw for this and many other reasons. I do not look down on, judge, or criticize those who feed kibble, I think everyone should just do what they feel is best in their situation. DOn't try to turn this into a raw/kibble debate, when it's not.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

ybur said:


> "Don't mess with nature". I'm kind of curious about that comment. If we didnt mess with nature would you have a stubby legged corgie?
> I don't know if a dog has "evolved" the ability to consume vegetation and glean nutrition from it but I know that dogs (not wolves) have done very well on a varied diet...
> I am not trying to open a can of worms but I kind of dislike this precise comparison between gray wolves and dogs because-- they are no longer precisely the same.


When it comes to diet, they are the same. The same teeth, all the way to the way the intestines and stomach. Digestion is the same. Otherwise, the only other real difference is years of selective breeding to develop different breeds for different purposes. DNA wise they nearly identical. I think its the same by 98 or99%.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

The problem with the wolf argument is that it is incorrectly based on the assumption that wild animals are healthier than domestic animals. This is certainly not the case.

While I don't advocate feeding animals in the wild, I can assure you the wolf population would be much healthier, reproduce much faster and live longer if they had 4 cups of Pro Plan to look forward to everyday. This is also the case where people feed deer cracked corn in the winter. Those deer are much healthier, larger and reproduce at a much faster rate than deer going hungry all winter.

Anyone that doesn't recognize this simple fact is just caught up in a romance story. 

So, I am not caught up in numbers, I am caught up in fact.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> The problem with the wolf argument is that it is incorrectly based on the assumption that wild animals are healthier than domestic animals. This is certainly not the case.
> 
> While I don't advocate feeding animals in the wild, I can assure you the wolf population would be much healthier, reproduce much faster and live longer if they had 4 cups of Pro Plan to look forward to everyday. This is also the case where people feed deer cracked corn in the winter. Those deer are much healthier, larger and reproduce at a much faster rate than deer going hungry all winter.
> 
> ...


I think wolves in the wild would live longer if their very large prey would cooperate, and not cause severe injuries due to kicking etc...

Deer will eat corn because they are designed for it. They are baited by hunters, and raid gardens/cornfields when they get the chance. I have yet to see a wolf (or any dog for that matter) going after peoples gardens and raiding the cornfields. It's part of a deers diet. Until a deer kills and eats a wolf, I will always believe this. The deer is the MEAT that is the wolfs diet. Let me know when you catch a wolf eating a farmers corn field. :wink:


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> The problem with the wolf argument is that it is incorrectly based on the assumption that wild animals are healthier than domestic animals. This is certainly not the case.
> 
> While I don't advocate feeding animals in the wild, I can assure you the wolf population would be much healthier, reproduce much faster and live longer if they had 4 cups of Pro Plan to look forward to everyday. This is also the case where people feed deer cracked corn in the winter. Those deer are much healthier, larger and reproduce at a much faster rate than deer going hungry all winter.
> 
> ...


Ok, if you want to talk fact, how can you even say that domestic animals are helathier for sure? There are many more variables in the wild versus in a captivity or domestic situation. Looking at wolves they are vetted, checked over daily, fed daily, protected from the elements, etc. in captivity. In the wild they are on their own. If they can't find food they die, can't protect themselves from the elements-dead, break a leg and can't fend themselve-dead, you really cannot compare what happens in the wild to cpativity or domestic animals. There's way too many variables to compare it efficiently with.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

monster'sdad said:


> The problem with the wolf argument is that it is incorrectly based on the assumption that wild animals are healthier than domestic animals. This is certainly not the case.
> 
> While I don't advocate feeding animals in the wild, I can assure you the wolf population would be much healthier, reproduce much faster and live longer if they had 4 cups of Pro Plan to look forward to everyday. This is also the case where people feed deer cracked corn in the winter. Those deer are much healthier, larger and reproduce at a much faster rate than deer going hungry all winter.
> 
> ...


Comparing the health, reproduction rate, and lifespan of wild animals to our pets is a flawed concept. 

1. Wild animals have to hunt for their food, and there is no guarantee of a constant food source, whereas our pets are promised a healthy meal and adequate portions on a daily basis. This means they never have to go through starvation or deficiencies that contribute to overall health and energy level. 

2. Our pets have shelter. They do not have to brave extreme weather around the clock, and are always able to be warm and comfortable. They do not have to fight other animals over territory. 

3. Our pets have access to medical care when sick or injured. A minor wound in the wild that gets infected, or a larger injury left untreated will surely shorten the lifespan and possibly halt breeding of a wild animal. Dogs with owners get taken to the vet, treated, and generally recover. 


4. The quality of food available to wild animals isn't always ideal. They might only be able to find rotted meat in which the nutrients have broken down for weeks on end. 


So, while I DON'T think that wild animals are necessarily healthier than their domesticated counterparts, I think there are more than enough factors different in their entire situation that it's not exactly comparable. 

Again, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore.... they ALL have a natural diet, and it's NOT processed. THere's no logical way to argue processed being better, how can you say that going through a process that DESTROYS a good chunk of nutrients is making the food better? Not to mention the poor quality of ingredients being used to start with. 


But, AGAIN, the OP wanted to know if they needed to be concerned about the Ca in PMR for their giant breed. The answer is NO.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ybur said:


> Unless any of you on here are holistic veterinarians or canine nutritionists (and I'll apologize if you are) and has seen the dog in question; I don't think ANYONE on here has the authority to override an actual professional opinion.


This would be a valid point... IF a vets advice on nutrition were in fact professional. But it is not. My husband is a forensic science major. He took ONE class in botany, but I'd hardly call him a professional botanist. Likewise, vets get ONE very general class on nutrition with textbooks in the pocket of the pet food industry, they aren't nutritionists.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ybur said:


> I said canine nutritionist. Are there any canine nutritionists on this board? Anyone with certification? I would love to hear an opinion from one. I guess I most likely wouldn't as ;they wouldn't give direct advice without seeing the dog.
> I didn't intend on a raw debate. This dog has had a professional opinion on his/her status, I dont know why random forum members would be more suitable to give advice? That's all I was pointing out.


I see your point. It's my understanding the advice given was from a vet, thus making it invalid. Either way I know from experience that Ca issues are far more rampant in kibble fed dogs than raw, and as long as you follow the PMR model, there's no worries.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ybur said:


> Veterinary advice is invalid. I would say that's a fairly dangerous statement. hwell:


Traditional vet's advice on NUTRITION, to me, is invalid.


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

Veterinary advice on nutrition tends to be invalid for raw feeders because many vets still do not agree with it and many times are whole-heartily against it. And when asked why they don't agree with many don't have any valid excuses other than its what they were taught in vet school. Vets are only REQUIRED to take a couple nutrition courses, many of which have text books made by giant pet food manufactures like hills. I'm sure they can specialize in nutrition if they want or choose to take some extra courses as an elective but at the end if the day we have a ranging spectrum of vets knowing ranging information about nutrition some elective study, while others get the information handed to them by possibly very bias sources...(I apologize for any run ons I'm on my cell)

My first vet was against raw feeding. My second one understands it. She also said she wish every dog she saw came in in the shape my dog is (lean and fit) because these days she sees so many overweight dogs...


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

I tried to make that as unblanket as I could. The fact of the matter is many of us search far and wide for a vet that agrees with our style of feeding and many times we can not find one within a reasonable distance from home. I know I got lucky with my vet but I've seen nearly every vet in the area and this is the first one I've been happy with, though I'd still like to have a holistic vet near by. 

But I know tons upon tons of ppl never find vets they can see eye to eye with regarding nutrition and therefore have to avoid the subject all together...it's really difficult to go to a vet where you can't discuss the whole of your pet..


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

I just simply don't agree with these specific vets. And I don't have to, I'm paying them.


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

ybur said:


> No you don't have to...
> What I believe is personal experience. If your dog does well on 100% raw, great! The question the OP asked was whether she should take her vets advice... who the hell are we to say..? That's all I'm asking.


And the op came here to a forum asking for advice.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

ybur said:


> No you don't have to...
> What I believe is personal experience. If your dog does well on 100% raw, great! The question the OP asked was whether she should take her vets advice... who the hell are we to say..? That's all I'm asking.


For the record we have two GD breeders who have raised a few litters on raw. Personally I believe an experienced breeder is more reputable for their own breed than a vet. I would say the breeders know what they're talking about.


----------



## BeagleCountry (Jan 20, 2012)

ybur said:


> Yes and we should be directing her to a list of canine nutritionists in her area. Or perhaps a holistic vet as opposed to a traditional one.


You can still provide that information.


----------



## losul (Oct 13, 2012)

Onyxmom2 said:


> Hi, looking for ideas, comments. We picked up a beautiful male Dane from Germany about 4 weeks ago. He's 4 mos. Was at the vet couple days ago and he's concerned about RAW feeding and his test results. He did a HemaTrue and Dri-Chem. Phosphorus is 9.3 and calcium is 11.1, says it's from too much raw meat and wants us to feed 50% raw and 50% kibble.
> Thanks for any input!!


So, as a neutral, unbiased, and C/P ratio ignorant party, I was just wondering, did you request the testing or did the vet want them, and for what reason? And is he concerned about raw feeding in general, or the raw feeding because of the test results? It doesn't sound like he's against it when advising 50/50.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Sorry I'm late to respond, was out of town. I wont comment on the canine nutritionist debate because that isn't what the OP is looking for. They're looking for EXPERIENCED raw feeders help. Thats all. 

From what I've learned, experienced and read elsewhere (books and online) is that meat and bone are naturally balanced with Ca ratios. You just have to make sure you're not feeding too much bone, too much meat or vice versa. 

Firstly, I would recommend a retest of the bloodwork. Especially if the blood was run IN HOUSE on their lab equipment and not at a referral laboratory. Sometimes we get high calcium readings on our lab equipment and we send blood out to the lab to confirm if its elevated or not. I had to do this with one of my raw fed dogs this past spring and after sending it out to the lab her Calcium level was completely normal, not elevated at all. 

Second, I would ask to hear exactly what you're feeding weekly and how long this pup has been raw fed. If newly switched what was the pup eating before the switch to raw?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

ybur said:


> So you raw feeding for four years supercedes a vet (who has gone to school for a minimum of 7 years)? I don't get that.
> If the OP is comfortable taking "experienced raw feeders" opinions over a certified vet then I guess she will have to deal with the consequences. The worst part about the situation is that-- no one has physically/in person seen the dog!
> This is where the Internet can get a bit dangerous...


While I appreciate your concern....this thread is not about that. If you want to continue this discussion start a new thread. All other responses of this nature will be deleted.


----------



## Onyxmom2 (Jan 10, 2011)

losul said:


> So, as a neutral, unbiased, and C/P ratio ignorant party, I was just wondering, did you request the testing or did the vet want them, and for what reason? And is he concerned about raw feeding in general, or the raw feeding because of the test results? It doesn't sound like he's against it when advising 50/50.


We were thinking it might to be a good idea to see where his numbers were on the different things, although the vet did it right then, before any fasting was done. He wants to do them again in 8 wks....we will see.


----------



## Onyxmom2 (Jan 10, 2011)

Natalie, Embers is almost 4 mos, his breeder weaned him onto raw. He eats, chicken, turkey, lamb, elk, deer, goat, beef, pork. We were very lucky to score 1000 lbs from a hoarder's house!!! He now weighs 75 lbs!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Was the blood work run in house or sent out to a lab?


----------



## Onyxmom2 (Jan 10, 2011)

It was run in house


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Onyxmom2 said:


> It was run in house


I'd definitely run the same blood work and send it out to a lab to recheck values before worrying at all about high values for phosphorus and calcium.


----------



## twoisplenty (Nov 12, 2008)

Also, I havent seen the question answered on what a typical feeding schedule looks like. For all we know the breeder was feeding the litter inappropriately. The blood tests may be accurate but will change once a proper feeding schedule has been established.


----------



## Onyxmom2 (Jan 10, 2011)

Thank you Everybody for your input! I'm no longer in a panic ;-)


----------

