Heal the Dog

“Let him come to you” or “not over his head” - four innocent words, and yet they can land like a warning. Say them to a new guest and watch their face change, shoulders tighten, smile goes a little fixed, voice drops half an octave into “careful now” mode. They’ve heard or perceived fear, unpredictability, or even aggression, even though we meant only to be considerate.

Dogs read us, and often misread. If a guest tenses up because they think our dog might be a problem, our dog often mirrors that tension straight back - not because anything was wrong, but because we have just told them that something might be. The instruction itself isn’t the issue; it’s the perception it can create.

However, many people don't know how to interact with dogs in a mindful, considerate way, and often cross boundaries they didn't know existed. We often still need to give these instructions, even with tolerant dogs, and not just expect our dogs to tolerate (while patting ourselves on the back for how tolerant and good-natured our dog is).

So how do we best communicate:
Make it about preference, not risk. “She likes to do her own sniff-and-decide” or “if he does want you to touch him, he will let you know and prefers to have his chin or chest stroked” reads more as personality than risk.

Giving people something to do, rather than telling them what not not to do can also help them feel less worried or self-conscious.

Deliver with a positive framing, “Give her a minute and she may want to say hello” carries the same information as “don’t rush her,” but may be perceived with less tension.

Watch your own delivery - the calmest, most useful instruction still lands as a warning if you say it with a worried face. Dogs aren't the only ones trying to read the room; people do, too.

None of this changes what we’re actually asking guests to do. It just may change what they feel while doing it - and that feeling can be the difference between a dog who adjusts and settles more easily and one who spends the whole visit unsure why everyone’s acting strange.

For dogs who are indeed a bit more fearful or distrustful of strangers, the appropriateness and selectivity of interactions will need to be carefully considered, and instructions may differ, as may the delivery.

When “safe” isn’t safe for every dog

The Years recall this week (you can read about it in many social media publications), currently (suspectedly) linking the recent ingredient change of buckwheat to sudden bilateral dry eye in a small number of dogs, is a sharp reminder of something I think about a lot as a guardian and in my profession: population-level safety doesn’t guarantee individual safety.

Dry eye (KCS) happens when the tear glands stop producing enough to lubricate the eye - it’s painful, and if untreated, can permanently damage the cornea. Most cases are immune-mediated: the body turns on its own tear-producing tissue. What is happening here, regardless of whether buckwheat is the causative factor, is likely an idiosyncratic/immune-mediated reaction, which is an unpredictable, host-dependent response.

Years’ own data shows this has currently affected roughly 0.1% of their customers. Buckwheat isn’t inherently dangerous (the possibility of specific mycotoxin involvement exists) - it’s fed to tens of thousands of dogs without issue. However, if it is indeed the issue, something about how their immune system processed it may have caused real harm in a small, unpredictable subset.

I’ve seen this firsthand twice, with two of my dogs. One developed immune-mediated polyarthritis after a cefalexin injection - a common, generally well-tolerated antibiotic. Nobody mentioned this adverse effect as a possibility, including the datasheet, it simply didn’t agree with my dog’s immune system - and as is often the case, after the event, you hear about other dogs similarly affected. Another of my dogs developed severe autoimmunity following a Suprelorin implant. Again, a widely used product (with no mention of autoimmunity as an adverse effect) in my individual dog’s case (and some others) triggered something it wasn’t meant to. In both cases, the drugs couldn't be proven as a causative factor, but (after exhaustive research) that doesn't mean it wasn’t likely true.

This is the pattern behind so many adverse drug and food reactions in dogs - unpredictable, not dose-dependent, and invisible until exposure has already happened. It’s why we can never assume that what is safe for the majority is safe for all. Vigilance isn’t paranoia, it’s guardianship. Know your individual dog, do they have a familial history of immune-mediated reactions (that could be auto-immune or allergic based)? Introduce new foods and drugs carefully and gradually, where you can, be selective, research, and report anything that doesn’t sit right, even if it seems minor.

Connecting dots isn’t easy, and much may be assumption based, but knowing that there is a cause for an effect, means we must try to get to the root of things. If anything, to avoid repeat reactions for our own dogs, and serve as a word of caution for others.

From theory to practice - what breeders are reporting after a post I shared on the growing number of puppies/dogs with less-than-ideal relationships with food, particularly forming when young.

I explored how the way puppies are fed during the critical 8-9 weeks of life shapes their individual relationship with food, and why that matters long after they leave the litter. Group feeding has genuine developmental value, but its outcomes are often unequal: bolder puppies can dominate, quieter ones learn passivity, and appetite can become socially driven rather than individually motivated. When the litter disappears overnight at rehoming, so does the social trigger that may have been driving eating - leaving new guardians facing disinterest or pickiness, and inadvertently compounding the problem through anxiety and emotional investment around mealtimes.

The practical recommendation was straightforward - don’t abandon group feeding, but introduce solo meals alongside it, particularly in the final two to three weeks before puppies leave. Physical separation, a calm handler present, a finite meal. Simple, low-cost, and grounded in what we know about how behavioural patterns form during this window.

Since that post was shared, a number of breeders decided to try it. The feedback has been striking.

On average, litters receiving individual meals alongside communal ones showed greater individual interest in food and adjusted more readily to solo eating in their new homes. Guardians reported fewer early settling difficulties around mealtimes, and breeders noticed more confident, engaged eating behaviour across the litter - including in puppies who had previously been the quieter, more passive feeders at the group bowl.

This is obviously early observational feedback, not a controlled study, and it should be read as such, but it is interesting nonetheless. Small changes, measurable differences

Thanks to the breeders who tried this out and reached out with feedback!

*Here is the initial post https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Cweyx6pXx/?mibextid=wwXIfr

It’s always been about Rico 🥹. Thanks Dogs Today Magazine for covering my story.

“Rico died two years ago, but Junior says the much-loved dog remains at the heart of everything he does.

He said: “This is all because of Rico. He showed me how frightening and confusing the world can become for both dogs and their guardians when they do not have the right support.

“Dogs don’t need to be dominated or punished. They need to be understood.

“Behaviour is not simply about a dog being ‘good’ or ‘bad’. There is always a reason behind it, and our job is to approach that animal with empathy, kindness, curiosity and science rather than fear or force.”

Junior leads the team of professionals supporting Pet Remedy’s Ask The Professional service, which connects pet owners with qualified trainers, behaviourists and nutrition professionals through virtual consultations.”

Dog behaviourist who was told to ‘pin down’ puppy now helps owners avoid harmful advice - Dogs Today Magazine Junior Hudson, 48, from Letchworth, Hertfordshire, became a dog behaviourist after struggling with his own “challenging” puppy and is helping pet owners avoid the harmful advice which once left him feeling desperate.

Could Your Dog’s Dinner Be Rewriting Their Biological Age?

There’s a new piece of research that deserves attention from anyone feeding a dog - it evidences, for the first time really, that what’s in the bowl might measurably slow (or speed up) ageing at a molecular level.

Using simple cheek swabs, scientists built a new epigenetic ageing clock for dogs - a test that reads DNA methylation to estimate biological, not just chronological, age. They used it to compare two groups of pugs over six months: one eating a minimally processed, human-grade fresh diet (MPHGF), the other eating conventional dry kibble (EDK).

The fresh-food dogs showed a measurable drop in epigenetic age. The kibble-fed dogs showed no change. This echoes what’s already been seen in humans and other species - ultra-processed diets are linked to faster biological ageing, but it’s among the first times it’s been shown in dogs with a purpose-built ageing clock.

There was also a change at a specific longevity-linked gene, KISS1R: it moved one way in the fresh-food dogs (reduced) and the opposite way in the kibble-fed dogs, even though the two groups' weights didn't change. In other words, this wasn’t about calories (where calorific restrictions have been linked to longevity). Something about the diet itself seems to be nudging the body’s ageing machinery.

What this means for you and your dog
If you’ve been weighing a move from ultra-processed kibble to a fresh, minimally processed diet, this is one more piece of evidence that the quality of the food may shape how well, not just how long, our dogs live. The research is starting to catch up with what many of us have long known: food is information, and the body is listening.

More studies are needed (as always!) to explore these findings but this is very exciting indeed. Thanks to Dr. Karen Becker and Rodney Habib for sharing the research.

https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/vro2.70047?fbclid=IwdGRjcATk-oBwZG9mBWZkaWQWUMKqnsGEGv7ipbSXL0-c_e86PlYzBmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR45Wg-iEWBQ-iFhpt1cqtmo4bsDYcZ_0abJx7lDS09G3ZpZC791PTxHvL0-5A_aem_qk9TQKMGkw0T1sRmYOYPGQ

What strongly heritable, but still unpredictable diseases can tell us about the importance of diversity.

It is important to remember that strongly heritable and simply inherited are not the same thing. Take a cancer like Hemangiosarcoma - high end of heritability among canine cancers (breed clustering, functional tumour differences by breed, elevated lifetime incidence, etc.) In Golden Retrievers, lifetime risk runs around 20%, one of the highest single-cancer risk rates documented for any tumour type in any breed. And it isn’t just Goldens that get it more often, other breeds such as German Shepherds, Boxers, and smaller less-studied breeds like the Eurasier( my breed) can be susceptible. It would be reasonable to think that hemangiosarcoma would be predictable enough an issue that you could trace through a pedigree and breed away from. It isn’t - and understanding why highlights the importance of genetic diversity.

Hemangiosarcoma, like most other cancers with a genetic basis, is inherited in a polygenic manner - meaning unlike easily traceable, single-gene disorders, there are dozens of contributing gene variants with individually modest effect. Assumed knowledge of ‘clean’ pedigrees, or lines, simply doesn’t hold here. Ancestors who never developed such a disorder tell you almost nothing about how many risk variants they may have carried. Environmental and epigenetic factors likely add further complexity too, meaning genetics alone won’t fully predict outcome.

Genetic diversity is a hedge against variants that haven’t been found yet. Where it may not be possible to identify all the various contributing loci. Reducing inbreeding coefficients protects against risk you can’t yet name, which is precisely the situation many breeds find themselves in. Strong heritability with a polygenic, untestable architecture is exactly the scenario where reducing relatedness within the breed’s own gene pool outperforms trying to avoid specific lines. The goal isn’t a pedigree that looks clean - it’s a gene pool with enough room in it that no single combination of risk variants keeps finding its way together.

A welcome discussion in mainstream news about the risks of blanket, routine chemical parasiticide use - that the benefits of routine treatment aren’t actually backed up by scientific evidence.

The environmental risks and the risks to human health are covered, but unfortunately not the risk to the very animals these products are used on.

The interviewee, Dr Rose Perkins, discusses the individual, lifestyle-based risk assessment that’s supposed to happen before parasiticides are used - the same risk assessment 99% of my clients had never heard of until I made them aware of it. Disappointing, given the BVA first published this policy 5 years ago. Hopefully awareness will grow from here.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbqhhIaI3Pc/?igsh=MW1rNHBsYmY3YXExdg==