Nature's Guardian - Three Week Update

So after first applying the Nature's Guardian to Ruki, the smell dissipated after 2-3 days. (Unfortunate because I kind of liked her smelling good.) She still felt a little oily where we applied it for a few days after that, with dust sticking to her fur. Then she started getting dandruff flakes--and after some examination this is what it was. Her skin wasn't flaking; it was just the dander she was naturally shedding was now clumping. 

The dandruff lasted for about a week, and now three weeks later she's back to completely normal. No fleas or ticks, but we also live in the city where that's not really a problem, and I've probably only taken her to the park/woods four or five times since. She hasn't been to the park to play with a mess of dogs, only the occasional passerby here and there, so little chance of getting fleas from other dogs--and in our neighborhood, honestly, little to no chance period because of how the owners care for their own dogs.

So far, a positive review. I only question whether the Nature's Guardian is effective at all, just because we live in such a low-risk situation. It's messier than the Frontline, but so far much safer and much cheaper. 

Sergeant's Nature's Guardian Review

Now that spring is in full swing, I realized I need to get Ruki back onto flea and tick repellant--especially as I've been taking her to Fresh Pond, where there's a patch of wooded area that she loves romping around in. 

I always hated Frontline--it just seems so toxic, albeit much less toxic than permethrin-based alternatives. (The latter, according to the blogosphere, nearly guarantees seizures and immediate death to any animal that takes it.) Plus, I went to Target today, and it was $43 for 3 applications. (At the pet store, I remember it being $15 / application, so just a few dollars more.)

Right next to it, I saw Sergeant's Nature's Guardian: $8.99 for 3 applications. I approached it warily due to my previous permethrin research and the takehome that, yes, Frontline's bad, but it works, and it's the safest thing out there. 

But I checked out the ingredients. Active ingredients: peppermint oil, cinnamon oil, lemon grass oil, clove oil, thyme oil. Other ingredients: vanillin, isopropyl myristate. 

So, essentially, the active ingredients are oils with natural sources. (I hesitate that they are actually "natural," though.) I also know that in close-to-pure forms, these oils can be very toxic. But here all the oils are in concentrations of 5% or less. 

I decided to give it a go. Then I went to the Interwebs and started freaking out again: Nature's Garden is all about seizures and death and more seizures and death. 

But, reading between the lines, all the bad stuff happens to *cats* and not dogs. And one of the comments mentioned a vet saying that cats are more susceptible to this stuff than dogs. (Though that doesn't bode well for Sergeant's quality control and testing.) And since Ruki's 40 lbs. but has a small surface area, I figured I could use about half of the 40 lb. dosage of 0.15 fl. oz. 

Nervously, I took the plunge. It's been almost four hours, and it's like nothing happened. Now I have a fresh-smelling puppy, hanging out like a scented candle, doing what she normally does. 

So far, success.

Now, I don't know how effective this stuff is. I know most insect repellant operates by overpowering animal scent, which this stuff is bound to do, but does it kill fleas and ticks? Frontline repels them and kills them when they get on your pet. I'm not convinced that this natural stuff will do that. But we'll see. 

We also don't spend *that* much time outside. Walks in the morning and early evening in a green city, with a couple of trips to parks and dog parks. I'll keep posting if anything comes up. But, again, so far success. 

Bulldog Food Recommendation

So awhile ago, we ended up switching Ruki's food from Innova Adult Dry Dog Food to California Natural Lamb Meal and Rice. We (including Ruki) loved the Innova, but the pellets were on the small side--but typical for dog food--and she developed an allergy to (we think) the chicken or turkey. 

We like the California Natural because it's from Natura, the same makers of Innova, and has the same safety commitment and high, food-grade quality ingredients. But also, they offer a large bite pellet size, which Ruki tends to chew more than swallow. 

So although it's not a "bulldog formula," it's a great option for one of the highest quality foods and in a format that works well with bulldogs' hearty appetites. 

Being the Leader - Walking Tips

Ruki's been a little more stubborn these days on her walks. (She's one year, eight months about now.) I think it's spring-time, and the smells are fresher and stronger around the neighborhood, so all she wants to do is pull and sniff. But one thing that's helped with her stubbornness--I mean, "character"--is to keep one step ahead of her while we're walking. If I walk a little bit faster than normal, I think she just keeps up and follows so she doesn't lose me.

The other thing we've been "experimenting" with is letting her off-leash in the neighborhood. We've let her off-leash when we walk around Fresh Pond reservoir and when we're running around in the Cambridge Common--and of course when she's at the Radcliffe Quad playing with other dogs. But it's a different and bigger test of faith to walk with her around the neighborhood without the leash. We confine it to certain less-busy streets and during quieter times of the day. But it seems that she's actually much better off-leash than on.

It's like when she's on the leash, then she needs to fight for where she wants to go, and she pulls. But when she's off leash, she has more freedom, and generally she wants to follow us. And if she wanders into the street, it takes a few clicks--or a deep, loud reprimand--and she either lays down and picks up and follows, or just comes back onto the sidewalk.

How Dangerous is BPA for Babies?

So, yes, there's a lot of back-and-forth debate about the dangers of BPA (Bisphenol A) in babies. In August 2007, the Baby Bargains Book authors withdrew their recommendations of polycarbonate baby bottles which have BPA. Z Recommends published a list of BPA-free baby bottle alternatives. The take-home of all of these to the mainstream public is to avoid Avent and Dr. Brown bottles (the most popular polycarbonate bottles on the market), and to move to brands such as Medela and BornFree. 

But, really, how dangerous is BPA exposure? It's still pretty mixed. Reports from the 90s say that there is no danger; the FDA confirms this; the industry--bottle-makers and organizations they belong to--reiterate the safety of their products. 

In November 2007 the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, through their Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) published an expert panel report analysis of the studies on BPA risk to humans. You can read the actual report here. 

Here's what it concludes (pages 352-353):

1. For pregnant women and fetuses, the Expert Panel has different levels of concern for the different developmental endpoints that may be susceptible to bisphenol A disruption, as follows: 

• For neural and behavioral effects, the Expert Panel has some concern 
  
• For prostate effects, the Expert Panel has minimal concern 
  
• For the potential effect of accelerated puberty, the Expert Panel has minimal concern 
  
• For birth defects and malformations, the Expert Panel has negligible concern 
  

2. For infants and children, the Expert Panel has the following levels of concern for biological processes that might be altered by Bisphenol A, as follows:

• some concern for neural and behavioral effects 
  
• minimal concern for the effect of accelerated puberty 

3. For adults, the Expert Panel has negligible concern for adverse reproductive effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A. For highly exposed subgroups, such as occupationally exposed populations, the level of concern is elevated to minimal.

There you go. The panel finds that the highest exposure to BPA is through products that contact food and through damage or repeated use may leach BPA into the food, and that there is then some concern of neural and behavioral effects. 

Carrying and the Crying Baby: Preemptively Preventing Fussiness?

So I started reading a bunch of academic papers about fussiness, colic, and crying in infants. This interest was spawned by the hope alluded to in Dr. Harvey Karp's Happiest Baby on the Block book, suggesting that babies have a "fourth trimester" where the conditions of the womb have to be replicated to comfort newborns. This is done through the Five S's: Swaddling, Shh'ing, Side positioning, Swinging, and Sucking. It's been a great method for us and works like a charm. (Here's another review and some suggestions for using the book.)

But is there a way to create conditions where you can prevent a baby from developing fussy tendencies? Part of the theory of the "fourth trimester" is that the baby is so used to being in the womb that drastic changes from that are disturbing and that he needs comforting. If the baby is instantly comforted then he doesn't develop the need to cry to ask for comfort. He mews or whimpers or cries quickly when he needs comfort.

The theory goes on to suggest that in other cultures (particularly non-modern societies) the ubiquity of carrying--in slings, in arms, on the back of mothers--the constant replication of the womb along with constant feeding eases the transition through the fourth trimester. Studies purport to show that children in modern societies who are carried more throughout the day end up being less fussy and less colic. (The recommendation is at least three hours a day.) 

Other studies show that babies who are colic are carried the same amount as those who are classified as fussy or moderate criers. But these studies were done *after* children were identified by parents as fussy. The study then suggests that parents who have fussy children tend to carry and coddle their children more often to quiet them. But if the end result is the same, doesn't this show that the parents of non-fussy children coddled their children X amount in the beginning and continued to coddle them X amount, while those of fussy children coddled an X-Y amount and then ramped up their coddling to X amount in response to the fussiness? 

Therefore, it may be children who are carried/coddled while newborns *may* result in less fussy children. If the amount of coddling were the same prior to the study, then you'd expect the fussy children to be coddled much more than the non-fussy children in the study. 

In the end, I think carrying is important. It may help replicate this controversial "fourth trimester." But it also forces you to spend more time with your child. It hopefully helps to relax you, to take a break from your own life, and spend some time in the peaceful halo of a sleeping baby. This calming creates a calmer environment for your child and helps you to react more peacefully to her inevitable cries. (Another study suggested that stressed out and anxious parents were a better predictor of fussy babies than anything else.) Just take care not to over-stimulate your child, which I know from having a puppy, leads to undesirable behavior: fussiness and crying in children, and craziness and chewing in dogs.