"I suppose it could have been absorbed by a root." Possible, but more likely to have resulted from vaporization/wind transfer. When Glyphosate hits dirt, it degrades very rapidly. When it blows onto green stems, it is often absorbed pretty well. Other than making sure your tree is not stressed (maintaining proper soil moisture, etc), about all you can do is sit and talk to it, telling it how much you love it and hope it gets better (-:

Urine is just a highly concentrated form of nitrogen. If anything, it should encourage established or mature trees to put on additional growth. Young trees or saplings area different matter - the nitrogen is too strong and can burn but this is not an issue with any larger, better established plants. Most dog parks in my area (and I visit a lot of them frequently) cover the trails and main socializing area with bark or wood chips, similar to what one would do in a home kennel or dogrun. These absorb much of the liquid waste and are changed out or replaced when they become too soiled - leaching into groundwater or streams/lakes is not an issue. Solid waste must of course be bagged and properly disposed of.

I hope it isn't rude of me to resurrect a thread from a few years ago, but I came across this thread while searching for information on controlling asclepias syriaca, more specifically, whether the rhizomes can be contained so as to prevent them from taking over (the seeds I'm not as concerned about). I have a couple of 1 year old syriacas in my garden (planted last year), as well as some new syriaca and purpurascens seedlings I have started indoors. I'm just now realizing/reading about how aggressive established syriaca can be. I have been fighting ongoing battles with Japanese knotweed and bindweed in my garden, which makes me very leery of inviting more rhizome-related trouble! I also have a fairly small garden, which means that if the syriaca begins spreading, it will quickly be popping up in my raised veggie beds on the one side, or in my rose/perennial beds on the other side. That said, is there a way to contain the syriaca rhizomes? Jazzygardener, above, mentions black plastic landscape edging--do others recommend this approach? Perhaps I'm overly cautious because of my J. knotweed experiences--those roots spread far too deeply underground for some black plastic to do much good, but J. knotweed is somewhat notorious for that so it may not apply to syriaca. If black plastic would work, what about large nursery pots sunk into the ground? Or alternatively, might it be a better idea for me to focus on better-behaved asclepias that would be more manageable? As mentioned, I do have some purpurascens seedlings and from my reading, it looks like there are many other asclepias varieties that are better behaved. I don't want to do the butterflies any disservice, but I don't know if I can take on another garden battle! What would you recommend? Thanks all for any thoughts and opinions. :)

Hi. I'm new to this forum, and thought I might contribute something on this subject. I am a practicing veterinarian and a dog and cat owner. The issue of feeding a raw vs. commercial pet diet is like any other issue -- you will find people who are for it and people who are against it. Personally, I do not feed my dogs and cats raw meat, nor will I ever do so. I feed them a high-quality commercial diet -- and one of my dogs is a 14-year-old, 80-pound Golden Retriever mix. The last time I did bloodwork on him (about three months ago) the results were absolutely normal. My other (younger) dogs are also completely healthy. However, if DONE CORRECTLY, I do not see a problem in feeding a raw diet to pets. Having said that, I'd like to address the question that was actually asked by the original poster: Do parasites increase when dogs/cats are fed raw diets? And the answer is: There is a greater RISK of parasites when feeding raw diets. No, not all dogs and cats are going to contract parasites when fed a raw diet. But there is certainly the possibility. Someone said that tapeworms are spread by fleas, and that person is correct. SOME tapeworms are spread by fleas. But there are many species of tapeworms, including beef and pork tapeworms. Some species of tapeworms are spread when a predator (such as a dog or cat) ingests the tapeworm cysts that are imbedded in the raw meat. These cysts (called hydatid cysts) are absolutely disgusting, and you can see them by simply Googling "Beef tapeworm hydatid cysts". One of the jobs of meat inspectors in processing plants is to inspect the meat for tapeworm cysts. If any cysts are found in the meat, the entire carcass is condemned. Most of the beef and pork produced in the United States now is tapeworm-free. I heard the radio interview with the raw-meat proponent who said that feeding dogs commercial kibble is the same as a human eating nothing but Cheerios. And I have to say that this is complete crap. It made a good sound bite, but the analogy is nonsense. There are a number of commercial pet foods available that provide pets with a balanced diet, including digestible proteins, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. They may cost more, but they are available. Feeding a raw meat diet is very complicated because simply feeding raw steak or raw chicken to your pet is not enough. Pets have specific needs, and some of these can only be fulfilled with special types of foods. For example, cats have a requirement for a substance called "taurine" in their diets. Cats with taurine deficiencies develop retinal degeneration, heart problems, problems with their white blood cell function, and abnormal growth and development. High-quality commercial cat foods contain taurine that cats are able to absorb and use. Cats in the wild obtain their taurine from ingesting the abdominal organs of their prey. This means that if you are feeding a raw meat diet, in order to provide your cat with taurine, you would need to feed all of the abdominal organs as well. Pieces of raw chicken, steak, fish etc are going to cut it, so to speak. All I'm saying is that the diets should be well-researched. I would also highly recommend, when feeding raw meat diets, removing the bones. Large "soup" bones from beef are the only bones I would ever give my dogs (I actually don't give them any bones at all). I have seen too many dogs die of peritonitis from punctured intestines, obstructions from swallowing bones, and impactions from pieces of bones that become cemented together in the colon, causing severe consitpation. Someone said "Vets benefit by animals eating food not designed for them, increased sickness in the way of urinary tract problems, obesity, colitis, diabetes, skin disorders, allergies, etc, etc." I find this offensive and mystifying at the same time. If this is how you feel about veterinarians, how do you trust any of them to care for your pets? Surely you have found SOME good, responsible, ethical vets out there. Personally, I do everything I can to ensure that my patients grow up healthy, and stay healthy. I would MUCH rather do preventative medicine, such as vaccinations, dewormings, prescribe heartworm preventative, etc, than to try to save one of my patients who is extremely ill. When a client brings in a seriously sick animal, I agonize over it, just as I would agonize over one of my own dogs or cats being ill. I beg my clients to keep their pets in good body condition, to keep them on heartworm preventative, to vaccinate for parvovirus. I tell them not to feed poor-quality foods. They don't always listen, but when they do, their pets are generally much healthier than those pets of the people who do not listen to me. So, as far as veterinarians go, my suggestion to you is this ... if you do not trust your veterinarian to give you the best advice, to take the best possible care of your animal, to do what is best for both you and your animal, then you need to find another veterinarian. There are good ones out there.