# Bulldog puppy



## mamabullylover

Hello all, I am new to this website, but in a bind, every bulldog I have ever owned ate what I bought and had no issues, until Miss Sadie. She came to me on Eukanuba, then stopped eating it, so I went with Royal Canin bulldog puppy, she loved it! Course she would 18.00 for a 6lb bag, I was runnign to Petco weekly, that part didnt bother me, the wheat gluten in it did, bulldogs arent to have wheat or corn. So I went with Innova, wll she refuses to eat it, vet says too bad, leave it out, she will eat when she gets hungry, kinda mean to me, she now has horrible gas, and drags herself all over my house at times, like she is itchy? Help, I have tried numerous formulas, even Royal Canin med puppy, she threw it up every time she ate it. Any suggestions?? She is 8 months old.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

I would HIGHLY suggest a better quality food.

Taste of the Wild, Acana(grain free line,) Orijen and Wellness Core(the fish one #1) being on my top list.
I would, if I were you, also stay away from foods with chicken as an ingredient....all of the dogs that I have had contact with who have had sensitive issues have had issues with foods with chicken in them(even "just" chicken fat!)


----------



## frogdog

I have a Bully breed and was the exact same way...extremely picky. I agree with Scarlett...def try Taste of the Wild, Acana - grain free line or Orijen. My Frenchie loved Taste of The Wild - all flavors.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

frogdog said:


> I have a Bully breed and was the exact same way...extremely picky. I agree with Scarlett...def try Taste of the Wild, Acana - grain free line or Orijen. My Frenchie loved Taste of The Wild - all flavors.


Ya, Brody really liked both lines of TotW that we tried him on(he cant have chicken...so just Pacific Stream and Sierra Mountain.) For processed foods Acana(again, no chicken so just Ranchlands and Pacifica) is what he did best on though.


----------



## DaneMama

Hello and welcome to the forum! We will get your Miss Sadie on a better food, lots of helpful and friendly people here!


----------



## ciaBrysh

Both of my dogs loved Taste of the Wild Pacific Stream formula  It's reasonably priced here at $40 for a 35 lb bag .

Also, I agree with your vet. Your dog is telling YOU what she will eat but that's not how it is. Without realizing it you are creating a picky eater (and trust me you think its bad now...just wait lol)
Your dog will not starve herself don't worry! 
What you need to do is buy the new better quality food, lay it down for her (after transitioning) for ten minutes. 
Do you feed in a crate? I find this to make it a lot easier to prevent "grazing"
If she won't touch it for ten minutes, take it away...at her next meal give her the EXACT same bowl again (do not add any food, do not give her fresh kibble) 
and just keep doing it. She will not starve don't worry 
My Raj was a picky eater when we switched him over from Science Diet. I will never deal with that again lol


----------



## mamabullylover

*thanks*

Well I went and bought her the fav, Royal Canin, the only thing she will eat, like a fool I did it. I am going to try Taste of the Wild, I have had other dogs I have owned on it and they did fine. Just trying to build her muscle. Bulldogs can grow long and lanky and I hate for her to not grow properly. Thanks to everyone what a wonderful pet website!!!


----------



## JustaLilBitaLuck

I would find a four or five good quality foods that she likes and rotate between them - a lot of dogs can get bored with the food and stop eating it when they're fed the same thing over and over again.


----------



## westminsterthree

mamabullylover said:


> Hello all, I am new to this website, but in a bind, every bulldog I have ever owned ate what I bought and had no issues, until Miss Sadie. She came to me on Eukanuba, then stopped eating it, so I went with Royal Canin bulldog puppy, she loved it! Course she would 18.00 for a 6lb bag, I was runnign to Petco weekly, that part didnt bother me, the wheat gluten in it did, bulldogs arent to have wheat or corn. So I went with Innova, wll she refuses to eat it, vet says too bad, leave it out, she will eat when she gets hungry, kinda mean to me, she now has horrible gas, and drags herself all over my house at times, like she is itchy? Help, I have tried numerous formulas, even Royal Canin med puppy, she threw it up every time she ate it. Any suggestions?? She is 8 months old.


Comparing the quality of Royal Canin to any Diamond product is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Royal Canin has one of the best facilities in the country and some of the best nutritionists anywhere. Every diet goes through extensive testing. There is a reason there is wheat gluten in that food, because it is the most digestible protein known, even more than egg. And BD's have trouble digesting almost anything they eat. The adult formula does not it has a small amount of soy isolate, just like what's in baby formula.

Those diets are simple chicken, rice and oats with some special enhancements for BD's.

I would think that the nutritionists at Royal Canin know what they are doing, not some of the people on here. As for the price, don't buy food in such a small bag!!!!! It costs twice as much per lb.

Go back to RC BD and stay with it. Forget what you hear about TOTW it is junk.

Also I can't think of another breed where rotating foods was so foolish. These dogs can have such issues adjusting. Stick with RC BD and worry about something else.

Some very smart people made that product. Also she is old enough for adult food.

I would like to get some of the people here in the same room with the PHD's at RC so they could see how little they know.


----------



## frogdog

JustaLilBitaLuck said:


> I would find a four or five good quality foods that she likes and rotate between them - a lot of dogs can get bored with the food and stop eating it when they're fed the same thing over and over again.


Good luck with that...may cause issue like digestive upset. We tried every brand on the market that was good quality as far as kibble, premade raw and can food that Yogi could eat due to his allergies...didn't work.



westminsterthree said:


> Comparing the quality of Royal Canin to any Diamond product is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Royal Canin has one of the best facilities in the country and some of the best nutritionists anywhere. Every diet goes through extensive testing. There is a reason there is wheat gluten in that food, because it is the most digestible protein known, even more than egg. And BD's have trouble digesting almost anything they eat. The adult formula does not it has a small amount of soy isolate, just like what's in baby formula.
> 
> Those diets are simple chicken, rice and oats with some special enhancements for BD's.
> 
> I would think that the nutritionists at Royal Canin know what they are doing, not some of the people on here. As for the price, don't buy food in such a small bag!!!!! It costs twice as much per lb.
> 
> Go back to RC BD and stay with it. Forget what you hear about TOTW it is junk.
> 
> Also I can't think of another breed where rotating foods was so foolish. These dogs can have such issues adjusting. Stick with RC BD and worry about something else.
> 
> Some very smart people made that product. Also she is old enough for adult food.
> 
> I would like to get some of the people here in the same room with the PHD's at RC so they could see how little they know.


All I'm going to say is, WOW...really wheat gluten...it's horrible even for people. A large majority of dogs have issues with wheat gluten and causes an array of problems. One word...research!


----------



## JustaLilBitaLuck

frogdog said:


> Good luck with that...may cause issue like digestive upset. We tried every brand on the market that was good quality as far as kibble, premade raw and can food that Yogi could eat due to his allergies...didn't work.


The thing is, in my mind at least, switching foods _shouldn't_ cause major digestive upset. I believe in giving dogs a variety of different types, flavors, and brands of food in order to create a strong and healthy digestive system. We as humans eat a variety of foods and we do not get sick when a new thing is introduced into the mix - our dogs shouldn't either.

I personally rotate between about a dozen different brands (and many more flavors) of kibble, canned, and raw - my dogs never eat the same thing for more than a week at a time. And they definitely do not have anything that would fall under "digestive upset".


----------



## wolfsnaps88

I used to work at Petco and got to talk to food reps all the time. I talked to Nutro reps who told me they wouldn't even feed that to their own dogs! I have talked to Nature's Recipe reps who didn't even know the ingredients in the food they were hawking. LOL. I had a Royal Canin rep in and boy did I lay into that guy. My store manager told me this guy really knew his stuff and so I just had to ask him questions. I asked him why their food was so expensive. 

The guy said (and I can't even MAKE this stuff up!) that the cost went into the high grade of corn they used. 


Yeah.

So I asked why they didn't add more animal protein and he said because of cost. So then I asked why they would put such expensive corn in their food instead of animal protein. He never gave me a direct answer. Probably because he didn't know.

I find wheat gluten to be biologically inappropriate for a dog.

I don't own a bulldog. I do have a mastiff and of my three dogs he has the most digestive issues. Certain foods give him horrible gas, which is my cue to not feed them. I would try a couple new foods and if she eats them and they don't give her gas, then feed that. I would try to find at least two or three foods she can tolerate to do a rotation. I have heard too many times of people's dogs being fed only one food and developing an allergy to something in the food (usually a grain or the animal protein). And then, many times the dog is older and more difficult to transition to another food. 

So build the iron gut early. My mom has a schnauzer that can't eat anything other than one kind of food without getting really sick. He is older now and in bad shape. I feel had she rotated early in his life (and picked better foods) he would be like my dogs, able to handle anything (except the foods that give Dozer rancid gas of course).

Good luck, let us know how it goes. There are many great kibble choices out there. Fromms, Evangers, Taste of the Wild (someone here said it wasn't good but I have fed it with no problems?) Wellness, Holistic Selects, Solid Gold....it really boils down to what works for your dog. 

Some of us here feed raw too. Always an option. 

And....pics? lol


----------



## Huginn

I'm irritated with the post promoting Royal Canin, I was going to post about it, but I will just stick with this: IMO RC is GARBAGE, FLAT OUT OVER PRICED TRASH. Look into TOTW and the Wellness Core fish blend, grain free is going to be your friend.


----------



## DogLuver

Unfortunately now we've got the OP looking at completely contradicting advice...But OP, please notice that there is one post in particular that just doesn't fit, westminsterthree is a troll, just here insulting everyone and their knowledge of canine nutrition, he/she claims to know all kinds of experts but has zero references, and cannot be trusted, just some backround info, he/she has been here under several names, several times, and has been banned from the site, but continues to join under different names to come back and annoy everyone.

Royal Canin is most definitely NOT a superior food to TOTW or some others that have been listed here, and it is not ridiculous to make that comparison. If you continue reading on these forums, or even just doing research elsewhere, you will find what is important to look for in a food, and Royal Canin is really just overpriced garbage (sorry to be so harsh). Be careful when taking advice from the vet aswell, they usually recommend Science Diet or some type of prescription diet, which is not good for dogs. Take the recommendations from others in this thread. I also suggest reading the RAW feeding forum...I don't feed RAW, though I want to (I haven't been able to find bulk meat for a decent price to feed 2 large/giant breed dogs), anyway, by reading the RAW section, you will learn a lot about canine nutrition, and from there you can read more on the dry food section and figure out what exactly to look for in a kibble/processed diet, you'll quickly find that Royal Canin is not what you'll want for your pet carnivore 

Good luck!


----------



## lucky

I agree with RC being absolute cr*p, try TOTW, it is a far higher quality food


----------



## lucky

westminsterthree said:


> Comparing the quality of Royal Canin to any Diamond product is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Royal Canin has one of the best facilities in the country and some of the best nutritionists anywhere. Every diet goes through extensive testing. There is a reason there is wheat gluten in that food, because it is the most digestible protein known, even more than egg. And BD's have trouble digesting almost anything they eat. The adult formula does not it has a small amount of soy isolate, just like what's in baby formula.
> 
> Those diets are simple chicken, rice and oats with some special enhancements for BD's.
> 
> I would think that the nutritionists at Royal Canin know what they are doing, not some of the people on here. As for the price, don't buy food in such a small bag!!!!! It costs twice as much per lb.
> 
> Go back to RC BD and stay with it. Forget what you hear about TOTW it is junk.
> 
> Also I can't think of another breed where rotating foods was so foolish. These dogs can have such issues adjusting. Stick with RC BD and worry about something else.
> 
> Some very smart people made that product. Also she is old enough for adult food.
> 
> I would like to get some of the people here in the same room with the PHD's at RC so they could see how little they know.


Just a question .... Where do you get all your information from, wherever it is, I'd look elsewhere. It appears that you have been led up the garden path


----------



## Sapphire-Light

DogLuver said:


> Unfortunately now we've got the OP looking at completely contradicting advice...But OP, please notice that there is one post in particular that just doesn't fit, westminsterthree is a troll, just here insulting everyone and their knowledge of canine nutrition, he/she claims to know all kinds of experts but has zero references, and cannot be trusted, just some backround info, he/she has been here under several names, several times, and has been banned from the site, but continues to join under different names to come back and annoy everyone.
> 
> Royal Canin is most definitely NOT a superior food to TOTW or some others that have been listed here, and it is not ridiculous to make that comparison. If you continue reading on these forums, or even just doing research elsewhere, you will find what is important to look for in a food, and Royal Canin is really just overpriced garbage (sorry to be so harsh). Be careful when taking advice from the vet aswell, they usually recommend Science Diet or some type of prescription diet, which is not good for dogs. Take the recommendations from others in this thread. I also suggest reading the RAW feeding forum...I don't feed RAW, though I want to (I haven't been able to find bulk meat for a decent price to feed 2 large/giant breed dogs), anyway, by reading the RAW section, you will learn a lot about canine nutrition, and from there you can read more on the dry food section and figure out what exactly to look for in a kibble/processed diet, you'll quickly find that Royal Canin is not what you'll want for your pet carnivore
> 
> Good luck!


I agree, not only RC it's overpriced but it's contradicting themselfes, they brag so mush about having scientiest making food especific for the needs of X breed but they have different formulas depending were you are located, the latin american versions of the foods have unmentioned meats, fats and protein and it's more expensive than in the us :tape2:




RC yorkie puppy us formula said:


> Chicken meal, rice, chicken fat, corn gluten meal, rice flour, dried beet pulp (sugar removed), natural chicken flavor, brown rice, wheat gluten meal, anchovy oil (source of EPA/DHA), sodium silico aluminate, dried brewers yeast, potassium chloride, fructo-oligosaccharides, soya oil, sodium tripolyphosphate, taurine, dried brewers yeast extract (source of mannan-oligosaccharides), salt, dried egg product, vitamins (DL-alpha tocopherol acetate (source of vitamin E), inositol, niacin supplement, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), D-calcium pantothenate, biotin, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B5), riboflavin supplement (vitamin B2), thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), vitamin A acetate, folic acid, vitamin B12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement), DL-methionine, choline chloride, proteinate, copper proteinate, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), marigold extract (tagetes erecta L), rosemary extract, preserved with natural mixed tocopherols (source of vitamin E) and citric acid.
> 
> Guaranteed Analysis:
> Crude Protein (min.) 29.0%, Crude Fat (min.) 18.5%, Crude Fiber (max.) 3.4%, Moisture (max.) 10.0%.



Latin american version:


----------



## Huginn

So in that latin america bag they have 1) "dehydrated poultry meat" so it's probably a mash of scraps from all of the leftover processing, 2) "maize flour" so it's not even corn meal, just flour? 3) "hydrolysed animal proteins" which after my research is just carcasses of animals treated with chemicals to break them down into amino acids. . . 4) "minerals" what minerals? And how much? 5) "yeasts" really? Just yeasts? What kind?

That is horrible!

Hydrolyzed Animal Protein products, buy Hydrolyzed Animal Protein products from alibaba.com


----------



## Sapphire-Light

Huginn said:


> So in that latin america bag they have 1) "dehydrated poultry meat" so it's probably a mash of scraps from all of the leftover processing, 2) "maize flour" so it's not even corn meal, just flour? 3) "hydrolysed animal proteins" which after my research is just carcasses of animals treated with chemicals to break them down into amino acids. . . 4) "minerals" what minerals? And how much? 5) "yeasts" really? Just yeasts? What kind?
> 
> That is horrible!
> 
> Hydrolyzed Animal Protein products, buy Hydrolyzed Animal Protein products from alibaba.com


Neat! good info arty:

i didn't knew about the hydrolysed , I was smelling something fishy... what it's sad is that they are advertizing the hrydro stuff in magazines as a "scientist response to prevent and cure allergies in dogs and cats, because meats are the main source of allergies, so this way they can digest the meat without problems" :crazy:

Here's the us version of the anti allergy food http://products.royalcanin.us/media/125118/102b product guide_hypo_hydrolyzed_121410.pdf


----------



## malluver1005

westminsterthree said:


> Comparing the quality of Royal Canin to any Diamond product is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Royal Canin has one of the best facilities in the country and some of the best nutritionists anywhere. Every diet goes through extensive testing. There is a reason there is wheat gluten in that food, because it is the most digestible protein known, even more than egg. And BD's have trouble digesting almost anything they eat. The adult formula does not it has a small amount of soy isolate, just like what's in baby formula.
> 
> Those diets are simple chicken, rice and oats with some special enhancements for BD's.
> 
> I would think that the nutritionists at Royal Canin know what they are doing, not some of the people on here. As for the price, don't buy food in such a small bag!!!!! It costs twice as much per lb.
> 
> Go back to RC BD and stay with it. Forget what you hear about TOTW it is junk.
> 
> Also I can't think of another breed where rotating foods was so foolish. These dogs can have such issues adjusting. Stick with RC BD and worry about something else.
> 
> Some very smart people made that product. Also she is old enough for adult food.
> 
> I would like to get some of the people here in the same room with the PHD's at RC so they could see how little they know.


TOTW is junk? RC better? :rofl:


----------



## Huginn

Sapphire-Light said:


> Neat! good info arty:
> 
> i didn't knew about the hydrolysed , I was smelling something fishy... what it's sad is that they are advertizing the hrydro stuff in magazines as a "scientist response to prevent and cure allergies in dogs and cats, because meats are the main source of allergies, so this way they can digest the meat without problems" :crazy:
> 
> Here's the us version of the anti allergy food http://products.royalcanin.us/media/125118/102b product guide_hypo_hydrolyzed_121410.pdf


I remember reading that in the RC product book when I worked at clinic and going "what? There is no meat in here? How could you give that to a dog?" There is nothing real in there at all!


----------



## mamabullylover

*food*

So I went with the Taste of the Wild, she looks at it, I mixed the rest fo the RC in it. Better for her. How do I get these pics on here, mine won't work, thanks everyone for caring about her food so much!


----------



## mythbuster

westminsterthree said:


> Comparing the quality of Royal Canin to any Diamond product is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Royal Canin has one of the best facilities in the country and some of the best nutritionists anywhere. Every diet goes through extensive testing. There is a reason there is wheat gluten in that food, because it is the most digestible protein known, even more than egg. And BD's have trouble digesting almost anything they eat. The adult formula does not it has a small amount of soy isolate, just like what's in baby formula.
> 
> Those diets are simple chicken, rice and oats with some special enhancements for BD's.
> 
> I would think that the nutritionists at Royal Canin know what they are doing, not some of the people on here. As for the price, don't buy food in such a small bag!!!!! It costs twice as much per lb.
> 
> Go back to RC BD and stay with it. Forget what you hear about TOTW it is junk.
> 
> Also I can't think of another breed where rotating foods was so foolish. These dogs can have such issues adjusting. Stick with RC BD and worry about something else.
> 
> Some very smart people made that product. Also she is old enough for adult food.
> 
> I would like to get some of the people here in the same room with the PHD's at RC so they could see how little they know.


I'm going to jump in here and agree with WMT. Wheat gluten can be an exceptionally high quality ingredient, and is a great addition to a diet for a breed with known digestive sensitivities. The term 'biologically appropriate' is nothing but a marketing term invented by the grain free companies, it is completely undefinable in the context it is used. A true 'biologically appropriate' diet would simply be one that supplies the animal in question with the appropriate nutrients in the appropriate amounts. By switching off of the RC bulldog puppy onto a fad diet you are decreasing your pup's nutrition.


----------



## frogdog

mythbuster said:


> I'm going to jump in here and agree with WMT. Wheat gluten can be an exceptionally high quality ingredient, and is a great addition to a diet for a breed with known digestive sensitivities. The term 'biologically appropriate' is nothing but a marketing term invented by the grain free companies, it is completely undefinable in the context it is used. A true 'biologically appropriate' diet would simply be one that supplies the animal in question with the appropriate nutrients in the appropriate amounts. By switching off of the RC bulldog puppy onto a fad diet you are decreasing your pup's nutrition.


I will agree with one statement..."appropriate nutrients in the appropriate amounts" but *REALLY* people consult with a nutritionist. Wheat gluten is one of the most inferior/worse ingredients you could feed to your dog or cat with sensitivities. No, fad diet has been mentioned by us. Research for yourself...please...only highly respectable sources.


----------



## wolfsnaps88

No. "Biologically appropriate" are two words I put together to make you understand. Every animal needs protein. But you don't give fish to a cow. It wouldn't be....say it with me now....Bio~LOGICALLY appropriate. Dogs should get meat, not corn. Sure they can survive with heavily corned/wheated food but its not appropriate.


----------



## westminsterthree

frogdog said:


> I will agree with one statement..."appropriate nutrients in the appropriate amounts" but *REALLY* people consult with a nutritionist. Wheat gluten is one of the most inferior/worse ingredients you could feed to your dog or cat with sensitivities. No, fad diet has been mentioned by us. Research for yourself...please...only highly respectable sources.


No you are wrong, as most people on here. Wheat Gluten is bad for the one in a million dog that has a REAL allergy to Wheat Gluten, just like Chicken is bad for dogs with a REAL allergy to Chicken, which is 3- 4 times as likely. So stop playing expert.

Wheat Gluten is the easiest protein to digest, proven by science. Dogs with real food allergies are extremely rare and 75% are animal proteins, proven by study after study, year after year, in country after country.


----------



## westminsterthree

wolfsnaps88 said:


> No. "Biologically appropriate" are two words I put together to make you understand. Every animal needs protein. But you don't give fish to a cow. It wouldn't be....say it with me now....Bio~LOGICALLY appropriate. Dogs should get meat, not corn. Sure they can survive with heavily corned/wheated food but its not appropriate.


Are you familiar with Asian Dingos? There is one species of Dingo that lives in two places, one is Australia and one is an island in the Pacific Ocean. The Dingos are the same exact animal but the ones on the island eat mostly rice and fruit. So what is biologically appropriate?


----------



## meggels

I don't get why you would feed a dog wheat gluten  I mean, just saying it in my head makes me go...huh?


----------



## chewice

Let the 2 feed their dogs gluten. The OP is on TOTW...so win. 

As for the photo thing... its a little tricky. Try the insert image button, if your photo is too big just resize in paint.


----------



## mamabullylover

Love that french bulldog! So far I am mixing the two foods so not to cause stomach upset and she seems fine. Just as lazy as she was, lol.


----------



## mythbuster

meggels said:


> I don't get why you would feed a dog wheat gluten  I mean, just saying it in my head makes me go...huh?


Okay, let me help explain it; 
wheat gluten is a protein, protein is made up of amino acids. 

Think of a string of pearls, with each pearl representing an amino acid. The identity of the protein depends on the arrangement of the amino acids. The amino acids coming out of vegetable protein sources are identical to the amino acids coming out of meat protein sources, they are different because of the arrangement and proportions. Wheat gluten is 99% digestible. Corn gluten is almost 95% digestible. Chicken protein is about 90% digestible. Lamb is about 84% digestible. So, by providing wheat and corn gluten, you are providing ultra highly digestible sources of amino acids, and decreasing the amount of undigested protein that makes it to the colon, which is a) harder on the digestive tract, b) can lead to diarrhea, flatulence, and stench, and c) a waste.

When you are providing the protein requirements of an animal, there are two things to consider; 1) how much protein overall does the animal need, 2) how much of specific amino acids does the animal need. The Bulldog diet addresses these needs using a combination of proteins containing complimentary amino acid profiles so that it not only meets the overall needs of the dog, but actually addresses the individual amino acid needs of the dog as well. Do you think TOTW is that specific?


----------



## DogLuver

westminsterthree said:


> No you are wrong, as most people on here. So stop playing expert. proven by study after study, year after year, in country after country.


There you go again. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong...study after study that I won't reference....but I'm still right and everyone else is a sucker, following the fads with zero knowledge"

....ugh westminsterthree get off your high horse...I just can't find any reason to believe anything you say. I'm not sure what your prerogative is .... but stop "playing expert" as you said. People have asked you several times what YOUR credentials are to tell everyone that they're wrong and you're ABSOLUTELY right??? You say your piece and then stop answering when you get stumped because someone is proving you wrong...then you move onto the next thread and throw your piece in there too. WHAT IS YOUR DEAL?

I notice other people here asking real questions, and providing real answers to HELP other people and to learn how to help their dogs. But you are here for some other reason and I just can't seem to figure it out??? Clearly you don't need any advice, since you know everything already, and the advice you're giving is contradicting what everyone else is saying, so you are a minority, do you see that? Do you see that no one is buying what you're saying? So what is your reason for staying here???

OP, TOTW is a great choice, rest assured, many of us have tried it, or are faithfully feeding it because has proven itself over and over. Good job!! And stick around, any more questions you've got MOST people are here to give you genuine honest advice, and we will help you sort through the contradicting advice as much as we can


----------



## DaneMama

First off "westminsterthree" is our good friend that keeps on coming back...spouting off the same crap as before. Buh bye :biggrin: 



mythbuster said:


> Okay, let me help explain it;
> wheat gluten is a protein, protein is made up of amino acids.
> 
> Think of a string of pearls, with each pearl representing an amino acid. The identity of the protein depends on the arrangement of the amino acids. The amino acids coming out of vegetable protein sources are identical to the amino acids coming out of meat protein sources, they are different because of the arrangement and proportions. Wheat gluten is 99% digestible. Corn gluten is almost 95% digestible. Chicken protein is about 90% digestible. Lamb is about 84% digestible. So, by providing wheat and corn gluten, you are providing ultra highly digestible sources of amino acids, and decreasing the amount of undigested protein that makes it to the colon, which is a) harder on the digestive tract, b) can lead to diarrhea, flatulence, and stench, and c) a waste.
> 
> When you are providing the protein requirements of an animal, there are two things to consider; 1) how much protein overall does the animal need, 2) how much of specific amino acids does the animal need. The Bulldog diet addresses these needs using a combination of proteins containing complimentary amino acid profiles so that it not only meets the overall needs of the dog, but actually addresses the individual amino acid needs of the dog as well. Do you think TOTW is that specific?


This sounds like something dog food manufacturers say. They've obviously worked on convincing you! Where did you get these exact "digestible" percentage numbers for certain proteins? 

This is all pretty much bogus. Why? Because when I fed kibble my dogs had LANDMINE sized poops...IE kibble creates a TON of waste. On an all meat/bone/organ diet my dog's poos are about 1/4 the size, very compact and breakdown into dust in a few days time....IE raw meats are completely digestible for dogs. What is left over are the non digestible parts of bone and connective tissue. Only experience would give you this knowledge though.


----------



## mythbuster

DaneMama said:


> This sounds like something dog food manufacturers say.


No, this is what nutritionists say, people who have gone to school and studied animals and digestion and nutrients and digestibility. 

I'm a veterinarian currently working as a nutrition consultant. I work closely with other veterinarians, internal medicine specialists, clinical pathologists, nutritionists, and formulators. I have spent a long time studying nutrition and the difference between nutrition supported by science and research vs marketing fads. Stool volume depends on a number of things; quality of ingredients, digestibility, fibre level in the diet, health of the individual...... 

These discussions always seem to go the same way; the "marketing nutrition" camp (aka, supporters of grain free, corn free, or whatever the flavor of the day is), talk about the marketing term "biologically appropriate" without defining it or offering proof of anything, while the "health nutrition" camp offers references and proof and explanations, and the end response always seems to be "I don't care what proof you offer, dogs are carnivores". 

Carnivore does not mean exclusive meat eating. The word carnivore means that the animal requires certain amino acids that are only available from animal sources. Like cats, who require taurine. They can still metabolize and use nutrients from non-meat sources. Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Like bears. Look at their teeth. Some bears, like polar bears, are almost exclusively meat eaters. Other bears, like panda bears, are almost exclusively plant eaters. Which diet is more "biologically appropriate"? Should we start forcing prey model raw on the panda just because the polar bear eats it? The domestic dog evolved alongside man. They have been eating a mixed diet for more than 5000 years. The ONLY way to determine what is truly a 'biologically appropriate' diet for a dog is to do research. That's what some companies are doing. Other companies decided that it makes sense to them to feed high protein and high fat diets to all dogs and stopped there. That is not in the best interest of the dog, and certainly doesn't take individual needs into consideration.


----------



## frogdog

chewice said:


> Let the 2 feed their dogs gluten. The OP is on TOTW...so win.
> 
> As for the photo thing... its a little tricky. Try the insert image button, if your photo is too big just resize in paint.


To be honest...only responded in concern of someone reading their statements and believing them to be true/fact. 

Thank You, Natalie - Danemama!


----------



## DaneMama

mythbuster said:


> No, this is what nutritionists say, people who have gone to school and studied animals and digestion and nutrients and digestibility.
> 
> I'm a veterinarian currently working as a nutrition consultant. I work closely with other veterinarians, internal medicine specialists, clinical pathologists, nutritionists, and formulators. I have spent a long time studying nutrition and the difference between nutrition supported by science and research vs marketing fads. Stool volume depends on a number of things; quality of ingredients, digestibility, fibre level in the diet, health of the individual......
> 
> These discussions always seem to go the same way; the "marketing nutrition" camp (aka, supporters of grain free, corn free, or whatever the flavor of the day is), talk about the marketing term "biologically appropriate" without defining it or offering proof of anything, while the "health nutrition" camp offers references and proof and explanations, and the end response always seems to be "I don't care what proof you offer, dogs are carnivores".


Who funds these studies? Who benefits monetarily from these studies? Dog food manufacturers. Its called industry backed science. The whole reason why there's formulated dog foods is because people want to make money and use the waste from human food manufacturing in some way (which is great in some contexts).

"Biologically Appropriate" isn't a marketing term to everyone...it may be one for you. To me it means that a diet which is "biologically appropriate" is one that is the IDEAL diet for an animal based on its physiology. 



> Carnivore does not mean exclusive meat eating. The word carnivore means that the animal requires certain amino acids that are only available from animal sources. Like cats, who require taurine. They can still metabolize and use nutrients from non-meat sources. Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Like bears. Look at their teeth. Some bears, like polar bears, are almost exclusively meat eaters. Other bears, like panda bears, are almost exclusively plant eaters. Which diet is more "biologically appropriate"? Should we start forcing prey model raw on the panda just because the polar bear eats it? The domestic dog evolved alongside man. They have been eating a mixed diet for more than 5000 years. The ONLY way to determine what is truly a 'biologically appropriate' diet for a dog is to do research. That's what some companies are doing. Other companies decided that it makes sense to them to feed high protein and high fat diets to all dogs and stopped there. That is not in the best interest of the dog, and certainly doesn't take individual needs into consideration.


You are right about dogs not being OBLIGATE carnivores like cats. Dogs are OPPORTUNISTIC carnivores seeing as they will survive off of whatever they can...but in an ideal setting they will eat a protein packed diet. There's a HUGE difference between opportunistic carnivores and omnivores. HUGE difference. Sure, dogs CAN utilize nutrients from non meat sources...but the question is SHOULD they? IMO absolutely not. My dogs will be fed a diet that is mimicking the most ideal diet available to them which is an opportunistic carnivore's diet or meat, bone and organ from a wide variety of sources. 

And to use the example of bears is just silly. They're so far detached from the domestic dog that it just doesn't make sense. Even the polar bear and the panda aren't even in the same genus in classification. Dogs and wolves are the same species, the domestic dog is a SUB SPECIES of the wolf. There's no way looking past that evidence. So...what do wolves eat? 

Do you really believe that enough evolution has happened in the past 5000 years that wolves have turned into omnivores? Obviously you need to touch up on your evolution and genetics as this is an impossible feat for any living thing that is more than a bacteria.


----------



## luvMyBRT

mythbuster said:


> Wheat gluten is 99% digestible. Corn gluten is almost 95% digestible. Chicken protein is about 90% digestible. Lamb is about 84% digestible. So, by providing wheat and corn gluten, you are providing ultra highly digestible sources of amino acids, and decreasing the amount of undigested protein that makes it to the colon, which is a) harder on the digestive tract, b) can lead to diarrhea, flatulence, and stench, and c) a waste.


This makes absolutely NO sense to me. At all. 

If this is true then please explain to me why a dog that eats mostly meat in his diet has extremely small stool? Why does a dog that eats a lot of grains (wheat, corn) have a much much bigger stool?

When talking about dogs the most easily digestible proteins to them are 1. raw eggs and 2. raw meat. Wheat, corn, etc...not so much.


----------



## luvMyBRT

mythbuster said:


> Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Like bears. Look at their teeth.


Yes! Do look at their teeth. If they where omnivores don't you think mother nature would have provided them with flat molars designed to chew plant matter and grains? Don't you think mother nature would have provided them with the ABILITY to digest plant matter and grains? Why is the mouth and digestive tract of a dog just like a wolves? Why is their digestive tract short...perfect for digesting raw meat?

Hummm....I know! It's because dogs ARE carnivores! :becky:

ETA: And to people who say that dogs have evolved from the wolf and are omnivores....I ask this: then why are their teeth and digestive tract still exactly the same? Don't you think those two major things would have changed...or at least show some sort of change?


----------



## DogLuver

mythbuster said:


> No, this is what nutritionists say, people who have gone to school and studied animals and digestion and nutrients and digestibility.
> 
> I'm a veterinarian currently working as a nutrition consultant.
> 
> These discussions always seem to go the same way; the "marketing nutrition" camp (aka, supporters of grain free, corn free, or whatever the flavor of the day is), talk about the marketing term "biologically appropriate" without defining it or offering proof of anything, while the "health nutrition" camp offers references and proof and explanations, and the end response always seems to be "I don't care what proof you offer, dogs are carnivores".
> 
> Carnivore does not mean exclusive meat eating. The word carnivore means that the animal requires certain amino acids that are only available from animal sources. Like cats, who require taurine. They can still metabolize and use nutrients from non-meat sources. Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Like bears. Look at their teeth. Some bears, like polar bears, are almost exclusively meat eaters. Other bears, like panda bears, are almost exclusively plant eaters. Which diet is more "biologically appropriate"? Should we start forcing prey model raw on the panda just because the polar bear eats it? The domestic dog evolved alongside man. They have been eating a mixed diet for more than 5000 years. The ONLY way to determine what is truly a 'biologically appropriate' diet for a dog is to do research. That's what some companies are doing. Other companies decided that it makes sense to them to feed high protein and high fat diets to all dogs and stopped there. That is not in the best interest of the dog, and certainly doesn't take individual needs into consideration.


OK, I'm not claiming to be an expert, and seeing that you are a vet beginning to learn nutrition, I'm looking forward to the end result of your education...but how can you say that dogs are not carnivores? If you are a vet, you know the difference between carnivore, omnivore, and herbivore, and dogs fit into CARNIVORE. Like others have said, comparing bears and panda bears is different, and doesn't conclude your point that dogs are omnivores logically.

A carnivore (play /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet *consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue*, whether through predation or scavenging.[1][2] Animals that depend solely on animal flesh for their nutrient requirements are considered obligate carnivores while those that also consume non-animal food are considered facultative carnivores.[2] 
Just the first definition I found on google - Carnivore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes a carnivore CAN mean exclusive meat eating. A dogs body tells us that they're carnivores, you as a vet know the anatomy of a dog? So I'm confused how you can believe they're omnivores? My vet has told me that dogs are carnivores, maybe different schools are teaching differrent things, but apparently they teach vets in school that Science Diet/Hills Prescription diet is the best thing for a dog too...and that's far from the truth as well. I switched from a vet who I felt didn't have appropriate knowledge, and found one that did, so not all vets are equal.

"These discussion always seem to go the same way...I don't care what proof you offer, dogs are carnivore" <--this, what proof do you have to persuade anyone that dogs are NOT carnivores though??? These forums are the complete opposite of "following the flavor of the day", and it amazes me how people join the forum, and then knock everyone here for following a fad or something? Some new people join who ARE following a fad, and feeding a food that is advertised to be the best, and people here explain to them why they shouldn't be following these "fads" and feed something that is actually better for their dogs. I am allllllll open ears to hear from the "health nutrition" camp that you speak of, who is this "health nutrition" camp, westminsterthree? Well I wouldn't want him/her to be my "health nutritionist". If proof and explanations are proved wrong...they're proved wrong, and at the end I wouldn't believe someone who provides proof and explanations if it still doesn't make any sense??? 

I'm interested, seeing that you have more knowledge than I, what do you consider to be the best diet for a dog?

I don't mean to be rude or attack you, but if you have the knowledge/education you're claiming, please educate us. Please remember that there are many many educated, knowledgeable, experienced people here.


----------



## Celt

Umm, just a note. but Pandas are almost exclusive plant eaters but because of their physiology their diet is affecting them negatively. A panda must eat a huge amount of food to sustain itself because the majority of it is passed as waste. Some believe that its diet may be one of the reasons for its low reproductive rate and the fact that mothers generally abandon one cub from each twin birth.


----------



## mythbuster

luvMyBRT said:


> This makes absolutely NO sense to me. At all.
> 
> If this is true then please explain to me why a dog that eats mostly meat in his diet has extremely small stool? Why does a dog that eats a lot of grains (wheat, corn) have a much much bigger stool? Don't you think mother nature would have provided them with the ABILITY to digest plant matter and grains?


Because raw diets are classically very low in fibre. As for the grain containing diet, it depends on which diet you are talking about. Some diets make big poops, some make small poops. Like I said, it depends on quality, digestibility, fibre level, etc...... Sometimes you want a less calorie dense diet with higher fibre, for example an overweight dog requiring weight loss, so that they can eat more and feel more satisfied for longer. That poop will be much bigger than one from a calorie dense, highly digestible diet with low fibre levels. 
And they DO have the ability to digest plant matter and grains. The grains in kibble are ground and ready to be metabolized by the body, they don't need to be ground by flat molars. Their digestive tract, including the digestive enzymes produced naturally by their pancreas, is perfectly suited to digesting plant and animal matter. 



luvMyBRT said:


> why are their teeth and digestive tract still exactly the same? Don't you think those two major things would have changed...or at least show some sort of change? Hummm....I know! It's because dogs ARE carnivores!


orrrrrrrrr..... becase WOLVES ARE OMNIVORES TOO! they are opportunistic feeders. They eat what is available to them in order to survive. However, 'carnivore' and 'omnivore' are simply generalized descriptions of nutrient source requirements. It doesn't mean the diet must consist solely of those ingredients. Most wolves in the wild are not thriving, their sole purpose is to live long enough to reproduce. The lifespan of the dog is much longer than that of the wolf because we can do better than simply meet their needs for survival. It is biologically INappropriate to mimic a wild animal's diet and think we are doing our domesticated dogs a favor.

also, dogs' and wolves digestive tracts aren't exactly the same. There are even differences in digestive tracts of different breeds of dogs, for example, small dogs have a longer digestive tract but a shorter colonic transit time compared to large dogs. There is not one perfect diet suited to all dogs. You need to consider the needs of the individual.


----------



## DaneMama

mythbuster said:


> orrrrrrrrr..... becase WOLVES ARE OMNIVORES TOO! they are opportunistic feeders. They eat what is available to them in order to survive. However, 'carnivore' and 'omnivore' are simply generalized descriptions of nutrient source requirements. It doesn't mean the diet must consist solely of those ingredients. Most wolves in the wild are not thriving, their sole purpose is to live long enough to reproduce. The lifespan of the dog is much longer than that of the wolf because we can do better than simply meet their needs for survival. It is biologically INappropriate to mimic a wild animal's diet and think we are doing our domesticated dogs a favor.


This excuse is almost more absurd than your earlier comparisons of dogs and bears. You do realize that wild wolves are subjected to disease, weather, predation (stupid humans with guns), famine, injury, etc BECAUSE they're wild animals? Of course a wild wolf isn't going to live as long as pampered house dogs that are fed any diet. Domestication in itself is enough to lengthen the lives of any species.


----------



## mythbuster

DaneMama said:


> This excuse is almost more absurd than your earlier comparisons of dogs and bears. You do realize that wild wolves are subjected to disease, weather, predation (stupid humans with guns), famine, injury, etc BECAUSE they're wild animals? Of course a wild wolf isn't going to live as long as pampered house dogs that are fed any diet. Domestication in itself is enough to lengthen the lives of any species.


so then why do you think a domesticated dog should be fed as though it's a wild animal with an expected lifespan of only a couple of years?


----------



## rannmiller

mythbuster said:


> so then why do you think a domesticated dog should be fed as though it's a wild animal with an expected lifespan of only a couple of years?


She _just_ explained that. Please everyone get back to the original topic. We have had hundreds if not thousands of discussions exactly like this in the past. If you want to read them, go search for them and stop stirring the pot just to be a nuisance. 

Let's not have to close another thread for literally the same argument we've had over and over again.


----------



## mythbuster

rannmiller said:


> She _just_ explained that. Please everyone get back to the original topic. We have had hundreds if not thousands of discussions exactly like this in the past. If you want to read them, go search for them and stop stirring the pot just to be a nuisance.
> 
> Let's not have to close another thread for literally the same argument we've had over and over again.


_(*Content removed)_

But, if you'd like to get back to the original topic, I believe Bulldog puppy formula is superior to TOTW because: 
-RC does research
-RC has quality control measures that are the most advanced in the world
-the kibbles are shaped to improve grasping and chewing of food
-the nutrient profile of the diet is adjusted to the needs of bulldogs (not wolves....), including joint support supplements and skin support supplements
-there are clinical trials, and palatability trials, and digestibility trials done on the food to ensure it is providing optimal nutrition
-they nitrogen flush their bags to preserve freshness of the product
-they don't spread misinformation to the detriment of the pet population in order to sell their food. 
-they support veterinarians, education, shelters, and breeders.


----------



## frogdog

This is basically a waste of time and has gotten to a point where it's best to agree to disagree.

Point blank...processed food is processed food which is BAD for any pet. You may like McDonald's...doesn't mean it's healthy for you.


ETA: Outta here on that note...usually do not partake in these endless post. They're basically a merry go round.


----------



## luvMyBRT

mythbuster said:


> orrrrrrrrr..... becase WOLVES ARE OMNIVORES TOO! they are opportunistic feeders. They eat what is available to them in order to survive. However, 'carnivore' and 'omnivore' are simply generalized descriptions of nutrient source requirements. It doesn't mean the diet must consist solely of those ingredients. Most wolves in the wild are not thriving, their sole purpose is to live long enough to reproduce. The lifespan of the dog is much longer than that of the wolf because we can do better than simply meet their needs for survival. It is biologically INappropriate to mimic a wild animal's diet and think we are doing our domesticated dogs a favor.
> 
> also, dogs' and wolves digestive tracts aren't exactly the same. There are even differences in digestive tracts of different breeds of dogs, for example, small dogs have a longer digestive tract but a shorter colonic transit time compared to large dogs. There is not one perfect diet suited to all dogs. You need to consider the needs of the individual.


ound: This is all I have to say about that.

Agree to disagree.

ETA: I'm outta here too!


----------



## DaneMama

mythbuster said:


> so then why do you think a domesticated dog should be fed as though it's a wild animal with an expected lifespan of only a couple of years?


Uh...because millions of years of evolution have proven the diet more than a couple generations of industry backed research. Because the ideal diet of wild wolves isn't the reason why they have shorter lifespans...it's all the things listed above that make an impact on life expectancy. 

But I'm done as well...as this is going no where.


----------



## DogLuver

I know everyone done here...but I enjoy the controversy sometimes, I'm always trying to learn more and more, there was in fact some helpful information amongst all the bull-****** in this thread, so thank you all ...

I just found out that my (dog) trainer sells RAW meat, pre-packaged for dogs WHOLESALE!!!   ...and when my boyfriend realized that the trainer does this "weird RAW stuff" too, he was more open to the idea than he was when he thought it was just one of my crazy ideas   ...

So of coarse I'm still trying to continue learning and educating myself (through these forums, my dog trainer, and my new-found vet who supports RAW feeding!!! YAY!!!)

Sorry, had to share that, this just happens to be the thread I was watching today


----------



## Huginn

mythbuster said:


> . Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Like bears. Look at their teeth.


For your viewing pleasure:







The teeth of a grizzly bear, note how the molars are flat and the teeth fit directly on top of them. Much like the molars of a human.







The skull of a German shepherd, note the difference in the molars pointed and overlapping, not resting on top of. 

I may just be a student, but this is obvious to me and actually the reason I chose to not go to vet school, I can't handle people cramming this misinformation down my throat and expecting me to regurgitate it on exams. 

*Don't mess with me today I am in a researching mood!*


----------



## The Expert

*Some food for thought *

So I see everyone is leaving, but I just had to say my little tidbits to get some of you thinking  
I do not know why everyone likes TOTW, the ingredient deck from an animal nutritionist point of view is crap! I know people may disagree with me, but hear me out. Potato can be listed in that diet 3 to 4 times, making potato really the main ingredient. What makes potato better than grains? Nothing! Potato is a more complex starch and is very hard on the digestive tract for any monogastric. Not to mention the toxicity issue with potatoes, look up glycoalkaloids! Pretty scary! When you compare it to grains on vitamin, mineral and amino acid quality it is crap, hence why they need to add so much more in order to meet the needs, as well fish oil and meal (which they add ocean fish - this is basically catch of the day! every bag can have a different nutritional profile, not to mention what is the mercury level with these ocean fish? Coming from a nutrition and toxicology background this worries me!) this is in order to get the omegas! I know many diets push omega 3 and 6 makes the coat shiny. But how much does your dog shed? Really shedding should only occur two times a year, anything in between look at the vitamin and mineral content is it truly meeting their needs? As well, look up probiotics and there efficiency in a kibble, there is TONS of research from universities who are not funded by anyone that show they do not work! a waste of money for the consumer. If you want probiotics go to your vet and ask them about it. Ones sold in pet stores are crap too! If you have ever been on antibiotics too long you will have found that you needed to go to your pharmacy to get probiotics and you need to keep them in your fridge. This is what keeps them viable - same concept with the pill and kibble form! Also, do any of you understand extruding? If you do, now think about the veggies and fruits going into these diets. For those of you who don’t, basically high heat (steam) for over an hour - even raw food has had heat added! When you boil carrots you lose 50% of the nutrients in just 10 minutes. What do you think happens now to these fruits and veggies when they are being extruded? You lose everything good! All you get is fibre and sugar. If pet companies had to list carb fractions and more specifically sugar, I think many people would reconsider what they would feed. I see many dogs who after eating this high sugar diets go through what we would say is a sugar high, then crash. Not good! 

Next for biologically appropriate, what is appropriate for a bully? Are we really ignorant enough to believe that over 5000 years of selective breeding we still believe that they require the same as a wolf? Please tell me we are not. We see in livestock every day that our selective breeding has changed what they require, and it doesn’t just mean factory farmed ones either. So when looking at a bull dog versus a wolf you can see that in order to meet their genetic potential they would require a very different formula, for digestion (rate of enzyme release) and for skin needs etc. My next point is when we consider wolves they eat to survive, they go through events when they gorge and then starve. Is this what we should do to our dogs? Wolves also eat a high degree of grains, so are they really that bad then? First part any wild animal (even feral) eat on their kill is the digestive tract of a vegetarian - FULL of grains). I also am against switching their foods all the time. Based on the science this is not appropriate. Even wild animals become very in tune to hunting ONE type of prey, and when that prey goes through a low year the predators suffer and whole pack can be lost. Research has really shown that switching all the time actually is leading to more issues! Especially if the quality isn’t there. Just because a diet has duck and that us "supposed" to be better does not mean it is more digestible or has been cooked properly to be more digestible. I think research has really shown us what animals require everywhere, and I think it is ignorant to assume it is a waste and that people with no higher degree know better. If you have actually done research you will understand where I am coming from. 

I know there will be people that will disagree with me, but I have studied and researched this topic for many years. Trust me I have looked at many brands and methods of feeding. My only purpose was to get some of you to do some stimulated thinking, only read PEER REVIEWED papers and really look at their research. Please do not believe everything you read, it is sad that ALOT of the information out there is wrong and that people with my background are letting people with NO background teach people who want to learn. Happy researching!


----------



## mythbuster

Huginn said:


> For your viewing pleasure:
> View attachment 6129
> 
> The teeth of a grizzly bear, note how the molars are flat and the teeth fit directly on top of them. Much like the molars of a human.
> View attachment 6130
> 
> The skull of a German shepherd, note the difference in the molars pointed and overlapping, not resting on top of.
> 
> I may just be a student, but this is obvious to me and actually the reason I chose to not go to vet school, I can't handle people cramming this misinformation down my throat and expecting me to regurgitate it on exams.
> 
> *Don't mess with me today I am in a researching mood!*


Dogs have fewer molars than bears, but they still have them. They're overlapping in your picture because the first upper molar is FALLING OUT. When you pull back a dog's lip you only see the premolars, which are shearing. The molars have a flat surface and sit right on top of each other. Like a bear. Or a person. I just pulled out my dog dental model to confirm it before I replied.


----------



## mythbuster

The Expert said:


> So I see everyone is leaving, but I just had to say my little tidbits to get some of you thinking


THANK YOU for joining in with a voice of reason!


----------



## DogLuver

The Expert said:


> So I see everyone is leaving, but I just had to say my little tidbits to get some of you thinking
> I do not know why everyone likes TOTW, the ingredient deck from an animal nutritionist point of view is crap! I know people may disagree with me, but hear me out. Potato can be listed in that diet 3 to 4 times, making potato really the main ingredient. What makes potato better than grains? Nothing! Potato is a more complex starch and is very hard on the digestive tract for any monogastric. Not to mention the toxicity issue with potatoes, look up glycoalkaloids! Pretty scary! When you compare it to grains on vitamin, mineral and amino acid quality it is crap, hence why they need to add so much more in order to meet the needs, as well fish oil and meal (which they add ocean fish - this is basically catch of the day! every bag can have a different nutritional profile, not to mention what is the mercury level with these ocean fish? Coming from a nutrition and toxicology background this worries me!) this is in order to get the omegas! I know many diets push omega 3 and 6 makes the coat shiny. But how much does your dog shed? Really shedding should only occur two times a year, anything in between look at the vitamin and mineral content is it truly meeting their needs? As well, look up probiotics and there efficiency in a kibble, there is TONS of research from universities who are not funded by anyone that show they do not work! a waste of money for the consumer. If you want probiotics go to your vet and ask them about it. Ones sold in pet stores are crap too! If you have ever been on antibiotics too long you will have found that you needed to go to your pharmacy to get probiotics and you need to keep them in your fridge. This is what keeps them viable - same concept with the pill and kibble form! Also, do any of you understand extruding? If you do, now think about the veggies and fruits going into these diets. For those of you who don’t, basically high heat (steam) for over an hour - even raw food has had heat added! When you boil carrots you lose 50% of the nutrients in just 10 minutes. What do you think happens now to these fruits and veggies when they are being extruded? You lose everything good! All you get is fibre and sugar. If pet companies had to list carb fractions and more specifically sugar, I think many people would reconsider what they would feed. I see many dogs who after eating this high sugar diets go through what we would say is a sugar high, then crash. Not good!
> 
> Next for biologically appropriate, what is appropriate for a bully? Are we really ignorant enough to believe that over 5000 years of selective breeding we still believe that they require the same as a wolf? Please tell me we are not. We see in livestock every day that our selective breeding has changed what they require, and it doesn’t just mean factory farmed ones either. So when looking at a bull dog versus a wolf you can see that in order to meet their genetic potential they would require a very different formula, for digestion (rate of enzyme release) and for skin needs etc. My next point is when we consider wolves they eat to survive, they go through events when they gorge and then starve. Is this what we should do to our dogs? Wolves also eat a high degree of grains, so are they really that bad then? First part any wild animal (even feral) eat on their kill is the digestive tract of a vegetarian - FULL of grains). I also am against switching their foods all the time. Based on the science this is not appropriate. Even wild animals become very in tune to hunting ONE type of prey, and when that prey goes through a low year the predators suffer and whole pack can be lost. Research has really shown that switching all the time actually is leading to more issues! Especially if the quality isn’t there. Just because a diet has duck and that us "supposed" to be better does not mean it is more digestible or has been cooked properly to be more digestible. I think research has really shown us what animals require everywhere, and I think it is ignorant to assume it is a waste and that people with no higher degree know better. If you have actually done research you will understand where I am coming from.
> 
> I know there will be people that will disagree with me, but I have studied and researched this topic for many years. Trust me I have looked at many brands and methods of feeding. My only purpose was to get some of you to do some stimulated thinking, only read PEER REVIEWED papers and really look at their research. Please do not believe everything you read, it is sad that ALOT of the information out there is wrong and that people with my background are letting people with NO background teach people who want to learn. Happy researching!


This all sounds very interesting, I can't wrap my head around a lot of it, but may I ask where you got this information, or where you received your education, so that I can research further? Everything I have learned/researched/been taught has completely contradicted a lot of what you're saying, so that is why I'm asking, and my information doesn't come strictly from these forums/the internet as you're presuming. Sources, Links, Schools, anything?


----------



## The Expert

I received my degree from the University of Guelph where I studied animal nutrition; I focused on nutrition, immunology, pathology and biochemistry (for any nutrition degree biochem is of major importance). I have always had a HUGE interest in animals and their health, growing up I worked in vet clinics and animal shelters and saw firsthand how nutrition worked on the outside, and decided to learn how it worked on the inside. I furthered my degree and received my Master’s degree in Animal Nutrition and Toxicology from a world renowned professor. For this degree I actually studied (and later taught) how to formulate diets, and how all types of diets are produced, I learned a lot about the ins and outs of MANY food manufacturing companies not just pet food. My significant is also a plant biologist, so I am very well versed (even took a couple of classes myself) in any type of crop we can grow and its nutritional breakdown. Did you know wheat, barley and rye are basically the same ingreint? Many companies say no wheat yet add barely instead - just preying on the uneducated consumer (which I think is unfair! and it should not be that way!)
I have learned what some companies actually do and what others/ how others claim what they do. I have a lot of experience in the regulatory field and have learned how LITTLE pet food is regulated and the scary truth behind many claims. In Canada the CFIA regulates the claims that can be put on bags for livestock; these claims actually have to have scientific proof (more than even 2 trials) that it ACTUALLY does this on a cellular level. Pet food, is mildly regulated by AAFCO and many bags can make claims that are false and have no legal issues. 
To be honest my knowledge comes from years of studying animal physiology and how the body works I have studied dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. I have read countless journal articles and am in the midst of having some of my masters work published (my masters was of PhD standards, and I was told I should have just merged it into one, but my advisor didn’t believe in that). 

My real piece of advice is to read only peer reviewed articles there is ALOT of rules in place and all research has to be warranted and truly prove something in order to be published this way. Regular articles written by anyone who can type can be very bias and misleading; many times they are based on personal thoughts of what people have seen visually. When real nutrition is what is happening on a cellular level, not visual level. Things can look good on the outside yet are deficient on the inside.

When I teach people/students nutrition I work on the basis of educating them on ingredients (what each one is and can bring to a formula), how the body works and actually utilizes the nutrients, and how feeds are cooked. I feel if people can be educated from a non bias method it can equip them to make better choices based on sound evidence not the fancy scare tactic marketing many companies use. If you have any questions I am very glad to help and have been told by many people I am a book of knowledge


----------



## DogLuver

That's all great, and you sound very knowledgeable. Can you present me with some type of reading on the theories you are referring to here? I know of other people with all kinds of education on nutrition, biology, physiology, veterinary, that believe differently based on their education, studies, and experience, and they have presented me with further reason to believe and understand their theories. Please help me understand. 

I'm not sure that we're not already on the same page here. Which diet do you say is best for a dog? Which brand kibble would you suggest? Do you beleive in feeding dogs a RAW diet? Why, or why not? Which dog food companies are misleading us (as consumers), and how?


----------



## Huginn

mythbuster said:


> Dogs have fewer molars than bears, but they still have them. They're overlapping in your picture because the first upper molar is FALLING OUT. When you pull back a dog's lip you only see the premolars, which are shearing. The molars have a flat surface and sit right on top of each other. Like a bear. Or a person. I just pulled out my dog dental model to confirm it before I replied.


Are they falling out in this picture:







Or this picture:








Or this picture:








Or how about in the wolf:








Or the siberian wolf:









I'm going to have to disagree with you. And I think pretty much everyone else here will as well, dogs are carnivores end of story.


----------



## mythbuster

Huginn said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you. And I think pretty much everyone else here will as well, dogs are carnivores end of story.


Look at the molars from the inside of the jaw. They occlude. Side views don't help. Maybe next time you are in "research mode" you should try looking at more than one view.


----------



## Huginn

mythbuster said:


> Look at the molars from the inside of the jaw. They occlude. Side views don't help. Maybe next time you are in "research mode" you should try looking at more than one view.


I have, and I stand by my opinion and observations. I have actually physically held an actual skull (not a model or a replica) in my hand and did not notice any occlusion. I spent a good hour one day preparing for a lab exam simply looking at a coyote, wolf and dog skull. As I said, I will disagree. I haven't been on this forum very long, but I am pretty sure the large number of prey model raw feeders here will not have their minds changed, nor will I.

ETA: why would one member of a genus (Canis lupus) be a carnivore, but another (C. familiaris) be an omnivore? I have not seen this replicated in any other taxonomic divisions. . .


----------



## The Expert

Huginn - 
This may be an interesting read for you: 
The Evolutionary Basis for the feeding behaviour of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and Cats (Felis catus), by John Bradshaw

Think of evolution and what domestic dogs have been eating for the past 100,000+ years. They eat what people eat, fight of the fittest. Think about how quickly we have changed what we now consider the common cow (Bos taurus). Do you not think that they have actually evolved to eat carbs? They create pancreatic amylase and very well I might add. Why do we consider the "wolf diet" to be the most correct? They are NOT wolves, they are far removed, do not tell me a Chihuahua is needs the same as a wolf? Really? Also, in feral dogs what do they prey on? Vegetarian species. What is the first part they ALWAYS eat? The intestines! I am not sure why a raw diet without the intestinal content is considered correct. You cannot get all nutrients from meat; this is why strict carnivores eat the intestines of vegetarians! There are many nutrients and some are not present in meat and other in veggies (by veggies I am also considering grains) In my opinion if you wanted to feed correctly you should feed the whole damned carcass, skin and all!!! (They require that hair for digestive transit, without the friction they do not have proper intestinal cells sloughing off and this can be linked with cancers!) I just think before we start considering what is "appropriate" we need to look at the WHOLE picture not just focus on one part!


----------



## Scarlett_O'

And to think I nearly felt bad thinking "Wow what kind of person would name themselves "The Expert"".....because now we know, a misinformed brainwashed one!:thumb:


----------



## mythbuster

Huginn said:


> ETA: why would one member of a genus (Canis lupus) be a carnivore, but another (C. familiaris) be an omnivore? I have not seen this replicated in any other taxonomic divisions. . .


They're both omnivores. But let's agree to disagree. At lunch I physically held my dogs head in my hands and looked at his molars and DID notice occlusion. Maybe he's actually a bear dressed like a dog though, since you are so sure he's a carnivore. 

Either way, it doesn't matter if they're carnivores or omnivores. It matters that we supply them with their nutrient requirements. And those nutrients can be supplied using both plant and and animal ingredients.


----------



## mythbuster

Scarlett_O' said:


> And to think I nearly felt bad thinking "Wow what kind of person would name themselves "The Expert"".....because now we know, a misinformed brainwashed one!:thumb:


Yes. Brainwashed by evidence and research. When anyone who knows anything knows they should be learning everything they need to know from people in forums like this.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

DogLuver said:


> That's all great, and you sound very knowledgeable. Can you present me with some type of reading on the theories you are referring to here? I know of other people with all kinds of education on nutrition, biology, physiology, veterinary, that believe differently based on their education, studies, and experience, and they have presented me with further reason to believe and understand their theories. Please help me understand.
> *
> I'm not sure that we're not already on the same page here. Which diet do you say is best for a dog? Which brand kibble would you suggest? Do you beleive in feeding dogs a RAW diet? Why, or why not? Which dog food companies are misleading us (as consumers), and how?*



This still needs to be answered as well!!:wink:


----------



## mythbuster

Scarlett_O' said:


> This still needs to be answered as well!!:wink:


I'll give my answer to this; 

I hesitate to make food recommendations in forums like this, because I don't believe there is one perfect diet for every dog (or cat..), different individuals will have different nutritional needs. I am not a supporter of any of the "grain free" companies because I believe they base their diets on marketing instead of science and research, and in general, I feel that the websites that rate kibble are completely backwards in how they determine what is good vs what is bad. If someone wants help choosing a diet, first I need to know about the animal and get a sense of what it needs nutritionally, from that, I make a nutritional 'wish list'. From there, I look within the available products of a company I trust and look for the one that best addresses the wish list. 

Ingredients are only as good as the nutrients they supply, so I don't look at the ingredient panel AT ALL when I'm judging the quality of a diet. It is the nutrient parameters that give you an idea of the nutrition in the diet, not the ingredient list. 

These are the questions I ask a company to help me determine if it is worth my consideration: 
1. Do you have a Veterinary Nutritionist or some equivalent on staff in your company? Are they available for consultation or questions?
2. Who formulates your diets and what are their credentials?
3. Which of your diet(s) is AAFCO Feed Trial tested? Which of your diets meet AAFCO Nutritional requirements?
4. What Testing do you do beyond AAFCO trials?
5. What specific quality control measures do you use to assure the consistency and quality of your product line? What safety measures do you use?
6. Where are your diets produced and manufactured? Can this plant be visited?
7. Can you provide a complete product nutrient analysis of your best selling canine and feline pet food including digestibility values?
8. Can you give me the caloric value per can or cup of your diets?

As an interesting aside, I have asked these questions of Champion (a company everyone seems to think is top of the line) on three different occasions, and they have yet to respond.

In general I don't believe in raw diets because they are almost always seriously unbalanced. The only way I would support this kind of feeding is if the diet was balanced by a nutritionist (setting aside the real health concerns that exist). I personally managed a raw fed poodle with rickets that literally had no bone density left. At the ACVIM this year there was a presentation that revealed a kitten displayed clinical signs of taurine deficiency within 6 weeks of being fed an unbalanced raw diet. The signs reversed completely once the kitten was put on a balanced commercial diet.


----------



## DaneMama

Name calling won't be tolerated- cool it. 

It's a good thing that we promote a raw diet that IS balanced AND complete. It's a shame that there are people out there that jump into raw feeding without proper knowledge or guidance. The few "bad" cases of raw feeding like those you have treated are probably far outnumbered by those cases that improve the overall health and function of the animal. I'd say 99% of the people here who have switched have seen drastic improvements in their animals health. The few who do not have success with it are either to blame for user error or some kind of underlying or known, pre existing disease. 

There's a million ways to feed an incorrect, unbalanced and inappropriate raw diet. There's only a handful of right ways, with minor tweaks and changes for each individual dog. 

Maybe since you're here, mythbuster, you should ask US questions about a proper raw diet to even further your knowledge and understanding. I've learned everything I need to know about the rights and wrongs of raw from a DVM.


----------



## The Expert

Sorry I did not write back to this one as I was trying to find some places you could go to get some NON BIAS information. I cant tell you to read one paper and you will have the knowledge I do. I have spent over 10 years studying this topic. So yes I would consider myself an expert. 

The best places I can tell you are to look at the NRC, and also Canine and Feline nutrition by Linda Case, et al. is a good source of just straight nutrition. If you are interested in certain areas please ask me and I can direct you to more specific case studies and trials. 

One thing I would like to point out, which I am sure some of you will speak your mind about. Is why do you THINK you know everything when you are only talking based off experience? Have you really looked at all solutions? when I mean this I mean not ingredient changes but more the nutrients? Have you really looked into the chemical breakdown? It really urks me when people who have just read things and assume they know everything. I know many people are against degrees, but these people are the ones without degrees I find. Degrees actually mean you have had to study all aspects of that area, and that other experts have judged your knowledge and analytical skills.
I dont understand why some of you (not all) need to reject everything people say who have actually put their heart and sole into learning about this topic. Especially when it goes against your way of thinking? Why do you assume I have been educated wrong? when everything I have read out of texts on just straight biochem, physiology, immunology and nutrition all lead to the same conclusions? Where is your information from? People who have human degrees? IE. dentists, naturopaths? etc. Why would you consider them right over someone who has studied this topic for many years? What have YOU read? Maybe you should go back? 

I wasn’t trying to piss anyone off I just wanted some people to open their minds and think about some things in different perspectives. This is how we progress as a society. Not by assuming "i know everything what do they know" 

I did not say what diet is the best, and I am not about to name ones I like and dont like, or what brands I suggest. The ones I suggest are ones that do research and use ingredients that are known to work. Not ones that market saying we do not add this and never explain why. I feel the ones that are misleading people have scare tactics - or say we dont use this and never explain why. They lead the market to believe an ingredient is bad yet they do not give anyone proof. Where is the physical research? The grain idea, if you look at actual trial research, grains so not show up as being all that bad. This is as long as good quality ingredients are used. 
As for RAW, I would have to say I am personally against it. However, when done right it is not a bad diet. What you feed is your prerogative. I do find that many people do not do it right. I just ask any of you that have money get a diet that you give you dog chemically tested (it will be pricey!). Now compare to the NRC which is the basis for what dogs and cats actually need to survive (not thrive). NRC values if you go below you have deficiency. But get it tested and see if you meet it for the right stage of life in your dog. If you do congratulations! However, many will find they do not. Animal meats only have certain amino acids, you need the variety, as well it is not so much as having vitamin E present, what is the form? can they utilize properly? I just want people to consider everything, and not jump to conclusions. From a toxicology background as well, toxicity of things is a huge issue, how were all the animals you are feeding killed? what did they eat? Pet food companies (good ones at least) consider this and test for heavy metals, test for toxins of all sorts. At home cannot, such is the issue with mercury if you feed ocean fish. Just some things for you guys to think about and research yourselves.  If you have specific questions I can help you further with finding good solid information, just ask! 
(sorry for any grammatical errors i was in a hurry!)


----------



## DaneMama

Toxicity is definitely something we as raw feeders here take seriously. There are threads here that list heavy metal toxins in common fish that are fed. 

Most of the meats people feed here on a raw diet are meant for human consumption. The same cannot be said for most kibbles out there, even the ones who do clinical research on their diets.


----------



## meggels

Scarlett_O' said:


> And to think I nearly felt bad thinking "Wow what kind of person would name themselves "The Expert"".....because now we know, a misinformed brainwashed one!:thumb:



We are always asking people to give us their point of views, their basis of knowledge, their educational background, etc. 

But why bother if you are going to resort to being nasty and name calling?

I find the few people that are sharing their information and point of view are doing so in a really educational and positive way and it's pretty interesting, I hope they don't get scared off by some of the other members here...


----------



## The Expert

I would still be careful with what is considered safe for food consumption. In Canada which is thought to be considered on top of food safety, many human consumption meats are not safe, especially fed raw. I would also be very careful with any fresh game, as you do not know their background such as where they grazed, what they have grazed etc. I know of only a handful (sad I know) of pet food companies that acutally test each and every ingredient before it enters their facility for things such as this, heavy metal, mycotoxins, euthanizing drugs etc. I guess it is common though that a couple bad apples ruin it for the bunch . I know many people can find these premium companies to be very $$, but trust me from experience in the feild. Some of them you actually do get what you pay for, quality. Others you just get fancy marketing, which is sad. All the ones that I know that are premium doing clinical research their meat was obtained from human grade facility abbatoirs, even if they use byproducts. As raw feeders that is what you feed as well, animal by-products. A by-product is anything that is not being used for its orginal purpose. I am not like I said against raw feeding, I think as supplementary to a high quality kibble diet it can be good. I think as a main diet, it is not great, and this comes from my formulating background and knowing how hard it is to ensure an animal gets everything they need. As well as variation between animals grown in two differnt facilities.


----------



## Unosmom

I havent had the time to read the whole thing, but I wanted to make a comment on posters that consider raw dangerous because it can be imbalanced. 
By AAFCO standards in order for a pet food to be approved they feed their food to 8 dogs for 6 months. As long as they dont lose more then 15% of their body weight the food is approved. Also only 6 out of the 8 need to finish the trial, no idea what happens to the other 2, they probably die of some nutrient deficiency. No mention of dogs health or lifespan beyond those 6 months. I know there are members on here that have been feeding their animals raw for years, and not only are they "surviving", but thriving. A much better guarantee then any pet food industry can offer. 
Obviously theres a wrong and right way of feeding raw, I've browsed and lurked around forums for probably last 3 years, but was too afraid to take a plunge. I've put about 6 months of active research into it before I started and I'm still constantly researching and reading anything I can get my hands on. My dog has been on raw 4 months now and he's doing amazingly well.


----------



## xellil

The Expert said:


> It really urks me when people who have just read things and assume they know everything. I know many people are against degrees, but these people are the ones without degrees I find. Degrees actually mean you have had to study all aspects of that area, and that other experts have judged your knowledge and analytical skills.
> I dont understand why some of you (not all) need to reject everything people say who have actually put their heart and sole into learning about this topic. Especially when it goes against your way of thinking? Why do you assume I have been educated wrong? when everything I have read out of texts on just straight biochem, physiology, immunology and nutrition all lead to the same conclusions? Where is your information from? People who have human degrees? IE. dentists, naturopaths? etc. Why would you consider them right over someone who has studied this topic for many years? What have YOU read? Maybe you should go back?



If I believed what some "expert" tells me if it's contrary to the evidence of my own eyes, that would be pretty stupid of me. 

Having a degree or not having a degree - it doesn't matter. i won't make my dogs suffer because I think I must believe something just because someone who has done alot of research says so.


----------



## wolfsnaps88

Why isn't there someone doing the research on raw anyways? Would put an end to a lot of controversy. My guess is probably because of money. No big name brand to fund raw research. And if they did do trials and found raw to be superior, kibble would be out for many homes costing companies millions...billions even.


----------



## DaneMama

Research isn't done (at least to public knowledge) on raw (done the right way...not some premade crap but either true PMR or BARF) because there's no real money in it and it'll wipe out the dog food industry which IS a billion dollar industry.


----------



## mythbuster

Unosmom said:


> I havent had the time to read the whole thing, but I wanted to make a comment on posters that consider raw dangerous because it can be imbalanced.
> By AAFCO standards in order for a pet food to be approved they feed their food to 8 dogs for 6 months. As long as they dont lose more then 15% of their body weight the food is approved. Also only 6 out of the 8 need to finish the trial, no idea what happens to the other 2, they probably die of some nutrient deficiency. No mention of dogs health or lifespan beyond those 6 months.


I agree with you on this, AAFCO is a joke. But that is an industry minimum. There are companies that do feeding trials that span months, years, and lifetimes. This is why I am so particular about the companies I choose to support. 

I realize that there are raw fed animals that do well on it, but there are other raw fed animals on the same ration that do poorly or even die. It can take months to years for nutrient excesses or deficiencies to show up, and once they do, they can be devastating. Until there are controlled clinical trials on groups of raw fed animals with articles published in peer-reviewed journals, it will never be something I can get behind. Why don't you get together with other raw feeders and set something up? Encourage some of the people publishing books on the topic to set up trials so you actually have tangible evidence that raw is right? One of the most common arguments supporting raw is that that is what the wolves eat and dogs are closely related to wolves. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that a Yorkie, a Border collie, and a Great Dane all have the same nutritional requirements as each other, and all have the same nutritional requirements as wolves. Just like I would disagree with an Olympic athlete, a growing child, and an 80 year old woman all eating the same diets.


----------



## The Expert

I agree with myth buster, AAFCO is a joke. Unfortunatly, even though the pet food industry is a billion dollar company there is no money in research. SO this is the only thing that sets the rules, for any food consumed by a pet. At least they have re-evaluated NRC's and taken the levels from survival to they should trhive with this level.

If any one actually looked at the cost of research, especially to use cats or dogs it is astronomical. For a simple one month trial with 30 dogs, you would be looking at spending over 200,000$. To actually prove that one food is better than another would mean the study would have to be ten years at least. With this you need dogs or cats from the same genetic backgroung to control that variable. There are so many factors that play a role in a trial that every researcher has to pay attention too. 

The funny part to me though, is RAW started because a theory developed that pet food companies were out to get people. Now, there are RAW pet food companies - the same ones who were originally out to get people. Not every company is bad, and kibble was desgined as it was an effective way to feed the most balanced diet to all dogs. It actually was a step in the right direction for dog and cat health. Many people before were jsut feeding scraps and pets were dieing due to defecienies and parasites. I am not saying that every kibble company out there today is good though. There are many that their idea of food is very warped. However, companies do not have to list quality of ingredients, so consumers will never really know who is better than who. Mythbusters previous questions that you can ask a company are good ones, if they wont answer them then DONT use them. They are obviously hiding something. 

Here is a good review article that actually breaksdown the trials they were able to find that fed RAW, they explain whether they were a research trial, right down to case studies. Unfortunatly, case studies are not always useful as they only look at the present issue not any confounding variables. 

But it is worth a good read: 
Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review
Daniel P. Schlesinger, Daniel J. Joffe

They just lay the facts and let you decide


----------



## xellil

mythbuster said:


> I realize that there are raw fed animals that do well on it, but there are other raw fed animals on the same ration that do poorly or even die. It can take months to years for nutrient excesses or deficiencies to show up, and once they do, they can be devastating.


Now THAT I would like to see proof of. What makes you think that? I get my dogs blood tested regularly. We watch them carefully. I am extremely conscious of the calcium and phosphorus they receive and take great pains to make sure they aren't getting too much of one thing or not enough of another.

Who says you can feed a dog raw food happily for years and everything looks great and all of a sudden they keel over dead from it?


----------



## mythbuster

xellil said:


> Now THAT I would like to see proof of. What makes you think that? I get my dogs blood tested regularly. We watch them carefully. I am extremely conscious of the calcium and phosphorus they receive and take great pains to make sure they aren't getting too much of one thing or not enough of another.
> 
> Who says you can feed a dog raw food happily for years and everything looks great and all of a sudden they keel over dead from it?


I saw it first hand; an owner had fed the same raw ration to her dogs for years. One of her Standard Poodles was 10.5 years old, and had been on the diet since she was a puppy. Her other dog was a 1.5 year old Standard Poodle. Also on the same diet since puppyhood. At 1.5 years old he came in lame. We xrayed him and his bones were almost invisible on xray. His lame leg had a fracture. He had rickets from a nutrient deficiency. His bloodwork was surprisingly normal (Calcium is one of the most strictly regulated minerals in the body. Blood calcium levels are maintained no matter what the animal has to do to achieve it, including pulling all the calcium out of the bones). The older dog was clinically normal, her bloodwork was normal. It happens. This owner thought she was doing the absolute best for her dog, had studied raw feeding, and was confident in what she was doing because it had worked well for her for over 10 years. Individual anecdotal success stories are fine, but you need to look at controlled clinical studies of groups of animals. 

As far as making sure there are no nutrient deficiencies or excesses, unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

mythbuster said:


> I saw it first hand; an owner had fed the same raw ration to her dogs for years. One of her Standard Poodles was 10.5 years old, and had been on the diet since she was a puppy. Her other dog was a 1.5 year old Standard Poodle. Also on the same diet since puppyhood. At 1.5 years old he came in lame. We xrayed him and his bones were almost invisible on xray. His lame leg had a fracture. He had rickets from a nutrient deficiency. His bloodwork was surprisingly normal (Calcium is one of the most strictly regulated minerals in the body. Blood calcium levels are maintained no matter what the animal has to do to achieve it, including pulling all the calcium out of the bones). The older dog was clinically normal, her bloodwork was normal. It happens. This owner thought she was doing the absolute best for her dog, had studied raw feeding, and was confident in what she was doing because it had worked well for her for over 10 years. Individual anecdotal success stories are fine, but you need to look at controlled clinical studies of groups of animals.
> 
> As far as making sure there are no nutrient deficiencies or excesses, unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


And there are tons of people out there, sadly, who dont feed raw properly(80%meat, 10%bone, 10%organs half being liver) but the thing is, you cant lump us all in together.
WE feed a proper mix, so, I like Natalie would ask you....why dont you as us about raw, rather then just judging. We have, nearly all, tried the kibble/canned thing, MANY of us also have done different types of home-made, BARF, etc....but the true way to feed a pet carnivore is 80/10/10.


----------



## meggels

I have a hard time believing there is one way to feed a dog, every single dog. 

Murph has been on various premades, half of those include fruit/veggies. That, along with some supplements that my friend suggested from Dynamite (trace minerals, detox and a multi vitamin) and he is finally looking the healthiest he has in forever. His coat is beautiful. His weight is great. He gets various proteins with no digestive upset (beef, chicken, salmon, venison, turkey) and is doing so wonderfully. 



And it angers me that this was a kibble thread that again, has turned into a "PMR STYLE RAW IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY FEED YOUR PET CARNIVORE THE BEST".


----------



## meggels

Oh and Abbie is on a grain inclusive food from Hi-Tek and is doing amazing on that too. Smaller stools than on a grain free and her coat looks beautiful. 

Why can't we all be a little more open minded????


----------



## mythbuster

Scarlett_O' said:


> And there are tons of people out there, sadly, who dont feed raw properly(80%meat, 10%bone, 10%organs half being liver) but the thing is, you cant lump us all in together.
> WE feed a proper mix, so, I like Natalie would ask you....why dont you as us about raw, rather then just judging. We have, nearly all, tried the kibble/canned thing, MANY of us also have done different types of home-made, BARF, etc....but the true way to feed a pet carnivore is 80/10/10.


I'm not judging. Someone asked if I supported raw and why or why not. So I answered. But until there are peer reviewed studies that show 80/10/10 is the best way to feed a dog, I'm not convinced, my client was very confident that what she was doing was right. I don't know what proportions she used, but it worked great for her until her dog's leg broke. 

THIS thread is supposed to be about finding the best diet for a bulldog though, and we are WAYYYYY off that track.


----------



## DogLuver

mythbuster said:


> THIS thread is supposed to be about finding the best diet for a bulldog though, and we are WAYYYYY off that track.


You're right, but this is good educational information, even if it went off track, it's good conversation. 

I'm not judging mythbuster, or The Expert, I'm glad you are both here, we can all learn a lot from you both.

But...
I don't understand all of this. Please bare with me, I'm really trying to understand. Why is it so much more complex to feed a dog than a human? I don't measure the nutrients/vitamins and percentages in every single thing that I eat? I know that apples, oranges, broccoli, whole wheat, lean meats, amongst other health choice foods are good for me, based on how I feel, look, my energy, alongside with some education of coarse. But why when it comes to dogs we need to analyze every little nutrition digestibility and so forth? 

It just seems more common sense that we know what we're supposed to eat naturally (fruits/vegetables from the earth, chemical free, as natural as possible), and we (assume) we know what dogs are supposed to eat based on the way their bodies are built, what they would eat in the wild (ideally), and what produces positive results. We cannot be analyzing every nutrient and digestibility of every single thing we eat, why would we have to do that with dogs?

For me, I wouldn't choose a processed food that has been backed up by nutrient analysis, studies and science, over an all natural diet (meaning not processed, but whole foods)...so why would it make sense to feed a dog a processed food that's backed up by nutrient analysis, science and studies, over an all natural (raw meat, like what they would eat in the wild, a diet that with experience people see great results with)?

I'm not trying to knock educated people, or scientific studies...we need that kind of stuff, but sometimes I think going back to the way nature intended is what's best, and often produces wonderful natural results. With science, we can clone animals, and create all kinds of un-natural things in this world...I'm not entirely sure if it's bettering this world or taking it all further away from nature and the way mother nature intended for things to be. This may be a little whish-washy and "tree-hugger-ish" of me, but that's the way I see it, and JMO of coarse. The way living organisms work is a miracle in itself, and regardless of science and human knowledge, living bodies are machines that were designed to work with nature...I think the further we get from a natural diet, the further we get from natural health. Can humans really create something that is better than what nature can provide?

Not to get all religious on anyone (I'm not religious, just believe in the way we were created/evolved) but sometimes we should put more trust in the way things were MEANT to be, how nature would be without analyzing every detail, and not try to improve what doesn't need to be improved. I feel like feeding RAW is an idea that is getting people back to the way nature intended. As time went on, companies realized they could make an "all in one" kibble for dogs, and people bought the idea, and became brainwashed that all dogs need "dog food" meaning kibble, but as with humans we realized that growing our own gardens, killing our own cows, and farming our own grains is best, people have started "going back to what's natural" and I feel that is a great change??? Same thing I see with dog food...Dog kibble is human made, and unnatural no matter which food you choose and why. I dunno?? I could be very wrong. Just me trying to understand and rationalize all of this


----------



## meggels

Raw feeders (myself included) always say the results are in their dog. That they see the proof. 


But I look at my hound, and I hear it from others all the time about her, and I see a beautiful, shiny, lean, muscular, energetic dog. She's never had a health issue. My vet didn't even know that I owned her, because she's never there. 

I look at Murph eating his premade raw meals, with his supplements, and I am beginning to see the same thing finally after such a long struggle.


So those are the results I see. And those are the results that I'm going to be happy with. This is why it bothers me when we say there is only one way to achieve a positive end result. Because I'm taking two pretty different paths, and am seeing similar results.


----------



## Liz

Personally you can feed your dogs whatever you think is right but have a youngish or in prime dog look good is not all that hard. Many people think their dog is healthy when they are really just young and can process the stuff we give them. My dogs looked amazing, won shows, competed well, but when they got old is when I saw what the effects of their diet truly were. My dogs got old and got sick. Their bodies could no longer repair the damage done by their diet and we fed quality kibble and canned. My oldest collies (from the same lines) will be showing Veteran's class this Spring at 13. There is a world of difference. P.S. My mentors at the beginning of feeding raw have fed their dogs raw meat, bone and organ for over 28 years and a few others from that group are over the 20 year mark. I value that experience and knowledge.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

I just browsed through this thread, don't have time to read the whole thing, but I have to say... it's really annoying how just because some posters, whether new or what, have a different opinion (and are stating their opinions/facts in a very mature reasonable way, it's not like they are like "omgzz feeding raw is disgusting, it's the WORST!1!!!1!" They are presenting their opinion with their own facts and views, etc, and then they are labeled as being "brain washed people". That's just dumb. There are some very valid points being made in this thread and simply because some think one way is the best for all dogs, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case.


----------



## The Expert

I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others. 

One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what were you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know  

One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!  

Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrients are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added. 

The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased productivity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product. 

I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves  If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it  (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)


----------



## whiteleo

The Expert said:


> I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others.
> 
> One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what where you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know
> 
> One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!
> 
> Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrietns are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added.
> 
> The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased producvitity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product.
> 
> I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves  If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it  (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)


I used just about every high quality kibble out there, grain inclusive too, and spent probably about $8,000 in vet bills trying to figure out why my dog had the worst runny poo ever....Once I switched to real food (RAW) it was an amazing difference, no more vet bills and no more nasty runny poo, unless of course I feed too much liver or organ. Blood work is done once a year and is perfect, teeth are perfect, so much that the vet asked me what I give. We don't discuss my diet choice for my dogs but I love my vet....


----------



## Liz

I have raised/bred and showed collies and shelties for over 20 years. We started out with grocery store kibble, then moved though most kibbles upgrading from Purina, to Eukanuba, to Kirkland, Nature's Domain, Wellness, Acana, Origen, then to canned food which was too expensive in my situations, the home cooked for a short period of time and now Prey Model Raw. I have seen the differences int he generations of my own dogs. I have kept similar lines of course bringing in out crosses. My current dogs have a longer and healthier lifespan since switching to raw and not vaccinating. My pups have incredible muscle tone, happy satisfied temperments. I have never had pups like this and my old guy is still not on anything for arthritis and will be shown in Spring. He moves like a dream and appears much younger than his age. We will never go back to processed food. My family also eats pretty close to a Paleo diet and I see increased health and immune system with them.


----------



## Huginn

The Expert said:


> I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others.
> 
> One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what where you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know
> 
> One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!
> *
> Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrietns are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added. *
> 
> The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased producvitity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product.
> 
> I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves  If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it  (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)


I learned a little about this in my last genetics class, I found it really interesting (but only had an introductory lecture on it) and would be very interested in reading more about it. If you could link me please? I love gene expression and am hoping to make some of my electives next year upper level genetics classes.


----------



## meggels

Jacksons Mom said:


> I just browsed through this thread, don't have time to read the whole thing, but I have to say... it's really annoying how just because some posters, whether new or what, have a different opinion (and are stating their opinions/facts in a very mature reasonable way, it's not like they are like "omgzz feeding raw is disgusting, it's the WORST!1!!!1!" They are presenting their opinion with their own facts and views, etc, and then they are labeled as being "brain washed people". That's just dumb. There are some very valid points being made in this thread and simply because some think one way is the best for all dogs, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case.



Agree. 

Multiple people have stated throughout my 2 years or so on here that raw feeders have become pushy and taken over the forum, and the raw feeders never seem to see it. But I think perhaps this is why the kibble portion of this forum is much less active. People are scared away. It's fine to have your opinion, but this thread is a pretty good example that sometimes kibble feeders can't just have their space to discuss their feeding method without being bashed.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

meggels said:


> Oh and Abbie is on a grain inclusive food from Hi-Tek and is doing amazing on that too. Smaller stools than on a grain free and her coat looks beautiful.
> 
> Why can't we all be a little more open minded????


Well that's a different story then when you said she looked and felt horrid on grain inclusive food, but that you only noticed it when she was in class and around other dogs.....




But I will once again say, no one can knock one way of doing it without experiencing it all, for a decent period of time. I've fed pretty much just like Liz, but I've also done homemade and premade "raw" (actually BARF)......and the ONLY dogs who I have ever had who look, feel and smell AMAZING, who can NOT be guess in age are my PMRaw fed ones! They are the only ones who can go MANY MANY months without NEEDING a bath, etc. 

But whatever, you guys aren't ever going to relize it until you have experienced it for your selves.


----------



## meggels

Scarlett_O' said:


> Well that's a different story then when you said she looked and felt horrid on grain inclusive food, but that you only noticed it when she was in class and around other dogs.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I will once again say, no one can knock one way of doing it without experiencing it all, for a decent period of time. I've fed pretty much just like Liz, but I've also done homemade and premade "raw" (actually BARF)......and the ONLY dogs who I have ever had who look, feel and smell AMAZING, who can NOT be guess in age are my PMRaw fed ones! They are the only ones who can go MANY MANY months without NEEDING a bath, etc.
> 
> But whatever, you guys aren't ever going to relize it until you have experienced it for your selves.




It is a different story because that was a Natural Balance formula where the first ingredient was brown rice  This has a first ingredient of chicken meal from a different company. Nice try at taking a dig at me though 


My dogs only get a few baths a year, unless Abbie gets incredibly muddy up at the farm. My dogs smell great. A lot of people can get great results on different ways of feeding. 

I have one friend who swears by a certain brand of food (that no one has probably even heard of) that is minimally processed, she has seen the plant, and truly believes in this company. She's fed raw, she's fed the premium kibbles, and this is what she swears by. Her dogs are GORGEOUS, healthy (healthier than a lot of littermates), and she even mentions all the time when we discuss food that they don't "smell like dogs". She is just as passionate about this particular food as you are about PMR. So does that mean she's wrong because it's not your way of doing things? Seriously? 



It's fine to really be passionate about your feeding method, but when you get downright arrogant, judgmental and rude, then it is crossing a line. If a lot of the raw feeders don't care about making this a forum that is welcoming to ALL feeders, then you can keep acting that way, I'm sure you'll get the results you want.


----------



## Unosmom

I agree, its never my goal to put down any kibble feeders, I fed kibble for 5 years with no real health issues (aside from gunky teeth and big poos), I dont care what anyone else feeds as long as they make an informed decision based on unbiased research. I cant stand people that go " science diet is the best because my vet says so and I trust him" or "beneful is the best because of those commercials showing veggies and meat falling from the sky".. sorry, but I'd have to call you ignorant in that regard.


----------



## lucky

IMO the raw feeders here have mostly seen/experienced great results with their dogs so they are just trying to share this experience so that others consider trying it for their dogs. I don't really see any judging going on, not really. Kibble has loads of backing and the way I see it raw feeders here are just backing raw and why shouldn't they.


----------



## meggels

I've seen name calling and some of Abi's posts have been edited apparently by mod's because of name calling????? That's judging.


----------



## mythbuster

Okay, I have to back up a little to try to answer a question, it took a long time to type and the thread kept going while I was doing it.......


DogLuver said:


> But...
> I don't understand all of this. Please bare with me, I'm really trying to understand. Why is it so much more complex to feed a dog than a human? I don't measure the nutrients/vitamins and percentages in every single thing that I eat? I know that apples, oranges, broccoli, whole wheat, lean meats, amongst other health choice foods are good for me, based on how I feel, look, my energy, alongside with some education of coarse. But why when it comes to dogs we need to analyze every little nutrition digestibility and so forth?
> 
> It just seems more common sense that we know what we're supposed to eat naturally (fruits/vegetables from the earth, chemical free, as natural as possible), and we (assume) we know what dogs are supposed to eat based on the way their bodies are built, what they would eat in the wild (ideally), and what produces positive results. We cannot be analyzing every nutrient and digestibility of every single thing we eat, why would we have to do that with dogs?


Humans have a higher GIT weight:body weight ratio compared to dogs (meaning they have more guts for digestion). Intestinal transit time is doubled in humans compared to dogs (there is more time for digestion). Humans have 10,000,000 diversified bacteria/g while dogs have 10,000 targeted bacteria/g. What does this mean? It means people change what they eat (almost) every day and every meal. They are able to do this because they have very long digestive tracts and a lot of bacteria in their intestine adapted to breaking down a wide variety of food. People eat a variety of foods and likely day to day consume significant nutrient excesses and deficiencies, but over time those level out. Dogs do not have the digestive diversity required to be efficient doing this. They are built to eat the same thing every day. They have a decreased ability to adjust to changes in diet. Further, if presented with poorly digestible nutrients, their bodies have less ability to utilize the nutrition in their food. It is very important to provide highly digestible nutrients to maximize the health of dogs, and important to do so in a consistent manner. 



DogLuver said:


> For me, I wouldn't choose a processed food that has been backed up by nutrient analysis, studies and science, over an all natural diet (meaning not processed, but whole foods)...so why would it make sense to feed a dog a processed food that's backed up by nutrient analysis, science and studies, over an all natural (raw meat, like what they would eat in the wild, a diet that with experience people see great results with)?


It’s important to remember... processed ‘people’ food is not the same as processed pet food. For us, processed food is produced for convenience, cost, and taste. As a general rule, nutrition is not even a consideration (or at least is bottom of the list) when producing Michelina’s or McDonald’s or Pizza Pockets. In pet food (at least for some companies) the priority is to provide optimal nutrition, and the formulas are based on what research shows the requirements of pets to be. Some companies lump all dogs into the same group, claiming the nutrient requirements of a Pug=German Shepherd=Whippet=English Mastiff=wolf. These companies play on the consumer’s emotions; making them feel like if they are not treating their dog like it’s distant ancestor, they are not doing the best for their beloved pet. They have no scientific data to back up what they claim, and rely on marketing to sell their products. Sadly, this is very effective. Other companies actually do research to look for similarities and differences between different sizes and breeds. They test their products and compare to other products to see if they can improve on what has already been done. They assess the nutrient requirements of dogs (and cats), based on clinical trials, feedback from veterinarians, breeders, and consumers, and emerging research. In my opinion, the number of companies doing this can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare, so when I hear someone say "I've tried every diet out there, from bottom of the barrel to top of the line", it doesn't mean anything to me. The majority of diets that are currently considered 'top of the line' are not anything I would feed my pets. 




DogLuver said:


> I'm not trying to knock educated people, or scientific studies...we need that kind of stuff, but sometimes I think going back to the way nature intended is what's best, and often produces wonderful natural results. With science, we can clone animals, and create all kinds of un-natural things in this world...I'm not entirely sure if it's bettering this world or taking it all further away from nature and the way mother nature intended for things to be. This may be a little whish-washy and "tree-hugger-ish" of me, but that's the way I see it, and JMO of coarse. The way living organisms work is a miracle in itself, and regardless of science and human knowledge, living bodies are machines that were designed to work with nature...I think the further we get from a natural diet, the further we get from natural health. Can humans really create something that is better than what nature can provide?
> 
> Not to get all religious on anyone (I'm not religious, just believe in the way we were created/evolved) but sometimes we should put more trust in the way things were MEANT to be, how nature would be without analyzing every detail, and not try to improve what doesn't need to be improved. I feel like feeding RAW is an idea that is getting people back to the way nature intended. As time went on, companies realized they could make an "all in one" kibble for dogs, and people bought the idea, and became brainwashed that all dogs need "dog food" meaning kibble, but as with humans we realized that growing our own gardens, killing our own cows, and farming our own grains is best, people have started "going back to what's natural" and I feel that is a great change??? Same thing I see with dog food...Dog kibble is human made, and unnatural no matter which food you choose and why. I dunno?? I could be very wrong. Just me trying to understand and rationalize all of this


Dogs are not a natural species, they are a species that was selectively chosen, bred, and changed by man. They are the most varied mammal on earth, ranging in size from 2lbs to 200lbs. The GIT weight:body weight ratio of a small dog is 2x’s that of a large dog. What does that translate to? Small dogs are more prone to constipation, large dogs are more prone to diarrhea. I don’t think it’s news to anyone that the smaller the dog the more likely there is to be severe dental disease. Large dogs have joint issues, they tear ACLs and develop arthritis. Different breeds are prone to different diseases ranging from heart, joint, skin, eye, etc...... These are all issues that can be addressed, at least partially, with nutrition. How do we know that a wolf’s diet is the best approach for a species we created that is more varied than any other species on earth? We don’t. The only way to determine one approach is better than another is to do research and do trials to assess results. Yup, a lot of these studies are done by food companies, but the results are real. And a lot of research is being done OUTSIDE of food companies as well. 

As 'Expert' said; it is EXPENSIVE to do research. So these companies that are constantly innovating and doing research and offering new solutions? They are pumping millions of dollars into finding the best nutritional answers for our pets, instead of throwing money into marketing or following the 'status quo'.


----------



## DogLuver

Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.

This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section   .


----------



## lucky

Aren't the digestive systems of dogs and wolves practically the same?? See, thats enough for me. I see PMR as a natural diet, one that wolves would eat so ultimately one that my dog should eat.


----------



## lucky

DogLuver said:


> Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.
> 
> This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section   .


 posted the same time, sorry. I wasn't deliberately ignoring your post


----------



## meggels

DogLuver said:


> Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.
> 
> This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section   .



I AM WILLING TO ARGUE ABOUT ARGUING 


 Your post made me laugh.


----------



## DogLuver

lucky said:


> posted the same time, sorry. I wasn't deliberately ignoring your post


lol no worries  my post showed up later than where it should have too o-well lol.


----------



## DogLuver

meggels said:


> I AM WILLING TO ARGUE ABOUT ARGUING
> 
> 
> Your post made me laugh.


lol


----------



## mythbuster

lucky said:


> Aren't the digestive systems of dogs and wolves practically the same??


No, they're not. Read my last post. A small dog's digestive system isn't even "practically the same" as a large dog's digestive system, let alone a wolf's.


----------



## frogdog

I just want to jump back in and reiterate that we suggested TOTW in response to the original post in regards to our own experience feeding this particular food. It was then that we were jumped on for our suggestion.

Yes, the post has somewhat gone off topic but is still about "what and why" certain kibble foods are considered a good choice.

In my own experience, I have fed the following foods and certainly cannot recall all in years past.

Before 1990's...would have to consult my parents but believe it was either Alpo or Purina...probably both.
They are listed in no certain order....

1990's
Pro Plan
Bil Jac
Iams
Diamond
Blackwood
Nutro
Natural Balance
VF

2000's
Blackwood
VF
Eukanuba
Canidae
Nature's Variety
Taste of The Wild
Wellness
Evangers
Blue Buffalo
Blue Basics
Orijen
Acana
Honest Kitchen
Stella and Chewy's
California Natural
Evo 
Evolve

I believe the food listed above is ample info in concern of what we have fed in the past. I made a conscious decision after losing my heart dog to cancer in learning a better diet for my now present dog, Yogi. 

I, honestly, do not see how anyone can believe a processed diet for human or animal is a healthy, smart, good choice. Can we live on potato chips, lunch meat, white bread, box cereal, etc...YES...is it good for us, NO.

I ate a 100% raw diet for years and felt better than ever in my life. My skin was radiant, energy level was extremely high, slept wonderful...everyone said I looked 15 yrs younger and I felt like it. I fell off the health wagon for a short time and felt deplorable. I am now back to 80% raw and feeling fantastic again. 

Before anyone goes judging my choice...I will tell you now...all my doctors are with Duke Medical and Duke Integrative Medicine. I feel confident in their expertise. 

So needless to say, I feel if raw benefits me in such a great way...why not raw for my animal.


ETA: This was to answer several different previous post. I should also state that I had terrible results feeding kibble to my previous dog and current one. Their coats, energy, overall health was not good except for when they were fed TOTW. Due to Yogi's allergies and not wanting to feed a processed diet was what led me to raw.

He is now in the best health, no allergy outbreaks that the vets could not get under control, beautiful shiny coat, happier, more energy, etc etc etc.

The list was to answer "The Expert" question in to what we have fed...all foods were fed no less than a month. The only one being was Honest Kitchen due to an allergy outbreak and my dog hated it.


----------



## lucky

mythbuster said:


> No, they're not. Read my last post. A small dog's digestive system isn't even "practically the same" as a large dog's digestive system, let alone a wolf's.


Can you provide a link as to where I can read this for myself please?? Also I did read your last post but am certainly not willing to base my dogs diet on it


----------



## Rodeo

mythbuster said:


> I saw it first hand; an owner had fed the same raw ration to her dogs for years. One of her Standard Poodles was 10.5 years old, and had been on the diet since she was a puppy. Her other dog was a 1.5 year old Standard Poodle. Also on the same diet since puppyhood. At 1.5 years old he came in lame. We xrayed him and his bones were almost invisible on xray. His lame leg had a fracture. He had rickets from a nutrient deficiency. His bloodwork was surprisingly normal (Calcium is one of the most strictly regulated minerals in the body. Blood calcium levels are maintained no matter what the animal has to do to achieve it, including pulling all the calcium out of the bones). The older dog was clinically normal, her bloodwork was normal. It happens. This owner thought she was doing the absolute best for her dog, had studied raw feeding, and was confident in what she was doing because it had worked well for her for over 10 years. Individual anecdotal success stories are fine, but you need to look at controlled clinical studies of groups of animals.
> 
> As far as making sure there are no nutrient deficiencies or excesses, unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


I've been trying to stay out of this seeing as how my current steroid intake has my anxiety a little high.. but I have to comment on this. 

Feeding RAW doesn't automatically mean that the dog was getting fed CORRECTLY. I knew a guy who fed his dog leg quarters and ground beef. EVERY day. Thankfully he also fed kibble in the AM, or dog only knows what would have happened to that dog. The owner meant well but was ill-informed. I think lack of variety could be an easy way for a "raw" fed dog to end up with a deficiency. That being said, last time I talked to said owner he was feeding a more appropriately balanced diet. The only times I personally have ever heard of a dog having problems on "raw" it has either been the pre-made junk, or someone who did too little research.


----------



## mythbuster

lucky said:


> Can you provide a link as to where I can read this for myself please?? Also I did read your last post but am certainly not willing to base my dogs diet on it


Gastric Emptying Rate Is Inversely Related to Body Weight in Dog Breeds of Different Sizes


----------



## meggels

That's interesting Rodeo, because I've met many many dogs who have had so many different ailments, and they improve SO drastically after being put on the premade "junk". And a friend who has worked with a company to produce his own formula has been feeding his labs the premade "junk" and these dogs are healthy well into their teen years, many of them living to be 15-17 years old and doing well in their old age.


There's more than one way to achieve health in a dog.


----------



## mythbuster

Rodeo said:


> I've been trying to stay out of this seeing as how my current steroid intake has my anxiety a little high.. but I have to comment on this.
> 
> Feeding RAW doesn't automatically mean that the dog was getting fed CORRECTLY. I knew a guy who fed his dog leg quarters and ground beef. EVERY day. Thankfully he also fed kibble in the AM, or dog only knows what would have happened to that dog. The owner meant well but was ill-informed. I think lack of variety could be an easy way for a "raw" fed dog to end up with a deficiency. That being said, last time I talked to said owner he was feeding a more appropriately balanced diet. The only times I personally have ever heard of a dog having problems on "raw" it has either been the pre-made junk, or someone who did too little research.


And my example was of a client who researched raw feeding and fed it for over 10 years before a problem became apparent. I will reiterate: unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


----------



## Rodeo

mythbuster said:


> And my example was of a client who researched raw feeding and fed it for over 10 years before a problem became apparent. I will reiterate: unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


I do believe this point was already brought up but I'll ask anyway..

Are YOUR meals perfectly portioned EVERY SINGLE meal?


----------



## Liz

I just read that article. The dogs seem to have been tested on only one brand (RC) of kibble. They were only tested once. Doesn't seem like much of a trial. I was hoping for at least several types of kibble both grain free and grain inclusive and maybe even canned food. I am still searching for more info myself regarding this.


----------



## Rodeo

meggels said:


> That's interesting Rodeo, because I've met many many dogs who have had so many different ailments, and they improve SO drastically after being put on the premade "junk". And a friend who has worked with a company to produce his own formula has been feeding his labs the premade "junk" and these dogs are healthy well into their teen years, many of them living to be 15-17 years old and doing well in their old age.
> 
> 
> There's more than one way to achieve health in a dog.



Not sure why you are acting so defensive. I'm perfectly fine with people who choose to feed high quality kibble, grain inclusive or not. I do however feel that most premade raw is junk and not portioned well enough to be fed as an entire meal day in and day out. Supplement sure, but not a main source of nutrition. I NEVER said there wasn't more than one way to achieve a healthy pet.

Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## lucky

I have never read anything like that before mythbuster. 

I still believe that PMR is best for my dog and will continue feeding it to her.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

I, like Liz, read that and notices MANY flaws in it.

Also I have 5 dogs between 4 years and 11 weeks, and 8lbs and 50....all of them poop at the same time each day, and none of them have to "hold it". If/when fed the exact same foods all of their poop looks the same aside from the 2 larger ones being SLIGHYLY more!:wink:


----------



## mythbuster

Liz said:


> I just read that article. The dogs seem to have been tested on only one brand (RC) of kibble. They were only tested once. Doesn't seem like much of a trial. I was hoping for at least several types of kibble both grain free and grain inclusive and maybe even canned food. I am still searching for more info myself regarding this.


Er, the request was for a link to an article that states a small dog's digestive system isn't even "practically the same" as a large dog's digestive system. 
Here's 2 more: 

Digestibility and compatibility of ... [Zentralbl Veterinarmed A. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.academie-veterinaire-defrance.org/bulletin/pdf/2006/Numero04/309.pdf

As for the gastric emptying time, if you want to compare different breed sizes, you need to control the variables, so keeping the diet consistent decreases the confounding factors. It means the difference between useful data and garbage.


----------



## DogLuver

mythbuster, I started a new thread in regards to my dogs, I'm interested in your input...it's called "best food for..." if you don't mind ???


----------



## Liz

The Irish wolfhounds, the largest breed tested, had faeces with considerably lower water contents compared to Labrador retrievers, indicating that body weight is not the only factor to be considered. There were only small differences in the apparent digestibility of crude nutrients amongst the breeds. 

Short article - thank you. It says there are only small differences. Again small test groups 10 breeds and 4-6 dogs in each. At least they tried kibble and canned. Thank you - actually this confirms the digestibility of the raw diet for me as my 8 pound 7 month old sheltie goes potty as often and of the same quality as my 90 pound 13 year old collie, small, firm and consistent with no straining. I guess we are doing something right.


----------



## xellil

mythbuster said:


> I saw it first hand; an owner had fed the same raw ration to her dogs for years. One of her Standard Poodles was 10.5 years old, and had been on the diet since she was a puppy. Her other dog was a 1.5 year old Standard Poodle. Also on the same diet since puppyhood. At 1.5 years old he came in lame. We xrayed him and his bones were almost invisible on xray. His lame leg had a fracture. He had rickets from a nutrient deficiency. His bloodwork was surprisingly normal (Calcium is one of the most strictly regulated minerals in the body. Blood calcium levels are maintained no matter what the animal has to do to achieve it, including pulling all the calcium out of the bones). The older dog was clinically normal, her bloodwork was normal. It happens. This owner thought she was doing the absolute best for her dog, had studied raw feeding, and was confident in what she was doing because it had worked well for her for over 10 years. Individual anecdotal success stories are fine, but you need to look at controlled clinical studies of groups of animals.
> 
> As far as making sure there are no nutrient deficiencies or excesses, unless you are testing every batch of food the dogs get, you can't be sure the nutrients they are receiving is consistent. There are natural fluctuations in ingredients from batch to batch (even coming from the same source) that are not evident unless you test.


What was she feeding her dog for 10 years? I bet it wasn't what it should have been. I know my dogs are getting enough calcium because I feed it to them in proper proportion to phosphorus. Plus, I find it hard to believe a dog goes 10 years and never has an x-ray and there have been no previous problems when their bones are to the point they are invisible. That is not a good dog owner. 

And aside from that, what problems crop up with 10 year old dogs fed dry food? There are hosts and hosts of them - no one ever blames it on the food. It's just "getting old."


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> Agree.
> 
> Multiple people have stated throughout my 2 years or so on here that raw feeders have become pushy and taken over the forum, and the raw feeders never seem to see it. But I think perhaps this is why the kibble portion of this forum is much less active. People are scared away. It's fine to have your opinion, but this thread is a pretty good example that sometimes kibble feeders can't just have their space to discuss their feeding method without being bashed.


I never post in the kibble forum any more unless it's by accident on a topic that doesn't immediately tell me it's about dry dog food. But I have browsed some threads and I don't see what you are saying, at least recently.


----------



## xellil

DogLuver said:


> Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.
> 
> This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section   .


Actually, you are right. I'm not posting here any more. I said I didn't do it but this very thread is in the dry dog food forum. I opened it on about the 10th page and didn't even notice.


----------



## meggels

Rodeo said:


> I've been trying to stay out of this seeing as how my current steroid intake has my anxiety a little high.. but I have to comment on this.
> 
> Feeding RAW doesn't automatically mean that the dog was getting fed CORRECTLY. I knew a guy who fed his dog leg quarters and ground beef. EVERY day. Thankfully he also fed kibble in the AM, or dog only knows what would have happened to that dog. The owner meant well but was ill-informed. I think lack of variety could be an easy way for a "raw" fed dog to end up with a deficiency. That being said, last time I talked to said owner he was feeding a more appropriately balanced diet. *The only times I personally have ever heard of a dog having problems on "raw" it has either been the pre-made junk, or someone who did too little research.*



Not putting words in your mouth, merely responding to that comment.


And why wouldn't someone get defensive when you just called their method of raw feeding "junk" lol?


----------



## meggels

xellil said:


> I never post in the kibble forum any more unless it's by accident on a topic that doesn't immediately tell me it's about dry dog food. But I have browsed some threads and I don't see what you are saying, at least recently.


Has it been said in the past few days? No.


It's been said several times though...


----------



## meggels

Rodeo said:


> Not sure why you are acting so defensive. I'm perfectly fine with people who choose to feed high quality kibble, grain inclusive or not. *I do however feel that most premade raw is junk and not portioned well enough to be fed as an entire meal day in and day out.* Supplement sure, but not a main source of nutrition. I NEVER said there wasn't more than one way to achieve a healthy pet.
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth.



You can obviously feel that way, but I was stating that I have in fact, seen the exact opposite. 


And my last statement about being more than one way to achieve a healthy pet was not entirely directed at you, I've said it several times already in this thread...


----------



## DaneMama

The way this thread has deteriorated into what it has in the last page and a half I'm shutting it down. And it WAS good discussion before that. Lots of interesting points and information. Too bad hurt feelings got in the way of learning.


----------

