# Grain free leads to behavior change?



## CerbiesMom (Jan 30, 2008)

I've read in books and on forums that changing to grainfree diets can lead to changes in behavior. I was wondering what kind of changes, if anyone has experienced this. I've noticed that Brigit my doxie's attention span has greatly increased, from almost nothing, to where she can do a "down stay" while I walk around the living room with a plate of food. I'm trying to figure out if it's the change in diet, or just her maturing that's helping this. THanks guys.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

The day we started a grain free diet(raw) I saw a behavior change in my dog aggressive dog. Slightly calmer and a bit less quick to react. It was simply fantastic and I won't change her diet now unless Im absolutely forced to.


----------



## StellaLucyDesi (Jun 19, 2008)

I have to say I agree...Desi, who is my "problem dog" LOL, doesn't seem to want to get into the trash as much, or roam around just looking for things to get into.
I feel he is much calmer than he was before we switched to Orijen. I like to rotate, but I am not so sure it will be soon. I like what is happening with the Orijen. My dogs are eating the food dry, they are maintaining good weight, Desi seems to be calmer. I also feel Lucy and Stella's teeth and breath are better. Yes, Desi seems to be calmer, YEAH!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

This is a true story told by Ken McCort about Wolf Park in Indiana...



> Years ago at Wolf Park, they had a litter of coyotes that were so aggressive with each other that the staff became concerned. At first some believed it to be some kind of dispersal behavior (makes the group break up and go their own ways). Others thought that the all meat diet was "fueling" the over assertive play.
> 
> So it was decided to see if diet played a role. The group was divided into two smaller groups. One group was fed the regular meat diet and the other was fed an "oatmeal with some meat diet" we referred to as "yote meal". Well with the yote meal group, the aggressive behavior dropped so much that WP now uses some yote meal therapy on other litters when they need less aggression.


Seems to contradict what others are observing!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is a true story told by Ken McCort about Wolf Park in Indiana...
> 
> Seems to contradict what others are observing!


Not that the concept of grain-free is any more empirical, but that's an very isolated case where a million things could have caused the results. First of which comes to mind being that the setup after separation worked better. It clearly wasn't done as a scientific trail.

Not that I'm backing any theory of behavior change in raw-only diets. Priscilla ate a fully raw diet, and after months of weight issues, adding rice, sweet potato, and oatmeal to her diet helped her put on some more weight and look better. But that's a physical change, not psychological.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

RBark said:


> Not that the concept of grain-free is any more empirical, but that's an very isolated case where a million things could have caused the results. First of which comes to mind being that the setup after separation worked better. It clearly wasn't done as a scientific trail.


Yup, it was not a study at all, just an anecdote like all others. Wolf Park just wanted to keep the pups from damaging each other and the drop off in the yote meal group was significant. They still practice this diet change when necessary, and have seen similar results. 

Erich Klinghammer, PhD, the park director would be interested in any dog food companies that would want to fund a study saying their high protein/expensive food should be made less expensive.  No takers so far.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

coyotes aren't dogs.

and the 'yote meal' would be a bad idea in my house...both of my dogs have confirmed allergies to oatmeal as in vomiting and rashes kind of allergies. 

interesting though.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> coyotes aren't dogs.
> 
> and the 'yote meal' would be a bad idea in my house...both of my dogs have confirmed allergies to oatmeal as in vomiting and rashes kind of allergies.
> 
> interesting though.


Well, they are not coyotes, they are not wolves, and heck, they are not even dogs! What are they then?! This is madness!

If your dogs have confirmed allergies to oatmeal, nothing's stopping them from eating any of the other million carbs out there. But if what you have now works, then it works.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> coyotes aren't dogs.


They aren't? You don't say. 



> and the 'yote meal' would be a bad idea in my house...both of my dogs have confirmed allergies to oatmeal as in vomiting and rashes kind of allergies.


Well heck, I certainly am not recommending anyone feed their dogs oatmeal for aggression. I've heard it's a great alternative when baked on chicken, compared to traditional fried, for human consumption though. 



> interesting though.


There is some data suggesting a diet containing reduced dietary protein for managing aggression can be beneficial. I think what we'll see in the future are studies using low protein diets to modify serotonin production and dietary carbohydrates for improving tryptophan transport through the blood-brain barrier. Some of you may have experienced what tryptophan can do to your behavior, especially if you had a lot of turkey this past Thanksgiving.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

The best thing I've noticed since eliminating carbs is ...no more dentals!!! My papillons have needed dentals from the time their adult teeth came in. They had dentals every six months and lost quite a few teeth. 

Since we started the raw diet with no carbs, instigated by Cally (the pap who was a "failure to thrive" for the first five years on every kibble known to man) we also haven't had any problems with maintaining healthy weights, no pudgy pups here!


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is a true story told by Ken McCort about Wolf Park in Indiana...
> 
> Seems to contradict what others are observing!



Curbside ... that anecdote about the coyotes didn't surprise me at all. I have noted temperament changes when I had my dogs on grain free raw, mostly fear/aggro behaviors or shyness that was not present prior and could not be observed in littermates in other homes being fed a good kibble.
More recently, we had some behavior changes on a grain free kibble, and none for the better. On that note, I would be curious if anyone has ever had a problem with hypoglycemia and/or negative behavior changes on grain free, particulary Wellness CORE???


----------



## Tolak (Sep 11, 2008)

Interesting stuff Curbside, any links to the data mentioned? I'm in the process of switching my guys from Natural Balance to Orijen, any oddities & I'll let you know.

I have a sister who is a RN, and a mom who is a retired lab tech, both keep up on these sort of things relating to humans. While dietary requirements of humans & dogs differ, the tryptophan thing is very interesting.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Tolak said:


> Interesting stuff Curbside, any links to the data mentioned? I'm in the process of switching my guys from Natural Balance to Orijen, any oddities & I'll let you know.
> 
> I have a sister who is a RN, and a mom who is a retired lab tech, both keep up on these sort of things relating to humans. While dietary requirements of humans & dogs differ, the tryptophan thing is very interesting.


Links, no. But here are some references if you want to look into it further:
_
Effects of dietary content on behavior in dogs. _Dobman NH, Reisner I, Shuster L, et al. (1996b). JAVMA, 208:376-379

_Effect of dietary protein content and tryptophan supplementation on dominance aggression, territorial aggression, and hyperactivity in dogs. _De Napoli JS, Dobman NH, Shuster L, et al. (2000). JAVMA, 217:504-508


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I was just perusing my dog journals looking for the parts that this thread pertains to.

Journal entry before elimination of grain in the diet.

'She is twisting her body about in a thrashing manner, pausing to paw at the earth, whining and straining and lunging over and over and over. this is minute seven of this and the Retreiver has already been out of sight for close to the five minute mark. She keeps clenching and unclenching every muscle in her body in what appears to a systematic manner. No barking or growling. Behavior could be likened to a bull when faced with a matador. 

this time the stalking behaviors were more intence than the last dog we passed. She was practically scooting along the ground, eyes glazed, challenge tail, taking each step similar to the manner of a stalking cat, each foot carefully and strategically placed as to make zero noise. When she realized the dog was getting no closer than ten feet she lunged anyway..as if she had forgotten about being leashed and cracked her head on the sidewalk from recoil for the tenth time today. this 'just keep moving as if nothing is wrong' isn't working"

three day later..after introduction of grain free diet.

"Im stunned. first two encounters today were completely ignored. She was more interested in sniffing the bushes and digging. What the heck brought that on?! and where can I get some more?!?!? the third encounter was the arch enemy. again..stunned. She did her stalking routine as usual creeping along eyes fixated on the target. He saw her and started barking and snarling. She paused!! She freaking broke the pattern!! She stood straight up and cocked her head at him for a second..and then returned to the stalking. im so excited! the pattern can be broken! now to figure out why"

She appeared far less enthusiastic about her stalk chase kill dogs rountine. this hasn't changed.


perhaps this is one of those individualistic things. Bolo is slightly calmer than on kibble. She is healthy too. No imbalances, we run regular tests at the vet to make sure her diet is providing her with the nutrition she needs. So its not because she is malnourished. the only non meat item she will accept to eat is sweet potato skin...and only occasionally. my mother tried giving her kibble when she was dogsitting and I kid you not..Bolo peed in the bowl and then knocked it over. this leads me to suspect that the reason for the behavior change is that her current diet is more satisfying to her....whether its because its in meat form or because its grain free I don't know..probably a bit of both.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> perhaps this is one of those individualistic things. Bolo is slightly calmer than on kibble. She is healthy too.


When it comes to what's best for our dog you most certainly have to consider it on an individual basis. No one can argue your results, and who knows how being irritated by an ingredient can effect a dog's behavior. I would imagine if I ate something I were allergic to on a daily basis, I would be more irritable too. And that's not even considering the chemistry of it all. 

What can be argued is, is what's preferred by one dog preferable for all? And I don't think we can make this blanket statement regardless of what we feed our dogs, and I'm not saying anyone did that here.

What the OP is questioning is a bit scary to me...the idea that all we have to do is change our dog's diet and viola, a well trained dog. My preference is to err on the side of training so that we continue to do more of it, not less. I'm sure this is not what the OP was suggesting but it certainly is implicit, and problematic nonetheless.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Hm, this is all very interesting. My boys have been on Grain Free kibble since they were little. Carsten has never had any grains. I also add meat to their kibble. I have to say they look great, maintain their weight well and certainly don't show any signs of aggression. Well, Oliver is a little aggressive about hogging space on the bed but I doubt adding any grain to his diet would change that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Im not saying its a solution to training issues...

I kind of look at behavior issues as usually being an amalgamation of a lot of different factors. Age, sex, breed, altered status, history and level of training and quality of treatment...so if you can tweak so to speak all of those things for the better, to me that would seem like a more thorough and more likely effective approach.

just my opinion.


----------



## CerbiesMom (Jan 30, 2008)

I absolutely am not just switching the food and avoiding training. Sorry, I wasn't specific in that regard. No, Brigit has gotten a lot of training, she's my problem girl, all 7 pounds of her. I have noticed that she is a bit calmer since switching to the grain free kibble, and she has been starting less squabbles amongst my two boys. I think that her previous diets may have been interfering with her training. 

But I agree, a lot of ppl want to change the food and get Lassie in return, with no effort. That is retarded. 

I'm gonna keep up the training with her, we'll probably be starting a class sometime in early 09. I'm excited. Thank you for your responses, guys.


----------



## Tolak (Sep 11, 2008)

My son & I were discussing this a bit. I would think that you would want to deal with, and train the dog with it's natural personality or temperament. I could see how you might want to use diet as a training aid, much as a doctor would prescribe Ritalin to assist a child with learning or other personality difficulties.

If you are using diet to mask this behavior it seems you are not addressing the behavior with the proper training, you are masking it. When dealing with the possibility of aggression I don't think this is something you would want to try to hide, not completely sure if it will remain 100% hidden all the time.

Then again, I may be way off. I'm just a guy who owns & trains his own little dogs, constantly learning.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Tolak said:


> My son & I were discussing this a bit. I would think that you would want to deal with, and train the dog with it's natural personality or temperament. I could see how you might want to use diet as a training aid, much as a doctor would prescribe Ritalin to assist a child with learning or other personality difficulties.
> 
> If you are using diet to mask this behavior it seems you are not addressing the behavior with the proper training, you are masking it. When dealing with the possibility of aggression I don't think this is something you would want to try to hide, not completely sure if it will remain 100% hidden all the time.
> 
> Then again, I may be way off. I'm just a guy who owns & trains his own little dogs, constantly learning.


the diet change in my dog helped calm her just enough to where the training really started to get through to her...it doesn't mask the behavior...just cooled it off just a bit...


----------



## All about Eva (Nov 22, 2008)

This is a great thread. I have recently switched my puppy to Canidea ALS and the day after she was on ONLY the canidea i started to get consired. I noticed she was alot calmer more relaxed. i thought her stomach must be upset or somthing. She was alert and in a great mood the entire time, just more relaxed. We all know how crazy 4 month old puppies can be. Nothing physically was wrong. Her attention was even longer. My husband thought I was crazy for thinking the food was to blame for her better behavior and I swear it is. It is great. On her other food, she was a great dog dont get me wrong. And the diet was high quality also. She has been on canidea for a month and I love it and she can use it her entire life also. I still swear its the food. There is no other thing it could be. my other 3 dogs are on it and they are doing great also, but nothing so drastic as my pup though.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

I can't say that I noticed any change in behavior with the Poodles when I switched over to EVO (from Natural Balance Venison & Brown Rice). I did notice a change in behavior in Luc (Shih Tzu), who had a terrible ear infection in both ears, tearing, and he'd chewed and scratched himself raw. He also smelled horrible, even after a bath. The change in diet helped clear these things up (in addition to adding fish oil and some other things). He became calmer, but, who wouldn't be after all that frenzied scratching and chewing from itchies.


----------



## ser_renely (Dec 7, 2008)

Poodleholic, I think you hit on a potential major reason for behavior change. The dog no longer is having all of the issues it was having before. If you feel like you are close to throwing up half the day, interactions with others may not be as they should, because they are sick. Eliminate that and you see a large change.

I just switched over to EVO a few days ago, so I can't comment yet. I think I see changes but it is human nature to fictitiously create those changes because you want them to happen. Humanizing your dog, and human psychology. 


As for the coyote story, its just that. Not enough info is giving to show anything regarding diet.

Ser


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> As for the coyote story, its just that. Not enough info is giving to show anything regarding diet.



True, it's anecdotal. Yet, the all meat diet would be lacking in B vitamins, which oatmeal (and grains in particular) are very rich in. The spectrum of B vitamins are instrumental for the nerves, and B12 in particular has been used to treat for depression/bipolar disorder. Dr. Richard Pitcairn DVM even recommends B vitamins as a tonic for the nerves to be given to animals with behavioral problems ...


----------



## ser_renely (Dec 7, 2008)

I thought meat had B vitamins?


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

Different B vitamins come from different natural sources, such as potatoes, bananas, lentils, chile peppers, tempeh, liver oil, liver, turkey, tuna, Nutritional yeast (or brewer's yeast) and molasses. Marmite and Vegemite bill themselves as "one of the world's richest known sources of vitamin B". As might be expected, due to its high content of brewer's yeast, beer is a source of B vitamins[7], although this may be less true for filtered beers[8]and the alcohol in beer impairs the body's ability to activate vitamins.

The B-12 vitamin is of note because it is not available from plant products, making B-12 deficiency a concern for vegans. Manufacturers of plant-based foods will sometimes report B-12 content, leading to confusion about what sources yield B-12. The confusion arises because the standard US Pharmacopeia (USP) method for measuring the B-12 content does not measure the B-12 directly. Instead, it measures a bacterial response to the food. Chemical variants of the B-12 vitamin found in plant sources are active for bacteria, but cannot be used by the human body. This same phenomenon can cause significant over-reporting of B-12 content in other types of foods as well.[9]


----------



## ser_renely (Dec 7, 2008)

Interesting, I just always thought meat was a great source of B12 and other B's.

thanks


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

ser_renely said:


> Interesting, I just always thought meat was a great source of B12 and other B's.


The vitamin B complex can be found in raw eggs. muscle meats, and organs. Raw beef heart is particularly high in vitamin B12. 

All the nutrients needed for a healthy long lived dog are found the raw meat, bones, and organs of most prey animals.

What I never could understand is how people fret, strees and loose sleep over exact percentages of protein and fat to feed their dogs and don't spend a nanosecond thinking about the quality of that protein or fat.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> The vitamin B complex can be found in raw eggs. muscle meats, and organs. Raw beef heart is particularly high in vitamin B12.
> 
> All the nutrients needed for a healthy long lived dog are found the raw meat, bones, and organs of most prey animals.
> 
> What I never could understand is how people fret, strees and loose sleep over exact percentages of protein and fat to feed their dogs and don't spend a nanosecond thinking about the quality of that protein or fat.




I am not an exact percentage person, but I do insist my dog's diet be balanced, and some raw feeders do tend to not place enough emphasis on balance. Feeding variety is NOT the way to achieve balabce! Say we have a B12 and zinc deficiency. You're rotating chicken, pork, and beef and feeding eggs, and organs like liver once a week. While you're rotating a variety of nutrients, the daily requirements of B12 and zinc are only being met on the days you're feeding the meats/organs high in them. Meanwhile, the body is depleting those minerals on the chicken or pork days. No deficiency would show up until the problem manifests itself physically, then how does one pinpoint the exact source of the deficiency? Dogs require vitamins and minerals in a specific balance for health. Not saying only a "complete and balanced" kibble can support those needs, that's ludacris. However, do not be so quick to dismiss the specific balance of nutrients being referred to. 

BTW, yes, meat does contain some B vitamins, but will be found in a higher concentration of foods such as heart and liver. You seem to be dismissing the fact that these foods cannot be fed daily, especially liver, to avoid other fat soluble vitamin excesses. What of the high phosphorous content of meat and organs in relation to the amount of DAILY calcium required by dogs? Feeding the amount of meat required to up the B vitamin content to where it needs to be is going top cause deficiencies in other areas, specifically calcium. 

To achieve the amount of B vitamins required daily, especially in the case of an existing deficiency or for active dogs, grains such as oats are a much mroe concentrated source of the spectrum of B vitamins. 

Another thing I've been meaning to ask you. Do you believe dogs/canids are obligate carnivores? I have not found one scientific source classifying canids as obligate carnivores, that is the classification for felids. Carnivores, yes. Obligate carnivores, absolutely not. Canids are not felids, and should not be fed as such. Why then, do you recommend a feline diet for canines? Muscle meat/organs/bone would be the diet of an obligate carnivore that cannot produce amino acids except to consume them in the diet. We already know that dogs can manufacture amino acids in their bodies and do not require them from diet alone. Dogs, as a species, can take nourishment from grains, and that is blatantly evident from dogs of yesteryear who were fed leftovers and thrived. They were not being given fresh meat everyday, that is for sure. And most dogs, when lost or feral, do not hunt, they revert back to scavenger behavior, so grandma's dog didn't necessarily hunt on a daily basis to get it's own fresh meat. So I am curious about that. Why recommend an obligate carnivore's diet for an animal that is not an obligate carnivore and can digest and utilize at least partial nutrients from most grains that are complex carbs like legumes or oatmeal that do NOT spike blood glucose levels?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I am not an exact percentage person, but I do insist my dog's diet be balanced, and some raw feeders do tend to not place enough emphasis on balance.


I have found after many years of study that a prey model raw diet is automatically balanced by nature. Feed are resonably facimile of the correct amounts of meat, bone, and organs any carnivore will thrive. This has been proven by the wild animals thriving in nature. They make no effort to balance anything.



> Feeding variety is NOT the way to achieve balabce!


Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be. Do wild animals say to themselves, "I need some vitaman A today so I'm going to kill something with a big heart." No they don't. They eat what they can catch and kill.



> Say we have a B12 and zinc deficiency. You're rotating chicken, pork, and beef and feeding eggs, and organs like liver once a week. While you're rotating a variety of nutrients, the daily requirements of B12 and zinc are only being met on the days you're feeding the meats/organs high in them.


Regardless of what the nutritionists tell you, there is not a daily requirement for anything except maybe water. Animals and humans can go days without any kind of nutrients and be very healthy. Many of us should do that.  You balance any diet over time. A dogs diet is perfectly fine if balanced over time. Time can be a week, 2 weeks or even a month.



> Meanwhile, the body is depleting those minerals on the chicken or pork days.


So what?



> No deficiency would show up until the problem manifests itself physically, then how does one pinpoint the exact source of the deficiency?


If you feed them them a semi appropriate diet weekly or every 2 weeks, a deficiency will never show up because there won't be one.



> Dogs require vitamins and minerals in a specific balance for health. Not saying only a "complete and balanced" kibble can support those needs, that's ludacris. However, do not be so quick to dismiss the specific balance of nutrients being referred to.


Well, I do dismiss it. Do you think people actually go to the trouble to balance dog's diets? Come on now. What about 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? "Perfect balance" can never be achieved nor should you spend a lot of time trying.



> BTW, yes, meat does contain some B vitamins, but will be found in a higher concentration of foods such as heart and liver. You seem to be dismissing the fact that these foods cannot be fed daily, especially liver, to avoid other fat soluble vitamin excesses.


No I don't dismiss the fact that organs shouldn't be fed daily although I know a lot of people who do. I dismiss the fact that they need to be fed daily.



> What of the high phosphorous content of meat and organs in relation to the amount of DAILY calcium required by dogs? Feeding the amount of meat required to up the B vitamin content to where it needs to be is going top cause deficiencies in other areas, specifically calcium.


I worry a lot more about my dogs getting too much calcium than not enough. The Ca/Ph ratio just isn't something I worry about. If you feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals, those 2 things will automatically balance. There is no way to avoid it. 



> To achieve the amount of B vitamins required daily, especially in the case of an existing deficiency or for active dogs, grains such as oats are a much mroe concentrated source of the spectrum of B vitamins.


Again, a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals and they will get what they need. Active or not. I strongly suspect that that is the reason you had problems feeding raw. You couldn't just feed a prey model raw diet, you had to juice it up with a lot of extras thats what caused the problems. Feed the way nature intended and your problems will go away. I've seen it happen over and over. 



> Another thing I've been meaning to ask you. Do you believe dogs/canids are obligate carnivores?


Hehe, anytime I see the words "obligate carnivore", the first thought through my mind is, "here's someone that is going to try to convince me that a dog is not a carnivore. Regardless of any descriptive words you want to use to precede the word "carnivore", none can say that a dog is an omnivore.

There are no degrees of carnivore. Either an animal is a carnivore or he is an omnivore or herbavore. If an animal naturally eats only other animals, if he does not have flat teeth, if he cannot move his lower jaw from side to side, if his intestines are relatively short compared to his size, if he has not have amylase in his salava he is a carnivore. He cannot properly digest plant material nor extract many nutrients from them. I'm sorry but its just a physical impossiblity. 

If you feed your dogs plant material for the purpose of giving them some particular vitamin or mineral its an act of futility. They can't absorb them. 

Back to the question ... the ONLY reason cats are labeled as obligate carnivores is because of their inability to produce taurine internally. They must injest taurine from meat in their diet. Dogs can produce it internally.



> I have not found one scientific source classifying canids as obligate carnivores, that is the classification for felids. Carnivores, yes. Obligate carnivores, absolutely not. Canids are not felids, and should not be fed as such.


There you go trying to create degrees of carnivorism where none exsit. If cats had the ability to produce taurine, digestively they would be no different than dogs. I guess you could theoretically give a cat a taurine pill and then he would be an omnivore? Is that what you are trying to tell me?



> Why then, do you recommend a feline diet for canines?


I don't. I recommend carnivore diets for carnivore canines. Show me dogs grazing in a wheat field. Show me dogs pulling ears of corn off corn stalks. Show me dogs grazing in a rice paddy. Show me dogs grazing in an oat field and then you MIGHT convince me that a dog is an omnivore.



> Muscle meat/organs/bone would be the diet of an obligate carnivore that cannot produce amino acids except to consume them in the diet. We already know that dogs can manufacture amino acids in their bodies and do not require them from diet alone.


ONE amino acid ...Taurine. Thats it. Wolves have lived since the beginning of time without eating grains, veggies, or fruits. Dogs are no different. My Abby has not had plant matter in over 6 years. My Thor has never had any in his life.



> Dogs, as a species, can take nourishment from grains, and that is blatantly evident from dogs of yesteryear who were fed leftovers and thrived.


If they are processed, yes. Don't you think that after millions of years of evolution, if dogs needed grains in their diet, they would have adapted a way of digesting them and extracting nutrients from them? What about the wild wolves of today? Where do they get their grains? Not from stomach contents.



> They were not being given fresh meat everyday, that is for sure. And most dogs, when lost or feral, do not hunt, they revert back to scavenger behavior, so grandma's dog didn't necessarily hunt on a daily basis to get it's own fresh meat.


Don't tell me they wouldn't hunt. My dogs get plenty to eat and they still hunt. They catch, kill, and eat prey animals. Carnivores don't need to eat every day. In the wild they often gorge on a big meal and don't eat again for several days. I know a lot of people who feed their dogs that way, feeding every other day or some feed 2 or 3 times a week. They have healthy dogs.



> So I am curious about that. Why recommend an obligate carnivore's diet for an animal that is not an obligate carnivore and can digest and utilize at least partial nutrients from most grains that are complex carbs like legumes or oatmeal that do NOT spike blood glucose levels?


Again, I recommend a carnivore diet for a carnivore. Why on earth would you consider feeding plant material to a carnivore? Dogs have no dietary need for carbs. They utilize fat in the same way an omnivore would utilize carbs. A prey model raw diet will not ***** blood glucose levels ... EVER. As I said earlier, my dogs haven't had a carb in several years.

I suggest you try feeding your dogs a proper prey model diet without trying to add in a bunch of unnecessary extras that have a great potential to cause the problems your dogs had. Feed raw meat, bones, and organs from a variety of animals. Nothing else is needed. I have fed nothing else for years. I know many thousands of others who feed similar to what I feed.

Grains, veggies, and fruits should not be a part of a dogs diet.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Regardless of what the nutritionists tell you, there is not a daily requirement for anything except maybe water. Animals and humans can go days without any kind of nutrients and be very healthy. Many of us should do that.  You balance any diet over time. A dogs diet is perfectly fine if balanced over time. Time can be a week, 2 weeks or even a month.
> 
> 
> 
> *So what?*




So what is that it is apparent what lack of knowledge you have about the nutrient requirements of dogs ... 
Yes, there is a daily requirement for specific nutrients. I have said it before in this thread & will say it again. I am not obsessed over some concept of perfect balance - there is no such thing as perfection, my few years breeding has taught me that lesson very, very well  I do, however, insist that certain requirements are being met on a daily basis. This is obviously more important wit working/breeding dogs but it applies to ANY dog. It's only that the deficiencies in more active dogs tend to show up sooner. 
So what is that you talk about dogs that are truly healthy with a diet change to raw, but you seem to forget health is dependant on the vitamins and minerals in the diet, as well as the digestability, of course. I will say raw foods are more digestable than kibble, but that does not make it inherently better if we're missing other nutrients. So what is that when the body supply of vitamins begin to deplete themselves and are not being replaced on a regular basis, and there is always a constant imbalance meaning not just lack of vitamins, but nutrients in excess or deficient in regards to 
Vitamins often work with other vitamins to increase the absorbtion of each other - Vitamin C helps zinc absorbtion, fish oil daily depletes Vit E, Magnesium & Vitamin D help with calcium absorbtion .........
Every metabolic function depends on a balance of vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and yeah, complex carbs. 
Rickets was once a severe & widesperad problem with both children and puppies who had an imbalanced diet that lacked enough Vitamin D. Their diet may have been quite high in calcium, but without that specific balance, not paying enough attention to DAILY REQUIREMENTS of vitamins led to serious, and occasionally irreversable bone problems. Rickets is practically unheard of in puppies now, when it was once epidemic. That's because we know better and realize that we can't just eat whatever we want without thought to balance. All of us certainly have days where we eat junk or times when we don't take vitamins or pay attention to balance at all. I don't know what nutritionalist, though, would tell you that were you to do this long term there would be signifigant long term consequences.
Just because you do not see deficiencies do not mean they are not there. If left long engough without being treated there will be serious medical problems down the road, and the same would go for excesses. If a raw feeder was feeding too much meat but the dog appeared healthy, a few years down the road they would have a dog crippled with arthritis before it's time because the phosphorous will literally rob calcium from the bones when fed in excess. You leave THAT deficiency be, and seizures (which can be and are caused by lack of dietary calcium over long periods) or osteoperosis. Again, you might have the calcium levels right but if your vitamin D is too low, or not enough magnesuim, YOUR DOG IS NOT ABSORBING THAT CALCIUM!!! That's so what.




> If you feed them them a semi appropriate diet weekly or every 2 weeks, a deficiency will never show up because there won't be one.



Ok .... What are your credentials in animal nutrition that you are prepared to say paying little attention to specific vitamins and just feeding variety will cover all your bases? Do you have any degrees in nutrition or animal science?




> Well, I do dismiss it. Do you think people actually go to the trouble to balance dog's diets? Come on now.  What about 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? "Perfect balance" can never be achieved nor should you spend a lot of time trying.



Again, I will use the rickets example. Let me spell it out for you. E-P-I-D-E-M-I-C. We have made so much progress with the doscovery of vitamins and minerals, so why undermine it by going backwards? I will say there is quite a bit to be learned from the past, and sometimes they actaully knew better than we do now. I'm sure you are familiar with Hippocrates and other Greco-Roman, physicians that were ahead of their time. They were adamant that nutrition was vital and could be used to treat diseases - what they didn't know was what exactly it was about those foods that helped cure or prevent problems ... those would be vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, antioxidants, etc. So for you to dismiss daily requirements of vitamins for optimal health makes me question how much you really know about nutrition. You have a very willy nilly approach. I don't agree with that because I am not feeding myself or my dogs to just get by - I would like to eat the right foods in the right balance for my own optimal health. And I expect the dog's food to be balanced because they are NOT wild wolves who have to just get by until their difficult existance kills them after a few years on the planet. They are fed for long term health and performance. 




> Hehe, anytime I see the words "obligate carnivore", the first thought through my mind is, "here's someone that is going to try to convince me that a dog is not a carnivore. Regardless of any descriptive words you want to use to precede the word "carnivore", none can say that a dog is an omnivore.



Once again you are proving your ignorance regarding nutrition. 
You do know that the definition of obligate carnivore would be an animal that cannot manufacture amino acids in their bodies and require the intake of those amino acid from meat based sources, right? Cats are obligate carnivores because they cannot break down the amino acids in grains and if they do not get amino acids found from animal sources, they die. Taurine is a prime example. Cats cannot make their own taurine, so if it is not in their bodies, and they are eating cooked foods and grains, there is not enough taurine for their bodies to use, so they develop eye and heart problems. If the deficiency is severe enough, they die. Dogs CAN manufacture amino acids and can process the amino acids in grains, although I am not suggestion they be fed a vegetarian diet. 
You do not feed the diet of a cat to a dog because if a dog can manufacture amino acids an obligate carnivore cannot, you know the physiology is different, and we can also assume that the grains/veggies have nutrients that are required by dogs, such as higher B vitamin requirements in dogs. We also have a much more concentrated urine in cats, and FUS will arise if their urine is watered down. Hmmm. Grains and veggies are urinary alkalizers. They are not good for cats because not only can they not process them, it lowers the Ph level of the urine. With dogs, the Ph should be lower. A mixture of high meat diets with some grains and maybe veggies will give you the perfect acidity in the urine for a dog. 





> I don't. I recommend carnivore diets for carnivore canines. Show me dogs grazing in a wheat field. Show me dogs pulling ears of corn off corn stalks. Show me dogs grazing in a rice paddy. Show me dogs grazing in an oat field and then you MIGHT convince me that a dog is an omnivore.



That's funny. My dogs steal and eat veggies (squash) from my neighbor, and they used to pick my strawberries and raspberries when I grew them. You know, I have seen my cousin's neighbor's BC mix graze on corn fields when I visit her upstate. I have heard many other anecdotes of dogs stealing agriculture, sure someone else here has seen/heard of the same thing


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I have heard many other anecdotes of dogs stealing agriculture, sure someone else here has seen/heard of the same thing


Coyotes in one part of Canada live for a few months on a diet of primarily blueberries. Most coyotes in North America eat a diet of mice along with fruits, berries, nuts, insects and a few other things.


----------



## CerbiesMom (Jan 30, 2008)

Zim, I'm finding the same thing with my Brigit, the grain free is allowing the training to really take hold. She also had the "AHA" moment last night about letting me know when she needs to go out to potty. After we've had her a year and a half without her ever letting us know. She's doing really well on it. I'm really not masking any problems she has, as some have suggested. I was just wondering what changes others have noticed, to see if the diet has changed her behavior a bit, or if it is finally everything clicking into place mentally for her. Personally, I think it's both. She came from a puppy mill situation and had only been in a cage the first few months of her life. It's been hard working with her, but that's honestly what I expected when I took her in. I've got a soft spot for the damaged dogs. THanks everybody for your input.


----------



## Tolak (Sep 11, 2008)

Well we're on 100% Orijen as of yesterday. As far as vegetables, my old Cairn Ozzy used to eat tomatoes off the vine of a few extra plants I had planted behind the garage. I honestly thought it was some other neighborhood critter until I peeked behind there once, I had to sneak up on him. He left the green ones, just as they started to ripen he would have a little snack.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I am not obsessed over some concept of perfect balance - there is no such thing as perfection, my few years breeding has taught me that lesson very, very well  I do, however, insist that certain requirements are being met on a daily basis.


Hehe, 2 contradictory statements back to back.

Back to real facts. There are no nutrients that are needed every single day of life for dogs or humans. Balance over time. Humans and dogs, balance over time. No one eats all the nutrients they need every single day.



> This is obviously more important wit working/breeding dogs but it applies to ANY dog. It's only that the deficiencies in more active dogs tend to show up sooner.


Everyone thinks there is something special about their own dogs. Well, sweetie, there ain't. I know you have a hard time with it but your dogs are no different than the average dog anywhere.



> So what is that you talk about dogs that are truly healthy with a diet change to raw, but you seem to forget health is dependant on the vitamins and minerals in the diet, as well as the digestability, of course.


Health is indeed dependent on the vits and minerals in the diet and digestabilty and the prey model raw diet furnishes all that is needed. That has been proven for millions of years.



> I will say raw foods are more digestable than kibble, but that does not make it inherently better if we're missing other nutrients.


They are not missing nutrients. If they were, wolves would have become extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago. You see, nature provides all its plants and animals with what they need to prosper. Wolves are provided with all the nutrients they need. Perhaps it's just the nutritionists who are confused. 



> So what is that when the body supply of vitamins begin to deplete themselves and are not being replaced on a regular basis, and there is always a constant imbalance meaning not just lack of vitamins,


Once a week or once every two weeks or once a month are all regular basis.



> but nutrients in excess or deficient in regards to
> Vitamins often work with other vitamins to increase the absorbtion of each other - Vitamin C helps zinc absorbtion, fish oil daily depletes Vit E, Magnesium & Vitamin D help with calcium absorbtion .........


Yeah and as long as all those things take place all works good. You don't have to replace all those nutrients daily. If calcium isn't absorbed for one day, its no big deal.l More will be absorbed tomorrow to make up for it. Dogs don't need vit C in their diet. They manufacture their own internally. You should know that.



> Every metabolic function depends on a balance of vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and yeah, complex carbs.


They don't need a balance eaten to create a balance internally. AND dogs have no need for carbs. There are many canine nutrition books and research papers that point that out. Books such as the Merk Vet Manual, the Waltham book of dog and cat nutrition, and others.



> Rickets was once a severe & widesperad problem with both children and puppies who had an imbalanced diet that lacked enough Vitamin D. Their diet may have been quite high in calcium, but without that specific balance, not paying enough attention to DAILY REQUIREMENTS of vitamins led to serious, and occasionally irreversable bone problems.


You don't need a "Balance" ... you need vit D in the system while calcium is there sometime in a period of time. Not constantly. BTW: Vit D is found in eggs, liver and salmon. Feed one of those items every month or so and you are ok.



> That's because we know better and realize that we can't just eat whatever we want without thought to balance.


Prey model raw is automatically balanced. There is no need to be real concerned with balance.



> All of us certainly have days where we eat junk or times when we don't take vitamins or pay attention to balance at all. I don't know what nutritionalist, though, would tell you that were you to do this long term there would be signifigant long term consequences.


I know I don't pay attention to balance in my diet any more than having a meat and a few veggies every few days and fruit every month or so. I've been like that all my life. I don't and never have taken vitamins or meds of any kind. I'm 65 years old now and have no health problems that I know of. Something should have shown up in 65 years, wouldn't you think?



> If a raw feeder was feeding too much meat but the dog appeared healthy, a few years down the road they would have a dog crippled with arthritis before it's time because the phosphorous will literally rob calcium from the bones when fed in excess.


If you study the prey model diet, you know there there is more than enough calcium in it. I don't know where these unknowing people keep talking about a lack of calcium in the raw diet. Most people feed prey model with much too much calcium in the diet.



> You leave THAT deficiency be, and seizures (which can be and are caused by lack of dietary calcium over long periods) or osteoperosis. Again, you might have the calcium levels right but if your vitamin D is too low, or not enough magnesuim, YOUR DOG IS NOT ABSORBING THAT CALCIUM!!! That's so what


.

You are way overthinking all this. These deficiencies just don't happen. You don't need all these processes to take place every day. Not in your body, not in your dog's bodies. I know a lot of healthy dogs that only get fed every other day or less.



> Ok .... What are your credentials in animal nutrition that you are prepared to say paying little attention to specific vitamins and just feeding variety will cover all your bases? Do you have any degrees in nutrition or animal science?


I have college courses in canine nutrition, yes. I also took a class in canine denistry several years ago. I have attended several seminars in canine nutrition. I have sat down and had many one on one conversations with world renoun experts in the field. I have exchanged email with experts in the field.

I also know that wolves/wild dogs have thrived since the beginning of time on the prey model diet. Wolves are spread throughout the world more than any other animal on earth. How could they do that without the perfect diet?



> Again, I will use the rickets example. Let me spell it out for you. E-P-I-D-E-M-I-C. We have made so much progress with the doscovery of vitamins and minerals, so why undermine it by going backwards?


Don't you think the rickets epidemic if there was one was caused by lack of bones in the diet? Feeding only cooked bones? When was this epidemic?



> I will say there is quite a bit to be learned from the past, and sometimes they actaully knew better than we do now. I'm sure you are familiar with Hippocrates and other Greco-Roman, physicians that were ahead of their time.


If you are talking about homeopathic mumbo jumbo, I'm not even going to discuss that garbage. Its voodoo.



> So for you to dismiss daily requirements of vitamins for optimal health makes me question how much you really know about nutrition. You have a very willy nilly approach.


I do dismiss the myth of "daily requirements". Humans don't have them nor do dogs. Do you have any idea how much money the dog food companies spend to convince you that you are too stupid to feed your own dogs a decent diet and you must depend on them to feed them garbage to "balance" their diet? Do you have children or have you raised children? Did you need some company to premix and process the food for them or are/were you capable of it? Dogs dietary requirements are much simpler than a humans. If you can feed your family without depending on a processed cereal for every meal, you can do the same for your dogs. 



> I don't agree with that because I am not feeding myself or my dogs to just get by - I would like to eat the right foods in the right balance for my own optimal health.


I don't think anyone knows what optimal balance is. Its a guess. I know the dog food companies want you to think you can't feed a balanced diet and they are the only ones who can. but how can you look at the garbage ingredients in dog food and believe that mess?



> And I expect the dog's food to be balanced because they are NOT wild wolves who have to just get by until their difficult existance kills them after a few years on the planet. They are fed for long term health and performance.


Wild wolves don't die young because of diet. They mostly die young because of bullets. They also have no vet care. How long would your dogs last without vet care? I don't mean just trips to the vets, I mean also you never giving them any first aid or medications for any problem? How long would they live? I suspect their average lifespan would be pretty short. 



> You do know that the definition of obligate carnivore would be an animal that cannot manufacture amino acids in their bodies and require the intake of those amino acid from meat based sources, right?


We have been through all that and I'm not going through it again unless you have something you think disproves my statements.



> That's funny. My dogs steal and eat veggies (squash) from my neighbor, and they used to pick my strawberries and raspberries when I grew them.


But they extract no nutrients from them for reasons I thoroughly covered earlier. They eat strawberrys and raspberries for the sugary taste of them. Like we would eat cake and ice cream. Again, no nutrients.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs ..... your above post is just ridiculous. You have no more nutritional education than I do, yet you are posing opinions as facts (i.e. dogs don't require daily balance). At least I know that much. I can attend seminars by nutritionalists or Vets, that doesn't make me a nutritionalist or a Vet. I took several college courses in psychology, majored in it my first 3 semesters, in fact, but I am no certified psychologist!There is a known daily nutrient requirement for dogs and humans, and while that does not have to be met to a T, you are claiming that the science behind the current nutritional information we have is wrong by denying there is a daily requirement! Variety alone is a good start but will not cover all your bases. 

This preposterous idea of yours, that I somehow believe my dogs are superior because I stated with working dogs deficiencies would show up quicker is just mind numbing. First of all, I don't see my dogs as superior from anyone elses, far FAR from it. How completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest I am saying my dogs are better than yours because my exact words were deficiencies will show up quicker in working/breeding dogs. Hmmm, because the next words were "this (balance in the diet) applies to any dog". Meaning just because you have an active or inactive pet dog does not mean balance goes out the window. You yourself are fond of saying if a dog doesn't do well on raw, it was because the owner botched the diet. Well, how else would that diet be botched except for nutritional imbalances? I am pointing out the fact that a working dog requires more of certain vitamins, proteins, and that if there is a deficiency with a working animal, you'll notice it faster, and it will be mor edifficult to correct. Teh same is true for breeding dogs. Too much calcium can cause labor problems or worse, skeletal problems with the pups! The littermate sister to one of my males is raw fed, and she has had 3 litters, ALL c-secs. Funny, but that bloodline is commonly a free whelping line, even with 13" bitches, so that would suggest to me something in the diet like too much calcium is causing the problem. 
You seem to be suggesting that just throwing a dog different parts and rotating types of meats is enough, and one does not need to have a good concept of the nutritional requirements of dog. Christie Keith would disagree with you:

_"A homemade diet can be the best or the worst thing you can feed your pet. If you are going to feed homemade, do it right. Use a recipe or feeding plan based on sound nutritional principles, which has been used by many people over a long period of time. I faithfully weighed and measured every bite I gave my dogs and cats for over ten years before I felt comfortable enough modifying their diets. For cats I still feel best feeding a very precise recipe. 
If you cannot follow a tested recipe, it would be better to use a commercial diet. Don't make your dog or cat the victim of your own ignorance or carelessness. It's one thing to make that mistake on yourself; you, after all, can be overwhelmed with a need for a big green salad and go out and get one. Your cat and dog can't do that."_
http://www.caberfeidh.com/NaturalDiet.htm

You also tell me I am overthinking the diet. Why? Because I have a basic concept of the nutritional requirements of dogs, and the ensuing consequences of a diet that goes unbalanced for a prolonged period of time? I don't ptopose one gives a raw fed dog every supplement under the sun, but you need to go into it knowing possible long term deficiencies your menu could be causing, and adjust or even occasionally supplement to ensure there is a good balance. I am not talking about a perfect 100% complete and balanced diet, I even think that is impossible with the best kibble, but I am adamant that home prepared diets, whether cooked or raw should have thought go into the balance and which nutrients are excessive or lacking over time. 
I can't debate with you ... I always feel like I am talking to a brick wall ...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I took several college courses in psychology, majored in it my first 3 semesters, in fact, but I am no certified psychologist


But I would expect that you know *A LOT* more about psychology than the average person. I will say I know *A LOT* more about canine nutrition than the average person. I will go so far as to say I know *A LOT *more about canine nutrition than 90% of the vets out there.



> There is a known daily nutrient requirement for dogs and humans, and while that does not have to be met to a T, you are claiming that the science behind the current nutritional information we have is wrong by denying there is a daily requirement!


I'm saying the daily requirements are a guess and will change from time to time. Even the human food pyrimid was changed a few years ago. Nutrition is not all science. A lot of it is guesswork. Many of the dailly requirements are made by the dog food companies. Many have little basis in fact. 

Do you know what is required of a dog food company before they can label their food as "complete and balanced"? I'll tell you. The dog food company must feed 8 dogs nothing but that particular mix for 6 months. 6 of those eight dogs must survive for 6 months and be in reasonably good health. "Reasonably good health" is not defined except to say the dogs can't loose more than 15% of their beginning body weight. 2 of the dogs can die and the food still be labeled "complete and balanced" ... so that shows you what "balanced" means in the dog food world.

A word about "daily requirements": If there is a known scientifically proven daily requirement then if a dog eats 10 times that daily requirement spread over 10 days in any form then he is ok. He could be fed the whole 10 times in one day and no more for the other 9 or he could get 5 times twice in the 10 days or whatever. He still gets what he needs. Its doesn't need to be daily. Thats one of the places I say you are overthinking.



> Variety alone is a good start but will not cover all your bases.


You've said that before ... which bases won't it cover?



> This preposterous idea of yours, that I somehow believe my dogs are superior because I stated with working dogs deficiencies would show up quicker is just mind numbing.


I have seen you post several times how your dogs are working dogs and run a lot and their dietary requirements are much more strengent than the average dog. Those statements say you think your dogs can't get by on the same diet as the average dog and are somehow superior because whats good enough for most dogs is just not good enough for yours.



> You yourself are fond of saying if a dog doesn't do well on raw, it was because the owner botched the diet. Well, how else would that diet be botched except for nutritional imbalances?


1. Too much volume fed at one time to a newly switched dog.
2. Too little bone fed to any dog.
3. Too much organ meat fed at one time to any dog.
4. Veggies fed to any dog.
5. Too much bone fed to any dog.
6. Too much variety fed to a newly switched dog.

I'm sure I could think of more ways if I gave it some more thought. 

In the 6 reasons I listed, none of the reasons are nutritional, rather digestive.



> I am pointing out the fact that a working dog requires more of certain vitamins, proteins, and that if there is a deficiency with a working animal, you'll notice it faster, and it will be mor edifficult to correct.


And I'm pointing out that it won't happen if you feed a good variety.



> Teh same is true for breeding dogs. Too much calcium can cause labor problems or worse, skeletal problems with the pups!


I can't comment on breeding because I have never bred dogs but I know many raw feeders who do and don't have problems. They say their dogs will adjust their own diet by eating less bone or more, I can't remember which.



> The littermate sister to one of my males is raw fed, and she has had 3 litters, ALL c-secs. Funny, but that bloodline is commonly a free whelping line, even with 13" bitches, so that would suggest to me something in the diet like too much calcium is causing the problem.


No, it could NEVER be genetic.



> You seem to be suggesting that just throwing a dog different parts and rotating types of meats is enough, and one does not need to have a good concept of the nutritional requirements of dog. Christie Keith would disagree with you:


Hehe, she would disagree with a lot you say also.  

_"Dogs and cats are carnivores, and evolved eating raw meat. Their systems can handle a certain amount of bacteria; indeed, they were designed for it."_

Another quote of hers:

_"*In addition, our dogs and cats evolved eating raw meat, and the consumption of 
cooked flesh is totally and completely unnatural for them*. They do not get optimum nutrition from it, it is not well digested by them, and it not what 
their organs were designed to process. *Eating a raw diet, based on the 
evolutionary diet of the dog or cat, will make the animal healthier.* This 
healthier animal will be able to handle a certain amount of bacteria in its 
food, and will be resistant to most disease-causing micro-organisms it 
encounters. 

Further, dogs are not just predators but scavengers, and evolved eating rotten 
and decaying flesh, as well as the droppings of herbivores and even other 
carnivores. They can handle bacterial loads that would kill us, without 
blinking an eye. 

*Genetically and evolutionarily speaking, today's dog and cat are no different 
from their flesh and bone-eating ancestors.*"_
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3340/raw_food.html



> You also tell me I am overthinking the diet. Why?


Because you spend an awful lot of time worrying about unnecessary details that will make absolutely no difference in the health of the dog. You seem to believe the pet food industry marketing department's statements that dogs have such complex dietary needs that no human can possibly know enough to feed them propery anything except "our" products.

We can feed our own children and family but we can't possibly know enough to feed a dog.



> I don't ptopose one gives a raw fed dog every supplement under the sun, but you need to go into it knowing possible long term deficiencies your menu could be causing, and adjust or even occasionally supplement to ensure there is a good balance.


If you feed a prey model diet, every nutrient is their automatically in balance when you feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals ... mostly meat, some bone, some organs. Exact amounts aren't critical.



> I am not talking about a perfect 100% complete and balanced diet, I even think that is impossible with the best kibble, but I am adamant that home prepared diets, whether cooked or raw should have thought go into the balance and which nutrients are excessive or lacking over time.


Believe it or not, I actually agree with this statement if you feed anything other than a prey model raw diet. I will go so far as to say it's impossible to feed a properly balanced diet if you feed anything but a prey model diet ... particularly if you feed a cooked diet.



> I can't debate with you ... I always feel like I am talking to a brick wall ...


Pot ... kettle


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

This discussion is very interesting but I can't help wondering when we got so obsessed with things like diet for both outselves and our pets. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't eat/feed a proper diet overall but I do find it interesting that today children are getting ill, sometimes seriously, from foods that I, who grew up in the 1950's, ate without any problems at all. And no one was obsessed with germs back then.

One thing to not forget is that kibble was created by cereal companies such as Ralston-Purina to use the leftovers that could not be incorporated into the products meant for human consumption. And that it (kibble) has only been in existence for about 60 years.

I think we have a tendency to over-think and over-worry about everything these days. Maybe it's time to start using a bit more of what used to be called "common sense," an unfortunately not so common thing any more.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

skelaki said:


> I do find it interesting that today children are getting ill, sometimes seriously, from foods that I, who grew up in the 1950's, ate without any problems at all. *And no one was obsessed with germs back then.*


I am fully convinced that's why everyone is having so much trouble. Some germs are necessary for good health.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I am fully convinced that's why everyone is having so much trouble. Some germs are necessary for good health.


Hehe, any germ that doesn't kill you is good for you.    That is true whether it's a "good" germ or a "bad" germ.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

We've been raw feeding a certain proportion of our dogs since 1998 (back when information was scarce). I was lucky enough to attend a seminar put on by Kymythy Schultze, and was hooked - I've been studying nutrition ever since.

No, I do not have a degree in nutrition, but I've absorbed every study, point of view, piece of written, published and online material, as well as observed my own dogs for the last decade.

What I know is this:

We do not feed a "prey model" diet. In fact, those who claim to feed a "prey model" are generally at best doing a 50% approximation. Do you feed lungs, intestines, spleens, brains, eyeballs, etc? No, "prey model" generally refers to a percentage of meat/bone/liver/heart.

We concentrate on our meat to bone ratio (calhos) with a magnesium and selenium supplement daily. We also supplement with a B complex, vitamin E, kelp, fish oil and vitamin C daily. We do use a certain amount of veggies and fruits, although some days we leave them out, and some days we simply do a salad (what can I say, my guys love their veggies). Everything is run through a hand chopper, with all their supplements, and we find that this improves their stool consistency. Also, fresh veggies provide antioxidents and other pre-vitamins that you can't get anywhere else. Occasionally they'll get a zinc supplement, and they also get chlorophyll (because we take it). 

The point is, with the exception of a few of the veggies, everything is raw, fresh, and contains NO grain.

In regards to the old "low protein = low aggression" argument, we've always interpreted that study a different way. We get dogs in all the time who are sluggish, lazy, overweight and generally in poor condition. After a few weeks on grain free kibble or raw food, they feel better, they're running around, they're losing their fat, gaining muscle, etc. Well, anyone in rescue will tell you that you don't know a dog's true personality until the dog is in top shape. While they're feeling sluggish, they're less likely to pick a fight than when they feel the top of their game.

On the other hand, the dogs who are seeing a reduction in their hyperactivity are more likely reacting to the reduction in additives or high sugar carbs - this could explain why these dogs tend to be younger dogs rather than older dogs. Consider young people who eat junk food all day long - hyperactive, ADHD type kids. Later on in life, these are the same people with no energy, who won't get off the couch. Change the diet of the young person, they calm down, focus more. Change the diet of the older person, they lose weight, pick up, gain energy. Just a theory of course, but I think that the current studies are seriously lacking in exploring all avenues and I would really like to see more work done.

Perhaps we should begin to petition some of the grain free companies to begin to create the science necessary to prove what most of us already know to be fact.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

babysweet said:


> We do not feed a "prey model" diet. In fact, those who claim to feed a "prey model" are generally at best doing a 50% approximation. Do you feed lungs, intestines, spleens, brains, eyeballs, etc? No, "prey model" generally refers to a percentage of meat/bone/liver/heart.


It's much more than a 50% approximation. Dogs/wolves don't eat intestines from a prey animal unless they kill an animal that is so small that they just chomp the whole body a couple of times the swallow. I know lots of raw feeders that feed lungs, spleens, and eyeballs. I feed my dogs whole rabbits from time to tiime and all those things are included. They also kill wild prey on their own and get all those things eventhough I don't think they are necessary or even particularly beneficial. I don't think you would get anything from those parts that you don't get from heart(not an organ), liver and kidneys.



> We concentrate on our meat to bone ratio (calhos) with a magnesium and selenium supplement daily. .... <bunch of other stuff cut out to save space>


You are spending an awful lot of time and energy and making a task very complicated that is really very simple. That task is feeding a dog. It's not a complex task. It's not rocket science. There are 10s of thousands of dog owners that don't go to that trouble to feed a raw diet and they have perfectly healthy dogs. There are 10s of millions of people who feed their families every day and don't know the difference between a vitamin and a mineral. Their families are healthy. Do you spend that much time and energy to feed your family? I don't. 

_"When I ran a busy veterinary practice, many of my clients fed almost exclusively chicken backs and frames -- whether to adult dogs or litters of puppies -- and their animals showed excellent health."_
Dr. Tom Lonsdale Work Wonders Page 25

I've spend a lot of time over several years studying canine nutrition and dog feeding habits and have come to the following conclusion:

Some people feed their dogs raw meat, bones, organs, veggies, fruits, and a ton of supplements and they have healthy dogs.

Some people feed their dogs raw meat, bones, organs, and a ton of supplements and they have healthy dogs.

Some people feed their dogs raw meat, bones, organs, veggies, and fruits and they have healthy dogs.

Some people feed their dogs only raw meat, bones, and organs and their dogs are no less healthy.

So why go to all that trouble to feed your dog when nothing is gained?

I never pay attention to food ratios, percentages, weights or measurments when I feed my dogs. Everything they need is in nearly perfect porportion in the prey model raw diet.



> The point is, with the exception of a few of the veggies, everything is raw, fresh, and contains NO grain.


You may as well feed them grain also. You are feeding them everthing else except dirt.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> It's much more than a 50% approximation. Dogs/wolves don't eat intestines from a prey animal unless they kill an animal that is so small that they just chomp the whole body a couple of times the swallow. I know lots of raw feeders that feed lungs, spleens, and eyeballs. I feed my dogs whole rabbits from time to tiime and all those things are included. They also kill wild prey on their own and get all those things eventhough I don't think they are necessary or even particularly beneficial. I don't think you would get anything from those parts that you don't get from heart(not an organ), liver and kidneys.
> 
> 
> You are spending an awful lot of time and energy and making a task very complicated that is really very simple. That task is feeding a dog. It's not a complex task. It's not rocket science. There are 10s of thousands of dog owners that don't go to that trouble to feed a raw diet and they have perfectly healthy dogs. There are 10s of millions of people who feed their families every day and don't know the difference between a vitamin and a mineral. Their families are healthy. Do you spend that much time and energy to feed your family? I don't.
> ...




First, rather than quote a DVM whose views are questionable at best in regard to nutrition in particular (his main focus is on the role that bones play in preventing dental decay and therefore improving overall health, he has very little actual knowledge regarding animal nutrition) I suggest you do some research beyond popular material found at your local bookstore.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/1923S

This study of the wolves in Yellowstone confirms that not only do the wolves consume the intestines of the Elk they killed, they left only the stomach, hide and unedible bones. In addition, during the summer months 74% of the scats studied contained some portion of vegetation, generally grass. 
Other studies have shown wolves ripping open the stomach and spilling the contents, and then consuming the lining.

Small photo documentary of a yellowstone wolf eating the intestines of his kill: http://ecobirder.blogspot.com/2008/06/yellowstone-wolf.html

I'm sure your 5 or 6 years of feeding raw to a few dogs has made you an expert in your mind, but my detailed conversations with Kymythy Schultze, as well with my holistic veterinarian who has a degree in small animal nutrition and has designed the outline for our raw diet (and has been evolving and using it for over two decades) would disagree.

I also suggest reading this article, penned by Mary Strauss, who is arguably the internet's foremost expert when it comes to wading through the bs and compiling factual information.

http://dogaware.com/wdjhomemade2.html

Not only does it second my assertion that your "prey model" is faulty, but it once again confirms the necessity of supplementing.

The larger forms of wolves generally prefer larger prey (ungulates) while smaller wolves from other countries (such as the maned wolf in Brazil) actually eats only 40% meat, and 60% fruit. Different members of the canid family found in different regions have different diets. Since we don't really know which dogs evolved from which members of the canid family, making such statements can be considered presumptuous at best, at the worst, dangerous.

As for your "everything but dirt" comment, your resort to snarky comments simply illustrates your lack of anything scientifically valid to say.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

babysweet said:


> First, rather than quote a DVM whose views are questionable at best in regard to nutrition in particular (his main focus is on the role that bones play in preventing dental decay and therefore improving overall health, he has very little actual knowledge regarding animal nutrition) I suggest you do some research beyond popular material found at your local bookstore.


Actually I'm quoting a DVM who has written two books, many newspaper articles, many magazine articles, many web articles, has traveled the world giving lectures and teaching seminars. He is one I have sat down with and discussed prey model in depth. I've eaten meals with him and corresponded via email with him many times. I have also attended two of his seminars.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/1923S



> This study of the wolves in Yellowstone confirms that not only do the wolves consume the intestines of the Elk they killed, they left only the stomach, hide and unedible bones. In addition, during the summer months 74% of the scats studied contained some portion of vegetation, generally grass.


I won't argue with that. I've seen my dogs and many other dogs eat grass many times. It always comes back out the mouth via vomit or exits the body through the anus. Either way it comes out looking exactly like it did when it went in ... completely undigested. Funny thing, the grass that comes out the anus is twisted into a little rope. Wonder how they do that?

I have never seen a good explanation as to why they eat grass. Nutrition isn't one. 



> Other studies have shown wolves ripping open the stomach and spilling the contents, and then consuming the lining.


Again, no argument, I"ve seen my dogs and other dogs do that many times. I have never seen them eat a stomach with contents still in them.



> Small photo documentary of a yellowstone wolf eating the intestines of his kill: http://ecobirder.blogspot.com/2008/06/yellowstone-wolf.html


When my dogs eat a rabbit either one that I have given them or one they kill themselves the first thing they do is open up the body cavity at the belly and pull out the intestines. They don't eat them. They just put them aside. There is nothing on the above linked site that said the wolf actually ate the intestines. It showed him pulling them out of the carcas and moving them away.



> I'm sure your 5 or 6 years of feeding raw to a few dogs has made you an expert in your mind,


Not just in my own mind. I am an expert in feeding dogs and cats a species appropriate raw diet. Not only have I been doing it for over 6 years but i have spend many hours studying it and helping well over 100 people switch their dog to prey model raw. I've listed my accomplishments and qualifications in other threads and I'm not going to go over it again.



> but my detailed conversations with Kymythy Schultze, as well with my holistic veterinarian who has a degree in small animal nutrition and has designed the outline for our raw diet (and has been evolving and using it for over two decades) would disagree.


And they are both wrong. Kymythy is not only wrong in her dietary beliefs but also her fringe medicine beliefs. There is nothing special about a vet who puts the word "holistic" in front of his title. Any vet can do that. There are not tests to past or certifications to get for a vet to call himself "holistic". Most of the holistic vets are just that ... regular vets who decided to call themselve holistic for business reasons.



> I also suggest reading this article, penned by Mary Strauss, who is arguably the internet's foremost expert when it comes to wading through the bs and compiling factual information.
> 
> http://dogaware.com/wdjhomemade2.html


I did read the article and have read it before. All in all its a pretty good article. I agree with 90% of what she says although she contraticts herself in a few places.



> Not only does it second my assertion that your "prey model" is faulty, but it once again confirms the necessity of supplementing.


I think you read a different article. Most of what she said in her article, I have said many times in many posts.
"_Feeding vegetables, fruits, and grains is optional, as dogs do not require carbohydrates in their diet_."
"_If you feed veggies, they need to be either cooked or pureed in a food processor, juicer, or blender."_ *NOTE:* I have said many times that if dogs needed plant material in their diet that over millions of years of evolution they would have developed a way to digest them without human help.
"_Healthy dogs that are fed a wide variety of appropriate foods should have no need of supplements, but there are several fresh food supplements that *may* provide additional benefits when added in small amounts_:" Emphasis mine.



> The larger forms of wolves generally prefer larger prey (ungulates) while smaller wolves from other countries (such as the maned wolf in Brazil) actually eats only 40% meat, and 60% fruit.


I'm not sure that statement is accurate but even if it is, our dogs are not mained wolves. They are gray wolves.



> Since we don't really know which dogs evolved from which members of the canid family, making such statements can be considered presumptuous at best, at the worst, dangerous.


Actually we do know that our dogs(canis lupus famaliaris) are a subspecies of the Gray wolf. (canis lupus)

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/5755/wolf.html



> As for your "everything but dirt" comment, your resort to snarky comments simply illustrates your lack of anything scientifically valid to say.


Awwww come on, can't you take a joke?


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Actually I'm quoting a DVM who has written two books, many newspaper articles, many magazine articles, many web articles, has traveled the world giving lectures and teaching seminars. He is one I have sat down with and discussed prey model in depth. I've eaten meals with him and corresponded via email with him many times. I have also attended two of his seminars.
> 
> http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/1923S


There are countless yahoos who have been published far more than Mr. Lonsdale has. In regards to his bringing to light the plight of dog's dental decay and the very real effect that RMBs can play in the reduction of this epidemic, I applaud him. But he does not, and probably never will, refer to himself as having any expertise in nutrition as a whole. To quote him in a discussion about nutrition is like quoting a dentist in regards to antioxidants. 





RawFedDogs said:


> I won't argue with that. I've seen my dogs and many other dogs eat grass many times. It always comes back out the mouth via vomit or exits the body through the anus. Either way it comes out looking exactly like it did when it went in ... completely undigested. Funny thing, the grass that comes out the anus is twisted into a little rope. Wonder how they do that?
> 
> I have never seen a good explanation as to why they eat grass. Nutrition isn't one.


You claim Mary's article is full of contradictions, and here you yourself present one. One possible explanation is that the fibre prevents perforation of the intestines. But since no one has been able to discern an absolute reason for this behaviour, discounting nutrition is awfully reckless. Particularly when dogs themselves evolved eating what they did - garbage. AND, many dogs, given the chance, will happily graze plants, fruits and vegetables, including wild dogs.

In addition, the only conclusive evidence is that SOME plant matter ends up in the stool. There have been no tests done to compare plant matter ingested vs. plant matter excreted. Until I see these numbers, I will withhold my judgement on this particular behaviour.





RawFedDogs said:


> When my dogs eat a rabbit either one that I have given them or one they kill themselves the first thing they do is open up the body cavity at the belly and pull out the intestines. They don't eat them. They just put them aside. There is nothing on the above linked site that said the wolf actually ate the intestines. It showed him pulling them out of the carcas and moving them away.


It also showed him protecting them, and the camera man did not stay until the meal was finished.





RawFedDogs said:


> Not just in my own mind. I am an expert in feeding dogs and cats a species appropriate raw diet. Not only have I been doing it for over 6 years but i have spend many hours studying it and helping well over 100 people switch their dog to prey model raw. I've listed my accomplishments and qualifications in other threads and I'm not going to go over it again.


Wow, if this is what it takes, then I'm an expert in small animal nutrition, raw food (and actually, my experience would outweigh yours by about four years and probably 500 "converts"), I'm a five star chef, a NASCAR driver, a stuntman (I've fallen off a ladder twice with no injuries - ta da!) and I'm sorry, what was your name again?

You want experts? Talk to Kymythy Schultze, Ian Billinghurst, Marty Goldstein... you, my friend, are not a blip on the radar. I personally learn something new each day. For example, yesterday, YOU, the EXPERT, learned that wolves eat intestines. Pretty big oversight, wouldn't you say?





RawFedDogs said:


> And they are both wrong. Kymythy is not only wrong in her dietary beliefs but also her fringe medicine beliefs. There is nothing special about a vet who puts the word "holistic" in front of his title. Any vet can do that. There are not tests to past or certifications to get for a vet to call himself "holistic". Most of the holistic vets are just that ... regular vets who decided to call themselve holistic for business reasons.


Kind of like internet posters who refer to themselves as "experts," huh? In actuality, my holistic vet is a certified chiropractor, acupuncturist, has studied herbalism, has a degree in nutrition, and has studied homeopathy. "Holistic" means treating the whole dog, not just the diet or the symptoms. I suggest to you do some more research before making blanket statements such as these. 





RawFedDogs said:


> I did read the article and have read it before. All in all its a pretty good article. I agree with 90% of what she says although she contraticts herself in a few places.


You mean you agree with everything she says that fits into your model. Because you're surely more of an expert than Mary Strauss, right? Sorry, hun - but you're not going to find a single believe in that gem on this board. And I've only been here a few days.





RawFedDogs said:


> I think you read a different article. Most of what she said in her article, I have said many times in many posts.
> "_Feeding vegetables, fruits, and grains is optional, as dogs do not require carbohydrates in their diet_."
> "_If you feed veggies, they need to be either cooked or pureed in a food processor, juicer, or blender."_ *NOTE:* I have said many times that if dogs needed plant material in their diet that over millions of years of evolution they would have developed a way to digest them without human help.
> "_Healthy dogs that are fed a wide variety of appropriate foods should have no need of supplements, but there are several fresh food supplements that *may* provide additional benefits when added in small amounts_:" Emphasis mine.


Yes, and those "fresh food supplements" would be non-meat supplements such as fresh veggies and fruits. You are using her words to prove my point.





RawFedDogs said:


> I'm not sure that statement is accurate but even if it is, our dogs are not mained wolves. They are gray wolves.
> 
> Actually we do know that our dogs(canis lupus famaliaris) are a subspecies of the Gray wolf. (canis lupus)
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/5755/wolf.html


Are you kidding? Scientists can barely tell the difference between a wolf a coyote and a fox when it comes to DNA testing. As far as the canis lupis categorization goes, it was simply to acknowledge that there was widespread acceptance that the dog was in fact descended from the wolf. Keep in mind that's the accepted knowledge of the moment. It wasn't until the late 80's we realized cats needed taurine, and until recently, Pluto was a planet. 

In fact, the growing idea is that spontaneous domestication took place worldwide, as some of the oldest skulls have been found in the middle east, russia and the czech, and all show markedly differing head shapes and serious evolutionary differences. The idea that every breed of dog came from the grey wolf is... well, it's preposterous. What was the scientific community to do though? Try to track down the genetic history of each breed to wolf populations that are probably extinct? So north american scientists reclassified the dog under our own wolf, the canis lupus. 




RawFedDogs said:


> Awwww come on, can't you take a joke?


Oh, a joke I can take... conjecture and heresay presented as facts and "expertise" however, I can not. Nor does passive aggressive BS impress me. You have an awfully high opinion of yourself for someone who seems to not have picked up a book or read an article in some time - did you do all that research in the first 2 years of your long 6 year feeding career? ha ha ha.

If you can't reply with facts, don't reply at all. I have no patience for conjecture.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

babysweet said:


> There are countless yahoos who have been published far more than Mr. Lonsdale has.


It's *Dr*. Lonsdale.



> To quote him in a discussion about nutrition is like quoting a dentist in regards to antioxidants.


You would do well to follow your own advice and not reply with conjecture. The man is a Vet after all not JUST a dentist.



> One possible explanation is that the fibre prevents perforation of the intestines. But since no one has been able to discern an absolute reason for this behaviour, discounting nutrition is awfully reckless.


Oh no, not reckless at all. Fiber is not nutrition. Grass comes out both ends looking just like it did before it went in therefore no digestion took place. Bones are the only fiber needed in a proper dog' diet. As for preventing perforation of the intestines, that might be true if the grass actually wrapped itself around something. Everytime my dogs poop grass its all by itself in a little bit of feces. No bones or anything sharp comes out with it.



> Particularly when dogs themselves evolved eating what they did - garbage. AND, many dogs, given the chance, will happily graze plants, fruits and vegetables, including wild dogs.


Particularly ones with high sugar content (taste good). It doesn't mean they extract any nutrition from them. It's kinda like us eating cake, candy, and ice cream. We don't know they evolved eating garbage. That is conjecture.



> In addition, the only conclusive evidence is that SOME plant matter ends up in the stool. There have been no tests done to compare plant matter ingested vs. plant matter excreted. Until I see these numbers, I will withhold my judgement on this particular behaviour.


Feed your dog some corn sometime or green beans, or carrots. Whole ones, not pureed, cooked or ground. Keep a close eye on the stool for a few days afterwards. You will see these items coming out undigested. Hehe, one time one of my dogs ate some corn I had out for deer. The next day his stool was more whole kernels of corn than stool. I swear you would have washed off those kernals and you would never have known they had been previously eaten.

If dogs needed veggies in their diet don't you think after millions of years of evolution they would have developed a method to digest them?



> It also showed him protecting them, and the camera man did not stay until the meal was finished.


That was your impression of what you saw because if that's consistant with your belief system. Howeer, all I saw was him standing there looking at the photographer trying to determine what he was going to do. I saw no eating, no guarding. You imagination may insert it. I would call that conjecture.



> Wow, if this is what it takes, then I'm an expert in small animal nutrition, raw food (and actually, my experience would outweigh yours by about four years and probably 500 "converts")


,

Most of mine weren't converts as much as people asking me to help them switch their dog. Most were strangers when they contacted me for help. They weren't people I "converted".



> I'm a five star chef, a NASCAR driver,


Hehe, I actually was a NASCAR driver years ago.  I THINK I still have my NASCAR drivers liscense but it expired long time ago.



> You want experts? Talk to Kymythy Schultze, Ian Billinghurst, Marty Goldstein... you, my friend, are not a blip on the radar.


Experts???? Those people aren't experts. Kymythy is a pill pusher. Ian used to feed prey model raw, then discovered he couldn't make money on it so he switched and "invented" BARF. He now makes money off BARF by selling premix patties. Last I heard, Ian is now feeding prey model but that MAY have been a rumor. I've only seen Marty Goldstein one time on TV (Oprah). He talked a real good raw feeding game until he got to the part where he presented his recommended diet and it was altogether different that what he had been saying 5 minutes earlier. So no, I don't give him much credit either.



> I personally learn something new each day. For example, yesterday, YOU, the EXPERT, learned that wolves eat intestines. Pretty big oversight, wouldn't you say?


NO I didn't learn that. I have watched several dogs (others than just mine) eat whole prey and none of them ... that means not one ... ate intestines. I have talked to a few people who say their dogs do but not many. If you will read some of the research of Dr. L. David Mech you will see that wild wolves don't eat intestines or stomach contents.

From David Mech's Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003):

"_To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system._" 
-p124



> Kind of like internet posters who refer to themselves as "experts," huh? In actuality, my holistic vet is a certified chiropractor, acupuncturist, has studied herbalism, has a degree in nutrition, and has studied homeopathy.


I made no references to your own personal so called holistic vet. All I said was that there are no legal requirements for a vet to hang out a shingle and call himself a holistic vet. That is a true statement and many vets do just that to increase income.



> "Holistic" means treating the whole dog, not just the diet or the symptoms. I suggest to you do some more research before making blanket statements such as these.


I know what "holistic" means but I'm telling you that in front of a vet's name, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.



> You mean you agree with everything she says that fits into your model. Because you're surely more of an expert than Mary Strauss, right? Sorry, hun - but you're not going to find a single believe in that gem on this board. And I've only been here a few days.


Then stick around, you will learn a lot. 



> Yes, and those "fresh food supplements" would be non-meat supplements such as fresh veggies and fruits. You are using her words to prove my point.


I emphasized the word "MAY" for a reason. Even she doesn't say they actually help. She says they "MAY" help. BTW: Tom Lonsdale says the same thing. He says "_fruits and vegetables won't do any harm and *MAY* do *SOME* good._"

I don't agree with either one for the simple reason that dogs can't digest plant material. Tom is talking about feeding leftovers from the human table so he is talking about cooked food in most instances. I stll maintain that if dogs needed plant matter, they would develop a method of digesting it.



> Are you kidding? Scientists can barely tell the difference between a wolf a coyote and a fox when it comes to DNA testing.


Hehe, you've got a lot to learn about DNA. Dogs are closer related to gray wolves than coyotes are by a long shot. The mtDNA difference between a dog and wolf is 0.02%. A coyotte is 4.0% different if i remember correct. 

Google the name Dr. Robert Wayne. He has done extensive research in DNA of wild canines and domestic dogs. One determination he made was that wolves are mixed with nothing to make a dog. They didn't cross breed with something else. So in other words our dogs ARE gray wolves. DNA proves it.



> As far as the canis lupis categorization goes, it was simply to acknowledge that there was widespread acceptance that the dog was in fact descended from the wolf.


No the categorization determines that dogs aren't decended from wolves, they are wolves.



> Keep in mind that's the accepted knowledge of the moment. It wasn't until the late 80's we realized cats needed taurine, and until recently, Pluto was a planet.


HEHEHEHEHEHEHE ... This doesn't fit into your belief system so you say the worlds foremost experts are wrong and eventually will see the light that you have already seen and they will get smart and change their findings to align themselves with you?? That wouldn't be conjecture would it?



> In fact, the growing idea is that spontaneous domestication took place worldwide, as some of the oldest skulls have been found in the middle east, russia and the czech, and all show markedly differing head shapes and serious evolutionary differences.


It wasn't exactly spontaneous but took place over a few thousand years.



> The idea that every breed of dog came from the grey wolf is... well, it's preposterous. What was the scientific community to do though? Try to track down the genetic history of each breed to wolf populations that are probably extinct?


More conjecture?

Robert Wayne did just that. You should read some of this actual research. I had a bookmark to an excellent study he did where he mapped out the different stages the wolves when through in different parts of the world to get to where they are. I guess it accidentally go deleted because I can't find it anywhere. If I find it in the next few days, I'll post a link to it here.



> So north american scientists reclassified the dog under our own wolf, the canis lupus.


They consulted with you to tell you their reasons for doing it or is this just conjecture? They made the determination based largely on Dr Waynes DNA evidence.



> You have an awfully high opinion of yourself for someone who seems to not have picked up a book or read an article in some time - did you do all that research in the first 2 years of your long 6 year feeding career? ha ha ha.


Actually I am reading almost continuously and yes I do have a high opinion of myself. Everyone should have a high opinion of themselves.



> If you can't reply with facts, don't reply at all. I have no patience for conjecture.


Pot - kettle


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Since you're obviously only interested in what suits you own "expert" model, I'll just point out your most glaring error. There have been several studies that have shown that certain breeds of dogs come from varying wolf species. In fact, given the spread of the earliest fossils vs the habitat spread of the gray wolf (canis lupus lupus), it's almost impossible that the gray wolf is responsible for the entire species.

Here's a quick, basic summary of the worldwide history of dog fossils and dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

And here's a quick summary of wolf subspecies and their geographic ranges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

And in regards to your suggestion that dog didn't evolve eating garbage and poop... you don't seriously believe in the old wives tale of the cave man rearing the cute wolf puppy dog you? I suggest you read Coppinger, which has become the generally accepted theory regarding canine evolution.

Finally, my comment regarding "current knowledge" was simply to point out that our "knowledge" is fluid and forever changing. 20 years ago jerk and pull training methods were considered the best and only way to train, dominance theory was unwaveringly accepted and unquestioned... dog food was unquestioned for the most part - some of the best kennels in the world fed brands like "Barn Dog." Taurine was not considered to be necessary in cat food, and still isn't in dog food, although AAFCO is now considering updating its minimums for dogs to include taurine as well.

Our knowledge changes as our scientific body grows. And those of us with closed minds who are resistant to change fail to grow with it, and it is our pets who suffer because of it. That's not to say that every crackpot should be given fair air time, but every theory should be explored and investigated thoroughly in a fair and scientific fashion.

With that being said, I'm finished with this thread. I've had several PMs from members who have been aroung longer than I have who have informed me that I could present you irrefutable proof to the contrary and you would still not waver, being so concerned your ego may be bruised or your imagined "expert image" tarnished.

I have my own dogs, rescue dogs, training clients and nutritional clients to deal with on a daily basis - I came here to help, not to bang my head against a brick wall because of someone who can't see beyond their preconceived notions.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

babysweet said:


> Since you're obviously only interested in what suits you own "expert" model, I'll just point out your most glaring error. There have been several studies that have shown that certain breeds of dogs come from varying wolf species. In fact, given the spread of the earliest fossils vs the habitat spread of the gray wolf (canis lupus lupus), it's almost impossible that the gray wolf is responsible for the entire species.


If you accept that improbable theory than you have to accept that different breeds of dogs are actually different species and that is just not the case. I have never seen anywhere that suggests that different breeds are different species from any expert in any field. To the contrary, the major experts classify dogs as a subspecies of the gray wolf. Not subspecies of a vareity of wolves. Yes I have seen the studies you mentioned but can't accept them for the reasons I listed. Other studies overide them.



> And in regards to your suggestion that dog didn't evolve eating garbage and poop... you don't seriously believe in the old wives tale of the cave man rearing the cute wolf puppy dog you? I suggest you read Coppinger, which has become the generally accepted theory regarding canine evolution.


I've read Coppinger and attended one of his seminars. The magic word here is "THEORY". All I said in my reply to you is that you don't know that dogs evolved eating garbage. No one does ... its a theory. 

It is just as likely that when the dog made a kill or man made a kill then man would take what meat he could use and the dog would finish off the carcass. The carcass would not contain human editable meat pretty quickly after it was killed simply because of the decomposition process that would begin pretty quickly. Man, because of his physiology, couldn't keep coming back to the carcass for days like the wolf could. Since the wolf can't digest plant material, I suspect if he ate "garbage" it had to be mostly meat garbage.



> Finally, my comment regarding "current knowledge" was simply to point out that our "knowledge" is fluid and forever changing.


I understood what you were saying. I was mearly joking about how you can't just say, "I disagree with the experts." You have to go into a long explanation as to how knowledge if fluid. Personally, I just say "They are wrong." and move on.



> With that being said, I'm finished with this thread. I've had several PMs from members who have been aroung longer than I have who have informed me that I could present you irrefutable proof to the contrary and you would still not waver, being so concerned your ego may be bruised or your imagined "expert image" tarnished.


There is very little irrefutable proof that I am wrong on anything. The few times it has come up, I have adjusted my thinking.



> I have my own dogs, rescue dogs, training clients and nutritional clients to deal with on a daily basis - I came here to help, not to bang my head against a brick wall because of someone who can't see beyond their preconceived notions.


I guess you have a hard time when someone doesn't accept everything you say just because you say it, huh? Did you expect to come in here and "correct" what others say and not have anyone question your beliefs? I have a reasonable and logical basis for everything I say. I don't just make this stuff up. I have looked at all the evidence I can find and come to logical concusions based on that evidence. None of it is based on emotion or fantasy. Very little is based on what any expert says. I am a very unemotional person. Anyone will rarely see me get upset at things said here unless it concerns mistreating an animal then I tend to go a little overboard. I don't accept something just because some so called expert says it. There must be reasonable and logical evidence. 

I hate to see you go. You were fun and challenging to discuss things with. You get a little emotional but other than that you make some good points.


----------

