# Chesapeake Bay Retriever Pup & 10yr Alaskan Husky



## mjanderson (Jan 16, 2009)

I am looking for a little advice....

We have a 10 year old Alaskan Husky who was on Wellness Core Weight Control but after about 8 months was still not loosing any weight we recently switched her to Welness Super 5 - Healthy Weight. Is this a good choice? She is about 70lbs and should likely be in 50-55lbs range. Is this a good choice for her? 


We are also getting a Chesapeake Bay Retriever pup (male) and wondering what food would be a good choice for him?




Thanks.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

mjanderson said:


> We have a 10 year old Alaskan Husky who was on Wellness Core Weight Control but after about 8 months was still not loosing any weight we recently switched her to Welness Super 5 - Healthy Weight. Is this a good choice?


The best and easiest choice for weight loss is feed less and exercise more. Sometimes it can be difficult to give enough exercise to a 10yo dog. In that case, feed A LOT less.



> She is about 70lbs and should likely be in 50-55lbs range. Is this a good choice for her?


In that case, I would feed her about half what you are feeding now.



> We are also getting a Chesapeake Bay Retriever pup (male) and wondering what food would be a good choice for him?


I don't feed kibble so I can't give you a brand. A prey model raw diet is best for any dog.

*ETA:* Don't depend on changing brands of food to cause your dog to loose weight.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Wellness Core worked well for helping my dog lose weight, but I had to exercise extreme portion control and implement _a lot_ of exercise into her routine. It was probably more that than the brand, but at the same time, she did way better on Core than Nutro Ultra, so yeah. 

As far as feeding any dog goes, get the food that has the most meat and the least amount of fruits, veggies, and grains in it. Evo and Orijen and Blue Wilderness are good for this. However, the only one of those that has a puppy formula is Orijen.

Rawfeddogs is right though, prey model raw is the best food for almost any dog and might help your older dog lose weight easier, but that's your personal decision.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

I have a 12 year old Lhasa and an 8 month old Husky/Chow puppy which are close in the age range of your dogs. My puppy is eating Orijen puppy now and doing very well on it. He gets 2 cups a day (at 70 pounds) and some days he eats it all and some days he lets it sit there - I just free feed my dogs and they eat when they are hungry but they don't get more then what they are allowed. It has kept him at a really good weight with tons of energy. The 12 year old eats Innova Senior Plus since she is allergic to the salmon in Orijen. She has only been on the Innova a month and is doing wonderful on it. She has a ton of energy, can walk much farther then she used to, and actually runs and plays all over the yard. Previously she was on Natures Recipe Venison for allergies and I think the change to Innova Senior Plus has helped her a lot. She gets a fourth cup a day free fed. They both get a bit of all meat canned food or real meat morning and night for extra meat. 
Hope that helps. I'm real happy with those two brands for those ages.


----------



## mjanderson (Jan 16, 2009)

*Fromm or Orijen*

Hi,

I spokle with a local natural pet food shop and they recomened Fromm large breed puppy and serior for or husky.... Has any one had any experience with these? I had never really heard of them.

The other one that seems to keep comming up is Orijen, any comments?


----------



## LL Blue (Dec 29, 2008)

As far as the weight loss, have you tried reducing portion size? I've had problems with my dogs being too chubby, and have had to cut portions back. It's hard to do, but it can be necessary to get that weight-loss. If you have a hard time cutting her back, have you tried mixing in green beans.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

> quote:
> Weight reduction and weight and management have become central areas of concern to dog owners in recent years as the number of obese dogs as escalated. *Big Industry (the large manufacturer of dog food) and veterinarians are quick to blame pet owners for the problem. Big Industry claims that obesity is caused by overfeeding, overindulgence with treats or inadequate amounts of exercise. *
> Based on these assumptions, Big Industry has flooded the market with a multitude of high-fibre, high carbohydrate, low-quality weight reduction roducts which bring about weight loss by drastically lowering the dog's intake of available calories and nutrients. the high level of fibre included in these products, according to the Big Industry, serves a dual purposes, it induces a feeling of fullness, while it reduces nutrients availability. *These solutions to the problem of obesity can aggravate the already serious metabolic disorders potentially causing untold damage to dogs.*
> *It is a scientific fact that dogs consume only the amount of food needed to deliver the number of calories they require.* Calories are the body's fuel, they needed to fuel growth and reproduction. Animals must receive the number of calories they require to run all of their bodily functions and to fuel the production of all of its tissues and processes. *When energy is undersupplied in a ration, the body will use the energy reserved for tissue-building to make up for the shortfall, potentially damaging the body.
> A self-regulating mechanism prevents dogs from ingesting more calories than they require over the long-haul. Based on these incontestable scientific facts, how can dogs become obese as a result of the over ingestion of calories. Obviously, they cannot.*


It is not your fault. It is the fault of the diet. Cutting back on the ration (undersupplying nutrients) and exercise is not necessarily your best approach.
What you can do is deliver a high quality ration that is equal to or even has more calories than your current diet, so your dog gets what in needs from a caloric standpoint, just in lesser amounts. Quoting an old TV commercial, you can have 1 bowl or Total or 10 bowls of "X".

source: Dogs Get Obese?

My dog gets 800 cals per cup (for six years). She is as thin as a rail. Dogs do not get fat from too many calories. They get fat due to improperly structured diets. It is not your fault. Often the owner is blamed with not enough exercise, too many fridge treats, etc...just another way of how the industry protects its own interests so the can continue to sell the profitable high fiber diets, instead of delivering more cals through meats and fats.

Good luck with your dog!
Charlie


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

My dogs get 800 cals per cup, AND I FREE FEED. They eat what they need and leave the rest in the bowls. Food and water is available 24/7. When I notice the food bowl is empty I replenish, no timeframe.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. The other day my dog managed to get ahold of a 10 lbs bag of raw chicken leg quarters and ate the entire thing. While she didn't die from this event, you could certainly tell she was uncomfortable. Her stomach was horribly expanded, she was whining (much like people do after over eating), and had the most tremendous gas and burps for two days. And you cannot possibly try to tell me that raw chicken wasn't nutritious enough for her to register her calories and stop eating. She's an eater, always has been, always will be. If I had $80 to spend on a bag of Abady to lay out for her to graze on at will, I'm guessing it would be gone in a day or so with the same results as her over eating of chicken. If you'd like to send me a bag of Abady for this experience, I'd be more than happy to try it out for you. 

I will, however, agree that weight control foods put out by pet food manufacturers are low-quality products and a marketing gimmick meant to under nourish our pets, and that most of the time, even if you fed an obese lab only 1/4 cup of Pedigree dog food/day, he would probably still have a very hard time losing weight since he'd still be getting nothing but garbage to digest. The same garbage that caused the problems in the first place. 

It'd be like eating nothing but french fries your whole life and getting fat off them. Then when you tried to lose weight you just ate smaller amounts of french fries, but still only french fries. You'd have a very hard time losing weight in a healthy and efficient manner.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

I will have to agree with Rannmiller. I have always free fed my Chows and Samoyeds, and they self regulated their meals and maintained perfectly healthy weights. My one and only Labrador could never be free fed. She would inhale any and all food she could find, including items that barely qualified as food! I think a lot depends on the dog and the breed, plus the food they encounter.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

rannmiller said:


> I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.


I respect your thoughts.




> If I had $80 to spend on a bag of Abady to lay out for her to graze on at will, I'm guessing it would be gone in a day or so with the same results as her over eating of chicken.


A few things here: My feed does not come in a bag, it comes in a box and it costs around $65 (depends on where you shop, 40-lb _classic_). The term "graze" here is I think is an implication there is something omnivore going on in this box of feed? Well, I want you to know, Abady is about carnivore feeding, species appropriate feeding, and there is no need to make any insinuations there is an omnivore approach to the products. I have to respectfully disagree with you about Orijen being some sort of great product.
IMO it is not. That goes for EVO as well. These are not products for my dog,
however, you and RFD both have given them your thumbs up and the irony here is, YOU'RE BOTH RAW FEEDERS.

OK, lets break it down.

Orijen and EVO, both boast 42% protein. I'm not buying into those numbers, sorry. Orijen open admits it has 30% fruits and vegetables. EVO hits you with the omnivore buffet, everything from potatoes and cranberry dust, and that is supposed to be 'when you can't feed raw'. Try not fall victim to catchy marketing and slick advertising, because anyone can plainly see by the ingredients list, these feeds are heavily influenced with species inappropriate ingredients.

Let's take a look at Abady. Oh, it has white rice. A non-allergenic ingredient.
Not to be confused with brown rice, which contains gluten protein. Where's the rest of it, where is that buffet of inappropriate ingredients. It's not there.
White rice....economics...helps bring down costs, but it is about delivering animal source proteins. I don't want 21% animal source, and 21% whatever else to total 42% protein and still end up with an omnivore diet...no thank you!

So, if you're looking to save a few bucks and feed species appropriate, my box is lasting me 3 months at $65. Do the math! (50-lbs: 37 pound Field Setter and the Yorkie at 13 lbs)

I also know my diet has got everything in it and I'm not missing anything like some might be doing with raw. Ever walk down your Wal-Mart and wonder if you're missing something in your dogs diet?

Now about that science you’re not buying into (about dogs regulating their caloric intake). Don’t forget, this is over the long haul, not a binge feed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Hehe, I don't think rannmiller need my help here but since my name was mentioned I think I can add to this also. :smile:



claybuster said:


> The term "graze" here is I think is an implication there is something omnivore going on in this box of feed? Well, I want you to know, Abady is about carnivore feeding, species appropriate feeding, and there is no need to make any insinuations there is an omnivore approach to the products.


Since Abady claims 22.6% carbs, that by itself makes it something omnivore going on in your box of feed. Carbs are not part of a carnivore diet. BTW: by my count there are around 36% carb in that box. I'm not buying Abady's numbers. The place on the page where thiey list 22.6% is on an advertisement panel which doesn't have to be 100% accurate.



> I have to respectfully disagree with you about Orijen being some sort of great product. IMO it is not. That goes for EVO as well. These are not products for my dog, however, you and RFD both have given them your thumbs up and the irony here is, YOU'RE BOTH RAW FEEDERS.


Hehe, I'm not getting into that. I don't think any of them are any good. A few are less bad. :smile:



> Try not fall victim to catchy marketing and slick advertising, because anyone can plainly see by the ingredients list, these feeds are heavily influenced with species inappropriate ingredients.


I agree but Abady does exactly the same thing. None of them are angels.



> Let's take a look at Abady. Oh, it has white rice. A non-allergenic ingredient.
> Not to be confused with brown rice, which contains gluten protein. Where's the rest of it, where is that buffet of inappropriate ingredients.


You know, I don't know that but I do know they have 22.6% or 36% carbs depending on whose numbers you believe. Thats an awful lot of rice. EVO claims 11.42% carbs (I measure 37%). That tells me there are less inappropriate total ingredients in EVO even though it has a greater number if indivual items. 



> I don't want 21% animal source, and 21% whatever else to total 42% protein and still end up with an omnivore diet...no thank you!


I don't know where you get those numbers. I THINK I read on an EVO page long time ago that 90% or 95% of their protein was animal based. I can't remember for sure and may be totally mistaken. I just quickly scanned a couple of EVO pages and couldn't find it.



> I also know my diet has got everything in it and I'm not missing anything like some might be doing with raw.


Don't be so sure. Cooking kills A LOT of nutrients. Why do you think dog food companies add so many artificial nutriends into their food? It's because they were cooked out in the manufacturing process. I just counted 32 nutrients (chemicals) added to your Abady product. Did they replace all that was lost? Are you sure? 

You know hundreds if not thousands of cats died when people first started feeding kibble to them. It seems the cat food companies didn't know they needed to add taurine into cat food. What do the dog food companies not know about ingredients they aren't adding?

The prey model raw diet has proven itself over millions of years of evolution. There are no nutrients missing. If there was, dogs/wolves would be extinct by now.



> Ever walk down your Wal-Mart and wonder if you're missing something in your dogs diet?


Not for a second. :smile:


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Claybuster, I believe you failed to read all the middle parts of my post about my dog eating 10 lbs of raw chicken in one sitting. 

When I said "graze" I certainly did not mean to imply any sort of omnivore tendencies of feeding on grass, I meant "to eat small portions of food, as appetizers or the like, in place of a full-sized meal or to snack during the course of the day in place of regular meals" to quote the dictionary. As in free-feeding. 

I know Abady makes a decent food, after hearing your arguments and explanations for it, I see now and admit that my initial judgment of the product was inaccurate. However, I'm not really a huge fan of any commercial/cooked dog food out there. 

That being said, I also forgot that it came in a box, rather than bag (not that that is very pertinent to the argument I was making, but ok), so if you'd prefer to send me a $65 _box_ of Abady and I'll leave it open for my lab mix/over-indulger and see if she doesn't gorge herself on a regular basis, then you'd really make a believer out of me. 

The main reason I'm an advocate for Orijen is more it's availability and larger quantities of animal based proteins than you find the majority of commercial dog foods. Evo, as I have already said somewhere else on this forum, has taken a serious quality dive in reference to their "red meat" line. Their regular lines are still decent, but I think their ingredients aren't what they used to be (or whatever I think they used to be, whether they actually were that or not hehehe). Either way, Evo and Orijen are leaps and bounds ahead of most other dog foods on the market and more available than Abady from what I gather. 

Again, please feel free to inform me otherwise.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

> I agree but Abady does exactly the same thing. None of them are angels.


White rice...that's it. Just look at those other two kibbles I mentioned and you will see. What do you want to see further down the line...undefatted beef liver or sweet potatoes, Menhaden oil or cranberry?

Yes, Abady has some carbs but they keep it low. That's is what makes a carnivore approach to feeding, not high carbs. The other two kibbles I mentioned replace grain fiber with plant fiber yielding no real benefit, still getting a ton of fiber.



> That tells me there are less inappropriate total ingredients in EVO even though it has a greater number if indivual items.


What??? OK, look at it this way, how much do you think these kibbles would cost if they were really 42% animal source proteins? More than what I am feeding, correct? I think my feed costs a bit more because my 30% protein is pretty much all animal source, that is where the costs come in, not with sun-cured alfalpha sprouts.



> I don't know where you get those numbers. I THINK I read on an EVO page long time ago that 90% or 95% of their protein was animal based. I can't remember for sure and may be totally mistaken. I just quickly scanned a couple of EVO pages and couldn't find it.


My 21% and 21% for a total of 42 was hypothetical, but probably close to being accurate...otherwise these feeds would cost more in theory, but they do not (because it smoke and mirrors). You were probably looking at TO when you read 90-95%, another omnivore directed feed.



> Don't be so sure. Cooking kills A LOT of nutrients. Why do you think dog food companies add so many artificial nutriends into their food? It's because they were cooked out in the manufacturing process. I just counted 32 nutrients (chemicals) added to your Abady product. Did they replace all that was lost? Are you sure?


Abady uses independent processing of ingredients. Grains DO NOT dictate how the ration is made.



> Abady: Only the Abady Company has successfully addressed these two critically important issues by creating a special process that does not penalize nutrition while improving energy production. It includes more animal fat and oils and fewer carbohydrates. Fresh animal tissue is processed once. The animal meals are also processed only once, as are fats and oils, unlike kibble in which animal meals are processed twice. Importantly in Abady granular products the vitamins are never exposed to heat or pressure. *Dogs do not have a requirement for carbohydrates and generally fare better with lower levels.* Only the Abady Company’s special process permits the levels of each ingredient to be included independently, allowing an increase in fats, an increase in protein, and a decrease in carbohydrates according to the requirements of that formula. In Abady granular most of the grains are fully processed, independently of most of the TBN content. Both grains and tissue building nutrients are blended together at the end of the process, (after each has been appropriately processed), not at the beginning.





> The prey model raw diet has proven itself over millions of years of evolution. There are no nutrients missing. If there was, dogs/wolves would be extinct by now.


I don't think you are feeding a prey model raw diet. I think you might be confused about something here, but please correct me if I am wrong.

A prey model raw diet, or whole prey model, refers to a specific group of folks
who feed their dogs live animals. Remember RFD the story you mentioned about your cats ripping up a rabbit in the bathroom. That IS a perfect example of what prey model raw feeding is all about, and rabbits are the preferred choice because the are cheap to purchase and easily obtainable.
Prey model feeding the dogs does all the work, you just supply the animal. They make the kill (the dogs), they get the meat and bone off, etc. This is a practice that has been (whole prey feeding) a growing trend over the past 10 years. But what I think is most important here, whole prey feeding starts with a giving your dog a live or dead (whole) animal. Chickens can be used, rabbits, any type of small animal.

Now, that concept of raw feeding (whole prey) is completely different than shopping at the butcher or supermarket for commercially prepared meats. Therefore, whole prey method or model should not be confused with feeding a raw diet of commercially prepared meats. It is not the same thing. You and ramiller feed a home prepared raw fed diet, but are not doing whole prey.
Whole prey feeders IMO is rawus maximus. They are getting it right, for it is all in there and they will eat what they need, organ meat, fats, tissue, and bone. Most raw feeders unfortunately may not be getting it right and because they have to put together the percentages. I would assume, to be getting it right, one has to include the fats and organs everyday in proper percentages. Once a week with some organ meat is not going to cut the mustard, you need and should be right everyday with the percentages. That would be properly structured raw diet, and whole prey feeders (real whole prey feeders) can't miss in that respect. I am not knocking raw feed home diets by any means, I'm just saying it is not the same as whole prey, and percentages need to be accurate.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

rannmiller said:


> Claybuster, I believe you failed to read all the middle parts of my post about my dog eating 10 lbs of raw chicken in one sitting.
> 
> When I said "graze" I certainly did not mean to imply any sort of omnivore tendencies of feeding on grass, I meant "to eat small portions of food, as appetizers or the like, in place of a full-sized meal or to snack during the course of the day in place of regular meals" to quote the dictionary. As in free-feeding.


I always read everything you have to say:wink:

I wasn't sure about the "graze" thing myself but figured go for it anyway just in case there was something there.

I think your dog saw an opportunity and seized the moment. But I think he would have to reach a point in time where he must stop! Try laying out 10-lbs every day for a week as an experiment as see what happens. just kidding.

Charlie


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> White rice...that's it. Just look at those other two kibbles I mentioned and you will see. What do you want to see further down the line...undefatted beef liver or sweet potatoes, Menhaden oil or cranberry?[


All 3 brands have approximately the same amount of carbs. It doesn't really matter whether the carbs come from white rice or a mixture of other plants. They are still speicies inappropriate and by my measure all 3 of the brands are relatively low in carbs and they have about the same amount. So by that measure, the 3 brands are pretty equal.



> Yes, Abady has some carbs but they keep it low. That's is what makes a carnivore approach to feeding, not high carbs.


The carnivore approach to feeding is NO carbs. :smile:



> The other two kibbles I mentioned replace grain fiber with plant fiber yielding no real benefit, still getting a ton of fiber.


I don't see any difference between the 3. If you must feed kibble, feeding one of these brands is the less bad way to go. I don't see any of the 3 as being superior to the other.



> What??? OK, look at it this way, how much do you think these kibbles would cost if they were really 42% animal source proteins? More than what I am feeding, correct? I think my feed costs a bit more because my 30% protein is pretty much all animal source, that is where the costs come in, not with sun-cured alfalpha sprouts.


We can argue this point forever. Unfortunately there is no way to find out what percent of protein is from animals and plants. I have never been able to assertain this other than by conjecture.



> My 21% and 21% for a total of 42 was hypothetical, but probably close to being accurate...otherwise these feeds would cost more in theory, but they do not (because it smoke and mirrors).


Hehehehehe ... in a discussion like this you can't just pull numbers out of thin air. You gotta have some kind of basis for them. 



> You were probably looking at TO when you read 90-95%, another omnivore directed feed.


Thats possible, I can't remember for sure where I read it.



> Abady uses independent processing of ingredients. Grains DO NOT dictate how the ration is made.


They still cook it. Cooking destroys nutrition.



> Abady: Only the Abady Company has successfully addressed these two critically important issues by creating a special process that does not penalize nutrition while improving energy production. ..._<<< cut a bunch of this out for brevity.>>>_


Remember in a previous post in this thread you cautioned about believing company marketing hype. 



> I don't think you are feeding a prey model raw diet. I think you might be confused about something here, but please correct me if I am wrong.


You are wrong. :smile:



> Remember RFD the story you mentioned about your cats ripping up a rabbit in the bathroom.


My dogs and cats pretty regularly catch and kill wild critters around here. I am often finding 1/2 squrrels or 1/2 rabbits laying around in the yard. I assume the cats killed those because the dogs would eat the whole thing. I have also seen dogs steal a kill from cats.



> That IS a perfect example of what prey model raw feeding is all about, and rabbits are the preferred choice because the are cheap to purchase and easily obtainable.


Evidently they are pretty easily caught also. :smile:



> Prey model feeding the dogs does all the work, you just supply the animal. They make the kill (the dogs), they get the meat and bone off, etc. This is a practice that has been (whole prey feeding) a growing trend over the past 10 years. But what I think is most important here, whole prey feeding starts with a giving your dog a live or dead (whole) animal. Chickens can be used, rabbits, any type of small animal.


Here is where we part ways. You see, in my mind, chicken muscle is chicken muscle regardless of where on the body it's located. Chicken fat is chicken fat regardless of where on the body it's located. Chicken bone is chicken bone regardless of where on the body it's located. Nutritionally it makes no difference if you feed no part of the chicken except the leg quarters and organs or if you feed a whole chicken. The same nutrition is consumed. This is the same with all the other prey animals also.



> Now, that concept of raw feeding (whole prey) is completely different than shopping at the butcher or supermarket for commercially prepared meats.


As per my above paragraph, I don't see a difference.



> Therefore, whole prey method or model should not be confused with feeding a raw diet of commercially prepared meats. It is not the same thing.


Tell me the difference nutritionally. You might inject that the commercial raised prey animals are fed differently and that may or may not make a nutritional difference in the meat. Either way I think the difference is negligible.



> You and ramiller feed a home prepared raw fed diet, but are not doing whole prey.


Nutritionally there is so little difference as to make no difference.



> Whole prey feeders IMO is rawus maximus.


Thats the reason we call it "PREY MODEL" feeding and not whole prey feeding. :smile:



> Most raw feeders unfortunately may not be getting it right and because they have to put together the percentages. I would assume, to be getting it right, one has to include the fats and organs everyday in proper percentages.


That couldn't be further from the truth. In the first place, exact percentages are baloney. No one and no animal even knows that proper percentages are. I know of no one who measures all the nutrients in their own diet every day. Exactly how much protein do you eat each day? How much should you eat? How many carbs? How much fat? How much calcium to you take in each day? How much phosporus? How much of each of the vitamins? You see what I mean? Not only is it impossible to measure this stuff, even if you could, putting together a diet with exactly the right percentages would be impossible.

Regardless of the dog food company marketing hype, its not necessary to feed a complete and balanced diet every meal. Balance over time. You don't need every single nutrient in the world every single day of your life. If you did there would be no human or animal life on earth. BTW: Do you know how dog food companies prove their food is balanced according to AAFCO standards?



> Once a week with some organ meat is not going to cut the mustard, you need and should be right everyday with the percentages.


Marketing hype ... even your own personal diet falls far short of this. What are the right percentages? Each prey animal has different percentages of nutrients. Thats the reason variety is important in a prey model diet. For example the muscle meat of a cow does not contain the same nutrients as the muscle meat of a chicken or any other animal. They all contain different percentages of nutrients.



> That would be properly structured raw diet, and whole prey feeders (real whole prey feeders) can't miss in that respect. I am not knocking raw feed home diets by any means, I'm just saying it is not the same as whole prey, and percentages need to be accurate.


Again, we are not claiming to be feeding "whole prey" raw diets. We feed a PREY MODEL diet and our dogs are healthy.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Most raw feeders unfortunately may not be getting it right and because they have to put together the percentages. I would assume, to be getting it right, one has to include the fats and organs everyday in proper percentages. Once a week with some organ meat is not going to cut the mustard, you need and should be right everyday with the percentages. That would be properly structured raw diet, and whole prey feeders (real whole prey feeders) can't miss in that respect.


This is like saying that if you were really busy one day and only had time to eat a banana, a hot dog, and brownie, you would be malnourished. As RFD said, we don't all eat perfectly balanced FDA approved food pyramid diets every single day. The point is that you get the nutrients in your diet to keep you healthy over the long run. 

That being said, dogs/wolves in the wild don't get muscle meat, fat, and organs every day/every time they make a kill. They usually kill the prey, eat the organs, the wolves lower on the totem poll are probably lucky to get any organ meat, and then eat muscle meat and bone off of the carcass every day until the animal is mostly gone. How long does that take? A few days? A week? This means these wolves are getting organ meat in their diet probably about once a week, just like my dogs do. 

Now the raw fed dogs you referred to who get whole prey every day probably get organs every single day, but that is out of a smaller animal too, so their organs aren't as large, so they don't yield as large a quantity of organ meat as larger prey does. So inevitably, these dogs are getting smaller amounts of organ meat in these smaller animals, and it still probably balances out to being approximately 20% of their diet, just like my dogs get. 

Funny how things balance out like that.


----------



## LoveNewfies (Jun 18, 2008)

OK, I'll give my two cents.

First, I will agree that there is a difference between feeding a true prey model raw diet than feeding prey model as RFD and Ran do. The primary differences, nutritionally speaking, are the consumption of organs and glands not readily available that do include important nutrients that are not in meat, bone and readily available organs.

Rice, or any carb source, is not an appropriate ingredient for dogs or cats. Feeding such does not constitute feeding either a species appropriate diet regardless of the carb source or how much is in it. Obviously, if you're feeding carbs, the less the better.

In regards to which is better to have in a pet's food, rice or potato or any other, there are some differences. First, using potato allows a manufacturer to use less of the carb source and more meat protein when manufacturing the food. Second, some carb sources are higher in phytates than others. Phytates can and do bind to particular minerals and block the uptake of said minerals. There is also a difference in the protein content of different carb sources and this makes a difference when trying to interpret the label information provided. Obviously, the carb sources higher in protein content will mislead buyers because they are led to believe the protein in a food is derived from meat sources. 

Just like with us, yes, balance over time can work just fine. Keep in mind, though, that certain nutrients work together. Calcium and phosphorus, for example, are absorbed and utilized based upon the balance of the consumption of both. 

Dog food manufacturers do prove their food is nutritionally adequate in one and/or two ways: First is lab testing that shows nutrient levels. If a food is manufactured in accordance to, and labeled as such, nutrient profiles established by AAFCO, it must test so. In this aspect, feeds need to be tested for nutritional adequacy or the recipe used must be close enough to another formula that manufacturer makes that has tested to be nutritionally balanced and complete. The second way is through feeding trials. Feeding trials, however, IMHO, are not adequate as the rules and allowed results are very lenient and don't prove much other than that a certain number of dogs didn't die, lose drastic, unhealthy amounts of weight or become ill from the food in the short period the testing was conducted.

No offense, but Abaday is not a species appropriate diet any more than any kibble is. Is it better than some? Of course it is. Is it "species appropriate"? Not with it being processed and containing rice. You are happy with it, your dog is doing well on it, and honestly, that's what matters most.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> All 3 brands have approximately the same amount of carbs. It doesn't really matter whether the carbs come from white rice or a mixture of other plants. They are still speicies inappropriate and by my measure all 3 of the brands are relatively low in carbs and they have about the same amount. So by that measure, the 3 brands are pretty equal.



They are not equal by any means and that is where you're not looking at the big picture. Plant matter should be avoided in carnivore feeding, regardless when it comes to lower carb content of these feeds. What matters about carbs is lower is better, but the ingredients do count. Without even looking at these 2 kibbles I mentioned (EVO and Orijen), I know I will find ingredients like: yucca, garlic, flaxseed, alfalfa, tomato pumice, potatoes (several varieties), kelp (sun cured seaweed), etc., etc. It does make a difference when it comes to ingredients. Those ingredients follow an omnivore approach to feeding. Another factor is delivering poisons at sub-lethal does over the long-term when it comes to certain plant matter. It is best to be avoided and not suitable for feeding of carnivores.

I know why Abady uses white rice. It is the perfect ingredients in terms of “economics” because it is a non-allergen (despite what some health care practitioners would lead you to believe; they tried that with natural corn as well), gluten protein off the hull removed, lower carb and fiber when compared to brown rice (with the hull), and yes it is an expensive ingredients for manufacturers to purchase. The economics comes to the cost the consumer can bear if they want to feed well. The carnivore approach is behind theory of what is best for dogs, avoidance of plant matter as fiber, avoidance of gluten source proteins, a focus on delivering animal source proteins, low carb, low fiber, and avoidance of expansion type fibers (beet pulp, tomato pumice, cellulose, etc.). Abady conforms to the principles in carnivore feeding, the only manufacturer to do so. Again, the feeds are by no means equal.




> Here is where we part ways. You see, in my mind, chicken muscle is chicken muscle regardless of where on the body it's located. Chicken fat is chicken fat regardless of where on the body it's located. Chicken bone is chicken bone regardless of where on the body it's located. Nutritionally it makes no difference if you feed no part of the chicken except the leg quarters and organs or if you feed a whole chicken. The same nutrition is consumed. This is the same with all the other prey animals also.


I am glad you mentioned that, so you can endorse an ingredient like chicken by-product meal. Whole Prey, and those who follow that model, are not squeamish about ingredients like: brain, tongue, eyeballs, skull (bone), and the tissue off the head. Not squeamish about liver, intestine, heart, lung, and even feet, because that IS following Whole Prey feeding. Like you said, the same nutrition is consumed. Chicken by-product meal is an excellent ingredient for dog food and manufacturers (intelligent ones) can get three times as much for X amount of dollars as compared to muscle meat. Again, the focus is about carnivore feeding and delivering animal source proteins, regardless of what this site will profess (green dogs review) about chicken by-product meal and Abady granular. At least a moderator here will admit for a standpoint of nutrition it doesn’t make a bit of difference what part of the animal the meat comes from. 



> Again, we are not claiming to be feeding "whole prey" raw diets. We feed a PREY MODEL diet and our dogs are healthy.


 If following a model of Whole Prey, chicken by-product meal gets a big thumbs up, and yes it keeps dogs very healthy!



> Regardless of the dog food company marketing hype, its not necessary to feed a complete and balanced diet every meal. Balance over time. You don't need every single nutrient in the world every single day of your life. If you did there would be no human or animal life on earth. BTW: Do you know how dog food companies prove their food is balanced according to AAFCO standards?


All I know about AAFCO is they have no enforcement power and probably connected with the big food manufacturers. Their statements about CBPM and how they word it is a complete joke. Whether or not it makes a difference a ration is complete and balanced every single solitary day, I would rather see it that way, correct all the time. What AAFCO I’m sure fails to see about CBPM and Animal Fat, NO dog food can be adequate without those two when it comes to carnivore nutrition. Diets for omnivores would be a different story and I’m sure AAFCO is beautifully descriptive when it comes to those type of ingredients.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

Hey all, 
I apologize this thread got way off track here. Anyway, properly structured diets will keep the weight off!


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

LoveNewfies said:


> No offense, but Abaday is not a species appropriate diet any more than any kibble is. Is it better than some? Of course it is. Is it "species appropriate"? Not with it being processed and containing rice. You are happy with it, your dog is doing well on it, and honestly, that's what matters most.


None taken. Species appropriate is what it is about, Abady sells Raw diets and was the first in the marketplace to do so ('70s). What I feed (within the granular line) came a good 10 years after the Raw feeds. Yes, and my dog is doing very well on the granulars, six years now.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Plant matter should be avoided in carnivore feeding, regardless when it comes to lower carb content of these feeds.


I just don't understand your thinking. Are you saying rice is not a carb? Tell me why EVO claims to have fewer carbs than Albady (11% to 24%). By my count EVO has about the same amount of carb as Abady, 36% for Abady and 37% for EVO. You keep saying that rice is better than a mixture of other plant stuff. I just don't see where you get that. I see no difference in feeding rice or feeding the same volume of a multitude of other fruits/veggies.

You talk about rice being expensive but in all reality its about the cheapest food in the world. Thats people in the poorest countries eat a diet that is almost exclusively rice. It's the only food they can afford.



> Without even looking at these 2 kibbles I mentioned (EVO and Orijen), I know I will find ingredients like: yucca, garlic, flaxseed, alfalfa, tomato pumice, potatoes (several varieties), kelp (sun cured seaweed), etc., etc. It does make a difference when it comes to ingredients. Those ingredients follow an omnivore approach to feeding.


And rice is a carnivore food????



> I know why Abady uses white rice. It is the perfect ingredients in terms of “economics” because it is a non-allergen (despite what some health care practitioners would lead you to believe; they tried that with natural corn as well), gluten protein off the hull removed, lower carb and fiber when compared to brown rice (with the hull), and yes it is an expensive ingredients for manufacturers to purchase.


Marketing department hype. Rice is cheap cheap cheap.



> I am glad you mentioned that, so you can endorse an ingredient like chicken by-product meal.


No, no, no, no, a thousand times no. Don't put words in my mouth. Yes, animal by-products have a place in any carnivore's diet but should never ever under any circumstances be the main animal product in a diet. The proper carnivore diet would be mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. Idealy, by-products should make up less than 5% of the diet. Organs like liver, kidney, and heart should be 10% or so. Liver, kindey, and heart are not by-products. Muscle meat should be close to 70% and bones somewhere around 15%. There is practically no muscle in by-product meal. There is practically no nutrients in by-products. The reason they are useful is because they have a few nutrients that are not prominent in the other parts of the animal. Let me repeat, by-products, while useful, should never ever be a large part of the diet.



> Not squeamish about liver, intestine, heart, lung, and even feet, because that IS following Whole Prey feeding.


Liver and heart are not by-products and are not contained in by-product meal. They can be sold for human consumption, therefore will bring much more money than by-product meal.



> Like you said, the same nutrition is consumed. Chicken by-product meal is an excellent ingredient for dog food and manufacturers (intelligent ones) can get three times as much for X amount of dollars as compared to muscle meat.


You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say by-products have anywhere nearly the same amount of nutrition as muscles. It would be an excellent ingredient for dog food if it is less than 5% of the animal products in the food. You are right about one thing. There is nothing coming out of the slaughter house that is cheaper than by-products. It is absolutely the cheapest, lowest quality, lowest nutrition product they have.



> Again, the focus is about carnivore feeding and delivering animal source proteins, regardless of what this site will profess (green dogs review) about chicken by-product meal and Abady granular.


Feeding rice is not carnivore feeding.



> At least a moderator here will admit for a standpoint of nutrition it doesn’t make a bit of difference what part of the animal the meat comes from.


Let's look again at what that moderator said. He said muscle meat is muscle meat no matter what part of the animal it comes from. By-products contain almost no muscle meat. He said bone is bone. By-products contain mostly bone but most diets have enough bone without by-products. He said organs are organs. The main organs that should be fed are liver, kidneys, and heart. Those are not by-products. He never said by-products are anywhere nearly as good nutritionally as muscle meat, bone, and organs.

Before anyone corrects me. Yes I know... Heart is not an organ nutritionally.



> If following a model of Whole Prey, chicken by-product meal gets a big thumbs up, and yes it keeps dogs very healthy!


I don't give it a big thumbs up. By-products ideally would be a part of any prey model raw diet but a very minor part.



> All I know about AAFCO is they have no enforcement power and probably connected with the big food manufacturers.


Correct, it is an orginazation of the manufacturers.



> What AAFCO I’m sure fails to see about CBPM and Animal Fat, NO dog food can be adequate without those two when it comes to carnivore nutrition.


Fat is definately required. I'm not sure by-products are. I think a dog can be perfectly healthy if he never eats by-products.

Let me repeat, by-products are an excellent ingredient in dog food but only when in a reasonable porportion.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> I just don't understand your thinking. Are you saying rice is not a carb? Tell me why EVO claims to have fewer carbs than Albady (11% to 24%). By my count EVO has about the same amount of carb as Abady, 36% for Abady and 37% for EVO. You keep saying that rice is better than a mixture of other plant stuff. I just don't see where you get that. I see no difference in feeding rice or feeding the same volume of a multitude of other fruits/veggies.


If you had a choice, forced to make a choice, go with 1 carb source or a plethora of other inappropriate ingredients, which would you choose? Bring on the yucca and garlic, throw in some seaweed and alfalfa, or one non-allergenic carb source? One inappropriate carnivore ingredient compared a dozen, come on, your smarter than that RFD.



> You talk about rice being expensive but in all reality its about the cheapest food in the world. Thats people in the poorest countries eat a diet that is almost exclusively rice. It's the only food they can afford.


Right now the cost of white rice is up. Canadie is diversifying to save costs, and bringing on the green like peas.



> No, no, no, no, a thousand times no. Don't put words in my mouth. Yes, animal by-products have a place in any carnivore's diet but should never ever under any circumstances be the main animal product in a diet. The proper carnivore diet would be mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. Idealy, by-products should make up less than 5% of the diet. Organs like liver, kidney, and heart should be 10% or so. Liver, kindey, and heart are not by-products. Muscle meat should be close to 70% and bones somewhere around 15%. There is practically no muscle in by-product meal. There is practically no nutrients in by-products. The reason they are useful is because they have a few nutrients that are not prominent in the other parts of the animal. Let me repeat, by-products, while useful, should never ever be a large part of the diet.


Ohhhh, I see, so following whole prey model does not include the yucky heads, guts, and feet. Interesting. I wonder how true Whole Prey feeders feel about that concept? Muscle is muscle, bone is bone, but that only counts if were not talking about CBPM. Bone is bone except for a skull, and meat is meat except for tongue....OK. There are practically no nutrients in by-products??? Just as effective as meals, just as effective as muscle meat.
and almost identical profile to the meals. Chicken Meal of CBPM are almost the same profile. One is not superior or worse than the other. By-products are not just useful, they are a necessity.



> Feeding rice is not carnivore feeding.


Yucca and garlic? Cranberry and potato? How about some seaweed? If there is anything biologically inappropriate in dog food, let it be white rice, your dogs will be A LOT safer than a plethora of plant matter IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

I was in a premium pet supply store yesterday looking for Wysong products. I was told that because Wysong uses plant matter in its products, the store does not carry it.

I like Wysong anyway.

Why do dogs eat grass if they should not be getting any plant matter? My Lab (and many other dogs) likes to eat grass from time to time. No big deal.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

LabbieMama said:


> I was in a premium pet supply store yesterday looking for Wysong products. I was told that because Wysong uses plant matter in its products, the store does not carry it.


Well, I guess they don't carry any kibble then because all of it has plant matter.



> Why do dogs eat grass if they should not be getting any plant matter? My Lab (and many other dogs) likes to eat grass from time to time. No big deal.


No one knows why they eat grass. Some say its because they have an upset tummy and others say just because they like the taste. Whatever the reason, it isn't for nutrition. Grass is either immediately comes back up in a vomit with yellow bile mixed with it or it comes out the back end in a day twisted into a little rope. Either way, it comes out looking just like it did when it went in so no digestion took place. My dogs seem to eat the most grass when I am mowing it. :smile: Do they think they are helping me? I don't know.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> If you had a choice, forced to make a choice, go with 1 carb source or a plethora of other inappropriate ingredients, which would you choose?


If you are talking about the same total volume, I don't really think it would make much difference nutritionally. However seaweed is heavy in iodine which is difficult to get in a prey model diet. Are you saying yucca and garlic must be fed because most dog foods don't contain them in any appreciable amount?



> Right now the cost of white rice is up. Canadie is diversifying to save costs, and bringing on the green like peas.


I don't know. I don't keep up with the daily price of rice. I don't have a need to. However corn is way up because it's used in biofuels.



> Ohhhh, I see, so following whole prey model does not include the yucky heads, guts, and feet. Interesting. I wonder how true Whole Prey feeders feel about that concept?


Again you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say a prey model diet doesn't include by-products. It can or can not. I don't think the items you listed are essential for a healthy diet. Heads are mostly bone and brain. I don't know what nutrients are in brain that is not in other places in the diet. Most prey model raw feeders feed more than enough bone without having to feed heads for the bone content. Chicken feet are a good source of glucosimine but any joint in any mammal has glucosimine. Cow, goat, pig, and goat feet don't contain anything that is not plentiful in other parts of the body.



> Muscle is muscle, bone is bone, but that only counts if were not talking about CBPM.


Can't you make a good point without having to change what I say? My point was that there is plenty of muscle and bone in the rest of the body without feeding the by-products. There is a realtively small amount of muscle in by-products. The value of by-products is in the minute amounts of some vitamins and minerals and enzymes that are hard to find in the rest of the body. 



> Bone is bone except for a skull, and meat is meat except for tongue....OK.


You continue to do it over and over. We both know that skull is bone. It is fine bone. If its the only bone you feed, thats great. There is nothing special about it nutritionally because it encases the brain. It is about the only bone in by-product meal. 

Tongue is muscle. Very little different than any other muscle in the body. There is nothing special about the tongue muscle just because it comes out of an animal's mouth. Tongue is about the only muscle in by-product meal. Do chickens have tongues? They are very small if they do.



> There are practically no nutrients in by-products??? Just as effective as meals, just as effective as muscle meat. and almost identical profile to the meals. Chicken Meal of CBPM are almost the same profile. One is not superior or worse than the other. By-products are not just useful, they are a necessity.


The big problem with a diet exclusively made of by-product meal is that there is nowhere close to enough muscle meat. Again, muscle meat should make up about 70% or more of the diet. By-product is very heavy in organs and pretty nutritionless organs. The best, most nutritious organs are completely absent.

[/quote]Yucca and garlic? Cranberry and potato? How about some seaweed? If there is anything biologically inappropriate in dog food, let it be white rice, your dogs will be A LOT safer than a plethora of plant matter IMO.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't feed my dog any of those. I don't classify white rice as being superior or inferior to any of the other ingredients you listed. Inappropriate is inappropriate. It's like comparing cake to cookies for humans. Neither is nutritious. Neither is better or worse nutritionally than the other.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Yep, my dogs like to eat grass from time to time and it all comes out looking like it did when it went in.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


> If you had a choice, forced to make a choice, go with 1 carb source or a plethora of other inappropriate ingredients, which would you choose? Bring on the yucca and garlic, throw in some seaweed and alfalfa, or one non-allergenic carb source? One inappropriate carnivore ingredient compared a dozen, come on, your smarter than that RFD.


The main difference I see between Evo/Orijen and Abady is that Abady has rice as the second ingredient on the list which means it has a greater amount of carbs in it than say Evo/Orijen who don't have potatoes until the third or so ingredients on the list and the rest of their plant sources come after the chicken fat. 

I think it's been mentioned before that for the most part, the ingredients that come before the "chicken fat" in the food are the most prevalent and everything after that is in such small quantities it almost doesn't matter. So I think that's why most raw feeders and people who are looking for a more species appropriate diet tend towards those brands because they have carbs much lower down on the list than other dog foods do, including Abady. 

And while you're getting upset about flaxseed being in dog food, Abady does indeed have flaxseed oil in its food, which I know isn't the same as the whole flaxseed itself, but still, if you're going to claim a species appropriate carnivore diet, it's probably best to leave the plant-based oils out of it too. 



claybuster said:


> Ohhhh, I see, so following whole prey model does not include the yucky heads, guts, and feet. Interesting. I wonder how true Whole Prey feeders feel about that concept? Muscle is muscle, bone is bone, but that only counts if were not talking about CBPM. Bone is bone except for a skull, and meat is meat except for tongue....OK. There are practically no nutrients in by-products??? Just as effective as meals, just as effective as muscle meat.
> and almost identical profile to the meals. Chicken Meal of CBPM are almost the same profile. One is not superior or worse than the other. By-products are not just useful, they are a necessity.


No one here said that by-products don't have their place at all. In fact, RFD has said repeatedly that they have their place in the diet, just not as the main component. Look to nature: do you see any chickens running around that are mostly just heads, feet, and intestines? Nope. They also have other bones and muscles and organs to them. In fact, the muscle bones and organs are what most of the chicken is. I guess that's probably why chicken meat is pretty cheap, because there's more of it. I know I've never sat down to a nice dinner of chicken heads, feet, and intestines because there was a lack of meat on the chicken. 

That may have gotten confusing. My point is, animals mostly have bones, meat, and organs to them, not heads, feet, and intestines. Those are only a small part of the animal, so why limit your dog to just those parts?


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I mix Abady and Orijen, my poor dawgs must be all mixed up inside! I'm not sure they understand the advantages/disadvantages of various carb sources. hehehehehe


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

> RFD: The big problem with a diet exclusively made of by-product meal is that there is nowhere close to enough muscle meat. Again, muscle meat should make up about 70% or more of the diet. By-product is very heavy in organs and pretty nutritionless organs. The best, most nutritious organs are completely absent.


This is where I disagree, for what matters is animal source protein content, not necessarily the source, because it is of first importance (protein-ancient greek-first importance to the body). It can be a # 1 ingredient and be far superior than muscle meat as a #1. That goes for 100% not just 70%.

Unfortunately I think RFD adopts the same philosophy as the folks over at Whole Dog Journal have in regards chicken by-product meal as a #1. It is disheartening to hear the same rhetoric in those regards coming from raw feeders. This type of thinking will often steer folks in the wrong direction when it comes to kibble diets. Problem is manufacturers are faced with a dilemma when they use muscle meat as a #1. It yields 12.5% protein content in dry form when the moisture content in the meat has been baked or extruded out. There comes your choices in production, fill a gap in the protein core with gluten, or use by-product meals. Unfortunately, the WDJ philosophy about by-products meals, and how they are unsuitable as a #1 in dog food is what has been adopted as norm, where the first importance to the body in regards to what counts (animal source proteins) has been replaced with those ingredients worthy to be served on your dinner table: sweet potatoes, tomatoes, oats, cranberry, yucca extracts, apples, kelp, carrots, sun-cured alfalfa sprouts, garlic, flaxseed, blueberries, peas, oats, barley, and the list goes on. What happens is gaps in the protein core are filled with gluten source proteins (biological value of zero to carnivores) rather than use by-products. This is where the public in the opinion of many feel that folks are being misguided when you put aesthetic appeal first, rather than delivering animal source protein to your carnivore, regardless if by-product meals dominate the protein core. The mark of a successful carnivore ration delivers animal source proteins, anyway possible, avoids the gluten proteins and avoids the plant matter.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

rannmiller said:


> And while you're getting upset about flaxseed being in dog food, Abady does indeed have flaxseed oil in its food, which I know isn't the same as the whole flaxseed itself, but still, if you're going to claim a species appropriate carnivore diet, it's probably best to leave the plant-based oils out of it too.


Plant based oils can be very useful for 3's and 6's. That is not the issue. The issue is plant based fiber source (grain-free gimmick) which is not a useful but potentially damaging, and most likely causes some if not all allergies in dogs. Combine that with a biological value of zero to the dog (unlike the oils), plant-based fiber is IMO a terrible ingredient in dog food, and that would include flaxseed as a fiber source (used to firm stools).


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> This is where I disagree, for what matters is animal source protein content, not necessarily the source, because it is of first importance (protein-ancient greek-first importance to the body). It can be a # 1 ingredient and be far superior than muscle meat as a #1. That goes for 100% not just 70%.


Hehehehe, I had to read that paragraph a dozen times before I realized what you are saying. Now I understand it. You are talking in terms of kibble, and in the paragraph of mine you quoted, I was speaking of a diet of animal parts period. No other ingredients in the diet.

In prey model feeding, the real diet dogs should actually be eating, meat should be about 70% of the diet. Bones should make up around 15% or so and organs around 10% or so. It doesn't matter what prey animal you are feeding. Those percentages hold. Chickens, cows, goats, pigs, etc. I'm not talking about kibble at all.



> Unfortunately I think RFD adopts the same philosophy as the folks over at Whole Dog Journal have in regards chicken by-product meal as a #1. It is disheartening to hear the same rhetoric in those regards coming from raw feeders.


Nowhere did you see me say that chicken by-products are bad to feed. They have a place in a well balanced raw diet. But it is a small place. By-products have a little muscle in them as well as some bone. It also has a great overabundance of organs. The really nutritious organs such as liver, kidney, and heart are not in by-product meal. 

As a whole diet, by-products are woefully lacking in nutrients. Lets look at chicken by-product meal and see exactly whats in it. There is the head which has no muscle meat except for what is needed to open and close the jaw and move the eyeballs. It has a comparatively large amount of bone(skull). It has a brain which is probably the most nutritious part of chicken by-product meal. It has eyeballs which have very few nutrients. Chicken by-product meal has chicken feet which is a good source of glucosimine but is good for little else except for the chicken to stand on. Chicken by-product meal includes intestines which is a tube full of partially digested and undigested plant material which is useless to a dog nutritionally. It includes partially developed eggs which are very nutritious. Thats it. There is just not a lot of nutrition in there. When I feed my dogs whole animals, they eat all that stuff but I don't normally feed it in the normal course of feeding them.



> This type of thinking will often steer folks in the wrong direction when it comes to kibble diets. Problem is manufacturers are faced with a dilemma when they use muscle meat as a #1. It yields 12.5% protein content in dry form when the moisture content in the meat has been baked or extruded out.


Dog food manufacturers put chicken by-product meal in kibble because there is no cheaper animal product they can buy. Period. Absolutely no other reason. There is no way on the face of the earth that chicken by-product meal contains more protein than muscle meat. By-product meal is throw away garbage that would be sent to the landfill if not bought by the dog food companies.



> There comes your choices in production, fill a gap in the protein core with gluten, or use by-product meals.


You can argue kibble manufacturing processes all you want. The only interest I have in that is to show how inappropriate kibble is for dog food. I'm not going to defend the use of plant material in any form. I am stating that by-products have a place in a well balanced appropriate diet for a dog. That place is very small but there is definately a place. Esthetics have nothing to do with it. I have no problems feeding my dogs whole chickens including head, feet, and intestines. I have a big problem feeding them nothing but by-products. Chicken by-product meal or any other by-product meal is not appropriate as the #1 incredient in a dog's diet simply because of lack of and imbalance of nutrition.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> As a whole diet, by-products are woefully lacking in nutrients. ...
> 
> Dog food manufacturers put chicken by-product meal in kibble because there is no cheaper animal product they can buy. Period. Absolutely no other reason. There is no way on the face of the earth that chicken by-product meal contains more protein than muscle meat. By-product meal is throw away garbage that would be sent to the landfill if not bought by the dog food companies. ...
> 
> Chicken by-product meal or any other by-product meal is not appropriate as the #1 incredient in a dog's diet simply because of lack of and imbalance of nutrition.


Thank you for the AAFCO/ WDJ viewpoint. I understand you think in terms of your raw diet, but your viewpoint in regards to CBPM mimics that of the industry norm.

Here's another viewpoint, the one that makes most sense to me coming from
my feed maker, quoting:



> This unscientific and nonsensical approach to food making was quickly adopted by the Whole Dog Journal who made it the spearhead of its approach to nutrition. That is one of the many reasons that its recommendations are invalid. Avoiding by-products, *(one of the most important sources of animal protein available)* has become the marketing tool of the ignorant and in many cases the deceitful. *The claims by the WDJ and manufacturers of products that are marketed on the basis that by-products should be avoided and should be replaced by muscle meat is a deliberate and irresponsible distortion of the facts for a number of reasons.*
> 
> Poultry or chicken by-products meals are among the most nutritious sources of protein available to dog food makers today. *They are often the nutritional equivalent of muscle meat.* *Because they are not consumed by people their cost is relatively low and can be used abundantly in rations while keeping the cost of the food moderate and the quality high. Intelligent dog food producers (like Abady) recognize this and take full advantage of it.* In fact, it is impossible to make a dog or cat food today that contains enough quality animal protein without the liberal inclusion of by-products.


You're are right RFD, it is the slaughterhouse garbage that nobody wants. It is the cheapest of cheap, and it's role in providing dogs what they need most
is extremely important, that is the animal source proteins.

It should be seen as a bonus that it comes cheap, it should be seen as a bonus that is undesirable, it should be viewed as a bonus that there is no aesthetic appeal, that is part of its value! It is a blessing in disguise for the animals for they can get what they need out of a ration, animal source proteins.

Again, I understand your going to look at this in terms of the ration you feed
and how much organ meat you care to use. I look at this in terms of the much bigger picture and how the animals are penalized in nutrition because of the negativity surrounding by-products, that is the sad part to me. The WDJ
and that type of thinking IMO has done more harm than good because the animal suffers as a consequence because the notion by-products are undesirable components of dog food and less is best. The opposite is the true, by-products deliver what is needed and should be offered in abundance,
as much as possible (in commercial nutrition) for optimum health of the dog, JMHO.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> The opposite is the true, by-products deliver what is needed and should be offered in abundance, as much as possible (in commercial nutrition) for optimum health of the dog, JMHO.


Well, I have stumbled across some information that may cause me to rethink chicken meal and by-product meal. :smile: :smile: :smile:

However this information does not cause me to rethink my belief that no dog deserves to be fed kibble.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Well, I have stumbled across some information that may cause me to rethink chicken meal and by-product meal. :smile: :smile: :smile:
> 
> However this information does not cause me to rethink my belief that no dog deserves to be fed kibble.


Maybe the dog in question at the start of this thread is having the weight issues and can be related to not enough CBPM in the ration? For those who would snicker at this, think again. Properly structured diets will yield the good results, and part of that is ensuring the protein core of the ration IS animal source, not gluten. Instead, high fiber diets are encouraged for the weight loss rather than pump cals with meat and fat which is the right way. The dog is penalized. High fiber can reduce the available of quality proteins in the diet leading to improper breakdown of these proteins as well (leads to allergies down the road). Dogs eat less on better diets, and feeding tables reflect that, based on the calorie content. Eating less and getting more out of the ration will yield the better result. The only way to get more out of less is to lose the fiber, bring on meat proteins and fat. That will bring some weight off. CBPM would be a catalyst to help achieve that, yet if you read the AAFCO definition of the ingredient, you be better off putting your dog to sleep than to feed that stuff.

I don't advocate or recommend kibble diets either. I never tried Abady kibbles so I can't speak for them, only the granular. They are inheritably bad by design and one can do much better with leftover table food. Biggest problem with them is the lack of quality animal protein, and most all are gluten based, despite being marketed as meat based. One way to help them would be by-product meals of course, but they have the inherent yuck factor that goes along with that so most manufacturers leave that out for marketing. IMO dogs get penalized from a standpoint of nutrition as a result.


----------



## LabradorRetriever2009 (Jan 29, 2009)

Please stick with Wellness CORE or switch to Artemis Maximal Dog. I also recomend adding Bladderwrack to your dog's food. Bladderwrack is a sea vegetable used as a prime source of iodine. Natural iodine stimulates the thyroid gland and boosts metabolism. Bladderwrack has been used medicinally for thousands of years, especially in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Coconut oil could also do a world of good. I also recomend L-Tyrosine. This amino acid is often deficient in individuals with thyroid underactivity. L-Tyrosine is a crucial building block for thyroid hormone and may help boost levels in the body. (If your pet is taking prescription thyroid hormone medication, it is important to check with your veterinarian before administering this product). Another good supplement is Nettles. Nettles is an herb traditionally used as a circulatory stimulant to aid regulation of metabolism and support thyroid and adrenal function. This herb is also a good source of minerals as well as Vitamins A, B and C, and iodine. You can also try adding Magnesium to your dog's food. This important mineral helps many metabolic processes happen normally and is involved in thyroid hormone production and protein synthesis.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

LabradorRetriever2009 said:


> I also recomend adding Bladderwrack to your dog's food. Bladderwrack is a sea vegetable...


Do you really want to feed your dog this?










image credits...wiki

No thanks.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

LabradorRetriever2009 said:


> Bladderwrack is a sea vegetable used ... bla bla bla ... and is involved in thyroid hormone production and protein synthesis.


All of LR2009's previous post was cut and pasted from: Thyroid Wellness Canine Only Natural Pet Store


----------



## ChattyCathy (Nov 22, 2008)

mjanderson said:


> I am looking for a little advice....
> 
> We have a 10 year old Alaskan Husky who was on Wellness Core Weight Control but after about 8 months was still not loosing any weight we recently switched her to Welness Super 5 - Healthy Weight. Is this a good choice? She is about 70lbs and should likely be in 50-55lbs range. Is this a good choice for her?
> 
> ...


I did the same thing... my dogs gained weight on Wellness Core and on EVO. I am now cutting (drastically) the portions I give to them... Time will tell if it's working, but I have only myself to blame as I am also giving them peanut butter in their kongs when I go to work.... and now I believe that is why they are still not losing. Soooo to shorten this. If you are giving them treats or something other than their kibble you may want to give them less of that as well....:biggrin:

I don't have a puppy however it seems like lots of people are recommending Origen for the puppies. Just my opinion. And, if you're interested in raw feeding... that is being recommended as well.


----------



## ChattyCathy (Nov 22, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Do you really want to feed your dog this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


YUCK!!!!


----------



## Postal (Jan 23, 2009)

Plymouth2009 said:


> Agree 1,000%!!!



I bet you do! So where did you guys go to lunch together for this one? Or maybe you're just the same person..? Man, you are something else :smile:


----------



## mjanderson (Jan 16, 2009)

I must admit that this this in not really the information that I was looking for, interesting but not overly helpful.

What I was looking for was some good advice from knowledgeable people about which DRY dog food to feed. Specific recommendations on brands, formulas and the reasons behind the recommendation.

I must mention that our 10yr old husky is very active. She continues to pull our two kids (4&6) aprox. 3km daily in addition to a walk in the evening. She is not over feed we are feeding according to the recommendations on the bag. She is pretty good at stealing the kids snacks but I don’t believe this is happening enough to cause this much of a weight gain. We were at the vet a couple of weeks ago and he felt that she was about 10lbs overweight (currently 69lbs). His recommendation was to stick with the wellness but switch from the weight control to senior and feed for a 60lb dog. If she does not start to loose some weight he would like to run a thyroid test. So I guess our next bag will be Wellness Senior unless someone has another recommendation.

When we picked the pup up the breeder recommended that we feed him a high performance premium adult food due to concerns with feeding a large breed pup regular puppy food. He is feeding is adults Diamond Natural Extreme Athlete but did not push it on us. When I was talking to a few of the people at the dog food stores there recommendations were Fromm, EVO, and Wellness. We have stared the pup on Wellness Large Breed Puppy only because we were familiar with the brand and no one really made any other recommendation. If someone has another recommendation please share it with me.

Thanks again I really appreciate everyone’s advice.


----------



## Postal (Jan 23, 2009)

Wellness is a pretty good dry kibble for BEING kibble.. If you can get your hands on Orijen or Innova, get it. If not, Wellness is more readily available and I have heard no complaints from that food. Just remember to switch him off the puppy food when he becomes an adult. If you're going to stick with kibble for his main diet, (again, if you can't get your hands on Orijen or Innova [EVO]) aim for a grain free kibble such as Wellness Core, or even better, Blue Buffalo's WILDERNESS. It's the same quality, if not better, and it's much more affordable :smile:

But remember, you don't HAVE to rely on Kibble. There are many other options to giving your dog a healthy, nutritious diet :biggrin:


----------



## mjanderson (Jan 16, 2009)

We have a great store here that will get in just about anything we want. Out of the three Orijen, Innova and Blue Wilderness is one superior? Why? How do they compare price wise? Which formula's for each dog?

thanks again.


----------



## Postal (Jan 23, 2009)

mjanderson said:


> We have a great store here that will get in just about anything we want. Out of the three Orijen, Innova and Blue Wilderness is one superior? Why? How do they compare price wise? Which formula's for each dog?
> 
> thanks again.


Well now you're just asking too much! heh j/k.

I really couldn't answer this for ya, hopefully someone can come in and elaborate. I haven't had any personal experience with Innova or Orijen, but the popularity between the two are really about the same, and I believe the price is close as well.

Blue Buffalo Wilderness I have heard a lot of rave about, and just recently purchased. My mother has a 7yr cat and my roommate has a 8 month old kitten, neither of them (roommate or my mom) can stand the idea of feeding raw meat, which is what I feed my dog (the prey drive raw food diet), so I purchased some Wilderness for their felines. Both of them have taken an addicted liking to the food and are both doing very well. The 7 year old came off of Purina and she is a brand new cat. She doesn't lay around and sleep all day anymore, and the kitten has always just been a bundle of energy, but he's always been fed premium kibble.. Blue Wilderness for a 26 pound bag runs me about $50 after tax here at my local Petsmart. It's very high in protein, and includes a LOT of meat ingredients. I mean, here's the first 6 ingredients: _Deboned Chicken, Chicken Meal, Potato Starch, Turkey Meal, Whitefish Meal, Salmon Meal_

Hope this helps a little more.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I really like Orijen and they make a large breed puppy formula. I like it because it has a little more meat in it than the Wilderness does, but at the same time, it doesn't have as much omega 3 and 6 fatty acids as BB Wilderness does. My roommate feeds it and her dog has done great on it, but he sheds quite a bit more than I think he should, but I could just be picky :smile: It runs her about $60 for a 30 lbs bag and that one bag lasts her (she says) almost 2 months, but I'm not sure if that's just her trying to justify the money or exaggerating or what. Here's a link to the Orijen: Orijen Pet Foods: Products:

Blue Buffalo Wilderness is good, but not necessarily _made_ for puppies. Course if your breeder said stick with a performance adult food, this would be it. As Postal pointed out, it still has quite a bit of animal-sourced proteins at the top of the list and has all those cold-formed vitamins and minerals, so that _might_ be better for your dog's immune system as far as kibble goes. At least that's what they say. Right now Petsmart has Wilderness on sale for $3 off a large bag, which is 26 lbs and is usually about $48/bag but then you add tax and it probably goes up to $50. The main thing I hear from people about this brand is that they don't have to feed nearly as much of it to keep their animals full, so this could be an option for both dogs, just feed less to the husky. It also has the higher omega 3 and 6 content, so a possibility for better skin and coat condition there. Here's the link to that BLUE Buffalo Wilderness - High Protein All Natural Healthy Dog Food

Wellness Core Reduced Fat is good as far as being grain free and keeping the weight off, I used to use it for my lab mix when she was chubby but I also coupled it with good portion control and lots more exercise. Since your husky already gets both of those things, I think she could probably benefit as well. However, her coat still wasn't amazing on this food. But it's also pretty darn pricey (maybe a little more than the Wilderness) and has a lot of fruits and veggies which are inappropriate for dogs, but almost all dog foods have those, so there you have it: Natural Dog Foods - Wellness CORE

I personally think that Wellness is a good brand, but their regular formulas (the ones that aren't Core) are lacking in the meat content, so I wouldn't really recommend them. Their large breed puppy formula looks okay-ish on the meat content, and their senior formula is definitely lacking in that area. 

I don't have any personal information or testimonials on how well Evo works, but I know some members on here use it and say it works great, but it's all about portion control (sometimes it seems like those recommendations on the bag are too high, so I always tell people to take them with a grain of salt and just monitor your dog's body condition and adjust the amounts accordingly). On petfooddirect.com I'm seeing 28.6 lbs bags of the food going from between $54 - $65. I like the look of their regular Evo formulas better than their red meat ones, but you could always mix it up for them and buy one bag one month and the other bag the next http://www.PetFoodDirect.com:80/store/PetProducts.asp?mscssid=DBCVU8BW7E189P27XT99ENB0D6490B66

You can also get them on a food rotation so they get a nice variety and the different things each brand has to offer every couple of months or so.


----------

