# Oh the controversy!



## TheGirlDogsLove (Jun 13, 2008)

Ok, I have been researching dog food for about 2 days straight! lol. There's so much controversy out there it can be so confusing! My first question is I want to get this protein intake thing straight. Reading the DogAnalysis site, it seemed clear that a higher protein is better. Than I read that too much is not useful to dogs who aren't super active. Same with puppies, they need more nutrients because they are growing, but will too much make them grow too fast and cause problems like hip dysplasia(which happen too my first dog, an adopted rott/lab mix, at a fairly young age.) 

But of course you raw feeders give just raw meats, organs etc.. (high protein) and you do fine also..

I know dogs being scavengers can be pretty resilient when it comes to food so does it REALLY matter so much?

Like everyone I want the best for my dogs and to really be able to know my stuff especially for the new young addition thats coming soon!

Thanks you guys!
p.s. Sorry if this question has been asked a million times before..lol


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Reading the DogAnalysis site, it seemed clear that a higher protein is better. Than I read that too much is not useful to dogs who aren't super active. Same with puppies, they need more nutrients because they are growing, but will too much make them grow too fast and cause problems like hip dysplasia(which happen too my first dog, an adopted rott/lab mix, at a fairly young age.)



The DogFoodAnalysis, WDJ top 10, and similar sites that rate foods as "five star" based solely on ingredients & not on RESULTS are full of bologna! I do not give any credence, whatsoever to any of those venues because they are overlooking digestability, research & development that goes into the food, results, etc. They are giving the highest ratings to fad diets with extraordinarily (dangerous, IMO) high levels of protein and any food that contains a slew of herbal & fruit/veggie supplements. Dogs need meat and a supplementary grain. They require certain levels of nutrients that are balanced in relation to the other vitamins in the feed. Because more is good does not = even more is better. A correct calcium: phosphorous ratio for dogs is approximately 1.1 : 1.0 the lower number always being phosphorous. Of course, this ratio is slightly flexible, so if the calcium was 1.3 and the phos was 1.1, that would be perfectly fine. 

It was once thought that protein was the cause of kidney troubles, but is now know that is a fallacy. However, phosphorous ALWAYS tags along with protein. The higher the protein, the higher the phosphorous in both animal & plant based sources of protein. High protein feeds that get into the 35-40+% range are dangerous becuase of the *minerals* that are tagging along behing the protein. For instance, Evo has a calcium to phosphorous ratio of 3.0 : 2.0!!!!!!!!! THAT is the problem. The extra minerals are going to cause a pup to grow entirely too rapidly. Older dogs are at risk for kidney failure, and younger or middle aged dogs are at a higher risk of developing bone and kidney problems, as the excess phosphorous must be filtered out through the kidneys. 

I advise my puppy buyers to avoid high protein feeds like the plague & would also make that recommendation to you. 




> But of course you raw feeders give just raw meats, organs etc.. (high protein) and you do fine also..
> 
> I know dogs being scavengers can be pretty resilient when it comes to food so does it REALLY matter so much?



Raw is protein based, not necessarily high protein. When one is doing raw or homecooked, the average protein level of the diet is 22%. To up the levels to around 30%, one must add in grains or other sources of protein such as eggs, cheese, etc. The meat by itself does not reach the ridiculous levels as it does in the high protein foods. 

Dogs ARE scavangers, not true carnivores. They have been fed for hundreds of thousands of years from our scraps, and a scrap diet is how they should still be fed - a little bit of this, a little bit of that. Their main dietary requirement is still for meat, but they do require grains for B vitamins, fiber. They have little to no need for vegetables or fruits, and whatever is given to them should be a snack. Veggies can actually alkalize the urine, so why even bother? 

Don't drive yourself crazy reading all these internet sites that are OPINION ONLY, not fact. Find a locally available food you can afford that has reasonable levels of protein for a normally active dog (that's usually 21-26% protein, depending on the activity of the indivigual dog) and you'll be fine.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

UrbanBeagles said:


> The DogFoodAnalysis, WDJ top 10, and similar sites that rate foods as "five star" based solely on ingredients & not on RESULTS are full of bologna!


Well that is because you can't rate dog foods on results..... 
when every dog does differently on different foods.... your dog does great on one and my dogs can't eat that at all.... 

some dogs do great on Evo and some do terrible on Evo..... 

raw feeders like myself do more than just throw meat into a bowl..... but its what my dogs do well on.... 

every dog is different, like people 

so all the analysis sites have to go on is ingredients.... 
Canidae is a food many dogs do well on.... I know others that don't 

so the only thing that anyone can scientifically base analysis on is ingredients 
then it is up to people to find the best food that they can afford that there dog will do well on. 

s


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

*AHEM* *waves timidly from behind the computer*

I have been a huge fan of Innova, my cats do GREAT on Innova and Bo's coat and poop aon Innova LB puppy are great, I am very happy. However, his appetite diminished after starting the Innova, and he has never seemed to enjoy eating it.

I sheepishly admit, I was one who read those sites like the Bible, and argued with UrbanBeagles about the benefits of holistic dog food, with no real experience to back it up (only having had Bo for a few months), just what I experienced with Innova and what I read. I argued that Pro Plan was bad, and for that I apologize.

Ironic twist in fate, after talking to other dog owners and reading other accounts online, I am going to give Pro Plan a try, to find a balance between tasty and nutritious.

UrbanBeagles, I apologize for arguing about something you know more firsthand than I do, and I hope the Pro Plan works for us, so Bo can have something he enjoys.


----------



## skunkstripe (Oct 28, 2006)

If there were one single right way to feed our dogs, we all would have agreed on it by now. The fact that there are so many options and so many defenders of each tells me that there is no 'one-size-fits-all" solution.

There is raw with and without grains, starch, vegetables and supplements.

There is supermarket dog food, premium, ultra-premium and so-called "holistic." I say so-called because no agency has defined what this term means, so manufacturers are free to throw it around and consumers are free to assume something about what it means. If you look at the definition of holisitic it has no business being applied to dog food, but that's just my opinion. 

"High protein" is a relative term. Typical numbers are about 20-25% there arew some that are lower and some (like EVO) that are much higher.

Personally for starters I would use four simple rules:

1 If corn is listed at all, I wouldn't feed it. This is not because corn is all that bad, but because it's probably being used as a cheap filler.

2 If anything other than some kid of meat / animal product is listed as the first ingredient, I wouldn't feed it. 

3 If the meat / animal content is all some kind of vague "animal byproduct" then I don't feed it. I like to see the type identified (like beef, chicken, lamb) and also I want to see either the plain meat or meal (like "lamb" or "chicken meal," but not "chicken by-product meal."

4 If it has artificial colors and flavors added, I wouldn't feed it. Dogs don't need pretty colors to want to eat something, they dont even see the color red all that well. I'd rather see an ingredients list that has something for the dog, not to appeal to humans.

These simple rules will eliminate a lot of foods that I personally do not find to be very high quality. They won't tell you which one out of the 50 or more that are left is the best, but I don't think it's even possible to say which "one" is best.


----------



## TheGirlDogsLove (Jun 13, 2008)

Thanx for the replies.

When I had my dog. I fed her Natrual Choice large breed puppy than adult. A few times a week or every so often I would add some cooked meat, green beans, melon, yogurt, or blend a whole egg w/ shell finely and mix it in with her food. Also I threw in an omega 3 fish oil capsul. She had a beautiful shiney coat, smelled good, white teeth, clear eyes and was in good shape. Hip dysplasia happened after I moved and had to give her to another family. Not sure of the cause. Could have just been her genes.

UB, could you just suggest a few good brands of food that fit your description. I'll start from there and judge by results and stop worrying about it so much lol. 

Btw, just to be clear, you find the protein % on the guarenteed analysis section right?? heh thanks


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I think The Dog Food Project is the best food site, if only for the reason that it teaches people how to correctly interpret ingredient labels. 
How to _use_ that knowledge is up to the dog owner, because every situation is different. But the knowledge of how to read labels can be applied to every food, and you can make your _own_ educated decisions that way.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I feed high protein (EVO) and am really really impressed with the food. My dog is doing so much better on that than anything else. Then again, she's a sports competitor and an active dog. My others are on a more normal protein level. 

I'm a big proponent of feeding what works for you and your dog. Someone will disagree with what you feed no matter what. Read up and feed what you are comfortable with and what you can see your dog doing well on.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Ironic twist in fate, after talking to other dog owners and reading other accounts online, I am going to give Pro Plan a try, to find a balance between tasty and nutritious.
> 
> UrbanBeagles, I apologize for arguing about something you know more firsthand than I do, and I hope the Pro Plan works for us, so Bo can have something he enjoys



Please don't apologize! I think all of us here enjoy a good nutrition debate, and that's how we learn from each other! Definitely don't see it as arguing, just all of us expressing our own viewpoints ... Keeps things lively  

Good luck w/ the Pro Plan ... it's a great feed! If I can make a suggestion, stay away from the PP in the white bag - overpriced & the dogs did not do well enough on it to justify the cost.



TheGirlDogsLove said:


> UB, could you just suggest a few good brands of food that fit your description. I'll start from there and judge by results and stop worrying about it so much lol.
> 
> Btw, just to be clear, you find the protein % on the guarenteed analysis section right?? heh thanks



Yup, the protein percentage is on the back of the bag, usually listed first under the guaranteed analysis. 

My dogs have always done well with no frills foods. Purina, Blackwoods, Precise, Healthwise. I have never personally tried it, but many of my puppy people are using Eacle Pack *Original* (not the holistic formula) with much success. They have less ingredients but a good vitamin premix. I'd rather add my own extras than use a feed that includes everything but the kitchen sink.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

Dogs don't need grains. They don't have the digestive capability of extracting the nutrients from unprocessed grains. But they are a cheap and highly profitable source of calories.

Our dogs haven't eaten any grain product in 5 years. We have raised two puppies from weaning on grain-free diets and they are very healthy.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

wyx said:


> Dogs don't need grains. They don't have the digestive capability of extracting the nutrients from unprocessed grains. But they are a cheap and highly profitable source of calories.



Is there a kibble on the market using unprocessed grains? Dogs get plenty of nutrition from the processed grains contained in kibbles.

Cherri


----------



## JenTN (Feb 21, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Please don't apologize! I think all of us here enjoy a good nutrition debate, and that's how we learn from each other! Definitely don't see it as arguing, just all of us expressing our own viewpoints ... Keeps things lively
> 
> Good luck w/ the Pro Plan ... it's a great feed! If I can make a suggestion, stay away from the PP in the white bag - overpriced & the dogs did not do well enough on it to justify the cost.


Thank you! If they make a large breed puppy formula, I will go with that (my boy is 6 months and I believe him to be a Dane/Lab mix).


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

JenTN said:


> Thank you! If they make a large breed puppy formula, I will go with that (my boy is 6 months and I believe him to be a Dane/Lab mix).



Pro Plan makes a regular large breed puppy food AND a giant breed puppy food ...

www.proplan.com


----------



## crogers4 (Jun 11, 2008)

eeesh..I hd no idea this was such a hot topic. I'm getting my first dog in two weeks and I was just going to grab some stuff off Target's shelf. I'll definitely put more thought into it now.


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

I had a question for UrbanBeagles..

I read about your experiences with the "higher quality" dog foods and that your pack does so well on Dog and Puppy Chow. 

I was wondering if you had tried Pro Plan with your dogs? 

I used to work for a pet store quite a few years ago and the Purina Rep gave us Pro Plan for free, as long as we returned the empty bags to him. I had several mouths to feed at the time and that was an offer I couldn't refuse! 

My pack consisted of two Golden Retrievers and a Miniature Dachshund. They all seemed to do just fine on the Pro Plan. Even my male Golden who suffered from some allergies. He was allergic to fleas and even one flea bite would cause him to itch for weeks! He would occasionally get hot spots for whatever reason I couldn't figure out. This was always during the summer and I do not believe was food related, because he got them even on super premium feeds.

I haven't been offered free dog food for over a decade, lol! But I was just wondering for a moment, why I have been paying big bucks for premium dog food. When you CHOOSE to feed a Purina product. lol!

I bought a medium sized bag of Purina Puppy Chow at my grocery store and I freaked out about feeding it! I donated it to my local Humane Society! Geez..I think I have Analysis Paralysis!!!!!!!


----------



## Noel (May 24, 2008)

I was watching "It's Me or the Dog" and there was a dog with a problem. This dog would eat his droppings. It was DISGUSTING. Victoria, the trainer on the show, said that that there was too much protien in his diet, therefore making his droppings taste the same when they come out as when the food goes in. So she said to put some pinapple in the food, but anyways, that is one reason why you shouldn't feed your dog too much protien. Well, Noel is a very picky dog. She DOES like Alpo, though. Not the chunky kind, but the "Chop House" kind.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> I had a question for UrbanBeagles..
> I read about your experiences with the "higher quality" dog foods and that your pack does so well on Dog and Puppy Chow.
> I was wondering if you had tried Pro Plan with your dogs?


 
Yes, I have. A few years ago I rotated between Pro Plan & Blackwoods for my GSD bitch who was a very hard keeper. We tried ever food imaginable on this dog and her norm was SIX cups per day (this on Canidae, Nutro Ultra, Back To Basics ...) She was only 65lbs. It sounds crazy but once we started feeding her the regular Pro Plan L&R she actually began to look like a real dog instead of a sack of bones with fur. I have also used Pro Plan on the Beagles, but it's very pricy in my area and also hard to come by. One mom & pop store nearby sells it, but I end up taking stow away roaches whenever I go there  The nearest Petco is 40 min away from me - their prices stink so I don't go there very often. I have also recently tried the PP Selects in the white bag, and while it gave a nice coat, it paled in comparison to the regular PP. BTW, she only ate on average 3.5 cups of Pro Plan daily & was very active. 




> I bought a medium sized bag of Purina Puppy Chow at my grocery store and I freaked out about feeding it! I donated it to my local Humane Society! Geez..I think I have Analysis Paralysis!!!!!!



LOL! I actually felt the same way, even when I was doing Purina ONE. We really started feeding "the Chow" by accident. Went to get the Purina ONE and it seemed like every place was out of the 20 & 37lb bags! Out of desperation I bought a small bag of Puppy Chow and a 20lb bag of Dog Chow. You don't want to know what I said about the food as I begrudgingly hauled it into the car ... After a week on the Chow, I never looked back. 

Here is a pic of my bitch before (on homecooked, last summer):











And after about 5 weeks on Puppy Chow ... Shown here hours after she freewhelped a litter of six in slightly under 2hrs. She is 5yrs and never had such an easy labor or recovered so quickly:












And this is a bitch that came to me a few months ago in appaling condition. Mess of hot spots, dull, sparse coat, warts all over her ears (they fell off now). She's been on nothing but Purina since then and is a different dog. Is on Dog Chow in this pic:


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

Wow, great looking Beagles!!  

Thanks for all the information...I almost have too much to think about regarding which dog food to feed! The "proof is in the pudding" with your dogs, though!


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

ProPlan is _nasty_. 
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=1398&cat=all

My dogs did well on it, but I wouldn't continue feeding junk just for that reason. I would rather find a food with healthy ingredients that they did well on instead.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

Hey, one man's trash is another man's treasure right? You say "junk" others' say "quality." What makes you so right? Don't insult others with your arrogance....it is just rude. The dogfoodanalysis site stinks and that is MY opinion.....


Cherri


----------



## K8IE (Apr 28, 2008)

I think it is funny all the controversy really.. I have done hundreds of hours of reading, discussing, etc on dog nutrition and have found that I feel safe and comfortable feeding only kibbles that have a good meat content, as well as raw and homecooked meals and things such as raw eggs, yogurt, sardines, tripe, etc.. I have seen the results of the crap food in my previous dogs, and the incredible results once I switched them to the good stuff. My current dog, thankfully will never know what the crap foods taste like.  What it comes down to is making an educated choice, which means doing your own research and not just listening to whatever your vet or some random person says, and finding what works for your dogs and what you can afford. And that's all I have to say about that. Good luck!


----------



## skunkstripe (Oct 28, 2006)

crogers4 as far as I know you can get Drs Foster & Smith at Target.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Kibblelady said:


> Hey, one man's trash is another man's treasure right? You say "junk" others' say "quality." What makes you so right? Don't insult others with your arrogance....it is just rude. The dogfoodanalysis site stinks and that is MY opinion.....
> 
> 
> Cherri


But those ingredients ARE junk, there is no argument to that - no matter what site you go to that evaluates food, they list and evaluate the same ingredients and they are all junk. So they must all be wrong, except for you right? Now that's arrogance. 



K8IE said:


> I think it is funny all the controversy really.. I have done hundreds of hours of reading, discussing, etc on dog nutrition and have found that I feel safe and comfortable feeding only kibbles that have a good meat content, as well as raw and homecooked meals and things such as raw eggs, yogurt, sardines, tripe, etc.. I have seen the results of the crap food in my previous dogs, and the incredible results once I switched them to the good stuff. My current dog, thankfully will never know what the crap foods taste like.  What it comes down to is making an educated choice, which means doing your own research and not just listening to whatever your vet or some random person says, and finding what works for your dogs and what you can afford. And that's all I have to say about that. Good luck!


Great Post, K8IE!


----------



## ILuvLucy (May 3, 2008)

I had to laugh when i read the original post. That was (is) me this past week.! My pup is switiching over to adult food soon, so instead of staying with the same brand, I've made the "mistake" of researching foods. Oh man - what to do. 

Merrick? Fromm? Canidae? Innova?

Google just about any dog food, and you'll find complaints/problems.

So, here i am , instead of spending time with my pup, I'm online searching for the "best" food.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> But those ingredients ARE junk, there is no argument to that - no matter what site you go to that evaluates food, they list and evaluate the same ingredients and they are all junk. So they must all be wrong, except for you right? Now that's arrogance.



What ingredients are "junk?" What exactly are you referring to, do you even know?

Propaganda and myth propagate online like an out of control virus. One person makes a website with misinformation on it and 100 others will use it as a reference for their misinformation and the trend will continue.....this does not cause the original misinformation to suddenly become fact....nor does it make the correct information incorrect.

I am not arrogant, I am just not gullible and do not believe everything I read....I research and *that* revels the truth.

Here is a great quote by Gandhi _"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. "_

You say Pro Plan is junk.......what fact are you basing that on? Facts, not opinions based on misinformation and myths, facts. What makes a food "junk?" lack of popularity or lack of results? Lip service or actual performance?

Hm?

Cherri



ILuvLucy said:


> I had to laugh when i read the original post. That was (is) me this past week.! My pup is switiching over to adult food soon, so instead of staying with the same brand, I've made the "mistake" of researching foods. Oh man - what to do.
> 
> Merrick? Fromm? Canidae? Innova?
> 
> ...



Let me know if this helps you http://www.eastgsd.com/kibblesense


Cherri


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> But those ingredients ARE junk, there is no argument to that - no matter what site you go to that evaluates food, they list and evaluate the same ingredients and they are all junk. So they must all be wrong, except for you right? Now that's arrogance.



In what way are the ingredients junk? Because YOU say so? Because WDJ or whatever is the latest site rating "5 star" foods tells me by products are garbage? Because chicken fat is better than animal fat? Who says so? Does it sound nicer to you? Maybe you should tell Purina that their 70+ years of R&D don't cut it for the DogFoodAnalysis site & while you're at it, tell all the breeders successfully feeding it that it's really junk because you think the ingredients are icky. There was one sporting dod breeder in the Today's Breeder mag who inherited the kennel from his father - who had fed Purina since 1949ish. That article was only a few years old. So you have dogs on basically the same brand of feed for 50-60 years (do you get the magnitude of that time frame - that is probably about 20 generations of dogs) with great success. What junk. 

As for me, I had dogs not coming into heat, poor coats & muscle tone, lots of problems with feed digestability and parisitism in the dogs. I had to stop running them early last year because they were painfully thin & malnourished. Merrick, Canidae, Back to Basics, Healthwise ... even tried TWO for a while. Now THAT was junk food. Dogs were crapping several times a day, mostly loose, sticky stools. I was told I'd feed less of Timberwolf due to the high kcals. Well I had one or two who this applied to, the rest I could not keep weight on for anything. I have a Shepherd mix who is 7yrs old and religiously weighs 65lbs for all his adult life. On TWO he had a severe reaction to the food. We had him checked for thyroid problems (unprovoked bouts of aggression for the first time in is entire life - let me tell you, if you ever met this dog you would think he must have had a brain tumor the way he was acting). All his blood tests came up normal but he slipped down to 56lbs on TWO  I could NOT believe it. I stopped feeding it and within a week, when we took him back for a re check he was 58.6lbs! This year on Dog Chow he was 66lbs of MUSCLE! He is thin and lean, all the weight was muscle mass. 

Even my Vet commented on my dogs when they went in for hip x-rays last week. Said they were in "perfect" condition. Their coats were glossy, thick - ears & eyes squeaky clean, well muscled. But apparently I forgot to tell the Vet my dogs were eating junk  

ETA: Just wanted to add that the only Beagle to ever win Westminster who is in absolutely outstanding physical condition eats Pro Plan. 

*P.S. ~ Cherri - HI!!! ::waving:: It's Chris (HoundMusic)!!! Great to see you here!*


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> *P.S. ~ Cherri - HI!!! ::waving:: It's Chris (HoundMusic)!!! Great to see you here!*



Hi Chris! I thought that was you  You have to stop by my board and jolt it awake  lol

Cherri


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

ILuvLucy said:


> So, here i am , instead of spending time with my pup, I'm online searching for the "best" food.


I would get some samples of the brands you're considering, and see which ones your dog does best on. There is not just one 'best' food, because every dog is different.


----------



## pugs2 (Jun 17, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> In what way are the ingredients junk? Because YOU say so? Because WDJ or whatever is the latest site rating "5 star" foods tells me by products are garbage? Because chicken fat is better than animal fat? Who says so? Does it sound nicer to you? Maybe you should tell Purina that their 70+ years of R&D don't cut it for the DogFoodAnalysis site & while you're at it, tell all the breeders successfully feeding it that it's really junk because you think the ingredients are icky. There was one sporting dod breeder in the Today's Breeder mag who inherited the kennel from his father - who had fed Purina since 1949ish. That article was only a few years old. So you have dogs on basically the same brand of feed for 50-60 years (do you get the magnitude of that time frame - that is probably about 20 generations of dogs) with great success. What junk.
> 
> As for me, I had dogs not coming into heat, poor coats & muscle tone, lots of problems with feed digestability and parisitism in the dogs. I had to stop running them early last year because they were painfully thin & malnourished. Merrick, Canidae, Back to Basics, Healthwise ... even tried TWO for a while. Now THAT was junk food. Dogs were crapping several times a day, mostly loose, sticky stools. I was told I'd feed less of Timberwolf due to the high kcals. Well I had one or two who this applied to, the rest I could not keep weight on for anything. I have a Shepherd mix who is 7yrs old and religiously weighs 65lbs for all his adult life. On TWO he had a severe reaction to the food. We had him checked for thyroid problems (unprovoked bouts of aggression for the first time in is entire life - let me tell you, if you ever met this dog you would think he must have had a brain tumor the way he was acting). All his blood tests came up normal but he slipped down to 56lbs on TWO  I could NOT believe it. I stopped feeding it and within a week, when we took him back for a re check he was 58.6lbs! This year on Dog Chow he was 66lbs of MUSCLE! He is thin and lean, all the weight was muscle mass.
> 
> ...


I have been only a lurker on this site, but this really hits home. I was all for the holistic foods, have fed my dogs everything from Innova, TWO, EP Holistic, you name it. My handler always insisted I stay with Bil Jac frozen, and when they were on the road being fed Bil Jac, they did great. Other show people I know have great results with Pro Plan. EP has actually been very good, but when I had one pregnant bitch on Innova, she had very small puppies, and very little milk, on other foods like TWO, all my show Pugs lost weight, and we had erratic cycles. I started getting a little fed up when all the so called Holistic companies were having problems, like the issues with TWO, Orijen and the bones(I had 2 bags with the bones), and honestly, never being 100% happy with any one food. The last 3 months, I have started feeding my show Pugs Pro Plan with Bil Jac frozen as a topper. My one boy who I would like to start specialing, has now put on the weight he lost while on TWO and Natures Logic and EP, and his coat is thick and shiny. Another girl was having erratic heat cycles, she came in, and it is normal this time. Their poops are even smaller than when on any grain free food. I am hopefully expecting a litter in a couple weeks, and will wean puppies onto Bil Jac frozen, and then Pro Plan. My two older Pugs are doing wonderful on TOTW, but I think I will be switching the rest of my gang over to Pro Plan, they have never done better. There is a reason why so many long time show people feed Pro Plan, they have had yrs of experience breeding and having dogs in top condition for showing, and this food(also Bil Jac frozen) works. For so long I thought they were not up to all the new holistic foods, and I was feeding the best, but funny how now I see my dogs are looking and doing better on Pro Plan and Bil Jac frozen. Oh, and this is the regular small breed line of Pro Plan, not the selects, with my one boy who needed the weight gain on Pro Plan performance.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

Thank you for sharing that Pugs. This is a point many people just totally miss, results! 

I'm sorry but someone who owns 1 or 2 dogs that is thrilled with their pet's super dooper holistic grand slam food may be great but I really hate being slammed as a breeder/dog fancier/ex-groomer and also pet food distributor for what I will recommend or will not. I recommend products that perform, that give the expected results that you can rely on. Many of these newer products are hitting road bumps and people freak even more....guys it is the nature of the pet food industry and just like everything else in life it is not perfect.

It is very important to me and I am paying close attention when I see or hear of a breeder having issues with their breeding dogs, endless reproduction problems, small to single litters, puppies that die or fail to thrive, bitches that have every ounce taken off of them through a whelp.....looking at the food ususally answers many questions and it is these situations that will really truly test a food.

I have tried I cannot even name how many pet foods (it is a passion of mine, this industry) and Pro Plan IS one of those that I will continually recommend and continually purchase if I am out of my main feed. Why? Because of the products' performance and the reliability of that performance.....

What is it about this that people just do not get?

I lost a dog due to getting caught up in this "my dog has to have the perfect food" mantra.....I swore that would never happen again. I feed what my dogs need, what works and what makes them happy and healthy and well, it comes in many packages and formulations and price ranges. But, make no mistake ALL of my opinions are based on results and composition of a diet. Not on fads, gimmicks or fuzzy feeling good marketing.

Never have tried the Bil Jac frozen though  Have never found it in my area....

Cherri


----------



## pugs2 (Jun 17, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> Thank you for sharing that Pugs. This is a point many people just totally miss, results!
> 
> I'm sorry but someone who owns 1 or 2 dogs that is thrilled with their pet's super dooper holistic grand slam food may be great but I really hate being slammed as a breeder/dog fancier/ex-groomer and also pet food distributor for what I will recommend or will not. I recommend products that perform, that give the expected results that you can rely on. Many of these newer products are hitting road bumps and people freak even more....guys it is the nature of the pet food industry and just like everything else in life it is not perfect.
> 
> ...


I think you have to find out for your self sometimes. When a bitch welps a healthy litter, and bounces back quickly, or a show dog has wonderful muscle tone and stamina, and are being fed what some people call crap food, I don't think you can argue with the results, or yrs of experience from other breeders. 

Bil jac frozen really has done wonders for several of my Pugs, great if you can find it.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

pugs2 said:


> I think you have to find out for your self sometimes. When a bitch welps a healthy litter, and bounces back quickly, or a show dog has wonderful muscle tone and stamina, and are being fed what some people call crap food, I don't think you can argue with the results, or yrs of experience from other breeders.
> 
> Bil jac frozen really has done wonders for several of my Pugs, great if you can find it.



I know several breeders who swear by Bil-Jac, especially when it comes to weaning small breed pups that may be hard to wean off momma. Don't think I have ever heard a bad word about that feed, except from people who've never fed it before 

You're right, you can't argue with results when a dog makes a drastic change for the better on one of the "crap" foods. I've had my doubts the non holistic type foods, but have come to the conclusion that when dogs in bad condition heal up on them and bitches milk like cows, it's simply not possible for that food to be crap. I don't care what the ingredients are, when dogs remain in outstanding condtion under stressful situations and whelp a litter of pups that just slide out ... Yeah. Crap


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Here is a little bit of the "crap" I was talking about...

http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1


----------



## pugs2 (Jun 17, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Here is a little bit of the "crap" I was talking about...
> 
> http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1


But what good is a food if your bitch in whelp is having a hard time, produces very little milk, and puppies are small? Or if your show dog can't keep weight or muscle tone on? Eagle Pack is about the only holistic food I can go back to and really see good results, but the time I had all my Pugs on Innova, is when I had problems with a Mom having little milk, small birth weight puppies, and chronic loose stools with many of my dogs. While on TWO my dogs had the shiniest coats, but most lost weight and good muscle tone. My handler kept urging me to stick with Bil Jac, and other breeders I know had same success with Pro Plan. My dogs are doing wonderful, I have had my 7 month old black puppy girl on Pro Plan for the last couple months, coming off EP holistic. She was doing well on EP, but her coat was a tiny bit reddish, and her poops were huge! Actually she was on the EP non holistic puppy food first, and did better than the holistic one. On Pro Plan, she has the most gorgeous thick black coat, no hint of red, tiny poops, and last weekend at her second weekend out showing, she won 2 days in a row. Again, you can't argue with what you see in the whelping box or show ring. Oh, and the breeder of my one English Toy Spaniel has only fed Purina foods, her ETs live to be in upper teens and a few early 20s. Another top handler of ETs only feeds hers Bil Jac, they are top winning ETs.

I don't think I would ever recomend Old Roy or Beneful, and my senior Pugs are doing great on TOTW, but Pro Plan and Bil Jac I have seen too many kennels do the best on, including my own.


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

I had fed Proplan many years ago to the dogs that I had then...two Golden Retrievers and a Dachshund. I was happy with the results, back then I didn't know very much about dog food. I thought Nutro's Natural Choice was the best food I could find, and then Canidae came on the market and I thought that THEY had the best food on the market. I became increasingly interested and, lol, confused over the years as what to feed my dogs! 

To be honest, I did not see any difference in coat quality, energy level or general health of my dogs between the Pro Plan, Nutro or Canidae. I watch my dogs closely and monitor them daily, the only big differences would be in stool quality. Canidae produced the most poop.  Pro Plan the least! 

My experience with Pro Plan is that it is not a low quality "crap" food, but has a place among the high quality dog foods. Just my 2 cents!


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

pugs2 said:


> But what good is a food if your bitch in whelp is having a hard time, produces very little milk, and puppies are small? Or if your show dog can't keep weight or muscle tone on? Eagle Pack is about the only holistic food I can go back to and really see good results, but the time I had all my Pugs on Innova, is when I had problems with a Mom having little milk, small birth weight puppies, and chronic loose stools with many of my dogs. While on TWO my dogs had the shiniest coats, but most lost weight and good muscle tone. My handler kept urging me to stick with Bil Jac, and other breeders I know had same success with Pro Plan. My dogs are doing wonderful, I have had my 7 month old black puppy girl on Pro Plan for the last couple months, coming off EP holistic. She was doing well on EP, but her coat was a tiny bit reddish, and her poops were huge! Actually she was on the EP non holistic puppy food first, and did better than the holistic one. On Pro Plan, she has the most gorgeous thick black coat, no hint of red, tiny poops, and last weekend at her second weekend out showing, she won 2 days in a row. Again, you can't argue with what you see in the whelping box or show ring. Oh, and the breeder of my one English Toy Spaniel has only fed Purina foods, her ETs live to be in upper teens and a few early 20s. Another top handler of ETs only feeds hers Bil Jac, they are top winning ETs.
> 
> I don't think I would ever recomend Old Roy or Beneful, and my senior Pugs are doing great on TOTW, but Pro Plan and Bil Jac I have seen too many kennels do the best on, including my own.


I don't think you even _read_ the article, did you?


----------



## pugs2 (Jun 17, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> I don't think you even _read_ the article, did you?


I did, and so many like it. I would only feed holistic foods for yrs, freaked when my handler a couple yrs ago suggested Bil Jac, and others Pro Plan. Feeding these other foods really went against everything I thought was best, but my guys are doing better on these foods than most holistic foods they have been on, and breeding healthy litters of puppies is far more important than an ingredient panel.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Here is a little bit of the "crap" I was talking about...
> 
> http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1


Sorry, I do not read articles by animal rights advocates with specific agendas that will twist information to scare consumers into their mindset......


Cherri


----------



## skunkstripe (Oct 28, 2006)

Actually the article is pretty good, especially considering the website it's on. 

I've seen plenty worse and plenty that were far more inflammatory. What I dislike are those sites that masquerade as ratings and informational sites and in reality they're pushing their own brand of dog food.
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_pet_food_ingredients_0.html

Really the so-called "holistic" brands are some of the worst when it comes to slick marketing tactics. 
Have you seen this? 


> Fruit & Veggie Antioxidant Rainbow - a proactive step towards fighting disease.


http://www.wellnesspetfood.com/dog_wellness_dry_index.html

Rainbow? Sounds like flower children created the marketing campaign.

Or how about this "Ultra Holistic" (sic) from Nutro? Wanna see a major selling point? Less poop!
http://www.ultraholistic.com/stool.shtml
Aside from the fact that the mind boggles at the idea of doing comparison poop volume studies that would even allow anyone to create a bar chart like that (ummm does this count as "animal testing?"), since when is it a race to see which dog food can produce the least amount of poop? Frankly I LIKE poop since it expresses the anal glands.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

That poop chart is funny. But I don't believe it about Blue. I switched my dog to that and his poop decreased by 50%! I wouldn't want them to get any smaller,that would be unnatural.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

LOL at the Poop Chart!!! 

Oh and I love how in this link...http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_pe...edients_0.html - at the end it's like "Please buy Dr. So-N-So's food". LMAO!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

LMH said:


> I wouldn't want them to get any smaller,that would be unnatural.


Actually, stool size tells you a lot about the quality of food you are feeding your dog. Once you realize what stools really are, you will see that. Stools are the unusable part of food. The undigestable part. The part with no nutrition. The size of the stool in relation to the amount eaten tells you how much of the food is nutrition and how much is filler. Large stool = lots of filler. Filler = useless garbage

My dogs, being raw feed, have stools about 10% the size of kibble fed dogs. You see, since kibble is all you have fed, you think those huge logs you see are natural when actually they are they aren't. I have two Great Danes who will poop about 2 little logs about the size if my thumb per day. This is because almost all the food they eat is untilized by thier body as nutrition. 

They have never had nor needed to have their anal glands expressed artificially. Their stools are very solid. Much firmer than kibble stools.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Actually, stool size tells you a lot about the quality of food you are feeding your dog. Once you realize what stools really are, you will see that. Stools are the unusable part of food. The undigestable part. The part with no nutrition. The size of the stool in relation to the amount eaten tells you how much of the food is nutrition and how much is filler. Large stool = lots of filler. Filler = useless garbage
> 
> My dogs, being raw feed, have stools about 10% the size of kibble fed dogs. You see, since kibble is all you have fed, you think those huge logs you see are natural when actually they are they aren't. I have two Great Danes who will poop about 2 little logs about the size if my thumb per day. This is because almost all the food they eat is untilized by thier body as nutrition.
> 
> They have never had nor needed to have their anal glands expressed artificially. Their stools are very solid. Much firmer than kibble stools.


This is actually misinformation and a lack of understanding of nutrition. Fiber is what effects stool size. It has nothing to do with "unhealthy fillers" or nutrient absorption. Fiber is added to kibble as part of the diet and is there to serve a purpose. Fiber is *not meant* to be digested and it is the type and quality of fiber that effects stool size, bulk, form and moisture content.

For more information about fiber and it's benefits research soluble and insoluble fibers, fermentability of fiber and how fiber and it's type and fermentability is beneficial to the gut.

Stool size and consistency really does *NOT* tell you much of anything about the nutritional quality of a diet other than if the diet is causing rapid transit (which results in watery or very soft stool.)

Cherri

Also keep in mind that stool is another vehicle to remove toxins and dead cells and waste from the body......small stools equal less of these things being transferred from the body which IMO is not a "good" thing.

Cherri


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

Sometimes discussing dog diets can turn into a real hot subject. You can drive yourself crazy searching for just the right food for your dog(s). Every article and person has their own ideas (me included) LOL. Just try a few of the top grade foods and see what best suits *your* dog(s). 

I do second the suggestion of The Dog Food Project, that site is really an excellent place to learn about the different dog foods.

I feed Innova Adult and Wellness Super5Mix, my dogs love it, their coats are shiny and have just passed their yearly exams with flying colors. 

Good luck in whatever you decide to feed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> This is actually misinformation and a lack of understanding of nutrition. Fiber is what effects stool size. It has nothing to do with "unhealthy fillers" or nutrient absorption. Fiber is added to kibble as part of the diet and is there to serve a purpose. Fiber is *not meant* to be digested and it is the type and quality of fiber that effects stool size, bulk, form and moisture content.
> 
> For more information about fiber and it's benefits research soluble and insoluble fibers, fermentability of fiber and how fiber and it's type and fermentability is beneficial to the gut.
> 
> ...


Hey Cherri,
It's good to hear from someone so knowledgable about the digestive system. Howerver you are making the same mistake that many dog owners make. You are trying to equate the digestive system of a dog with that of a human. A dog, being a carnivore, has a much different digestive system than a human, an omnivore. The systems are quite different as one is designed to digest meat and bones and the other meat and veggies, mostly veggies.

A digestive system that digests veggies needs much longer intestines in order to let the veggies ferment and break down the carbs in the diet. The fermentation process takes time and the veggies need to be in the intestines a long period of time. A digestive system that digests meat and bones needs to pass the meat through the intestines as quickly as possible before the meat turns rancid. To handle this, carnivores have much shorter intestines.

Once that is understood, you will see that carnivores don't need fiber at all. They utilize ingested mostly digested bone as as the medium to move food along the digestive tract the same way we utilize certain undigestable plant material as fiber. Carnivores don't need plant material to move meat through their intestines. So plant based fiber is not a part of the dogs diet in nature.

When we start feeding dogs an artificial grain based cereal full of veggies and a minute amount of highly processed meat then some fiber may be necessary. Some of the so called fiber put in dog food is actually a stool hardener to keep owners from seeing how inefficiently the dog is handling that food. Without this stool hardener, most dogs would go around with diarrhea constantly.

So to get back on subject, dogs fed naturally have small stools because almost all the food ingested is utilized by the body. Since no fiber is eaten, bulk in stools are not necessary. Dogs fed the super high end foods like EVO will have much smaller stools than dogs fed the grocery store garbage.

BTW: Stools do not remove dead cells or toxins. Stools are nothing more than undigested stuff that was ingested in the mouth. Kidneys remove dead cells, toxins and waste. Intestines are designed for nutrients to pass through the intestinal walls into the body. There is no method for stuff to pass from the body through the intestinal walls into the intestines.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Actually, stool size tells you a lot about the quality of food you are feeding your dog. Once you realize what stools really are, you will see that. Stools are the unusable part of food. The undigestable part. The part with no nutrition. The size of the stool in relation to the amount eaten tells you how much of the food is nutrition and how much is filler. Large stool = lots of filler. Filler = useless garbage
> 
> My dogs, being raw feed, have stools about 10% the size of kibble fed dogs. You see, since kibble is all you have fed, you think those huge logs you see are natural when actually they are they aren't. I have two Great Danes who will poop about 2 little logs about the size if my thumb per day. This is because almost all the food they eat is untilized by thier body as nutrition.



OH GOOD LORD!!!  LOL!

Now, I've fed 100% grain free raw for slightly over 3yrs so I'm pretty well acquainted as to the size of a raw poo. Plus have fed partial raw for quite a while after I stopped feeding it altogether, plus some of my dogs still get raw as a supplement. And I'll tell you that I had long term problems with the diet, including a bitch that was showing signs of labor for 24hrs before she started having contractions and began to whelp. It was a bloody, messy, PAINFUL whelping that about broke my heart to watch  Several months later I had a second bitch who was on mostly raw deliver her pups - similar story. Very painful, drawn out labor and both bitches took a while to recover. The levels of calcium in the diet determine when labor commences, and raw (I fed prey model, so a good chunk of meat and not all the bones of a BARF diet) was simply not giving us results in the whelping box. Both those afformentioned bitches had freewhelped before, and had their pups in an average timeframe with little fuss. Now, I did not make the connection until I was on a raw feeding list of all places and the question of increased c-sections on raw was brought up. Via private e-mail (not the bulk mail for the entire group), there was a flood of testimonies as to increased c-sections, eclampsia (and funny, but a friend of mine had a raw fed Beag bitch come down w/ eclampsia several yaers ago - she's had litters before & since and the only factor was the raw diet) on raw. That's when I made the connection.

The bitch w/ the 24hr labor recently had a litter of pups on what you'd probably call store bought junk. She began showing signs of labor @ 12:30 p.m. Whelped her first pup just before 2p.m., and the last one jsut before 4p.m. She's 5yrs and delivered six healthy robust pups. They literally slid out and were quite vigorous & hardy. She was recovered within a half hour of the last pup. Hardly any blood, a little came out after the last pup, but that was it. She's maintained her weight and looks as good as a bitch w/ 4 week old pups can possibly look. 

THAT is what I want from a food. RESULTS. Ehere they really matter.

Pardon the pun, but I don't really give a crap about the size of my dog's tootsie rolls  But while we're on the subject, I have a 65lbs dog that will poop out something that looks like it could have come from a dog half his size. He poops once daily. My Beagles are religious 2x daily popers, no matter what. Their turds are small & firm, thank you very much.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Plus have fed partial raw for quite a while after I stopped feeding it altogether, plus some of my dogs still get raw as a supplement. And I'll tell you that I had long term problems with the diet, including a bitch that was showing signs of labor for 24hrs before she started having contractions and began to whelp. <snip stuff> The levels of calcium in the diet determine when labor commences, and raw (I fed prey model, so a good chunk of meat and not all the bones of a BARF diet) was simply not giving us results in the whelping box. <Snip more stuff>
> 
> Pardon the pun, but I don't really give a crap about the size of my dog's tootsie rolls  But while we're on the subject, I have a 65lbs dog that will poop out something that looks like it could have come from a dog half his size. He poops once daily. My Beagles are religious 2x daily popers, no matter what. Their turds are small & firm, thank you very much.


Hey UB, Good to hear from you. I know you have experience with a raw diet but it's pretty spotted to say the least. "Partial raw" and "raw as a supplement" are NOT raw diets. You can't judge until you get all the kibble garbage out of your dogs. Feeding part time raw greatly diminishes the advantages of feeding raw. You should know that.

I can't talk about your dogs problem with whelping. I have never bred dogs so I just can't say. Are you sure that diet was the problem with the dog? What makes you think it was diet? I also feed a prey model raw diet and have fed it exclusively for 6 years. I'm sorry your dogs were having problems. I do know many breeders who feed prey model and their dogs have great litters. They begin weaning their pups to raw at around 4 weeks. I know several breeders with several generations of eathing nothing but prey model. I do know wolves have been whelping in the wild on a prey model diet for millions of years with very few problems. Most breeders I have asked don't feed any different pryor to whelping. They say the dogs will refuse certain foods a few days before. If I remember right, they said they tend to refuse or eat less bone. I can't remember for sure.

You should care about the size and consistancy of your dogs stools. If you know what to look for you gain a lot of information on the dogs health and if the dog's diet needs tweaking. I don't study my dog's stools every day, but if i am near them when they go, I will stroll over and take a look at it. It just confirms that I am feeding correctly.

Hehe, I have seen 12 week old lab puppies with much larger stools than my two adult Great Danes. Plus the stools don't smell and in a few days they turn powdery and wash away with the next rain. I haven't scooped poop in my yard in years. Nature takes care of that for me.


----------



## shawneo (May 27, 2008)

My experience is that you need to look for a food that is around 24% -27% protein. This is important and another important point is that a meat should be the first ingredient on the ingredients list. Everything else on the ingredients and make up of dog food is pretty much trial and error depending on your specific dog because dogs react different to the different fillers.

I've been using Bil-Jac for a while now with my dogs. Works really well check them out if you get a chance, I have been very pleased. Good Luck!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

shawneo said:


> My experience is that you need to look for a food that is around 24% -27% protein. This is important and another important point is that a meat should be the first ingredient on the ingredients list. Everything else on the ingredients and make up of dog food is pretty much trial and error depending on your specific dog because dogs react different to the different fillers.


The quality of the protein is very important and sometimes that is difficult to determine. There is no kibble that has a real high quality protein. As for the ingredients list, you have to look closely. For example, a meat may be the first thing on the list but the 2nd item can be something like white rice and the 3rd brown rice. That means the main ingredient is rice and not the meat that is at the top of the list. This is almost always the case. It is done with other ingredients other than rice. For example maybe maybe corn and corn meal are the 2nd and 3rd ingredients or possibly wheat and barley.

There are also many other items on the ingredients that it is important to know what they are, what effect they have on your dog, and why they are in the kibble.

Once a person understands the ingredients list he usually stops feeding kibble altogether.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

All I want to add to this is about the breeding and whelping.... 

no one food works best for everyone and while the beagle person above had problems with her "raw" fed bitch and I use that lightly as it doesn't sound like the diet was consistent.... 

I have had several litters to raw fed mothers and weaned puppies directly onto raw food. All of my bitches have had easy whelpings. Puppies have thrived and done well weaned onto raw food..... Those puppies have gone on to do field work, gained their conformation championships, obedience and rally titles etc. 

To blame diet on a bad whelping doesn't make much sense.... as many breeders including myself and many that I know are having great success with raw fed bitches and raw fed puppies..... 

Again its not for everyone, but blaming the diet because of a bad whelping experience seems a bit much. Either you weren't doing the diet correctly for a pregnant bitch and created health problems or your bitch was going to have a hard whelping anyway..... 

There are many of us that do quite well with raw fed bitches. That is my only comment.
s


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hey UB, Good to hear from you. I know you have experience with a raw diet but it's pretty spotted to say the least. "Partial raw" and "raw as a supplement" are NOT raw diets. You can't judge until you get all the kibble garbage out of your dogs. Feeding part time raw greatly diminishes the advantages of feeding raw. You should know that.
> 
> I can't talk about your dogs problem with whelping. I have never bred dogs so I just can't say. Are you sure that diet was the problem with the dog? What makes you think it was diet?



I actually fed 100% grain free raw for three consecutive years. No kibble whatsoever, and maybe the occasional cooked table scraps. Most of that time I was doing a BARF diet, then the last year or so I switched over to prey model; as you can imagine feeding the amount of bone that Billinghurst recommends opens a whole new can of worms in and of itself! The main staple on prey model were chicken breasts, leg quarters & beef chunks from the butcher (mostly fat but w/ generous amounts of meat). I also fed lamb (ribs mostly), whiting fish, ground beef, ground pork, and a plethora of offal, mainly chicken hearts, beef liver & kidney. Fish oil for the omega 3's, cod liver oil once or twice a week, eggs ... I did a whole lot of tweaking the diet & researching nutrient requirements. We had many roadblocks on raw that I worked my way around but in the end, the cons greatly outweighed the pros. I have an epileptic dog that cannot tolerate raw. I had a mutt with horiffic coat problems and ear infections that started and mostly ended with raw. It was insanely expensive and the results were not justifying the price. 

I am sure that the diet was a large factor in the whelping difficulties of both bitches, and I have heard similar stories of increased c-sections or more troublesome births or a rare problem known as mummified pups surfacing with greater frequency. I beleive the problem could be too much calcium in the diet causing the labor difficulites, because calcium levels in the blood are critical for determining the onset of labor. I have seen both sides, whelpings on and off raw, and when a good kibble w/ controlled levels of calcium are fed, the whelpings go smoothly. Of course, genetics is a major factor, but again, the bitch in question was an easy whelper before and her most recent litter on Puppy Chow of all foods, her puppies literally slid right out like she was apssing a stool. They were all fully out with an average of two contractions! This was her easiest whelping, by far. 

BTW, I think once you start breeding dogs and/or raising them for work (and show, if you are showing frequently) you open a whole new can of worms. A diet that works for pet dogs, even active ones, can cause a breeding animal to just completely go to pot. It's all about the balance of nutrients with working & breeding animals. Some diets may work miracles for pet dogs, but try the same feed on a kenneled working animal and your entire view of nutrition and what constitutes a good diet can change dramatically.


----------



## pugs2 (Jun 17, 2008)

BTW, I think once you start breeding dogs and/or raising them for work (and show, if you are showing frequently) you open a whole new can of worms. A diet that works for pet dogs, even active ones, can cause a breeding animal to just completely go to pot. It's all about the balance of nutrients with working & breeding animals. Some diets may work miracles for pet dogs, but try the same feed on a kenneled working animal and your entire view of nutrition and what constitutes a good diet can change dramatically.[/QUOTE]

That is so true! Some foods that were working wonderful for my pet dogs, did not cut it when I started breeding and showing, including many top holistic foods.

BTW, I think once you start breeding dogs and/or raising them for work (and show, if you are showing frequently) you open a whole new can of worms. A diet that works for pet dogs, even active ones, can cause a breeding animal to just completely go to pot. It's all about the balance of nutrients with working & breeding animals. Some diets may work miracles for pet dogs, but try the same feed on a kenneled working animal and your entire view of nutrition and what constitutes a good diet can change dramatically.[/QUOTE]

That is so true! Some foods that were working wonderful for my pet dogs, did not cut it when I started breeding and showing, including many top holistic foods.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I actually fed 100% grain free raw for three consecutive years. No kibble whatsoever, and maybe the occasional cooked table scraps. <snip stuff>
> 
> The main staple on prey model were chicken breasts, leg quarters & beef chunks from the butcher (mostly fat but w/ generous amounts of meat). I also fed lamb (ribs mostly), whiting fish, ground beef, ground pork, and a plethora of offal, mainly chicken hearts, beef liver & kidney. Fish oil for the omega 3's, cod liver oil once or twice a week, eggs ...
> 
> ...


Well, grain free doesn't mean anything to me in a raw diet. The proper diet to feed a dog is raw meat, bones and organs. Mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. The exact percentages don't matter. You need to feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals. Feeding whole animals is the gold standard but of course that just isn't practical. All the nutrients your dogs require is in those Items. Seems like you were doing pretty good when you were feeding prey model. The only thing I notice that raises a red flag to me is the CLO. You can overdose on Vit. A by feeding that plus organs. I don't have a clue how much it would take to overdose so I just stay away from it. 

BTW: I have not fed grain, fruits, or veggies one time in 6 years. My 3yo Dane, Thor has never had any in his life. He and all my dogs eat nothing but meat, bones, and organs. 

I don't understand your problems with whelping. I have been prey model raw feeding for 6 years and I am on several raw feeding lists. I have never heard one breeder say they had a problem with whelping. I don't know what you are doing different from them. I definately don't agree with you about calcium in the diet causing the problems. The amount of calcium in the diet is not a function of the amount of calcium in the diet. The two are nor related. If there is too much calcium in the diet, the excess is immediately excreeted through the kidneys. If there is a calcium deficiency in the diet, the deficiency is made up by taking calcium from the bones.

I just can't how your cons of raw feeding were greater than the pros. If you look at it completely, it just can't be that way. There are absolutely NO pros to feeding kibble except its easy and can be cheap if you buy the cheap garbage brands. There is no way on earth feeding a grain based cereal to a carnivore. Even if you feed a grainless kibble, they substitute something like potatoes for the grain and the potatoes are just as bad for your dog as the grain is. Check the ingredients in the kibble you are feeding and see if you would feed those ingredients to your dog one at a time. There is some pretty crappy stuff in kibble.

Raw meat, bones, and organs, on the other hand, is what your dog's body was designed to eat and digest. From the front teeth to the back end of the anus, your dog is designed to eat meat, bones, and organs. They cannot digest veggies, grains, or fruits. They can extract no nutrients from them. Their bodies are not designed to handle them. If you were having problems with your dogs on a prey model diet, I would look closely at what you were doing and see where you went wrong.

It makes no difference whether you dogs are kenneled or not. It makes no difference whether they are active or couch potatoes. It makes no difference if they are pets or working dogs. They all have the same nutritional needs. They all need protein, fat, calcium, vitamins, and minerals. They have no need for carbs or fiber. Breeds don't matter. A chihuahua needs the same nutrients as a Great Dane, just smaller amounts.

Feeding prey model raw is not expensive. I can feed 2 Great Danes and 2 cats on around $70 or $80 a month. It MAY be a little more now because food prices are rising right now but it will be close to that.

I don't understand you not having good results. My dog's haven't seen a vet except for yearly heartworm checks in 6 years. They were just at the vets a couple of weeks ago. I have used my present vet for 3 1/2 years and he doesn't know my name or any of my animals name. He doesn't see them enough to learn them. I have never had a reason to use a vet since I started raw.

The coat and ear problems are exactly opposite from the 100s of people I know who feed raw. Their coat problems and ear problems disappeared when switching to raw. That was my experience with my dogs also. All health problems went away.

Talk to ya later.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

UrbanBeagles said:


> BTW, I think once you start breeding dogs and/or raising them for work (and show, if you are showing frequently) you open a whole new can of worms. A diet that works for pet dogs, even active ones, can cause a breeding animal to just completely go to pot. It's all about the balance of nutrients with working & breeding animals. Some diets may work miracles for pet dogs, but try the same feed on a kenneled working animal and your entire view of nutrition and what constitutes a good diet can change dramatically.



Well interesting because my dogs for one are bred for conformation and working ability..... all of my dogs are finished champions save the puppies, and they are all working in obedience or field work.... again doing just fine on a raw diet..... 

you are right its all about the balance and feeding a good raw diet.... 

and as with anything a raw diet is not for everyone or every dog.... however, 

just from my experience I haven't had any problems with whelping with my retrievers.... and the raw diet,,,, nor has it been a problem with any of the activities that they are involved in. 

there are entire breeder lists of raw feeders and many who wean directly to raw and whose dogs are fed raw. 

it would seem tehre was a problem with what you were doing diet wise.... because if indeed it was the diet, I have had no problems just anecdotally .... 

also I would like to see the statistics and the actual information about the mummified pups.... because the only mummified pups I have seen have come from two kibble fed bitches.... but if you have actual citations on the statement you made about an increase in mummified pups then I would be interested in seeing that..... 

s


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> The only thing I notice that raises a red flag to me is the CLO. You can overdose on Vit. A by feeding that plus organs. I don't have a clue how much it would take to overdose so I just stay away from it.



Ok, cod liver oil raises a red flag with you? Ah, I know exactly where you recieved your canine nutritional information ... the internet, lol. Seriously, CLO 1-2x weekly is NOT going to cause Vitamin A toxicity. I fed it for the Vitamin D content, which is essential for healthy bones - Vit D, not calcium, is the sole way to prevent rickets. I would rotate the CLO with other Vit D rich foods such as eggs, fish & liver, so that they would not get any of these foods too many times per week. No loose stools or other signs of Vit A toxicity. Now, if you do a bit of reading of actual books back in the day when dog foods were either widely unavailable to John Q Public, cod liver oil is always recommended as the staple for pups. 




> I don't understand your problems with whelping. I have been prey model raw feeding for 6 years and I am on several raw feeding lists. I have never heard one breeder say they had a problem with whelping. I don't know what you are doing different from them. I definately don't agree with you about calcium in the diet causing the problems. The amount of calcium in the diet is not a function of the amount of calcium in the diet. The two are nor related. If there is too much calcium in the diet, the excess is immediately excreeted through the kidneys. If there is a calcium deficiency in the diet, the deficiency is made up by taking calcium from the bones.



Well, you've never whelped a litter ... so obviously you wouldn't understand the problems I was encountering  
Also, you've got it mistaken about excess calcium being flushed out through the kidneys. No - excess calcium is stored in the body almost like a fat soluble vitamin and can/will cause bone abnormalities if fed in over abundance over long periods of time. It's phosphorous that is excreted through the kidneys when fed in excess, which is why animals with renal disease require phosphorous controlled diets. 

Calcium DOES in fact play a role in the commencement of labor and fruitful contractions. It is also a well known fact that too much or not enough calcium in a bitch's diet can cause eclampsia. Which is why those di calcium phosphate supplements popular for bitches years ago are never recommended anymore. Giving supplements such as Cal-Sorb is recommended by many professional breeders to stimulate contractions. So I believe that the problem which caused the difficult labors was an imbalance of calcium in the diet. That's not scientific, that's my enducated opinion, and may not have been the cause. But calcium does play a role in the labor process AND I have noted similar whelping difficulites when other breeders I know have used kibbles with a calciumhosphorous ratio that was around or greatly exceeded 1.5:1.2 




> Feeding prey model raw is not expensive. I can feed 2 Great Danes and 2 cats on around $70 or $80 a month. It MAY be a little more now because food prices are rising right now but it will be close to that.



Well, I have 10 dogs and it costs me on average $7-10 *per day *to feed them all. When I was doing all raw, around 2002, I was paying $20+ per week for 4-5 dogs. Chicken backs are now .89 in my area, and I will once in a while see leg quarters for .69, maybe once a month if that often. Lamb is $.1.99, beef is the same or slightly more depending on where I buy it. Even eggs have averaged $2.50-$3.00 for a dozen of the generic brand. Ten dogs, that's about $5-6 per week just for eggs. Chicken hearts are $1.29, very occasionally can I get them for .99 ... And when I had my cat on raw the price was even higher because he was eating mostly muscle meats and some offal, which were double the price of RMBs. On kibble that is priced around .56ish per lb., I am still spending close to $40 a month for adult food alone. So you'd have to be feeding parts that were .60 or under to get to $80 for what I'm assuming is 200+lbs of dog. And I have never, not even when I started feeding raw 7yrs ago, got meat or bones or organs that cheap on a regular basis. 




> I don't understand you not having good results. My dog's haven't seen a vet except for yearly heartworm checks in 6 years. They were just at the vets a couple of weeks ago. I have used my present vet for 3 1/2 years and he doesn't know my name or any of my animals name. He doesn't see them enough to learn them. I have never had a reason to use a vet since I started raw.



That's great  But I can say the same thing & my dogs eat Dog Chow. Actually, it's been so long since I was at one particular Vet's office that I met one of the newer female Vet's for the first time last week! I attribute that to well bred dogs & my vast knowledge of canine pharmaceuticals, lol.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Ok, cod liver oil raises a red flag with you? Ah, I know exactly where you recieved your canine nutritional information ... the internet, lol. Seriously, CLO 1-2x weekly is NOT going to cause Vitamin A toxicity. I fed it for the Vitamin D content,
> 
> Well, you've never whelped a litter ... so obviously you wouldn't understand the problems I was encountering
> Also, you've got it mistaken about excess calcium being flushed out through the kidneys. No - excess calcium is stored in the body almost like a fat soluble vitamin and can/will cause bone abnormalities if fed in over abundance over long periods of time. It's phosphorous that is excreted through the kidneys when fed in excess, which is why animals with renal disease require phosphorous controlled diets.
> ...


Actually, I took 2 courses in canine nutrition at Emory University. I have attended seminars on canine nutrition and canine denistry. I have read several books and have sat down and had many hours of one on one conversations with very knowledgable raw feeding vets who have written books about raw feeding. You may have even read some of these books.

I didn't now how much CLO you fed and that was the reason for my statement. However, I still don't know how much it takes to cause problems.

You MIGHT be right about the calcium. I will have to double check on that.
Since I have never whelped, I don't know enough about it to argue with you although I would love to.  You haven't convinced me yet. 

The price on my chicken backs just went up to $.325/lb from the $.25 I paid for years. I get beef heart for around $.50 to $.60/lb. Turkey necks for around $./60/lb and chicken quarters have just gone up from $.47/lb to a little over $.50. Of course, I buy all those in bulk. Hehe, I have closer to 300lbs of dogs and about 25lbs of cats.


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

Urban Beagles, I love your posts..LOL. 

For the longest time I felt really guilty about feeding my two Dog Chow. Not any longer. I've tried several holistic foods/grain free foods...all the hype. And I'm sorry, I'm not rich and I can't feed food that they won't eat or don't do well on anymore. We feed Dog Chow and my Chloe girl get's a smidge of Beneful in her bowl as well as a treat since she likes it so much. And before someone shoots back about how much cheaper it is to feed a premium food because you feed less...etc..you can save it. They get the same amount of Dog Chow that they would get of anything else...I have not found a premium food where I've only had to feed a cup vs. three cups to her...

My two are happy and healthy and they truly enjoy mealtime, they jump up and down and do little happy circles before I put their bowls down, something I missed when feeding them a premium food. They have small firm poops, bright shiny eyes and coat. 

Plus, I get to spend more money on my pups, buying them more toys, doggie daycare trips and yummy treats!!

Just my opinion...but I used to get so worked up about dog nutrition, not any more..I feed what works for my two..and Dog Chow is working for them.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> For the longest time I felt really guilty about feeding my two Dog Chow. Not any longer. I've tried several holistic foods/grain free foods...all the hype. And I'm sorry, I'm not rich and I can't feed food that they won't eat or don't do well on anymore.
> 
> Just my opinion...but I used to get so worked up about dog nutrition, not any more..I feed what works for my two..and Dog Chow is working for them



It's almost like coming out of the closet ... We feed Dog Chow and are proud of it, LOL  

I feel the same way, Chloe's Mom ... have just literally exhausted all the other options in regards to holistic foods and do not have the $$$ to purchase or the inclination to special order these "better" feeds. If I have a litter, I am buying probably 4-5 bags of food per month. I'd deal with the pricetag if the results were impressive but no way I'm spending $2 lb. or more for dog food that doesn't even work.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> CLO 1-2x weekly is NOT going to cause Vitamin A toxicity. I fed it for the Vitamin D content, which is essential for healthy bones - Vit D, not calcium, is the sole way to prevent rickets. I would rotate the CLO with other Vit D rich foods such as eggs, fish & liver, so that they would not get any of these foods too many times per week.
> 
> Also, you've got it mistaken about excess calcium being flushed out through the kidneys. No - excess calcium is stored in the body almost like a fat soluble vitamin and can/will cause bone abnormalities if fed in over abundance over long periods of time.
> 
> ...


Hey again UB,
I have spent a little time refreshing my mind on calcium in the body and calcium in the diet. Vitamin D is the big regulator of calcium in the blood. It tells the intestines how much calcium to absorb and tells the kidneys not to excrete calcium. Either not enough or too much vit D will affect this process. With too much vit D, the excess calcium is stored in the bones and with not enough vit D not enough calcium is absorbed into the body but the body will retrieve the needed calcium from the bones. Thats why Vit D is important for healthy bones. The parathyroid gland regulates the amount of calcium in the blood. 98% of the time when the calcium blood level is not correct, the problem lies in the parathyroid gland. 1% of the time, the cause is cancer and the other 1% is various other causes.

So if vit D levels are off yes, excess calcium will be excreeted through the kidneys or stored in the bones depending on which way it's off. The amount of calcium in the diet has no effect whatsoever on the level of calcium in the body. If your whelping dogs had problems with bad calcium levels in the blood, the culprit was the parathyroid and not the diet assuming you were feeding close to the right amount of vit D. It looks like you were feeding an awful lot of it so that MIGHT have been the problem.

When feeding a proper prey model diet, one doesn't adjust the diet to try to "balance" the nutrients. One will screw up more often than correcting any percieved dietary problems. Feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals and balance is automatically attained by nature. No adjustment necessary. Remember, nature got it right.

talk to ya later.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Chloe'sMom said:


> Just my opinion...but I used to get so worked up about dog nutrition, not any more..I feed what works for my two..and Dog Chow is working for them.


So you like feeding food that has un-named meat sources, unidentified by-products, artificial sugar and a synthetic vitamin that has been linked to liver problems?


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> So you like feeding food that has un-named meat sources, unidentified by-products, artificial sugar and a synthetic vitamin that has been linked to liver problems?


Right now all I care about is that my dogs are healthy and happy! For the first time in a long time...they do not have the runs, they are eating their food happily without me having to "dress it up". And I'm not breaking the bank either. 

Like I said before, if something changes and they stop doing well on this food I will change to something else, but for the time being. I am happy.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Chloe'sMom said:


> Right now all I care about is that my dogs are healthy and happy! For the first time in a long time...they do not have the runs, they are eating their food happily without me having to "dress it up". And I'm not breaking the bank either.
> 
> Like I said before, if something changes and they stop doing well on this food I will change to something else, but for the time being. I am happy.


Hey Chloe'sMom,
Apparently it is going to take you some time to learn how unhealthy your dogs really are. The largest ingredient in the food you are feeding is corn. Nothing but a filler as it's completly indigestable. No nutrients are derived from corn. There is also rice, soybeans, barley and wheat. Also fillers. The second product on the ingredients list is poultry by-product meal. That is nothing but poultry(who knows what poultry) heads, beaks, feet, feathers, and intestines. There is nothing else in poultry by-product meal and it's the second ingredient. So there you have the 1st two ingredients plus several other ingredients that are pretty much useless nutritionly. There is also A LOT and I mean A LOT of animal fat in Dog Chow. That will cause a shiney coat and tons of excess energy. There is not much nutrition in fat, just energy and grease but it will give the external appearance of good health. Why do you think they put so much in it? If you stop and think about it and analyze exactly what is in Dog Chow you can see why it is so cheap and you can see that there is no way on the face of the earth that any animal can be healthy eating that stuff over a period of time just as no human can be healthy eating nothing but cake, ice cream, candy and cookies over a period of time. Eventually it catches up with you and you crash and burn.


----------



## TomN (Jul 1, 2007)

UrbanBeagles said:


> The DogFoodAnalysis, WDJ top 10, and similar sites that rate foods as "five star" based solely on ingredients & not on RESULTS are full of bologna! I do not give any credence, whatsoever to any of those venues because they are overlooking digestability, research & development that goes into the food, results, etc.


I was waiting for someone to say this. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## blee413 (Jun 24, 2008)

I started feeding my dogs raw almost 7 years ago. They are all doing GREAT. I had just found out that Willow had cancer and the western vets offered no hope. I put her on raw and did chinese medicine and she is now 14 and still going strong! I was just reading about green tripe which I have not tried. Sounds interesting and smelly!

I got my food from a company called Feed This in California. They ship all over. Now I make it myself but there is some good info on their site.

Hope you have a great day.

Barbara


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm sorry, is it healthier for me to continue switching their food every month or so because they're not doing well on it. To keep them on a food rollercoaster, upsetting their systems every time? To keep them on Canidae (because everyone raves about it so much here) even though it gives them explosive diarehea...not soft...explosive. (Sorry to be graphic) Oh or perhaps I should put Chloe back on Merrick so she can get itchy feet again, or have them have dull dry flaky skin on Solid Gold. There are just a few of the problems we've had. I won't even tell you about the hunger strikes and flat out refussal to eat some of the others. So I'm at a loss...if you can guarantee me that my dogs will A: Eat a certain food and like it B: will not have runny/messy poops and C: That the food is readily available and will not cost me over 60$ for a 40 pd bag, maybe we can talk. 

Until than...Dog Chow (regardless of ingrediants) is working for them. My girl Chloe has always been thin - she's been putting on solid muscle her coat is gorgeous and she always had eye discharge...that's clearing up...Clancey - has always had digestive issues (probably from changing foods on them so often.) but his bowel movements are fabulous now..nice and solid no messes or accidents because he coudn't hold it in anymore. So yea...I'm not in a hurry to try another food right now!


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

Thanks Fred's Mom!!!

LOL - My kids are Chicken and Beef lovers!! Oh and BACON!!! Those Purina Beggin Strips are the greatest things ever made...LOL. They would sit stay for an hour if they knew one of those were coming.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Apparently it is going to take you some time to learn how unhealthy your dogs really are. The largest ingredient in the food you are feeding is corn. Nothing but a filler as it's completly indigestable. No nutrients are derived from corn. There is also rice, soybeans, barley and wheat. Also fillers. The second product on the ingredients list is poultry by-product meal. That is nothing but poultry(who knows what poultry) heads, beaks, feet, feathers, and intestines. There is nothing else in poultry by-product meal and it's the second ingredient. So there you have the 1st two ingredients plus several other ingredients that are pretty much useless nutritionly.



VERY WRONG. Are by-products better than a meat meal, no. Ideally I'd like to see meat & by products (you heard correctly) as the two balance each other out, however, by products are NOT what you described them to be. Intestines ... would that be as devoid of nutritional value as the rumen? In fact, one brand of canned food I fed a few years back was high in by products, so I called the company to inquire as to what by products they used - green tripe and chicken liver. By products are organ meats sold wholesale to food manufacturers because there is not much of a market for them save for in some ethnic food markets. In fact I know of raw feeders who went out of their way to find those parts - chicken feet, heads, spleens, eyeballs, lungs ... 

Corn in it's ground form is not only quite easily digestable, it's high in nutrients and one of the grains dogs are least likely to be allergic to. It's also high in protein. Wheat - my great Aunt bred GSDs for 35+ years. Her secret for a shiny coat for Italianized German dogs who ate pasta four days a week was wheat cereal mixed with linseed oil (what we now call flax seed oil). If you ever need to grow hair back on a dog who has had a bald spot, wheat cereal gets the job gone  It was a staple in home made dog food of yesteryear (altho none of the old timers ever remember feeding dogs raw meat). 

Let's see ... barley & soy. No, I'm not thrilled about the soy. The barley is a good digestable grain though very high in protein & iron. Another grain I fed w/ great success when I did home cooking.

There's more I want to say but have to cut this short ... making a trip to stock up on the Chow before we have a bad storm here


----------



## TomN (Jul 1, 2007)

Chloe'sMom said:


> I won't even tell you about the hunger strikes and flat out refussal to eat some of the others. So I'm at a loss...if you can guarantee me that my dogs will A: Eat a certain food and like it B: will not have runny/messy poops and C: That the food is readily available and will not cost me over 60$ for a 40 pd bag, maybe we can talk.


Just a thought but.... switching feed so often is not helping your predicament much and may be creating a picky eater. 

Knowone can guarantee what food your dog is going to except let alone do well on. Find a food and stick with it if your dog does well on it, whether that be dog chow or whatever.

There could there be any number of medical issues that could be causing the loose stools? has the dog been checked by a veterinarian recently?

Allergies can cause some of the symptoms you describe, especially the itchy feet and dry flaky coat conditions. 

These are just some of the things to think about before blaming the food. Have the dog checked out if you haven't already and go from there. 

IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE FOOD. Good luck to ya, I know it can be frustrating.

FWIW


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> VERY WRONG. Are by-products better than a meat meal, no. Ideally I'd like to see meat & by products (you heard correctly) as the two balance each other out, however, by products are NOT what you described them to be. Intestines ... would that be as devoid of nutritional value as the rumen? In fact, one brand of canned food I fed a few years back was high in by products, so I called the company to inquire as to what by products they used - green tripe and chicken liver. By products are organ meats sold wholesale to food manufacturers because there is not much of a market for them save for in some ethnic food markets. In fact I know of raw feeders who went out of their way to find those parts - chicken feet, heads, spleens, eyeballs, lungs ...
> 
> Corn in it's ground form is not only quite easily digestable, it's high in nutrients and one of the grains dogs are least likely to be allergic to. It's also high in protein. Wheat - my great Aunt bred GSDs for 35+ years. Her secret for a shiny coat for Italianized German dogs who ate pasta four days a week was wheat cereal mixed with linseed oil (what we now call flax seed oil). If you ever need to grow hair back on a dog who has had a bald spot, wheat cereal gets the job gone  It was a staple in home made dog food of yesteryear (altho none of the old timers ever remember feeding dogs raw meat).
> 
> ...


Hehe, Hey UB. I can see you will not give up.  By-pridycts are exactly what I said they were. USDA has a definition for what can and must be called by-products and what are not by-products. You can go to their website and see exactly what makes up by-products. Liver is not a by-product. By-products generally are not organ meats. They are heads, feathers, feet and intestines. By-products are nothing that a human would eat. Green tripe may or may not be a by-product ... I'm not sure.

Yes, raw feeders do look for chicken brains, heads, eyeballs, and feet but not to feed the consistantly every day. Maybe a few a month who balance out the "whole prey" because they are part of the whole prey. No raw feeder I know feed exclusively by-products.

I don't care what you do to corn, its not digestable by a dog. Yes, humans can digest them but dogs digestive systems are entirely different. It is put in dog food for one reason and one reason only. Because it's cheap. No grain is digestable by a dog either easily or otherwise. Their systems just can't handle it. Don't you think that if a dog needed these things that over millions of years of evolution they would have developed a mechinasm to digest them? The protein in corn and other grains us useless to a carnivore. 

Hehe ... you said "The barley is a good digestable grain though very high in protein & iron. Another grain I fed w/ great success when I did home cooking." Actually I don't think you had much success with anything when you fed raw or cooked. If you had you would still be doing it.


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

I have had both of them checked regularly. We brought Chloe in when she started itching and he prescribed her Benadryl..which didn't help, we did medicated shampoo which also did not help. Eventually when we stopped feeding her the Merrick, she also stopped itching..Coincidence...I dunno. But she hasn't had a problem since than. 

Clancey also was checked for the loose poos..everything came back normal. 

I realize no one food is going to be magical for everyone's dog..I was being sarcastic. LOL.


----------



## sheltiemom (Mar 13, 2007)

Here's a quote from the dog food project about grains:



> Compared to herbivores a dog's digestive tract is much less specialized for digesting grains, or carbohydrates in general for that matter - especially in their raw, unprocessed form. However, dogs are not true carnivores but opportunistic feeders and can digest and utilize the starch from grains in dog food that has been converted by the cooking process. Digestibility depends on quality and type of grain used: rice (72%) is for example more digestible than wheat (60%) or corn (54%). Dogs can absorb the digestible carbohydrates from rice almost entirely, of the other grains about 20% are not absorbed. Indigestible fiber from grains contribute to intestinal health.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Well, Sabine is a little inconsistent in her statements but thats not unusual. She always has been. First she states that dogs are not true carnivores but oportunistic feeders. Hehe, "oportunistic feeders" are just not a classification of animals.  Animals are either carnivores, omnivores, or herbavores. An animal is one of those and not a combination of two or more. Dogs are classified as carnivores by the Smithsonian Institute which is the authoritative body on classifications. There are not degrees of carnivore. An animal can't be a little bit carnivore or mostly carnivore. Either he is a carnivore or he is not. Dogs are. By definition, carnivores eat meat, bones and organs. They don't eat fruit, veggies, grains or any part of any plant.

Many charateristics of a dog point towards it being a carnivore. None point toward it being omnivore. If it eats plant material and meat, it is an omnivore. A dog is not an omnivore. Sabine says that cats are true carnivores and dogs aren't. She is very mistaken about this as she always has been. The only reason people in the vet and dog food industries describe cats as obligate carnovires is because cats MUST eat taurine. Cats can not create taurine internally while dogs and most other animals on earth can. Cats must eat meat to get taurine. That is the only nutritional difference between cats and dogs.

When Sabine talks about the digestability of grains in a dog, she is talking about highly processed grains. If a dog can't digest and utilize grains in their natural state then they have no nutritional need for grains. The same goes for fruits and veggies also.

Just as a side note: It is necessary for dog food companies to convince you that dogs are omnivores or you wouldn't buy they grain based or veggie based kibble. You wouldn't buy thier kibble with very little meat in it if you thought dogs were carnivores. Years of marketing have convinced most of use of exactly what it was designed to convince us of. Only the vet industry (educated by the dog food industry) and the dog food industry will call a dog an omnivore. Biologists, zoologists, animal scientists, animal husbantry experts all agree that dogs are carnivores. Sabine has always towed the line for the pet food industry. OH, and she will design a diet just for your dog for upwards of $250. I will do it for free and do a better job.   

Don't get me wrong. Sabine Conteras is very knowlegable about canine nutrition. She is just plain wrong about dogs not being carnivores. Dogs definately are classified and are in fact carnivores and therefore they have no nutritional need for plant material of any kind. Their bodies were designed and evolved to eat meat, bones, and organs and nothing else. Can they survive on plant material? Of course. Thats a testiment to the durability of these wonderful creatures. Will they be healthier eating meat, bones, and organs? There is no question. Of course they will.

Kibble is a fad diet that has only been around for 50 years or so and has only been commonly used for about 30 years. Dogs have been eating meat, bones, and organs for millions of years and thriving on it.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> By-products generally are not organ meats. They are heads, feathers, feet and intestines. By-products are nothing that a human would eat. Green tripe may or may not be a by-product ... I'm not sure.
> 
> Yes, raw feeders do look for chicken brains, heads, eyeballs, and feet but not to feed the consistantly every day. Maybe a few a month who balance out the "whole prey" because they are part of the whole prey. No raw feeder I know feed exclusively by-products.



No, I don't give up - I have the tenacity of my Beagles  <JK>

By products are, in large part, organ meats! They absolutely do not contain feathers or other indigestable matter. No self respecting company would use feathers, beaks or other such indigestable matter in their feeds. 

_"Official" AAFCO Definition:

Chicken by-product meal consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice._

As I mentioned, I'd rather see a meat meal listed along w/ the by products because it creates a better balance of nutrients. Though I don't loose too much sleep over it since my dogs look/feel awesome, I do add my own fresh meats at least 1-2x per week (can't give up on those free raw beef scraps from the butcher), and there is meat in the Chow besides the by products, altho they do make up a bulk of the animal protein in the feed.




> I don't care what you do to corn, its not digestable by a dog. Yes, humans can digest them but dogs digestive systems are entirely different. It is put in dog food for one reason and one reason only. Because it's cheap. No grain is digestable by a dog either easily or otherwise. Their systems just can't handle it. Don't you think that if a dog needed these things that over millions of years of evolution they would have developed a mechinasm to digest them? The protein in corn and other grains us useless to a carnivore.



Dogs are not carnivores, they're simply not domesticated wolves, but a species quite closely related to the Wolf. Dogs are a creation of man through selective breeding, and sorry, but it does not take millions of years for a species to "evolve". No possible way the dog would have survived on what was fed it for thousands of years, because you can be sure man was not feeding canines his best cuts of meat. They got grain based diets with some meat scraps and lots of *cooked* bones. Ground corn is digestable to dogs, as are other grains. I have worked with some rescue dogs who were fearful and also have helped my own epileptic dog with raw oats soaked in warm water. Oats are an excellent tonic for the nerves, and I've seen the results when fed on a regular basis. And when I was on a raw feeding list a few years back, and was having coat problems, one of the posters e-mailed me privately to let me know that she was having the same problem as I was, and it was cleared up with ... oatmeal  




> Hehe ... you said "The barley is a good digestable grain though very high in protein & iron. Another grain I fed w/ great success when I did home cooking." Actually I don't think you had much success with anything when you fed raw or cooked. If you had you would still be doing it.



I fed barley, wheat, corm meal, oats, and white rice when I did homecooked. It did not work for my dogs because to make it economical, I had to use the crockpot. They LOOKED good, but the food was mushy, and it came out the same way it went in, lol. It was $ and did take innumerable supplements. Some had excellent coats on it, others seemed to have deficiencies of one sort or another. But when I was feeding it, barley was probably the staple grain along with oats due to the nutrient content. Overall, no I did not have success with the diet. But certain foods were much, much better than others and held more nutritional value, and the dogs looked better on them. Barley and oats were two of those grains.



> Kibble is a fad diet that has only been around for 50 years or so and has only been commonly used for about 30 years. Dogs have been eating meat, bones, and organs for millions of years and thriving on it



OH THANK YOU for bringing this up!!! Yippee - I can put recently acquired knowledge to good use! 

I actually thought kibble was a recent invention ... and if you're referring to extruded types of foods, those are about 50 yrs old (and Purina was the first manufacturer to use this process to be able to mass produce dry diets). Before that, dry dog food was baked - we've all probably heard of those Spratt's dry biscuits & dog meal. 

Vintage dog/cat books are a hobby of mine, especuially Beagle related books. I recently acquired a reprint of the Dog Anthology from 1892 - not the entire book but approx 90 pages regarding Beagles, hounds in general & care of one's breeding stock/raising pups. I was quite surprised to see the author mention "dry food" several times. There is almost no mention of adding meat to the diet save for the author mentioning " ... the bitch should be provided with a diet of a more strengthening character than that which she has been in the babit of recieving. This should not consist entirely of meat or other heating foods which can only increase her discomfort in partuition ..." He goes on to recommend small amounts of meat being fed boiled with the addition of bread, dog meal or rice stewed together until it forms a soupy, gravy like consistancy. No meat is recommended for weaning pups. Instead her recommends an oatmeal porridge or bread and gravy. For older pups, the porridge with small amounts of meat scraps and vegetables. There is never any mention of raw meat. Everything was not only cooked, but cooked thoroughly. What truly surprised me, though, was in speaking about the feeding of adult dogs, the author actually used the phrase "dry diets" and dog meal to be the mainstay. Meat is hardly ever mentioned. If you read on in further detail, it's all about grain based diets where bread and oatmeal were the staple and meat was given as a supplement. Towards the back of the book are listed the advertisements that appeared in the 1892 text. 

There are innumerable advertisements for "dry dog food". Melox dry diet, about 3 seperate typed of dry diets from a brand called Rsckhams includign diets specific to hounds and yes, puppy food. Back in 1892. 

If you look further into the subject of dry diets for dogs, they were first developed in 1860. I have never read any text no matter how old that recommended raw meat, save for two from 60yrs ago that recommended raw organ meats for cats. Dogs, no. They were fed grain heavy diets. No possible way the species could have survived, and thrived on the types of diets fed to dogs in yesteryear if they derived none or little nutritional value from grains.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> No, I don't give up - I have the tenacity of my Beagles  <JK>
> 
> By products are, in large part, organ meats! They absolutely do not contain feathers or other indigestable matter. No self respecting company would use feathers, beaks or other such indigestable matter in their feeds.
> 
> ...


First you need to teach me how to do multiple quotes in a post. Thats cool and certainly makes it much easier. This post I am writing now would be easier to read if I could divide your post up into segments. 

By-products certainly do contain heads and beaks. Both are digestable but they do not contain organs as you mentioned earlier. There is no part of a chicken other than feathers that are not digestable. I have fed all to my dogs at one time or another. You see, by-products are the cheapest thing that a processing plant sells. If an item can be sold as something else, it will go in that pile. It will not end up as by-products if they can sell it more expensively as something else. It just wouldn't make economical sense to do so.

I don't think you understand what meat meal really is. The pet food companies and USDA defines it in such a way that it could be something nutritious. Actually meat meal ... lets use chicken meal as our example ... chicken meal is the carcass of a chicken after human usuable meat has been removed and is exclusive of by-products. It is mostly bone and connective tissue and what little meat couldn't be removed by deboning machines. Somehow the pet food companies have gotten the word out that it is merely dehydrated meat and as such when you see chicken meal, you think you are getting more meat in meal than in plain chicken. Actually there is a reason for this confusion. Meat is measured as "wet" weight and meal as "dry" weight so people think chicken is wet meat measurements and meal is dehydrated meat. Thats just not the case. Chicken meal is weighed in dry weight because bones are dry and there is no enough meat in the meal to hold enough moisture to change the weight appreciably. Bones don't hold moisture, meat does. So when you see chicken meal listed in the ingredients, you are seeing mostly the chicken skeleton with almost no meat.

Dogs are carnivores. They ARE wolves. They are officially a sub-species of wolf. They can breed with wolves and creat viable offspring capable of reproduction. Closely related species can't do that. Only same species can. 
Yes, dogs have been selectively bred to have the charastics of of todays dogs. However, the digestive system has not changed nor the nutritional needs. Only the surface features have changed. BTW: Most breeds are only 100 years or so old. Have you read about the fox experiment in Russia back in the early 20th century? If not, I'll tell you about it in another post. It will explain why dogs are wolves that are different in appearance only.

Here are the things that make a dog a carnivore:

1. carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side. Omnivores and herbivores must have this ability to properly chew the plant material they eat. They smush and mush the plant cells destroying the cellulose material that covers and protects plant cells. Dogs cannot move their jaw side to side when eating. That is one reason dogs can't digset plant material.

2. Omnivores/herbivores have flat teeth. Omnivores have flat molars and herbivores have all flat teeth. Carnivores do not have flat teeth. They cannot smush the plant material to break the cellulose barrier around each plant cell. That is one reason dogs can't digest plant material. Dogs teeth are designed to kill, rip, tear and crush meat and bones. Not crush cellulose.

3. Carnivores have more acidic stomach juices to digest meat and bones. Their stomach juices are 50% hydrochloric acid. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach acids.

4. Omnivores/herbivores have a high concentration of amylaze in thier salava and stomach juices. This is an enzyme that is necessary to digest and break down the starches and sugars and other parts of a plant. Digestion for these animals begins in the mouth. They chew their food into a mush before swallowing. Dogs have no amylaze in their salava and almost none in their stomach. Dogs don't chew their food into a mush as digestion begins in the stomach. Dogs mearly crunch their food until it is small enough to fit down their throat then they swallow. They can get some pretty amazingly large pieces down their throat. I have seen my Danes swallow chunks of meat as large as my fist with no problem. They regularly crunch a 1lb chicken leg quarter 2 or 3 times and then swallow the quarter whole. Omnivores/herbivores just don't have that ability. They swallow already partially digested mush.

5. Omnivores/ herbivores have very long intestinal tracts. This is necessary for their plant material to ferment and release nutrients. Plant material digests very slowly. Carnivores have short intestinal tract in order to extract the nutrients from the meat and get it out of the body before it rots. Meat and bones digest very quickly and is then excreted from the body. Dogs have this short intestinal tract.

Soooo ... there are 5 traits of dogs and carnivores that are different from omnivores and herbivores. A carnivore eats animals and animal parts. Once an animal both animals and plants he is automatically by definition an omnivore which as you can see from the traits above, a dog isn't. You can't feed a carnivore omnivore food and make an omnivore out of him. He is still a carnivore no matter what you force him to eat. The fact that they can survive while eating mostly grains and veggies is a great testiment to these animals. I don't know what more proof I can give you that a dog is a carnivore. What else will it take? The Smithsonian Institute says they are carnivores. Biologist, zoologists, and all other animal studies other that vets and pet food companies say dogs are carnivores. It is in the best interests of the pet food companies to convince you otherwise. They have very highly paid marketing people that are doing a very good job of that.

Now, about history ... where did you read anywhere in history that early man fed his "dogs" grains or veggies? Where is the proof that dogs ate anything other that the leftover carcasses of the animals that man killed and removed the meat he wanted. The dogs ate what was left over. Man didn't have very much food in those days and giving their good food to "dogs" just wouldn't have been done. The "dogs" only got what man couldn't utilize and that was meat, bones and organs. Now admittedly this is all conjecture on my part but it is just as probable as the conjecture you presented.

I hope I covered everything. I don't have time to proof this post. Hope I don't have any glaring errors. Talk to you later.


----------



## JayBarnes (Jan 8, 2008)

You keep doing whats right for you Cloe's mom. Some people think that just because their dogs are doing well on a food that all dogs under the sun should be on that diet. I'm sure you've found that it doesn't work like that. Good luck and keep on doing what you think is best.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Vintage dog/cat books are a hobby of mine, especuially Beagle related books. I recently acquired a reprint of the Dog Anthology from 1892 - not the entire book but approx 90 pages regarding Beagles, hounds in general & care of one's breeding stock/raising pups.


Hey UB,
I think you might have added this stuff while I was answering your post. Anyway, I didn't see it. It's cool about the book from 1892. What a great find. I really wasn't aware of dry dog food back in those days. I still maintain that kibble or any dry food wasn't widely used except maybe for treats until around the 1970s. It was my third dog that was the first one I fed kibble to. Before that my dogs were fed table scraps supplemented by canned food a couple of times a week. Thats the way all dogs I was aware of were fed in my childhood.

It was interesting to see that there were uninformed authors back in 1892 just as there are today.


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

Chloe'sMom said:


> Right now all I care about is that my dogs are healthy and happy! For the first time in a long time...they do not have the runs, they are eating their food happily without me having to "dress it up". And I'm not breaking the bank either.
> 
> Like I said before, if something changes and they stop doing well on this food I will change to something else, but for the time being. I am happy.


Your doing a great job for your dogs, keep up the good work and don't let anyone browbeat you into doing something different.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Now, about history ... where did you read anywhere in history that early man fed his "dogs" grains or veggies? Where is the proof that dogs ate anything other that the leftover carcasses of the animals that man killed and removed the meat he wanted. The dogs ate what was left over. Man didn't have very much food in those days and giving their good food to "dogs" just wouldn't have been done. The "dogs" only got what man couldn't utilize and that was meat, bones and organs. Now admittedly this is all conjecture on my part but it is just as probable as the conjecture you presented.


There are wild dogs that exist today alongside humans, which are generally called Pariah Dogs. They eat human garbage... which is most often more than just meat. So there _are _modern-day examples showing us what dogs in the past who likewise lived on the edges of human settlements also must have lived on. A dog is not a wolf, it is a _dog._ They are two species which are_ related,_ but still different. Put cooked spinach, cooked corn, fruit, or bread bits in front of a wolf and they won't eat it... but my_ dog _does, and_ likes_ it. There's a real difference, right there.

Of course, I feed high protein kibble, so I'm not saying that it's equivalent to feed a dog anything else besides meat. Meat is _best._ But it boils down to what an individual dog likes and, most importantly, what it _does well on._ I don't think it's a 100% black or white issue.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Pai said:


> There are wild dogs that exist today alongside humans, which are generally called Pariah Dogs. They eat human garbage... which is most often more than just meat. So there _are _modern-day examples showing us what dogs in the past who likewise lived on the edges of human settlements also must have lived on. A dog is not a wolf, it is a _dog._ They are two species which are_ related,_ but still different. Put cooked spinach, cooked corn, fruit, or bread bits in front of a wolf and they won't eat it... but my_ dog _does, and_ likes_ it. There's a real difference, right there.
> 
> Of course, I feed high protein kibble, so I'm not saying that it's equivalent to feed a dog anything else besides meat. Meat is _best._ But it boils down to what an individual dog likes and, most importantly, what it _does well on._ I don't think it's a 100% black or white issue.


Oh, its definately a black or white issue. Dogs are wolves. mDNA between them is only .02% different. mDNA is that part of DNA that is passed from parent to child. That makes wolves and dogs 99.98% identical. Races of humans are further apart than wolves and dogs. You take the teeth from a dog and a wolf and let a vet tell you which one came from which. He can't. Same with esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, intestines, and anus. They are identical.

You can not breed different species and have fertile offspring. Thats just a biological fact. Their chromosones just won't match. You do get fertile offspring from breeding dogs and wolves. There is no denying that dogs and wolves are the same species. Both DNA research and biology both prove they are.

My Dane Abby has not eaten any fruits, veggies, or grains or eaten any food that contains those items in 6 years. My 3yo Dane Thor has never had any in his entire life. Obviously there is no nutritional need for them. If there was, it would be apparant by now. Abby was fine on kibble before I switched her.

You can't feed a carnivore fruits and veggies and make an omnivore out of him. It just doesn't change his body in any way. He is still a carnivore. I'm don't buy your story about eating garbage for thousands of years. I think until recent times man didn't have food to throw away. They ate all they could find. Dogs probably just got the carcasses of the animals that man killed after man removed what he could use. I've been saying that for years and have never seen it disproved.

SO if you cut through the BS, forget the marketing spin from the dog food companies, it is very clear. Dogs are wolves and both wolves and dogs are carnivores. You can't put any facts together and come up with any other conclusion. Yes you can fantasize about any scenario you want and come to any conclusion but not based on facts. If you fantasize hard enough you can convince yourself that the world is flat and dogs are omnivores.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

RawFedDogs said:


> Oh, its definately a black or white issue. Dogs are wolves. mDNA between them is only .02% different. mDNA is that part of DNA that is passed from parent to child. That makes wolves and dogs 99.98% identical. Races of humans are further apart than wolves and dogs.


Yes but has mtDNA data been established as a suitable marker for dogs and wolves? 



> You take the teeth from a dog and a wolf and let a vet tell you which one came from which. He can't.


A good vet probably could right away, but any vet or laymen could if you gave them a whole jaw. The placement of the teeth in a wolf and a dog are vastly different and this can be explained by the niche they live in, so not a very good example here.



> Same with esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, intestines, and anus. They are identical.


Yes, and there are pig parts you'd have a hard time deciphering if they were human, this doesn't make us humans, pigs...though I know that can be argued in a rhetorical sense.



> You can not breed different species and have fertile offspring. Thats just a biological fact. Their chromosones just won't match. You do get fertile offspring from breeding dogs and wolves.


Biological segregation is not only determined by sexual reproduction. It's also determined by the niche the animal lives in. It's also a scientific fact that no two animals can occupy the same niche. Dogs and wolves do not live in the same biological niche.



> There is no denying that dogs and wolves are the same species. Both DNA research and biology both prove they are.


There's no denying that dogs and wolves are related, they are not the same however. DNA and biology proves only this. 



> My Dane Abby has not eaten any fruits, veggies, or grains or eaten any food that contains those items in 6 years. My 3yo Dane Thor has never had any in his entire life. Obviously there is no nutritional need for them. If there was, it would be apparant by now. Abby was fine on kibble before I switched her.


I'm glad you're dogs are doing well on their diet, but your dogs serve only as anecdotes, not as evidence for any specific diet. 



> You can't feed a carnivore fruits and veggies and make an omnivore out of him. It just doesn't change his body in any way. He is still a carnivore.


But if that squirrel who's belly is full of nuts and berries is eaten by a wolf, does the wolf selectively extract the nuts and berries? No, in fact, if the prey was bigger the wolf would eat the internal organs first. 



> I'm don't buy your story about eating garbage for thousands of years. I think until recent times man didn't have food to throw away. They ate all they could find. Dogs probably just got the carcasses of the animals that man killed after man removed what he could use. I've been saying that for years and have never seen it disproved.


Of course you don't buy it, it doesn't help what you're selling. But if you've ever visited a third world country where dogs are not considered pets, you'd see the modern day version of how dogs live in their niche. This evolution continues today.



> SO if you cut through the BS, forget the marketing spin from the dog food companies, it is very clear. Dogs are wolves and both wolves and dogs are carnivores. You can't put any facts together and come up with any other conclusion. Yes you can fantasize about any scenario you want and come to any conclusion but not based on facts. If you fantasize hard enough you can convince yourself that the world is flat and dogs are omnivores.


Reductio ad absurdum.


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

I accept the premise that raw fed is natural. I just don't understand the conclusion that natural is better.

Humans have been doing increasingly unnatural things to their diet. Started with cooking meat, then selectively growing plants, now we are at the point where their are daily vitamins in little capsules. Last I checked the human life span continues to increase. I don't think going back to our original diet and refusing to take vitamins would continue that trend.

What's to say it's not the same for dogs? How do we know that the science behind dog food does not improve health? I'm just not convinced that natural is always better.


On the point of "high quality" dog foods found in specialty stores. I see the ingredients and I see the protein levels, it looks good, but I'm no expert. If they are truly better than chow or iams why aren't they carried in major supermarkets/pet stores? Why don't the big name brands copy the formula and sell it for larger profits? It just doesn't add up.


----------



## tewecm (Jun 25, 2008)

This is probably a stupid question, but what is everyone's opinion of Science Diet? (I'm almost afraid to ask) I've had my oldest on it for three years and haven't had problems. I'm asking because I have three dogs of different breeds and don't know if they should all be fed the same thing. Also, I live in Nevada and it's very dry here. I'm having some dry skin issues on their noses and bottoms of their feet.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

tewecm said:


> This is probably a stupid question, but what is everyone's opinion of Science Diet? (I'm almost afraid to ask)


Science Diet = Sky Is Falling



> I've had my oldest on it for three years and haven't had problems.


I'm sure someone will tell you about all your dog's problems as a result of it shortly.


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

tewecm said:


> This is probably a stupid question, but what is everyone's opinion of Science Diet? (I'm almost afraid to ask) I've had my oldest on it for three years and haven't had problems. I'm asking because I have three dogs of different breeds and don't know if they should all be fed the same thing. Also, I live in Nevada and it's very dry here. I'm having some dry skin issues on their noses and bottoms of their feet.


Not a stupid question at all. Beware of the replies you will get telling you that you are killing your dogs. LOL

I've fed a couple of my dogs SD for many years. They lived long lives with no serious health problems and died of old age. My Afghan lived for 17 years and that is long for that breed, she died of old age not some horrible thing b/c of SD. You do what you think is best and what your dogs thrive on. For the dry skin I would try Grizzly Salmon Oil on the food. 

Good luck!


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Once that is understood, you will see that carnivores don't need fiber at all. They utilize ingested mostly digested bone as as the medium to move food along the digestive tract the same way we utilize certain undigestable plant material as fiber. Carnivores don't need plant material to move meat through their intestines. So plant based fiber is not a part of the dogs diet in nature.


This is actually not true. It is well documented that wolves and other wold canids will eat twigs, grasses and other fiber sources. Why?





> When we start feeding dogs an artificial grain based cereal full of veggies and a minute amount of highly processed meat then some fiber may be necessary.


The foods we are discussing do not have "minut" quantities of animal protein in them.




> Some of the so called fiber put in dog food is actually a stool hardener to keep owners from seeing how inefficiently the dog is handling that food. Without this stool hardener, most dogs would go around with diarrhea constantly.


The above is also a common myth and absolutely not true.



> So to get back on subject, dogs fed naturally have small stools because almost all the food ingested is utilized by the body. Since no fiber is eaten, bulk in stools are not necessary. Dogs fed the super high end foods like EVO will have much smaller stools than dogs fed the grocery store garbage.


Bottom line the less fiber I dog ingests the less comes out. It has nothing to do with nutrient utilization. It is not "unused food" coming out the rectum, it is fiber. Various fibers absorb water in different ways which either increase or decrease their weight, bilk and size. Less fiber = less stool period. A "natural diet" made by a pet owner is low in fiber and therefore would produce a smaller, harder stool. These new high protein low carb foods also have lower fiber amounts and different sources that effect stool size and bulk.



> BTW: Stools do not remove dead cells or toxins. Stools are nothing more than undigested stuff that was ingested in the mouth. Kidneys remove dead cells, toxins and waste. Intestines are designed for nutrients to pass through the intestinal walls into the body. There is no method for stuff to pass from the body through the intestinal walls into the intestines.


This is absolutely incorrect. Fermentable fibers produce short chain fatty acids which very much are absorbed from it passing through into/through the intestine. Butyrate is one of the major ones and is the preferred colonocyte for the dog intestine for intestine health and structure. Of all the body organs the gut has the *least* amount of blood supply. It is also the center of the immune system and *HAS* to get what it needs from what passes through it and one of these things that is very important is short chain fatty acids (SCFAs.)

Dead intestinal cells, toxins and other undesirable items are taken out of the body via the stool and colon.

Cherri


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes but has mtDNA data been established as a suitable marker for dogs and wolves?
> 
> A good vet probably could right away, but any vet or laymen could if you gave them a whole jaw. The placement of the teeth in a wolf and a dog are vastly different and this can be explained by the niche they live in, so not a very good example here.
> 
> ...


Yes, mDNA models have been well extablished. You can check on the works of Dr. Robert Wayne. He has many research papers and books on the subject. They are easy enough to find on Google. There are others who have done research also but Wayne is considered the top guy and I can't remember the other's names right now. I have them filed away, I just don't have time to look.

Actually, my original statement was correct. There is no difference in placement. Actually a wolf tooth would be a little larger than an animal of the same size but I think my Dane's teeth would be larger than wolf teeth.

I stand my my statement about interbreeding. Niches have nothing to do with genetics. Genetics determine what a plant or animal is. You are grabbing at straws here.

I don't know what to say about your DNA statement. It is absolutely wrong. DNA proves that dog and wolves are the same species. Smithsonian Institute says that dogs and wolves are the same species. Perhaps you should take your DNA stuff to them.

I don't consider it an anecdote about my dogs. I did exactly what a scientific researcher would. I fed my dogs a diet and I observed the results. I know at least 11,000 others who have done the same with the same results. Better coats, clean teeth, no bad breath, no doggy odor, more energy, no dental problems, smaller stools, stools with no odor. There is absolutely NO and I mean NO scientific research saying ANY dog would be healthier on a highly processed cereal than on a raw diet. Why am I asked to prove raw feeding when it has been around for millions of years. Kibble is the new fad and no one asks them to prove anything. Why is that?

If a wolf or dog eats a squirrel, they will eat the whole thing including stomach and contents. However when a wolf or dog eats a deer or other large animal, he will take out the stomach, sissor it open with his teeth, shake out the contents, then eat the stomach. He will take out the intestines and lay them in a neat pile away from the carcass. This is well documented by Dr. L. David Mech, the most recognized researcher of wild wolves. He has authored MANY research papers and several books after 30 years studying wolves in the wild. I can verify his findings with my own dogs. All 4 dogs that I have fed whole rabbits to have done exactly the same thing with rabbit's stomach and intestines. I didn't teach this to any of them. They just knew what to do. Does this mean they are wolves? 

Evolution is continuing and I'm sure wild dogs in undeveloped countries are smart enough to eat what they have to to survive. It doesn't mean that they eat only what they want to eat or only what their bodies are designed to diges. They eat what they must in order to survive. I think we would eat some things we woudln't consider if it were necessary for survival. Wolves and dogs still have the same digestive system and nutritional needs they had 100,000 years ago.

I really wish someone would teach me how to do multiple quotes.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> There is no kibble that has a real high quality protein.


Oh [email protected]#$*





> As for the ingredients list, you have to look closely. For example, a meat may be the first thing on the list but the 2nd item can be something like white rice and the 3rd brown rice. That means the main ingredient is rice and not the meat that is at the top of the list.


This is yet again another myth. You cannot know how much animal protein is in a product unless you call the manufacturer and ask. I do not care if they have chicken meal listed first and then 7 grains. A variety of grains does *NOT* equal more grain by weight.




> Once a person understands the ingredients list he usually stops feeding kibble altogether.


Actually it is usually after people read a ton of myths and propaganda that people are left totally confused and do not know what the heck to feed their dog. This does no one a service at all. Repeating myths and misinformation does not make it factual, it is still wrong.

Cherri


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

fyzbo said:


> I accept the premise that raw fed is natural. I just don't understand the conclusion that natural is better.
> 
> Humans have been doing increasingly unnatural things to their diet. Started with cooking meat, then selectively growing plants, now we are at the point where their are daily vitamins in little capsules. Last I checked the human life span continues to increase. I don't think going back to our original diet and refusing to take vitamins would continue that trend.
> 
> ...


Well natural is better. Nature got it right when it desitned things. You talk about how humans have changed diets over the centuries but look at us now. Well over half of us are over weight. We have failing organs at young ages. Our overall health is not as good as it used to be. The average human spends a lot of time in a Doctors office in todays world. Yes, we are living longer and thats a great testiment to modern medicine, not because of diet. I think human longevity would increase much faster if it weren't for the processed foods we gorge ourselves with. I don't think you will find a nutritionist anywhere that would tell you that processed foods are better or more nutritious than fresh whole foods.

You are being fooled when you read the protein amounts on the dog food package. The protein in dog food is much higher in plant protein than animal protein. Plant protein is not nearly as high quality or bioavailable to dogs. If you have two packages of dog food and one had 21% protein and it was all plant protein, you would be better off with a package of 2% protein if it were all animal protein. Animal protein is rare in dog food. No way on the face of the earth will they tell you how much of each there is. That information os "proprietary".


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Raw meat, bones, and organs, on the other hand, is what your dog's body was designed to eat and digest. From the front teeth to the back end of the anus, your dog is designed to eat meat, bones, and organs. They cannot digest veggies, grains, or fruits. They can extract no nutrients from them. Their bodies are not designed to handle them.


Again, not true. When veggies and grains are processed dogs digest them *very* well and get tons of nutrition from them without problem.




> If you were having problems with your dogs on a prey model diet, I would look closely at what you were doing and see where you went wrong.


How come every time someone dogs' do poorly on a raw fed diet or someone has a complaint it is their fault?? Why is it that Chris did something wrong? I know Chris and know how seriously she takes her program and the nutrition of her animals which is why she tried the raw in the first place. She gave it a shot for TWO YEARS and it did not work for her dogs and actually DID cause harm to them......but to the purists, it's her fault. That is just ridicules. We all know not all diets are suited to all dogs but what is it about this that when ever a raw diet fails the failure was with the person preparing it and not the diet?? My bitch's breeder also stopped feeding raw after experiencing multiple problems.(Blackwood is doing fantastic for her BTW  )..the worst of which was lack of conception in her bitches..... my question is in these raw diets and prey model diets just exactly how much copper is recommended, provided and advised?

Cherri



RawFedDogs said:


> Hey Chloe'sMom,
> Apparently it is going to take you some time to learn how unhealthy your dogs really are.


Sigh...omg look SHE is there with her dogs, she says they are healthy and happy....naaa can't be right? Has to be wrong or it ruins the whole "Dog chow is horrible" argument. Oh yeah, the hidden illnesses waiting, ready to strike at any moment.......I have heard it all before and this is is horrible to put pet owners through this...it is WHY my website exists!




> The largest ingredient in the food you are feeding is corn. Nothing but a filler as it's completly indigestable. No nutrients are derived from corn.


Chris....I can;t take much more of this lol.... There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies that PROVE that corn in a processed state is HIGHLY digestible to dogs (in upwards of 95%) and contains many important, totally utilized nutrients..... this has to be the largest internet myth about pet food that exists. Here is my page on it http://www.eastgsd.com/kibblesense/html/corn__.html

Here is Linda Arndt's page on it 
http://www.greatdanelady.com/articles/the_corn_myth.htm

I suggest you update your information...




> The second product on the ingredients list is poultry by-product meal. That is nothing but poultry(who knows what poultry) heads, beaks, feet, feathers, and intestines. There is nothing else in poultry by-product meal and it's the second ingredient.


::::sigh::: Here is the AAFCO definition of what Poultry By Product meal IS:
*
Consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered poultry, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices*.






> So there you have the 1st two ingredients plus several other ingredients that are pretty much useless nutritionly.


Incorrect. They provide protein, energy, fiber, vitamins and minerals. The exact amounts of which can be researched at the USDA nutrient database.



> There is also A LOT and I mean A LOT of animal fat in Dog Chow. That will cause a shiney coat and tons of excess energy. There is not much nutrition in fat, just energy and grease but it will give the external appearance of good health.


Please tell me I do not have to go into a long spiel about the importance of lipids in the canine diet??



> Why do you think they put so much in it? If you stop and think about it and analyze exactly what is in Dog Chow you can see why it is so cheap and you can see that there is no way on the face of the earth that any animal can be healthy eating that stuff over a period of time


Maybe the thousands of dogs that are have not read your posts?



Cherri


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> Oh [email protected]#$*


Now that shows real intellengence. You offer no evidence that I am wrong. The high quality proteins go into human food. The garbage throwaway stuff goes to the dog food plants. It is all low quality protein. Thats why dog food is so cheap. You don't think they put filet mignons in dog food do you? 



> This is yet again another myth. You cannot know how much animal protein is in a product unless you call the manufacturer and ask. I do not care if they have chicken meal listed first and then 7 grains. A variety of grains does *NOT* equal more grain by weight.


Oh, please! You know better than that. Its almost not worth taking the time to answer. If you have 1 pound of white rice and mix it with 1 pound of brown rice, you get 2 pounds of rice. Follow me so far? Now if you had 3/4 lb of some kind of meat then if you list white rice and brown rice seperately, meat would go on top of the ingredients list, but there is still 2 pounds of rice so there is more rice than meat. There is no other reason for them to mix the two kinds of rice except to fool the gulible public. If not for fooling the public, they would just use the cheapest rice and not bother with the other. Wake up, Cherri.



> Actually it is usually after people read a ton of myths and propaganda that people are left totally confused and do not know what the heck to feed their dog. This does no one a service at all. Repeating myths and misinformation does not make it factual, it is still wrong.


Thats exactly right, and its the dog food companies with their highly paid marketing staff that makes all these false claims and the gulible public that buys them all. Dog food is throw away refuse from human food companies. It is cooked at a very high temperature for long periods of time until all the nutrients are cooked out. Why do you think they add all those nutrients back in? It's because they were cooked out in the rendering process, not because they care about the health of your dog. They spray used restaurant grease on the kibble after manufacturing process so the dogs will eat it. They put pretty pictures of healthy looking food on the package to make you think thats what's in the kibble. It is entirely not true. Kibble is madde from garbage that would be thrown away if not for the dog food companies buying it. Most of the dog food companies are owned by human food companies just for the reason of having a place to send their garbage.

Now, I challenge you to prove me wrong on that. Something better than "[email protected]*$*" would be required. I also will offer you another challenge. If you think that dog food is so good and nutritios, for one week, eat nothing but the dog food yourself. The ingredients fit a human diet better than they fit a carnivore diet so you should be ok. Will you take me up on that?  Didn't think so. I have challenged many kibble feeders to actually eat it themselves and none have taken me up on it yet. ONE did eat ONE kibble. Yes, I don't feed my dogs anything I wouldn't eat.

Oh, BTW: "minute" is the correct word according to dictionary.com. It means "little, meticulous, microscopic, minuscule". 

Talk to ya later.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hehe, Hey UB. I can see you will not give up.  By-pridycts are exactly what I said they were. USDA has a definition for what can and must be called by-products and what are not by-products. You can go to their website and see exactly what makes up by-products. Liver is not a by-product. By-products generally are not organ meats. They are heads, feathers, feet and intestines. By-products are nothing that a human would eat. Green tripe may or may not be a by-product ... I'm not sure.


It is not a USDA definition is is an AAFCO definition and the FDA has now accepted the definitions that the AAFCO has compiled. 





> I don't care what you do to corn, its not digestable by a dog.



You are quite incorrect and a visit to Pubmed would help with your lack of knowledge on this.




> It is put in dog food for one reason and one reason only. Because it's cheap.



Umm corn is no longer cheap, it has become quite expensive and pet food manufacturers are having trouble getting their supplies for their products. THIS is why they started importing what was supposed to be highly concentrated corn gluten meal due to a lack of the product in the states and crazy prices on it. The manufactuers were taken advantage of by the company in China that spikes the protein percentage withmelimine.....hence the dog food recall and all that mess.



> No grain is digestable by a dog either easily or otherwise.


Again, you are very incorrect. Look it up!!



> The protein in corn and other grains us useless to a carnivore.


Again...not... true... can we move on now?



> Actually I don't think you had much success with anything when you fed raw or cooked. If you had you would still be doing it.


How insulting.....is that how you deal with people that have different opinions than yourself?

Geeze

Cherri


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> Again, not true. When veggies and grains are processed dogs digest them *very* well and get tons of nutrition from them without problem.


I agree, however if these items must be processed, I guess it means they don't really need them nutritionally. Dogs/wolves have lasted for millions of years without processors. Are you saying that humans would be better off eating only highly processed foods or would they be better off on whole raw meat, fruits, and veggies? BTW: Grains are not healthy for either dogs or humans.



> How come every time someone dogs' do poorly on a raw fed diet or someone has a complaint it is their fault??


Thats easy. It's because dogs have been eating meat, bones, and organs for millions of years and thriving. They can and do thrive on it today. If you spend a lot of time trying to come up with some arbitrary "balance" or ratios or percentages or if you feed species inappropriate foods such as fruits, veggies, or grains, the problems are bound to occur.



> Why is it that Chris did something wrong? I know Chris and know how seriously she takes her program and the nutrition of her animals which is why she tried the raw in the first place. She gave it a shot for TWO YEARS and it did not work for her dogs and actually DID cause harm to them......but to the purists, it's her fault.


I don't know Chris but I wish I had known her back when she was raw feeding. I could have helped her make it work. I have helped over 100 dogs switch to raw and never had a problem with a single one of them. It is a very simple diet to feed. Sometimes people try to take something very simple and make it complicated then it gets screwed up. As they make adjustements often they just make it worse. Like I said, I don't know what Chris did but I do know I could have helped her and eliminated her problems. I've done it with many other dogs.



> That is just ridicules. We all know not all diets are suited to all dogs but what is it about this that when ever a raw diet fails the failure was with the person preparing it and not the diet??


The diet was designed by nature. The dog's body was designed by nature to eat and digest the diet. Nature got it right. It's when you fool with nature, that problems occur. The diet is so dang simple, it's really difficult to screw it up but many people can't understand that a dogs body, digestive system, and nutrieional needs are different than a humans and they try to impose a human raw diet on a dog.



> My bitch's breeder also stopped feeding raw after experiencing multiple problems.(Blackwood is doing fantastic for her BTW  )..the worst of which was lack of conception in her bitches..... my question is in these raw diets and prey model diets just exactly how much copper is recommended, provided and advised?


I can only answer for theprey model diet as that is what I feed and have fed for 6 years. My answer to your question is "exactly the right amount". If that weren't true, dogs and wolves would have gone extince long ago. Meat, bones and organs contain all the nutrients needed by any dog. I have not fed my dogs fruits, veggies, grains, or any supplements my entire 6 years of raw feeding. If there were a nutritional deficiency, I think it would be evident by now.



> Sigh...omg look SHE is there with her dogs, she says they are healthy and happy....naaa can't be right? Has to be wrong or it ruins the whole "Dog chow is horrible" argument. Oh yeah, the hidden illnesses waiting, ready to strike at any moment.......I have heard it all before and this is is horrible to put pet owners through this...it is WHY my website exists!


Look ate the ingredients list and you can see why its garbage and why a dog can't maintain health long term. Matter of fact, no dog can maintain health long term on any kibble. Scientific studies have proven that dogs fed a home made diet (including cooked and the whole spectrum of raw diet) will live an average of 32 months longer than a dog fed commercial food (both kibble and canned or mixture of the two).

Sometimes we don't want to hear the truth and try our best to deny it.




> There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies that PROVE that corn in a processed state is HIGHLY digestible to dogs (in upwards of 95%) and contains many important, totally utilized nutrients..... this has to be the largest internet myth about pet food that exists.


What you don't get is that if has to be processed, dogs don't need it. I would like to see some of those studies provided they are not done or financed by a dog food company.



> Here is my page on it http://www.eastgsd.com/kibblesense/html/corn__.html
> 
> Here is Linda Arndt's page on it
> http://www.greatdanelady.com/articles/the_corn_myth.htm


I will look at your page when I get some time. I have read Linda's page and I am very unimpressed with it.



> I suggest you update your information...


And I suggest you do the same.  



> ::::sigh::: Here is the AAFCO definition of what Poultry By Product meal IS:
> *
> Consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered poultry, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices*.


I have read their definition many times and nothing i said disagrees with it. It says poultry by product meal INCLUDES those items but doesn't say "contains nothing else". It includes any part of a poultry carcass that is not usable for anything else including head, eyeballs, brains, etc. It is the garbage part of the carcass. The remaining useless parts. In the poultry processing plant, as the bird goes down the production line, usuable things are removed. The parts that get to the end, are by products. There are garbage cans at each station along the line. Each worker throws parts of the bird he has pulled off and can't use into his garbage can. The contents of those garbage cans also become by product meal.



> Incorrect. They provide protein, energy, fiber, vitamins and minerals. The exact amounts of which can be researched at the USDA nutrient database.


That is a very misleading statement. The protein is almost exclusively plant protein which has a very low bioavailability for dogs. Energy is in carbs which dogs don't need and can't handle very well. Dogs don't need fiber. Vitamins and minerals may be present but there are better sources for them.



> Please tell me I do not have to go into a long spiel about the importance of lipids in the canine diet??


Fats are important. Dogs need fat to survive but not in the quanity in this kibble over long term. There is no muscle meat at all in this kibble.



> Maybe the thousands of dogs that are have not read your posts?


Don't let them. if they did, they would go on a hunger strike and rightly so.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Well, Sabine is a little inconsistent in her statements but thats not unusual. She always has been. First she states that dogs are not true carnivores but oportunistic feeders. Hehe, "oportunistic feeders" are just not a classification of animals.  Animals are either carnivores, omnivores, or herbavores. An animal is one of those and not a combination of two or more. Dogs are classified as carnivores by the Smithsonian Institute which is the authoritative body on classifications. There are not degrees of carnivore. An animal can't be a little bit carnivore or mostly carnivore. Either he is a carnivore or he is not. Dogs are. By definition, carnivores eat meat, bones and organs. They don't eat fruit, veggies, grains or any part of any plant.


University of Michigan Animal Diversity Project
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html

This was a very interesting study done on wild canid foods ingested
http://www.stevesrealfood.com/research/foodhabits.html

_"The intake of rabbits in the eastern region is twice that of other regions, while the deer intake is almost one-half, suggesting a proportional relationship. This type of relationship is also seen in the coastal region where coyotes appear to prey predominantly on the rodent population, resulting in a decreased intake of rabbits, sheep, and birds. Other examples of regional influence can be seen. *Stomachs of coyotes from Texas contain fruits of native plants*; poultry remnants are a common finding in stomachs of coyotes from such states as Arkansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, where broiler production is a prominent industry. *These findings suggest that the coyote is an opportunistic scavenger*."_



> Many charateristics of a dog point towards it being a carnivore. None point toward it being omnivore.


Simply observation debunks this statement.

Cherri


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> It is not a USDA definition is is an AAFCO definition and the FDA has now accepted the definitions that the AAFCO has compiled.


Yes, you are correct.



> You are quite incorrect and a visit to Pubmed would help with your lack of knowledge on this.


Why don't you just tell me where I'm wrong using your own words and logic.



> Umm corn is no longer cheap, it has become quite expensive and pet food manufacturers are having trouble getting their supplies for their products. THIS is why they started importing what was supposed to be highly concentrated corn gluten meal due to a lack of the product in the states and crazy prices on it. The manufactuers were taken advantage of by the company in China that spikes the protein percentage withmelimine.....hence the dog food recall and all that mess.


Yes, you are absolutely correct. Soon corn will be gone from dog food. I'm afraid you are also correct about corn gluten meal. It is the by product meal of the corn world. Even more worthless than whole corn.



> Again, you are very incorrect. Look it up!!
> 
> 
> 
> Again...not... true... can we move on now?


Awww come on Cherri. Give me something to work with. At least make an argument as to why you think I'm wrong. Show me some logic. You can do better than those two statements. It's like saying, "I know you're wrong. I don't know why your wrong or how you're wrong or what is wrong, I just know you must be wrong."



> How insulting.....is that how you deal with people that have different opinions than yourself?


Sometimes the truth hurts.



Kibblelady said:


> University of Michigan Animal Diversity Project
> http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html
> 
> This was a very interesting study done on wild canid foods ingested
> http://www.stevesrealfood.com/research/foodhabits.html


Yes, I read both of these. The first was not a study, rather a text that was compiled from 3 books. It is full of errors both in the behavior section and the diet section.

The second was a study and a pretty good one. However go to the section on wolves(the animals we are talking about) and it says that they will occasionally eat berries in season and I don't dispute that. They are sweet and have a good taste. They are also a very insignificent part of the diet. I liken it to humans eating cake, ice cream, etc. They don't derive or eat them for the nutrients.

We aen't concerned about coyotes in this discussion as dogs aren't coyotes, they are wolves. Related but not the same. However the study only says that coyotes with one exception eat berries and watermellons much the same as wolves. They are not a significent part of the diet.



> Simply observation debunks this statement.


AWwwww ... come on again cherri. Give me something to work with. Give me some physical charastics of a dog that are consistent with an omnivore.

I am going to go watch tv for a while. I think I have missed some posts and I want to answer them all. I remember one was very good and I want to go back and find it and answer it. Talk to ya later.


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Now that shows real intellengence. You offer no evidence that I am wrong. The high quality proteins go into human food. The garbage throwaway stuff goes to the dog food plants. It is all low quality protein. Thats why dog food is so cheap. You don't think they put filet mignons in dog food do you?



Of course not, a dog does not NEED filet mignon. I have provided much information, You refuse to read it, refuse to do the research because it does not fit into your agenda. And actually I am very intelligent that is why I do not buy into this [email protected]#$% posted by people like you on message boards.






> Oh, please! You know better than that. Its almost not worth taking the time to answer. If you have 1 pound of white rice and mix it with 1 pound of brown rice, you get 2 pounds of rice. Follow me so far? Now if you had 3/4 lb of some kind of meat then if you list white rice and brown rice seperately, meat would go on top of the ingredients list, but there is still 2 pounds of rice so there is more rice than meat.


LOL of course for your example you would chose a lower amount of animal protein. These manufacturers deal in TONS BTW. So, if they use 3 tons of animal protein 1/4 ton or brown rice, 1/4 ton of white rice, 1/4 ton of barley and 1/4 ton of corn.....guess what?? There is MORE animal protein in the food. NOT to mention there is by far much more protein in animal protein sources than in plant so the math people try and invent to make this myth function NEVER works.






> There is no other reason for them to mix the two kinds of rice except to fool the gulible public. If not for fooling the public, they would just use the cheapest rice and not bother with the other. Wake up, Cherri.


Please, I woke up 8 years ago honey....that is why I am arguing with you. White rice and brown rice of course have different benefits and using both is nothing more than a recipe. 
Can't you have a debate without putting people down as well? How dare you imply I "wake up?" You imply I am lacking in knowledge or ignorant and you are VERY wrong my dear.






> Thats exactly right, and its the dog food companies with their highly paid marketing staff that makes all these false claims and the gulible public that buys them all. Dog food is throw away refuse from human food companies. It is cooked at a very high temperature for long periods of time until all the nutrients are cooked out. Why do you think they add all those nutrients back in? It's because they were cooked out in the rendering process, not because they care about the health of your dog. They spray used restaurant grease on the kibble after manufacturing process so the dogs will eat it. They put pretty pictures of healthy looking food on the package to make you think thats what's in the kibble. It is entirely not true. Kibble is madde from garbage that would be thrown away if not for the dog food companies buying it. Most of the dog food companies are owned by human food companies just for the reason of having a place to send their garbage.



Boy you've gotten that paranoid internet disease bad.....I suggest reading ACTUAL chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and nutrition books...stay away from the API institute.....they are messing with your head.




> Now, I challenge you to prove me wrong on that.



On what? 



> If you think that dog food is so good and nutritios, for one week, eat nothing but the dog food yourself. The ingredients fit a human diet better than they fit a carnivore diet so you should be ok.


LOL You are a trip...I would be willing to do that but my current health status with a few issues will not permit that.




> Will you take me up on that?  Didn't think so. I have challenged many kibble feeders to actually eat it themselves and none have taken me up on it yet. ONE did eat ONE kibble. /quote]
> 
> Hey, now wait a minute. I have eaten handfuls of kibbles dear lol....so knock off your righteous attitude. I always taste all the foods I feed to my dogs....weird I guess but just something that makes me curious. Has very little to do with the actual nutritional components of the pet though doesn't it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

..Double post deleted see above


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, mDNA models have been well extablished. You can check on the works of Dr. Robert Wayne. He has many research papers and books on the subject. They are easy enough to find on Google. There are others who have done research also but Wayne is considered the top guy and I can't remember the other's names right now. I have them filed away, I just don't have time to look.


A Google search of "Dr. Robert Wayne" turned up nothing, so I call your Google fallacy. But I didn't ask if mtDNA was well established or if it is useful. I asked if it was a suitable marker, and the answer is it doesn't appear so. In fact many researchers believe mtDNA is poor at determining genealogical relationships and even worse as a clock. I don't suspect you'll take my word for it (I own a terrier), plus it doesn't help your propaganda, but if you should find a copy of Dr. Ray Coppinger's book _Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution _sitting in a cafe, read it_._ mtDNA data is discussed along with its inaccuracies.



> Actually, my original statement was correct. There is no difference in placement. Actually a wolf tooth would be a little larger than an animal of the same size but I think my Dane's teeth would be larger than wolf teeth.


Yes, pound for pound a wolf tooth is larger and so is the skull in general. The jaw is also wider, and the spacing between wolf teeth is more "gapier". That's my invented word for the day. Now what would be the significance of these differences? Think efficiency - hunting is extremely energy taxing, scavenging not so much. A smaller skull, smaller brain is more efficient than what the wolf is equipped with. Think transitioning food sources, and think a new niche for a species to evolve in - these are the selective pressures biologically isolating dogs from wolves. 



> I stand my my statement about interbreeding. Niches have nothing to do with genetics. Genetics determine what a plant or animal is. You are grabbing at straws here.


Nope, I think you're just dismissing it because that's the easier thing to do. Kibble people would call this ignorance. 



> I don't know what to say about your DNA statement. It is absolutely wrong. DNA proves that dog and wolves are the same species. Smithsonian Institute says that dogs and wolves are the same species. Perhaps you should take your DNA stuff to them.


The Smithsonian is an Institute (statement of the obvious), and I'm not fully aware of who's paying their bills (I'm lying). Certainly no lobbyist in Congress, right? There is a legal significance at calling wolf and dogs the same species, but that has nothing to do with their biology, nor was I aware the Smithsonian governed the scientific community. This is news to me, and frankly I'd rather be with the wrong researchers if this is true. 



> I don't consider it an anecdote about my dogs. I did exactly what a scientific researcher would. I fed my dogs a diet and I observed the results.


Two samples? Hardly scientific. 11,000 samples and no control? Even more unscientific. Why am I picturing Beeker from the Muppets? 



> Better coats, clean teeth, no bad breath, no doggy odor, more energy, no dental problems, smaller stools, stools with no odor.


These are your testing criteria?  Talk about subjective. 



> There is absolutely NO and I mean NO scientific research saying ANY dog would be healthier on a highly processed cereal than on a raw diet. Why am I asked to prove raw feeding when it has been around for millions of years. Kibble is the new fad and no one asks them to prove anything. Why is that?


Paranoia? I didn't make any statements in support of kibble. In fact I stated that I was happy your dogs were doing well on their diets. What you feed your dogs isn't my concern. I noticed that you were making "factual" statements about dogs being wolves. These aren't facts, these are hypotheses you're claiming as fact - a fallacy. 



> If a wolf or dog eats a squirrel, they will eat the whole thing including stomach and contents. However when a wolf or dog eats a deer or other large animal, he will take out the stomach, sissor it open with his teeth, shake out the contents, then eat the stomach. He will take out the intestines and lay them in a neat pile away from the carcass. This is well documented by Dr. L. David Mech, the most recognized researcher of wild wolves. He has authored MANY research papers and several books after 30 years studying wolves in the wild. I can verify his findings with my own dogs.


I'm a big fan of Dr. Mech. I don't know that he would explain this behavior from a let's-remove-the-nuts-and-berries-from-the-organs point of view. I'd understand him explaining this as part of the predatory sequence, as a fixed action pattern, or even as a behavior that elicits endorphine, but to remove nuts and berries, not so much. 



> All 4 dogs that I have fed whole rabbits to have done exactly the same thing with rabbit's stomach and intestines. I didn't teach this to any of them. They just knew what to do. Does this mean they are wolves?


Nope, it just means this part of the behavior sequence is intact. Not all dogs or dog breeds exhibit this behavior. It does however prove a relatedness, but nothing more. 



> Evolution is continuing...Wolves and dogs still have the same digestive system and nutritional needs they had 100,000 years ago.


To kibble people this is called an oxymoron. Or it's simply a statement that can't be disproved, so it must be true, right? 



> I really wish someone would teach me how to do multiple quotes.


At the beginning of a statement make sure the word "quote" is between these brackets "[ ]", and the phrase "/quote" is at the end between the same brackets.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Kibblelady said:


> Of course not, a dog does not NEED filet mignon. I have provided much information, You refuse to read it, refuse to do the research because it does not fit into your agenda. And actually I am very intelligent that is why I do not buy into this [email protected]#$% posted by people like you on message boards.


We have exchanged A LOT of posts tonight. I don't remember why I made the comment about filet. I think I was talking about he low quality meat or lack of meat in kibble but I can't remember for sure. You may be very intellengent but sometimes your answers don't show it. Some are very good and some just aren't there. You just won't admit that I'm right on some points and it is driving you batty so you come up with some of your off the wall answers that mean nothing. You haven't answered most of my questions because you can't without showing that I am correct.



> LOL of course for your example you would chose a lower amount of animal protein. These manufacturers deal in TONS BTW. So, if they use 3 tons of animal protein 1/4 ton or brown rice, 1/4 ton of white rice, 1/4 ton of barley and 1/4 ton of corn.....guess what?? There is MORE animal protein in the food. NOT to mention there is by far much more protein in animal protein sources than in plant so the math people try and invent to make this myth function NEVER works.


The way I illustrated it is exactly the way it works. They put very very little lmeat in kibble. They try to hide that by mixing grains. If you have some factual information that would prove me wrong, I'd like to see it.



> Can't you have a debate without putting people down as well? How dare you imply I "wake up?" You imply I am lacking in knowledge or ignorant and you are VERY wrong my dear.


I have put you down very little considering all the nonanswers you have given to my points. I could have done it many times. I appologize for the few times I did. Pot/kettle LOL



> Boy you've gotten that paranoid internet disease bad.....I suggest reading ACTUAL chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and nutrition books...stay away from the API institute.....they are messing with your head.[/quite]
> 
> You know, to be honest, I think I have spent a lot more time reading Linda's pages than API's. It does me no good to spend time reading what I already know.
> 
> ...


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Again, not true. When veggies and grains are processed dogs digest them *very* well and get tons of nutrition from them without problem.
> 
> 
> How come every time someone dogs' do poorly on a raw fed diet or someone has a complaint it is their fault?? Why is it that Chris did something wrong? I know Chris and know how seriously she takes her program and the nutrition of her animals which is why she tried the raw in the first place. She gave it a shot for TWO YEARS and it did not work for her dogs and actually DID cause harm to them......but to the purists, it's her fault. That is just ridicules. We all know not all diets are suited to all dogs but what is it about this that when ever a raw diet fails the failure was with the person preparing it and not the diet??




Ah, if only I'd admit it was all my fault! Of course I must have botched the diet because raw is natural & the only biologically appropriate way to feed a dog is to give it raw  I must have absolutely no knowledge of nutrition and what constitutes a properly balanced raw diet ... if only I'd listen to RawFedDogs the diet would have to work! Because he's going to suggest something that I have not tried. Well I fed raw from '01- late '04. Tried everything to make it work, and yes, I know what constitutes a prey model diet because I fed it for the last year the dogs were on raw. Even after I took them off raw, I tried it again for a few months in '06. I'm no expert but I have a decent knowledge of the nutritional requirements of dogs and a very high standard of what sort of condition I want my hounds in. 





> Chris....I can;t take much more of this lol.... There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies that PROVE that corn in a processed state is HIGHLY digestible to dogs (in upwards of 95%) and contains many important, totally utilized nutrients..... this has to be the largest internet myth about pet food that exists.



ROFL!!! I was thinking of you when I saw his critique on the corn ... I figured I'd let you cover that one, my head was spinning too badly


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Ah, if only I'd admit it was all my fault! Of course I must have botched the diet because raw is natural & the only biologically appropriate way to feed a dog is to give it raw  I must have absolutely no knowledge of nutrition and what constitutes a properly balanced raw diet


You know, I think we are on to something here. There are litterally 10s of thousands of people feeding prey model raw diet with little or no problem. I doubt 5% of them have any knowledge of nutrition or balance and they do ok. Perhaps it was your knowledge getting in the way. Trying to tweak the diet for nutrition and balance was your problem. If you feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals, balance is automatically taken care of. No one else has problems with balance. I'm not even sure there is a such thing as balance. It's a term created by nutritionists to give them a reason for being. If there were no balance there would be no need for nutritionists. 



> if only I'd listen to RawFedDogs the diet would have to work! Because he's going to suggest something that I have not tried.


Since you couldn't get it to work and I have put over 100 dogs on a prey model diet without a failure, I'd say you are probably right with that statement although I know you meant it scarcastically.



> Well I fed raw from '01- late '04. Tried everything to make it work, and yes, I know what constitutes a prey model diet because I fed it for the last year the dogs were on raw.


I'm guessing there is one thing you didn't try or it would have worked. I don't know why 10s of thousands of other people can do it and someone with the knowledge you have can't.



> I'm no expert but I have a decent knowledge of the nutritional requirements of dogs and a very high standard of what sort of condition I want my hounds in.


I strongly suspect that your vast knowledge got in the way and you tried to override some very important aspect. I don't have a clue what it might have been. I suspect it could have been in supplements or over feeding organs. Both are common problems.

If you want to try again, I will be glad to help you get through it and get your dogs settled in. 

Talk to you later


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> I don't know Chris but I wish I had known her back when she was raw feeding. I could have helped her make it work. I have helped over 100 dogs switch to raw and never had a problem with a single one of them. It is a very simple diet to feed. Sometimes people try to take something very simple and make it complicated then it gets screwed up. As they make adjustements often they just make it worse. Like I said, I don't know what Chris did but I do know I could have helped her and eliminated her problems. I've done it with many other dogs.
> 
> The diet was designed by nature. The dog's body was designed by nature to eat and digest the diet. Nature got it right. It's when you fool with nature, that problems occur. The diet is so dang simple, it's really difficult to screw it up but many people can't understand that a dogs body, digestive system, and nutrieional needs are different than a humans and they try to impose a human raw diet on a dog.




OOOOOHHHHH! You arrogant ... person 

Since you're such the expert on raw feeding, and seeing how the diet is just so simple, tell me, how would you propose I feed a dog with ideopathic epilepsy whose two triggers are food and stress. It takes literally one single chicken heart to trigger a 10 minute grand mal, but it's got to be a good load of stress before he has a seizure. Here's what I *cannot * feed him. Pork in any way, shape or form - raw, cooked or the 25th ingredient on a bag of treats. Offal. He can tolerate chicken gizzards in small quantities, but beef liver, kidney, hearts are all surefire triggers. Beef, either organs or muscle meat. Lamb is "iffy". It usually triggers a seizure, but occasionally will not. Raw fish - NO WAY. Cooked fish he does so so with. Chicken is just about the only raw food he can tolerate, and even then, if I feed too much raw chicken he'll sometimes have a seizure. On a homecooked diet he does reasonably well on, but still has more seizures than normal on it. His average when on raw was one grand mal every two weeks. On homecooked he might seize once or twice every 6-8 weeks. On a kibble that agrees with him, he's gone as long as 7 months without a seizure. That's significant. 

A few of the hounds had concentration problems and were late starters in the field. They did not have good energy levels on a diet of meat, organs and bone. I had problems with weight maintenance and a reddish cast to the coat. That, I lerned by trial and error was an imbalance in the Omega 3:6 fatty acid ratio, and also seemed to be related to zinc deficiency. So upped the fatty red meats, trimmed a good chunk of the fat off chicken, and gave everyone 1000+ mg of fish oil daily. See, that's the type of thing I did when feeding raw - I didn't just throw up my hands and say this didn't work, oh well. Now, this tweaking of the fatty acid ratio helped greatly, but it was still a constant struggle to keep the coat looking in top condition. We had runny eyes and ear infections ... try showing a dog with runny, mucousy eyes. I was forever buying terramycin! My Shepherd mix ... Lord, his coat was a stinking mess on raw. Would you like to see pics of him on raw vs. Dog Chow? 

I did quit raw feeding before my breeding program came into full swing, but as I mentioned earlier when I did go back to it in '06, I had two bitches who'd previously freewhelped have a difficult, painful labor. This is not something that was exclusive to my dogs, I'd heard it from others, and I also heard of breeders reporting an increase in a rare problem called mummified pups. It was eerie how many people I knew doing raw were having bitches deliver dead, blackened pups or the true stiff mummified pups. Still born pups are common, the latter conditions are not. Because mummified pups usually means a viable puppy died in utero early on and was not reabsorbed. 

Let me know how you would have solved these problems. I'm sure all us idiots who feed Purina (wherein our bitches have such uneventful labors the pups slide out like stools) and can't seem get a raw diet right. 

Ugh. Look. I don't care what nature designed, my dogs are not wild and never will be. Nature would have dictated that my epileptic Beagle would have been dead long ago. It's been thousands of years since dogs have been domesticated, and they were not fed raw meat by humans, they ate cooked leftover meat scrapes, cooked bones and grains - lots of 'em. You want to talk about natural? Snake venom is natural, too.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs, just for kicks, I'd like you to see what my Shepherd mutt looked like about 10 days after we took the dogs off raw - this was a vast improvement. Note that the problem was not just a shoddy coat (which was riddled w/ hot spots, raw red feet & bald spots on the face) but there was also an odd, sunken "old man experssion to his face. He was 3yrs old in the first pics, and 7yrs in the second & most recent pic. He was eating Dog Chow, and coat was not even indicative of how it usually was, b/c he was blowing coat. 

BTW, I WAS feeding variety, and lots of meaty RMBs, muscle meats. Chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, whiting fish, beef kidney, liver, chicken hearts, gizzards. Eggs, fish oil ...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> OOOOOHHHHH! You arrogant ... person


Instead of arrogant, let's say confident. 



> Since you're such the expert on raw feeding, and seeing how the diet is just so simple, tell me, how would you propose I feed a dog with ideopathic epilepsy whose two triggers are food and stress.


I don't know anything about epileptic dogs and have no experience with them so I won't try to comment on them. 



> A few of the hounds had concentration problems and were late starters in the field. They did not have good energy levels on a diet of meat, organs and bone.


I don't understand what you mean by "late starters". Does that mean they were older before the started field work or they moved slower or what? Often dogs crazy with energy will calm down when you take the sugars out of the diet. Lethargic dogs will become more energetic. When dogs are no longer pumped up on sugar, their energy will come down.



> I had problems with weight maintenance and a reddish cast to the coat.


Weight is the easiest thing to manage. If they get heavy, feed less. Skinny? feed more. How difficult is that? I have heard of some dogs getting a reddish tint to their coat on raw bur right now I can't remember what was done to eliminate that problem. I will have to research my notes. It's not common. I have heard of it maybe 2 or 3 times out of hundreds and hundreds of dogs.



> That, I lerned by trial and error was an imbalance in the Omega 3:6 fatty acid ratio, and also seemed to be related to zinc deficiency.


There CAN be a O3 deficiency problem in the prey model diet. It's easily taken care of by feeding fish oil or just feeding some food high in O3's. I use salmon for that. The ideal solution would be to feed only grass fed meats or wild meats such as venison but thats just not often practical. There is no zinc deficiency if you feed a decent variety.



> So upped the fatty red meats, trimmed a good chunk of the fat off chicken, and gave everyone 1000+ mg of fish oil daily.


I think you were overthinking at that point. That CAN cause problems.



> See, that's the type of thing I did when feeding raw - I didn't just throw up my hands and say this didn't work, oh well. Now, this tweaking of the fatty acid ratio helped greatly, but it was still a constant struggle to keep the coat looking in top condition.


It's been my experience and that of many people I know that beginning raw feeding cures those problems, not causes them. Fat usually helps coat but you were reducing fat.



> We had runny eyes and ear infections ... try showing a dog with runny, mucousy eyes.


This is another one of those cases where all the dogs I have been associated with had those problems disappear on raw, not appear. I can't tell you how many people have told me how ear and eye and skin and coat problems went away with the raw diet.

Lord, his coat was a stinking mess on raw. Would you like to see pics of him on raw vs. Dog Chow?

Again, thats the opposite of all my experience. My Abby hasn't had a bath in over 4 years. She is an indoor dog and sleeps on the floor beside me every night. She lays on the couch with me eery day. She has no doggy odor or bad breath at all. My 3yo Thor has never had a bath in his life. No odor from him either. I have had many other people report the same results.



> I did quit raw feeding before my breeding program came into full swing,


Again, breeding is not my thing. I am uneducated on it. I do know a good many breeders who feed raw and some have several generations of raw fed dogs. None of them mention any problem with their breeding programs.



> Let me know how you would have solved these problems. I'm sure all us idiots who feed Purina (wherein our bitches have such uneventful labors the pups slide out like stools) and can't seem get a raw diet right.





> Ugh. Look. I don't care what nature designed, my dogs are not wild and never will be.


Doesn't matter how wild they are. They have the bodies of wild wolves and the same nutritional needs. They are carnivores and are not designed to eat plant material. No matter what you feed you can't change that.



> Nature would have dictated that my epileptic Beagle would have been dead long ago.


Thats absolutely correct.



> It's been thousands of years since dogs have been domesticated, and they were not fed raw meat by humans, they ate cooked leftover meat scrapes, cooked bones and grains - lots of 'em.


You don't know that. They may well have only eaten the carcasses of animals killed by the humans after the humans removed all the parts they wanted. There is no reason to believe they were fed veggies or grains or cooked food. We can all fantasize in our minds what it was like back then but none of us will be able to prove our version. The point is you don't know what they ate when first domesticated. We don't know what they ate 500 years ago.



> You want to talk about natural? Snake venom is natural, too.[/QUOTE
> 
> Plants are natural, just not natural dog food.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kibblelady (May 6, 2008)

Chris, he has never heard of Christie Keith.........

I a just so done.... lol Complete waste of my time.

Cherri


----------



## workingdog (Oct 19, 2006)

This dog food thing is making my head spin. BUT! one would think that you would want to feed a dog food with more meats than fillers. I think we can all agree to that.(or can we


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Well natural is better. Nature got it right when it desitned things. You talk about how humans have changed diets over the centuries but look at us now. Well over half of us are over weight. We have failing organs at young ages. Our overall health is not as good as it used to be. The average human spends a lot of time in a Doctors office in todays world. Yes, we are living longer and thats a great testiment to modern medicine, not because of diet. I think human longevity would increase much faster if it weren't for the processed foods we gorge ourselves with. I don't think you will find a nutritionist anywhere that would tell you that processed foods are better or more nutritious than fresh whole foods.
> 
> You are being fooled when you read the protein amounts on the dog food package. The protein in dog food is much higher in plant protein than animal protein. Plant protein is not nearly as high quality or bioavailable to dogs. If you have two packages of dog food and one had 21% protein and it was all plant protein, you would be better off with a package of 2% protein if it were all animal protein. Animal protein is rare in dog food. No way on the face of the earth will they tell you how much of each there is. That information os "proprietary".



Well.. you just lost all credibility with me. I don't know that much about dog diets, but I know that anyone who refuses to acknowledge that vitamins and cooked meats/vegetables improves the health of a human must have their head where the sun don't shine. I think your passion is great, but it seems you don't have an open mind and have this attitude that you are right and everyone else must be wrong.

I just have to ask, do you eat a raw diet yourself? Natural is better, so I must assume that you eat only raw meat, veggies, fruits and plants. How does that work out for you?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

fyzbo said:


> Well.. you just lost all credibility with me. I don't know that much about dog diets, but I know that anyone who refuses to acknowledge that vitamins and cooked meats/vegetables improves the health of a human must have their head where the sun don't shine. I think your passion is great, but it seems you don't have an open mind and have this attitude that you are right and everyone else must be wrong.
> 
> I just have to ask, do you eat a raw diet yourself? Natural is better, so I must assume that you eat only raw meat, veggies, fruits and plants. How does that work out for you?


I don't know where you got the cooked food thing. I didn't mention cooked food at all. I talked about processed foods. Complete whole foods are what we should eat. Any nutritionist will tell you that. They will tell you to stay away from the fast food places and avoid junk food.

In the case of what to feed your dogs, I am right, but I am not the only one. There are tens of thousands of people who know I'm right and agree with me. I'm not alone in being right. Feeding a carnivore a grain based diet of highly processed cereal is no way correct, right, nor healthy. Carnivores eat meat, bones, and organs. Nothing else. Would you feed meat to a cow or horse? Of course not. If they did eat it, they couldn't digest it. So why feed plants to a carnivore. It's the same thing. On this issue I am absolutely correct, proven over millions of years of evolution. People often try to feed their dogs the same diet humans eat (kibble is patterned after human diets) and they don't understand that a dogs body and digestive system just works differently than ours. They don't eat the same food we do.

No I don't eat raw meats and veggies but I eat them very lightly cooked. I'm sure it would be healthier to to eat them raw but I don't. Cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. Cooked food is less nutritious than raw food. Again, thats not a big secret. Most everyone knows that.

Any animal, I don't care what it is whether it's human, dog, cat, elephant, lion, whatever ... will get all the nutrients it needs by eating the diet it was designed to eat. No vitamins are necessary. Do humans need vitamins? In todays world, of course ... we make terrible diatary choices. If we ate the way nature intended, no we wouldn't. Do dogs need vitamins ... if they are fed junk food, then yes they do. If they are fed the diet they were intended to then no. You see, once an animal has ingested all the vitamins it's body needs for proper operation, giving more accomplishes nothing. It's the law of diminishing returns.


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

I have a few clients that feed their dogs a raw diet and honestly I don't think they look better than those dogs that are fed kibble. (Unless, we're talking Beneful, sorry, but every dog I've had my hands on that eats this food "looks" to me to be extremely unhealthy.)

One client with two dogs has been coming to me once a month for years. I have seen a transformation in her dogs for the worse. She used to feed Pedigree, I don't really care for Pedigree, either, but her dogs looked good. Then I noticed their coats were getting softer and they seemed to have more energy. I found out that she started feeding 1/2 of their diet a store bought prepared raw. Oma's Pride, to be exact. She still fed them 1/2 of their diet Pedigree dry food. I told her how wonderful her dogs looked and she was proud of that!

Another few months go by and I'm noticiing the dogs are looking rather bad. First off, they have gained considerable weight. They are very overweight, she is overfeeding them. They have runny eyes, the lighter colored dog (a buff cocker now has tear stains, which she never had before). The cocker sometimes needs to go outside (and quick!) and has a large mucousy, foul smelling stool. And to top it off, her coat is growing in sparse and patchy. I've seen dogs have a coat like hers and sometimes they have a Thyroid problem. I suggested a Thyroid test be done on the cocker, just to be sure. 

I asked her what the dogs were eating now, and she said they have refused to eat the prepared raw and so she bought a meat grinder and she is making up her own raw diet for them. At this point she has eliminated all kibble for several months.

I appreciate her enthusiasm, but I just can't understand how she doesn't see that her dogs don't look so good anymore? They are coming in next week, so the saga continues!

btw...I have another client that has a 12 year old standard poodle and a 7 year old aussie. The aussie breeder swears by Dog Chow, they say that their dogs live to be 16 to 18 years old and they have a lot of dogs! So, this client feeds Dog Chow and his dogs look awesome. The poodle looks better for his age than many of the others that are of similar age and eat a more premium diet (kibble, also).


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

..Is raw better than kibble...kibble better than raw...every dog is different and is going to thrive on a different type of food. All the research in the world is not going to change that fact! I myself would never feed raw...I would not feel confident that I could prepare the food correctly and provide the right ratio of fat/protein etc...

My dogs eat dog chow....am I going to say its the best food for everyone's dog..NO..It's the best food for my dogs, based on several different food trials. 


Just my 2 cents!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Chloe'sMom said:


> ..Is raw better than kibble...kibble better than raw...every dog is different and is going to thrive on a different type of food. All the research in the world is not going to change that fact!


Every dog IS a carnivore. Every dog's body has the teeth, mouth, esophagus, stomach, enzymes, intestines, and anus to chew, digest, and eliminate meat, bones, and organs. NO dog has the teeth, enzymes, nor intestines to digest plant material. If they needed those foods, their bodies would be able to handle them. Nothing is going to change those facts.



> I myself would never feed raw...I would not feel confident that I could prepare the food correctly and provide the right ratio of fat/protein etc...


There are 10s of thousands of people no where nearly as smart as you who successfully feed their dogs a raw diet and have for years. I don't know where your lack of confidence comes from. I don't know if you have children but if you do, I'm sure you are capable of feeding them without the help of some processed food company doing it for you. If you can feed your family a healthy diet, you can feed a dog healthily also. A dogs body is much more resilient and forgiving of a bad diet than a humans. Exact ratios of ingredients are just not needed in a prey model raw diet. Feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals and everything is automatically balanced by nature. Whatever fat/protein ratio is in a prey animal, its the correct amount. The bone/meat ratio is the correct amount. The organs are the correct amount. Nature got it right. If those were not in balance, wolves would have become extinct thousands of years ago and dogs would never have existed.



> My dogs eat dog chow....am I going to say its the best food for everyone's dog..NO..It's the best food for my dogs, based on several different food trials.


I say you set the standards for your dog's diet way too low.


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

Why do dog's eat grass?


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

Okay RawFedDogs...you are right.. Your way is the ONLY way to feed dogs. The millions of other people out there that feed kibble are completely wrong and horrible people who should not own dogs. For that matter how dare shelters take in strays and unwanted animals only to feed them kibble. What are they thinking!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

fyzbo said:


> Why do dog's eat grass?


No one knows for sure. Some say it's because they have an upset stomach and it either helps sooth the stomach or it causes them to throw up. I think that is often the case. Others say its because the like the taste and I can't argue with that either. That may also be the reason.

Whatever the reason they are not eating it for the nutritional value. When dogs eat grass, it always comes out one end or the other. Usually it's vomitted back up but sometimes it comes out the other end.

When it comes out the back end, it is always woven into a neat little rope. Wonder how they do that? 

Whichever end it comes out, it always looks the same as it looked going in so no nutrients were extracted.



Chloe'sMom said:


> Okay RawFedDogs...you are right.. Your way is the ONLY way to feed dogs. The millions of other people out there that feed kibble are completely wrong and horrible people who should not own dogs. For that matter how dare shelters take in strays and unwanted animals only to feed them kibble. What are they thinking!


Yes, you are absoultely correct. I am glad you are finally recognizing that. See? We are making progress.  In a few weeks you will be a prey model raw feeder.


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> There are 10s of thousands of people no where nearly as smart as you who successfully feed their dogs a raw diet and have for years.


Although tens of thousands feed their pets a raw food diet, there are *MILLIONS* more people who do not and I number myself among that majority. NOW, are there any other subjects you have an opinion on or are interested in discussing? Personally, I believe this particular bone of contention has been gnawed clean and in my opinion is becoming rather boring. Repetition has a tendency to produce that result. Moving on………


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Patt said:


> Although tens of thousands feed their pets a raw food diet, there are *MILLIONS* more people who do not and I number myself among that majority.


So you are among the millions who have been taken in by highly paid marketing people at the dog food companies.  There are also millions that are taken in by used care salesmen. I don't see what this has to do with anything.



> NOW, are there any other subjects you have an opinion on or are interested in discussing? Personally, I believe this particular bone of contention has been gnawed clean and in my opinion is becoming rather boring. Repetition has a tendency to produce that result. Moving on…


There are many subjects I have an opinion on but this is the one I choose to talk about right now. If I were you, rather than jump on someone expressing their thoughts, I would jump on that person who is forcing you to read this stuff.

Adios


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

Hey Cherri,

What is your website? I'd like to check it out. Thanks!


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

Chloe'sMom said:


> Hey Cherri,
> 
> What is your website? I'd like to check it out. Thanks!


http://www.eastgsd.com/kibblesense/index.html


----------



## Chloe'sMom (Mar 21, 2008)

Thanks Pat!


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> I don't understand what you mean by "late starters". Does that mean they were older before the started field work or they moved slower or what? Often dogs crazy with energy will calm down when you take the sugars out of the diet. Lethargic dogs will become more energetic. When dogs are no longer pumped up on sugar, their energy will come down.



It refers to when a hound is considered to be ready for real hunting. A Beagle pup is started in the field when he can circle his own hare/rabbit. What this means is that the pup have the nose down in a true scent chase, stop on at least one check (the check is where the hound will eventually loose the scent - here is where we see the pack stop to puzzle it out - the check is where we see the true natural ability of the breed) and usually ends with the pup being called off the bunny or it going to ground. It's only later on we want the hound to either bring it to the gun or dispatch of it himself. Wherein that opens an enitre new can of worms regarding natural raw diets, becuase any hunter worth our salt knows to tie the hound before it gets the rabbit guts b/c that will infest them with tapes. 
Anyhow, as you can imagine, the checkwork is taxing on a hound, it takes quite a bit of brain power. Beagles are relatively slow, a good pack can be followed on foot even when at the faster range of foot speed. 
My bloodline "starts" around 4-6 months, but I've had pups as young as 7 weeks start when given the opportunity. They are all introduced to live bunnies around 6 weeks and all show interest. I was having pups that you could plainly see could not cope with the rigors of the check work. Intelligent, well bred hounds that just gave up half way through the check. And eventually lost interest  These same pups "re started" around 9 months when I went back to kibble. It wasn't a physical energy factor. Theri energy level was fine on raw. And on kibble, they didn't go off on some sort of doggie sugar rush with all this renewed energy. But they were able to maintain weight better and just had more focus and ENDURANCE in the field, and started soon afterwards. I have never had that problem again to this day, and I am still in the same bloodline. I don't want my dogs to be hyper or hi energy. Beagles shouldn't be that way. They should be energetic yet calm and focused, paced & methodical, in the field & in the home. 





> Weight is the easiest thing to manage. If they get heavy, feed less. Skinny? feed more. How difficult is that? I have heard of some dogs getting a reddish tint to their coat on raw bur right now I can't remember what was done to eliminate that problem. I will have to research my notes. It's not common. I have heard of it maybe 2 or 3 times out of hundreds and hundreds of dogs.



You know, you're rude and insulting. You speak to breeders with many years experience in their breed and dogs in general as if they're infants because they do not agree with you. Do you honestly think I do not know enough to increase the feed of an animal who is a hard keeper? Come now. Not only do I increase the feed, but for stubborn problems a dose of panacur or praziquantel is given along with it to cover all bases. My dogs are not couch potatoes and really tend to burn off their food. Besides, increasing feed will not do a bit of good if there is an underlying imbalance at play. First, one would need to determine the exact nature of the imbalance and take steps to correct it. On a home made diet, cooked or raw, that sometimes calls for vitamin/mineral supplementation, which I can assure you, my hounds were given if I noted weight loss. It's not as easy as upping the food because you may simply be giving more of what is causign the imbalance in the first place. 
In regards to the reddish tint, ALL my blanket back black dogs took on that tint. My Beagles and my GSD. The Shepherd mix is all black - he didn't get the reddish cast so much as he came into a very dull coat a while after starting raw. Oh, it improved at first, but we did not note long term results with raw. 
I show and hunt my hounds, and believe me, I have seen raw fed dogs in the show ring. Some do look good, or just ok, meaning coats are just not remarkable in any way. Their owners have to use just as many coat tonics as do the ones who feed something such as Pro Plan. Overall, even when caots were in good condition, I have not been impressed by the coats of the raw fed dogs vs that of the ones fed a good kibble in the ring. 




> There CAN be a O3 deficiency problem in the prey model diet. It's easily taken care of by feeding fish oil or just feeding some food high in O3's. I use salmon for that. The ideal solution would be to feed only grass fed meats or wild meats such as venison but thats just not often practical. There is no zinc deficiency if you feed a decent variety.



Yup. Exactly why I started with the fish oil, cut back on chicken in general but mainly on the consumption of chicken skin, which is quite high in Omega 6. My dogs had plenty of sources of Omega 3 in a week, and probably ate more red meat/muscle meat than most dogs on raw. 




> It's been my experience and that of many people I know that beginning raw feeding cures those problems, not causes them. Fat usually helps coat but you were reducing fat.



No. Decreasing fats high in Omega 6 was the only solution that helped any. I'd tried giving more fats in general. Didn't work. 



> Lord, his coat was a stinking mess on raw. Would you like to see pics of him on raw vs. Dog Chow?
> 
> Again, thats the opposite of all my experience. My Abby hasn't had a bath in over 4 years. She is an indoor dog and sleeps on the floor beside me every night. She lays on the couch with me eery day. She has no doggy odor or bad breath at all. My 3yo Thor has never had a bath in his life. No odor from him either. I have had many other people report the same results.



Try taking your house pet out in 10 degree weather and drag her back in the car by her tail when she refuses to go inside even tho she's caked from head to toe in muck or has icicles hanging from her nether regions  Then tell me she doesn't need a bath. Obviously, she doesn't because she doesn't have much opportunity to get good and dirty! My hounds have no body odor, only the oldest (8yrs - today! lol) has frito feet. They pretty much need to be bathed often if I want to be able to take them into city limits, lol! 
I don't know, maybe I'm just an outdoorsy person, but all that laying on the couch your dog does may be why she does so well on raw. She just has lower nutrient requirements than active, breeding animals that spend an average of 4-6 hrs outside, weather permitting, and are run 3 days a week in the winter (when they need more calories anyway), usually at 3-4 hr intervals each time out. 




> I have never until now heard of it working backwards like this. I have been very active in the raw feeding community for 6 years, talked to hundreds if not thousands of people and never heard of this. Did you have ANY dogs that did well on the raw diet?



Maybe you've been dealing with too many sedentary housepets, or maybe raw feeders just never come out with their problems and ::GASP:: have the audacity to blame it on the diet! Case in point was that we were supposed to get a year old bitch from a dual purpose Beagle breeder that fed raw for years and swore by it. She'd told me that she recently took the dogs off raw due to time and cost. Well, the dog world is small indeed and it turns out a few other breeders who know her informed me she was having problems with her dogs. Including weight loss, inability to concieve or small unthrifty litters. But she wouldn't admit the diet was harming the dogs, maybe b/c she'd have to admit how wrong she had been.
BTW, yes I did have a few who did fine with raw. They were younger pet dogs and not my breeding stock.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> I don't understand what you mean by "late starters". Does that mean they were older before the started field work or they moved slower or what? Often dogs crazy with energy will calm down when you take the sugars out of the diet. Lethargic dogs will become more energetic. When dogs are no longer pumped up on sugar, their energy will come down


 It refers to when a hound is considered to be ready for real hunting. A Beagle pup is started in the field when he can circle his own hare/rabbit. What this means is that the pup have the nose down in a true scent chase, stop on at least one check (the check is where the hound will eventually loose the scent - here is where we see the pack stop to puzzle it out - the check is where we see the true natural ability of the breed) and usually ends with the pup being called off the bunny or it going to ground. It's only later on we want the hound to either bring it to the gun or dispatch of it himself. Wherein that opens an enitre new can of worms regarding natural raw diets, becuase any hunter worth our salt knows to tie the hound before it gets the rabbit guts b/c that will infest them with tapes. 
Anyhow, as you can imagine, the checkwork is taxing on a hound, it takes quite a bit of brain power. Beagles are relatively slow, a good pack can be followed on foot even when at the faster range of foot speed. 
My bloodline "starts" around 4-6 months, but I've had pups as young as 7 weeks start when given the opportunity. They are all introduced to live bunnies around 6 weeks and all show interest. I was having pups that you could plainly see could not cope with the rigors of the check work. Intelligent, well bred hounds that just gave up half way through the check. And eventually lost interest  These same pups "re started" around 9 months when I went back to kibble. It wasn't a physical energy factor. Theri energy level was fine on raw. And on kibble, they didn't go off on some sort of doggie sugar rush with all this renewed energy. But they were able to maintain weight better and just had more focus and ENDURANCE in the field, and started soon afterwards. I have never had that problem again to this day, and I am still in the same bloodline. I don't want my dogs to be hyper or hi energy. Beagles shouldn't be that way. They should be energetic yet calm and focused, paced & methodical, in the field & in the home. 





> Weight is the easiest thing to manage. If they get heavy, feed less. Skinny? feed more. How difficult is that? I have heard of some dogs getting a reddish tint to their coat on raw bur right now I can't remember what was done to eliminate that problem. I will have to research my notes. It's not common. I have heard of it maybe 2 or 3 times out of hundreds and hundreds of dogs.



You know, you're rude and insulting. You speak to breeders with many years experience in their breed and dogs in general as if they're infants because they do not agree with you. Do you honestly think I do not know enough to increase the feed of an animal who is a hard keeper? Come now. Not only do I increase the feed, but for stubborn problems a dose of panacur or praziquantel is given along with it to cover all bases. My dogs are not couch potatoes and really tend to burn off their food. Besides, increasing feed will not do a bit of good if there is an underlying imbalance at play. First, one would need to determine the exact nature of the imbalance and take steps to correct it. On a home made diet, cooked or raw, that sometimes calls for vitamin/mineral supplementation, which I can assure you, my hounds were given if I noted weight loss. It's not as easy as upping the food because you may simply be giving more of what is causign the imbalance in the first place. 
In regards to the reddish tint, ALL my blanket back black dogs took on that tint. My Beagles and my GSD. The Shepherd mix is all black - he didn't get the reddish cast so much as he came into a very dull coat a while after starting raw. Oh, it improved at first, but we did not note long term results with raw. 
I show and hunt my hounds, and believe me, I have seen raw fed dogs in the show ring. Some do look good, or just ok, meaning coats are just not remarkable in any way. Their owners have to use just as many coat tonics as do the ones who feed something such as Pro Plan. Overall, even when caots were in good condition, I have not been impressed by the coats of the raw fed dogs vs that of the ones fed a good kibble in the ring. 




> There CAN be a O3 deficiency problem in the prey model diet. It's easily taken care of by feeding fish oil or just feeding some food high in O3's. I use salmon for that. The ideal solution would be to feed only grass fed meats or wild meats such as venison but thats just not often practical. There is no zinc deficiency if you feed a decent variety.



Yup. Exactly why I started with the fish oil, cut back on chicken in general but mainly on the consumption of chicken skin, which is quite high in Omega 6. My dogs had plenty of sources of Omega 3 in a week, and probably ate more red meat/muscle meat than most dogs on raw. 




> It's been my experience and that of many people I know that beginning raw feeding cures those problems, not causes them. Fat usually helps coat but you were reducing fat.



No. Decreasing fats high in Omega 6 was the only solution that helped any. I'd tried giving more fats in general. Didn't work. 



> Lord, his coat was a stinking mess on raw. Would you like to see pics of him on raw vs. Dog Chow?
> 
> Again, thats the opposite of all my experience. My Abby hasn't had a bath in over 4 years. She is an indoor dog and sleeps on the floor beside me every night. She lays on the couch with me eery day. She has no doggy odor or bad breath at all. My 3yo Thor has never had a bath in his life. No odor from him either. I have had many other people report the same results.



Try taking your house pet out in 10 degree weather and drag her back in the car by her tail when she refuses to go inside even tho she's caked from head to toe in muck or has icicles hanging from her nether regions  Then tell me she doesn't need a bath. Obviously, she doesn't because she doesn't have much opportunity to get good and dirty! My hounds have no body odor, only the oldest (8yrs - today! lol) has frito feet. They pretty much need to be bathed often if I want to be able to take them into city limits, lol! 
I don't know, maybe I'm just an outdoorsy person, but all that laying on the couch your dog does may be why she does so well on raw. She just has lower nutrient requirements than active, breeding animals that spend an average of 4-6 hrs outside, weather permitting, and are run 3 days a week in the winter (when they need more calories anyway), usually at 3-4 hr intervals each time out. 




> I have never until now heard of it working backwards like this. I have been very active in the raw feeding community for 6 years, talked to hundreds if not thousands of people and never heard of this. Did you have ANY dogs that did well on the raw diet?



Maybe you've been dealing with too many sedentary housepets, or maybe raw feeders just never come out with their problems and ::GASP:: have the audacity to blame it on the diet! Case in point was that we were supposed to get a year old bitch from a dual purpose Beagle breeder that fed raw for years and swore by it. She'd told me that she recently took the dogs off raw due to time and cost. Well, the dog world is small indeed and it turns out a few other breeders who know her informed me she was having problems with her dogs. Including weight loss, inability to concieve or small unthrifty litters. But she wouldn't admit the diet was harming the dogs, maybe b/c she'd have to admit how wrong she had been.
BTW, yes I did have a few who did fine with raw. They were younger pet dogs and not my breeding stock. They do just as well on Dawg Chow.



Kibblelady said:


> Chris, he has never heard of Christie Keith.........
> 
> I a just so done.... lol Complete waste of my time.
> 
> Cherri



OMG ... I can remember having a nice, long, very thought provoking talk with Christie many years back, when the BARF diets were all the rage. She was practically the only one voicing her opinion against all amount of bone being recommended by Billinghurst. That was well before the "prey model" diets became a coined phrase and "the" way to raw feed ...

I don't even know why I bother. Talking to YouKnowWho is like whacking my head into a brick wall ... lol.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

FredMom said:


> UrbanBeagles, its obvious that you have a VERY thorough knowledge of the care of dogs and good breeding. Your dogs are BEAUTIFUL!
> 
> Stop wasting your keystrokes on the simple-minded. Although I do enjoy the good read and I actually have applied some of the things I've read into my dog's feeding regimine, but I just hate to see you continue to throw sand at the beach.
> 
> Some of these folks are closed-minded and think that their way is the ONLY way and its not. I hate to see you cast your pearls to the swine of this board. (sorry 2 say)



FredMom ... thanks 
I am done "debating" with YouKnowWho ... this thread has plodded on more than long enough.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> It refers to when a hound is considered to be ready for real hunting. A Beagle pup is started in the field when he can circle his own hare/rabbit. What this means is that the pup have the nose down in a true scent chase, stop on at least one check (the check is where the hound will eventually loose the scent - here is where we see the pack stop to puzzle it out - the check is where we see the true natural ability of the breed) and usually ends with the pup being called off the bunny or it going to ground.


Cool. As a former pet dog trainer for 15 years this stuff is facinating. I always hated getting a beagle to train. They just didn't take to pet training as well as most breeds. The do what that do better than any other breed but I could never seem to get cooperation from them when pet training. Same with fox hounds. 



> Wherein that opens an enitre new can of worms regarding natural raw diets, becuase any hunter worth our salt knows to tie the hound before it gets the rabbit guts b/c that will infest them with tapes.


My Danes AND cats all catch and eat wild rabbits pretty regularly. Haven't had a case of tapes yet. Funny side note: Late one night I was here at the computere and kept hearing a thumping noise. I investigated and discovered it was coming from the bathroom. I peaked in and both my cats had caught a rabbit and were banging it against the wall trying to kill it.  I decided I didn't want that fight going throughout the house so I closed the bathroom door. I checked back on them about an hour later and the rabbit was dead and both cats were eating on him. I left them alone and checked back about another hour later and all I found was a stomach, a little pile of intestines and very little fur on the floor and a bloody spot on the wall.  I was amazed that they ate the whole thing as the rabbit was almost as large as they were. I also don't know how they drug him over a 5' chain link fence and drug him inside all while he was still alive.



> You know, you're rude and insulting. You speak to breeders with many years experience in their breed and dogs in general as if they're infants because they do not agree with you.


Yeah, tact is not my strong point.



> Do you honestly think I do not know enough to increase the feed of an animal who is a hard keeper?


It surprised me, but it appeared that way. 



> Besides, increasing feed will not do a bit of good if there is an underlying imbalance at play. First, one would need to determine the exact nature of the imbalance and take steps to correct it.


If you feed a true prey model raw diet there is no imbalance. I think that may be were your problem was. You were trying to add stuff to balance a diet that was already balanced before you started.



> On a home made diet, cooked or raw, that sometimes calls for vitamin/mineral supplementation, which I can assure you, my hounds were given if I noted weight loss.


I can assure you if you were feeding a true prey model diet no supplementation is not needed.



> In regards to the reddish tint, ALL my blanket back black dogs took on that tint. My Beagles and my GSD. The Shepherd mix is all black - he didn't get the reddish cast so much as he came into a very dull coat a while after starting raw. Oh, it improved at first, but we did not note long term results with raw.


That is what puzzles me. Your results are the opposite of mine and many other people I personally know who feed raw. By many, I mean well over a hundred. There is something very simple that is hiding from both of us. I have noclue what it is.



> Yup. Exactly why I started with the fish oil, cut back on chicken in general but mainly on the consumption of chicken skin, which is quite high in Omega 6. My dogs had plenty of sources of Omega 3 in a week, and probably ate more red meat/muscle meat than most dogs on raw.


Grocery store graom fed red meat is very low in O3's. Grass fed meat or wild game meat is high in O3's.



> Try taking your house pet out in 10 degree weather and drag her back in the car by her tail when she refuses to go inside even tho she's caked from head to toe in muck or has icicles hanging from her nether regions  Then tell me she doesn't need a bath.


I mentioned my dogs sleeping on the floor next to my bed and laying on the couch with me but that is not a 24 hour a day habit. They go outside with me every day as I work in the yard and we take walks together every day. We probably spend 4 to 6 hours outside most days. We live next to a swamp in west GA and they will often chase a deer deep into the swamp and come back covered in "swamp mud". I have them lay down on an old rug on our cement parking deck until the mud dries. When they are dry, they just stand up and there is a pile of sand on the carpet where each was laying. They shake off real good and its all gone. No bath needed. A couple of times it has been raining when they came back and I rinsed them off with a hose but I don't consider that a bath.

Hehe, I would also like to see you try to pull my 146lb Thor around by his tail. LOLOLOL



> She just has lower nutrient requirements than active, breeding animals that spend an average of 4-6 hrs outside, weather permitting, and are run 3 days a week in the winter (when they need more calories anyway), usually at 3-4 hr intervals each time out.


I'm sure my dogs have lower nutrient requirements/lb than your dogs do. They aren't sedentary but don't work nearly as hard as your dog do. They will spend time chasing each other, the cats, and often wild critters. Thor is naturally more active than the older Abby. A couple of years ago, Abby used to chase Thor all over the pasture and when she caught him she would beat the h*ll out of him. He would jump up and look at her and say, "Hey! lets do that again!" hehe ... And the chase was on again. Then last year she couldn't catch him so we would slow down so she could. Now she rarely chases him but will still chase the cats and critters.



> Maybe you've been dealing with too many sedentary housepets, or maybe raw feeders just never come out with their problems and ::GASP:: have the audacity to blame it on the diet!


Actually, I think it is just the opposite. I think you like many if not most vets want the blame the diet first on any little physical problem a dog has. Raw feeders have to be very careful with vets because of this. Many won't even tell their vets that they feed raw because no matter what physical problem their dog has the vet will first blame it on the diet. I remember when I had one of my dearly departed Goldens at the vet when she was 12 years old. The first thing the vet said was we've got to get her off this "people food". I told him to forget the diet and how would he treat her if she were kibble fed and we went from that point.



> BTW, yes I did have a few who did fine with raw. They were younger pet dogs and not my breeding stock.


Cool. It has been my experience that the older a dog is when switched the more difficulty he has in switching. Puppies almost never have problems. I assume its the years of eating kibble and the body getting entrenched in the kibble makes it more difficult to switch. I switched my Goldens when they were 10 years old and had very few problems though.


----------

