# Purina youtube ads



## amaterasu

Has anybody else seen the ridiculous purina ads on youtube lately?
I know they've always done it but it bothered me that their trying to further encourage people that corn is good for dogs and that dogs
arn't carnivores.
Some people on the site actually agree with it too.
Completely absurd.


----------



## DaViking

amaterasu said:


> Has anybody else seen the ridiculous purina ads on youtube lately?
> I know they've always done it but it bothered me that their trying to further encourage people that corn is good for dogs and that dogs
> arn't carnivores.
> Some people on the site actually agree with it too.
> Completely absurd.


You have a youtube link?
Strange if they say dogs are not carnivores? They are, part of the order carnivora. Now, there are lots of carnivores that source lots of their food from plants. The panda is the most extreme one. They have evolved to eat nothing but bamboo, still with their short digestive system as found in carnivores. The panda is not a canid but also among canids you will find many many species who source anything from 10% to 50%+ of their diet from plants. The maned wolf is one example. 50%+ of their diet is plants. Because of metabolic traits found in canids dogs are perfectly capable of digesting varying amounts of plant matter, processed or not. If someone is telling you differently they are flat out lying or are just parroting something they read on the internet. Obviously not all plants are appropriate, some vegetables are close to indigestible to canids. It's all about striking the right balance.


----------



## Celt

I don't believe corn is "evil" but I do believe that most dogs can do better without it. Processed corn (which I believe is the only truely digestible form for dogs) is useful in gaining weight or maintaining weight on "hard keepers". Most carnivores do better consuming the majority of their protein from meat based sources. Pandas do survive on a diet of bamboo but to do so they have to eat a huge amount and are low energy animals due to their diet. Maned wolves are different from most canidades because of a believed defect that causes them to develop kidney stones if their urine is too acidic, generally excrete excess water in their stool and their urine to have a chemical (usually found in poisonous insects) which causes it to have a very pecular smell. Maned wolves also have loose stools on kibble dogfoods (although it is believed that soy may contribute to that). Oh, just so you know, I feed my dogs pretty much every diet available (always have).


----------



## amaterasu

Yes,the channel is Purina - YouTube. 
The videos are The Power of Corn and Dogs are Omnivores, Not Carnivores - Purina
I haven't looked at many of their other video's yet.


----------



## amaterasu

Yes I understand that certain animals have developed ways of using plant matter as a substitute for animal protein, but they've only done it to survive. 
Dogs haven't and don't need to, corn isn't even nutritious or digestible. We shouldn't have to "teach" dogs to eat something either.
Also pandas are so malnourished on their bamboo diets that they can barley reproduce and raise young. 
I believe maned wolves also eat alot of fruit high in magnesium to help with worms. 
I wouldn't say corn is evil either,however nor is it healthy.


----------



## DaViking

amaterasu said:


> Dogs haven't and don't need to,


They have the exact basic metabolic traits as other canids, making them perfectly capable of digesting a wide range of plants.



amaterasu said:


> corn isn't even nutritious or digestible.


Corn is nutritious and highly digestible. You are just passing on myths. Remember corn is the only major foodstuff we humans eat with the husk. No other grain come with the husk and in that lies the root of much controversy. When we cook or remove the husk corn is a good source of various nutrients and energy, and is a gluten free alternative. As I said above, it's all about the balance. Too liberal use as you see in many low quality grocery and big box store brands results in glucose issues and an overall inferior product due to corn taking up space where other ingredients would be better. Used wisely corn is a good complementary ingredient. Dogs digest ground corn at a rate of 90% to 95% Very few ingredients can match that.


----------



## amaterasu

What nutrients do you think are in corn exactly?
Other than carbs and maybe a few vitamins. Although I wouldn't consider it to be a better protein or energy source than animal protein.
Corn is a very new food for humans as well, plus if it isn't completely ground it can't be fully utilized for the nutrients it does have.


----------



## dest

I believe maned wolves also eat alot of fruit high in magnesium to help with worms. :shocked:


----------



## DaViking

amaterasu said:


> What nutrients do you think are in corn exactly?
> Other than carbs and maybe a few vitamins. Although I wouldn't consider it to be a better protein or energy source than animal protein.
> Corn is a very new food for humans as well, plus if it isn't completely ground it can't be fully utilized for the nutrients it does have.


Energy. Carbs turned into glucose. Glucose is glucose and it doesn't matter where it is derived from. The key is regulation, not where it comes from. Monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat. Vitamin B1, B2, B3, B6 and B9. A few minerals. Some amino acids. It's not used because it is a better source of protein. It's used because it is a complementary ingredient with it's unique properties like high in energy or gluten free to name a cpl. The main energy source for dogs is fat, not protein and not carbohydrates. At least it shouldn't be. Try putting weight on or maintaining good weight in a highly active working dog, sporting dog or any dog with a high metabolic rate with more proteins, won't happen. It's ground and cooked, have no fear. "Whole" doesn't mean they chuck whole intact corn in there.

Why is corn as an ingredient so bad in your opinion? How is that much different than other sources of carbohydrates?


----------



## KittyKat

DaViking said:


> Energy. Carbs turned into glucose. Glucose is glucose and it doesn't matter where it is derived from. The key is regulation, not where it comes from. Monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat. Vitamin B1, B2, B3, B6 and B9. A few minerals. Some amino acids. It's not used because it is a better source of protein. It's used because it is a complementary ingredient with it's unique properties like high in energy or gluten free to name a cpl. The main energy source for dogs is fat, not protein and not carbohydrates. At least it shouldn't be. Try putting weight on or maintaining good weight in a highly active working dog, sporting dog or any dog with a high metabolic rate with more proteins, won't happen. It's ground and cooked, have no fear. "Whole" doesn't mean they chuck whole intact corn in there.
> 
> Why is corn as an ingredient so bad in your opinion? How is that much different than other sources of carbohydrates?


I don't think corn itself is a bad ingredient, however I think it is often overused in pet foods (largely because it is so cheap and thus can be used as a 'filler'). I think this overuse by many companies has made corn out to be the 'bad guy' when it is really companies that misuse it as a product that are the bad guys here. It it is used properly it can play a role in creating a well rounded kibble.

Sadly it seems the companies that chalk up corn as a good ingredient as often the ones that seem to misuse it as an ingredient.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

DaViking said:


> You have a youtube link?
> Strange if they say dogs are not carnivores? They are, part of the order carnivora. Now, there are lots of carnivores that source lots of their food from plants. The panda is the most extreme one. They have evolved to eat nothing but bamboo, still with their short digestive system as found in carnivores. The panda is not a canid but also among canids you will find many many species who source anything from 10% to 50%+ of their diet from plants. The maned wolf is one example. 50%+ of their diet is plants. Because of metabolic traits found in canids dogs are perfectly capable of digesting varying amounts of plant matter, processed or not. If someone is telling you differently they are flat out lying or are just parroting something they read on the internet. Obviously not all plants are appropriate, some vegetables are close to indigestible to canids. It's all about striking the right balance.


Really? Cause I tried many different types of plants, spinach, carrots, corn(cooked), rice(cooked), lentils(cooked), grapes, melon, green beans - none of them were completely digested and came out whole in his stool...?


----------



## doggoblin

DaViking said:


> Corn is nutritious and highly digestible.


It is digestible in a processed form which make it a great carbohydrate source with a high glycemic index. Dogs don't need carbs (not on any nutrient profiles I know about) and high glycemic food causes high insulin spikes after eating to try to control the blood glucose levels. A dog has a natural well developed ability to produce blood glucose and muscle/liver glycogen from non-carbohydrate sources as and when needed as has been shown in studies of both sled dogs (endurance) and greyhounds (sprint). I fear the manufacturer's quite often match science to ingredients, not matching ingredients to a dogs natural metabolism. 

Not to mention all the dogs who suffer with allergies etc from grain based food.

A lot of animals which are carnivores have adapted to partially eat plant material and you can see things like flat molars designed to grind plant matter. Dogs have not adapted in this way or if they have please point out the adaptations starting in the mouth.

You can say it's all lies and myths but the myth is that grain is used as anything but a cheap ingredient.


----------



## DaViking

doggoblin said:


> It is digestible in a processed form which make it a great carbohydrate source with a high glycemic index. Dogs don't need carbs (not on any nutrient profiles I know about) and high glycemic food causes high insulin spikes after eating to try to control the blood glucose levels. A dog has a natural well developed ability to produce blood glucose and muscle/liver glycogen from non-carbohydrate sources as and when needed as has been shown in studies of both sled dogs (endurance) and greyhounds (sprint). I fear the manufacturer's quite often match science to ingredients, not matching ingredients to a dogs natural metabolism.
> 
> Not to mention all the dogs who suffer with allergies etc from grain based food.
> 
> A lot of animals which are carnivores have adapted to partially eat plant material and you can see things like flat molars designed to grind plant matter. Dogs have not adapted in this way or if they have please point out the adaptations starting in the mouth.
> 
> You can say it's all lies and myths but the myth is that grain is used as anything but a cheap ingredient.


Holy moly here we go again. There is a lot of things dogs don't need but I'd still want to put in in the diet. Said in another way; I don't accept your platform for discussion, it's meaningless to me. I don't believe an "ancestral" diet is the best way to go so everything I discuss is on that platform.
Is it or is it not nutritious and highly digestible? Unless your dog is genetically wired to get diabetes there isn't a snowball chance in hell that foods like Nutram, RedPaw, Annamaet, National, Genesis, Mera, Kobuk and a host of other quality foods with corn will give your dog diabetes, not happening. You can wave the glycemic index around all you want but in the end you have to apply it practically. Please show me any serious research where it is proven that 10 to 20% corn will lead to anything close to dangerous glucose levels resulting in dangerous spikes in insulin levels. I'd be interested to see that. Again, glucose is glucose and it doesn't matter where it is derived from. My dog eat 9 grams of corn twice per day, all healthy, not even close to being dangerous. Secondly, if you want to talk glycemic index you need to calculate the glycemic load of a diet, not blindly read labels and cry wolf as soon as you see corn.

Allergic dogs you say? 5% of all dogs are allergic to something in their diet. Of those 5% corn doesn't even make it to the top 3-5 which are beef, wheat, soy, eggs and dairy. How many percent of all dogs do you think are allergic to corn then? Sorry for not providing any links this time. There are tons of other threads here with those links. All this scaremongering against corn is just silly. Warn against poor foods instead.


----------



## DaViking

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Really? Cause I tried many different types of plants, spinach, carrots, corn(cooked), rice(cooked), lentils(cooked), grapes, melon, green beans - none of them were completely digested and came out whole in his stool...?


Thank god he/she wasn't digesting the grapes then


----------



## doggoblin

> Said in another way; I don't accept your platform for discussion,


It doesn't equate to "ancestral diet", I simply don't discount basic anatomy of a dog in front of me which you seem to want to. You instead seem to prefer to believe marketing hype. Saying something again and again does not make it true.



> Is it or is it not nutritious and highly digestible?


Just because it can be digested doesn't mean it's nutritious. You argue they don't need it but you want to add carbohydrates anyway which doesn't make sense really to begin with unless you can show a study which shows the advantage carbohydrates have over animal protein for dogs. Why add something at high levels which isn't required reducing the amount of things available which are required simply to get the calories up? Carbohydrates make up I believe around 70% of corn. Protein wise the biological value for dogs is only around 50% when compared to say an egg at 100%. So you could argue that corn adds only around 15% of it's content to what a dog actually needs. Very nutritious when looking at it like that.

I wouldn't say corn itself is totally responsible for the allergies. After all poor food can lead to a reduced immune system to begin with. You also have to allow for allergies associated with grain due to contaminants such as dust mites, mold etc. I don't know where you've got your 5% figure from but I know many dogs who have improved when switching away from grain based food. 



> Unless your dog is genetically wired to get diabetes there isn't a snowball chance in hell that foods like Nutram, RedPaw, Annamaet, National, Genesis, Mera, Kobuk and a host of other quality foods with corn will give your dog diabetes, not happening. You can wave the glycemic index around all you want but in the end you have to apply it practically. Please show me any serious research where it is proven that 10 to 20% corn will lead to anything close to dangerous glucose levels resulting in dangerous spikes in insulin levels.


So even when it's not needed and there are alternatives you'd simply allow raised insulin spikes levels on a regular basis? What benefit does it have? Who is to say your dog isn't genetically wired for diabetes and repetitive insulin spikes will not trigger it. Show me scientific studies which show a benefit with insulin spikes.. after all we are talking about a company which does an awful lot of research. You seem to look at it like the old smokers who said "there's no scientific evidence smoking damages health.. look these manufacturers say so, so it's got to be true"..



> Warn against poor foods instead.


I agree 100%.. Your point of view on basic ingredients however and mine differ.


----------



## DaViking

doggoblin said:


> It doesn't equate to "ancestral diet", I simply don't discount basic anatomy of a dog in front of me which you seem to want to. You instead seem to prefer to believe marketing hype.


Me falling for marketing hype, that's rich :biggrin: In the words of someone here "Never met anyone who knows everything" Anatomy, digestion and nutrient assimilation and balance are three different things. Secondly, the digestive system varies among dogs and from dogs to wolves. Anything from size of various organs, cell makeup to activity. Yes, activity is part of the digestive process too.

To quote ScienceBasedMedicine.org

"the concept of “evolutionary nutrition” ignores the simple fact that taxonomy and phylogeny are not destiny, nor do they reliably predict the specific details of a species’ biology, including its nutritional needs."

"However, a distinct phenotypic divergence of dogs and wolves followed the development of more sedentary agricultural habits by many human groups some 10-15,000 years ago, which placed new selection pressures on our canines companions. Since then numerous anatomic and behavioral changes that have occurred first as a result of living with humans and sharing our food. And even more dramatic changes have been wrought on dogs in the last about 3000 years as a consequence of intensive selective breeding. Domestic dogs exhibit many features of neoteny, the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. They have smaller and less robust skulls and dentition, and numerous features of their skeleton, GI tract, and other anatomic structures are significantly different from wolves."

"anatomy doesn’t necessarily predict function"

Dogs are perfectly suited to be facultative carnivores. BARF ppl and home cookers know that already. The only ones that refuse to accept that are some PMR feeders. That's as far as I am going to go on that discussion since I really got tired of it long ago.



doggoblin said:


> Saying something again and again does not make it true.


Exactly! That's why you shouldn't listen to the self proclaimed internet ingredient police who have been beating corn into a pulp in recent years.



doggoblin said:


> You argue they don't need it but you want to add carbohydrates anyway which doesn't make sense really to begin with unless you can show a study which shows the advantage carbohydrates have over animal protein for dogs.


Meaningless sentence. I don't feed or recommend foods with plants for their protein content unless it's an isolate. NFE matter, oils and starch are there for energy, functional fatty acids, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, a few amino acids and binder. They don't need to have any advantage over animal protein for me to feed them. Why should they have any advantage over animal protein? Can't they stand on their own properties?



doggoblin said:


> So you could argue that corn adds only around 15% of it's content to what a dog actually needs. Very nutritious when looking at it like that.


That would only make sense if you believe what he/she need is all he/she should get. Making assumptions doesn't make the argument any better. The argument works for you, not me. "Nutritious" is about what macro and micro nutrients is absorbed and made use of, not what you feel is appropriate.



doggoblin said:


> I don't know where you've got your 5% figure from but I know many dogs who have improved when switching away from grain based food.


As I said, just look at the numerous other threads here where corn is discussed and you'll find all the links you can imagine on the subject. Including compilations reviewing multiple allergy studies.
I know, I know, I know... words are cheap on Internet, not to mention circumstantial and more often than not analytically wrong. I know a few cases too after doing this for over 20 years for a lot of clients. What strikes me is how fast an owner is to jump to a conclusion.




doggoblin said:


> So even when it's not needed and there are alternatives you'd simply allow raised insulin spikes levels on a regular basis? What benefit does it have? Who is to say your dog isn't genetically wired for diabetes and repetitive insulin spikes will not trigger it. Show me scientific studies which show a benefit with insulin spikes.. after all we are talking about a company which does an awful lot of research.


I currently feed 0.001g of corn per g of bodyweight and have no problem recommending that to others. You tell me how "bad" that is? I like you to justify why you think this will lead to "bad" spikes in insulin compared to other foods and diets. Justify the "bad"? You are the one who are the one claiming this is "bad". So I really think you are the one that should provide some research stating this is "bad". Don't give some ridiculous chart mapping random insulin spikes, don't give some blah high fructose corn syrup research and similar. Give us something that will indicate that feeding 10 to 20% corn is "bad" in terms of insulin "spikes" as you call it. In terms of diabetes, don't you think you have more to gain from going after all those who do not provide an active and meaningful life for their dogs instead of going on a crusade against ppl who choose feed among other things corn as a source of energy?

What benefit does it have? We exercise and practice 5 hours per day. Corn is an excellent balancing source of energy. Formulating a food is a balancing act and corn comes with a set of properties that can be used to achieve certain goals.



doggoblin said:


> You seem to look at it like the old smokers who said "there's no scientific evidence smoking damages health.. look these manufacturers say so, so it's got to be true"


Come on, stop it with the cheap arguments. Corn is one of the most documented foodstuffs we have, it's ancient and precedes most things eaten, or smoked for that matter. With all the knowledge and science we have today, is there anything to suggest that corn is even remotely in the same category as tobacco? You are trying to turn things on it's head. If corn was dangerous you will have no problems sourcing funding for a study on the topic.




doggoblin said:


> Your point of view on basic ingredients however and mine differ.


You don't say.

If you want to discuss corn I am more than willing to do that with you. If you want to discuss the bare minimum (the best in some ppl's eyes) to formulate a decent diet you have to take that to someone else.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

I don't think corn is bad..and doggoblin didn't say that either. We just feel it's not the best food choice for a carnivore - and this is a fact. It's not even the best food choice for humans. I suppose you can add it to the diet, but it should not make up the bulk of the diet and it should not get preference over protein sources such as meat. We simply don't like the way pet food companies lie about it - claiming corn is good (or even necessary) to justify the large amounts they use in their food. The fact is they don't use if for its nutritional benefits, their are plenty other foods out their that holds more nutritional benefit than corn - pumpkin, butternut, sweet potatoes just to give an example. They use it cause its a cheap ingredient and acts as a filler. If they want to use it, that's fine. And if people still want to buy their food that's fine too - but they should at least be honest about it, so people know what they're paying for. Of course they won't do this, cause then people won't buy their food.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

DaViking said:


> Thank god he/she wasn't digesting the grapes then


???....my question remains - they can not digest carbohydrates...why then do you feed it?


----------



## danea

What’s the point in comparing dogs to wolves? It’s irrelevant. The questions is, is corn any worse\better than any other carb when used in the same amount and quality



woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> ???....my question remains - they can not digest carbohydrates...why then do you feed it?


Millions of dogs consume dog food that contain around 40-50% carbs, if dogs couldn’t digest it they all would’ve died out.

If some dogs can’t digest carrots it doesn’t meal all dogs can’t. 
if you feed your dog primarily meat (organs, fish. etc) and all of a sudden you decide to give him a carrot, of course he won’t be able to digest it! Same thing would happen to my dogs (I’m feeding 25\15 kibble) if all of a sudden I will give them a raw chicken quarter, not only will it result in explosive diarrhea, but most of the bone won’t be digested. But it would be unwise to make an assumption that dogs can’t digest meat or chicken quarters
Drastic changes in the diet MUST be implemented gradually.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> ???....my question remains - they can not digest carbohydrates...why then do you feed it?


Grapes are toxic for dogs.


----------



## Sheltielover25

danea said:


> What’s the point in comparing dogs to wolves? It’s irrelevant. The questions is, is corn any worse\better than any other carb when used in the same amount and quality
> 
> 
> Millions of dogs consume dog food that contain around 40-50% carbs, if dogs couldn’t digest it they all would’ve died out.
> 
> If some dogs can’t digest carrots it doesn’t meal all dogs can’t.
> if you feed your dog primarily meat (organs, fish. etc) and all of a sudden you decide to give him a carrot, of course he won’t be able to digest it! Same thing would happen to my dogs (I’m feeding 25\15 kibble) if all of a sudden I will give them a raw chicken quarter, not only will it result in explosive diarrhea, but most of the bone won’t be digested. But it would be unwise to make an assumption that dogs can’t digest meat or chicken quarters
> Drastic changes in the diet MUST be implemented gradually.


You're right many dogs are eating foods that high in carbs. And many of those dogs are overweight, have stinky and very large multiple stools. Also cancer and diabates are insane on canines now. So just because they eat things doesn't mean they're benefiting them. They're just pooping it all out an getting fat. Look at cancer statistics in canines an how they've increased.


----------



## DaViking

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> pumpkin, butternut, sweet potatoes just to give an example.


These are all ingredients with specific properties that can be, and are, used together with corn. They can only be used in smaller amounts unless you want to scrape up diarrhea all day long. You can't replace corn with these ingredients. Just look at the nutritional data sheet for each of them and you'll see what I mean. Secondly, no one is here to talk about crap grocery type foods other than to warn against them. You are basing much of your arguments around these types of foods.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

danea said:


> Millions of dogs consume dog food that contain around 40-50% carbs, if dogs couldn’t digest it they all would’ve died out.


The only reason they are able to digest it is because it's heavily processed and the cellular walls broken down.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

naturalfeddogs said:


> Grapes are toxic for dogs.


Yes i know this - I did not give it to him, I found it in his stool...and it was whole.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

DaViking said:


> These are all ingredients with specific properties that can be, and are, used together with corn. They can only be used in smaller amounts unless you want to scrape up diarrhea all day long. You can't replace corn with these ingredients. Just look at the nutritional data sheet for each of them and you'll see what I mean. Secondly, no one is here to talk about crap grocery type foods other than to warn against them. You are basing much of your arguments around these types of foods.


Yes I'm basing my arguments around the companies that use grains and corn as a main ingredient. Take origin for example; it's one of he better brands out there..80% meat and 20% fruits and vegetable...they don't use any grains such as corn, rice, wheat etc. They do however use butternut and sweet potato among other things. Of course you can replace corn with these ingredients...as they have done, because canines DON'T NEED CORN.

And by the way, Purina IS a crap grocery type food.


----------



## DaViking

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Take origin for example; it's one of he better brands out there..80% meat and 20% fruits and vegetable...they don't use any grains such as corn, rice, wheat etc. They do however use butternut and sweet potato among other things. Of course you can replace corn with these ingredients...as they have done.


Sorry wrong, they haven't replaced corn with these 3 plant ingredients. They have replaced around 30% to 50% of the NFE with a lot more protein, bumped the fat slightly and added peas. That's why it still doesn't break the 4.0kcal/g level. The rest of the Orijen formula, including sweet potato, pumpkin and butternut, is pretty much the same as you could do with any other formula with more starch.


----------



## danea

Sheltielover25 said:


> You're right many dogs are eating foods that high in carbs. And many of those dogs are overweight...


you can't get fat from something you can't digest. 
And I think the main problem is quality, most of the dogs around the world are still eating cheap kibble, with low quality ingredients, minuscule amount of animal proteins and fat, chemical preservatives and dyes. 



woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> The only reason they are able to digest it is because it's heavily processed and the cellular walls broken down.


If you are feeding kibble it will always be processed and in processed form corn is digestible. If you don't like processed food feed raw, but that preference, has nothing to do with digestibility of certain grains. 
And if I understood you correctly, your dog can't digest peas and I presume raw potatoes will meet the same fate, so why are they more appropriate for canines? In a kibble they would still need to be processed.


----------



## DaViking

Sheltielover25 said:


> You're right many dogs are eating foods that high in carbs. And many of those dogs are overweight, have stinky and very large multiple stools.


Unlike with humans, obese dogs with large stinky watery stools are easy to fix.


----------



## Celt

just a bit off and purely observational with no "scientific" proof on "grain based foods". Blaise was "fattier" on a kibble heavy diet than on a meat heavy diet (same weight just different feel and look). there were no other changes.


----------



## DaViking

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Yes i know this - I did not give it to him, I found it in his stool...and it was whole.


So you know grapes are poisonous... yet according to your anecdotal "evidence" and original opinion that fruits, berries and vegetables comes out whole and are not digested, everyone should stop with the warnings about grapes and other poisonous things because they are not digested anyway? Don't you see the lack of logic here?


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

DaViking, you'r arguments make no sense to me - if you're trying to convince me that corn is the best ingredient to use in dog food you're doing a terrible job. First of; yes - raw sweet potato and pumpkin will not be digested - I simply used the example to try and explain that their are better foods out there than corn. So why do pet food companies use so much corn? Not because it's nutritious, but because its cheap. And I don't know why my dog didn't get sick from the grapes...I heard grapes are poisonous...and onions so I try to avoid these. My dog has ingested both of these and he is still fine, so I don't know...what I do know is he did not digest it, or any other fruit/vegetable he ate. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. But hey, maybe my dog is weird and abnormal and the only one that can't digest these things. Maybe dogs will thrive on a corn based diet and live a long disease free life....it is certainly not my problem or concern, I believe I'm doing what's best for my boy, bone-in meats and organs - and you believe you are doing what's best for your dog, which apparently is corn...it is not my place to tell you what to feed your dog - I was simply giving my opinion.


----------



## DaViking

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> DaViking, you'r arguments make no sense to me - if you're trying to convince me that corn is the best ingredient to use in dog food you're doing a terrible job. First of; yes - raw sweet potato and pumpkin will not be digested - I simply used the example to try and explain that their are better foods out there than corn. So why do pet food companies use so much corn? Not because it's nutritious, but because its cheap. And I don't know why my dog didn't get sick from the grapes...I heard grapes are poisonous...and onions so I try to avoid these. My dog has ingested both of these and he is still fine, so I don't know...what I do know is he did not digest it, or any other fruit/vegetable he ate. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. But hey, maybe my dog is weird and abnormal and the only one that can't digest these things. Maybe dogs will thrive on a corn based diet and live a long disease free life....it is certainly not my problem or concern, I believe I'm doing what's best for my boy, bone-in meats and organs - and you believe you are doing what's best for your dog, which apparently is corn...it is not my place to tell you what to feed your dog - I was simply giving my opinion.


Morph the discussion all you want. I am certainly not trying to convince you or anyone else who are set in their ways and happy with how things are. I am simply responding to you and others who put illogical, inaccurate and erroneous information out there so everyone who are interested can make up their own mind with a more nuanced view. Maybe you should have added to your first post that various fruits, berries and vegetables are to a varying degree (depending on their makeup) digestible by most dogs despite your own experience. Instead you choose to fuel the myth that dogs can't digest and derive nutrients from plant matter, raw or cooked. Btw; Many GSD's and GSD X's have notoriously delicate digestive systems and are not by a long shot representative for what dogs can and can not digest. Heck, there are those who have made millions on helping nothing but GSD owners with digestive issues.

To sum it up for you, nothing to do with convincing you of anything: 1) Your suggestion to replace corn with butternut, pumpkin and sweet potato only shows how little you know about composing a dog food and 2) Despite you trying to convince everybody, dogs digest and derive nutrients from various fruits, berries and vegetables just fine, raw and most certainly in cooked form.


----------



## mheath0429

IMO - raw veggies are not at all digestible in dogs. I've fed various RAW veggies to my dogs and it always comes out as it went in - Cooked is a different story, most specifically steamed. I can never see it and they utilize it - in Kibble, you have to remember its not WHOLE kernel corn anymore; its ground, its just the gluten, etc...Obviously you are changing the make up of the starch by cooking it at extremely high heats..it very well may be digestible at that point. Scientifically, I mean...

I wouldn't have a problem with corn, but it's most likely a GMO crop if its in dog food, which CAN increase cancer rates. If it were non GMO, I wouldn't be opposed.


----------



## Sheltielover25

I still wouldn't feed corn to my animals or myself regularly but I agree it's be GMO part that really kicks avoiding it into gear. We arent dealing with the corn our grandparents ate. it is totally different these days. And like someone else said the only reason companies use corn is because its cheap. Bottom line. It's why they feed it to cattle and to chickens and other animals. It fattens them up quickly and it is cheap. There is no health benefit of feeding round up ready corn to cattle or chickens or dogs or cats. It is just cheaper. I would never feed any living creature a round up ready crop! And I would never buy one becauce I don't believe in screwing the environment like that and making humans be exposed to those toxins. Ever seen the gear one wears to spray such chemicals


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Daviking is absolutely right! I tell people that I can understand dog owners believeing corn is a filler and has no nutritional value becasue it is a very successful gimmick to sell food but when a company says it in their literature or on their website they either don't know what DaViking knows or they do know better but are willing to lie! Either way, I wouldn't feed their food! Its ironic that food companies will make a grain free diet(they all do due to demand) but then they'll add sweet potato! Sweet potato is almost double the carbs as corn!LOL! And as DaViking pointed out all those nutrients delivered from corn, sweet potato loses in comparison. But it should be stated, as there are grades of meat, meat meals, and other ingredients, there are with corn as well. If it is not ground and cooked at the right temp it will not be bioavailable to the dog so as usual it comes down to the expertise and quality controls of the company. Sadly, most food companies don't even make their own food!


----------



## LilasMom

Dr Dolittle said:


> Daviking is absolutely right! I tell people that I can understand dog owners believeing corn is a filler and has no nutritional value becasue it is a very successful gimmick to sell food but when a company says it in their literature or on their website they either don't know what DaViking knows or they do know better but are willing to lie! Either way, I wouldn't feed their food! Its ironic that food companies will make a grain free diet(they all do due to demand) but then they'll add sweet potato! Sweet potato is almost double the carbs as corn!LOL! And as DaViking pointed out all those nutrients delivered from corn, sweet potato loses in comparison. But it should be stated, as there are grades of meat, meat meals, and other ingredients, there are with corn as well. *If it is not ground and cooked at the right temp it will not be bioavailable to the dog* so as usual it comes down to the expertise and quality controls of the company. Sadly, most food companies don't even make their own food!


Yet you still think it is something good for dogs? If something has to be completely process for one to derive nutrients from it, maybe that is a sign they shouldn't be eating it.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

LilasMom, Then we wouldn't use any carb sources including potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc. Every ingredient that goes into that kibble has to be cooked and prepared at the right temp to ensure bioavailablity, some having to be added at higher levels to ensure they are still available after cooking. Even flax seed, a great ingredient is very fragile and a certain amount is destroyed in processing. So blood syrum levels have to be taken in dogs to ensure the finished amount is right. I suppose the raw pet feeder would have a different perspective, and I think you have even used the word "processed" as a bad thing, but if you are not reeding raw and want a kibble, you have to agree to processing. I guess you just decide who you trust to do the processing. The one thing about corn I have to agree with everyone on is this GMO debate. That is pretty scary but thats another topic I know very little about so don't want to comment on. I'm probably wrong enough when I know what I'm talking about!


----------

