She went into labor yesterday affternoon around 6 pm .  she realy had a ruff time of it, being so weak from being sick all week. She had a total of 8 puppies. The first 3 were ok, but the last 5 were all still born. I guess the stress from Jane bing sick was to much for them. I have never had that many still born before, so I can only assume that was the cause.   On the positive side, Jane is doing very well this morning and with her only having 3 puppies to feed, they should be very healthy and strong... 

judge I never have posted pic, mostly my own lazy self and not setting up a photo buck account or what ever it is im suppose to do.  the dog is just east of Pensicola ,  and im not kidding a fine dog,,  only down fall is  if he cant smell it he comes back and you might as well find another track and find where that hog has crossed another road.... I have hunted with some of the finest find dogs I have ever seen, but this dog takes the cake as a strait track dog....

judge, my jane dog is breed to such a dog, silent on track and he is just that a track dog. he will go from track to track unless the hog crosses a lot of water where he looses it , there is pork on the end every time.    you dont have to take my word for it , but i have seen a hog cross in the middle of the day , and go back the next morning and put on that hog and go bay him... the most amazing silent track dog I have ever seen....

There is a lot of good post on here about dogs and their ability to range, however, I belilever the dog does not always  control wether he or she is a short, med, or long range dog. I have dogs that will some times really roll out, and some times they dont hunt out so far.   take a dog that is use to hunting thick cover, put him in the river swamp, he should roll out further.... some people love to walk hunt some cast, some track, some do it all..  at the end of the day, if your dog regaurdless of how far he gets from you , can make a unwilling hog a movie star, consistantly, well thats what its about and thats the dog we all should want.  

Myth: RAW DIETS DO NOT MEET THE AAFCO STANDARDS AND ARE INFERIOR TO COMMERCIAL FOODS.
Vets, canine 'nutritionists', and pet food companies will tell you that raw diets do not meet the established standards for pet nutrition—the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) standards. AAFCO approval is the "Golden Seal" of quality when it comes to pet foods, and because raw diets do not have this seal of approval, many imply that they are inferior to commercial foods. But what are the AAFCO standards? How did AAFCO come up with these standards? Should they be viewed as the "Golden Seal of Approval?" Is it a valid argument to compare commercial, processed foods and raw foods using these standards?

AAFCO standards and nutrient profiles were established through collaboration between scientific experts in the industry, in academia (such as universities), and in the regulatory commission (National Research Commission, or NRC). These experts looked at the peer-reviewed literature and documented data available to them and then formulated nutrient profiles after collaboration. These nutrient profiles have been updated once and are scheduled to be updated again. At this point I would like to note that Nature's nutritional standards for dogs and cats has not changed within the past several thousand years since the species' existence (hundred thousand and even million years if you include their ancestors).

Some argue that AAFCO profiles are the best there is, but others argue that AAFCO profiles are simply 'better than nothing.' Indeed, the standards can lull people into a false sense of security about the food they feed their pets. They think it is nutritionally complete, when in reality it may not be truly complete. Additionally, AAFCO profiles have not been tested or reproduced (and one of the biggest principles of science is that the method must be reproducible and the results verifiable.). There are no studies that prove "their adequacies or inadequacies" (Quinton Rogers, DVM, PhD, as quoted in "Alternative Feeding Practices" by Susan Wynn. To see the full article, click here.). It is, at best, an educated guess as to what our animals really need, and is based on less-than-scientific principles.

There are several other things wrong with these standards that AAFCO uses to ensure foods are 100% 'complete and balanced.' The standards were developed based on the belief that dogs are omnivores and can be properly maintained on a grain-based diet. They are therefore irrelevant to raw diets. Why? First, to gain nutritional analysis, the food must be chemically denatured, cooked, purified, and otherwise manipulated, meaning that any reading is an inaccurate representation of the raw item. This also means that the interactions between nutrients are overlooked as each nutrient is studied separately rather than in conjunction with the others (and this will be discussed below).

Second, the NRC profiles (which AAFCO used to develop its own profiles) assume 100% bioavailability. However, if a dog is fed as an omnivore, there are good amounts of nutrients unavailable to it that are contained in the indigestible plant matter. Phytates in particular (contained in abundance in grains and soy products—which kibbles often contain in substantial amounts) are well-known for interfering with valuable nutrients like iron, zinc, and calcium. Hence, you have to feed more of these nutrients in order for the dog to get the amount it needs; what the dog actually needs and uses is NOT the same amount of nutrient initially added. This results in skewed and biased standards, as they list the initial nutrient amount added, not the amount absorbed. Thus, bioavailability is less than 100%, and the nutrients in the standards are therefore inaccurate representations of what the dog really needs.

There is a third reason why AAFCO standards are useless for raw foods. This deals with the reason the food is raw and not cooked. AAFCO standards are based on cooked or processed foods (processed in order to be evaluated), foods which already have a decreased nutritional value because of being cooked or processed. Cooking denatures proteins and collagen, destroys important nutrients, and generally makes the food less digestible and less bioavailable (the exception being grains and vegetables, which we have already determined should not be given to dogs anyway). This means essential vitamins and minerals must be added back in. But how much? In what amounts? Research has shown that synthetic vitamins do not work with the same efficiency as those found in their natural state (i.e. in raw foods). Additionally, many vitamins and minerals interact with each other both negatively and positively. For example, vitamin C increases the uptake of iron, whereas Vitamin E inhibits the uptake of iron. Vitamin C also lowers zinc and manganese uptake, whereas Vitamin E helps increase zinc and manganese absorption (www.acu-cell.com/nico.html). Commercial pet foods should contain all of these nutrients, but are they contained in the proper amounts? And just what is a 'proper amount'? The difficulties for establishing proper amounts have already been discussed. Do they have methods for monitoring the complex interactions of all these nutrients? Since feeding trials simply look at palatability, survival, and the appearance of health, these complex interactions are ignored. Cooking and processing food also kills enzymes that may help with the digestion of the food and the processing of nutrients, so the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals in cooked foods is further reduced (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.).

Let us also look at the actual AAFCO feeding trials themselves. Are these really the 'Golden Seal of Approval' that pet food manufacturers make them out to be? AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs being fed the same diet for a mere 26 weeks (approximately six months). During this time, 25% of the dogs (so, two animals) can be removed from the test and the dogs eating the food can lose up to 15% of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the test and be labeled "complete and balanced." But extrapolate these figures to the number of animals eating this food for much longer than 26 weeks and you will have much more of a problem! If a food caused dogs to start losing condition over the 26 week period yet still passed, imagine how many animals would fail to thrive in real life while being fed this food for years?

As long as the remaining dogs in the trial appear healthy and have acceptable weights and certain blood values, the food passes and is considered 'complete and balanced' nutrition for whatever lifestage for which it was tested (puppy, adult maintenance, geriatric, etc.). So it can now be fed to your pet for a period much longer than the six-month test period. However, AAFCO feeding trials were NOT designed to measure the long-term effects of commercial diets. It says so right in their mission statement (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 216). AAFCO trials were designed to ensure that pet foods were not "harmful to the animal and would support the proposed life stage" (pg 216, Raw Meaty Bones.) for a period of 26 weeks. The AAFCO protocols were NOT designed to "examine nutritional relationships to long-term health or disease prevention" (pg 216). If a dog lives for six months with no noticeable ill effects on a kibble, then the food is considered 100% complete and balanced nutrition, even though long-term nutritional deficiencies may occur several years down the road.

These "complete and balanced" and "not harmful" pet foods can destroy long-term health and cause disease and yet still be marketed as a healthy food for your pet. This has been PROVEN true. An example would be the lamb and rice commercial diets that had met or exceeded the nutrient profiles of AAFCO, and that had passed the AAFCO feeding protocol yet created a taurine deficiency in the dogs that ate them (Torres, C.L.; Backus, R.C.; Fascetti, A.J.; and Rogers, Q.R. Taurine status in normal dogs fed a commercial diet associated with taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 87 (2003). 359-372.). The dogs suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy; what is particularly distressing is that dogs can synthesize taurine from the readily-available (at least, in raw food) amino acids methionine and cysteine (whereas cats cannot), yet they still developed cardiomyopathy from this AAFCO-approved food! As a result, taurine is added into many commercial diets, but what about the dog owners whose pets became seriously ill and perhaps even died as a result of this oversight? What other "unknown oversights" are waiting to be discovered through more pain and anguish inflicted upon our pets? Other examples of 'oversights' would include supplementing cat foods with taurine after cats were going blind and suffering heart problems, or the constant adjustment of calcium:phosphorus ratios in puppy foods to prevent bone malformations and improper growth patterns (which still occur despite all the supplement adjustments). Interestingly, natural calcium in raw bones does not cause these malformations to the same degree artificial calcium does. One has to feed a LOT more natural calcium via bones to get the same degree of skeletal malformations found in commercial fed pets. All the researchers had to do was look to nature for the correct ratios.

When making their commercial processed foods, the pet food companies must often oversupplement their foods with the various vitamins and minerals to fall within the range of accepted nutrient values—the effects of which are NOT monitored past the six months of the AAFCO feeding trials. It should also be noted that pet food companies are not required to divulge the specific results of AAFCO testing of their products; that information is only made public if the company chooses to do so! Additionally, not all foods are required to enter feeding trials (The February 2007 edition of the Whole Dog Journal had an excellent article on this topic as well.). A food can undergo laboratory analysis to determine if it meets the nutrient requirements for dogs and cats. However, those nutrient requirements—expressed as minimum and maximum values—can vary widely! The minimum iron requirement for dogs, for example, is 80 mg/kg. The maximum iron requirement is 3,000 mg/kg! This is an incredible difference, and yet one food on the low end can be just as "complete and balanced" as another food with the maximum amount for iron! How will this affect the dogs over long term? Will one animal show a deficiency while the other shows an excess? The industry does not know, because they have never been required to test this beyond the 26-week mark! Foods can also obtain "complete and balanced" status by being 'grandfathered in'. If a company can show that one of its new foods bears "nutritional similarity" to one of their own existing products that underwent feeding trials (which allow for the removal of 25% of the dogs and loss of condition up to 15% over the course of 26 weeks), then that food can carry the same claim of 'complete and balanced'. Yet the actual ingredient combination was never tested! How can this similar yet different food be 'complete and balanced' for the *lifetime* of the animal if it was never adequately examined or tested? The entire process is faulty, but it is the best the pet food industry has. If this is the pet food industry's best, then what does that say about their 'complete and balanced' commercial foods? Hopefully one can now see why the AAFCO standards are useless for evaluating raw food diets and why they are incomplete in determining the actual "nutrient standards" needed and utilized by our pets.

Contrast this with a whole prey animal. Raw food's "best" is a brutal battle for survival over a span of several million years. Species evolved and adapted to their environments, thriving on fresh raw foods. If wolves and dogs have survived the worst of nature while eating fresh raw prey, what does that say for raw diets? A whole raw prey animal (unprocessed and NOT ground), or whole raw foods, contain the exact proportion of fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. One will be hard-pressed to test this in a lab, as the testing itself alters the perfect proportions. Nature's laboratory is how we know it is perfect. This is the food that keeps wolves, other canids, and felines alive and thriving, even in the face of intense pressures and hardships (many of which are man-induced!). Nutritional deficiencies arise because the animals cannot get enough to eat, NOT because the food is insufficient in nutrients. Who are we to think we can do better than nature? For further reference, please read Raw Meaty Bones.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

im done.   

Myth: MY DOG WILL ACQUIRE PARASITES FROM THE RAW MEAT IN A RAW DIET.
Yes, there can be parasites in raw meat. But if you are getting meaty bones and carcasses from places fit for human consumption, the parasite factor is negligible. Most parasites are a non-issue and can be safely dealt with by your dog if it is healthy.

The parasite issue is something than non-raw folk use as a scare tactic, telling you that your dog is going to die if it eats raw meat because it will get a weird parasite. They neglect to tell you the very low incidence of these parasites in meat deemed safe for human consumption; nor do they tell you the most "deadly" of these parasites come from things like infected sheep placentas or stillborn calves. Simple solution—do not feed those things to your dog. If the dog looks like it has parasites, simply get a stool sample or blood sample taken. A dog can be wormed holistically or allopathically (the chemical insecticide dewormers). But generally speaking, if your dog has a healthy immune system, it can deal with the parasites before they even get a chance to establish themselves. Parasites hate a very healthy host.

Freezing meat can help kill many parasites (such as the parasite present in salmon that CAN cause a deadly disease in dogs; freezing fresh raw salmon, steelhead, trout, and other salmonids for at least 24 hours before feeding effectively disposes of the parasite. Cooked salmon does not carry the parasite.). As long as one exercises caution in obtaining their meat, parasites are a non-issue. If feeding fresh salmonids or wild game, it is recommended that the meat be deep frozen for at least 24 hours before feeding for salmonids and one month for wild game.

Do not give in to the bacteria and parasite scare tactics. The suggestion of cooking your dog's food is actually quite harmful! It is the cooked food that causes problems with the dog's digestive system and that can result in the nutritional deficiencies vets claim they see from raw diets (in reality, most of these nutritional deficiencies arise primarily from home-cooked diets, since cooking destroys many valuable nutrients.). This issue is dealt with in further detail in the Cooked Food myth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope I have not posted to much , just alot of this controdics what my vet or a lot vets tell me.  sorry agin if its to much.

Myth: THE BACTERIA IN RAW MEAT WILL HURT YOUR DOG.
This is discussion purely about bacteria and your dog. If you are looking for a discussion about dogs spreading bacteria to humans, go here.

Yes, the bacteria in raw meat might hurt your dog IF the dog already has an immunocompromised system or some underlying problem. Raw diets have also been blamed for causing things like pancreatitis and kidney disease, when in reality the underlying disease was already there and was brought to light by the change in diet. Dogs are surprisingly well-equipped to deal with bacteria. Their saliva has antibacterial properties; it contains lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and destroys harmful bacteria. Their short digestive tract is designed to push through food and bacteria quickly without giving bacteria time to colonize. The extremely acidic environment in the gut is also a good bacteria colonization deterrent. People often point to the fact that dogs shed salmonella in their feces (even kibble-fed dogs do this) without showing any ill effects as proof that the dog is infected with salmonella. In reality, all this proves is that the dog has effectively passed the salmonella through its system with no problems. Yes, the dog can act as a salmonella carrier, but the solution is simple—do not eat dog crap and wash your hands after picking up after your dog.

Even kibble-fed dogs regularly shed salmonella and other bacteria. Most of the documented cases of severe bacterial septicemia are from kibble-fed animals or animals suffering from reactions to vaccines. Commercial pet foods have been pulled off shelves more than once because of bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly toxin. The solution? Use common sense. Clean up well and wash your hands. And think about your dog—this is an animal that can lick itself, lick other dogs, eat a variety of disgusting rotting things, and ingest its own feces or those of other animals with no ill effects. The dog, plain and simple, can handle greater bacterial loads than we can. Can dogs get sick from the bacteria? I suppose they can. But it is rare and usually indicative of an underlying problem, especially when one stops to consider how much bacteria that dog probably comes in contact with every single day. One must ask "Why this dog? Why now? What has made this particular dog susceptible to bacterial overgrowth?" Something is not 'right' regarding the dog's health—a healthy dog does not suffer from bacterial infections or bacterial septicemia. That is just common sense. A dog suffering from "salmonella poisoning" is obviously not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a 'breakdown' in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem; if one is talking in homeopathic medicine terminology, this is simply one more symptom that shows the dog is suffering from chronic disease (see the Vaccines page for more information).

I put forth that it is the kibble, not the raw meat, that causes bacterial problems. Kibble in the intestine not only irritates the lining of the bowels but also provides the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why thousands of processed food-fed animals suffer from from a condition called Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, or SIBO (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 85). Raw meaty bones, however, create a very inhospitable environment for bacteria, as RMBs are easily digestible and have no carbohydrates, starches, or sugars to feed the bacteria.

Can raw-fed dogs make other dogs sick? If the other dog has a suppressed immune system or some underlying problem, then perhaps a raw-fed dog can make another dog sick. But keep in mind the inordinate amount of bacteria dogs usually ingest anyway, not to mention the plaques of bacteria covering the teeth and gums of the kibble-fed dogs. People recall raw-fed dogs being the only dogs at dog shows that did not get sick with some communicable disease of some sort, and then instantly assume that it was those dogs that got all the other dogs sick. A more plausible explanation is that the raw-fed dogs have a much stronger immune system and are thus better equipped to fight off diseases and "canine common colds" that circulate at shows (and possibly that they have been vaccinated less than their kibble-fed counterparts, which results in a stronger immune system). For a more in-depth discussion of how processed foods suppress the immune system, please refer to Raw Meaty Bones.

Just some final thoughts on bacteria and raw: this is what finds its way into the "sterile" kibbled commercial foods:

"Meat products not intended for human consumption, such as inedible tissues, condemned portions of carcasses, and entire carcasses of condemned animals (eg, animals found to be dead, dying, disabled, or diseased at the time of slaughter), are also used for dog food. Because of the inherent nature of these products and the less stringent handling requirements, compared with products approved for human consumption, these products may contain high levels of bacterial contamination." (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1222.)


And as for commercial foods being "bacteria free" (an assumption that is often inferred when people put down raw diets because of the bacteria):

"Pet foods, commercial or homemade, provide an ideal environment for bacterial proliferation." (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1224.)


So do not be fooled into thinking kibbled, commercial pet food is a sterile, bacteria-free source of food! The starches, rancid fats, and sugars in kibbled foods provide much better food sources for bacteria than the proteins in raw meat.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spaz, Thanks alot.   That info will be nice,  an update on Jane,  I went by the vet yesterday around 5 pm  and she looked a lot better, but was still sick, the vet told me to take her home. she can walk now and is drinking water and eating a little. she walks a little drunk, but she is so big with pups, its unreal... she has had three litters,  two of those she had 13 pups and the last litter was 9 pups. but I have never seen her this big with pups.   I walked her around the house last night and she peed  but didnt poop,  but this morning she did both,   she is still weak and she is staying inside the house with use . I am trying to not over do the excersize but at the same time trying to get her strong enough to have the pups. she knows her name and seems to be able to see real good because before she had like a long stair to her look, like she was looking thru you..   its hard to explain. but all in all she is way better, than she was , just still weak....  Thanks so much for the prayers. and also for the posts . I believe in my heart she contracted it from a contaminated food bowl. she is a very slow eater, and after investigating everything I could, my son would place the chicken in her feed bowl, for her to eat, I feed one piece at a time, so the chicken never touches any thing,   I think that the food bowl was the contaminated source because I did not know this and never washed it out.    now every thing has been bleached down , in ALL PENS  and I explained it to my son who is 15  that it is not his fault  IF this is how she got it.  but he is still upset, because he loves her as much as i do.  but like yall said, live and learn....     I will keep yall posted about the pups, and Jane  Thanks  agin. 

SPAZ,  I feed raw with a vitiman occasionaly and a little kibbal about  twice a week. all look great, and they poop one some times twice a day, and its not messy, im not trying to be a terd expert, but it tells you alot about whats going on with your dog.   when I came home 2 days ago, she was laying in the pen, and was covered on the back end with what i thought at the time was dryed blood, but it wasnt, and it had this awful smell, like death.  thats why i thought she had lost the pups, but that was not the case,,    she is still at the vet , and as of last night was not doing good at all.  going by this afternoon after work and see what my options are,  vet says she may not get well enough to have the pups, so last resort is to take them and try and bottle feed them..  all signs say the pups are ok, heart rate is good acording to vet and not under stress.    I have lost pups, and had dogs get sick, but this is new to me. and im just tore up about it..  she is one of those that just gets under your skin.  you can ask her if she loves you and she will lay her head on your shoulder, and hug your neck, i talk to her like a person and its like she knows every thing im saying...    any way     thanks agin. I will keep you guys posted......

Guy's I realy appreciate yall chiming in on the matter.  as of right now she and the pups are still alive.  Halfbreed I do believe as you stated  the vet just ment to boil but not cook, and I do watch my dogs and suppliment with vitamins as needed and they are in great shap, I just cant believe I missed the signs with her being pregnant .   She is or was in out standing shape and butterball fat,  I just never thought about her immune system being pulled down.  The lockal wolf preserve feeds the same thing I do, and they have never had an issue either.  just my luck I guess..    Thanks agin, and if any of you guys need any help from Northwest Florida, let me know...

I have been feeding raw chicken backs and necks for about 2 months, with no problems. I reserched the raw feeding for almost a year and read every post on ETHD that I could get my hands on about raw feeding.  With that said, my dogs have never looked or acted better. The chicken I feed is USDA top shelf and I never let it get to room temp. I freeze it and then semi thaw and feed. Now here is where i need your help. My best dog got very sick yesterday, to the point, when I got home from work she could not stand . she is due to have puppies on the 3rd which is friday.  when I found her, I scooped her up and we went strait to the vet.  I gave him a run down of every thing that was going on and i thought it had to do with the puppies, maybe she had lost them. but that is not the case . the pups were all ok but she is extreamly sick.  when I told him I was feeding raw chicken , he almost had a heart attack .. long story short, he thinks/said, Her bing pregnant has pulled her immune system down and she has contrackted Salmonella from the chicken. He got on me pretty hard , but I explained to him that dogs eat things all the time that are way worse than what I feed. and I explained all the research I had done conserning raw feeding. He agreed but advised that it is still risky and He advised that I bring my water to a boil with the chicken and then feed , that it would have the same nutritional value. any way, I feel like a flippen idiot, for puting my dog in this situation.  as for right now she is doing some better, and the puppies are ok  but we are not out of the woods yet. I have hunted with dogs for over 30 years, and do not presume to know it all, but I would like to know what you guys think or if you have had this problem.   Thanks in advance ....

AN AVERAGE DOG AND AVERAGE WOMAN ARE NOT HARD TO FIND,
BUT A GREAT DOG AND A GREAT WOMAN ARE GENERALY ONCE IN A LIFE TIME.

AUTHOR : TATE MORRELL

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SELL ANY , I WOULD LIKE ONE . I HAVE HAD 3, ONE FROM LARRYS YARD, THAT JUST FINALY GOT SO OLD HE CANT HUNT. I LIVE IN NW FLORIDA, SO LIVING CLOSE TO YOU WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM . MEANING SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT TO SELL GOOD DOGS TO THE GUY DOWN THE STREET...  LOL

THANKS     TATE MORRELL 

I use the TrashBreaker EXP, and it has plenty of range,  and it has held up thru all kinds of torture .  The only time I have had to replace one is when a boar punched a hole in it....

Thanks guys, I will do just that.

I HAVE READ ALMOST EVER SINGLE POST ABOUT IT, AND HAVE BEEN RESERCHING FEEDING RAW FOOD TO MY DOGS FOR OVER A YEAR, AND FINALY DECIDED TO DO IT...  EVERY THING IS GOING GREAT. HOWEVER, A COUPLE OF MY DOGS WHEN THEY POOP, IT IS ALRADY DRY COMING OUT. WHAT I MEAN IS IT IS POWDER DRY AND CRUMBLEING AS IT GETS PUSHED OUT, WHICH CANT FEEL GOOD TO THE DOG.   ITS ALMOST LIKE CONSTIPATION, BUT NOT, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN...  WHAT IS MISSING.... I FEED CHICKEN BACKS, SO DO I NEED TO ADD FISH OIL PILL OR WHAT ?  PLEASE HELP,    BY THE WAY, MY DOGS HAVE NEVER LOOKED OR ACTED BETTER, AND I HAVE SOME GREAT DOGS, BUT THEIR PERFORMANCE HAS EVEN GOTTEN BETTER AND SO FAR AFTER FEEDING FOR ABOTU TWO MONTHS THIS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE.....
THANKS IN ADVANCE...

Had my catch dog get nocked out about 8 months ago.  Watched the hole dad-gum thing.   IT was about a 200 pound sow, the catch dog ran up to catch on the ear, and just as he did the hog swung around and hit him in the ear area and it laid him out cold as a wedg.  the bay dogs kept right on baying and he came too a few seconds later. He was shaking a little and had all four legs spread wide apart like a giraffe, drunk off his butt.  the hog was standing right beside him, I guess she sinced he was not a threat at that time and just kinda looked at him and turned and made her break with the bay dogs right on her tail.. ended up catching her about 400 yards down the creek... the stranges thing I have ever saw.... 

Ok ,,, let me ask a nother question.  If you catch hogs like we all do , and then put him in a pen like I  do and worm him, shouldnt that fix the probelm , as long as you dont kill and prepare him until the wormer has run its course and be out of the hogs system, common sense tells me it will be ok. I would not feed raw pork to my dogs straight out of the woods, but even with common sense , im still unsure at this time.

From every thing I have read and the people I have talked to say the same thing,  ,,  you dont have to but its a little better if you do mix in some greens, such as collards, turnips, Kale, carrots  ect.  per feeding,  so Im just going to mix mine in when i grind it up like hamburger and make it one pound packs. you can also give them an egg, shell and all  once or twice a week.. and that helps aslo..  just things ive been reading and info i have been compiling.. 

I have been researching about raw feeding and some say pork is ok and others say not to,,,, so which is it ,  im going to raw and im going to ginde the raw food and freeze in one pound packs, mixing in some vegitables that they need .  I am going to watch the utube video ya'll  sugested, but im still unclear on the pork issue... help please...