Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Pet Board => Topic started by: ~flower~ on September 11, 2007, 11:58:14 AM
-
A look into the "science" and what experimental dogs have to go through so pet dogs can be fed food they are not designed to eat, what a damn shame:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=5e5047c3cc41f371&ex=1189569600 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=5e5047c3cc41f371&ex=1189569600)
-
A look into the "science" and what experimental dogs have to go through so pet dogs can be fed food they are not designed to eat, what a damn shame:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=5e5047c3cc41f371&ex=1189569600 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=5e5047c3cc41f371&ex=1189569600)
What I think is funny about that article is the subconscious bias. Take the illiojujenostomy tube----thats a standard feeding tube used to supply nutrition to dogs where the stomach must be bypassed. . For example a Great Dane post GDV surgery or a dog hit by a car with a diaphragmatic hernia. To read that article, its straight from the devil. However if its placed correctly, the dog will heal with only a small intestinal adhesion to the body wall and the tube can be removed and the site closed with no negative effects.
And this is the best quote I've seen in a long, long time about pet foods.... “People buy diets on the basis of two things,” Fahey said. “The first is palatability. You put it on the floor and the dogs clean up the bowl.” He lifted a pencil from a desk and held it in the air. The second thing, he explained, is the appearance of the stool. “It should be half as long as this pencil, picked up as easily as this pencil, Ziplocked — and away we go.”
-
I think keeping dogs in cages with minimal exercise and companionship so they can be studied on how they can be fed food they shouldn't be eating in the first place is bullshit.
The stools would NATURALLY be smaller if they weren't fed the FILLER that those studies are carried out for.
You missed my whole ironic meaning in posting that. >:(
The pet food industry propagates harm by first inflicting harm!!
Did you notice where he says he is an independent and does these studies for the pet food craponies so they don't have to be affiliated with them?
With his academic status and independent financing, George Fahey’s research spares pet-food manufacturers the negative publicity they might attract if they ran their own experiments on surgically altered dogs.
-
As Fahey described the lab’s procedures, the room grew quiet, and by the end of his monologue the dogs sat in total silence, their eyes plaintive. Clearly, they were begging, but begging for what? Perhaps they expected to be fed. Perhaps they longed for an end to their captivity. Fahey grinned and said nothing, but the moment we left the room and shut the green metal door, it sounded as if some evil doctor had begun to torture the poor animals. They howled and blubbered and brayed and whined, and their pathetic ululations followed us as we traced our way back down the yellow cinder-block hallway, past the cattle gates, through the final door and out to the light of a hot Midwestern afternoon.
“What made them so upset?” I asked.
“They thought you were going to take them out to play,” Fahey said. “Look what you did.”
All in the name of feeding crap food!!
Or IN THE NAME OF MAKING MONEY ON CRAP FOOD!!!
-
As Fahey described the lab’s procedures, the room grew quiet, and by the end of his monologue the dogs sat in total silence, their eyes plaintive. Clearly, they were begging, but begging for what? Perhaps they expected to be fed. Perhaps they longed for an end to their captivity. Fahey grinned and said nothing, but the moment we left the room and shut the green metal door, it sounded as if some evil doctor had begun to torture the poor animals. They howled and blubbered and brayed and whined, and their pathetic ululations followed us as we traced our way back down the yellow cinder-block hallway, past the cattle gates, through the final door and out to the light of a hot Midwestern afternoon.
“What made them so upset?” I asked.
“They thought you were going to take them out to play,” Fahey said. “Look what you did.”
All in the name of feeding crap food!!
Or IN THE NAME OF MAKING MONEY ON CRAP FOOD!!!
Ok, think of it this way....would you know it was "crap" food if none of this research was ever done? How would you reach that conclusion? By conjecture and opinion?
-
Ok, think of it this way....would you know it was "crap" food if none of this research was ever done? How would you reach that conclusion? By conjecture and opinion?
All processed pet food is crap. Some are crappier than others is all. :)
Might as well do a study with humans to find out how we can add bark and rocks to our diet. We shouldn't be eating bark and rocks, and what we should be eating is right there in front of us, but I bet lots of money could be made if there was a food that used bark and rocks as the bulk of it and with the right "science" done it could even be made to look like its good for you.
;D
-
And furthermore............. ........ ::)
Those are not real life studies. We all know that stress, exercise, and other variables can affect how bodies functions including how it uses food.
So keeping companion animals caged like that is not even a good study to begin with!!
Junk science on junk food!! >:(
I believe I did hear one company (it might of even been :P Iams) that said they were using feeding trials done with honest to goodness family pets. No animals in cages, animals that were living a LIFE.
I don't think pets should suffer so people can feed them shit. That is suffering with no purpose.
Everybody think about that the next time you pour a bowl of processed food chunks. A dog somewhere is sitting in a cage so your dog can eat crap it shouldn't and some bunk science dude can feel good telling you it is great for him, and some big CEO dude can continue to make money.
This concludes my "feel good" speech for today.
-
And furthermore............. ........ ::)
that part was kind of funny
-
And furthermore............. ........ ::)
Those are not real life studies. We all know that stress, exercise, and other variables can affect how bodies functions including how it uses food.
So keeping companion animals caged like that is not even a good study to begin with!!
Junk science on junk food!! >:(
I believe I did hear one company (it might of even been :P Iams) that said they were using feeding trials done with honest to goodness family pets. No animals in cages, animals that were living a LIFE.
I don't think pets should suffer so people can feed them shit. That is suffering with no purpose.
Everybody think about that the next time you pour a bowl of processed food chunks. A dog somewhere is sitting in a cage so your dog can eat crap it shouldn't and some bunk science dude can feel good telling you it is great for him, and some big CEO dude can continue to make money.
This concludes my "feel good" speech for today.
LOL@ feel good speech. I'm not going to agree or disagree in your comments about commercial food being "shit". We've been through this, I honestly don't think you can trust the average human to feed themselves a nutritious diet, much less feed their dogs (or their children for that matter).
I personally am not a big fan of animal research, but there is no realistic alternative for many studies (I'm staying very, very general with this statement on purpose because there are many, many alternatives with others and the most noninvasive proceedure should ALWAYS be the one chosen). The infamily feeding trials were done by both Iams and Purina if I'm not mistaken. I've worked in two hospitals that also did final feeding trials on animals (these were for both prescription and regular diets) The problem with those sort of feeding trials is the innate degree of variability you have with different households. The initial research needs to be done where you can guarantee that the dogs are not getting snuck table scraps or other stuff that so, so many households feed their dogs. The only way to do that is to conduct the research in a laboratory situation. Its not ideal, but its humans that are once again at fault.
I've worked with research animals of a variety of species, from birds to mice and rats to dogs to yucatan minature swine to cattle to llamas and alpacas to horses to nonhuman primates. Of all of those, I really do think a "reasonable" quality of life can be developed in most general instances except for the nonhuman primates. Thats a whole different ballgame that becomes very complex depending on the species. A big key component of it is the quality of the laboratory crew that is hired for the research project. These are the people who are so often overlooked but really are the ones that will give a "normal" life to the animals. I've worked as one of those people as an undergrad and the attitude of the researcher towards the animals are directly reflected by their animal care crew.
I don't know if you know or not, but the thoroughbred and quarterhorse of my wifes are both research lab parolees. The quarterhorse is a pretty complex story, but the thoroughbred was basically an off the track gelding who'd run his life out winning a few hundred thousand. He had laryngeal paralysis, and as a gelding, was basically worthless. He was bought at a surplus acution and from there got taken into my wifes lab, where an experimental surgery was done to correct his laryngeal paralysis. He was also used as a surgical teaching horse for insertion of a coil embolus for gutteral pouch mycosis. This horse spent his time as a research horse, was brushed twice per day, lunged daily, had regular foot care, was given some "carrot/mint/apple time---my wifes term she does with all of the horses in her research---and in all honesty taken better care of in my opinion than a large number of horses I've seen in the private sector. Once the research projects were done, rather than be euthanized, all of the horses in the group this thoroughbred came from were adopted out---we ended up with the thoroughbred--except for one mare, who in all honesty was too dangerous for anyone but the most experienced horse owner tohandle and quite frankly, we couldnt' find that type of owner interested in her. We tried. She was euthanized because of her temperment, not because of lab protocol.
What I'm trying to say is that while animal research may not be unavoidable, the attitude of the researcher and the attitude of the staff of that researcher can make a tremendous amount of difference in the quality of life of the research animals. Does that make sense?
-
Reasonable quality of life is debatable. ::) I just find it disgusting to do studies of that nature in order to see how animals can be fed food they shouldn't be eating and don't need.
So what do YOU feed Vet? I'm sure people here would like to know what you consider a good food. :)
-
http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=main
heres a listing of some ingredients to avoid...
http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients
-
i ate dog food a few times in college... just the dry stuff... it was ok :)
-
i ate dog food a few times in college... just the dry stuff... it was ok :)
yeah I did too. BowWow with Equal and milk tastes the same as GrapeNuts Cereal.
-
So what do you feed your dogs?
-
So what do you feed your dogs?
You know, no matter what I answer on this one, I'm going to get slammed....
I feed all of my dogs a commercially available dog food. I'm not saying more than that because of the bias that will result from my answer. I personally have no brand loyalty. I feed the brand I feed because my wife gets it at wholesale cost where she works, my dogs love the taste of it, they produce a relatively small amount of feces, and they are healthy with none of the apparent "allergy" issues associated with some dogs and commercial diets. That brand has changed through the years based on finances (its difficult to feed 5 large breed dogs on two resident/intern salaries). I also feed the food I feed because I live much of my life out of a cans of chicken and protein shakes with microwaved potatos and vegetables. I dont' have the time or energy to cook and balance a diet when I've had what I consider to be success feeding a commercial diet. Hell, I don't have time to cook my own food, much less the dogs.
There, answer your question?
-
So what do you feed your dogs?
more importantly, what will you feed your WOOO when I move in? ;D
-
You know, no matter what I answer on this one, I'm going to get slammed....
I feed all of my dogs a commercially available dog food. I'm not saying more than that because of the bias that will result from my answer. I personally have no brand loyalty. I feed the brand I feed because my wife gets it at wholesale cost where she works, my dogs love the taste of it, they produce a relatively small amount of feces, and they are healthy with none of the apparent "allergy" issues associated with some dogs and commercial diets. That brand has changed through the years based on finances (its difficult to feed 5 large breed dogs on two resident/intern salaries). I also feed the food I feed because I live much of my life out of a cans of chicken and protein shakes with microwaved potatos and vegetables. I dont' have the time or energy to cook and balance a diet when I've had what I consider to be success feeding a commercial diet. Hell, I don't have time to cook my own food, much less the dogs.
There, answer your question?
so....
gravy train?
;D
-
I feed the brand I feed because my wife gets it at wholesale cost where she works, my dogs love the taste of it, they produce a relatively small amount of feces, and they are healthy with none of the apparent "allergy" issues associated with some dogs and commercial diets.
Great excerpt from that post because coming from an actual VETERINARIAN it shows that dogs do not need to be fed raw food in order to be more like animals "in the wild". If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't need to switch my dog from Eagle Pack Holistic Select to BARF because it is "technically", and "on paper" better for them, WHICH I DO NOT ARGUE. I just don't think any dog should be moved off of any food that keeps them healthy, energetic, and happy.
-
You know, no matter what I answer on this one, I'm going to get slammed....
I feed all of my dogs a commercially available dog food. I'm not saying more than that because of the bias that will result from my answer. I personally have no brand loyalty. I feed the brand I feed because my wife gets it at wholesale cost where she works, my dogs love the taste of it, they produce a relatively small amount of feces, and they are healthy with none of the apparent "allergy" issues associated with some dogs and commercial diets. That brand has changed through the years based on finances (its difficult to feed 5 large breed dogs on two resident/intern salaries). I also feed the food I feed because I live much of my life out of a cans of chicken and protein shakes with microwaved potatos and vegetables. I dont' have the time or energy to cook and balance a diet when I've had what I consider to be success feeding a commercial diet. Hell, I don't have time to cook my own food, much less the dogs.
There, answer your question?
I get slammed all the time, yet I still stand up and say what I do and why I do it.
I figure if you can go and post why doing this is good, or why doing this is bad, you can certainly say what it is you do or don't do.
If people should respect and take into consideration when you post about stuff, maybe you should go beyond just lip service and stand behind what you do.
If you are afraid to say what you feed, then maybe YOU have the problem with it.
;D
-
Great excerpt from that post because coming from an actual VETERINARIAN it shows that dogs do not need to be fed raw food in order to be more like animals "in the wild". If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't need to switch my dog from Eagle Pack Holistic Select to BARF because it is "technically", and "on paper" better for them, WHICH I DO NOT ARGUE. I just don't think any dog should be moved off of any food that keeps them healthy, energetic, and happy.
Yet the VETERINARIAN won't say what he feeds?
Being that people want to know what Vet thinks on subjects (even I do!) I think this is probably one of the questions people want answered because they listen to what he says. He has posted about what to look for in a food etc, so what does HE feed?
I think his choice would be a good balance to what people hear me saying is my choice.
And since I won't be around as much, Vet will be the main side to get info from.
Whether anyone has ever agreed or disagreed with anything I have posted I always tried to provide as much info, actual studies, links to more info, pros and cons, my personal reasons, experiences, and what and why I have made the choices I have made or the recommendations I have.
Good Luck, some of what I have posted proves that all the info is not forthcoming from the "professionals" we are supposed to trust. (that is not directed at Vet, though he was unaware of some studies and info that contradict what most vets say to do).
-
Being that people want to know what Vet thinks on subjects (even I do!) I think this is probably one of the questions people want answered because they listen to what he says. He has posted about what to look for in a food etc, so what does HE feed?
I think his choice would be a good balance to what people hear me saying is my choice.
Flower I understand that, but in defense of Vet, it doesn't matter what he feeds, because his dog is not everyone else's dog. I know a two dogs, both from the same litter, who don't like Canidae. Loose stools and mad gas. Plato on the other hand was on Canidae from like 6 months to 17 or 18 months and was perfect on it, although I switched to Eagle Pack in hopes of a little more predictability with bowel movements, and it helped.
I break your balls all the time because of the raw food thing and I am not arguing that it is PROBABLY the best for a dog. But, it isn't the only food for a dog. If Vet's dog is doing well on Science Diet or something, then so be it.
-
If I, a die hard raw feeder, can take the time to look at kibbles and do research to try and find a recommendation or 2 to give people that want to feed kibble, or what to look for in one, then I don't think it is asking much of someone people respect here, what he feeds.
I have seen other people ask him that question in the past and he has ignored it (like he tried this time, but he knows I will just keep asking it til he responds ;D)
What if I told people to stay away from this or that or said do this or whatever yet wouldn't say what I actually do for my dogs?
Hell most of the shit I post I have to back up a few times over with studies or at minimum good peer reviewed articles!
-
If I, a die hard raw feeder, can take the time to look at kibbles and do research to try and find a recommendation or 2 to give people that want to feed kibble, or what to look for in one, then I don't think it is asking much of someone people respect here, what he feeds.
I have seen other people ask him that question in the past and he has ignored it (like he tried this time, but he knows I will just keep asking it til he responds ;D)
What if I told people to stay away from this or that or said do this or whatever yet wouldn't say what I actually do for my dogs?
Hell most of the shit I post I have to back up a few times over with studies or at minimum good peer reviewed articles!
Flower, when have I ever made forboding dietary recommendations---as in You MUST FEED THIS DIET? I don't for a reason. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are many, many different commercial dog foods out there. Some are way better than others. I also think the average American can't balance their own diet, so its unrealistic to expect them to do it for their pet. Homemade diets need to be carefully prepared to prevent dietary imbalances.
-
Flower, when have I ever made forboding dietary recommendations---as in You MUST FEED THIS DIET? I don't for a reason. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are many, many different commercial dog foods out there. Some are way better than others. I also think the average American can't balance their own diet, so its unrealistic to expect them to do it for their pet. Homemade diets need to be carefully prepared to prevent dietary imbalances.
I don't believe I asked you what you think people MUST feed, I asked what YOU feed. I have seen others ask you that same question.
Considering I don't feed kibble but have recommended a brand or 2 in the past, I thought maybe someone who actually FEEDS kibble and isn't some rumdumb, might say what he feeds.
If not just post your bank account and routing info instead, that's not very personal. :)
-
I feed my dog Kit Kats, Harbo Gummy Bears & Miller Genuine Draft.
He looks happy to me.......except for the Hershy Squirts
-
so....
gravy train?
;D
No...
And you can see from this thread why I won't post what brand I feed. This was a set-up question. If I do post the brand name and its a brand that Flower doesn't approve of, she's going to use it as ammunition on how veterinarians don't know anything about animal nutrition and use it to justify her OPINIONS on feeding canines. If its a brand that other members feed, they are going to throw that back into her face to justify their feeding cheap as shit dog food.
I don't endorse any single dog food brand. There are some out there that are better than others. What I feed my dogs is what I feed my dogs. At no time have I tried to state that their feeding is better or worse than any of the other diets discussed here. I will say that I very rarely feed them any table scraps and the rawhides I give them as treats are all unflavored minimally processed pig hide.
-
I don't believe I asked you what you think people MUST feed, I asked what YOU feed. I have seen others ask you that same question.
Considering I don't feed kibble but have recommended a brand or 2 in the past, I thought maybe someone who actually FEEDS kibble and isn't some rumdumb, might say what he feeds.
If not just post your bank account and routing info instead, that's not very personal. :)
They have? I haven't seen it. The only person on this forum I've had an indepth discussion with about foods is you.... and that goes back to homemade diets and people being able to formulate them correctly. What you've posted tonight is a direct attempt to stir up shit. I've tried to sidestep it as best I can, but you are continuing to push your own agenda.
I will say this, Flower, from an evolutionary/biological standpoint some of what you have posted on this forum about canine diets is flat out wrong. This is based on the physiology and comparative anatomy of the canine digestive tract. I've briefly mentioned it several times, but I haven't pushed it because I figured it wasn't worth the resultant explosion. I do strongly suggest that you review basic canine digestive physiology and comparative carnivore anatomy. Just because an animal is of the Order Carnivora, doesn't mean it eats exactly the same as the others in that order. Carnivora is a broad reaching group of animals encompassing more than 250 species of placental mammals. The dietary requirements of carnivorans can best be divided into each individual superfamily within the order.
That said, you've made up your mind that you are correct and the rest of the world can be damned. Thats fine by me. You aren't feeding my dogs.
-
No...
And you can see from this thread why I won't post what brand I feed. This was a set-up question. If I do post the brand name and its a brand that Flower doesn't approve of, she's going to use it as ammunition on how veterinarians don't know anything about animal nutrition and use it to justify her OPINIONS on feeding canines. If its a brand that other members feed, they are going to throw that back into her face to justify their feeding cheap as shit dog food.
I don't endorse any single dog food brand. There are some out there that are better than others. What I feed my dogs is what I feed my dogs. At no time have I tried to state that their feeding is better or worse than any of the other diets discussed here. I will say that I very rarely feed them any table scraps and the rawhides I give them as treats are all unflavored minimally processed pig hide.
So it's Harbo Gummy Bears & Miller Genuine Draft
;D
-
So it's Harbo Gummy Bears & Miller Genuine Draft
;D
nah, my dogs only get the best. Guiness and Michelob Ultra. ;)
-
They have? I haven't seen it. The only person on this forum I've had an indepth discussion with about foods is you.... and that goes back to homemade diets and people being able to formulate them correctly. What you've posted tonight is a direct attempt to stir up shit. I've tried to sidestep it as best I can, but you are continuing to push your own agenda.
I believe it was Wooo (?) that asked recently. You can think what you want.
er.I will say this, Flower, from an evolutionary/biological standpoint some of what you have posted on this forum about canine diets is flat out wrong. This is based on the physiology and comparative anatomy of the canine digestive tract. I've briefly mentioned it several times, but I haven't pushed it because I figured it wasn't worth the resultant explosion. I do strongly suggest that you review basic canine digestive physiology and comparative carnivore anatomy. Just because an animal is of the Order Carnivora, doesn't mean it eats exactly the same as the others in that order. Carnivora is a broad reaching group of animals encompassing more than 250 species of placental mammals. The dietary requirements of carnivorans can best be devided into each individual superfamily within the order
I believe we went over the physiology and digestive track (in the raw feeding thread) and I asked you what had changed and you said I was correct. Now you are saying it isn't? Either say something or don't, but don't say that you COULD say something.
That said, you've made up your mind that you are correct and the rest of the world can be damned. Thats fine by me. You aren't feeding my dogs.
Dogs (carnivores) don't need grains, veggies, fruits in their diet and they aren't designed to digest them properly. Can they eat them sure. But a diet with them constantly in their diet all the time is not the most beneficial or optimum diet for a carnivore. Dogs do live on those foods, I can't deny that, but they could have better overall health if not forced to consume species inappropriate foods all the time. And some dogs with chronic problems could have an improved quality of life if taken off a processed diet.
Nature is right, man is wrong. I'm not nature so I can't take credit for being right. I just am not trying to better nature by making them eat stuff they shouldn't long term with the goal of a longer life with a better QUALITY of life.
All you have said til now is that you don't think people are capable of feeding a homemade (raw or cooked?) diet. Now you say it's because they really don't need a carnivore diet. ::) hmmm........
-
At least if Vet says it maybe people will see what I mean
-
I believe it was Wooo (?) that asked recently. You can think what you want.
er.
I believe we went over the physiology and digestive track (in the raw feeding thread) and I asked you what had changed and you said I was correct. Now you are saying it isn't? Either say something or don't, but don't say that you COULD say something.
Dogs (carnivores) don't need grains, veggies, fruits in their diet and they aren't designed to digest them properly. Can they eat them sure. But a diet with them constantly in their diet all the time is not the most beneficial or optimum diet for a carnivore. Dogs do live on those foods, I can't deny that, but they could have better overall health if not forced to consume species inappropriate foods all the time. And some dogs with chronic problems could have an improved quality of life if taken off a processed diet.
Nature is right, man is wrong. I'm not nature so I can't take credit for being right. I just am not trying to better nature by making them eat stuff they shouldn't long term with the goal of a longer life with a better QUALITY of life.
All you have said til now is that you don't think people are capable of feeding a homemade (raw or cooked?) diet. Now you say it's because they really don't need a carnivore diet. ::) hmmm........
Fine, right here you are flat out wrong.
Dogs (carnivores) don't need grains, veggies, fruits in their diet and they aren't designed to digest them properly. Can they eat them sure. But a diet with them constantly in their diet all the time is not the most beneficial or optimum diet for a carnivore.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Wild dogs (foxes and wolves) will eat plant material, including fruits and other plants. Its a well observed and well documented phenomena. We've all seen our dogs eating grass in the yard. True they are carnivores, but they are not the ULTRASTRICT MEAT ONLY carnivores that you seem to think they are. In that assumption, YOU are the one who are feeding your dogs an inappropriate diet.
Lets look at it from a biological standpoint (you asked for this one--I tried to warn you)....
Dogs are members of the Order Carnivora. The Order Carnivora includes carnivores, omnivores, and even a few primarily herbivorous species, like giant panda. Just because its a Carnivoran doesn't mean its a carnivore, meaning its a strict meat eating animal. The Giant Panda example alone kills that logical reasoning.
Using a common factor, the teeth, all carnivorans have the large, slightly recurved canine teeth which are used to grab and hold prey, and the carnassial teeth complex which are used to rend meat from bone and slice it into smaller digestible pieces. Dogs have molar teeth behind the carnassials for crushing bones and to a degree grinding plant material. As an example, another carnivoran--a strict meat eater---cats, have only a greatly reduced, functionless molar behind the carnassial in the upper jaw. Cats will strip bones clean but will not crush them to get the marrow inside and they eat no plant material. Dogs will crush bone to get to the marrow inside. They will also use these molar teeth for grinding plant material. More omnivorous carnivorans, such as bears and raccoons, have developed blunt, molar-like carnassial teeth which are more designed for grinding plant material. So, from a dental standpoint dogs are omnivorous carnivorans. It is a normal part of their diet to consume plant material in addition to meat as a portion of their daily food intake.
From the standpoint of relationships between species, the Order Carnivora is divided into three superfamilies.... The Superfamily Pinnipedia (Sea lions, seals, and walruses), which is by and large strictly carnivorous, but does contain some omnivorous species. The Superfamily Feloidae, which is includes the following obligate carnivorous families: Felidae (cats), Herpestidae (mongooses), Hyaenidae (hyenas), and Viveridae (civets). These animals are all obligate carnivores with specialized adaptions for the strict eating of meat such as reduced/specialized teeth for eating meat and retractable claws with special adaptions for hunting prey. The Superfamily Canoidae includes Canidae (dogs, wolves, and foxes), Mephitidae (skunks) Mustelidae (weasels and ferrets), Procyonidae (raccoons and coatimundi), and Ursidae (bears). This obviously widely diverse grouping of animals range from strict carnivores (ferrets) to much more herbivorous species (bears) including the completely herbivorous Giant Panda. The dietary variation within Canoidae is so varied with almost all included species tend to be omnivorous to some degree. This omnivorous nature is so uniform that all Canoidae have carnassial teeth that are less specialized for eating meat and have more premolars and molars in an elongated skull for grinding plant material. Just because its a canoidae doesn't mean its a "strict" carnivore, almost all of them aren't.
So there, you have three very well documented/proven reasons why feeding a dog a pure meat diet isn't the "Best" diet for domestic dogs. No wild dog species I'm aware of (meaning no Canidae) will eat only a meat diet. They all consume some degree of plant material every feeding as part of their normal food intake.
-
At least if Vet says it maybe people will see what I mean
I didn't want to get into this argument. Flower has a stick up her ass tonight and kept pushing. I'm answering the questions based on the knowledge I have. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Just don't stand on your head and scream you are right without presenting anything other than your opinion.
-
So there, you have three very well documented/proven reasons why feeding a dog a pure meat diet isn't the "Best" diet for domestic dogs. No wild dog species I'm aware of (meaning no Canidae) will eat only a meat diet. They all consume some degree of plant material every feeding as part of their normal food intake.
ok dokey. ::) Every feeding? Wolves with shake out the stomach before eating to dislodge as much vegetation as possible before eating, that is a documented fact. Of course some does remain, but the wolves clearly are not wanting to eat the vegetation.
I didn't want to get into this argument. Flower has a stick up her ass tonight and kept pushing. I'm answering the questions based on the knowledge I have. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Just don't stand on your head and scream you are right without presenting anything other than your opinion.
Maybe when we were discussing it a few months ago you should of brought up these points, for some reason you didn't and in fact you said I was correct with what I had posted and that I shot you down in flames. I had asked you then to show a different view. :-\
I don't find anything compelling in what you have posted accept that dogs will occasionally eat grass. So they can eat grass if they feel they need it. I don't need to feed them a diet of processed foods consisting largely of grains to do that. You've taken an animal known to be opportunistic and used that to say they regularly need plant material. Most dogs that I know, eat the grass and hork it up. They are not deriving anything from it nutritionally. I don't add any plant matter to their diet because they don't need any plant matter, especially REGULARLY.
Still a big difference to say they need PLANT MATTER and to feed a diet consisting mainly of GRAINS. Processed meats and GRAINS.
but whatever, if your dogs are alive on whatever they are fed, that is good enough. Medical science usually has a way that it can suppress whatever problems come up, and then suppress the problems from that treatment and so on......it's all good
-
I didn't want to get into this argument. Flower has a stick up her ass tonight and kept pushing. I'm answering the questions based on the knowledge I have. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Just don't stand on your head and scream you are right without presenting anything other than your opinion.
It is because she is a pompous ass about the whole raw feeding thing. If she is so into being as close to a wild dogs diet as possible, then she would feed them grains/foliage for 2-3 days straight and then feed them a huge serving of raw meat. Ya know, exactly like the diet of a wolf... She wants to treat her dogs like her babies, but feed them somewhat like wild animals, and then brag about it. Go hard or go home.
-
All scientific evidence points towards the fact that dogs, while not true carnivores, are opportunistic, carnivorous scavengers. Cats on the other hand are true, obligate carnivores, requiring animal protein to survive. There is a difference between a carnivorous scavenger and an omnivore though - dogs lack the dental characteristics, longer digestive tract and specific enzymes of true omnivores like humans. That is the reason why they can not digest grains and vegetables unless they are "predigested" by processing, mincing/grinding, breakdown by enzymes, or fermentation through bacteria. Once converted, they are fully available to the dog.
This does, however, not mean that your dog will thrive on a diet mainly made up of poor quality grains or grain fragments, which is what most cheap foods are. Whole grains, including their entire complement of nutrients are much more valuable - and this does not only apply for a dog's diet, but for humans as well!
-
Pedigree dude!! dogs love it..and the commercials are great! I am however trying the new dick van patten potato and duck dry kibble with dogs..in hopes of curing an itching allergy my lab has and god awful shedding my mix breed rottie has...
-
Flower, what do you know about evo foods? The info i've read claim its an alternative for raw feeders.
btw here is the website for the co. who makes it http://www.naturapet.com/
-
ok dokey. ::) Every feeding? Wolves with shake out the stomach before eating to dislodge as much vegetation as possible before eating, that is a documented fact. Of course some does remain, but the wolves clearly are not wanting to eat the vegetation.
Bullshit. Have you ever watched wolves feed? They will specifically eat the rumen contents from downed moose and elk. they don't "shake it out". There is a feeding behavior and competition between individual animals that leads to the spilling of intestinal contents, but some of the most desirable parts are whats in that rumen. Why do you think farm dogs eat cowshit? its the same basic principle. Undigested plant material. When the dogs I had growing up on the farm had access to a dead cow carcass, you know what they ate first? The liver and spleen and the rumen followed by the intestine. Almost every time. They didn't chew on a leg until the abdominal contents had been eaten.
Maybe when we were discussing it a few months ago you should of brought up these points, for some reason you didn't and in fact you said I was correct with what I had posted and that I shot you down in flames. I had asked you then to show a different view. :-\
Wrong, look back through the posts. I posted back then the same thing that I posted above, except I didn't do it in as much detail. I mentioned dogs being more omnivorous than cats and ferrets and I also mentioned wild dogs eating plant material and if memory serves me right I also said that dogs eat grass. You bleeped right over it and ignored what I had posted because it went against your own raw dog food agenda. From there the conversation continued with my thoughts on humans not being able to feed themselves appropriately, much less formulate a diet for their dog.
I don't find anything compelling in what you have posted accept that dogs will occasionally eat grass. So they can eat grass if they feel they need it. I don't need to feed them a diet of processed foods consisting largely of grains to do that. You've taken an animal known to be opportunistic and used that to say they regularly need plant material. Most dogs that I know, eat the grass and hork it up. They are not deriving anything from it nutritionally. I don't add any plant matter to their diet because they don't need any plant matter, especially REGULARLY.[/color]
I strongly suggest your review your comparative physiology. You have a preconcieved idea about carnivora and you are missing the big picture because of your bias against scientific fact. Dogs are omnivorus carnivorans. Face it. its that simple.
-
Flower, what do you know about evo foods? The info i've read claim its an alternative for raw feeders.
btw here is the website for the co. who makes it http://www.naturapet.com/
looks like a good choice.
http://forums.dogfoodproject.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=dogfood&Number=15027&Searchpage=1&Main=15024&Words=evo&topic=&Search=true#Post15027
check out timberwolf organics also.
http://www.timberwolforganics.com/
-
All scientific evidence points towards the fact that dogs, while not true carnivores, are opportunistic, carnivorous scavengers. Cats on the other hand are true, obligate carnivores, requiring animal protein to survive. There is a difference between a carnivorous scavenger and an omnivore though - dogs lack the dental characteristics, longer digestive tract and specific enzymes of true omnivores like humans. That is the reason why they can not digest grains and vegetables unless they are "predigested" by processing, mincing/grinding, breakdown by enzymes, or fermentation through bacteria. Once converted, they are fully available to the dog.
This does, however, not mean that your dog will thrive on a diet mainly made up of poor quality grains or grain fragments, which is what most cheap foods are. Whole grains, including their entire complement of nutrients are much more valuable - and this does not only apply for a dog's diet, but for humans as well!
Yes.
Canids will also not thrive on a diet devoid of all plant material. They will survive, but they will not thrive. Also remember a key factor is fiber content of the plant material consumed. A grain is not fruit is not fibrous grasses.
-
i've read about the same stuff Vet is talking about...wild wolves dont' waste anything when eating prey..they dig into the guts, eat undigested food from the prey's stomach, intestinal contents..everything..
hey, vet..how come you had cows carcasses lying around!? :o just curious...
-
hey, vet..how come you had cows carcasses lying around!? :o just curious...
LOL Sorry.... I can se you getting a messed up mental image of that.... I grew up on a farm with about 300 head of beef cows/cattle and several thousand head of hogs. Sometimes when an old cow would die, the dogs would discover her before the humans did. Not only that, but we buried all of the dead cattle in one place in a back pasture on the farm. To haul the body back, we used one tractor, then used a different one with a better scoop to dig the hole to bury the cow in. Sometimes there was a delay between getting the dead cow back to the "Grave" and getting the hole dug.
-
LOL Sorry.... I can se you getting a messed up mental image of that.... I grew up on a farm with about 300 head of beef cows/cattle and several thousand head of hogs. Sometimes when an old cow would die, the dogs would discover her before the humans did. Not only that, but we buried all of the dead cattle in one place in a back pasture on the farm. To haul the body back, we used one tractor, then used a different one with a better scoop to dig the hole to bury the cow in. Sometimes there was a delay between getting the dead cow back to the "Grave" and getting the hole dug.
that clears it up...
beef cows...i guess it was best not to take any interest in the cows--meaning..don't get attached to any...or you could end up pretty depressed...
-
http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.
"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)
"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." (pg.124, emphasis added).
This next quote can be found on the Hunting and Meals page at Kerwood Wildlife Education Center.
"The wolf's diet consists mostly of muscle meat and fatty tissue from various animals. Heart, lung, liver, and other internal organs are eaten. Bones are crushed to get at the marrow, and bone fragments are eaten as well. Even hair and skin are sometimes consumed. The only part consistently ignored is the stomach and its contents. Although some vegetable matter is taken separately, particularly berries, Canis lupus doesn't seem to digest them very well."
From the mouths of the wolf experts themselves, who have observed countless numbers of kills: wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their large prey, and are carnivorous animals. Additionally, Neville Buck from the Howletts and Port Lympne Zoological Parks in Kent, England, notes that virtually no small carnivore (which includes varieties of cats, wolves, wild dogs) eat the intestinal contents of their large prey. The contents are spilled in the enclosures and are often rolled in by the animals, but very little is eaten (if any is eaten at all). His observations can be found in Appendix B of Raw Meaty Bones.
Keep feeding grains. ;D
-
Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
This is false. Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. The assumption that dogs are natural omnivores remains to be proven, whereas the truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us.
1.) Dentition
Look into your dog or cat's mouth. Those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar.
http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg (http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg)
Carnassial teeth
This is the skull of a weasel (also in Order Carnivora), courtesy of Centennial Museum. The carnassial teeth are marked with black arrows. You can find these same teeth in the mouth of your dog or cat or ferret.
Contrast this with your own teeth or the teeth of a black bear. A black bear is a true omnivore, as are we. We have nice, large, flat molars that can grind up veggies. Black bears, while having impressive canine teeth, also have large flat molars in the back of their mouth to assist in grinding up plant matter. Dogs and most canids lack these kinds of molars. Why? Because they don't eat plant matter. Teeth are highly specialized and are structured specifically for the diet the animal eats, and the difference between a bear's teeth and a dog's teeth (both species are in Order Carnivora) demonstrates how this can be (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 260.). To see a visual comparison of the teeth of a dog to the teeth of a black bear, please click here. One can logically ask: If a dog (or cat or ferret) has the dentition of a carnivorous animal, why do we feed it pelleted, grain-based food?
2.) Musculature and external anatomy
Dogs (and cats) are equipped with powerful jaw muscles and neck muscles that assist in pulling down prey and chewing meat, bone, and hide. Their jaws hinge open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and bone. Their skulls are heavy, and are shaped to prevent lateral movement of the lower jaw when captured prey struggles (the mandibular fossa is deep and C-shaped); this shape permits only an up-and-down crushing motion, whereas herbivores and omnivores have flatter mandibular fossa that allows for the lateral motion necessary to grind plant matter (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 258-259.). Consider this quote from the previously-cited Mammology text:
"Canids, felids, and mustelids subsist mainly on freshly killed prey. These families show correspondingly greater development in 'tooth and claw'; they also have greater carnassial development and cursorial locomotion." (pg 260)
This translates to a simple fact: everything about a dog or cat's body design says they were designed for a carnivorous, hunting lifestyle geared toward killing prey. However, humans have done some major tinkering with this body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), but we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines.
3.) Internal anatomy and physiology
Dogs and cats have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a questionable practice.
Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Thus, feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin to "self-digest" when the cells are crushed through chewing and tearing and their enzymes are released).
Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals and thus creates the need for supplementation aside) to their dog foods. If a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be receiving 40-60% (ideally!) of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals than the dog actually needs.
Is the dog an omnivore? Its dentition, internal and external anatomy, and physiology say it is not. Even its evolutionary history (discussed later) says the dog is a carnivore. So when people tell you the dog is an omnivore, ask: "What about this animal makes you think it is an omnivore?" Make them explain their position to you before you explain yours. Chances are they'll cite this next myth as "proof". (the eating the stomach contents myth posted prior to this one)
All the myths are listed here, read it or not, I don't care. Feed, poison, use chemicals however you see fit. If you think the body needs that much help then support it and suppress it and let other means you inject, apply, or let it consume, fix it the problems :)
http://rawfed.com/myths/ (http://rawfed.com/myths/)
-
that clears it up...
beef cows...i guess it was best not to take any interest in the cows--meaning..don't get attached to any...or you could end up pretty depressed...
Where I'm from....most all of my friends had farms.
They used to name them "food names" so they wouldn't get attached.
Like when a calf was born....they would call them "steak-um", "Hamburg", "Veal", etc...
-
http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.
"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)
"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." (pg.124, emphasis added).
This next quote can be found on the Hunting and Meals page at Kerwood Wildlife Education Center.
"The wolf's diet consists mostly of muscle meat and fatty tissue from various animals. Heart, lung, liver, and other internal organs are eaten. Bones are crushed to get at the marrow, and bone fragments are eaten as well. Even hair and skin are sometimes consumed. The only part consistently ignored is the stomach and its contents. Although some vegetable matter is taken separately, particularly berries, Canis lupus doesn't seem to digest them very well."
From the mouths of the wolf experts themselves, who have observed countless numbers of kills: wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their large prey, and are carnivorous animals. Additionally, Neville Buck from the Howletts and Port Lympne Zoological Parks in Kent, England, notes that virtually no small carnivore (which includes varieties of cats, wolves, wild dogs) eat the intestinal contents of their large prey. The contents are spilled in the enclosures and are often rolled in by the animals, but very little is eaten (if any is eaten at all). His observations can be found in Appendix B of Raw Meaty Bones.
Next time try to quote from a nonbiased source.... again, you are so clouded by you idea that you dogs MUST EAT MEAT that you are missing the point.
Mech is a very credible source, however Mech himself has stated that sections of that book have been misquoted and misrepresented. His observations within the field went against observations of other researchers with the Canis lupus species and that people have taking sections of his book out of context. I will also tell you that i've observed wolves (and wolf hybrids) directly eating intestinal contents from whole prey. I have that book in my storage locker somewhere--it was part of the required reading when we were talking about setting up the wolf enclosure. I need to reread the pages mentioned, but there is a further discussion of eating of plant material if memory serves me correctly. Its not just the little bit you posted. There is a section that talks about the diet when prey is unavialable. Not only that, but the diet changes from winter to summer. This article: Foraging and Feeding Ecology of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park. Daniel R. Stahler4, Douglas W. Smith and Debra S. Guernsey J. Nutr. 136:1923S-1926S, July 2006 is a more recent source.
As most of our information on wolf kills comes from winter data, kill rates and prey selection are less known in summer. Current studies exploring this aspect of wolf predation are under way, but preliminary evidence indicates that wolf kill rates decrease as much as 25% in the summer (D. Smith and D. Stahler, Yellowstone Wolf Project, unpublished data). One indication of the seasonal differences in wolf foraging patterns is through an analysis of summer wolf scats. Scat analysis shows that summer diets are more diverse and include smaller prey species such as rodents, birds, and invertebrates, as well as ungulates, otherwise absent in the winter. Analyses of summer scats in 2003 show that mule deer was present in 133 (25%) of 530 scats analyzed. In addition, plant matter is prevalent in wolves' summer diet, with 392 (74%) of 530 scats analyzed containing some type of plant material, largely grass (Graminae). This is consistent with summer observations of wolves consuming grass and other plant material
Your main source alone in the last paragraph makes a mistake by grouping cats and canids together.... cats are not dogs are not wolves. Cats are obligate carnivores. They should not be placed in the same group as canids. And just so you know, most often big cats (such as tigers) will eat the entire contents of smaller prey animals--including rabbits and birds. They rarely "spill contents in their enclosures" and "roll in it". As a matter of fact, i can't think of the last time any of the cats here at the zoo rolled in their diet---especially when offered whole prey as enrichment.
-
Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
This is false. Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. The assumption that dogs are natural omnivores remains to be proven, whereas the truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us.
1.) Dentition
Look into your dog or cat's mouth. Those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar.
http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg (http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg)
Carnassial teeth
This is the skull of a weasel (also in Order Carnivora), courtesy of Centennial Museum. The carnassial teeth are marked with black arrows. You can find these same teeth in the mouth of your dog or cat or ferret.
Contrast this with your own teeth or the teeth of a black bear. A black bear is a true omnivore, as are we. We have nice, large, flat molars that can grind up veggies. Black bears, while having impressive canine teeth, also have large flat molars in the back of their mouth to assist in grinding up plant matter. Dogs and most canids lack these kinds of molars. Why? Because they don't eat plant matter. Teeth are highly specialized and are structured specifically for the diet the animal eats, and the difference between a bear's teeth and a dog's teeth (both species are in Order Carnivora) demonstrates how this can be (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 260.). To see a visual comparison of the teeth of a dog to the teeth of a black bear, please click here. One can logically ask: If a dog (or cat or ferret) has the dentition of a carnivorous animal, why do we feed it pelleted, grain-based food?
2.) Musculature and external anatomy
Dogs (and cats) are equipped with powerful jaw muscles and neck muscles that assist in pulling down prey and chewing meat, bone, and hide. Their jaws hinge open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and bone. Their skulls are heavy, and are shaped to prevent lateral movement of the lower jaw when captured prey struggles (the mandibular fossa is deep and C-shaped); this shape permits only an up-and-down crushing motion, whereas herbivores and omnivores have flatter mandibular fossa that allows for the lateral motion necessary to grind plant matter (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 258-259.). Consider this quote from the previously-cited Mammology text:
"Canids, felids, and mustelids subsist mainly on freshly killed prey. These families show correspondingly greater development in 'tooth and claw'; they also have greater carnassial development and cursorial locomotion." (pg 260)
This translates to a simple fact: everything about a dog or cat's body design says they were designed for a carnivorous, hunting lifestyle geared toward killing prey. However, humans have done some major tinkering with this body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), but we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines.
3.) Internal anatomy and physiology
Dogs and cats have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a questionable practice.
Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Thus, feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin to "self-digest" when the cells are crushed through chewing and tearing and their enzymes are released).
Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals and thus creates the need for supplementation aside) to their dog foods. If a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be receiving 40-60% (ideally!) of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals than the dog actually needs.
Is the dog an omnivore? Its dentition, internal and external anatomy, and physiology say it is not. Even its evolutionary history (discussed later) says the dog is a carnivore. So when people tell you the dog is an omnivore, ask: "What about this animal makes you think it is an omnivore?" Make them explain their position to you before you explain yours. Chances are they'll cite this next myth as "proof". (the eating the stomach contents myth posted prior to this one)
All the myths are listed here, read it or not, I don't care. Feed, poison, use chemicals however you see fit. If you think the body needs that much help then support it and suppress it and let other means you inject, apply, or let it consume, fix it the problems :)
http://rawfed.com/myths/ (http://rawfed.com/myths/)
this is from a raw food advocate website i assume?
i can't believe every damn dog food made today is poisonous or not healthful to dogs...some may be rubbish but i think with reasonable certainty that some commercial dog foods are actually pretty good for dogs. i had a yorkie that lived 17 years on kibbles and bits...he died peacefully in his sleep--i don't know if feeding him raw food would have made his life any more healthier than he already was...i'm not knocking the diet...i've tried it and my rottie mix had a hard time digesting the raw food and i hated the bloody bones on my carpet. i do give raw beef to them on occassion...so i'm not 100% against the type diet...
-
Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
This is false. Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. The assumption that dogs are natural omnivores remains to be proven, whereas the truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us.
1.) Dentition
Look into your dog or cat's mouth. Those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar.
http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg (http://rawfed.com/myths/carnassials.jpg)
Carnassial teeth
This is the skull of a weasel (also in Order Carnivora), courtesy of Centennial Museum. The carnassial teeth are marked with black arrows. You can find these same teeth in the mouth of your dog or cat or ferret.
Contrast this with your own teeth or the teeth of a black bear. A black bear is a true omnivore, as are we. We have nice, large, flat molars that can grind up veggies. Black bears, while having impressive canine teeth, also have large flat molars in the back of their mouth to assist in grinding up plant matter. Dogs and most canids lack these kinds of molars. Why? Because they don't eat plant matter. Teeth are highly specialized and are structured specifically for the diet the animal eats, and the difference between a bear's teeth and a dog's teeth (both species are in Order Carnivora) demonstrates how this can be (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 260.). To see a visual comparison of the teeth of a dog to the teeth of a black bear, please click here. One can logically ask: If a dog (or cat or ferret) has the dentition of a carnivorous animal, why do we feed it pelleted, grain-based food?
2.) Musculature and external anatomy
Dogs (and cats) are equipped with powerful jaw muscles and neck muscles that assist in pulling down prey and chewing meat, bone, and hide. Their jaws hinge open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and bone. Their skulls are heavy, and are shaped to prevent lateral movement of the lower jaw when captured prey struggles (the mandibular fossa is deep and C-shaped); this shape permits only an up-and-down crushing motion, whereas herbivores and omnivores have flatter mandibular fossa that allows for the lateral motion necessary to grind plant matter (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 258-259.). Consider this quote from the previously-cited Mammology text:
"Canids, felids, and mustelids subsist mainly on freshly killed prey. These families show correspondingly greater development in 'tooth and claw'; they also have greater carnassial development and cursorial locomotion." (pg 260)
This translates to a simple fact: everything about a dog or cat's body design says they were designed for a carnivorous, hunting lifestyle geared toward killing prey. However, humans have done some major tinkering with this body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), but we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines.
3.) Internal anatomy and physiology
Dogs and cats have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a questionable practice.
Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Thus, feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin to "self-digest" when the cells are crushed through chewing and tearing and their enzymes are released).
Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals and thus creates the need for supplementation aside) to their dog foods. If a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be receiving 40-60% (ideally!) of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals than the dog actually needs.
Is the dog an omnivore? Its dentition, internal and external anatomy, and physiology say it is not. Even its evolutionary history (discussed later) says the dog is a carnivore. So when people tell you the dog is an omnivore, ask: "What about this animal makes you think it is an omnivore?" Make them explain their position to you before you explain yours. Chances are they'll cite this next myth as "proof". (the eating the stomach contents myth posted prior to this one)
All the myths are listed here, read it or not, I don't care. Feed, poison, use chemicals however you see fit. If you think the body needs that much help then support it and suppress it and let other means you inject, apply, or let it consume, fix it the problems :)
http://rawfed.com/myths/ (http://rawfed.com/myths/)
Again, post from a nonbiased source. You are regurgitating the biased opinions of others with your same biased ideas. Unfortunately, you are wrong......
Let me try this a different way because I've got a textbook chapter to finish this afternoon and I don't have time to put up references for everything. If you break it down to the simplest of means you yourself have said that a dog can survive on plant material in repeated posts. That fact alone makes them an omnivore or a herbivore. A true carnivore---say a cornsnake as an example or if you want a mammalian example an ocelot will die if its feed a plant only diet. They have absolutely no digestive capacity for plant materials. Canids have some digestive capacity--thus making them an omnivore---look at the example of plant based dog foods with the corn, starches, and other plant materials you like to harp about. Dogs live on these all over the world.
Now, if dogs have a hindgut or rumen, then they'd be a strict herbivore, not an omnivore. They don't so that means they are most likely an omnivore.
Dogs can also survive on a meat diet---the apparently horrible (I'm being sarcastic) diet that you are feeding your own dogs is a testiment to this. They may not be thriving, but they have the capacity to survive on it. This means they are either a carnivore or an omnivore. If you feed a herbivore a meat only diet, they will die. Green Iguanas are the classic example of this. That and the rabbit that I had as a patient that the owner fed Kentucky Fried Chicken too on a regular basis. Herbivores cannot live on meat only diets, only carnivores and omnivores can.
Ok let's put two and two togehter....... a dog can eat plant material in commercial dog food.... AND A dog can eat a "meat only diet".... both dogs eating such a diet live an average lifespan of 12-15 years.... mmmmmm hmmmm . That means a dog can eat both plants and meat without dying immediately. If you feed a carnivore plants, it will die in a very short time frame. IF you feed a herbivore meat, it will die in a very short time frame. That means they are an omnivore.
You yourself have proven yourself wrong with your own posts.
-
this is from a raw food advocate website i assume?
i can't believe every damn dog food made today is poisonous or not healthful to dogs...some may be rubbish but i think with reasonable certainty that some commercial dog foods are actually pretty good for dogs. i had a yorkie that lived 17 years on kibbles and bits...he died peacefully in his sleep--i don't know if feeding him raw food would have made his life any more healthier than he already was...i'm not knocking the diet...i've tried it and my rottie mix had a hard time digesting the raw food and i hated the bloody bones on my carpet. i do give raw beef to them on occassion...so i'm not 100% against the type diet...
If you watch flower, she only posts information from sources with the same bias that she has...
-
If you watch flower, she only posts information from sources with the same bias that she has...
She only copy and pastes. Just like she did with the David L Mech and the wolf pack behavior shit.
She has no personal first hand experience in these matters other than what you feed your dogs.
-
If you watch flower, she only posts information from sources with the same bias that she has...
really? Might want to rethink that statement. Remember you said vaccines don't shed, and my reply I don't think was from biased sources, nor were the acual STUDIES on Heartgard saying it could be given every 45 days instead of 30 from biased sources. Pretty lame statement you made Vet:
Occurrence of severe gastroenteritis in pups after canine parvovirus vaccine administration: A clinical and laboratory diagnostic dilemma
Nicola DecaroCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Costantina Desarioa, Gabriella Eliaa, Marco Campoloa, Alessio Lorussoa, Viviana Maria, Vito Martellaa and Canio Buonavogliaa
aDepartment of Animal Health and Well-being, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bari, Strada per Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Received 10 August 2006; revised 22 September 2006; accepted 12 October 2006. Available online 25 October 2006.
Abstract
A total of 29 faecal samples collected from dogs with diarrhoea following canine parvovirus (CPV) vaccination were tested by minor groove binder (MGB) probe assays for discrimination between CPV vaccine and field strains and by diagnostic tests for detection of other canine pathogens. Fifteen samples tested positive only for CPV field strains; however, both vaccine and field strains were detected in three samples. Eleven samples were found to contain only the vaccine strain, although eight of them tested positive for other pathogens of dogs. Only three samples were found to contain the vaccine strain without evidence of canine pathogens. The present study confirms that most cases of parvovirus-like disease occurring shortly after vaccination are related to infection with field strains of canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) rather than to reversion to virulence of the modified live virus contained in the vaccine.
This abstract appears to confirm shedding, along with your theory that the vaccinated parvo puppy did not get it from the vaccine, but was more susceptible to it because he was recently vaccinated.
From Dr. Dodds:
From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by DR W Jean Dodds, DVM
" A recent examination of the risks posed by MLV vaccines concluded that they are intrinsically more hazardous than inactivated products. The residual virulence and environmental contamination resulting from the shedding of vaccine virus is a serious concern."
-------
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1648&articleid=962
Shedding of vaccine agent
Vaccine virus may be found in the nasal secretions of dogs vaccinated intranasally. In addition, vaccine parvovirus is shed in the feces of vaccinated dogs, canine adenovirus-1 can be shed in the urine, and canine adenovirus-2 can be found in nasal secretions. These viruses are the vaccine forms of the virus; they do NOT revert back to the disease-causing strains.
---------
The Cornell Feline Health Center
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University
& The American Association of Feline Practitioners
and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines
A second type of vaccine is the modified live-virus (MLV) vaccine (also referred to as an attenuated vaccine), which contains viruses that have been altered by various techniques, so that they no longer produce clinical disease. Viruses in these vaccines can replicate within the host and stimulate a rapid and excellent immune response. In some cases, vaccine virus may be shed from the vaccinated cat to infect other cats that may come in contact with the vaccinated cat. MLV vaccines should not be administered to pregnant cats.
I have never said dogs can't live on kibble, that was be an assinine statement, but keep saying that I have if it helps you. :)
-
She only copy and pastes. Just like she did with the David L Mech and the wolf pack behavior shit.
She has no personal first hand experience in these matters other than what you feed your dogs.
I'll get right out there with the wolves ;D, you feed whatever they keep living on with no regard to what is in it. ;D
So they should be eating GRAINS for 2 or 3 days? loll GRAINS? :D
-
I'll get right out there with the wolves ;D, you feed whatever they keep living on with no regard to what is in it. ;D
My dog is healthy as a horse, lol, and will be eating a holistic kibble forever... You keep feeding your dogs with the muscle tone of an auschwitz prisoner that raw food BECAUZ DA INTRANETZ SEZ IT IS GUD FER DEM!
You are arguing with a veterinarian, you pretty much automatically lose.
1) You suck at arguing
2) Your knowledge is laughable
3) You are the "Google & Paste" queen. You did the same thing to me. It was funny then, it is funny now.
Now go put those 3 dogs on leashes and have them lead you like a chariot while your little chihuahua sits in a stroller, LMAO...
I've never seen any wolf cubs in strollers, has anyone?
-
You are arguing with a veterinarian, you pretty much automatically lose.
Considering I have proven him wrong with STUDIES and articles from REPUTABLE sources in the past, I don't think so. :)
If I can post info from a reputable source or an actual study I think that is much better than using my words and saying "just believe me". It gives the person the opportunity to read it them selves, see the source, and decide what they think about it. I would prefer to have a source of information if at all possible. And if I only quote part of something, I always include the link so that someone may go read the whole thing.
You should try and stick to one topic, because tossing in supposed slams about other subjects unrelated and not entirely true, shows that you have nothing of value to add. :)
-
Considering I have proven him wrong with STUDIES and articles from REPUTABLE sources in the past, I don't think so. :)
If I can post info from a reputable source or an actual study I think that is much better than using my words and saying "just believe me". It gives the person the opportunity to read it them selves, see the source, and decide what they think about it. I would prefer to have a source of information if at all possible. And if I only quote part of something, I always include the link so that someone may go read the whole thing.
You should try and stick to one topic, because tossing in supposed slams about other subjects unrelated and not entirely true, shows that you have nothing of value to add. :)
It shows that you have won the title of "Google Queen 07". I personally wouldn't want someone on my team, in say baseball, that could only hit the ball and sucked in the field. And it just so happens that every time they hit it, they just flyed out anyway. Get my analogy "Wolfmother"? hahahaha
-
It shows that you have won the title of "Google Queen 07". I personally wouldn't want someone on my team, in say baseball, that could only hit the ball and sucked in the field. And it just so happens that every time they hit it, they just flyed out anyway. Get my analogy "Wolfmother"? hahahaha
no, I suppose you wouldn't want to have info given to you that you can verify the source, or that you might have to research yourself a little to make a decision. I have learned when talking about certain subjects having studies or good sources are a must. If you just say something like : "you can give heartgard every 45 days instead of 30" why should or why would anyone just take someone's word? So I have tried to post the study or source right off the bat, some people do like to read something for themselves and draw their own conclusions from it. And when I have conversed with people that you would think would know about something so I didn't post a study or source, I then get told that is wrong and I end up posting the study/source anyways. Why should I rewrite which is already written and presented better than I ever could and is also considered reputable? I am a believer in getting 100% of the information, the good and the bad.
::)
But Good Luck, I don't have the time to give to the Pet Board for the foreseeable future, so things like duration of immunity studies, and adverse affects from meds, or how you can give a chemical or poison more safely, and other "odd" stuff like that, that some people like to be aware of so they can make informed decisions, you can wait for your vet to share it with you, if he or she does of course. :)
-
Pretty lame statement you made Vet:
I have never said dogs can't live on kibble, that was be an assinine statement, but keep saying that I have if it helps you. :)
Yeah, you are right. I let my level descend to something it shouldn't have. I'm still not quite sure what your motivation was, but I really, really felt like you were pushing for something last night. What it was I'm not sure.
And yes, you have preached quite a bit on the evils of processed foods. The thing is I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think humans eat too much processed shit (I say this as I'm eating a graham cracker and drinking diet mountian dew---a great example). I do think you need to reexamine your stance on dogs being a strict carnivore. They aren't.
-
Considering I have proven him wrong with STUDIES and articles from REPUTABLE sources in the past, I don't think so. :)
:)
Its not as much about the fact I'm a veterinarian. Just because I'm a veterinarian doesnt mean Im' God. If you can prove me wrong, do it. We'll both learn something then. However, think carefully if you want to argue exotic/zoo species with me because of my background in comparative anatomy and physiology and my residency training as a specialist in veterinary medicine. All of that aside, we aren't talking medicine in the dietary issues anyway, we are talking basic science.
Basic science that anyone with a highschool diploma should understand.
And for the record, I've got a raging headache.... I hate literature review.... >:(
-
I believe (for the most part) that raw diets makes sense in dogs.
but...
I am also the sort that looks at things in perspective. For example.....if I can run 87 octane in my car...& it gets the same gas mileage & makes the car run just as long as running on 91 octane...I will do the 87 octane.
Now...if my car runs like shit on the 87 octane, gets worse gas mileage, & I have to re-do the heads/valves from carbon build-up after a 100,000 miles.....then I may just pour in the 91 octane from the get go.
We considered a raw diet for our dog...but he was getting hershy squirts & was getting worse no matter how long we kept him on it. Granted...he never was entirely 100% on raw....but honestly....I felt it would have been much worse for his case.
Now where I'm getting at with some of this is....
I believe all things (human & animal) slowly evolve or change. Just look at breeds 100 years ago to now. Look at human development 100 years ago to now. Sure....I believe dogs are carnivores...but that may be slowly changing. I wouldn't be surprised in another 100 years that teeth & digestive systems on dogs may be permanently changed.
One thing about human nature is....there's no stopping change. We all want to evolve into something better but in most cases....we sometimes may make it worse or force something into extinction.
-
I believe (for the most part) that raw diets makes sense in dogs.
but...
I am also the sort that looks at things in perspective. For example.....if I can run 87 octane in my car...& it gets the same gas mileage & makes the car run just as long as running on 91 octane...I will do the 87 octane.
Now...if my car runs like shit on the 87 octane, gets worse gas mileage, & I have to re-do the heads/valves from carbon build-up after a 100,000 miles.....then I may just pour in the 91 octane from the get go.
We considered a raw diet for our dog...but he was getting hershy squirts & was getting worse no matter how long we kept him on it. Granted...he never was entirely 100% on raw....but honestly....I felt it would have been much worse for his case.
Now where I'm getting at with some of this is....
I believe all things (human & animal) slowly evolve or change. Just look at breeds 100 years ago to now. Look at human development 100 years ago to now. Sure....I believe dogs are carnivores...but that may be slowly changing. I wouldn't be surprised in another 100 years that teeth & digestive systems on dogs may be permanently changed.
One thing about human nature is....there's no stopping change. We all want to evolve into something better but in most cases....we sometimes may make it worse or force something into extinction.
Leaving out what everyone else's been doing, just focusing on you and your pet...
Your experience is better with kibble than with raw?
-
Leaving out what everyone else's been doing, just focusing on you and your pet...
Your experience is better with kibble than with raw?
Honestly....I've only ever tried a raw diet once & that was with our current dog.
It makes sense & honestly....he seemed to love his food 100% better than kibble.
Problem is....he has an allergic reaction with Raw Food. We did some research & it may be hereditary from his fathers line. Through countless trial & error's...we found that the only thing that would agree with him was a lamb kibble. We must have tried almost 6-8 different types of foods. The lamb is what his parents were on (we think again..it's hereditary) & the only reason why we didn't try lamb from the start is because.....Our Vet warned feeding lamb because she had data suggesting lamb/rice combination may lead to heart complications in dogs. So....before we tried lamb we had her explain more & she said the data is still not 100% conclusive & it was just one study that was done.
So we said the hell with it...put him on lamb...& now he's 100% fine & has been for 5-6 months (knock on wood).
-
no, I suppose you wouldn't want to have info given to you that you can verify the source, or that you might have to research yourself a little to make a decision. I have learned when talking about certain subjects having studies or good sources are a must. If you just say something like : "you can give heartgard every 45 days instead of 30" why should or why would anyone just take someone's word? So I have tried to post the study or source right off the bat, some people do like to read something for themselves and draw their own conclusions from it. And when I have conversed with people that you would think would know about something so I didn't post a study or source, I then get told that is wrong and I end up posting the study/source anyways. Why should I rewrite which is already written and presented better than I ever could and is also considered reputable? I am a believer in getting 100% of the information, the good and the bad.
::)
But Good Luck, I don't have the time to give to the Pet Board for the foreseeable future, so things like duration of immunity studies, and adverse affects from meds, or how you can give a chemical or poison more safely, and other "odd" stuff like that, that some people like to be aware of so they can make informed decisions, you can wait for your vet to share it with you, if he or she does of course. :)
If I had a problem with my dog, I'd go to a veterinarian, and probably ask friends of mine irl, and Vet on this forum, for more info to get second opinions. I actually think that all the stuff MINUS the raw food info is very interesting to be totally honest with you. Really interesting, and really helpful. Really. I just think your raw food diet crap is out of control. Ever notice how we get along in threads that don't involve dog food?
-
Honestly....I've only ever tried a raw diet once & that was with our current dog.
It makes sense & honestly....he seemed to love his food 100% better than kibble.
Problem is....he has an allergic reaction with Raw Food. We did some research & it may be hereditary from his fathers line. Through countless trial & error's...we found that the only thing that would agree with him was a lamb kibble. We must have tried almost 6-8 different types of foods. The lamb is what his parents were on (we think again..it's hereditary) & the only reason why we didn't try lamb from the start is because.....Our Vet warned feeding lamb because she had data suggesting lamb/rice combination may lead to heart complications in dogs. So....before we tried lamb we had her explain more & she said the data is still not 100% conclusive & it was just one study that was done.
So we said the hell with it...put him on lamb...& now he's 100% fine & has been for 5-6 months (knock on wood).
How was your dogs health when on kibble?
-
How was your dogs health when on kibble?
His health before the raw diet sucked
Every kibble we had him on....was coming out like his ass was on fire.
On raw....it was ok at first....then became extremely volatile.
Then went back on kibble (different brands) until we did a lamb version which seemed to agree with him.
His case should not be used as evidence or proof one way or the other. He was having some sort of allergic reaction that went through trial & error to find what was easiest on him.
Chicken soup for the pet lovers soul was prolly the second best kibble that agreed with him. But after 1.5 months of success.....it went south with him. It was too bad because he really liked the taste of that one.
On a side note....his favorite is tripe. Can't give it to him anymore unless I feel like mopping up explosive shit all over the place (litterly). I had to clean it up once (unfortunately...the g/f had to do it alot) & that stuff would gag a maggot. I've had dogs, cats, chickens, etcc....& been on plenty of friends farms shoveling shit for spare money when I was a kid....but never had smelled something as terrible as that.