How the "Science" is done for pet food

[Vet]

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...

[temper35]

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.

[~flower~]

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.   

[~flower~]

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  ,  you feed whatever they keep living on with no regard to what is in it. 


So they should be eating GRAINS for 2 or 3 days?   loll   GRAINS?  

[temper35]

I'll get right out there with the wolves  ,  you feed whatever they keep living on with no regard to what is in it. 

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?

[~flower~]

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.  

[temper35]

   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

[~flower~]

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.  

 

[Vet]

 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. 

[Vet]

   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....   

[knny187]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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?

[knny187]

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).

[temper35]

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?

[Hedgehog]

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?

[knny187]

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.