# Confused! Please help! *FOOD*



## Jester

First post, so please be easy on me...

I've been reading and learning about food for months now and I just ran into this forum looking for information about the Whole Dog Journal (which people here seem not to like ). Anyway, my questions below.

Raw seems very popular and it seems most agree it is the "best," however I find too much conflicting information on the subject.

Here are the various suggestions in feeding:
- raw only (varied? organ meet?)
- raw + veggies
- raw + supplements
- quality kibble is good enough
- canned is better than dry
and so on, with a ton of nuances in between too.

Overall, the conclusions most people arrived at were nothing more than parroting of what they heard from someone else. Even when you get to the source it may be questionable. So instead of looking for opinion I figured I want definitive scientifically tested/based information.

The best I could find is this Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the National Research Council. I couldn't afford the book and can't find one at a local library (except for a few Universities far away) so I dug further and found the following "Cliffs Notes" version of the research paper available for free: Your Dog's Nutritional Needs.

So, I finally found the holy grail, however given the information I'm still confused about the following:
1. Is there a commercial pet food which will provide everything as outlined in the paper?
2. How would I go about providing all the nutrients which are needed if I go the DIY route?
3. If I find a high quality kibble which provides my dog with the proper amount of protein, minerals, vitamins, etc. will it be good enough or must I get canned/raw?
4. If kibble is ok, is there a need to wet it, so that it gets hydrated? I've read that hydration within the stomach can cause problems such as bloat -- unconfirmed.
5. Any tips for balancing quality and price?
6. Does the diet HAVE to be varied? For example, anything wrong with always using chicken or beef? Do you need to have other animals, organs, etc?

Any other information would be greatly appreciated. I realize that I'm asking for opinions, but I would prefer opinions based on extensive research instead of just parroting back something you've heard. Right now it's between Wellness Core, Innova EVO and frozen chicken bits in a varied diet. The intake requirement for my dog is about 1lb/day and I'd like to keep the cost at no more than $2/day or so.

Thoughts? Opinions? Am I even in the right forum for this?! :redface:

Thanks!


----------



## RawFedDogs

Jester said:


> Raw seems very popular and it seems most agree it is the "best," however I find too much conflicting information on the subject.
> 
> Here are the various suggestions in feeding:
> - raw only (varied? organ meet?)
> - raw + veggies
> - raw + supplements
> - quality kibble is good enough
> - canned is better than dry
> and so on, with a ton of nuances in between too.


So you want the actual facts? Dogs are carnivores. Thats a fact. If you wish, I can go into detail explaining why they are carnivores. The correct diet for a carnivore is raw meat, bones, and organs. Nothing else is needed. Some people aren't comfortable not feeding veggies to their dog because they have heard all their life that you must eat veggies. For humans (omnivores), that is a correct statement but dogs (carnivores) have no need for veggies. They are not physiologically equipped to digest nor extract nutrients from veggies at all. No supplements are needed as all their nutritional needs are met through meat, bones, and organs. This statement has been proven through millions of years of evolution.



> The best I could find is this Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the National Research Council. I couldn't afford the book and can't find one at a local library (except for a few Universities far away) so I dug further and found the following "Cliffs Notes" version of the research paper available for free: Your Dog's Nutritional Needs.


I have never read the book you mention, however, I have seen the website you link to many times. This is a pamphlet written by one person *BASED ON *the book. It assumes that dogs are omnivores which they can't be. Since they can't digest nor extract nutrients from plant matter they *CAN'T* be omnivores.

This pamphlet lists the daily recommended allowances for all nutrients *EXCEPT* carbs. Wonder why that is? Because there are no nutritoinal need for carbs.



> So, I finally found the holy grail, however given the information I'm still confused about the following:


Not quite the holy grail, now is it? Holy grails don't have a lot of errors in them nor do holy grails make such erroneous assumptions.



> 1. Is there a commercial pet food which will provide everything as outlined in the paper?


There is a nutrient profile listed on every bag of dog food. You should be able to find your answer there.



> 2. How would I go about providing all the nutrients which are needed if I go the DIY route?


Feed raw meat, bones and organs from a variety of animals. Mostly meat, some bone and some organs. Period. All that is needed is contained in them. If that were not true, there would not be any dogs in the world today? Do you think dogs have been fed kibble or canned dog food forever?



> 3. If I find a high quality kibble which provides my dog with the proper amount of protein, minerals, vitamins, etc. will it be good enough or must I get canned/raw?


It will be good enough for them to survive but not good enough for them to live the healthiest life possible. Undoubtly raw is the healthiest diet to feed.



> 4. If kibble is ok, is there a need to wet it, so that it gets hydrated? I've read that hydration within the stomach can cause problems such as bloat -- unconfirmed.


I think its 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Doesn't make any difference.



> 5. Any tips for balancing quality and price?


Now you go to all the trouble trying to find the best food for your dog and now at this late date you mess up the whole equation by inserting price?



> 6. Does the diet HAVE to be varied? For example, anything wrong with always using chicken or beef? Do you need to have other animals, organs, etc?


Would you have optimum health if you ate exactly the same thing every meal?



> Any other information would be greatly appreciated. I realize that I'm asking for opinions, but I would prefer opinions based on extensive research instead of just parroting back something you've heard.


All my facts are based on nature and evolution. Dogs eating what they have eaten for millions of years is proof enough for me. There is no research I know of that lasts longer than about 6 months. I prefer millions of years.



> Right now it's between Wellness Core, Innova EVO and frozen chicken bits in a varied diet. The intake requirement for my dog is about 1lb/day and I'd like to keep the cost at no more than $2/day or so.


Isn't that kinda like saying, "I want the best sports car made but I don't want to pay more than $10,000 for it." hehe You should be able to feed most kibbles for less than $2/lb. I raw feed my dogs for about $.77/lb.



> Thoughts? Opinions? Am I even in the right forum for this?!


If you are serious about learning, you came to the right place. If you just want to start a discussion, you also came to the right place. :smile:


----------



## DaneMama

Jester said:


> First post, so please be easy on me...


Welcome! Its always hard to start off on a forum with such a "dense" first post, but I will do my best! :wink:



> I've been reading and learning about food for months now and I just ran into this forum looking for information about the Whole Dog Journal (which people here seem not to like ). Anyway, my questions below.


I'm not a fan of the WDJ just because it supports things that go against my beliefs. It is a great resource for a lot of things regardless and they have a lot of information on there. Its just not my favorite place.



> Raw seems very popular and it seems most agree it is the "best," however I find too much conflicting information on the subject.


There are a lot of passionate people on here that do believe that raw is best, usually because they are astounded by the benefits they see first hand.

There is a ton of conflicting information on raw, that is the biggest hurdle IMO and the reason that there are so many people against it. What is best out of all the options? That is based on ones beliefs completely.



> Here are the various suggestions in feeding:
> - raw only (varied? organ meet?)
> - raw + veggies
> - raw + supplements
> - quality kibble is good enough
> - canned is better than dry
> and so on, with a ton of nuances in between too.


What to choose?

I think it depends on what you believe. Do you believe that your dog is a carnivore or an omnivore based on morphological and behavioral characteristics? This takes actually looking at your dog from the inside and out, because you should base your dog's diet on what digestive system they have. Remember that the wolf is the closest extant species to the domestic dog...

If you believe that your dog is a carnivore, then you should feed them as such with a diet based on meat, bones and organs. If you believe your dog is an omnivore, you should feed them as such, with a mixed diet of meat based proteins and plant matter.

I think that basing your answer completely on clinical research is negligent to the whole picture. You have to realize that clinical trials and scientific research is funded and therefore has a "motive" to get desired results. Not to mention, do you know that these trials/studies are based off of good research in the first place?



> Overall, the conclusions most people arrived at were nothing more than parroting of what they heard from someone else. Even when you get to the source it may be questionable. So instead of looking for opinion I figured I want definitive scientifically tested/based information.


This is an old subject here. Its been debated over and over with the same conclusion. And I think we have all come to agree to disagree on it. 

One thing that you must ask yourself is: what do you consider scientifically tested/based information to be?



> The best I could find is this Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the National Research Council. I couldn't afford the book and can't find one at a local library (except for a few Universities far away) so I dug further and found the following "Cliffs Notes" version of the research paper available for free: Your Dog's Nutritional Needs.


Personally, I think this "holy grail" is full of false information. The article lost all credibility to me when it stated that dogs have a *requirement* for carbohydrates, which is 100% false. They have absolutely no need for them. They are added into processed dog foods to add bulk and cut down on costs. Nothing more. They are basing their nutrition requirements on omnivore standards which sound great if we were talking about humans, but we are talking about dogs...which I 100% believe are carnivores. 

It lost even further credibility when it says that dogs are descended from omnivores, 100% false. The closest extant species related to the domestic dog is the wolf. That is based on DNA comparative studies. The wolf is an opportunistic carnivore, which means that they will eat only meat, bones and organs unless there is not enough available. They will resort to eating vegetation if needed.



> So, I finally found the holy grail, however given the information I'm still confused about the following:
> 1. Is there a commercial pet food which will provide everything as outlined in the paper?
> 2. How would I go about providing all the nutrients which are needed if I go the DIY route?
> 3. If I find a high quality kibble which provides my dog with the proper amount of protein, minerals, vitamins, etc. will it be good enough or must I get canned/raw?
> 4. If kibble is ok, is there a need to wet it, so that it gets hydrated? I've read that hydration within the stomach can cause problems such as bloat -- unconfirmed.
> 5. Any tips for balancing quality and price?
> 6. Does the diet HAVE to be varied? For example, anything wrong with always using chicken or beef? Do you need to have other animals, organs, etc?


Its confusing to you because its full of false information :wink:

1. According to the "holy grail" paper, of course there are quality kibbles that will provide all the nutrition. All kibbles contain meat, carbs, fats, vitamins and minerals at varying amounts depending on quality. 

2. If you feed a diet of mostly meat, some raw bones and some organs from a variety of different protein sources, your dog's diet will be complete and balanced. The only supplementation that may be needed is omega fatty acids if grass fed meats are not given on a regular basis.

3. "Good enough" is a hard thing to rate. High quality kibble is _good enough_ to allow your dog to survive of course or those companies will go out of business. It would depend on your opinion on if you think your dog is _thriving_ or not. Big difference between surviving and thriving. I personally think that a diet based on just dry kibble is not "good enough."

4. There is no one reason that causes bloat. It is a multifactorial issue that no one knows enough about. There are numerous things that are known to cause it, but bloat is a whole different subject altogether and I could write a lot about it. IMO wetting food down could help, but wont prevent bloat from happening.

5. Quality and price tend to go hand in hand, no matter what you are talking about. Usually the higher the cost the better the quality, but that is not a rule. There are some kibbles out there that are really expensive but lacking in true quality ingredients.

6. Variety in any diet is key. The more variety the better, but that doesn't mean that you can't do a diet of just chicken or beef. Just as long as you have all of your bases covered one animal protein source is acceptable. Organs are a necessity in a dogs diet, whether it be raw or kibble. Animal by-products are organs, among other random things, and are good to see in a kibble but only if they are from a named meat source.



> Any other information would be greatly appreciated. I realize that I'm asking for opinions, but I would prefer opinions based on extensive research instead of just parroting back something you've heard. Right now it's between Wellness Core, Innova EVO and frozen chicken bits in a varied diet. The intake requirement for my dog is about 1lb/day and I'd like to keep the cost at no more than $2/day or so.


You have gotten quite a few of my opinions which I can tell you is from countless hours of research on dog nutrition and genetics. But then again, what I find to be good research might be completely different from what you believe to be good research.

Either way, it sounds like you care about your dog and only want the best and in the end that is all that matters! :biggrin:


----------



## JayJayisme

It's admirable that you want to base your decisions on a definitive, scientific study. Many of us would like the same thing, myself included. Sadly, nothing exists and the reason why is explained to some degree in my first post on page 9 of this thread (I recommend you read this thread in its entirety but pay particular attention to page 9).

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study.html

The reason why the book you found, which you refer to as "The Holy Grail", has been dismissed by many of us, myself included, is not only because it starts with the fundamentally flawed premise that dogs are omnivores, but also because at least part of the study was funded by the Pet Food Institute (seriously...look at page II in the front matter). 

As I say in my post referenced above...follow the money.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5

imo the best kibbles out now are canidae grain free, wellness core,orijen,innova evo turkey and chicken

based on what ive read about raw ifeel it is the best way to feed a dog, if it is right for YOU, but i have never fed raw before.

i am one of the people who feels a quality kibble is good enouigh. i have seen youtube videos of fat dogs on raw, my dog is still eating a food that has grains in it but at almost 7 years old is shiny and vibrant. we are transitioning to grain free though, and maybe raw buit prolly not.


----------



## CorgiPaws

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> based on what ive read about raw ifeel it is the best way to feed a dog, if it is right for YOU,


What one owner to the next finds convenient does not change the fact that dogs are carnivores, or that kibble is a processed omnivore diet. I go for what's right for my dog. 



RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> i am one of the people who feels a quality kibble is good enouigh.


recognizing something is better, but okay with not doing it? Hmm, odd. 




RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> i have seen youtube videos of fat dogs on raw,


totally irrelevent. 
there are fat dogs on every diet due to owners overfeeding. 





But to the OP, the reason you have such a hard time finding hard facts and science is because it simply doesn't exist. 
Really all there is out there is "dogs are carnivores" which is really all you need to know to feed a proper diet. 
There are some misguided folks out there who wrongly believe that dogs are omnivores due to the clever marketing of the commercial pet food industry trying to justify the ingredients they use in their foods.


----------



## Ania's Mommy

CorgiPaws said:


> There are some misguided folks out there who wrongly believe that dogs are *carnivores* due to the clever marketing of the commercial pet food industry trying to justify the ingredients they use in their foods.


I think you meant "Omnivores". :wink:

Richelle


----------



## CorgiPaws

Ania's Mommy said:


> I think you meant "Omnivores". :wink:
> 
> Richelle


oh darnit! good catch, i'll fix that! haha


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5

CorgiPaws said:


> What one owner to the next finds convenient does not change the fact that dogs are carnivores, or that kibble is a processed omnivore diet. I go for what's right for my dog.
> 
> 
> recognizing something is better, but okay with not doing it? Hmm, odd.
> 
> 
> 
> totally irrelevent.
> there are fat dogs on every diet due to owners overfeeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the OP, the reason you have such a hard time finding hard facts and science is because it simply doesn't exist.
> Really all there is out there is "dogs are carnivores" which is really all you need to know to feed a proper diet.
> There are some misguided folks out there who wrongly believe that dogs are omnivores due to the clever marketing of the commercial pet food industry trying to justify the ingredients they use in their foods.


for someone who doesnt push raw you are really annoying, you people make coming to this forum annoying. not everyone wants to feed raw, and if they dont want to they dont have to. to be honest, my dogs coat looks a lot better than any of the dogs you have pictures of and hes on grained canidae im sick of you telling me to feed raw or im a bad parent. get the hell off your highhorse. i believe logically raw sounds like the best, but idont believe its a huge miracle worker, and if my dog is very healthy on the food hes eating, i do not feel feeding raw is necessary. especially since your dogs are on raw, and look ok, but no better than most... and ive seen a lot of dogs that look even worse than yours on raw.

im glad you go for what is right for your dogs. im sure raw is right for your dogs. id hate to see how they would look on canidae with grains, tthey apparently dont have good genes since they look less than mediocre on your piture perfect diet.

this is the kibble forum, if you dont like people reccomending kibble stay in the raw forums.
if i get banned for this oh well...


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5

Jester said:


> First post, so please be easy on me...
> 
> I've been reading and learning about food for months now and I just ran into this forum looking for information about the Whole Dog Journal (which people here seem not to like ). Anyway, my questions below.
> 
> Raw seems very popular and it seems most agree it is the "best," however I find too much conflicting information on the subject.
> 
> Here are the various suggestions in feeding:
> - raw only (varied? organ meet?)
> - raw + veggies
> - raw + supplements
> - quality kibble is good enough
> - canned is better than dry
> and so on, with a ton of nuances in between too.
> 
> Overall, the conclusions most people arrived at were nothing more than parroting of what they heard from someone else. Even when you get to the source it may be questionable. So instead of looking for opinion I figured I want definitive scientifically tested/based information.
> 
> The best I could find is this Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the National Research Council. I couldn't afford the book and can't find one at a local library (except for a few Universities far away) so I dug further and found the following "Cliffs Notes" version of the research paper available for free: Your Dog's Nutritional Needs.
> 
> So, I finally found the holy grail, however given the information I'm still confused about the following:
> 1. Is there a commercial pet food which will provide everything as outlined in the paper?
> 2. How would I go about providing all the nutrients which are needed if I go the DIY route?
> 3. If I find a high quality kibble which provides my dog with the proper amount of protein, minerals, vitamins, etc. will it be good enough or must I get canned/raw?
> 4. If kibble is ok, is there a need to wet it, so that it gets hydrated? I've read that hydration within the stomach can cause problems such as bloat -- unconfirmed.
> 5. Any tips for balancing quality and price?
> 6. Does the diet HAVE to be varied? For example, anything wrong with always using chicken or beef? Do you need to have other animals, organs, etc?
> 
> Any other information would be greatly appreciated. I realize that I'm asking for opinions, but I would prefer opinions based on extensive research instead of just parroting back something you've heard. Right now it's between Wellness Core, Innova EVO and frozen chicken bits in a varied diet. The intake requirement for my dog is about 1lb/day and I'd like to keep the cost at no more than $2/day or so.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions? Am I even in the right forum for this?! :redface:
> 
> Thanks!


op most of the best ion show dogs in all of the popular dog shows are on eukanuba, which is a low quality kibble, and they look great. not all of our dogs have champion genetics, so to make up for it, just feed a much higher quality kibble and theyll look great as well. dont let anyone pressure you into feeding raw. on the other hand dont elt anyone pressure you into kibble either. do what you want.


----------



## CorgiPaws

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> for someone who doesnt push raw you are really annoying, you people make coming to this forum annoying. not everyone wants to feed raw, and if they dont want to they dont have to. to be honest, my dogs coat looks a lot better than any of the dogs you have pictures of and hes on grained canidae im sick of you telling me to feed raw or im a bad parent. get the hell off your highhorse. i believe logically raw sounds like the best, but idont believe its a huge miracle worker, and if my dog is very healthy on the food hes eating, i do not feel feeding raw is necessary. especially since your dogs are on raw, and look ok, but no better than most... and ive seen a lot of dogs that look even worse than yours on raw.
> 
> im glad you go for what is right for your dogs. im sure raw is right for your dogs. id hate to see how they would look on canidae with grains, tthey apparently dont have good genes since they look less than mediocre on your piture perfect diet.
> 
> this is the kibble forum, if you dont like people reccomending kibble stay in the raw forums.
> if i get banned for this oh well...


...I was jsut curious as to why you would recognize raw as the best thing, and then decide not to feed it, and go for something that is just "good enough"



thanks for the personal attacks on my dogs. 


geeze.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5

CorgiPaws said:


> ...I was jsut curious as to why you would recognize raw as the best thing, and then decide not to feed it, and go for something that is just "good enough"
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the personal attacks on my dogs.
> 
> 
> geeze.


i said its the best if it fits you, AND IVE TOLD YOU AIM A NUMBER OF TIMES ITS NOT BEST FOR ME AND TO STOP PRESSING THE ISSUE. which you refused. i just pointed out that your dogs are good looking dogs, but look no different than any dogs on science diet. champs coat is lackluster.

now danemammas dogs are a good example of raw feeding. those are some nice looking dans./


----------



## CorgiPaws

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> champs coat is lackluster.


that's ironic. 
champ is my canidae dog. 
not on raw. 
good job, though.

ETA:


RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> tthey apparently dont have good genes since they look less than mediocre on your piture perfect diet


that's what you said. Not "good looking, but not perfect"


----------



## RawFedDogs

I'm closing the thread for an hour or two to let eveyone calm down. I'll open it back up later. Y'all all count to 10 and take some deep breaths. :smile:

OK!!! I've reopened the thread. Y'all behave now, ya hea? :smile:


----------



## 1605

Jester said:


> First post, so please be easy on me...
> 
> I've been reading and learning about food for months now and I just ran into this forum looking for information about the Whole Dog Journal (which people here seem not to like ). Anyway, my questions below.
> 
> Raw seems very popular and it seems most agree it is the "best," however I find too much conflicting information on the subject.
> 
> Here are the various suggestions in feeding:
> - raw only (varied? organ meet?)
> - raw + veggies
> - raw + supplements
> - quality kibble is good enough
> - canned is better than dry
> and so on, with a ton of nuances in between too.
> 
> Overall, the conclusions most people arrived at were nothing more than parroting of what they heard from someone else. Even when you get to the source it may be questionable. So instead of looking for opinion I figured I want definitive scientifically tested/based information.
> 
> The best I could find is this Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the National Research Council. I couldn't afford the book and can't find one at a local library (except for a few Universities far away) so I dug further and found the following "Cliffs Notes" version of the research paper available for free: Your Dog's Nutritional Needs.
> 
> So, I finally found the holy grail, however given the information I'm still confused about the following:
> 1. Is there a commercial pet food which will provide everything as outlined in the paper?
> 2. How would I go about providing all the nutrients which are needed if I go the DIY route?
> 3. If I find a high quality kibble which provides my dog with the proper amount of protein, minerals, vitamins, etc. will it be good enough or must I get canned/raw?
> 4. If kibble is ok, is there a need to wet it, so that it gets hydrated? I've read that hydration within the stomach can cause problems such as bloat -- unconfirmed.
> 5. Any tips for balancing quality and price?
> 6. Does the diet HAVE to be varied? For example, anything wrong with always using chicken or beef? Do you need to have other animals, organs, etc?
> 
> Any other information would be greatly appreciated. I realize that I'm asking for opinions, but I would prefer opinions based on extensive research instead of just parroting back something you've heard. Right now it's between Wellness Core, Innova EVO and frozen chicken bits in a varied diet. The intake requirement for my dog is about 1lb/day and I'd like to keep the cost at no more than $2/day or so.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions? Am I even in the right forum for this?! :redface:
> 
> Thanks!


While it's true there is a very vocal RAW contingent here, in the end you need to look at what is best for you and your dog. IMHO you are on the right track by doing some serious research; hell it took me well over a month to decide what to switch Zio to. 

I agree that dogs are carnivores and that keeping carbs either out of a dog's diet or to a minimum would be a good idea. That being said, some people (myself included) are either not comfortable feeding raw or have a lifestyle that doesn't adapt well to this type of feeding program. So we find the best commercial product we can knowing that quality food is more likely to cost less in the long run because you are actually feeding LESS of it than the cheap stuff.

Case in point: Zio was getting 4 cups of Brand X which one of his trainer's suggested. However, as a very active hunting breed, he had problems keeping weight on. Plus there was a fair bit of waste. I did a lot of homework and eventually came upon EVO Large Bites Turkey & Chicken (grainless). Almost immediately he began putting on good weight (not the excess, flabby kind, but the "now he doesn't look like a starving stray from some village in Africa" type). If he was in the show ring they'd think him still too skinny, but he is in prime "field condition" for a GSP. 

We will supplement his food with more protein (cooked chicken, hamburger) when he has been field trialing or hunting. Generally he runs about 30 mins daily; more obviously when he's "working". However, usually he gets his 2 1/2 cups of EVO/day with the odd carrot just because he likes them. (No nutritional value for a dog, but a big one will keep him out of mischief for a little while.) Or pan juices from some meat we've cooked for ourselves on his food. He's currently at about 58# and will be 3 at the end of May.

Sorry for the somewhat rambling reply, but I hope I've been able to give you a little insight into what we do to keep Zio going strong.

Bonne chance,


----------



## spookychick13

Honestly, I think Gris is one of the nicest looking Corgi's I've seen...hair/coat/eyes and he's NOT overweight, which they usually always are.

I am excited to see how Chesney is going to look too.


----------



## kevin bradley

you know what is hard?...PROVING that any type of food or feeding method IS superior. You can't find a lot of conclusive studies even saying that Orijen is better than Pedigree. 

But I can't find a lot of CONCLUSIVE studies saying much of anything. There is always debate. 

All that said, it doesn't take a scientist to look at the Orijen/Evo ingredient list vs. most others and be completely blown away. Salmon, Fresh Chicken, Walleye, no Ethoxyquin Vs. Meat By products, Corn, Fillers, Ethoxyquin....you're right people...I have no STUDY to PROVE what's better. But what I do have is COMMON SENSE.


----------



## spookychick13

I've said it before and I'll say it again...you have to do what works for you and YOUR DOG individually.
It's trial and error...eventually you find what works and go with it.

I don't need a scientific study to tell me what works for me and my dogs.
In fact, I don't need a scientific study to tell me what isn't working for the ton of miserable, itchy, overweight, stinky and rotten toothed dogs I see every single day at work either.

I agree, it's common sense.


----------



## Jodysmom

To the OP...I started feeding raw out of necessity. I rescued an underweight German Shepherd. I started out feeding a high protein dog food but her stool was loose and she wasn't gaining weight. I knew dogs craved/needed high protein but all of the high protein foods seemed to rich for her..she couldn't absorb the nutrients. My vet suggested a cheaper quality kibble and told me "the proof is in the stool" but when I read the ingredients the protein was very low. If I wanted my GSD to gain weight and absorb the nutrients in food I would have to switch to an easily digestible diet..raw food. I don't have scientific research to back it up, just personal experience. 

Corgi Paws..your dogs looks awesome! I would disregard the negative comments.


----------



## Jester

First of all, thanks for all the replies, everyone!

RawFedDogs, don't think that I'm being recalcitrant with my response, but I want to make sure I'm getting all the right information and understanding it all correctly. I'm the type to question everything, so please bear with me.



RawFedDogs said:


> Dogs are carnivores. Thats a fact.
> .
> .
> No supplements are needed as all their nutritional needs are met through meat, bones, and organs. This statement has been proven through millions of years of evolution.


I understand, however I've read that when a wolf would eat prey it gets some nutrients from the stomach of the prey. Is this incorrect?



RawFedDogs said:


> I have never read the book you mention, however, I have seen the website you link to many times. This is a pamphlet written by one person *BASED ON *the book. It assumes that dogs are omnivores which they can't be. Since they can't digest nor extract nutrients from plant matter they *CAN'T* be omnivores.
> 
> This pamphlet lists the daily recommended allowances for all nutrients *EXCEPT* carbs. Wonder why that is? Because there are no nutritoinal need for carbs.
> 
> Not quite the holy grail, now is it? Holy grails don't have a lot of errors in them nor do holy grails make such erroneous assumptions.


I can only go based on the pamphlet, since I don't have access to the book, but I don't understand how you can claim 'erroneous assumptions' when this is studied scientifically and the reports are generated based on observable evidence. Additionally, if they don't mention carbs, then aren't they on the same side of the proverbial fence as you or am I missing something? How would you suggest getting the nutrients since -- if I understand you correctly -- you stated that everything a dog needs can be derived directly from meat?



RawFedDogs said:


> There is a nutrient profile listed on every bag of dog food. You should be able to find your answer there.


Good point; I've only been looking at ingredients.



RawFedDogs said:


> Feed raw meat, bones and organs from a variety of animals. Mostly meat, some bone and some organs. Period. All that is needed is contained in them. If that were not true, there would not be any dogs in the world today? Do you think dogs have been fed kibble or canned dog food forever?


I know their ancestors, the wolves, haven't, but is it possible that they've evolved a little past that and may require something the wolves don't? Just putting it out there .



RawFedDogs said:


> Now you go to all the trouble trying to find the best food for your dog and now at this late date you mess up the whole equation by inserting price?
> 
> Would you have optimum health if you ate exactly the same thing every meal?


Yes, I have to insert price. It's unfortunate, but most of us are constrained by reality.

Again, not to sound snide, but I actually have a friend who's retired and eats pretty much the same thing each and every day. He has a very regimented diet and exercise and he's one of the healthiest/best looking people I know for his age. People constantly think he's 20-25 years younger than he is. As long as the diet contains everything you need optimum health isn't impacted -- just your taste/desire for it. At least that's my anecdotal evidence.



RawFedDogs said:


> If you are serious about learning, you came to the right place. If you just want to start a discussion, you also came to the right place. :smile:


I came to learn and I appreciate your reply.

Thank you


----------



## whiteleo

If dogs have evolved over time then their jaws would have also changed over time and they haven't. They only have the ability to open and close, up and down, they cannot move side to side which would be necessary to eat plant material but wait; they also don't have flat molars like cows, horses and the like, that are omnivores that eat grass and plant materials. Dogs teeth are made for ripping and tearing meat like the wolves!


----------



## Jester

danemama08 said:


> ...it supports things that go against my beliefs.
> 
> There are a lot of passionate people on here that do believe that raw is best
> 
> What is best out of all the options? That is based on ones beliefs completely.


Natalie, sorry to chop up your post, but you are headed in the right direction. This is where a lot of my confusion stems. It just seems like everything is someone's beliefs/opinion. I'm not a dogmatic person, I require evidence to believe something.



danemama08 said:


> I think it depends on what you believe. Do you believe that your dog is a carnivore or an omnivore based on morphological and behavioral characteristics? This takes actually looking at your dog from the inside and out, because you should base your dog's diet on what digestive system they have. Remember that the wolf is the closest extant species to the domestic dog...


Given that a dog is essentially an evolved wolf I have no choice, but to believe that my dog is a carnivore (assuming a wolf is truly a carnivore). I'm not a zoologist however, so this isn't my field of study/expertise, so my opinion isn't what matters. I rely on experts for this knowledge. Unfortunately most of the experts seem to be employed by food companies and most experts seem to be experts in marketing.



danemama08 said:


> If you believe that your dog is a carnivore, then you should feed them as such with a diet based on meat, bones and organs. If you believe your dog is an omnivore, you should feed them as such, with a mixed diet of meat based proteins and plant matter.
> 
> I think that basing your answer completely on clinical research is negligent to the whole picture. You have to realize that clinical trials and scientific research is funded and therefore has a "motive" to get desired results. Not to mention, do you know that these trials/studies are based off of good research in the first place?


Understood. I don't know whether the NRC is biased? Isn't it funded by our tax dollars? I would expert unbiased information. I'm completely ignorant to this stuff though, so I'm really glad you guys are helping!



danemama08 said:


> One thing that you must ask yourself is: what do you consider scientifically tested/based information to be?


Scientifically tested means that it's supported by objective evidence (ie facts).



danemama08 said:


> Personally, I think this "holy grail" is full of false information. The article lost all credibility to me when it stated that dogs have a *requirement* for carbohydrates, which is 100% false. They have absolutely no need for them. They are added into processed dog foods to add bulk and cut down on costs. Nothing more. They are basing their nutrition requirements on omnivore standards which sound great if we were talking about humans, but we are talking about dogs...which I 100% believe are carnivores.
> 
> It lost even further credibility when it says that dogs are descended from omnivores, 100% false. The closest extant species related to the domestic dog is the wolf. That is based on DNA comparative studies. The wolf is an opportunistic carnivore, which means that they will eat only meat, bones and organs unless there is not enough available. They will resort to eating vegetation if needed.


I understand this is your opinion, but if their assertions are scientifically proven then shouldn't we believe them (granted, we're getting second hand information which may have been misinterpreted)?



danemama08 said:


> Its confusing to you because its full of false information :wink:
> 
> 1. According to the "holy grail" paper, of course there are quality kibbles that will provide all the nutrition. All kibbles contain meat, carbs, fats, vitamins and minerals at varying amounts depending on quality.
> 
> 2. If you feed a diet of mostly meat, some raw bones and some organs from a variety of different protein sources, your dog's diet will be complete and balanced. The only supplementation that may be needed is omega fatty acids if grass fed meats are not given on a regular basis.
> 
> 3. "Good enough" is a hard thing to rate. High quality kibble is _good enough_ to allow your dog to survive of course or those companies will go out of business. It would depend on your opinion on if you think your dog is _thriving_ or not. Big difference between surviving and thriving. I personally think that a diet based on just dry kibble is not "good enough."
> 
> 4. There is no one reason that causes bloat. It is a multifactorial issue that no one knows enough about. There are numerous things that are known to cause it, but bloat is a whole different subject altogether and I could write a lot about it. IMO wetting food down could help, but wont prevent bloat from happening.
> 
> 5. Quality and price tend to go hand in hand, no matter what you are talking about. Usually the higher the cost the better the quality, but that is not a rule. There are some kibbles out there that are really expensive but lacking in true quality ingredients.
> 
> 6. Variety in any diet is key. The more variety the better, but that doesn't mean that you can't do a diet of just chicken or beef. Just as long as you have all of your bases covered one animal protein source is acceptable. Organs are a necessity in a dogs diet, whether it be raw or kibble. Animal by-products are organs, among other random things, and are good to see in a kibble but only if they are from a named meat source.
> 
> You have gotten quite a few of my opinions which I can tell you is from countless hours of research on dog nutrition and genetics. But then again, what I find to be good research might be completely different from what you believe to be good research.
> 
> Either way, it sounds like you care about your dog and only want the best and in the end that is all that matters! :biggrin:


Good info, thank you!


----------



## Jester

JayJayisme said:


> It's admirable that you want to base your decisions on a definitive, scientific study. Many of us would like the same thing, myself included. Sadly, nothing exists and the reason why is explained to some degree in my first post on page 9 of this thread (I recommend you read this thread in its entirety but pay particular attention to page 9).
> 
> http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study.html
> 
> The reason why the book you found, which you refer to as "The Holy Grail", has been dismissed by many of us, myself included, is not only because it starts with the fundamentally flawed premise that dogs are omnivores, but also because at least part of the study was funded by the Pet Food Institute (seriously...look at page II in the front matter).
> 
> As I say in my post referenced above...follow the money.


Thank you, I'll read your thread before I reply anymore here.


----------



## Jester

whiteleo said:


> If dogs have evolved over time then their jaws would have also changed over time and they haven't. They only have the ability to open and close, up and down, they cannot move side to side which would be necessary to eat plant material but wait; they also don't have flat molars like cows, horses and the like, that are omnivores that eat grass and plant materials. Dogs teeth are made for ripping and tearing meat like the wolves!


I think that's flawed logic.

For example, take a look at the skull of a Maned Wolf: Maned Wolf Skull Bone Clones BC-024









Now, compare that to a domestic dog like this Airedale Terrier skull: Airedale Skull Bone Clones BC-127









The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein: The Maned Wolf in Captivity

Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A large fraction of its diet (over 50%, according to some studies) is vegetable matter, including sugarcane, tubers, and fruit (especially the Wolf Apple (Solanum lycocarpum). Captive Maned Wolves were traditionally fed meat-heavy diets and developed bladder stones."


----------



## DaneMama

Jester said:


> Natalie, sorry to chop up your post, but you are headed in the right direction. This is where a lot of my confusion stems. It just seems like everything is someone's beliefs/opinion. I'm not a dogmatic person, I require evidence to believe something.


I was confused at first too. There seemed to be so many conflicting ideas about what is "true" about scientific research and canine nutrition, to be honest...there always will be. What I have come to terms and conclusion with is that when there is a market for something (ie making money) the "science" is skewed towards the idea of "What can we do to make this cost less?" and not "What is appropriate and logical based on primary research (ie looking at morphological and physiological data)?" This is not good, true scientific research which holds true for the dog food industry. Their goal is to make diets for dogs and cats that will allow these animals to survive on it at the lowest cost to them...*key word *survive*.

What I have found to be absolute fact and not just opinion is hearing of case histories of people first hand and their experiences feeding raw for 20+ years. I can guarantee you that you will not find an ongoing feeding trial backed by the kibble industry that is so extensive. Unfortunately there is not quantitative data or statistical breakdown of these histories and experiences. So we have to just go off of hoping people will see the logic behind feeding raw rather than hard data.

I am a bio major/chem minor student working on going to vet school. I require science based information as well, heck I have to do a lot of science, but when all the "science" behind canine nutrition is backed by false and misguided ideas, that said "data" becomes irrelevant to me.



> Given that a dog is essentially an evolved wolf I have no choice, but to believe that my dog is a carnivore (assuming a wolf is truly a carnivore). I'm not a zoologist however, so this isn't my field of study/expertise, so my opinion isn't what matters. I rely on experts for this knowledge. Unfortunately most of the experts seem to be employed by food companies and most experts seem to be experts in marketing.


You don't have to be a zoologist to see that a wolf is a carnivore...ask a 5 year old if a wolf is a carnivore and they will for sure tell you that statement is fact. Wolves are not "obligate" carnivores like cats, they can survive off of plant matter...but not thrive. They will resort to eating plant matter if their survival depends on it, but if they are not in a famine situation they will hunt and kill prey animals.

Some people will play the "wolves eat the stomach and contents of their prey" card to justify feeding their dogs vegetables and fruit. It has been documented that wolves generally do not eat the contents of the stomach of large ungulates. Of course there are exceptions to this just like any other situation in life. Does it mean that wolves are omnivores? Nope. Does it mean that these things are harmful to feed to your dogs? Probably not.



> Understood. I don't know whether the NRC is biased? Isn't it funded by our tax dollars? I would expert unbiased information. I'm completely ignorant to this stuff though, so I'm really glad you guys are helping!


I would hope so too. But any study can be based on false ideas if enough money is involved.



> Scientifically tested means that it's supported by objective evidence (ie facts).


100% agreed. So shouldn't the dog food industry be based on the FACT that dogs are carnivores? Not the exact opposite like it is? If the dog food industry was basing their research off of the fact that dogs are carnivores (which is what you and I and a lot of other people believe), they wouldn't make as much money.



> I understand this is your opinion, but if their assertions are scientifically proven then shouldn't we believe them (granted, we're getting second hand information which may have been misinterpreted)?


The fact that there is NO requirement for carbohydrates in a dogs diet is supported even by AAFCO nutrient profiles. That is proven fact. A lot of raw feeder's animals would have been dead a long time ago if there was a requirement for carbs. So the fact that this article states that carbs are a requirement for dogs is 100% false.

And since we both agree that dogs descended from wolves and that they are in fact carnivores...makes the statement made by the article that dogs are omnivores 100% false because we are basing that off of morphological, behavioral, and physiological primary research.

So this is not opinion based like some of the other things that I have stated.

Here is a wiki article that covers extensively about wolves (a lot of people don't like wikipedia, but I do...a lot. Its easy to find things and it all is referenced back to the original source, just wish I could use it for papers LOL!). 

Gray Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DaneMama

Jester said:


> I think that's flawed logic.
> 
> For example, take a look at the skull of a Maned Wolf: Maned Wolf Skull Bone Clones BC-024
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, compare that to a domestic dog like this Airedale Terrier skull: Airedale Skull Bone Clones BC-127
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein: The Maned Wolf in Captivity
> 
> Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "A large fraction of its diet (over 50%, according to some studies) is vegetable matter, including sugarcane, tubers, and fruit (especially the Wolf Apple (Solanum lycocarpum). Captive Maned Wolves were traditionally fed meat-heavy diets and developed bladder stones."


It may be flawed if standing alone on that one fact that dogs are carnivores, but if added into all the other "why's" it makes total sense.

One must look at the entire animal's physiology and morphology and behavior to discern what lifestyle they lead. Those two skulls are similar in shape and function, but when looking at everything else for each specimen, like the digestive system, behavior and physiology they lead very different lifestyles and cannot be compared in the whole.


----------



## spookychick13

Dogs Likely Descended From Middle Eastern Wolf : NPR


----------



## RawFedDogs

spookychick13 said:


> Dogs Likely Descended From Middle Eastern Wolf : NPR


As I understand the article, these were still grey wolves, just grey wolves that lived in the middle east. It said wolves from different parts of the world would have slightly different markers and this is understandable. I don't think it contradicts his previous work.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Jester said:


> The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein:


The maned wolf is an anomaly just as the panda. Like the panda, it is a carnivore that lives on plant material. Just because it eats omnivore food does not make it an omnivore just as us feeding our dogs omnivore food doesn't make them omnivores.


----------



## spookychick13

RawFedDogs said:


> As I understand the article, these were still grey wolves, just grey wolves that lived in the middle east. It said wolves from different parts of the world would have slightly different markers and this is understandable. I don't think it contradicts his previous work.


I didn't think it did either, a wolf is a wolf (aside from the freaky maned ones) and I thought it was if anything proving the carnivore point.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5

RawFedDogs said:


> The maned wolf is an anomaly just as the panda. Like the panda, it is a carnivore that lives on plant material. Just because it eats omnivore food does not make it an omnivore just as us feeding our dogs omnivore food doesn't make them omnivores.


why does the manned wolf eat veggies? if the manned wolf is a carniore living on omnivore diets, how do we know dogs couldnt do the same and thrive? whats the reaso nthe manned wolf doesnt eat all meat?


----------



## spookychick13

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> why does the manned wolf eat veggies? if the manned wolf is a carniore living on omnivore diets, how do we know dogs couldnt do the same and thrive? whats the reaso nthe manned wolf doesnt eat all meat?


Do we have a spell checker for posts? It's hard to follow what you're writing half the time.


Anyway, the Maned Wolf is just an odd creature in general. Look it up.
Endangered Species Report: Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)

It adapted eating habits and it's legs are weirdly long.

They're kinda cute though.


----------



## RawFedDogs

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> why does the manned wolf eat veggies? if the manned wolf is a carniore living on omnivore diets, how do we know dogs couldnt do the same and thrive? whats the reaso nthe manned wolf doesnt eat all meat?


First let's clear one misconception. A maned wolf is not really a wolf but a distant very cousin to a wolf. "_The Maned Wolf is not closely related to any other living canid. It is apparently a survivor from the Pleistocene fauna of large South American mammals; its closest living relative is the Bush Dog (genus Speothos), with a more distant relationship to other South American canines (the Short-eared Dog, the Crab-eating Fox and the 'false foxes' or Pseudalopex)."_ Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

I would assume that the reason that the maned wolf doesn't eat all meat is the same reason that pandas eat mostly bamboo. When you find the answer to that, lets us all know as it's pretty much unknown by anybody. :smile: Its really not known how much vegetable matter that the maned wolf eats in the wild. It's all speculation.

Since the maned wolf is such a distant relative of wolves and dogs, I really don't know nor care much about them. The only reason I know anything at all is because this subject comes up from time to time in raw feeding discussions, basically in the same context as this discussion. About once a year or so, someone will bring it up.


----------



## BlueKnight

Well, the maned wolf came to the discussion because your theory is that the teeth of an animal correlate 100% with the food he eats. The maned wolf has a "carnivore dentition" but yet he is an omnivore. So why can't the dog be an omnivore too? Besides, dog selection has been made by man, not by nature, so man can select for or against any traits regardless of their "fitness".


----------



## RawFedDogs

BlueKnight said:


> Well, the maned wolf came to the discussion because your theory is that the teeth of an animal correlate 100% with the food he eats.


They correlate 100% with the food the animal SHOULD eat. Dog's teeth are designed to kill animals (caninne teeth), rip and tear meat and crunch bones (back teeth). No tooth in a dogs head is designed to crush cellulose around plant cells. A necessary component if one is to eat plant material. Dog's also don't have the enzymes necessary to break down plant material in the digestive process. You can feed an carnivore all the plant material you want to but you still can't make an omniovore out of him. You can't change his body to process plant material. All this was handled by nature millions of years ago and you can't change it in a few thousand years.



> The maned wolf has a "carnivore dentition" but yet he is an omnivore.


A maned wolf is a carnivore. He SOMETIMES eats plant material just as a panda eats almost nothing but plant material but no one calls a panda an omnivore. They are carnivores also. No one knows why the anomalies exist. No one knows how much plant material a maned wolf eats in the wild. Probably not very much. Also don't forget that just because a maned wolf has "wolf" in his name doesn't make him one. He is NOT a wolf.



> So why can't the dog be an omnivore too?


Because you can't feed a carnivore omniovre food and create an omnivore out of him. His teeth, stomach, intenstines, pancreas, and liver are not designed to eat or digest plant material. He can't derive nutrients from them.



> Besides, dog selection has been made by man, not by nature, so man can select for or against any traits regardless of their "fitness".


Nothing in man's selective breeding of dogs changed anything in their digestive system. They have the same teeth, jaws, stomach, intestines, pancreas, and liver as a wild wolf. Every item in their digestive system is designed to eat nothing but meat, bones, and organs from any animal they can catch and kill. Nothing in their digestive system is designed to eat or digest plant material of any kind.

To sum up: Man can not create an omnivore by feeding a carnivore food that an omnivore was designed to eat. Nature just doesn't work that way.

*ETA:* I haven't seen any evidence that this animal actually derives nutrients from the plant material it eats just the same as dogs and wolves. There is no reason to believe they do. They should eat enough meat, bones, and organs for nutrients and eat plants for recreation.


----------



## BlueKnight

RawFedDogs said:


> They correlate 100% with the food the animal SHOULD eat.


Really?! And if he doesn't in fact eat what he should eat (said by its teeth ...) he gets fulminated because of God's rage?



RawFedDogs said:


> No tooth in a dogs head is designed to crush cellulose around plant cells. A necessary component if one is to eat plant material. Dog's also don't have the enzymes necessary to break down plant material in the digestive process. You can feed an carnivore all the plant material you want to but you still can't make an omniovore out of him. You can't change his body to process plant material. All this was handled by nature millions of years ago and you can't change it in a few thousand years.


Yeah, yeah, I have seen you parroting (as the initial poster said ...) this over and over, but this simply isn't true. Omnivores like pigs and men also don't have the necessary enzymes to breakdown cellulose. Does this mean that pigs and men are pure carnivores?  Even cows (I think they are considered herbivores ...) don't have those enzymes, they have to rely on symbiosis with the rumen bacteria... Also, it's funny that digestibility of carbohydrates by the dog is close to 100%. I wonder how they can do that without those magic enzymes that allow to break down plant material (by the way, not all plant material is cellulose ...)



RawFedDogs said:


> Because you can't feed a carnivore omniovre food and create an omnivore out of him. His teeth, stomach, intenstines, pancreas, and liver are not designed to eat or digest plant material. *He can't derive nutrients from them.*


 This is veeeeery funny :smile: Of course, all the practical evidence says this is not true, no need to argue on this.



RawFedDogs said:


> A maned wolf is a carnivore. He SOMETIMES eats plant material just as a panda eats almost nothing but plant material but no one calls a panda an omnivore.


Also very funny. You mix up the term "carnivore" derived from taxonomic stuff and "carnivore" from the point of view of feeding and just use it according to what suits you at the moment :smile: A panda may be _taxonomically_ a carnivore but if he survives in the wild by eating plant material then he is an "herbivore" food wise.



RawFedDogs said:


> Nothing in man's selective breeding of dogs changed anything in their digestive system. They have the same teeth, jaws, stomach, intestines, pancreas, and liver as a wild wolf. Every item in their digestive system is designed to eat nothing but meat, bones, and organs from any animal they can catch and kill.


Really? I'd really love to see a Chihuahua or a Pekingese killing prey, let alone being able to tear the skin of it :wink: 
And is a Chihuahua the same as a Great Dane or a German Shephard?


----------



## DaneMama

^^^ So just curious...what do you think dogs should eat?


----------



## RawFedDogs

BlueKnight said:


> Really?! And if he doesn't in fact eat what he should eat (said by its teeth ...) he gets fulminated because of God's rage?


Thats just a smarta$$ answer and shows how much you know about the subject.



> Yeah, yeah, I have seen you parroting (as the initial poster said ...) this over and over, but this simply isn't true.


You don't see me "parroting" anything. You see me quoting facts and often I have to quote the repeatedly bacause new people are arriving every day and then there are those who can't see the forrest for the trees. The main enzyme to digest carbs is amallyse. It is contained in human salava as digestion with humans begins in the mouth. The pancreas also secretes amylase to digest food as it passes through the digestive system.



> Omnivores like pigs and men also don't have the necessary enzymes to breakdown cellulose.


Yes, this is true, however humans have the dentation and jaw structure to crush the cellulose cover that surrrounds every plant cell. Without being able to break through this structure, extracting nutrients from the plant cell is impossible. The undigested cellulose covering that is broken through while chewing becomes fiber which pushes the "stuff" throuth the intestines.



> Does this mean that pigs and men are pure carnivores?


Unfortunately I am not an expert on pigs and don't even know what they are classified as. Humans, of course, are omnivores because of dentation, jaw structure and length and style of intestinal tract.



> Even cows (I think they are considered herbivores ...) don't have those enzymes, they have to rely on symbiosis with the rumen bacteria...


Cows don't belong in this conversation because their digestive system is entirely different from dogs or humans or pigs.



> Also, it's funny that digestibility of carbohydrates by the dog is close to 100%. I wonder how they can do that without those magic enzymes that allow to break down plant material (by the way, not all plant material is cellulose ...)


Well now you are blowing up smoke and mirrors. So far this discussion has been about cellulose. Now you throw in carbs. Carbs are sugar. Something entirely different than cellulose. You are correct that all plant material is not cellulose BUT .... EVERY cell in a plant has a protective coating of cellulose covering it. You can't derive nutrients from any plant cell without somehow getting through the cellulose covering. Humans and other omnivores do this with chewing with flat teeth and horizontal as well as vertical movement of the lower jaw during chewing. Don't just aren't equipped to do that.



> This is veeeeery funny :smile: Of course, all the practical evidence says this is not true, no need to argue on this.


I had to go back and see what you were talking about. Yes, there is reason to argue. There is no evidence or even a study that can prove that a dog derives any nutrition from fresh whole raw plant matter. Highly proccessed? He might get some little bit of nutrients from highly processed plant matter but this is entirely unnatural and unnecessary and undesirable.



> Also very funny. You mix up the term "carnivore" derived from taxonomic stuff and "carnivore" from the point of view of feeding and just use it according to what suits you at the moment :smile: A panda may be _taxonomically_ a carnivore but if he survives in the wild by eating plant material then he is an "herbivore" food wise.


The funny thing is that you go against all science by trying to classify something not by the physical makeup of his body but by what he happens to put in his mouth. Isn't that just silly? The thing about pandas is that yes, they eat inappropriately. No one knows why but because they do, they must eat for about 20 hours a day just in order to survive. If he were to eat like other carnivores, he could problably eat every few days and thrive.



> Really? I'd really love to see a Chihuahua or a Pekingese killing prey, let alone being able to tear the skin of it :wink:


My cats who are about the size of these little dogs kill prey every day. One night they killed a rabbit, drug him into the bathroom. Killed him by beating him against the wall. Ate the whole thing except for stomach and intestines. They regularly kill and eat rats, mice, squirrels, vols, chipmonks, and birds.



> And is a Chihuahua the same as a Great Dane or a German Shephard?


Are you going to go so far as to tell me they are different species? Surely not!

I like you. You are fun. :biggrin:


----------



## BlueKnight

RawFedDogs said:


> Well now you are blowing up smoke and mirrors. So far this discussion has been about cellulose.


Really? I read "plant material" :frown: Pity ...



RawFedDogs said:


> I had to go back and see what you were talking about. Yes, there is reason to argue. There is no evidence or even a study that can prove that a dog derives any nutrition from fresh whole raw plant matter. Highly proccessed? He might get some little bit of nutrients from highly processed plant matter but this is entirely unnatural and unnecessary and undesirable.


Don't you give fruits to your dogs? I do (well, sometimes they steal them ...), and I don't don't recover them intact on the other side, so certainly something has stayed inside. As to processing, what's the wrong with thay? Really, I'd like to see applying THAT theory to what YOU eat. It would be funny seeing you spending 20 h a day chewing raw cereals 



RawFedDogs said:


> The funny thing is that you go against all science by trying to classify something not by the physical makeup of his body but by what he happens to put in his mouth. Isn't that just silly?


Well, I don't see the "funniness" about classifying food regimes (or other things ...). If the definition of "herbivore" is "animal that eats plants", really I don't get what's the problem with that ...



RawFedDogs said:


> The thing about pandas is that yes, they eat inappropriately. No one knows why but because they do, they must eat for about 20 hours a day just in order to survive. If he were to eat like other carnivores, he could problably eat every few days and thrive.


Well, this is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read!!! Now, besides saying to others what they should feed their dogs, you are saying that Nature is wrong and telling that YOUR reasoning is better? :biggrin: 



RawFedDogs said:


> My cats who are about the size of these little dogs kill prey every day. One night they killed a rabbit, drug him into the bathroom. Killed him by beating him against the wall. Ate the whole thing except for stomach and intestines. They regularly kill and eat rats, mice, squirrels, vols, chipmonks, and birds.


You like to confuse things, ha? I was talking about dogs, not cats. Besides, since you adore looking at the teeth, compare the teeth of your cat with the teeth of a Pekingese (I will refrain of telling you to make the experience of throwing a cat and a Pekingese out of a window to see what happens when they fall...)



RawFedDogs said:


> Are you going to go so far as to tell me they are different species? Surely not!


No, they aren't different species, but they are different breeds, with different anatomies and different needs. If comparing dogs of diffrent breeds is silly, comparing dogs and wolves is completely foolish.



RawFedDogs said:


> I like you. You are fun.


Lucky you :wink: I find you boring, as most Barfers are. You all sound like a religious mob that has seen the light (Praise the Lord!), always trying to convert others and make them escape from the eternal darkness of their current lifes. By the way, I think you are one of the owners of this Forum, right? Can you explain me what's the purpose of this sub-forum? Because, according to you, there are only 2 ingredients to discuss: meat and bones


----------



## PUNKem733

It's funny to see people talk out of their ass. To think there are people who thinks dogs would thrive on plant based material....LOL


----------



## RawFedDogs

BlueKnight said:


> Don't you give fruits to your dogs? I do (well, sometimes they steal them ...), and I don't don't recover them intact on the other side, so certainly something has stayed inside.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to processing, what's the wrong with thay? Really, I'd like to see applying THAT theory to what YOU eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Processing removes nutrients and changes chemical make up of food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be funny seeing you spending 20 h a day chewing raw cereals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think so but humans have the ability to eat plant material and to extract nutrients from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't see the "funniness" about classifying food regimes (or other things ...). If the definition of "herbivore" is "animal that eats plants", really I don't get what's the problem with that ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, scientists that classify animals certainly do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read!!! Now, besides saying to others what they should feed their dogs, you are saying that Nature is wrong and telling that YOUR reasoning is better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of pandas, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to confuse things, ha? I was talking about dogs, not cats. Besides, since you adore looking at the teeth, compare the teeth of your cat with the teeth of a Pekingese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you would explain the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't different species, but they are different breeds, with different anatomies and different needs. If comparing dogs of diffrent breeds is silly, comparing dogs and wolves is completely foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the same digestive system. The only difference being size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky you :wink: I find you boring, as most Barfers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hehe, I'm not a BARFer. They are a whole different breed. I'm a raw feeder. :smile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You all sound like a religious mob that has seen the light (Praise the Lord!), ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, after over a year of research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...always trying to convert others and make them escape from the eternal darkness of their current lifes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just trying to teach the facts. Once those are known, the next move is obvious. :smile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I think you are one of the owners of this Forum, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain me what's the purpose of this sub-forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To answer questions and discuss the feeding of dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, according to you, there are only 2 ingredients to discuss: meat and bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out organs. A very important part of a good healthy diet.:smile:
Click to expand...


----------



## BlueKnight

RawFedDogs said:


> No, I don't.


Try, they will love them for sure. 



RawFedDogs said:


> Processing removes nutrients and changes chemical make up of food.


... and makes other nutrients more digestible/absorbable. Also gives a better taste to many foods.



RawFedDogs said:


> I don't think so but humans have the ability to eat plant material and to extract nutrients from them.


Yeah, yeah, but what I said was that I'd like to see you eating only unprocessed food. Life would be soooooooo boring, wouldn't it? No bread, no bottled milk, no butter, no breakfast cereals, no sugar, no coffee, no beer, no meat roll, no scrambled eggs, no nothing :frown: 



RawFedDogs said:


> In the case of pandas, yes.


And they would be extinct for sure



RawFedDogs said:


> Perhaps you would explain the difference.


Well, you have dogs and cats at your house, you can start there. 



RawFedDogs said:


> To answer questions and discuss the feeding of dogs.


This was funny :biggrin: What is there to discuss if everything other than meat, bones and organs (excuse me, but I was including them in the meat ...) is unnatural bla bla bla?


----------



## spookychick13

For the record, I'm sure my dogs would love a big greasy burger from McDonald's, too, that doesn't mean it's good for them (or us either!)...so the fact that they may like fruit doesn't mean it is good/bad or otherwise.
Dogs are pretty indiscriminate feeders.

I can attest to this by listing the number of socks, underwear, change, rocks, toys and even an insulin stopper we have removed from dog's stomachs.


----------



## DaneMama

We have this subforum because this community has all different kinds of people who believe all different kinds of "truths" about canine nutrition and no amount of bickering will change that fact.

RFD won't be able to convince you that dogs should eat a prey model raw diet because you believe that they are omnivores (at least from how you come across in your posts). We have seen many people come here with the same arguements and this whole debate of "are dogs carnivores?" and it always (yes...always) comes down to "let's agree to disagree" because people hardly ever waiver on their beliefs on anything...ever wonder WHY raw feeders are so passionate???

And you never did answer my question of what you think dogs should eat?


----------



## CorgiPaws

BlueKnight said:


> ... and makes other nutrients more digestible/absorbable. Also gives a better taste to many foods.


Hold on a second. You can't POSSIBLY be claiming that processed foods are superior to whole fresh foods... can you? That makes no sense, on any level, applied to any species. Processing kills nutrients. The end. 

Doesn't the simple fact that dogs can not process their own food tell you that it's unnatural for them? To me that seems like simple common sense, but perhaps for someone who thinks procesed foods are the best thing ever, there's more that makes absolutely no sense to be told. 




It's true, even our foods are often times so processed nutrients are dead. But actually PLENTY of people are eating fresh foods, raised or grown themselves. By no means does it mean that processed foods are any better for us than they are our dogs.




> 1. CANCER – Some cancers are known to be caused by carcinogenic properties which are included in processing foods.
> 
> 2. OBESITY – Processed foods are most often high in fat, sugar and salt. If counting food calories, these are the perfect ingredients to cause excessive weight gain.
> 
> 3. HIGH CARB CONTENT – Most processed foods include an overabundance of carbohydrates and not nearly enough protein.
> 
> 4. HEART DISEASE – The trans fat in many processed foods will spike the cholesterol level and lower the HDL.
> 
> 5. HYPERTENSION – Blood pressure is elevated by the high salt and fat content in foods.
> 
> 6. DIABETES – The high sugar products and fast acting carbohydrates will raise the glucose to unhealthy levels.
> 
> 7. FOOD ADDITIVES AND UNKNOWN EFFECTS – For color, consistency, taste, shelf life and more, processed foods include additives while the effects are unknown.
> 
> 8. UNKNOWN FILLERS – Several foods like hot dogs and processed meats are filled with unknown parts.
> 
> 9. LACK OF NUTRIENTS – If processed foods are the main part of the diet, the body will be lacking the nutrients needed to fight disease.
> 
> 10. ARTIFICIAL VITAMINS – Synthetic vitamins, which lose their potency during processing, are added to some processed foods like bread.


SOURCE: http://www.conditionnutrition.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-processed-foods/



Now step back for a moment and realize that by feeding kibble, you feed your companion animals a diet that is ONLY processed junk. To me, that's just sad.


----------



## BlueKnight

CorgiPaws said:


> Hold on a second. You can't POSSIBLY be claiming that processed foods are superior to whole fresh foods... can you? That makes no sense, on any level, applied to any species. Processing kills nutrients. The end.


You're funny too, you know :biggrin: Again, I urge you to eat nothing more than unprocessed food. Ah, don't forget that cooking or even freezing is "processing" :wink:


----------



## CorgiPaws

BlueKnight said:


> You're funny too, you know :biggrin: Again, I urge you to eat nothing more than unprocessed food. Ah, don't forget that cooking or even freezing is "processing" :wink:


While your rude, sarcastic pokes are mildly entertaining, you fail to actually address any of the questions raised by myself, or Danemama, therefore proving you have NO basis for your silly unreasonable claims, and nothing to back yourself up with other than "lots of food is processed so it can't be that bad."


----------



## BlueKnight

danemama08 said:


> ever wonder WHY raw feeders are so passionate???


No, I don't know why raw feeders are so annoying and aren't able to discuss anything but beliefs



danemama08 said:


> And you never did answer my question of what you think dogs should eat?


Well, that kind of answer belongs more to Phylosophy than anything else. But I can tell you things I know that dogs *can *eat. But as it is plant material and/or processed things it's pointless to discuss with you :wink


----------



## harrkim120

BlueKnight said:


> Well, that kind of answer belongs more to Phylosophy than anything else. But I can tell you things I know that dogs *can *eat. But as it is plant material and/or processed things it's pointless to discuss with you :wink


Well some of us that haven't been debating with you are curious as to what you have to say and to your reasoning.....


----------



## BlueKnight

CorgiPaws said:


> While your rude, sarcastic pokes are mildly entertaining, you fail to actually address any of the questions raised by myself, or Danemama, therefore proving you have NO basis for your silly unreasonable claims, and nothing to back yourself up with other than "lots of food is processed so it can't be that bad."


No, I'm not saying that "lots of food is processed so it can't be that bad.". First, you in fact eat very little unprocessed food (only some veggies and fruits), and second there are several processing operations, and they are not all bad. It seems that you have a very narrow image of what "processing" is ....


----------



## CorgiPaws

BlueKnight said:


> No, I'm not saying that "lots of food is processed so it can't be that bad.". First, you in fact eat very little unprocessed food (only some veggies and fruits), and second there are several processing operations, and they are not all bad. It seems that you have a very narrow image of what "processing" is ....


Fair enough, although you have no idea WHAT my diet is, I'll ignore that little bit of self righteous ignorance there. 


I'd think it's fair to say that kibble is HIGHLY AND OVERLY processed. Much moreso than freezing fresh meat, or cooking a potato. Not only that, but it is often times made in highly unsanitary conditions, not regulated, and does not have many laws or rules to protect the quality of it. 

But then again the mere fact that kibble is geared toward omnivore nutrition is plain silly to me. It makes about as much sense as feeding a rabbit prime rib.


----------



## spookychick13

BlueKnight said:


> No, I'm not saying that "lots of food is processed so it can't be that bad.". First, you in fact eat very little unprocessed food (only some veggies and fruits), and second there are several processing operations, and they are not all bad. It seems that you have a very narrow image of what "processing" is ....



I guess some of us are 'annoying' but quite frankly, I don't give a flying leap what you feed your dog. I'm not going to push raw on anyone, if they are happy with how their dogs look, more power to them. Like I've said before, a large number of the dogs that come in to my clinic are obese and have horrible teeth and often end up diabetic. If people are happy with their dogs in that state, so be it. Ignorance is bliss, and if they want to keep shelling out money to vets and insisting they know what is best when their pets are in miserable shape, trying to tell them otherwise is like clapping with one hand.

I have to wonder though, did you just come here to try to stir up a 'debate'?


----------



## RawFedDogs

BlueKnight said:


> Try, they will love them for sure.


Of course they will. They are full of sugar. All animals love the taste of sugar. It doesn't mean it's good for them. 



> Yeah, yeah, but what I said was that I'd like to see you eating only unprocessed food. Life would be soooooooo boring, wouldn't it? No bread, no bottled milk, no butter, no breakfast cereals, no sugar, no coffee, no beer, no meat roll, no scrambled eggs, no nothing


And I'd be much healthier for it. :smile: 



> Well, you have dogs and cats at your house, you can start there.


I've looked and see no difference, please point out the differences.



> This was funny :biggrin: What is there to discuss if everything other than meat, bones and organs (excuse me, but I was including them in the meat ...) is unnatural bla bla bla?


Thats exactly the reason we need to discuss. :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs

spookychick13 said:


> I have to wonder though, did you just come here to try to stir up a 'debate'?


Of course thats the case. But that's good. We need the pot stirred every once in a while. It adds excitement. Particularly from someone this easy. :smile: I have a feeling it's a ficticious personality of someone from the past.


----------



## DaneMama

RawFedDogs said:


> Of course thats the case. But that's good. We need the pot stirred every once in a while. It adds excitement. Particularly from someone this easy. :smile: I have a feeling it's a ficticious personality of someone from the past.


I was thinking the same thing. The fact that he (?) won't give me an answer to any of my questions raises a HUGE red flage that says "Look at me, look at me!!!"

Quite entertaining really.


----------



## BlueKnight

And the Brotherhood of the Offal is reunited. Soooo typical 

No, I'm not who you think, I'm just someone that has come here now and then for some time now and know what your _modus operandi_ is. You beat all discordant voices by tiring them (teeth, bla bla bla, wolves bla bla bla, unnatural bla bla bla). Really, I'd like to know why you don't stay at your raw forum and leave the others alone or simply shut them down. Is it that feel compeled to convert more and more people to your religion (praise the bone!)? ... Don't bother answering as I won't bother to read it ;-)


----------



## JayJayisme

Sorry BlueKnight but you're simply in the wrong place. This is NOT the "Dry and Canned Dog Food", i.e. "Kibble" forum. It is the "Dog Food Ingredients" forum, which is a perfectly acceptable place to debate the merits of diet ingredients for dogs and whether those ingredients are suitable for carnivores, or whatever you think your dog is. 

If you don't want people debating carnivore or raw meat issues with you, stay on the kibble forum where the raw feeders here have pretty much agreed that pushing the raw agenda is a no-no. We respect that, but THIS forum is for healthy debates on ALL dog food ingredients, including raw meat.

All that being said, it's clear from your posts that you've never fed raw. If you had, you would have a more open mind about the merits of a raw meaty bone diet. You would have experienced the natural beauty of a dog eating the meal nature intended it to eat. It's an amazing sight when your cute little pet takes a piece of raw meat and knows EXACTLY what to do with it as his/her eating instincts take over. It doesn't matter if it's a Pomeranian, a Poodle, or a Pit Bull. It's a symbiotic relationship between your dog and nature that kibble feeders never get to witness. Once you see just that, even before all the health benefits start to appear, you will realize there is more to this raw feeding thing than you think. It's impossible to put it into words, or quantify it with numbers, or back it up with scientific statistics. But that doesn't diminish it's natural beauty and significance.

As they say, "the proof is in the pudding" and whenever I read such argumentative posts regarding raw, and none the arguments are based on experience, but rather from information you read on the Internet, it's clear that you do not have the wealth of experience that many others have and are willing to share here. Remember that nearly all raw feeders at one time or another fed commercial food to their dogs. We have seen both sides of the coin, as opposed to most kibble-feeders who know nothing else.

Nearly everyone who has "taken the plunge" and started feeding the RMB diet to their dogs has nothing but positive things to say about it. Everyone was probably skeptical in the beginning but the difference between you and us raw meaty bone (and organ) feeders, is that we looked past our prejudices to, and/or concerns with this diet concept and went ahead and tried it simply in the interest of our dogs' health. 

Sadly, your dogs will probably never get to experience the benefits of such an ideal diet because of your myopic view and lack of willingness to give it a try. But you keep believing your whatever you want, and ignore the advice and experience of those who have tried many different diets for their dogs. It's your dogs who will pay the price, not any of us.


----------



## DaneMama

Once again, Jay knows exactly what to say. You are always so good at putting to words how we all feel but can't figure out how to get it out. At least for me. Bravo!!! :biggrin:


----------



## BlueKnight

Hi gang, after all I found a little time to come over again :smile:

Yes this is the ingredient Forum but I don't think that it is meant to discuss the merits of liver or kidney in the diet. All ingredients that I can think of that have a place here may be grouped in what you call "plant material". Since the _modus operandi _if all of you is, after 2 or 3 posts, to come with the same old tiring talk of teeth, carnivores, wolves, nature and the rest, there's no place to discuss anything. And the proof is that there's no one single post in this forum where a real discussion takes place, and all because of you barfers or rawers or whatever.

No, I have never tried Raw or Barf or whatever and frankly I don't want to try. I find it stupid and a waste of resources to use protein to cover energy needs, that is what happens in your "natural" diets. Besides, I know of people who have tried Raw or Barf or whatever and didn't saw any measurable differences and, given all the trouble and expense of this kind of feeding, have returned to kibble. So, it's not true when you say that ALL people that have tried that return to nature (whatever that means, since dogs have been living with men for several thousands years now ...) can only praise that kind of feeding. I even know dogs that won't eat raw meat, they will refuse anything that is not cooked. So there is not ONE single truth, as you claim, but many truths. If you are happy with your truth, stick to it. I'm happy with my truth and I too stick to it. And it's very annoying being systematically bombarded with arguments that don't come from science but from beliefs and being considered a moron that has to be schooled to be able to see the light (aleluiah, praise the bone!).

So, enjoy talking to each other (by the way, have you noticed that, also as usual, the initial poster has disappeared? ...)


----------



## Jester

BlueKnight said:


> So, enjoy talking to each other (by the way, have you noticed that, also as usual, the initial poster has disappeared? ...)


I haven't disappeared, I just have other things going on in life. You seem like you're just trolling and I wish you weren't in my thread. I take this stuff seriously and although I haven't had the time to respond yet, I do read all the posts.


----------



## RawFedDogs

BlueKnight said:


> Yes this is the ingredient Forum but I don't think that it is meant to discuss the merits of liver or kidney in the diet.


Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what each forum is meant to discuss. Thats my call.



> Since the _modus operandi _if all of you is, after 2 or 3 posts, to come with the same old tiring talk of teeth, carnivores, wolves, nature and the rest, there's no place to discuss anything. And the proof is that there's no one single post in this forum where a real discussion takes place, and all because of you barfers or rawers or whatever.


Perhaps you would be happier somewhere else.



> No, I have never tried Raw or Barf or whatever and frankly I don't want to try.


You should try it before you go knocking it. At least you would have some little knowledge what you are talking about.



> I find it stupid and a waste of resources to use protein to cover energy needs, that is what happens in your "natural" diets.


See? Thats what I mean. Dogs use protein to build muscle and other body parts. Fat is used for energy. You really should do some research before you make such statements.



> Besides, I know of people who have tried Raw or Barf or whatever and didn't saw any measurable differences and, given all the trouble and expense of this kind of feeding, have returned to kibble.


Funny, it's been my experience that about 1% of people switch to raw and then return to kibble.



> I'm happy with my truth and I too stick to it. And it's very annoying being systematically bombarded with arguments that don't come from science but from beliefs and being considered a moron that has to be schooled to be able to see the light (aleluiah, praise the bone!).


Problem is your truth has no basis in science and is far from true. It's mearly marketing material from dog food companies. Why don't you offer some of this science you are touting so we can discuss it? Everything I say is based on sound science. You can't disprove any of it or you would.



> So, enjoy talking to each other (by the way, have you noticed that, also as usual, the initial poster has disappeared? ...)


I don't think so but I do seriously suggest if you don't like what is posted here, find a forum you would be happier with. Perhaps you are just a chronic complainer and you aren't happy on forums where you have nothing to complain about.


----------



## JayJayisme

Wow BlueKnight, I'm sure you are an intelligent person but the ignorance on this subject in your posts, particularly your last one, is astounding. I'm pretty sure you have officially degraded this thread to the "useless" status.

Your interchangeable use of the tern "barfer" and "rawer" is the first indication of the level of ignorance you have on this subject. The B.A.R.F. diet and the Raw Meaty Bone (RMB) diet that most of the raw feeders here use, are completely different. If you took a little time to research these diets, you would understand that they are not interchangeable and that the health benefits of one does not necessarily come with the other.

Then you state, "I find it stupid and a waste of resources to use protein to cover energy needs...". Um, okay. Based on what? Have you ever seen a dog on kibble take a crap and then witnessed the same dog on RMBs do the same thing except that it produces a stool about 1/4th the size and only defecates about 30% as frequently as it did on kibble? Of course you haven't. You've never fed a dog RMBs! Most of what is in kibble goes in and goes straight back out of a dog. Most of what is in RMBs is used by the dog. This is what I mean when I say (paraphrased), "you have to see it to understand it". Don't knock it if you don't know.

You further reveal your ignorance by stating, "I know of people who have tried Raw or Barf or whatever and didn't saw any measurable differences...". Well, which was it, B.A.R.F. or RMB? There IS a difference and frankly, if your experience was through other people feeding B.A.R.F. or something similar, I'm not surprised that you came to this conclusion. To many of us, the food that "BARF'ers" feed is not much more than uncooked kibble. But to broadbrush all raw diets based on this particular diet is completely ignorant.

As far as some dogs not showing any interest in raw meat, you are correct. Some dogs have no idea what it is because they have been raised on commercial food since day-one. Ever go into a hard-core Chinese restaurant? Would you sit down and order just anything off the menu? I mean, I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I live in a culturally diverse area and I'm in a multi-cultural marriage but even I won't eat everything that is put in front of me in one of these restaurants. Is it because it's disgusting, or doesn't taste good? Nope, it's because it's *unfamiliar* to me. When I'm presented food that is foreign to me, I usually have to be introduced slowly to it, watch others eat it, have someone describe it to me, etc. before I'll take a bite. Does that make the food bad for me, or inappropriate?

Here's another example. I like to fish in cold, freshwater streams and lakes. Here in California many of these fisheries are stocked with farm-raised trout because most of the wild trout have been fished out. Farm-raised trout are raised on - you guessed it - kibble. Fish chow. Seriously, it looks like kitten kibble.

When I go fishing somewhere that has both wild and farm trout, I cast flies to catch wild trout, and bait to catch farm trout. The wild trout won't touch a blob of Power Bait, or Velveeta, or any man-made bait. The farm trout, on the other hand, have no idea what to do with anything that resembles natural, found-in-the-wild trout food (i.e. insects).

However, farm-raised trout that survive the first season after planting are called hold-overs and these fish either have to adapt to natural food or starve to death. So the next season, one can catch hold-overs using natural looking food because these fish have adapted to a natural diet and are acclimated to their wild food source. The older they get, the less likely you will catch one with man-made bait.

I have one dog, he's less than 20 lbs. BTW, who lived most of his puppyhood on the streets before the shelter picked him up and we adopted him. When we started taking walks I quickly realized that this poor little guy ate nothing but people food that was left behind, and bugs - mostly earthworms. Whenever we would go for a walk, he'd stop to check out every single Dorito bag, soda cup, hamburger wrapper, etc. that was lying along the sidewalk. And whenever he encountered a worm along the walk he'd stop to eat it. That was food to him so even kibble was foreign to him when we first brought him home. I had to trick him by putting it in an empty potato chip bag in the beginning because to him, that was what he associated with food.

When I finally gave up on kibble and switched both of my dogs to RMBs, my female took to it immediately. The male had no idea what to do with it. It was as foreign to him as kibble was in the beginning. That didn't make it bad, or inappropriate. If you ate stale potato chips and worms all your life, you wouldn't know what to so with it either. But there are some tricks we have to acclimate dogs like this to raw meat and bones and I used a couple of them and in a few days, he started to get it.

A few days later he connected with the canine instinct that was buried deep within and he now knows exactly what to do with his raw meaty bones. It's a beautiful thing seeing a little guy like him devour a chicken wing or pork rib as though he had been doing it all his life. And his health and vitality has never been better, something we were very worried about when we got him since he was very, very sick.

The bottom line is that just because a dog doesn't know what to do with RMBs in the beginning, doesn't mean the food is somehow inappropriate. Feed your kid Jello every day then after a couple years try to feed him a carrot. Good luck with that. 

You can feed your dogs whatever you want. But don't come here and jump in a thread with no credentials and virtually no experience and tell us we have it all wrong. Anyone can go look at all the references you found on the Internet and make a case for your beliefs. But once you *experience* something like the RMB diet you will question all of the "convention wisdom" that is out there on the subject of canine nutrition. Until you have more personal experience with this subject though, maybe you should hang out here, read more, and write less. Perhaps you'll learn something.


----------



## 1605

RawFedDogs said:


> Of course thats the case. But that's good. We need the pot stirred every once in a while. It adds excitement. Particularly from someone this easy. :smile: I have a feeling it's a ficticious personality of someone from the past.


Yes, RFD...methinks I smell a TROLL!


----------



## BlueKnight

Jester said:


> I haven't disappeared, I just have other things going on in life. You seem like you're just trolling and I wish you weren't in my thread. I take this stuff seriously and although I haven't had the time to respond yet, I do read all the posts.


Yes, you are right, I'm sorry, I won't post anything more here. I'm sure you will learn a lot from these people that can even teach pandas what the right diet is for them in the wild :wink:


----------



## jdatwood

BlueKnight said:


> Yes, you are right, I'm sorry, I won't post anything more here. I'm sure you will learn a lot from these people that can even teach pandas what the right diet is for them in the wild :wink:


Typical


----------



## harrkim120

^^^ Haha...awesome!!! :biggrin:


----------



## PUNKem733

This guy should be banned. He's not even intelligently arguing and making sound points. He's just Spewing out garbage, and misinformation. He just wants people to get riled up, as I can't think of anyoneone with the slightest knowledge on dogs and carnivores to present themselves in this manner.


----------

