# Kibble for Boxer Puppy



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

BACKGROUND:

I just got a Boxer puppy who is now 9 weeks old. He was being fed Innova Large Breed Puppy (LBP) food with the breeder and she sent a small bag of the food home with us to feed him.

We have noticed that he is not holding weight as well as we would like; you can see the last 4 ribs and easily feel all of them and his vertebral processes. 

I looked up the NRC recommendations for feeding canines, calculated a few numbers and he needs about 1100 kcal/day. In order to meet this requirement, he needs to eat 3 cups of the kibble a day. Unfortunately, even though he is being fed 3/4 cup four times a day, he simply can't/won't eat enough of the kibble to meet that requirement as usually leaves about 1/2 the kibble from each meal.

In the past, I have felt no need to feed puppy food; I have him on puppy food now simply because we were given the small bag of kibble from the breeder.

We were thinking of transitions him over to Taste of the Wild since that is what we feed our other dogs, but it seems to still be too low in energy at only 365-375 kcal/cup (depending on the flavor). Innova LBP is 367 kcal/cup. We are also considering EVO kibbles.

QUESTIONS:

1) Would 35%-42% CP be too high for a puppy? I can't find any peer-reviewed journal articles supporting the idea that high CP is detrimental, but maybe I was looking in the wrong databases. 

2) What do you consider a "good" Ca ratio? Innova LBP is 1.25:1. EVO is about 1.6:1. Taste of the Wild doesn't have that info available. I have learned that 1:1 is best for growth.

3) Do you recommend any other kibbles that would be appropriate and preferably higher in calories?

4) Isn't he cute? 


Thank you in advance.


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

With raw, you would definitely get the calories and nutrients that he needs. If you're not comfortable with raw, try looking at Innova Evo or Orijen. I would not use the large breed formula. Large breed and regula.r formulas are really the same if you take a look at the bag. Large breed bag is just more expensive. I would go with regular puppy formula. Are you giving him 3/4 for the entire day, or split into three meals...?


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

malluver1005 said:


> With raw, you would definitely get the calories and nutrients that he needs. If you're not comfortable with raw, try looking at Innova Evo or Orijen. I would not use the large breed formula. Large breed and regula.r formulas are really the same if you take a look at the bag. Large breed bag is just more expensive. I would go with regular puppy formula. Are you giving him 3/4 for the entire day, or split into three meals...?


While raw has its benefits, I am sure, I'm not in a situation to feed raw. 

He is getting 3 cups per day, split into 4 meals of 3/4 cups each.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Evo is not formulated for puppies, the calcium/phosphorus levels are innapropriate, try something like orijen puppy or horizon legacy puppy, acana provincial is also an ALS food that you can try.


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Evo doesn't have puppy...

Orijen would be a good way to go...:smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

You are WAY overthinking the whole problem. Let's break it down into simpler terms. You have a slightly underweight 9 week old puppy who won't eat enough. Period. Thats the problem. Don't go over complicating it. There is nothing else to be concerned about at this time.

First, how long have you had him? If only a few days, give him a chance to settle in. It's not unusual for a dog/puppy to go off his food for a week or so when he moves into a new house. Unless you have had him for more than a couple of weeks and he has not just begun this behavior, that is most likely the problem. If so, just be patient and give him a few more days. Don't panic. Don't scare him by trying to get him to eat. Offer him the food, stand back and leave him alone. 

He will eat enough as soon as he feels more comfortable and settles into his new life. He is scared and confused. He is away from Mama and brothers and sisters for the first time. He will be ok if you will just stop pushing him and let him work out his problems.


----------



## azmike (Nov 27, 2009)

*boxers*

I have an 11 month old boxer. They always look underweight and skinny up until six months or so. So many people use to question if I was feeding him enough. I was- he was gaining weight at a good pace and now at 11 months he is just under 60 pounds. According to my vet- its not uncommon for young boxers to look that way. He was very difficult to find a good food that did well with him. I found he did better on a low grain and lower protein type food. 

And congrats to you- they are one of the coolest breeds of dogs out there. Its hard to walk him anywhere without people wanting to pet and play with him.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Unosmom said:


> Evo is not formulated for puppies, the calcium/phosphorus levels are innapropriate, try something like orijen puppy or horizon legacy puppy, acana provincial is also an ALS food that you can try.


For my own knowledge, define "inappropriate" Ca please. 



RawFedDogs said:


> You are WAY overthinking the whole problem. Let's break it down into simpler terms. You have a slightly underweight 9 week old puppy who won't eat enough. Period. Thats the problem. Don't go over complicating it. There is nothing else to be concerned about at this time.
> 
> First, how long have you had him? If only a few days, give him a chance to settle in. It's not unusual for a dog/puppy to go off his food for a week or so when he moves into a new house. Unless you have had him for more than a couple of weeks and he has not just begun this behavior, that is most likely the problem. If so, just be patient and give him a few more days. Don't panic. Don't scare him by trying to get him to eat. Offer him the food, stand back and leave him alone.
> 
> He will eat enough as soon as he feels more comfortable and settles into his new life. He is scared and confused. He is away from Mama and brothers and sisters for the first time. He will be ok if you will just stop pushing him and let him work out his problems.


I must say that you are certainly one to quickly judge a situation. I must say I'm disappointed; I have seen many of your posts and was hoping that you would be able to bring valuable information to this dilemma. Apparently not.

Really, you make it seem like I am sitting their pulling out my hair with one hand as I attempt to force feed the pup with my other one. This is not the case. Rather, I have his bowl of kibble which is more than excited to receive, he sits and waits until I release him to eat, he eats (not scarfing and choking, but normal eating), and then leaves. When I pick the bowl up after about 30 minutes on the ground, there is about half of what I put in it left.

It also seems that you haven't had alot of experience with Boxers. This is my fourth one now and they can be difficult to keep weight on. Generally, they are not food-driven dogs. Of the dozens of Boxers I have met, only one has been food-driven. Even in training, it is usually inappropriate to try to treat-train a Boxer. They generally learn much better with human attention and praise as the reward than food.

I am looking for an appropriate high-calorie feed so he doesn't have to eat as much to get all the nutrients that he needs. I threw in extra questions for my own education. Sorry for being thorough.



azmike said:


> I have an 11 month old boxer. They always look underweight and skinny up until six months or so. So many people use to question if I was feeding him enough. I was- he was gaining weight at a good pace and now at 11 months he is just under 60 pounds. According to my vet- its not uncommon for young boxers to look that way. He was very difficult to find a good food that did well with him. I found he did better on a low grain and lower protein type food.
> 
> And congrats to you- they are one of the coolest breeds of dogs out there. Its hard to walk him anywhere without people wanting to pet and play with him.


In the past, I have also discovered the low grain is better for them (and their gas!). I haven't noticed a correlation between low protein and better weight. How many low protein-low grain feeds are there out there? That seems like a tough combination!

I have had alot of success with TOTW in the past, but I'm just concerned that it doesn't have a high enough caloric-density to meet his needs.

Thank you for the congratulations! :smile: I'm very excited about him; he is certainly your typical goofball Boxer. :biggrin:


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

I think RFD does bring up a valid point though. How long have you had your puppy? I'm guessing (hoping) not longer than a week since it is only 9 weeks old. It is very likely stress from switching homes. I have two boxers, one of which I got at about 12 weeks of age. Yes, they go through very ribby stages, this is normal. There were times when Felix's ribs and almost his spine was showing though he was eating as much as he wanted 4 times a day (this was before I switched to raw). It is much better for a young dog to be ribby than overweight.
Weight is also affected by genetics. Felix is still a lean dog at 2.5 years, whereas we met other boxer puppies that were of similar age but had much more substance, even without being overweight.
I have to tend to agree that stress from a new home has more to do with it than the type of food being given. I would give him a couple weeks to settle in and then think about changing foods if you still feel the need to. In the meantime, if you think he should be eating more try mixing in a little dallop of plain fat free yogurt or a raw egg.
Also, I'll have to disagree with the lack of food motivation! My two will still obey without food, but are perfect angels when food is involved and I get commands performed in split seconds! haha. They are also pretty laid back (for boxers) but I know better than to describe boxers as a laid back breed because i've seen many a crazy hyper representation of the breed. 
Good luck with the new pup!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> I must say that you are certainly one to quickly judge a situation.


You say that like its a bad thing. Personally, I take it as a compliment :smile:



> I must say I'm disappointed; I have seen many of your posts and was hoping that you would be able to bring valuable information to this dilemma. Apparently not.


Just because it's not the advice you wanted to see doesn't mean the advice is bad. Actually, I think it's pretty good advice. You should heed it.



> Really, you make it seem like I am sitting their pulling out my hair with one hand as I attempt to force feed the pup with my other one. This is not the case. Rather, I have his bowl of kibble which is more than excited to receive, he sits and waits until I release him to eat, he eats (not scarfing and choking, but normal eating), and then leaves. When I pick the bowl up after about 30 minutes on the ground, there is about half of what I put in it left.


I have 2 points to make:
1. I can see you saying, "come here, eat some more. Try just a little more. One more bite? Eat it its good for you and you need it. Come here now ... eat it." :smile:

2. Perhaps you are feeding him twice the amount he should eat at this stage of his life.



> It also seems that you haven't had alot of experience with Boxers.


I have A LOT and I mean A LOT of experience with dogs. Boxers are dogs. Many dog owners seem to think their particular breed is different than all the other breeds and only somewhat akin to dogs in general. Let me assure you that the nutritional needs of boxers are the same as all the other dogs.



> This is my fourth one now and they can be difficult to keep weight on.


It may be difficult for you but not for most boxer owners. I know a lot of boxer owners and you are the first one I have run across with this problem.



> Generally, they are not food-driven dogs. Of the dozens of Boxers I have met, only one has been food-driven. Even in training, it is usually inappropriate to try to treat-train a Boxer.


I was a professisonal dog trainer for 15 years and trained many boxers using food rewards as a teaching tool. I had no more problem with them than any other breed.



> They generally learn much better with human attention and praise as the reward than food.


Thats not my experience with the many I have trained.



> I am looking for an appropriate high-calorie feed so he doesn't have to eat as much to get all the nutrients that he needs. I threw in extra questions for my own education. Sorry for being thorough.


Again, you are over compicating the problem IF you even have a problem. I tend to beleive you don't. 

If all you want is a high calorie dog food, its not difficult to go to the web pages off the manufacturing companies and see what the caloric content of their food is. In all honesty, I never paid attention to that.



> In the past, I have also discovered the low grain is better for them (and their gas!). I haven't noticed a correlation between low protein and better weight. How many low protein-low grain feeds are there out there? That seems like a tough combination!


You're right. It's almost impossible. Protein is the building block of muscle. You need to feed as much protein as you can.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> You say that like its a bad thing. Personally, I take it as a compliment :smile:


You're such a jerk sometimes. lol. 



RawFedDogs said:


> I have A LOT and I mean A LOT of experience with dogs. Boxers are dogs. Many dog owners seem to think their particular breed is different than all the other breeds and only somewhat akin to dogs in general. Let me assure you that the nutritional needs of boxers are the same as all the other dogs.


Nutritional are no different, however, temperments and personalities can be. Just a tought. 



RawFedDogs said:


> It may be difficult for you but not for most boxer owners. I know a lot of boxer owners and you are the first one I have run across with this problem.


Erhhh... make that the second. I would love to wake up one day and have Annie eat enough that her hip bones aren't sticking out. Little monkey won't eat. I don't give in. I let her eat as much as she wants, four times a day. Rarely does she eat more than 1/4- 1/2 cup. Usually none at one or two feedings. 



RawFedDogs said:


> I was a professisonal dog trainer for 15 years and trained many boxers using food rewards as a teaching tool. I had no more problem with them than any other breed.


You have me totally beat in years of experience, however, I MUST agree with the previous poster in that Boxers GENERALLY are NOT food motivated. I use caps to stress that this is a generalization, and that there are many exceptions. I am not claiming this is a trait of every Boxer. 



RawFedDogs said:


> Thats not my experience with the many I have trained.


I'm a member of a breed specific forum. boxerforums.com made up of HUNDREDS of boxer owners. This is a topic that comes up often on that forum,(and NEVER on the Corgi forum, and very rarely on the GSD forum ironicly) so I do know it is an issue that a lot of Boxer owners have. 




WITH THAT SAID, 
I think RFD kind of hit the nail on the head in that there probably isn't a huge issue here. Boxers are a lean breed. Many older Boxers become overweight as thyroid issues develop/ are more of an issue, but in reality, a Boxer should be slim. Puppies go through awkward lanky stages, and that might be what you're seeing now. 
If you REALLY want to pack on pounds, look up recipies for "satin balls" and feed some of those along with a high quality kibble. Personally I don't think they are totally species appropriate and only really serve a purpose of putting weight on. Most dogs love them. 
AND congratulations on the puppy! I have a Boxer too, a 16 week old female, and is the first of many Boxers that I'm sure I will bring home. :biggrin:


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

:sigh: I must be just another ignorant pet owner and veterinary student. Let's not even begin to wonder about my own experiences, credentials and degrees in the field of Animal Science. And that little wink implying how wise you were and how well you know my wiley ways was quite misplaced. My dogs are not underweight, however, I have had other Boxer owners ask me what I feed my Boxers to keep such good condition since THEY have trouble keeping weight on their pooches. It also doesn't make sense how the same person would be overfeeding their dogs twice over but still have a problem with keeping weight on? 

You have very significant influence on this forum; please don't abuse it.



I purchased Orijen puppy today. He enjoyed some of it mixed with the Innova puppy and we will be switching him over to that as it is a no-grain diet with a higher caloric density. Thank you to malluver and Unosmom for suggesting it.


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

Your welcome!!!!!! :biggrin:


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

CorgiPaws, I want to thank you for showing that this isn't just a one-household problem. :smile: 

No, it isn't a big problem. And I don't want it to become a big problem hence me trying to nip it in the bud. I don't feel like we need to pack on the pounds at this point, but I will keep the satin balls in mind in case I feel like any of my dogs need some extra groceries later on. Yup, the Boxer is definitely a slimmer, more refined breed, especially when compared to other bully breeds.

I have had him for just under two weeks and he is nearly 10 weeks now. He came to us a bit thinner than I remember my other pups being.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> You're such a jerk sometimes. lol.


I'm falling down on the job. Only sometimes?? :smile:



> Nutritional are no different, however, temperments and personalities can be. Just a tought.


You're right but this conversation is about nutrition.



> Erhhh... make that the second. I would love to wake up one day and have
> Annie eat enough that her hip bones aren't sticking out. Little monkey won't eat. I don't give in. I let her eat as much as she wants, four times a day. Rarely does she eat more than 1/4- 1/2 cup. Usually none at one or two feedings.


Thats easy. You aren't letting her go long enough between meals to get hungry. Feed her once or twice a day and she will eat more.



> You have me totally beat in years of experience, however, I MUST agree with the previous poster in that Boxers GENERALLY are NOT food motivated. I use caps to stress that this is a generalization, and that there are many exceptions. I am not claiming this is a trait of every Boxer.


I guess I just never ran into those. I never had a problem with ANY dog taking food with only one or two exceptions.



> I'm a member of a breed specific forum. boxerforums.com made up of HUNDREDS of boxer owners. This is a topic that comes up often on that forum,(and NEVER on the Corgi forum, and very rarely on the GSD forum ironicly) so I do know it is an issue that a lot of Boxer owners have.


Perhaps boxer owners have unrealistic expectations. Can you imagine how a gray hound owner would feel if he wanted his dog to be built like a mastif? :smile:



> If you REALLY want to pack on pounds, look up recipies for "satin balls" and feed some of those along with a high quality kibble. Personally I don't think they are totally species appropriate and only really serve a purpose of putting weight on. Most dogs love them.


You really don't want to pack on the pounds, particularly on a pup this age. It could cause a lifetime of health problems.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuzzieQ,
I have an English Field Setter, a working gun dog, thin as a rail for the first 3 years. She has been eating the same diet since about 3 months old (now 7) with no variation and that food is 800 cals per cup. It did not matter (with my dog) high how I pushed the calories, she remained thin regardless of caloric intake.
It takes time for some dogs to fill out. If you see the hips visibly showing, you have a problem. If you run your hand across the back and can feel the hips, that's OK but again they should not be visible. Visible rib is quite normal IMO during the early years and she had routine Vet visits during those years and the Vet never mentioned any concern about the ribs showing. You can try to force them to eat more, but with my experience they eat enough to meet their caloric intake needs then they stop eating. If your dog is leaving kibble behind in the bowls to me all that means is they are satisfied for the time being and are no longer hungry. That is not a bad thing IMO. Good luck with the new pup!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> My dogs are not underweight, however, I have had other Boxer owners ask me what I feed my Boxers to keep such good condition since THEY have trouble keeping weight on their pooches.


As I sit in the waiting room of my vet's office I see most dogs are overweight as are most people in today's world. It has gotten to the point that many people think an overweight dog is the norm and if their dog doesn't look like that, it is too thin. On a boxer you should be able to see the last 2 or 3 ribs and see a definate waste line behind the rib cage when viewed from above. I'm not saying your dogs were/are overweight, just saying that in general people don't know what a dog should look like.



> It also doesn't make sense how the same person would be overfeeding their dogs twice over but still have a problem with keeping weight on?


I guess it was poorly worded. The meaning was very clear in my mind when I wrote it. What I am saying is maybe you are feeding your dog 1/2 a cup when she should be eating 1/4 cup/meal. So offering 1/2 a cup is over feeding. Eating the 1/4 cup as this pup is doing is normal eating. At this age, unless you can easily see her spine and all her ribs, I wouldn't worry about it. Thin his healthy. Fat at this age points towards health problems later in life.



> You have very significant influence on this forum; please don't abuse it.


Hehe, when I don't abuse it and get people's dander up, people stop posting and the board dies. Controversy keeps the posters posting and the board interesting. :smile:


----------



## BGBY (Sep 22, 2009)

I have a beautiful reversed brindle boxer that would do back flips for her food or treats! :biggrin: You should see her clear the kitchen of cats when it's breakfast and/or dinner time. hehe She'll be a year old on 12/27 and I only feed her twice a day but she harrasses me when I eat like no one's business. She's not starving but just wants a taste. I don't feed her alot of prepared people food though because it will give her the runs.  The only thing that I have found that doesn't upset her tummy is RAW and it it has put weight <not alot> on her to where she doesn't look like a skeleton. She was real ribby the first several months before we started RAW. 

That pig ate a whole turkey leg and then ate the rest of Casey's turkey wing this evening. :biggrin: She is one satisfied boxer though. I don't have to call her twice to the dinner bowl. 

Oh and your link doesn't work! I'd love to see a pic of your baby!


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

One thing that doesn't make sense to me, RFD, is that you are suggesting to feed only 1/4c to 1/2c at each feeding. That would mean that a pup, such as my own, would need 6 to 12 feedings a day to meet their caloric needs on a 370kcal/cup diet such as Innova LBP. Or is the NRC wrong on what's good for a pup?

Thank you everyone. 

While I realize that raw works for some, I don't feel comfortable with it. I used to feed raw to my cats for years, but there was an incident and I no longer do so.

Pictures. :smile:




























The last picture shows him with his "big sis." She is just shy of two years and I feel she is a good weight. You can also see Tobi. No, he isn't a rescue case by any means. He is starting to develop the tuck, which is good and normal. But, you can see how is a touch hollowed at his hip/croup area and, in person, you can easily see his ribs and easily feel his vertebral processes. No, it's not a huge problem. Yes, he is now on a grain-free diet that is higher in calories than TOTW.


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

SuZQuzie said:


> One thing that doesn't make sense to me, RFD, is that you are suggesting to feed only 1/4c to 1/2c at each feeding. That would mean that a pup, such as my own, would need 6 to 12 feedings a day to meet their caloric needs on a 370kcal/cup diet such as Innova LBP. Or is the NRC wrong on what's good for a pup?
> 
> Thank you everyone.
> 
> ...


I love how they are both running with the exact same movements!!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> One thing that doesn't make sense to me, RFD, is that you are suggesting to feed only 1/4c to 1/2c at each feeding.


I'm not suggesting you feed any amount. I am just saying that is what he is eating and it is probably what he needs at this point. (I THINK I am remembering the numbers correctly but you see what I am saying.)



> That would mean that a pup, such as my own, would need 6 to 12 feedings a day to meet their caloric needs on a 370kcal/cup diet such as Innova LBP.


There you go over complicating things again. :smile:



> Or is the NRC wrong on what's good for a pup?


Yes, I think probably so.

BTW: You pup is a cutie. :biggrin:


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

So the NRC, which has been embraced by the bovine, ovine, porcine, and equine industries for decades and is able to back up every number by peer-reviewed, published journals documenting the intensive monitoring and testing of animal consumption and excretion, is to be considered irrelevant when it comes to the canine? 

Being someone that has personally done the collecting, measuring, and testing of fecal and urine energy in combination with careful monitoring of the consumption of animals, I can vouch that the methods used are accurate. I have seen the numbers; heck, I have calculated the numbers myself! We based the amounts of the feed to be given to each animal on NRC numbers to best keep a specified weight on each animal. We didn't witness a single animal deviate more than 1.2% from the starting weight in the study. 

And yes, finally something we can agree on: he is cute, isn't he? Haha.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> You're right but this conversation is about nutrition.



Absolutely. But a personality trait of NOT being food motivated, and therefore eating enough to stay alive, but not enough to maintain a healthy body condition comes into play nutritionally. I firmly believe that no dog will STARVE itself to deth in the presence of food, it just doesn't happen, but that does not necessarily mean that they will eat as much as they SHOULD. 



RawFedDogs said:


> Thats easy. You aren't letting her go long enough between meals to get hungry. Feed her once or twice a day and she will eat more.


She is only 16 weeks old, and INCREDIBLY active. Like I said she only actually takes any at two or three meals per day, which is fine. I pick the bowl up after 15 minutes and move on. No begging her to eat. Even so, she only eats a combined total of about 3/4 cups of food per day, and her hip bones show plainly. 
HOWEVER, I will say the few times I have offered her raw, she absolutely can't get enough. I'm not transitioning her until after I move in 3 weeks, and o longer offer her some here or there because the few times I have, she refuses her kibble for the next two days, holding out for some raw chicken. Smart girl. lol



RawFedDogs said:


> I guess I just never ran into those. I never had a problem with ANY dog taking food with only one or two exceptions.


I didn't either until Annie. All of my dogs are the eat-anything-they-find types, and never ever refused any kind of food. Grissom, Champ, and max will do ANYTHING for a treat. I never ever used treats in training Annie. She doesn't take them. I use all positive attention rewards, it's the only thing that gets results with her. 




RawFedDogs said:


> Perhaps boxer owners have unrealistic expectations. Can you imagine how a gray hound owner would feel if he wanted his dog to be built like a mastif? :smile:


I don't think it's fair to say that because this topic comes up often with owners of this breed that we have unrealistic expectations as owners. I know what kind of body my dogs should have, and I keep them all lean. I do not expect Annie to be muscled out, I expect her to have the elegent lines, clearly visible waistline, and last two ribs visible. I do NOT expect to see her hips and spine. Feel them, yes. See them, no. I would agree that most dog owners think that overweight dogs are "normal" and most healthy weight dogs are "too thin" but this is not the case here. 



RawFedDogs said:


> You really don't want to pack on the pounds, particularly on a pup this age. It could cause a lifetime of health problems.


Well no, I wouldn't want to, but the questions in the origional post were about getting some more weight on this puppy. If that is their intention, then satin balls are known to help with that. I leave it in the owner's hands to decide what weight they want their dog at. We're already gone on for three pages about Boxers, their lack of food motivation, what underweight is, what proper feeding amounts are. they seem like they know what they are doing and if they think their puppy needs a little more weight, that's their choice. I offered a suggestion on how to go about doing that. :biggrin:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> So the NRC, which has been embraced by the bovine, ovine, porcine, and equine industries for decades and is able to back up every number by peer-reviewed, published journals documenting the intensive monitoring and testing of animal consumption and excretion, is to be considered irrelevant when it comes to the canine?


Yes, exactly. They expouse the theory that a dog is an omnivore and needs approx 42% carbs in their diet. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like someone trying to justify the carbs in kibble? That makes them pretty much irrelevant in the canine nutrition field.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, exactly. They expouse the theory that a dog is an omnivore and needs approx 42% carbs in their diet. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like someone trying to justify the carbs in kibble? That makes them pretty much irrelevant in the canine nutrition field.


I can tell you a thing or two about how UNNECESSARY CARBS are in kibble! 
ANYONE trying to justify, let alone support, carbohydrates in a dog's diet loses all credibility in my book. 




Crap.... I bet poop has carbs in it.  But I guess that is off topic.... but now it's on my mind.... hmmmm:redface:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> - but that does not necessarily mean that they will eat as much as they SHOULD.


"Should" is an arbitrary term. Now I am in one hell of a mess. I'm in one thread, arguing with two women about two puppies, one 16 week old male and one 10 week female about similar problems. No way I'm gonna win this one. :biggrin: ... But I'm tough ... I can take it. 



> I never ever used treats in training Annie. She doesn't take them. I use all positive attention rewards, it's the only thing that gets results with her.


Look around. There ARE treats she will take. Of the thousands of dogs I have trained I found maybe 2 that I couldn't get to get excited about a treat. 



> I would agree that most dog owners think that overweight dogs are "normal" and most healthy weight dogs are "too thin" but this is not the case here.


So don't take everything personal. I wasn't talking about you in particular but dog owners in general and yes some boxer owners too. :smile:



> We're already gone on for three pages about Boxers, their lack of food motivation, what underweight is, what proper feeding amounts are.


And we'll probably go on another 3 pages or more and thats great! :biggrin:


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> "Should" is an arbitrary term. Now I am in one hell of a mess. I'm in one thread, arguing with two women about two puppies, one 16 week old male and one 10 week female about similar problems. No way I'm gonna win this one. :biggrin: ... But I'm tough ... I can take it.


Oh wrong, wrong, wrong! Ugh men. 
It's a 10 week old male, 16 week old female. Geeze RFD, get your facts together. lol. :tongue:



RawFedDogs said:


> Look around. There ARE treats she will take. Of the thousands of dogs I have trained I found maybe 2 that I couldn't get to get excited about a treat.


I'm sure there are some out there. I've tried freeze dried beef liver, lamb lung, and chicken. None of those are a go. She does like jerkey type treats, when I offer her a whole strip, which takes her FOREVER to chew, (making them not so ideal for training) but not so much a fan when I break them into little bits. I don't care to look further for a treat she likes when the results with simple praise and attention are wonderful. perhaps if that ever stops working, I'll seek yummier treats. Boxers are SO incredibly attention driven. 70lb lap dogs, with NO concept of personal space. haha



RawFedDogs said:


> So don't take everything personal. I wasn't talking about you in particular but dog owners in general and yes some boxer owners too.


Oh I didn't think it was directed at ME. I'd assume you know I'm aware of proper body condition. I was moreso agreeing with you that such a high percentage of dogs are overweight that those are looked at as the norm, while dogs of a healthy weight are looked at as too thin. 



RawFedDogs said:


> And we'll probably go on another 3 pages or more and thats great! :biggrin:


At least there's something going on around here, been too damn quiet lately! lol. I guess we could always start another shock collar or CBPM thread if all else fails? haha


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, exactly. They expouse the theory that a dog is an omnivore and needs approx 42% carbs in their diet. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like someone trying to justify the carbs in kibble? That makes them pretty much irrelevant in the canine nutrition field.



I would LOVE to know where you got that information. I broke out one of my NRC books and checked it out. 

The relevant quotes:

"A dog can utilize up to 65% to 70% dietary carbohydrate while cats utilize only about 35% to 40%." 
"A large part of commercialized dog food is composed of carbohydrate which usually supplies the most inexpensive source of energy."

The last paragraph in its entirety: 
"Carbohydrates ingested in excess of the animal's energy needs are stored in the body as glycogen or fat for later utilization as energy. The only effect of excess usable carbohydrate intake is obesity. A carbohydrate deficiency without a caloric deficiency is difficult to create because of the body's ability to utilize protein for glucose production and fat and protein for energy. The digestibility of usable carbohydrates in average quality commercial dog food is about 85%."

Being that this is supposed to give someone the information to make a decision regarding the nutrition of the animal or animals in question, it is not going to say out front that someone should do this or not that. But, no where does it state any sort of a carbohydrate requirement.  I read the entire passage on carbohydrates in canids, so where is this 42% requirement?

If anything I see them saying don't worry about a CHO deficiency, excess CHO causes obesity, and average dog food contains excess CHO. Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature would then think, "average dog food causes obesity." 

I looked at the table that states the minimums (to avoid deficiencies) and the maximums (to avoid toxicities) and CHOs and crude fiber were absent. It is also important to note that the NRC does not state a single CHO requirement for ANY species; not cattle or horses or sheep, let alone dogs. While they do require CF, it is only in the form that the species require a certain amount in order to sustain the microbial population in the gut and, in turn, sustain the animal.

There is no CHO/CF requirement for canids from the NRC. It covers CP, calories, vitamins, EAAs, and minerals, but no CHO/CF.

Now, if someone were to do some to do laic research and typed "canine NRC carbohydrate" into google, you WOULD come across this. It does imply that the NRC requires 42% carbohydrates, but if one were to do their own research instead of going through a middleman on the internet that does not even pretend to cite its sources, they would see that, in fact, the NRC itself states nothing of the sort.



Regarding treats, I have trained three of my four Boxers (not the 10 week old pup :tongue to balance a treat on their nose. When I release, all three of them will catch it, then spit it out. I have yet to meet another another dog that would spit out a treat that was already in their mouths. It doesn't matter if the treat is $15.00 for a 10 oz bag or a $4 big box of Milkbones.

My dogs' favorite treats (or rather the ones that they will eat) are dehydrated chicken tenders, pig ears, and bully sticks. Even if I felt that treat training was appropriate for my pups, those treats are adequate.

While, yes, there are Boxers that LOVE food and LOVE treats, but the ratio of Boxers that love food to Boxers that don't is much different than, lets say, Labs. 

Estimated love:hate ratios:

Boxers 1:1
Labs 99:1

:tongue:


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Just looked up AAFCO requirements; similar story in terms of "CHO requirements" or there lackof.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> I would LOVE to know where you got that information.
> 
> <skip a bunch of stuff>
> 
> Now, if someone were to do some to do laic research and typed "canine NRC carbohydrate" into google, you WOULD come across this. It does imply that the NRC requires 42% carbohydrates, but if one were to do their own research instead of going through a middleman on the internet that does not even pretend to cite its sources, they would see that, in fact, the NRC itself states nothing of the sort.


Yes, thats exactly where I got that information and it doesn't imply anything, it comes right out and states it:
_"Nutrient requirements for dogs are published by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Requirements for proper dog nutrition are the percentages of the 6 organic components of food to meet the dog's dailey allowance: Protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and water." _ 

Skip more stuff

_"For good dog nutrition, *carbohydrates* should comprise 42% of food and include rice, potatoes, pumpkin, corn, barley and pasta. Both carbohydrates and fats are sources of energy. Fiber is a carbohydrate that aids in nutrient absorption, bowel regulation, and controlling caloric intake by providing satiety. But fiber is *not* a good source of energy."_



> Regarding treats, I have trained three of my four Boxers (not the 10 week old pup :tongue to balance a treat on their nose. When I release, all three of them will catch it, then spit it out. I have yet to meet another another dog that would spit out a treat that was already in their mouths. It doesn't matter if the treat is $15.00 for a 10 oz bag or a $4 big box of Milkbones.


Thats real cool ... I'm impressed. :smile:



> My dogs' favorite treats (or rather the ones that they will eat) are dehydrated chicken tenders, pig ears, and bully sticks. Even if I felt that treat training was appropriate for my pups, those treats are adequate.


None of those are appropriate training treats for any dog.



> While, yes, there are Boxers that LOVE food and LOVE treats, but the ratio of Boxers that love food to Boxers that don't is much different than, lets say, Labs.
> 
> Estimated love:hate ratios:
> 
> ...


Hehe, now you just made that up. :biggrin:

As a trainer with 15 years experience training not only dogs but things like birds of prey, rats, mice, cats, and chickens, I can tell you that any of these animals can be trained with treats. It's just a matter of knowing what to give and how to give them. I have trained many boxers and always used treats successfully to train them. Never one time ran across one that couldn't be trained with treats. BTW: I was a clicker trainer for 6 or 7 years and that almost requires treats. I have worked with keepers in zoos training elephants, gorillas, rhino's, otters, lemurs, exotic birds and orangs. All using treats.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, thats exactly where I got that information and it doesn't imply anything, it comes right out and states it:
> _"Nutrient requirements for dogs are published by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Requirements for proper dog nutrition are the percentages of the 6 organic components of food to meet the dog's dailey allowance: Protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and water." _
> 
> Skip more stuff
> ...


So you are taking someone else's word for what the NRC and AAFCO has rather than looking it up yourself? I just looked in real books published by the said organizations and they have no CHO requirements. I would bet everything I own on that. I can even post scans of the pages listing the actual nutritional requirements if you want; just let me know.

That document lacks all of the credentials of a credible source: no author listed, no citations, no date of publication, and no telling of where it was originally published. It seems to have been created by a website that is selling some cheesy book on dog longevity. 

Also, the NRC and AAFCO DO have nutritional requirements for dogs. Do they cover what this pseudo-scientific article states they do? Nope. I personally have no idea where they got those numbers, but it wasn't from either the NRC or the AAFCO.



> Thats real cool ... I'm impressed.


Thanks. The thing I was trying to bring to the table is that they were allowed to eat the treat; they chose not to and preferred being loved on instead.



> None of those are appropriate training treats for any dog.


Nope, they aren't. But they are the only thing they like. Silly dogs.



> Hehe, now you just made that up.
> 
> As a trainer with 15 years experience training not only dogs but things like birds of prey, rats, mice, cats, and chickens, I can tell you that any of these animals can be trained with treats. It's just a matter of knowing what to give and how to give them. I have trained many boxers and always used treats successfully to train them. Never one time ran across one that couldn't be trained with treats. BTW: I was a clicker trainer for 6 or 7 years and that almost requires treats. I have worked with keepers in zoos training elephants, gorillas, rhino's, otters, lemurs, exotic birds and orangs. All using treats.


I'm not saying you don't have the knowledge and experience; however, it is unfortunate that you seem to take a one-size-fits-all approach and seem to believe anyone who doesn't is foolhardy. Just because a method works for an animal doesn't mean it is the best way to do so.

I admit, I haven't clicker trained any exotics, though I have been involved in their care through certain programs available through my school.

I also admit, I don't come from a doggie background. My true passion lies with horses which I have been involved with for 17 years and have been paid to ride and train others' horses for 10 years. I currently work as a rider under a 2008 Olympic medalist and have worked under numerous other accomplished equestrians in the past. I personally have earned national titles in equestrian sports. The stuff we train never uses treats and we still get some kick ass results. :biggrin:

I also remember when I was little and wanted a dog, but my parents said I wouldn't train it. So I taught the family cat how to sit, lay down, sing, shake, and roll over to prove a point. Let's just say I got my dog. :biggrin: 

I do respect your opinions and there is a time and a place for treats. My horses get a treat after a hard day at an event; my dogs get a treat when they have been generally good for the day. Unfortunately, I have heard time and time again someone saying, "he would do it if I had a treat" or "Fido, come. Fido, come. Fido, wanna treat? Fido, come." One can also witness this outside the obedience ring. Someone will be practicing their test and it will be spot on outside the ring. The handler then has the drop the treats and the dog becomes disobedient in the ring. I know with my dogs, they obey me whether or not I have some sort of bribery for them, even if they did like treats. :tongue:


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

Cut up hot dogs anyone? Training treats and my version of the "pill pocket". They'll swallow them whole with the pill inside if I have another piece waiting for them 
I don't think a healthy dog will eat any less than it "should". I have to agree with the thought that many people's perceptions of what their dogs should look like are not acurate. (No one here of course, we have healthy looking pups!)
My mom has 5 dogs, 4 of which are morbidly obese (if the same term is used for canines). She often comments on my dogs being too thin and I need to feed them more! She cannot be reasoned with that her dogs are severly OVERweight! It's a complex emotional thing, I believe. But anyway, that's getting off topic. Wait, what was the topic again? :biggrin:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> So you are taking someone else's word for what the NRC and AAFCO has rather than looking it up yourself? I just looked in real books published by the said organizations and they have no CHO requirements. I would bet everything I own on that. I can even post scans of the pages listing the actual nutritional requirements if you want; just let me know.


No, you are right .... and wrong. Many times when I get into a "dogs are carnivores" discussion, someone seems to post a pamphlet put out by NRC which states dogs are omnivores and they need carbs in their diet. However nowhere do they give a minimum requirement or a daily amount to feed. They do however state plainly that dogs are omnivores and need carbs in their diet. Hopefully someone will post a link to that pamphlet again. I looked in my several hundred links to nutrition related websites and I can't find a link to it. Problably didn't save it cause it didn't further my argument that dogs are carnivores.



> That document lacks all of the credentials of a credible source: no author listed, no citations, no date of publication, and no telling of where it was originally published. It seems to have been created by a website that is selling some cheesy book on dog longevity.


Well when I commenced my search, that was the first one I came upon. When I get time, I'll do a more exaustive search for statements by NRC and AAFCO that dogs are omnivores and need carbs in their diet. I'm relatively sure I won't find minimum carb requirements.

Here is a link you might want to take 5 minutes to read. It is not exactly on our topic but is talking about NRC and AAFCO with references. Myths About Raw: What about raw diets and the AAFCO standards?



> Thanks. The thing I was trying to bring to the table is that they were allowed to eat the treat; they chose not to and preferred being loved on instead.


I have taught dogs to do the same thing using treats to teach them. :smile:



> I'm not saying you don't have the knowledge and experience; however, it is unfortunate that you seem to take a one-size-fits-all approach and seem to believe anyone who doesn't is foolhardy. Just because a method works for an animal doesn't mean it is the best way to do so.


I really don't have anything against any training methods that use positive reinforcement. I have used many training methods over the years including pinch collars and choke chains in my beginning days before I learned better methods. I have also trained using only praise and using toys for rewards. 



> I also admit, I don't come from a doggie background. My true passion lies with horses which I have been involved with for 17 years and have been paid to ride and train others' horses for 10 years.


I haven't done it, but I've seen people use clickers to train horses.



> I currently work as a rider under a 2008 Olympic medalist and have worked under numerous other accomplished equestrians in the past. I personally have earned national titles in equestrian sports. The stuff we train never uses treats and we still get some kick ass results.


Obviously you do get results but why are you so against using food rewards even in horse training? Clickers and treats make training so much quicker and more solid. It's much easier to refine behaviors (make them sharper) with a clicker. You should look into it.



> I also remember when I was little and wanted a dog, but my parents said I wouldn't train it. So I taught the family cat how to sit, lay down, sing, shake, and roll over to prove a point. Let's just say I got my dog.


Cool. I clicker trained both my cats. They even have an excellent recall. I can stand at the front door and call their names and they will both come running at top speed. If I just call one of them, only that cat will come. :smile: Unlike most cats, my cats mind me just like the dogs and they know there are no reprocutions if they don't.



> I do respect your opinions and there is a time and a place for treats. My horses get a treat after a hard day at an event; my dogs get a treat when they have been generally good for the day.


But do they have a clue what they did to earn the treat? I doubt it. I don't know how horses think but I do understand the dog mind and cat mind and neither of them would know why they were getting a treat in that instance. I think that treat is more for you than for them. :smile:



> Unfortunately, I have heard time and time again someone saying, "he would do it if I had a treat" or "Fido, come. Fido, come. Fido, wanna treat? Fido, come."


I was very adamant with clients and in classes when I trained dogs to only say the cue one time and one time only. AND don't say the cue until the dog is paying attention to you. I remember one woman who swore she only said "sit" one time but she said it 4 times. I had to get her husband to verify that I was correct. She was convinced she only said it one time.



> The handler then has the drop the treats and the dog becomes disobedient in the ring. I know with my dogs, they obey me whether or not I have some sort of bribery for them, even if they did like treats.


Another thing I was very adamant about when working with clients and in classes was how to ween the treats from the dog once the dog was reliable with the behavior. Treats are very handy for teaching behaviors but once the behavior is learned, they should be weened so the dog (and trainer) doesn't become dependent on them. Clients were often reluctant to ween the treats and I had to stay after them to get them to do it.

Its a different story with wild animals. In general, they really don't like you and don't care if you like them. Treats are necessary with them forever.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

g00dgirl said:


> Cut up hot dogs anyone? Training treats and my version of the "pill pocket". They'll swallow them whole with the pill inside if I have another piece waiting for them
> I don't think a healthy dog will eat any less than it "should". I have to agree with the thought that many people's perceptions of what their dogs should look like are not acurate. (No one here of course, we have healthy looking pups!)


I personally don't eat hot dogs myself. Not for any nutritional or ethical reasons, but I just don't like them so they aren't in my household. This being the case, I haven't tried them. I use peanut butter for pills. 



> My mom has 5 dogs, 4 of which are morbidly obese (if the same term is used for canines). She often comments on my dogs being too thin and I need to feed them more! She cannot be reasoned with that her dogs are severly OVERweight! It's a complex emotional thing, I believe. But anyway, that's getting off topic. Wait, what was the topic again?


My mom is the same way. I finally got her to feed a decent food, i.e. Wellness, instead of Pedigree from the grocery store. BUT, she has been feeding them "only a scoop" morning and night. The scoop was a whole pint and a half! Of course, they weren't eating all of it, so what does she put on it to entice them to eat it all? BACON GREASE! Fabulous! :gags: Of course, her pups became huge and lethargic; we have fixed that for the most part and they aren't only getting 3/4 cup AM and PM. 



RawFedDogs said:


> No, you are right .... and wrong. Many times when I get into a "dogs are carnivores" discussion, someone seems to post a pamphlet put out by NRC which states dogs are omnivores and they need carbs in their diet. However nowhere do they give a minimum requirement or a daily amount to feed. They do however state plainly that dogs are omnivores and need carbs in their diet. Hopefully someone will post a link to that pamphlet again. I looked in my several hundred links to nutrition related websites and I can't find a link to it. Problably didn't save it cause it didn't further my argument that dogs are carnivores.


Personally, I can understand why they say they aren't carnivores. The scientific definition of a carnivore is an animal requiring preformed vitamin A, arachidonic acid, and bioavailable niacin in their diet, which is only naturally found from animal sources. The only "true" mammalian carnivore is of the felid family and are also called "obligate carnivores," meaning they will die shortly if on a vegetarian diet.

Here is a short article written by a professor that I am currently working under for equine feed trials on carnivore diets. He was the senior nutritionist at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Parks for quite a number of years before going to only research and teaching. :smile:

Now, I'm not saying we should just turn out the dogs with the cattle and horses. Can canines survive on a vegetarian diet? Yes. Would they be healthy? No. But, since they CAN survive on a vegetarian diet, just like many bears, they are not a true carnivore. Unlike humans, which can't metabolize very high protein levels, however, canids thrive on a high protein diet, specifically from animal products because it is more available to them since it isn't locked up in cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose.



> Well when I commenced my search, that was the first one I came upon. When I get time, I'll do a more exaustive search for statements by NRC and AAFCO that dogs are omnivores and need carbs in their diet. I'm relatively sure I won't find minimum carb requirements.
> 
> Here is a link you might want to take 5 minutes to read. It is not exactly on our topic but is talking about NRC and AAFCO with references. Myths About Raw: What about raw diets and the AAFCO standards?


Read it. Was this just to satisfy my requirement of the mention of the NRC and AAFCO plus references? Were you the author?





> I really don't have anything against any training methods that use positive reinforcement. I have used many training methods over the years including pinch collars and choke chains in my beginning days before I learned better methods. I have also trained using only praise and using toys for rewards.


I'm glad to hear there is some variety in your training methods.



> I haven't done it, but I've seen people use clickers to train horses.


Me, too! Man, do I wish I could train my horse to dance! That would SO help me in my equestrian endeaours!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAlfM-OI94




> Obviously you do get results but why are you so against using food rewards even in horse training? Clickers and treats make training so much quicker and more solid. It's much easier to refine behaviors (make them sharper) with a clicker. You should look into it.


I must admit, I giggled at this. Here is a video of me and my horse, Ed, to demonstrate what real horse training results in. Where are all the clicker trained horses at the upper levels?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiZSetp4d6s





> Cool. I clicker trained both my cats. They even have an excellent recall. I can stand at the front door and call their names and they will both come running at top speed. If I just call one of them, only that cat will come. Unlike most cats, my cats mind me just like the dogs and they know there are no reprocutions if they don't.


I'm glad. :smile:





> But do they have a clue what they did to earn the treat? I doubt it. I don't know how horses think but I do understand the dog mind and cat mind and neither of them would know why they were getting a treat in that instance. I think that treat is more for you than for them. :smile:


Oh, you're probably right here. But, what makes them happy, makes me happy.





> I was very adamant with clients and in classes when I trained dogs to only say the cue one time and one time only. AND don't say the cue until the dog is paying attention to you. I remember one woman who swore she only said "sit" one time but she said it 4 times. I had to get her husband to verify that I was correct. She was convinced she only said it one time.
> 
> Another thing I was very adamant about when working with clients and in classes was how to ween the treats from the dog once the dog was reliable with the behavior. Treats are very handy for teaching behaviors but once the behavior is learned, they should be weened so the dog (and trainer) doesn't become dependent on them. Clients were often reluctant to ween the treats and I had to stay after them to get them to do it.


I'm happy you said this, but the majority of amateur dog trainers never grasp that concept and so it is a permanent crutch.



> Its a different story with wild animals. In general, they really don't like you and don't care if you like them. Treats are necessary with them forever.


Haha, ain't that the truth! Even with the domestic ones, too. The other day I was asked to round up 2 full grown Angus bulls and bring them into the chute by myself. They are about 5'6" in height at the shoulder and just as wide while I am only 5'2" and 110 lbs. Tree branches are GREAT enticers, and double as a deterrent if need be. :biggrin:


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Now, I'm not saying we should just turn out the dogs with the cattle and horses. Can canines survive on a vegetarian diet? Yes. Would they be healthy? No. But, since they CAN survive on a vegetarian diet, just like many bears, they are not a true carnivore. Unlike humans, which can't metabolize very high protein levels, however, canids thrive on a high protein diet, specifically from animal products because it is more available to them since it isn't locked up in cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose.



Not true carnivores? You mean there are fake carnivores? If you decide you like eating nuts and berries do you become a ruminant by any chance? Dogs are unarguably true carnivores, sit at the top of the food chain, and their nutritional needs are much more complex than that of humans.

Horses have eyes on the side of the head? Do you know why? Escape routes, nature intended it to be that way. Bunny rabbits, again eyes on the side of the head...escape routes, prey animals. Why do you think dogs have two eyes facing forward? Stereo vision, for hunting and killing other animals because...they really are true carnivores. The also have teeth for tearing and shredding meat off bone like true carnivores. 

Truth of the matter is companies make a lot more money selling omnivore feeds than they can selling species appropriate feeds. They will promote their agenda of selling omnivore feeds for higher profits with support from Vets, canine nutritionists, and even government agencies. Grant travels far and wide and gets the influence desired and the support in promotion of their agenda. Yes, they will sacrifice your dogs nutrition for sake of higher profits.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Personally, I can understand why they say they aren't carnivores.


Personally, I can't. It is obvious to anyone who sits down and looks at a dog's body that he was created from the tip of his nose to his anus to eat and digest meat, bones, and organs and not plant material.

There are physical charateristics that make an animal a carnivore or omnivore.

1. Carnivores have large mouths as they eat other animals. Omnivores/herbivores have smaller mouths.

2. Omnivores have flat teeth in the back of their mouths. This is used to crush and mash plant material. All plant material has each cell coated with cellulose. You must mash and crush this shell to extract nutrients from the plant. Humans have these flat teeth. Carnivores don't have flat teeth. They can't get through the cellulose to get to the nutrients. Carnivore teeth are designed to kill prey(front teeth) and to rip and tear meat and crush bones(back teeth).

3. When omnivores/herbivores chew, they move their lower jaw not only up and down but also sideways in order to crush the cellulose. Carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side. Only up and down.

4. Omnivores/herbivores hae an enzyme called amylaze in their salava and stomach juices. Amylaze is used to digest plant material and digestion begins in the mouth for these animals. Carnivores don't have amylaze in their salava or stomach. They don't make the enzymes necessary for digesting plant material.

5. I don't know how to explain it with words but there is a difference in the way the lower jaw is hinged in omnivores/herbivores compared to carnivores.

6. Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices.

7. Omnivores/herbivores have relatively long intestinal tracts. Carbs must ferment in the gut for a long time during digestion. Carnivores being meat eaters have a very short intestinal tract in order to get the meat through the body quickly before it rots. With their short intestinal tract they are not able to have carbs in the intestines long enough to digest.

8. Omnivores/herbivores chew their food into a mush before they swallow it. Digestion in an omnivore begins in the mouth. Carnivores only rip, tear, and crunch their food until it is small enough to fit down their throat. They can fit some amazingly large pieces down their throat. Much larger than an omnivore is capable of.

So there you have your biology lesson in a nutshell. There is no arguing the fact that dogs are carnivores. They have all the physical characteristics of a carnivore and none of the omnivores characteristics.
(Yes, I wrote that) :smile:



> The only "true" mammalian carnivore is of the felid family and are also called "obligate carnivores," meaning they will die shortly if on a vegetarian diet.


Anytime I see the term "obligate carnivore", I know I'm talking to someone who is going to try to convince me that cats are carnivores and dogs are omnivores. I have seen it many times.  The only reason that a cat is called an "obligate carnivore" is because he can't synthisize taurine internally and must have it in his diet from meat. My cats, like my dogs, will eat anything, fruits and veggies included. It doesn't mean either of them derive any nutrients from them. Both dogs and cats are carnivores. 



> Here is a short article written by a professor that I am currently working under for equine feed trials on carnivore diets. He was the senior nutritionist at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Parks for quite a number of years before going to only research and teaching. :smile:


Read it.



> Now, I'm not saying we should just turn out the dogs with the cattle and horses. Can canines survive on a vegetarian diet? Yes. Would they be healthy? No. But, since they CAN survive on a vegetarian diet, just like many bears, they are not a true carnivore.


See? I told you!! When I see the words "obligate carnivore" I know that whoever said that is going to tell me that dog aren't carnivores. :biggrin:



> Read it. Was this just to satisfy my requirement of the mention of the NRC and AAFCO plus references? Were you the author?


Nope. Wish I had. If you are interested in raw feeding you should go read the rest of the myths pages at The Many Myths of Raw Feeding and no, it was meant to show you that NRC and AAFCO aren't as perfect as some people would like to believe that there is some reasons to disagree with their papers.

The article was writen by a long time friend and one of my mentors when I first began raw feeding over 7 years ago. I still email her with questions from time to time. 



> Me, too! Man, do I wish I could train my horse to dance! That would SO help me in my equestrian endeaours!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAlfM-OI94


That is really cool!



> I must admit, I giggled at this. Here is a video of me and my horse, Ed, to demonstrate what real horse training results in. Where are all the clicker trained horses at the upper levels?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiZSetp4d6s


Something tells me that wasn't your first time on a horse. :biggrin: Be patient. You will see clicker trained horses in the upper levels before long. It took a while for it to get to the upper levels in dog training and I think clicker training has been around in dog training a good bit longer than in horse training.



> I'm happy you said this, but the majority of amateur dog trainers never grasp that concept and so it is a permanent crutch.


Yep, it's a pet peeve of mine. If you learn early to only say the cue one time you don't get into the habit of repeating over and over.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I know what SuZQuzie is saying about carnivores. I have heard all the same things in school too. Its not that she has blinders on from what a dog food company is telling her. Just a simple ecology class will give you the knowledge to know the difference between carnivores :wink:

Dogs can survive (not thrive tho!!!) on a vegetarian diet and that is one reason why they are not called *obligate* or true carnivores. They are no doubt carnivores and should eat a meat based diet, and I don't think that is where she is coming from in this arguement. Its an ecological thing, not biological thing. Biologically or morphologically canines are carnivores...but physiologically they are not carnivores *because* and only because of this one reason:* they can survive on a nothing but vegitarian diet.* For all other reasons dogs are canivores. 

Think of it this way...there is a spectrum of carnivorism. Cats are at the obligate end (ie will die if fed a vegetarian diet) and dogs are faculatative carnivores (ie they will *not* die if fed a vegetarian diet).

ETA: You said that you fed your cats raw, but don't anymore because of a problem...? I'm just curious as to what happened? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

claybuster said:


> Not true carnivores? You mean there are fake carnivores? If you decide you like eating nuts and berries do you become a ruminant by any chance? Dogs are unarguably true carnivores, sit at the top of the food chain, and their nutritional needs are much more complex than that of humans.
> 
> Horses have eyes on the side of the head? Do you know why? Escape routes, nature intended it to be that way. Bunny rabbits, again eyes on the side of the head...escape routes, prey animals. Why do you think dogs have two eyes facing forward? Stereo vision, for hunting and killing other animals because...they really are true carnivores. The also have teeth for tearing and shredding meat off bone like true carnivores.
> 
> Truth of the matter is companies make a lot more money selling omnivore feeds than they can selling species appropriate feeds. They will promote their agenda of selling omnivore feeds for higher profits with support from Vets, canine nutritionists, and even government agencies. Grant travels far and wide and gets the influence desired and the support in promotion of their agenda. Yes, they will sacrifice your dogs nutrition for sake of higher profits.


Wow. I have alot to say to you, but my boyfriend told me to be nice.

RFD, I have to admit, I planted that little "dogs are not carnivores" bit to get a rise out of you. Apparently, it worked, haha.



RawFedDogs said:


> Personally, I can't. It is obvious to anyone who sits down and looks at a dog's body that he was created from the tip of his nose to his anus to eat and digest meat, bones, and organs and not plant material.
> 
> There are physical charateristics that make an animal a carnivore or omnivore.
> 
> 1. Carnivores have large mouths as they eat other animals. Omnivores/herbivores have smaller mouths.


Large mouths? Have you ever done dental work on a horse? Or an elephant? Now that's a BIG mouth! I think you are making two arguments out of one. :wink: See your fifth argument.




> 2. Omnivores have flat teeth in the back of their mouths. This is used to crush and mash plant material. All plant material has each cell coated with cellulose. You must mash and crush this shell to extract nutrients from the plant. Humans have these flat teeth. Carnivores don't have flat teeth. They can't get through the cellulose to get to the nutrients. Carnivore teeth are designed to kill prey(front teeth) and to rip and tear meat and crush bones(back teeth).


What about opossums? 












> 3. When omnivores/herbivores chew, they move their lower jaw not only up and down but also sideways in order to crush the cellulose. Carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side. Only up and down.


I didn't know they did a study on canine chewing behavior yet. Source please. :smile:



> 4. Omnivores/herbivores hae an enzyme called amylaze in their salava and stomach juices. Amylaze is used to digest plant material and digestion begins in the mouth for these animals. Carnivores don't have amylaze in their salava or stomach. They don't make the enzymes necessary for digesting plant material.


Horses don't have amylase either, or any enzymes until the fundic region of the stomach. They must be carnivores, too? Man, my horses (Enzymes always end in -ase, btw.)



> 5. I don't know how to explain it with words but there is a difference in the way the lower jaw is hinged in omnivores/herbivores compared to carnivores.


You are thinking of the articular process. It is larger in animals that eat primarily meat to allow for a great range of motion for bigger bites. 



> 6. Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices.


Yup, animals designed to eat a diet in a mostly animal-based diet have a higher concentration of parietal cells.



> 7. Omnivores/herbivores have relatively long intestinal tracts. Carbs must ferment in the gut for a long time during digestion. Carnivores being meat eaters have a very short intestinal tract in order to get the meat through the body quickly before it rots. With their short intestinal tract they are not able to have carbs in the intestines long enough to digest.


Just for clarification, only some CHO need to be fermented; hydrolyzable CHOs do not. Also, a better argument would be volume rather than "length," for your future reference. But, yes, you're right for the most part, but I don't think the "short" tract of a carnivore is to prevent meat from rotting, but rather because it doesn't need to be there any longer. Rotting only happens when you have spoilage from bacteria usually of the aerobic variety which are completely absent beyond the stomach.



> 8. Omnivores/herbivores chew their food into a mush before they swallow it. Digestion in an omnivore begins in the mouth. Carnivores only rip, tear, and crunch their food until it is small enough to fit down their throat. They can fit some amazingly large pieces down their throat. Much larger than an omnivore is capable of.


If you ever have a chance to look at the ingesta from a horse in an _in situ_ study, do so. It's definitely not mush. Same goes for cattle, but ruminants are kind of freaks of nature and a whole new ball game compared to monogastrics, so I won't go there. 



> So there you have your biology lesson in a nutshell. There is no arguing the fact that dogs are carnivores. They have all the physical characteristics of a carnivore and none of the omnivores characteristics.
> (Yes, I wrote that)


Haha, I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the one in more need of a biology lesson here. I do believe that canids are fundamentally carnivores in that they were meant to and thrive the best on a meat-based diet. BUT, they are not "true" carnivores in that they will physically perish if they don't have animal flesh.



> Anytime I see the term "obligate carnivore", I know I'm talking to someone who is going to try to convince me that cats are carnivores and dogs are omnivores. I have seen it many times. The only reason that a cat is called an "obligate carnivore" is because he can't synthisize taurine internally and must have it in his diet from meat. My cats, like my dogs, will eat anything, fruits and veggies included. It doesn't mean either of them derive any nutrients from them. Both dogs and cats are carnivores.


Just because an animal eats vegetable matter doesn't make it an omnivore. 




> See? I told you!! When I see the words "obligate carnivore" I know that whoever said that is going to tell me that dog aren't carnivores.


Where did I say they were aren't carnivores? Fundamentally, yes; nutritionally, no.



> Nope. Wish I had. If you are interested in raw feeding you should go read the rest of the myths pages at The Many Myths of Raw Feeding and no, it was meant to show you that NRC and AAFCO aren't as perfect as some people would like to believe that there is some reasons to disagree with their papers.
> 
> The article was writen by a long time friend and one of my mentors when I first began raw feeding over 7 years ago. I still email her with questions from time to time.


I used to feed raw. I really did. It was "before your time," so to speak, back in 2000 before it was hip. In 2004, we had one bad batch of meat. Seven of our cats got sick, we lost one kitten, and had three other cats in the ICU. The kitten was lost from a litter of originally four kittens we had at the time. It had perished from dehydration due to excessive diarrhea. Another kitten from the litter is now deaf, presumably due to high fever from the episode. We did everything right in terms of storage and defrosting the meat. Since then, we feed regular dog and cat food.




> Something tells me that wasn't your first time on a horse. Be patient. You will see clicker trained horses in the upper levels before long. It took a while for it to get to the upper levels in dog training and I think clicker training has been around in dog training a good bit longer than in horse training.


And where would I hold the clicker? :tongue:




> Yep, it's a pet peeve of mine. If you learn early to only say the cue one time you don't get into the habit of repeating over and over.


Yup.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I know what SuZQuzie is saying about carnivores. I have heard all the same things in school too. Its not that she has blinders on from what a dog food company is telling her. Just a simple ecology class will give you the knowledge to know the difference between carnivores :wink:
> 
> Dogs can survive (not thrive tho!!!) on a vegetarian diet and that is one reason why they are not called *obligate* or true carnivores. They are no doubt carnivores and should eat a meat based diet, and I don't think that is where she is coming from in this arguement. Its an ecological thing, not biological thing. Biologically or morphologically canines are carnivores...but physiologically they are not carnivores *because* and only because of this one reason:* they can survive on a nothing but vegitarian diet.* For all other reasons dogs are canivores.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I've been saying. :smile:

Re: the cats (and dogs, but we had no problem with them - they were given different meat), I posted what happened in my previous post.

Now, I'm not saying that raw feeding is bad or wrong or anything like that; it was great and the animals loved it. But, losing one kitten was too much for me and so it is no longer something I practice or vouch for. If it works for you and your dogs and you are aware of the risks, go for it.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

^^^ Ahhhh...it is so nice to have another bio/chem/vet student aboard. You will find yourself arguing with RFD a LOT LOL...but like he mentioned...it makes for an active board, and therefore a more fun one to read. Not to mention it is always nice to add someone to the mix who knows their stuff and what they are talking about!!!

ETA: I think we both were posting at the same time, so I didn't see your story about the cats until after I asked that. And I am so sorry for the loss you experienced...I couldn't imagine. Terrible what happened, but the same thing can happen with kibbles...recalls have become something of a norm nowadays unfortunately. I wonder if there wasn't a toxin on the meat or something that caused the issue that it not normally found on meats? I have never heard a story like that before. Our dogs have definitely eaten meat that is past date (admittedly a bit green :gag and they live to tell the tale. Shiloh (wolf hybrid dog) ate a dead rabbit carcass on a hike once and got fairly sick after, but not to the point of ICU in the slightest. Raw definitely works best with our kids and that is what I advocate to those that want to know about it and practice it.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Yup, I'm another bio/chem/vet student. :tongue: Haha. I'm actually working on some toxicology data for one of my chem labs... tons of fun! I much prefer my nutrition work, in case you couldn't tell, haha. I must admit that it is fairly amusing how often vets/vet assts/researchers/"the man" gets put down around here!

Regarding the cats, yes it could happen with kibble, you're right. But, say someone had a similar experience with a brand of kibble; they would probably switch to a different kibble. It doesn't matter that the kibble has cleaned up their act years later and probably would never ever let the same thing happen again, one is always going to be wary of that kibble. I'm glad it works for you. We THINK that is was just some bout of bad food poisoning. Probably the scariest thing was that it wasn't even ground meat, which one would expect to be more susceptible; it was a leg of lamb. Since we had been doing it for years, we knew how to take the proper precautions, but sometimes that is not enough. :shrugs: All of the cats had severe diarrhea and the ones that were in the ICU were there primarily for dehydration. They looked just awful for quite a while and one of our queens lost tons of her hair. It sucks that it happened, but there is nothing we can really do about it. We also knew it was the meat since we did have kibble available as well, but our two cats that stayed away from the meat (they just didn't like it - weird cats, I know) were 100% fine.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Wow. I have alot to say to you, but my boyfriend told me to be nice.




You can be mean to me if you want, 99% of time everyone else is too, I am use to that!

I forgot to include the word 'money' after 'grant' in my last post. If you repeat lies often enough, people believe it to be true. Not you, I mean in general. That is the case with the industry (dog food) and the general population. They have big money and can use it to buy the influence. What you learn in bio/chem vet school is subject to influence. The industry scientists had done the research, industry supplied the vet schools with their information, naturally the schools believe what the industry tells them to be true. Even when AAFCO was first created (pet food division) it had Vets sitting on the board running the show. You learn what they want you to learn. The average Vet school offers only about 6hs class time in nutrition.
The big names in the business hold responsibility to the stock holder, not your pets. They seek higher profits and do that through omnivore nutrition. They make more money that way opposed to offering the appropriate nutrition.

You mentioned your mom added bacon grease as a flavoring agent onto of some kibble. Do realize what the bacon grease does besides add flavor. This is a form of high quality fat very, very beneficial to carnivore dog. Probably the best thing going in that bowl of nuggets. People go eewww, eewww bacon grease, yuck, not realizing the fat benefit for carnivores. This happens because we have a tendency to make connections between human health and our animals. We are being indoctrinated to feed our pets as we would feed ourselves, worthy of our dinner tables, when that is complete nonsense and very dangerous for the animals. There has been a vegetable and fruit push to include in pet diets when these serve ZERO biological value. All they add is profit for companies. There is not one single drop of scientific evidence that I know of dogs can suffer from arterialsclerosis. It happens to humans, not dogs, and your mom adding a spoonful of bacon grease every single day to her kibble would never be a problem to her dog, only a fantastic benefit for the animal. We've being trained not to the think like that. Feeding your dog and un-named fat source is frowned upon when it is leaps and bounds more beneficial to the animal than something green like peas or broccoli.

Be your own person. I had to sit there and take what I had to take in college. I was subjected to an extremely liberal 4 years of political science training, got my degree, and left there my own person. My professors thinking back were no doubt all socialists and communists teaching in America.
I took what I had to take and left there my own person. You too are going to sit there and take what you have to take to get your degree. But in your heart, if you feel there is a better way, follow what your heart tells you. If you have a client with a problem dog that simply won't get better; Think back to your mom not shy about adding some pork fat to that diet. Suggesting meats and fats in the diet can work wonders and have amazing healing power, despite what you may have learned coming from industry rhetoric about dogs being omnivores and try adding green beans. They will blame problems on genetics and continue to justify profitable diets. I think your smarter than that, and I wish you nothing but the best of luck in your career. Take care.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

My only problem with you is that is it so evident that you have no idea what you're talking about. While I don't agree with RFD, he can at least hold his own in an argument. Also, if being "my own person" means being a passionate dolt, no thanks. I much prefer being quite congnizant; it is enlightening. :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> RFD, I have to admit, I planted that little "dogs are not carnivores" bit to get a rise out of you. Apparently, it worked, haha.


I have seen it many many times. 



> Large mouths? Have you ever done dental work on a horse?


No, but I've been bitten by a zebra. BTW: All the zebra's teeth are flat, even the front ones. I assume horses are the same?



> Or an elephant? Now that's a BIG mouth!


Yes, I've had my hand in an elephant's mouth. Both horses and elephants have mouths that are pretty small in porportion to their heads.



> I think you are making two arguments out of one. See your fifth argument.


I can see why you say that but they are two different things. One statement is about size the other comments on how they are constructed.


What about opossums? 










Cool, but thats not an opossum's mouth in that picture.



> I didn't know they did a study on canine chewing behavior yet. Source please.


The source is first hand. You give a dog some food and you watch him "chew". Far better and more accurate than any research paper.



> Horses don't have amylase either, or any enzymes until the fundic region of the stomach. They must be carnivores, too? Man, my horses (Enzymes always end in -ase, btw.)


I don't know horses. I know dogs.



> You are thinking of the articular process. It is larger in animals that eat primarily meat to allow for a great range of motion for bigger bites.


There are some terms that describe how the jaw hinge works and how the lower jaw is shapped. I just don't remember those exact terms right now and am too lazy to look for them. :smile: 



> Yup, animals designed to eat a diet in a mostly animal-based diet have a higher concentration of parietal cells.


I prefer to say "higher acidic level". I think that is a better description.



> Also, a better argument would be volume rather than "length," for your future reference. But, yes, you're right for the most part, but I don't think the "short" tract of a carnivore is to prevent meat from rotting, but rather because it doesn't need to be there any longer. Rotting only happens when you have spoilage from bacteria usually of the aerobic variety which are completely absent beyond the stomach.


I think length is a better description. I guess the exact reason for length is subjective.



> If you ever have a chance to look at the ingesta from a horse in an _in situ_ study, do so. It's definitely not mush. Same goes for cattle, but ruminants are kind of freaks of nature and a whole new ball game compared to monogastrics, so I won't go there.


Cool ruminants are kinda fo a whole different thing.



> Haha, I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the one in more need of a biology lesson here. I do believe that canids are fundamentally carnivores in that they were meant to and thrive the best on a meat-based diet. BUT, they are not "true" carnivores in that they will physically perish if they don't have animal flesh.


I hate to argue with you (well, no I don't) but are you saying that a dog fed a vegan diet will live as long as a dog fed a natural diet? Saying they won't physically perish could mean anywhere between "they won't die if they eat an apple" to "they will live as long or longer on a vegan diet." I agree they can go a good period of time without meat but they won't be healthy and they won't live as long. (no references, just common sense).



> Just because an animal eats vegetable matter doesn't make it an omnivore.


Exactly 



> Where did I say they were aren't carnivores? Fundamentally, yes; nutritionally, no.


You imply there are degrees of carnivorism. Either an animal is a carnivore and should eat meat, bones, and organs or he is an omnivore which eats meat, bones, and organs, but also should eat plant matter for optimum health. They can't be both. If a cat is a carnivore and a dog is less of a carnivore, then a dog must be an omnivore, which he isn't.



> I used to feed raw. I really did. It was "before your time," so to speak, back in 2000 before it was hip. In 2004, we had one bad batch of meat. Seven of our cats got sick, we lost one kitten, and had three other cats in the ICU. The kitten was lost from a litter of originally four kittens we had at the time. It had perished from dehydration due to excessive diarrhea. Another kitten from the litter is now deaf, presumably due to high fever from the episode. We did everything right in terms of storage and defrosting the meat. Since then, we feed regular dog and cat food.


There is a biological difference between cats and dogs. Dogs eat carrion in the wild. Their bodies have adapted to handle all the bacteria associated with such a diet. Cats in the wild don't eat carrion and will only eat what they have just killed. Cat's bodies haven't adapted to handle that kind of a bacteria load. Their stomach juices are not as acidic and dogs.

I ran across a guy whose freezer had broken and all his meat had rotted. He gave me the whole freezer full of meat which smelled horrible. I fed it to my dogs with no ill affect. I would not feed it to my cats. They woudln't have been able to hanle it.

I'm sorry you had the problem with your cats. I really hate that you let that one episode keep you from properly feeding your cats and dogs since then. 



> And where would I hold the clicker? :tongue:


Animal trainers who have both hands busy during training use a whistle made for training. It is a very small light weight whistle that you hold in your mouth and it makes a high pitch sound that is not offensive to humans or animals. It's still clicker training, only using a whistle as the clicker. Works very well. Many dog trainers use the whistle also.


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

So, we agree that dogs are carnivores correct? For the sake of feeding our pets what difference does it make if they can _survive_ on a vegetarian diet, if they aren't going to _thrive_ on it? I wonder what this dog's life span will be, it's quality of life? Certainly it is not comparable to a dog fed an appropriate diet. 

Cows can live off of corn and dead chickens and their feces (what is being fed to them in feed lots) but they must be injected with antibiotics and pass much more e. coli through there system than when grass fed.

I will graduate in May with a degree in Wildlife Biology, so while we do not go into as much detail about nutrition, I have learned a bit about canine digestion. They have a very reduced cecum which limits the amount of nutrients they are able to extract from cellulose plant matter (in addition to other arguments).

Also, as I believe it's already been noted, dogs have carnassial teeth. Taken directly from my notes:

_The defining morphological characteristic of carnivores is the *SPECIALIZATION OF AN UPPER PREMOLAR AND LOWER MOLAR AS CARNASSIAL TEETH* for shearing or cutting. 
Carnassials are especially well developed in the cats, hyenas, and dog-like mammals, but are much reduced in the bears and raccoon group._

ETA: and you are right RFD, that is not an opossum skull, but this is:








But they are freaks, with 50 teeth anyway so they aren't going to be helpful for comparison.


We all have valid points, I realize that several of us have formal education, though from different backgrounds, in biology. Can we agree that the nit picky arguments about "true" carnivore classification is irrelevant (for the purpose of feeding our pets) and that canines do BEST on a carnivorous diet?


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> No, but I've been bitten by a zebra. BTW: All the zebra's teeth are flat, even the front ones. I assume horses are the same?


Most of them are, but both zebras and horses have canines and wolf's teeth.










See the canines? Unfortunately, I can't find a whole skull with the wolf's teeth since they are usually pulled out since they interfere with bit action, but here is a picture of a wolf tooth on a colt's skull.












> Yes, I've had my hand in an elephant's mouth. Both horses and elephants have mouths that are pretty small in porportion to their heads.


Really? I wouldn't say so. :shrugs: Here is a fun picture that shows a horse and a dog with both their mouths open. If the horse had more lip and less cheek, I feel that that their mouth sizes in relation to their skulls would be comparable. 













> I can see why you say that but they are two different things. One statement is about size the other comments on how they are constructed.


The size is due to the construction.

[/quote]Cool, but that's not an opossum's mouth in that picture.[/quote]

Good. It's a wolf. And I see molars! :tongue:



> The source is first hand. You give a dog some food and you watch him "chew". *Far better and more accurate than any research paper.*


Hahaha, right... My first hand experience tells me the world is flat. 



> I don't know horses. I know dogs.


And I know both. And cattle, sheep, etc. Cattle also don't secrete amylase in their saliva. I'm just saying that you can't state that amylase in the saliva means its a florivore/omnivore; while the "big word" may cause many too nod their heads, I know better. 




> There are some terms that describe how the jaw hinge works and how the lower jaw is shapped. I just don't remember those exact terms right now and am too lazy to look for them.


Well that isn't very conducive.




> I prefer to say "higher acidic level". I think that is a better description.


Ew. What an awful way to say that. Please, at least go with "lower pH" or "higher hydronium concentration" or even "more acidic" would do.





> I think length is a better description. I guess the exact reason for length is subjective.


I'm not sure how many GI tracts you have seen laid out, but I can tell you, strictly herbivore GI's are HUGE! Like, I could snuggle up in a pony's ceca if I wanted to (not that I do - stinky!). I did an autopsy on a horse not too long ago (died of sand colic) and I can tell you that about 75% of their abdomen is dedicated to their GI tract. In cattle, it is closer to 80%. Now, it dogs, that percentage is greatly reduced to about 30%, probably less in deep-chested dogs.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

> I hate to argue with you (well, no I don't) but are you saying that a dog fed a vegan diet will live as long as a dog fed a natural diet? Saying they won't physically perish could mean anywhere between "they won't die if they eat an apple" to "they will live as long or longer on a vegan diet." I agree they can go a good period of time without meat but they won't be healthy and they won't live as long. (no references, just common sense).


Common sense, eh? Like how high protein levels make dogs high strung and hard to manage? Higher protein means more calories, more calories means more energy, more energy means high strung dogs. Duh! That's common sense! 

Also, I found this site. They have been feeding vegan diets since 1998 (longer than you have been feeding raw!). Personally, I think it is silly, but some people are into that. The location listed for this place is only about 20 minutes from me, so maybe I'll go check it out and ask, "how long do your dogs live?"




> You imply there are degrees of carnivorism. Either an animal is a carnivore and should eat meat, bones, and organs or he is an omnivore which eats meat, bones, and organs, but also should eat plant matter for optimum health. They can't be both. If a cat is a carnivore and a dog is less of a carnivore, then a dog must be an omnivore, which he isn't.


Why must you oversimplify everything? Just because an animal can eat like an omnivore doesn't mean it should or requires plant material in their diet.




> There is a biological difference between cats and dogs. Dogs eat carrion in the wild. Their bodies have adapted to handle all the bacteria associated with such a diet. Cats in the wild don't eat carrion and will only eat what they have just killed. Cat's bodies haven't adapted to handle that kind of a bacteria load. Their stomach juices are not as acidic and dogs.
> 
> I ran across a guy whose freezer had broken and all his meat had rotted. He gave me the whole freezer full of meat which smelled horrible. I fed it to my dogs with no ill affect. I would not feed it to my cats. They woudln't have been able to hanle it.
> 
> I'm sorry you had the problem with your cats. I really hate that you let that one episode keep you from properly feeding your cats and dogs since then.


Wrong. Cat stomach pH is on average between 1.8 and 3.2. Dog stomach pH is on average between 1.44 and 2.62. While a cat's stomach pH is higher overall (though it would not be uncommon to see a cat with a lower pH than a dog), it is apparent that the concentration of hydrochloric acid would have little effect on how well a cat can deal with infected meat over a dog.

I never did feed my dogs meat I knew was bad. I'm fine with and will eat "funny colored" meat myself (the enzymes in the muscle are what cause the meat to change color, not bacteria), but never ever smelly meat.

Maybe you don't have problems because your dogs are used to it? Just because those down in Mexico can drink the water their whole lives without getting sick doesn't mean it is good for them and won't make me sick if I were to drink it.

Just because I don't feed what you feed means my animals are not being fed properly? Personally, I have not seen a change in energy levels, coat conditions, or "smell" since switching back to kibble. The difference I have noticed is the change in their poop. Before, their poop would turn white like a coyotes; it doesn't on kibble with grain. I have noticed that, since going to grain-free though, that their poop turns white again. :biggrin:




> Animal trainers who have both hands busy during training use a whistle made for training. It is a very small light weight whistle that you hold in your mouth and it makes a high pitch sound that is not offensive to humans or animals. It's still clicker training, only using a whistle as the clicker. Works very well. Many dog trainers use the whistle also.


Hahaha, it is very apparent that you don't ride. Despite being a fit individual (I go on 3 mile runs with the pooches nearly daily to stay in shape to ride), I am still WINDED by the end of a round over fences or in the dressage arena.



g00dgirl said:


> So, we agree that dogs are carnivores correct? For the sake of feeding our pets what difference does it make if they can _survive_ on a vegetarian diet, if they aren't going to _thrive_ on it? I wonder what this dog's life span will be, it's quality of life? Certainly it is not comparable to a dog fed an appropriate diet.


Right. Maybe they do thrive on it; I need to ask those "vegan dog feeding" people (see link above). 



> Cows can live off of corn and dead chickens and their feces (what is being fed to them in feed lots) but they must be injected with antibiotics and pass much more e. coli through there system than when grass fed.


Have you ever even been to a feedlot? Are mixed feed for cattle? I have. Dead chickens and feces-free! :biggrin:



> I will graduate in May with a degree in Wildlife Biology, so while we do not go into as much detail about nutrition, I have learned a bit about canine digestion. They have a very reduced cecum which limits the amount of nutrients they are able to extract from cellulose plant matter (in addition to other arguments).


Question (not rhetorical, promise): Compared to a human, a dog's cecum is huge. We constantly hear that we (humans) should have a diet higher in fiber despite our vestigial cecum. Why are dogs better equipped internally to handle a fibrous diet than humans?



> Also, as I believe it's already been noted, dogs have carnassial teeth. Taken directly from my notes:
> 
> _The defining morphological characteristic of carnivores is the *SPECIALIZATION OF AN UPPER PREMOLAR AND LOWER MOLAR AS CARNASSIAL TEETH* for shearing or cutting.
> Carnassials are especially well developed in the cats, hyenas, and dog-like mammals, but are much reduced in the bears and raccoon group._
> ...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Most of them are, but both zebras and horses have canines and wolf's teeth.


I don't know what "wolf's teeth" are. I'm assuming not teeth from the mouth of a wolf. I think you meat flat teeth.



> Really? I wouldn't say so. Here is a fun picture that shows a horse and a dog with both their mouths open. If the horse had more lip and less cheek, I feel that that their mouth sizes in relation to their skulls would be comparable.


Well this picture proves my point. Look at the dog's mouth. It opens all the way back tu under his eyes. The horses mouth doesn't go nearly back to under the eyes.



> Good. It's a wolf. And I see molars!


Hehe, no you don't. Look closely ... those teeth are very irregular on the top(bottom) surface. What you have to do is see how the upper and lower teeth fit together. When the jaw is opened and closed the teeth don't exactly match up like molars do. They perform more of a sissor action. My previous vet has a plactic model of a dog's gums and teeth that was hinged so the jaw moved up and down. You could see how the upper and lower teeth matched up and how they sissored meat and crushed bones. They don't match smooth surface to smooth surface like our molars do. Thets why they are called carnassial teeth. I don't think you will be able to find a still picture that shows what I am trying to explain to you. It's pretty difficult to manupulate a dogs jaw to see whats going on either.



> Hahaha, right... My first hand experience tells me the world is flat.


Evidently you haven't been as high in an airplane as I have. It's funny how MY personal observations mean nothing but in your next post you speak of your personal observations of the health of your dogs like they prove something. :biggrin:



> And I know both. And cattle, sheep, etc. Cattle also don't secrete amylase in their saliva. I'm just saying that you can't state that amylase in the saliva means its a florivore/omnivore; while the "big word" may cause many too nod their heads, I know better.


"Amylase" is a big word? They have amylase in their GI tract. Dogs have so little as to be useless for digesting plant matter.



> Well that isn't very conducive.


Nahhh ... just lazy. 



> Ew. What an awful way to say that. Please, at least go with "lower pH" or "higher hydronium concentration" or even "more acidic" would do.


Yes, you are right. I was going for "higher acid level" and got carried away. "More acidic" would have been a much better term.



> I'm not sure how many GI tracts you have seen laid out, but I can tell you, strictly herbivore GI's are HUGE! Like, I could snuggle up in a pony's ceca if I wanted to (not that I do - stinky!). I did an autopsy on a horse not too long ago (died of sand colic) and I can tell you that about 75% of their abdomen is dedicated to their GI tract. In cattle, it is closer to 80%. Now, it dogs, that percentage is greatly reduced to about 30%, probably less in deep-chested dogs.


Well, are you arguing with me or saying I'm right? :smile:


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

SuZQuzie said:


> Have you ever even been to a feedlot? Are mixed feed for cattle? I have. Dead chickens and feces-free! :biggrin:
> 
> Question (not rhetorical, promise): Compared to a human, a dog's cecum is huge. We constantly hear that we (humans) should have a diet higher in fiber despite our vestigial cecum. Why are dogs better equipped internally to handle a fibrous diet than humans?


I'm glad that the feedlot you visited does not practice this, however it DOES happen. Chicken litter is used in the feed of some feedlot cattle. And I bet they still fed corn, which cattle have not evolved to eat. However, the point wasn't where it does or does not happen, it is that animals can be feed inappropriate diets and survive, it doesn't mean they SHOULD be fed these things.



Based on what I've seen, I would not consider a dog's cecum to be larger than a human's, nor some other omnivores. 

HUMAN:









DOG:









PIG:









Reference: Digestive Sysetm of Vertebrates: CD 5. Anatomy


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Common sense, eh? Like how high protein levels make dogs high strung and hard to manage? Higher protein means more calories, more calories means more energy, more energy means high strung dogs. Duh! That's common sense!


Those aren't common sense, they are baseless old wives tales. I offended a woman on another board one time when I used the term "old wifes tales". She said it was sexest? Is it? I don't think so. 



> The location listed for this place is only about 20 minutes from me, so maybe I'll go check it out and ask, "how long do your dogs live?"


It would be interesting to go talk to them.



> Why must you oversimplify everything? Just because an animal can eat like an omnivore doesn't mean it should or requires plant material in their diet.


Why must you over complicate things? You should always break things down the the simplest form. It makes the world a lot easier to understand.



> Wrong. Cat stomach pH is on average between 1.8 and 3.2. Dog stomach pH is on average between 1.44 and 2.62. While a cat's stomach pH is higher overall (though it would not be uncommon to see a cat with a lower pH than a dog), it is apparent that the concentration of hydrochloric acid would have little effect on how well a cat can deal with infected meat over a dog.


Then how do you explain why cats can't handle carrion and dogs can? Human stomach pH is about 2 to 3 which is pretty close to a cat. There actually is some overlap there. Since pH is measured in a log scale, the difference between dog and cat is pretty great. Cat is more like a human and I know we can't handle carrion.



> I never did feed my dogs meat I knew was bad. I'm fine with and will eat "funny colored" meat myself (the enzymes in the muscle are what cause the meat to change color, not bacteria), but never ever smelly meat.


Back before my raw feeding days, I had 2 Goldens. One of them (my favorite dog ever, Skylar) favorite treat was road kill squirrell that had been laying out in the hot Georgia sunshine for a few days. If Skylar could get her mouth on one of those squirrels before I could stop her, God couldn't get that squirrel out of her mouth. She LOVED them. Never had the least negative effect from them. She would eat them, fur and all. Never vomited or had diarrhea or felt bad afterwards.



> Maybe you don't have problems because your dogs are used to it? Just because those down in Mexico can drink the water their whole lives without getting sick doesn't mean it is good for them and won't make me sick if I were to drink it.


I don't know ... they weren't used to it the first time they had some ripe meat and it didn't bother them.



> Just because I don't feed what you feed means my animals are not being fed properly?


Sure it does. :biggrin:



> Personally, I have not seen a change in energy levels, coat conditions, or "smell" since switching back to kibble. The difference I have noticed is the change in their poop. Before, their poop would turn white like a coyotes; it doesn't on kibble with grain. I have noticed that, since going to grain-free though, that their poop turns white again.


There you go!!! I make personal observations about my dogs chewing habits and its useless information but you make personal observations about your dogs health and its valid scientific data. :smile:



> Hahaha, it is very apparent that you don't ride. Despite being a fit individual (I go on 3 mile runs with the pooches nearly daily to stay in shape to ride), I am still WINDED by the end of a round over fences or in the dressage arena.


You can hold a whistle in your mouth and it doesn't take a lot of wind to blow them.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> My only problem with you is that is it so evident that you have no idea what you're talking about. While I don't agree with RFD, he can at least hold his own in an argument. Also, if being "my own person" means being a passionate dolt, no thanks. I much prefer being quite congnizant; it is enlightening. :smile:


Suzie, I really don't want to argue with you. I can tell you're a bright young intelligent person. I can also tell you are one going to obviously be influenced by what you learn in your classes. Nothing wrong with that, all very understandable, it how they present and teach material to the students.

Bio chemistry is a great field of study but I can assure they do not all thing like you (or your professors). My feed maker was also a bio-chemist and he broke down ingredients to the molecule. I happen to believe what he said to be true. When you graduate from your studies and forget most all you have been taught, all I'm saying is you can look at from different approaches. You can accept what they tell you or you can be skeptical. Please don't take offense to 'be your own person'. I did not intend anything mean spirited from that, all I mean is there are other ways to look at the big picture and it is perfectly able ok to look at the alternatives.

I does not matter what they eat, not one bit. It does not change their biological makeup. The dog from a standpoint of science will always be classified as order carnivora, regardless of what they can and will eat. There is no such thing as not being a true carnivore. Consider the Panda Bear. It lives on eating bamboo. Its scientific classification is order carnivora, again because what they eat makes not on bit of difference. You will never see a carb requirement listed for dogs on any panels, despite all the wild claims they will come you with in your schooling about the benefits of adding carbs. It is not listed as a requirement because there simply is none, plain and simple. It just does not exist and legally they probably cannnot print the lie.

Robert Abady was a bio-chemist. Please read what some other bio-chemist have to say in regards to your carnivore/omnivore argument.




> Dogs are carnivores. Webster's dictionary defines them that way, *as has every independent scientist since the beginning of civilization.*Big Industry arbitrarily declares that the dog is an omnivore, *even though there is no scientific back-up for this claim.**Big Industry connected veterinarians write the texts on canine nutrition that are used in Veterinary Schools to train other veterinarians, therefore many veterinarians believe that what Big Industry tells them is true.*
> While it is up to the reader to decide what Big Industry's motives might be in classifying the dog as an omnivore, *it is a fact that Big industry makes much more money selling omnivore-targeted diets than it ever could selling carnivore-targeted diets.*


Truth in Feeding - an article by Robert Abady

Your education is indeed influenced by big money, that is a fact. Every independent scientist would disagree with the science coming from Purina and Hills. No matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise, you cannot change the science. Post all the pictures of skulls you want, none of it matters because no independent scientist will ever fall victim of industries wild and ridiculous claims about dogs being omnivores. I have even heard about studies where they have attempted to breed extruding canine teeth out of the mouths of dogs. Guess what, they couldn't do it, mother nature would not allow it. No matter how hard the attempt to justify it, they cannot change the dog into something it is not.



> In short - carnivores only thrive when they consume diets that are structured as Nature intended: *high in the best quality animal protein and fat, rich in vitamins and minerals, low in carbohydrates and fibrous materials, and devoid of plant-based protein.*
> Despite the fact that plant-matter, particularly in large quantities, is contraindicated in the feeding of carnivores, it nevertheless permeates industry rations because of the *role it plays in industry profitability.*
> 
> Industry, in fact, quite openly admits that it is not producing rations for carnivores, but rather for omnivores, because that is how it characterizes the dog.
> ...


Don't get upset with mommy feeding some bacon grease to her dog. She seems to be smart if you ask me. Again, it is much better ingredient to add than plant protien like Marigold Flower and Dandelion and leaps and bounds healthier for the dog.

I wish you nothing but the best in your education. Your going to take it all in hook, line, and sinker. Not all bio-chemists are going to feel the same in regards to certain things like the omnivore theroies they will preach in your education. Take care. I will bow out of this and you and RFD can go back to
your debate. I am getting back to the MNF game and watch my Patriots get taken apart. GO PATRIOTS!!!!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

The funny thing is CB is that she agrees with you in regards to nutrition about dogs being carnivores.

And the bacon grease on dog food isn't healthy for dogs, maybe in slight moderation but poured on top is definitely not in moderation. Tons of saturated fats are not good for dogs, its hard on their liver and kidneys. It doesn't take big industry to tell me that, I know this just from experience of feeding fatty meals. There are different kinds of fat and bacon fat, actually same with lard, is not a good one, being saturated. I can go into detail of what that means if you'd like.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> The funny thing is CB is that she agrees with you in regards to nutrition about dogs being carnivores.
> 
> And the bacon grease on dog food isn't healthy for dogs, maybe in slight moderation but poured on top is definitely not in moderation. Tons of saturated fats are not good for dogs, its hard on their liver and kidneys. It doesn't take big industry to tell me that, I know this just from experience of feeding fatty meals. There are different kinds of fat and bacon fat, actually same with lard, is not a good one, being saturated. I can go into detail of what that means if you'd like.




Yes, dogs being carnivores, but not true carnivores faring better with carbs in the diet.

Fat is essential for dogs, period end of story. Yes some fats are better than others, but even an unnamed animal source is also quite essential for dogs. But if you read the nonsense coming from AAFCO statements about ingredients, animal fat (because it is an unnamed source) would be considered a minus rather than a plus. Don't believe it is what I would say because regardless is an absolute essential for true carnivore dog. I would further assert bacon grease is an absolute fantastic topper to pour over your dogs food and will not harm your dog but rather help them thrive.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

While I have gotten tired of this thread for the post part, I have one thing for RFD: What has kibble done to your dogs to be so convinced that their health was under assault? 

I can tell you what raw has done for me: I lost a kitten, a life, in my very hands. I still remember her last mew. She was eight weeks old. Not to mention a great deal of money into the care and repair of the other cats. Was the meat a funny color? Nope. Did it smell at all funny? Nope. According to all my senses, the meat was fine. 

Why in the world would I feed a diet to my animals, whose lives I am responsible for, that I KNOW can kill them? That HAS killed them?

Am I really doing my animals such a disfavor by no longer reading a deadly diet?

Imagine the public outcry if this was due to a premium kibble! Every single time this happens, as it did with Diamond Feeds years ago, the company either barely stays afloat or tanks. (Nutro is an exception; I honestly have no idea how they do it!)

Can you honestly tell me that if you had an animal die because of a decision that you imposed on them that you would not reconsider that decision? *I* am responsible for the death of a kitten; I still live with the guilt. I may also be blamed for the deafness of her littermate due to excessive fever.



And you say cats are more susceptible to food poisoning than dogs. According to this website, they argue using similar information that you use.

The marginal benefit of feeding raw over high quality pet food (if any) is not worth the increased risk to me.




To anyone that feeds raw, if it works for you, go for it. If you feel your dogs are healthier or shinier or less smelly or whatever other benefits claimed to be brought on by a raw diet, that is your thing. I am not going to impose my beliefs onto you, but I can let you know my personal experience with feeding raw. 

The funny thing is that I have read only one other testiment online about a similar experience to mine on a raw food diet: it was labelled as "fishy." Why oh why would someone go out of their way to feed their animals raw, have them die, claim they died due to the raw diet, and have it confirmed by a vet as the cause of death even though they died due to a different reason? Would someone really care that much to put down raw diet as "dangerous" and "prove" it by killing their own pet? Really?

So, for me, I have fed raw. Been there, done that, lost a life, won't do it again.

If feeding raw works for you, you know the real risks, you know how to take precautions, and you are aware that the all the precautions in the world won't always be enough, then feed raw. But do not force it onto others or use pathological arguments to guilt them into thinking they are bad people for not feeding a raw diet.

Is this directed at all raw feeders? Nope. They know who they are.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> While I have gotten tired of this thread for the post part, I have one thing for RFD: What has kibble done to your dogs to be so convinced that their health was under assault?


Kibble is a highly processed food with many species inappropriate ingredients. It is cooked at high temperatures for a long time. Most of the nutrients that were originally in it is cooked out in the rendering process. Kibble is made of the left over reminants of the human food processing plants. It is the stuff that would end up in the garbage dump if not for the dog food companies. You won't find a nutritionist anywhere, I don't care whether an animal nutritionist or a human nutritionist that will tell you highly processed foods are as healthy as fresh whole foods. 

Feeding a dog kibble is the same as a human eating nothing but Total cereal 24/7 all his life. Kibble is a cereal. Nothing more. I want more for my dogs.

A prey model raw diet is what dog's bodies were designed to eat and digest. They have been thriving on it for millions of years. Research has proved that dogs that are fed a diet of commercial dog food outlive dogs fed a diet of non-commercial dog food (raw, cooked, or table scraps) die an average of 34 months younger.
Long Life Study Summary
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

Actual Study
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapyFullReport.pdf



> I can tell you what raw has done for me: I lost a kitten, a life, in my very hands. I still remember her last mew. She was eight weeks old. Not to mention a great deal of money into the care and repair of the other cats. Was the meat a funny color? Nope. Did it smell at all funny? Nope. According to all my senses, the meat was fine.


I don't know what killed your cats but I can assure you it wasn't good clean meat, bones and organs. I seriously doubt there was anything wrong with that particular meal but was something else that they all got into. If one cat had gotten sick and died, you might convince me it was the raw meal but not a whole family of them. Carnivores don't get sick from a meal like you describe. 



> Why in the world would I feed a diet to my animals, whose lives I am responsible for, that I KNOW can kill them? That HAS killed them?


Tens of thousands of people feed their dogs and or cats a raw diet with no problem. In general, these animals are much healthier than the kibble fed animals. The meal you fed your cats was not the problem unless the meat was putrid which you say it wasn't.

For some reason, you blame yourself for your cats getting sick and dying. It was not your fault. Stop going through life blaming yourself for something unexplained that happened to them.



> Am I really doing my animals such a disfavor by no longer reading a deadly diet?


The diet is not deadly and yes you are.



> Imagine the public outcry if this was due to a premium kibble! Every single time this happens, as it did with Diamond Feeds years ago, the company either barely stays afloat or tanks. (Nutro is an exception; I honestly have no idea how they do it!)


A family of kibble fed cats die all the time an no one makes a big deal out of it. I doubt anyone blames the kibble and I doubt the people go through a lifetime of self blame. Stuff happens sometimes that can't be explained.



> Can you honestly tell me that if you had an animal die because of a decision that you imposed on them that you would not reconsider that decision? *I* am responsible for the death of a kitten; I still live with the guilt. I may also be blamed for the deafness of her littermate due to excessive fever.


I've had 2 raw fed dogs die. They didn't die from raw food. My other dog didn't miss a raw meal. I would never under any circumstances even consider for one minute switching my dogs back to kibble. That would be very irresponsible of me to do so.

I am going to get in trouble for this statement but you were a very impressionable young girl when this happened and it burried itself deeply into your subconcious. You need to get over it and stop blaming yourself. Stuff like this happens all through life and you can't blame yourself everytime it does. If you are riding a horse someday and the horse breaks his leg while you are riding are you going to blame yourself?



> And you say cats are more susceptible to food poisoning than dogs. According to this website, they argue using similar information that you use.


If the food smelled and looked good, unless it was poisoned by someone, it did not do what you think it did.



> The marginal benefit of feeding raw over high quality pet food (if any) is not worth the increased risk to me.


It's nowhere close to "marginal" benefits. They are major benefits. I have been feeding a raw diet for over 7 years without incident and I know thousands of others who have also. I am on several raw feeding boards and I see testimonies every day about the benefits that dogs have received by switching to raw. If you scour the posts on this board, you will find many such posts on how much improved dogs have become, often within days of switching. There is no increased risk. Of the 7 years I have been very active on these boards I can remember 2 that had serious problems with bones and thats all. I can also remember dozens of dogs on boards who died from bad kibble. So which is more dangerous? I have known many people who switched to raw just because of kibble recalls only to be amazed at how much improved they were after switching. I rememer one lady on another board who poo pooed my feeding raw and swore her kibble fed dogs were as healthy as raw fed. Finally she switched them and was amazed. She said, "I thought my dogs were healty before but now I see what healthy really is." She had been a breeder for 20 years.



> To anyone that feeds raw, if it works for you, go for it. If you feel your dogs are healthier or shinier or less smelly or whatever other benefits claimed to be brought on by a raw diet, that is your thing. I am not going to impose my beliefs onto you, but I can let you know my personal experience with feeding raw.


Those are just a very few of the benefits and they are not claimed. I have seen it hundreds of times. Stop blaming the raw diet for what happend to your cats. A raw diet was not the problem.



> The funny thing is that I have read only one other testiment online about a similar experience to mine on a raw food diet: it was labelled as "fishy." Why oh why would someone go out of their way to feed their animals raw, have them die, claim they died due to the raw diet, and have it confirmed by a vet as the cause of death even though they died due to a different reason? Would someone really care that much to put down raw diet as "dangerous" and "prove" it by killing their own pet? Really?


I could tell you stories about vets and raw food that would make you wonder if those vets ever went to high school let alone vet school. Like the lady whose dog swallowed a chicken leg whole. She rushed him to the vet who xrayed it and saw a chicken leg in the dog's stomach. He panicked and opened the dog up and took the leg out and charged the woman $2000 for emergency surgery. If he had just waited a few hours, the leg would have digested and disappeared. Vets will tell you all the time about how raw will kill your dogs. They are wrong. Kibble is the thing that kills. I'm sure this vet will tell people in the future, "I had a patient who fed raw and I had to do emergency surgery on it onetime to take a chicken drumstick out of it's stomach." Baloney ... where the hell did he expect a drumstick that was swallowed whole to go?? It would have digested completely and never been seen again.



> So, for me, I have fed raw. Been there, done that, lost a life, won't do it again.


Bet you do. :biggrin:



> If feeding raw works for you, you know the real risks, you know how to take precautions, and you are aware that the all the precautions in the world won't always be enough, then feed raw. But do not force it onto others or use pathological arguments to guilt them into thinking they are bad people for not feeding a raw diet.


The next time another kibble recall rolls around and one of your animals gets sick, you will re-think that whole mindset.



> Is this directed at all raw feeders? Nope. They know who they are.


Whew!!! For a minute, I thought you were talking about me. :smile:

Gotta run. Won't be back until tonight so If I don't answer you, I'm not avoiding you. I'm just not here.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> I can tell you what raw has done for me: I lost a kitten, a life, in my very hands. I still remember her last mew.




Now I know your post was directed at RFD, but just would like to comment this is where you and I are on the same page. Whole Prey Raw diets are not at all dangerous IMO, but Whole Prey Model is a different story. The Model, if you look at the numbers had probably sent more dogs and cats to the ER than any other. Kibble will kill you dog slowly over time with all those toxins in there, but they still have the potential for a decent long life, unlike my first dog where the hips were shot in 10 years. PMR can take it away in an instant if you're not careful or don't know what your doing, and that is one of the reason I don't care for PMR diets. My cats are indoor/outdoor cats and they enjoy all the Whole Prey their hearts desire, but never a model. It's the real deal or Meow Mix. Horrible stuff in that Meow Mix btw, I think it starts with a grain, but they supplement very well outdoors.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

You do realize that nutrient analysis is done after it's cooked, right? What inappropriate ingredients? 

I would love to know with what journal that study was published. Being one that is currently working on a study for publication in the Journal of Animal Science, having written a literature review myself and being a member of the Journal Club at my school (think professors and their research students reviewing published and unpublished studies), I think my experience allows me to say that the language in that journal is not congruent with any respected journal I know of. Journals have VERY specific guidelines on the language used in the articles they publish. 

For the record, 2 cats did not get sick; they were the ones we know don't like raw. Silly picky cats. :tongue: Coincidence? I know you'll say so. I also love how you say that cats don't get sick like humans; but they do get sick like humans when it comes to commercial cat food? Most likely, the meat had been exposed to some contaminant in the processing facility that existed on the outside on the leg, such as from a burst abscess or even some other contaminant that occurred in the steam-cleaning process. Being that we would give the leg in its entirity to the cats, it is very likely that all the cats had consumed some of the contaminant.

Really, what I feel is not up for debate. 

And it makes me sad that you have such a devotion to a diet that you won't even acknowledge the possibility that it did wrong and offer condolences for my family's loss. It is your religion. Instead, you insensitively claim that we are now knowlingly harming our animals. How cold.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

^^^ Like I said...you will argue with RFD a LOT! Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree because he is one stubborn dude, and probably wont change the way he views your feeding practices. Its just who he is and will always be.

I understand where you are coming from in regards to the language used in journals...it gets pretty tedious sometimes LOL but it is one of the first things that I make a mental note of when it comes to deciding whether or not a study/article is credible.

I think at this point in the discussion: everyone here agrees that dogs are carnivores. 

BUT we all have our own opinions and ideas about diet, and we have the right to our opinions and no one should feel judged by anyone else here about it. SuZQuzie did raw, and doesn't anymore for her own reasons...lets not make her feel bad about it. That is not what this forum is for. Especially since this thread is in the kibble/canned forum. I remember someone once saying that we should keep the raw discussions out of this forum, out of respect for other people's decisions.


----------



## shalisha4 (Dec 2, 2009)

*You asked for help... not accept it.*



SuZQuzie said:


> For my own knowledge, define "inappropriate" Ca please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you really think your dog will starve himself to death? I think you're way over thinking this too. Common sense says that when your dog is hungry enough, he will eat whatever you put down.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> You do realize that nutrient analysis is done after it's cooked, right? What inappropriate ingredients?


You do realize that nutrients are cooked out of kibble in the rendering process don't you. Why on earth do you think they have all those nutrients on the ingredients list? It's because they were added back in after rendering. Did they get all of them back in? In the right amounts? In bioavailable forms? Obviously not. 



> I would love to know with what journal that study was published. Being one that is currently working on a study for publication in the Journal of Animal Science, having written a literature review myself and being a member of the Journal Club at my school (think professors and their research students reviewing published and unpublished studies), I think my experience allows me to say that the language in that journal is not congruent with any respected journal I know of. Journals have VERY specific guidelines on the language used in the articles they publish.


I have never met a college student past about the 3rd year who didn't think that every piece of legitiment and correct fact known to man wasn't contained in some research paper published in some obscure journal. You will be out of college for about 5 to 10 years before the realization hits you that it just isn't so. A good large part of that knowledge is bogus working on assumptions and basing part of the research on other bogus knowledge from other flawed papers. Just look at all the references in those studies. They assume that all the "knowledge" they get from each of those references is absolutely 100% accurate and that just isn't so.

Look at the global warming fiasco that has been revealed in the last couple of weeks. Do you think all studies are not just as flawed? There are politics in every field and any study can be skewed to prove whatever the researcher wants or whatever the people financing the study want it to say.



> For the record, 2 cats did not get sick; they were the ones we know don't like raw.


If you said that in earlier posts, I missed it.



> Coincidence? I know you'll say so.


I won't say that. Perhaps the meat was poisoned somehow. Maybe it happend at your house. Maybe it happened at the processor's place. No one will ever know exactly what it was about that meat that killed your cats IF it was the meat that killed them. The same thing happens in kibble. Do you think kibble is sterile? There is A LOT of bacteria on kibble chunks.



> I also love how you say that cats don't get sick like humans; but they do get sick like humans when it comes to commercial cat food?


I don't think I said that. I said that cats can't handle tainted meat like dogs can. I may have said dogs don't get sick from tainted meat like humans do.



> Most likely, the meat had been exposed to some contaminant in the processing facility that existed on the outside on the leg, such as from a burst abscess or even some other contaminant that occurred in the steam-cleaning process. Being that we would give the leg in its entirity to the cats, it is very likely that all the cats had consumed some of the contaminant.


Where did you get this meat? Was it from a grocery store? If so, I would consider it almost out of the question that it had something dangerous on it when it was purchased.



> And it makes me sad that you have such a devotion to a diet that you won't even acknowledge the possibility that it did wrong and offer condolences for my family's loss.


The diet was not the problem. It is the diet that cats eat every day in nature. There are millions of feral cats and tens of thousands of domestic cats eating a raw diet every day without problem. It is the diet nature intended for cats to eat. I am not going to apologize for the perfect diet. You should still be feeding it to your dogs and cats.

Would you feed meat to your horses? Why feed plant matter to your dogs and cats?

I don't need condolences for my dead animals who were very much members of my family. Your cats died years ago and my dogs died since your cats did. I am sorry your cats died and I think I said so in an earlier post.



> It is your religion. Instead, you insensitively claim that we are now knowlingly harming our animals. How cold.


You may call it cold if you wish, but you are a knowledgable person. You know that dogs and cats are carnivores. You know what the proper food is for carnivores. You should know that fresh whole foods are healthier than processed foods. You are not like the average person on the street who doesn't have a clue about nutrition. You should know better.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

shalisha4 said:


> Do you really think your dog will starve himself to death? I think you're way over thinking this too. Common sense says that when your dog is hungry enough, he will eat whatever you put down.


The pup is on a new kibble. Done deal. Thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> Really, what I feel is not up for debate.


Suzzie's way or the highway!


----------



## Maab (Nov 9, 2009)

Wow, very impressive Suz, I am sure that i sm not the only one that would love to know how you did it.*

_"Regarding treats, I have trained three of my four Boxers (not the 10 week old pup ) to balance a treat on their nose. When I release, all three of them will catch it, then spit it out. I have yet to meet another another dog that would spit out a treat that was already in their mouths. It doesn't matter if the treat is $15.00 for a 10 oz bag or a $4 big box of Milkbones_"


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Maab said:


> Wow, very impressive Suz, I am sure that i sm not the only one that would love to know how you did it.*
> 
> _"Regarding treats, I have trained three of my four Boxers (not the 10 week old pup ) to balance a treat on their nose. When I release, all three of them will catch it, then spit it out. I have yet to meet another another dog that would spit out a treat that was already in their mouths. It doesn't matter if the treat is $15.00 for a 10 oz bag or a $4 big box of Milkbones_"


While I trained my dogs to balance the treat and catch it, they were the ones that would spit it back out on their own accord. Picky dogs.


----------

