# While on the topic of Honest Kitchen....



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

I have always added in a spoon full or two of canned with my dogs kibble. They love it and I feel like it adds some variety and moisture.

What about adding in Honest Kitchen to their kibble? I would get a box, but then only mix 1/2 to 1/4 cup at a time to divide up and mix with my two dogs kibble....What do you think? Would that be something that would work?


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

When Aspen was on kibble, I would mix in Acana or Orijen with his EVO. He did fine...


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

malluver1005 said:


> When Aspen was on kibble, I would mix in Acana or Orijen with his EVO. He did fine...


Acana and Orijen don't make canned foods...


That being said, I don't think that it's that much better, in fact, some of the formulas of HK are total junk... sooo... I'd say save your money and stick with canned.


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Ditto...stick to the cans. 

Honest Kitchen is crazy over priced for what you get. You might as well get some dried soup mix. :biggrin:


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

I agree with everyone else.

I give mine grain free canned with their grain free kibble. I wouldn't see any point in adding the Honest Kitchen if you were already adding the canned. It is already giving them the extra meat.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Acana and Orijen don't make canned foods...
> 
> 
> That being said, I don't think that it's that much better, in fact, some of the formulas of HK are total junk... sooo... I'd say save your money and stick with canned.


Please elaborate on your "total junk" comment. It's true that their products contain vegetables, fruits, etc. But to label it as "total junk" is a rather bold and strong statement. Do you honestly think canned is a better option??? I would sat you are misinformed.

I can see plenty of usefulness with this product - as a supplement to raw meaty bones; to use when boarding, traveling; and to feed if you run out of rmbs. It is a dehydrated RAW product without all the crap that is included in canned.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Doc said:


> Please elaborate on your "total junk" comment. It's true that their products contain vegetables, fruits, etc. But to label it as "total junk" is a rather bold and strong statement. Do you honestly think canned is a better option??? I would sat you are misinformed.


I wouldn't call the ingredients "junk" per se. Most of the ingredients are pretty high-quality and they don't have a lot of the "junk" fillers like corn and wheat, but they seem to be rather low in meat content, especially considering the price.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

ziggy29 said:


> I wouldn't call the ingredients "junk" per se. Most of the ingredients are pretty high-quality and they don't have a lot of the "junk" fillers like corn and wheat, but they seem to be rather low in meat content, especially considering the price.


I understand that their meat content may be lower then some, but the company has printed on every box that additional meat may be added. If you are worried about the cost of HK, you can add more less costly meat and use less HK. 

I do not find the cost of the product any more expensive than premium kibble. A 10 pound box of Embark will make 43 pounds of food. If you are paying $80 for a 10 pound box then your cost per pound is $1.86 per pound. 

For those who feed strictly a RMB diet, this information is useless. For those who want something more than raw meaty bones, organs, and muscle meat, then HK has a healthy, viable and affordable role in this kind of diet.

I would prefer and recommend HK's dehydrated natural ingredients over processed canned food any day. 

They even have a grain-free and a gluten free product.


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

Thanks guys for all the info.
I currently feed Lucky a grain free kibble and then add a little grain free canned with a different meat source than the kibble. She seems to be doing wonderful and can hardly wait to eat!

Just looking for something different, more variety.

I will keep all your comments in mind. Thanks! :smile:


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> Acana and Orijen don't make canned foods...
> 
> 
> That being said, I don't think that it's that much better, in fact, some of the formulas of HK are total junk... sooo... I'd say save your money and stick with canned.


agreed hoenst kitchen is garbage for the rich man!


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

harrkim120 said:


> Ditto...stick to the cans.
> 
> Honest Kitchen is crazy over priced for what you get. You might as well get some dried soup mix. :biggrin:


lol.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 10, 2010)

I also disagree that Honest Kitchen is junk. It is in raw dehydrated form. It has a single meat source, so you can't say it's low....you can say, you don't know. Check the calories though. They hover in the high 400's to low 500's per cup.

When you price it out correctly, it costs no more than ultra premium kibble.

All canned food is, is wet processed food as opposed to dry kibble processed food. It's just more processed food. Just because it is wet in a can doesn't make it digest any easier or faster.


I do have a question for raw feeders. I know some of you are able to get meats rather inexpensively. What are you getting for meat and how do you calculate the caloric and fat intake for your dog? The reason I haven't gone to the "create your own" raw diet is for those two reasons and would like help so that maybe I can switch to the method.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

they sy to add meat to it. its a low meat source eric.


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 10, 2010)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> they sy to add meat to it. its a low meat source eric.



They say you CAN add meat to it, and when you do, you must account for that meat and subtract out the ratio of HK. Aside from Preference, all Honest Kitchen formulas are balanced.

Sorry RC, Honest Kitchen is dehydrated raw, unprocessed and high in calories, low in carbs. It beats kibble all day long. (and yes, I still feed Orijen and Evo)


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

i stil lwould rather feed regional red..just a preference.

even if honest kitchen had a ton of meat i think its mentally unhealthy for a dog to slurp their food also.


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

SaltyDog said:


> I do have a question for raw feeders. I know some of you are able to get meats rather inexpensively. What are you getting for meat and how do you calculate the caloric and fat intake for your dog? The reason I haven't gone to the "create your own" raw diet is for those two reasons and would like help so that maybe I can switch to the method.


We do not go by calories or fat, we feed based on weight. Most adult dogs do well on 2-3% of their body weight per day. Unlike herbivores and omnivores which require a certain QUALITY of forage/nutrients, carnivores just need to get enough QUANTITY. Start at 2-3% of their ideal weight and adjust up or down if needed based on body condition.
Most feed chicken as the basis of their dogs' diet because it is readily available and cheap. Variety is added as much as possible. Since I do not have a freezer to stock pile bulk orders I buy everything from the grocery store.

If you still wish to calculate calories (though unnecessary) you can just google "raw chicken nutrition" and find data in a human nutrition calculator online.


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 10, 2010)

g00dgirl said:


> We do not go by calories or fat we feed based on weight. Most adult dogs do well on 2-3% of their body weight per day. Unlike herbivores and omnivores which require a certain QUALITY of forage/nutrients, carnivores just need to get enough QUANTITY. Start at 2-3% of their ideal weight and adjust up or down if needed based on body condition.
> Most feed chicken as the basis of their dogs' diet because it is readily available and cheap and variety is added as much as possible. Since I do not have a freezer to stock pile bulk orders I buy everything from the grocery store.


What parts of the chicken? any ground beef?


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

Every part of the chicken. Ground is ok, especially for variety- far better than kibble but whole cuts are preferred.

Edit: perhaps you should start a thread in the Raw section so we don't hijack this one


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 10, 2010)

g00dgirl said:


> Edit: perhaps you should start a thread in the Raw section so we don't hijack this one



Good call, and I do still think Honest Kitchen products are fantastic!


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Agreed that maybe this could be moved or something, BUT.....I can't pass on an opportunity. LOL

I feed:

chicken quarters: $0.36 a pound
pork picnic: $0.88 a pound
beef head meat: $1.31 a pound
lamb breast: $1.29 a pound
turkey necks: $0.89 a pound
chicken eggs
canned tuna (I just had some that I had to use up)
canned salmon

The basis of the diet is chicken quarters since they are much cheaper. They get chicken every morning and a different protein source each night. Also small amounts of liver and other organs throughout the week.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Doc said:


> Please elaborate on your "total junk" comment.


Gladly. 
I said some of their formulas, namely the one that is JUST veggies and plant matter, which is totally useless to a dog, and therefore: junk. 



Doc said:


> Do you honestly think canned is a better option??? I would sat you are misinformed.


I would feed most grainfree canned formulas over HK, yes. 



Doc said:


> I understand that their meat content may be lower then some, but the company has printed on every box that additional meat may be added. If you are worried about the cost of HK, you can add more less costly meat and use less HK.
> .


I have to know: HK markets itself to being a more convenient RAW feeding option. So, if you're going to go through the "trouble" of getting meat to add anyway, doesn't it kind of defeat the whole purpose of HK? For what HK charges, I can't justify using it. My dogs don't eat soup. 



Doc said:


> For those who feed strictly a RMB diet, this information is useless. For those who want something more than raw meaty bones, organs, and muscle meat, then HK has a healthy, viable and affordable role in this kind of diet.
> .


But why would you WANT to add empty ingredients? I'm not turning this into a raw debate, but if you're going to be feeding the veggies and whatnot anyway, how is HK a better option than some of the better kibbles? Did I mention my dogs don't eat soup?



Doc said:


> dehydrated natural ingredients over processed canned food any day.


See, those who feed HK tend to call it a RAW diet. I can't quite wrap my head around that. 
Lets take raw out of it, even. 
HK feeders tend to put it on some higher level than kibble. I don't get it. "I won't feed processed kibble, but I'll feed HK any day." 
How many chemicals does it take for this "raw" diet to stay "good" on the shelves. How processed does this "raw" food have to be to not need to be refridgerated, or used up within a few days? How natural can it be? 





SaltyDog said:


> I
> I do have a question for raw feeders. I know some of you are able to get meats rather inexpensively. What are you getting for meat and how do you calculate the caloric and fat intake for your dog? The reason I haven't gone to the "create your own" raw diet is for those two reasons and would like help so that maybe I can switch to the method.


Raw feeders have the understanding that feeding our pet is not such an intense science. I have to laugh to myself when people are calculating all nutrients and calories in their dry food, and then say that raw feeding is too complicated and they like the convenience for kibble. 
When you're feeding a natural diet, all these calculations are unnecessary. Dogs in the wild don't bust out the calculator and figure exactly what they need to eat that day. Heck, I don't do that for me by any stretch of the mind, and I'm a healthy person. 
I feed a good variety, and watch body condition. I don't weigh, I don't calculate, I don't do any of that because I don't feel it necessary. My dogs are prefectly healthy. I feel good about what I'm doing.


----------



## malluver1005 (Nov 15, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Acana and Orijen don't make canned foods...


I know they don't make canned. I thought saraj2878 was talking about mixing two dry foods together.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Gladly.
> I said some of their formulas, namely the one that is JUST veggies and plant matter, which is totally useless to a dog, and therefore: junk.
> 
> 
> ...


Where I appreciate your support of a strickly *Prey Model* raw program, lack of knowledge of the HK products and other raw feeding programs isn't reason to throw it out the window.

In Lonsdale book Raw Meaty Bones, he even supports the addition of "table scrapes and steamed vegetables" to a dogs diet. Is it needed? Perhaps, it certainly doesn't hurt.

HK *is not* a kibble or anything close to it. HK is *dehydrated* not cooked and pressed through a process with fats and sugars sprayed onto the kibble. Being dehydrated - a natural drying process, HK is a _raw_ ingredient product. Even the meat is dehydrated, not processed.

Everything in moderation. If someone has ever fed the product, I think one's opinion is very limited in its usefulness. I've been around and fed many dogs for a very long time. I base my responses on my experiences, knowledge of a product and dogs, and my years of studies. I do know this for a fact, rarely if ever, is anything taken to the extreme a good solution.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Where I appreciate your support of a strickly *Prey Model* raw program, lack of knowledge of the HK products and other raw feeding programs isn't reason to throw it out the window.


I agree with Lindsey. Most raw feeders are not totally ignorant of other so called dog foods. Most of use have studied all kinds of options pertaining to the feeding of dogs. In my book, HK is nothing more than raw kibble.



> In Lonsdale book Raw Meaty Bones, he even supports the addition of "table scrapes and steamed vegetables" to a dogs diet. Is it needed? Perhaps, it certainly doesn't hurt.


I have had many discussions with Tom about this subject. He says that table scraps PROBABLY won't harm your dog and MAY do some good. This is not the same as "supporting". My conversations with Tom is what led me away from the BARF method of feeding using the veggie slop once a week, to dropping plant matter all together from my dog's diet. It was Tom who convinced me that dogs have no dietary need for plant matter.



> HK *is not* a kibble or anything close to it. HK is *dehydrated* not cooked and pressed through a process with fats and sugars sprayed onto the kibble. Being dehydrated - a natural drying process, HK is a _raw_ ingredient product. Even the meat is dehydrated, not processed.


The processing may be different but it's still processing. The ingredients are basically the same as kibble in that you have a very little bit of meat and a lot of fruits & veggies. Looking at the ingredients and nutrient profiles, it is still raw kibble. Kibble MAY be a little healthier because of higher protein content.



> If someone has ever fed the product, I think one's opinion is very limited in its usefulness.


If one has a knowledge of canine nutrition AND if one has a knowledge of ingredients and what they do, one's opinion can be very valuable. Simply feeding a dog a product for a period of time simply shows apparent visible effects of that product. THAT is a person whose opinion is questionable.



> I've been around and fed many dogs for a very long time. I base my responses on my experiences, knowledge of a product and dogs, and my years of studies. I do know this for a fact, rarely if ever, is anything taken to the extreme a good solution.


I, too, have been around dogs a long time and have fed many dogs. I have fed everything from strictly table scraps to strictly canned food to strictly kibble to strictly BARF to strictly prey model raw. I know and have seen first hand the visible effects of each. At to that 100's of hours of research and study and I feel that no method of feeding even approaches prey model raw. If that is extreme, then it is extreme but has been proven to me over and over.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Strickly prey model feeding is extreme - you say it works fine. I feed a modified pret diet, with HK added. 

If you want to cherry pick what Lonsdale says in his RMB book, that's fine. He says some table scrapes and steamed vegetables probably will not hurt your dogs. So I add "some". 

You know as well as I that the dehydration process is not in any shape way or form close to the process to make kibble. If you think lyiing ingrediants out to be dried is the same as cooking them at extreme high heat, then there is no use to discuss the issue any further.

After 50+ years of raising dogs, I have learned something. And spend at least 30 years in research.

I'm fine with a diverse raw feeding program. You're not. And that is where it ends.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Strickly prey model feeding is extreme - you say it works fine. I feed a modified pret diet, with HK added.


When in doubt, I always look to nature. I try to learn what wild/dogs eat when left to their own devices. Nature is designed to give every animal what he needs to thrive. The species that didn't get this are now extinct. Evidently wolves/dogs got all they need from nature. In nature they don't eat Alfalfa, sweet potatoes, cabbage, celery, apples, spinach, organic kelp, coconut, bananas, zucchini, honey, tricalcium phosphate, choline chloride, zinc amino acid chelate, vitamin D3 supplement, vitamin E supplement, potassium chloride, iron amino acid chelate, copper amino acid chelate. 

They eat the meat, bones, and organs of any animal they can catch and kill.



> If you want to cherry pick what Lonsdale says in his RMB book, that's fine. He says some table scrapes and steamed vegetables probably will not hurt your dogs. So I add "some".


I'm not cherry picking what Tom says in his books. I am telling you what he told me in several hours of face to face conversations and via many emails. If it makes you feel better he indicated that he feels that a diet of nothing but table scraps is preferable to feeding kibble.



> You know as well as I that the dehydration process is not in any shape way or form close to the process to make kibble.


If you will go back and look, you will see that I said, _"The processing may be *different* but it's still *processing*. The ingredients are basically the same as kibble in that you have a very little bit of meat and a lot of fruits & veggies. Looking at the ingredients and nutrient profiles, it is still raw kibble."_



> If you think lyiing ingrediants out to be dried is the same as cooking them at extreme high heat, then there is no use to discuss the issue any further.


I doubt they lay them out in the sun to dry but even if they do, what does that do to the nutrients in them? I don't know.



> I'm fine with a diverse raw feeding program. You're not. And that is where it ends.


Dogs weren't designed for a diverse feeding program. Their digestive system from the teeth and snout to the anus was designed to eat, digest, and extract nutrients from meat, bones and organs. It was not designed to eat Alfalfa, sweet potatoes, cabbage, celery, apples, spinach, etc. 

I don't understand why a knowledgable person like yourself would want to add these to their dog's diet. What nutrients do you expect to add to the diet that aren't in meat, bones, and organs?


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Wolves also eat the stomach of the prey it kills which contains partially digested material other than meat, organs and bones, i.e. grasses and grains and other fruits and vegetables. I understand the morphological make up of the dog, it's teeth, gastric juices, and digestive tract. I also understand what is written in Lonsdale book concerning table scrapes which includes the vegetables that humans eat. And I also know from observation what the contents are in the stomach of prey animals.

All this information combined is why _my_ raw feeding program contains some fruits and vegetables.

As a side, if your dog snarfs down old road kill then he is in fact eating "meat" that has gone through the dehydration process. Plus pulverized by tires. I would say road kill is much closer to kibble than HK based on the amount of processing that has occurred.

I am sure a smart scholar and respect expert like yourself can comprehend my point of view. I am just presenting additional information concerning feeding a raw diet - not a prey diet.:smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Wolves also eat the stomach of the prey it kills which contains partially digested material other than meat, organs and bones, i.e. grasses and grains and other fruits and vegetables.


I do understand your point of view. I have seen many with very similar points of view. However there are a few small errors in your facts that you use in your reasoning. One of those is the eating of prey animal stomachs.

From David Mech's Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003):

_"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site."_
-p123

_"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system."_ -p124

This is backed up by my dogs when eating whole rabbits. They will sissor open the stomach, shake out it's contents, THEN eat the stomach. They don't touch the intestines except to remove them and stack them in a neat little pile. I have raw fed 4 different dogs that I owned and all 4 of them did exactly the same thing. They did this from instinct. I didn't teach it to them.



> I understand the morphological make up of the dog, it's teeth, gastric juices, and digestive tract. I also understand what is written in Lonsdale book concerning table scrapes which includes the vegetables that humans eat. And I also know from observation what the contents are in the stomach of prey animals.


I agree with Tom that feeding table scraps would be superior to feeding kibble, however, we never agreed that table scraps should be fed as part of a raw diet. If you read what he says, he never gives feeding of table scraps a ringing endorcement. It's a "Probably won't hurt and MAY help."



> As a side, if your dog snarfs down old road kill then he is in fact eating "meat" that has gone through the dehydration process. Plus pulverized by tires. I would say road kill is much closer to kibble than HK based on the amount of processing that has occurred.


My dogs have eaten road kill but it's not even a basic part of the diet. It is a rare occurance. I suggest HK be the same. I suggest feeding HK once or twice a year will do no harm to your dog. LOLOLOL J/K don't go getting all in a tizzy. :smile:



> I am sure a smart scholar and respect expert like yourself can comprehend my point of view. I am just presenting additional information concerning feeding a raw diet - not a prey diet.:smile:


There is something I always like to ask people who have beliefs similar to yours. Exacly what nutrients are in any fruit or veggie that is not in the meat, bones, and organs of the prey animals that eat them?


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Can I ask, why are table scraps better than kibble? After all table scraps have been exposed to high temps like kibble, and would lose most nutrients.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

PUNKem733 said:


> Can I ask, why are table scraps better than kibble? After all table scraps have been exposed to high temps like kibble, and would lose most nutrients.


I can believe that many meat-based table scraps are better than lousy kibble, but I find it hard to believe that generic table scraps would be better than the best kibble.

For example, if I give my dog a chunk of medium-rare fat, gristle and meat from a piece of steak, I can believe that's better than feeding something like Iams. But I can't believe that letting a dog "clean the plate" on a meatless pasta dinner would be better than feeding something like Orijen, Acana, Wellness CORE or the historical Evo.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I have not said anything about fruits and vegetable supplying additional nutrients than what is in a prey model diet. I suspect that the nutrient content is very similar. How do we know that the prey diet or fruits and vegetables supplies the correct amounts of all the vitamins and minerals? My own thought on the need for addition f&v is to supply addition nutrients to the dog. And perhaps in a forum that is more readily available to the dog. And where is all the research on the need of additional fiber in a dogs diet? What role does fiber play in a dog? Could it curtail diabetes in dogs? Could it help reduce the rate of cancer found in a dog? So much to study, so little time. Could it play a role in reducing SIBO or EPI? 

Surely we know more about nutritional requirements of dogs now than we did right after their evolution from a wolf? Maybe not.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Sorry my responses are so delayed, I am out of state closing on a business deal this week, so I haven't been on nearly as much as usual. :smile:



Doc said:


> Where I appreciate your support of a strickly *Prey Model* raw program, lack of knowledge of the HK products and other raw feeding programs isn't reason to throw it out the window.


It's not a matter of lack of knowledge in disregarding the HK products, it's a matter of looking at what nature intended for these carnivores, and then looking at what HK has to offer, and they just don't like up well enough to convince me to feed it. 



Doc said:


> HK *is not* a kibble or anything close to it. HK is *dehydrated* not cooked and pressed through a process with fats and sugars sprayed onto the kibble. Being dehydrated - a natural drying process,


I just don't see how you can call it natural with such a shelf life. You can try to convince me that HK is laying meat out in the sun for days at a time to dehydrate it, but I'm not going to believe you, mostly because it's not true. 



Doc said:


> , HK is a _raw_ ingredient product. Even the meat is dehydrated, not processed.


Lets take a step back for a moment and consider why people tend to put their dogs on a raw diet. Generally, it's because it's a more natural diet, and therefore healthier. Other times it's because pet food companies can not be trusted and they want a safety net from dangerous pet food recalls. 
HK does not satisfy either of these needs. It is NOT a natural diet, no matter how much you'd like to claim it is. Have I previously mentioned my dogs don't eat soup? So, I suppose my choice of a PMR diet is not so much because it's raw, but because it's as close to natural as I can get. HK is far from it. 




Doc said:


> If someone has ever fed the product, I think one's opinion is very limited in its usefulness.


I think you're wrong. I think that if someone has an understanding of carnivores and what they are intended to eat, they can evaluate a diet and know if it is proper or not, or more or less proper than the next diet. 
I am not saying that HK is the worst thing on the market, by any means. I am saying that it is JUST as inappropriate as kibble, and that dogs are meant to eat solids,not soup. For those reasons, I don't and won't feed it. 
BUT, if you're really wondering, I have fed HK as a topper before. :wink:




Doc said:


> Strickly prey model feeding is extreme - you say it works fine. I feed a modified pret diet, with HK added.


Feeding carnivores a strictly carnivore diet is now considered extreme??? I hope no one tells you that daily bathing is part of good hygiene, you might think they were a bit loony.






Doc said:


> Wolves also eat the stomach of the prey it kills which contains partially digested material other than meat, organs and bones, i.e. grasses and grains and other fruits and vegetables.


But this claim is wrong, and therefore your idea of an "ideal" diet kind of flies out the window, don't it? They do not in fact eat the stomach contents. 


I suppose we just would need to come to the understanding that a natural diet is a raw diet, but that not all raw diets are natural diets. 
HK may be raw, but it will never be natural. Or ideal.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Doc said:


> Wolves also eat the stomach of the prey it kills which contains partially digested material other than meat, organs and bones, i.e. grasses and grains and other fruits and vegetables


Actually, someone once posted a coyote kill picture on here that showed the coyotes didn't eat the stomach and intestines.



Doc said:


> As a side, if your dog snarfs down old road kill then he is in fact eating "meat" that has gone through the dehydration process. Plus pulverized by tires. I would say road kill is much closer to kibble than HK based on the amount of processing that has occurred.


 What dog eats roadkill on a regular basis? I'd personally never allow my dogs to eat roadkill.



> "Probably won't hurt and MAY help."


Probably won't hurt? Oh, so, that's like if you jump off of a one story building. It _probably_ won't hurt.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Sorry my responses are so delayed, I am out of state closing on a business deal this week, so I haven't been on nearly as much as usual. :smile:
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of lack of knowledge in disregarding the HK products, it's a matter of looking at what nature intended for these carnivores, and then looking at what HK has to offer, and they just don't like up well enough to convince me to feed it.
> ...


Linsey

How many dogs have you had in your short life time? How many meals have you fed your dogs? How many different diets have tried for 5 year periods to evaluate the effects of a feeding program? How many processing plants have you visited/inspected to see the processes involved in making kibble? dehydrated food? canned dog food? How many slaughter houses have you inspected? I am afraid your knowledge base is very limited. And what is worse is the fact that your mind is not open enough to consider something outside of your comfort zone.

I am sorry this has turned into a bashing session of a particular product, just like when Clay Buster had is opinions about another product. It is very clear to me how thiis board and it's moderator operate. This is nothing more than a board that slams something other than a raw prey model feeding program.

There are as many happy healthy dogs eating different raw programs as there are a prey model. I think with all that has been said, there is no need for me to continue with this conversation or try to contribute my knowledge and experiences. 

Beleive it or not, there are people out there feeding their dogs a raw diet that includes fruits and vegetables. And guess what Linsey, their dogs are very healthy and live long. And in my book, thats not so bad.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

PUNKem733 said:


> Can I ask, why are table scraps better than kibble? After all table scraps have been exposed to high temps like kibble, and would lose most nutrients.


To me, it's pretty easy. Look at kibble and look at table scraps. YOU eat table scraps before they actually become scraps. Would you eat a meal of kibble? Why not? Whenever I ask that question, the only answer I get is "Kibble is dog food and I'm not a dog." Actually, the ingredients in kibble are more closely what a human should eat than what a dog should eat.

There is also this study that concludes that dogs fed a home made diet live an average of 35 months longer than dogs fed a diet of commercial dog food. There is good reason for this. Here is the study:

Long Life Study Summary
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

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


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Beleive it or not, there are people out there feeding their dogs a raw diet that includes fruits and vegetables. And guess what Linsey, their dogs are very healthy and live long. And in my book, thats not so bad.


Doc,
We don't completely disagree. Here is something I wrote in a post 7 or 8 years ago and I think it still applies today.

_"1. Many people feed their dogs meat, bones, organs, fruits & veggies, and a great number of supplements and their dogs are healthy.

2. Many people feed their dogs meat, bones, organs, and fruits and veggies and their dogs are healthy.

3. Many people feed their dogs meat, bones, organs, and a great number of suppments and their dogs are healthy.

4. Many people feed their dogs ONLY meat, bones and organs and their dogs are no less healthy than the other groups. So why bother with the fruits & veggies and supplements if there is no health gain?"_

No one has ever been able to show that those extras add to a dogs health or that fruits & veggies contain any nutrients not contained in meat, bones, and organs. The only ingredient plant material has that animal material doesn't have is carbs and dogs have no nutritional need for carbs.

It has never been proven that supplements add to the health of a dog (or human) unless they are for a known health problem. In other words, if you give your dog a Vitamin C supplement and the dog's body contains all the Vitamin C it needs, nothing is gained except expensive pee. The body will immediately eliminate the excess.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> To me, it's pretty easy. Look at kibble and look at table scraps. YOU eat table scraps before they actually become scraps. Would you eat a meal of kibble? Why not? Whenever I ask that question, the only answer I get is "Kibble is dog food and I'm not a dog." Actually, the ingredients in kibble are more closely what a human should eat than what a dog should eat.
> 
> There is also this study that concludes that dogs fed a home made diet live an average of 35 months longer than dogs fed a diet of commercial dog food. There is good reason for this. Here is the study:
> 
> ...


the problem i have is that (unless i missed it) is the parameters only have the following definitions:

-homemade-products used from the owners meals
-mixture-a mixture of homemade and industrial food
-industrial-retail sold dog food

without knowing the quality of the "industrial" dog food the study loses much meaning to me. i would expect a dog to live much longer eating a raw diet than eating a commercial food full of fillers, corn gluten, artificial colorings, etc, etc..that one finds in the low grade commercial kibbles (beneful, purina dog chow as examples). likewise, i would also expect a dog eating a commercial dog food full of more meat and less undesirable ingredients to live longer than a dog eating lower grade commercial foods. i understand the quality of commercial kibbles is quite different in many european countries than what is available to us here, so if the food were procured in europe, id have questions about what they really were.

additionally, i dont see an indication that the veterinary care that each dog would have received being effectively factored in (which would indeed be very hard to do). i could easily argue that owners feeding raw (or even owners who spent much time researching commercial dog foods) are more involved in their dogs overall well being and this would include regular and preventative veterinary care. certainly a dogs life span is influenced by not only by their diet, but by the quality of health care they receive during their life.

for example, lets take 500 dogs, have all of them eat beneful for their full lives. say 250 of the owners rarely took their dogs for veterinary care while the other 250 were very involved with their vets, especially in the area of preventative maintenance. id fully expect for the latter group of dogs to have a longer average lifespan which is completely unattributable to their diets.

now, do i believe raw diets are more natural for a canine? absolutely
do i believe a dog will live significantly longer eating raw than a very low grade kibble? pretty likely...and im guessing that is the conclusion of the study.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I think the quality of commercial food fed would run the spectrum of highest quality to lowest quality pretty much in line with what is fed overall to dogs. These were random dogs who happened to die during the study. All the study attempts to determine is commercial fed dogs vs. noncommercial fed dogs. Nothing more. It is pretty apparent to me that commercial fed dogs don't live as long as noncommercial fed dogs. I don't think any study has proven that dogs fed a "higher quality" commercial dog food live any longer than dogs fed "bottom of the barrel" commercial dog food. Personally I don't think there is that much difference between the highest end commercial foods and lowest end commercial foods. They are all made from refuse from human food processing plants.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

In the scientific world, it is well known that dogs are poor producers Vitamin C on their own - particularly in stressful situations. Deficiency of Vitamin C leads to more serious problems. For example, if the demand for Vitamin C is far greater than what is normally produced by a dog, the body will start taking the needed element from other areas in the body. The same is true for other elements as well. Vitamin C also plays a major role in collagen production; low levels of C in a dog yields poor collagen production. Just one example.

No one has ever answered my question about fiber in a dogs diet - particularly the role it has on blood sugar levels, cancer, and heart. Sure wolves ate/eat meat as their primary diet, but dogs are not wolves - they descended/evoled from them and perhaps their dietary needs did as well.

If dogs live a long time feeding only meat,bones, muscle meat that's great. But like you said, they also live long healthy lives by eating meat, fruits and vegetables, and supplements. I'm not sure what the issue is between the 100% raw meat, bones, and muscle meat vs. raw meat, bones, muscle meat, fruits, vegetables, and supplements. No harm, no foul.

My other concern is the concept that one raw feeding program fits all. Knowing that many issues in dogs are genetically related, I can not see that every dog should/could be fed the exact same diet. All dogs do not respond the same way to the same diet. I will go as far as to say that all dogs within a breed do not respond the same way to the same diet. And I base that on many years of observations and studies.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> In the scientific world, it is well known that dogs are poor producers Vitamin C on their own - particularly in stressful situations. Deficiency of Vitamin C leads to more serious problems.


I don't know that it is so widely known. Wolves/dogs in the wild have no dietary source of Vitamin C and they experience a lot of stress daily. Anyway, I was only using Vitamin C as an example. I could have used any nutrient to make my point that if a dog has enough of something in his body, giving more does no good.



> No one has ever answered my question about fiber in a dogs diet - particularly the role it has on blood sugar levels, cancer, and heart.


I don't remember such a question but in nature, dogs/wolves use bone as fiber. Bone has no effect on blood sugar levels. I don't know about cancer. I doubt it has any effect on the heart but don't know that for sure.



> Sure wolves ate/eat meat as their primary diet, but dogs are not wolves - they descended/evoled from them and perhaps their dietary needs did as well.


Actually they are wolves. THey are the same species as classified by the Smithsonian Institute, the people assigned to classify animals. There is less than .2% mtDNA difference between dog's and gray wolves. They have exactly the same digestive system except wolves have a little larger mouths and a little larger teeth. The same mouth and same teeth just a little difference in size.



> If dogs live a long time feeding only meat,bones, muscle meat that's great. But like you said, they also live long healthy lives by eating meat, fruits and vegetables, and supplements. I'm not sure what the issue is between the 100% raw meat, bones, and muscle meat vs. raw meat, bones, muscle meat, fruits, vegetables, and supplements. No harm, no foul.


I never said they were harmed. I just asked why go to all the extra trouble to feed something that does no good. I asked what nutrients were found in plant matter what isn't found in meat, bones, and organs and so far I haven't received an answer to that.



> My other concern is the concept that one raw feeding program fits all. Knowing that many issues in dogs are genetically related, I can not see that every dog should/could be fed the exact same diet. All dogs do not respond the same way to the same diet. I will go as far as to say that all dogs within a breed do not respond the same way to the same diet. And I base that on many years of observations and studies.


Actually they do. For individual dogs, you might have to tweak things a little. For example you might have to up the bone content or lower it. You might have a dog that doesn't do well on some protein source. Other than that, its meat, bones, and organs. Thats the way it's been for a million years. It is what the canine body designed to eat.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

And TRIPE.................................:biggrin:


----------



## sal101011 (Jan 17, 2010)

malluver1005 said:


> I know they don't make canned. I thought saraj2878 was talking about mixing two dry foods together.


the main reason Champion does not make canned food is because all canned dog food run through a couple of main facilities, and they do not feel comfortable enough to have their ingredients touched by a third party. I did hear they will be coming out with some treats, cant wait for that!


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

sal101011 said:


> the main reason Champion does not make canned food is because all canned dog food run through a couple of main facilities, and they do not feel comfortable enough to have their ingredients touched by a third party. I did hear they will be coming out with some treats, cant wait for that!


OHHHH when is champion coming out with the treats! That is very exciting yeah! :biggrin:


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

wags said:


> OHHHH when is champion coming out with the treats! That is very exciting yeah! :biggrin:


Champion Petfoods | F.A.Q



> We are currently working on a unique “Biologically Appropriate” treat for dogs which we hope to introduce late in 2010.


It'll be nice to have a replacement for EVO Wild Cravings.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Doc said:


> Linsey
> 
> How many dogs have you had in your short life time? How many meals have you fed your dogs? How many different diets have tried for 5 year periods to evaluate the effects of a feeding program? How many processing plants have you visited/inspected to see the processes involved in making kibble? dehydrated food? canned dog food? How many slaughter houses have you inspected?


I'm not sorry that I'm young, but it does irritate me when the older generation claims to be the all knowing because of their years. I mean no disrespect, but we are all educated individuals on the subject here, please don't assume your age places you above all others. This is not personal, let's not make it that way. 



Doc said:


> And what is worse is the fact that your mind is not open enough to consider something outside of your comfort zone.


I apologize if it has come across this way, but that is not the case. In fact, PMR was entirely out of my comfort zone before I had to try it. In fact, I'm sure I could dig up old posts on here with myself putting PMR down due to my previous fears and misconceptions of it. I had to do it for my dog, he can't have carbs. Had Grissom not have had the issues he did, I honestly don't know if I ever would have dove into PMR. 
Again, as I said before, I do not think that HK is the worst thing ever, I just don't put it above other "premium" feeds, is all. It's "decent" stuff, I've used it before, but I didn't like the idea of feeding a soupey mush to my dogs, so used the box up as a topper instead. 



Doc said:


> I am sorry this has turned into a bashing session of a particular product, just like when Clay Buster had is opinions about another product. It is very clear to me how thiis board and it's moderator operate. This is nothing more than a board that slams something other than a raw prey model feeding program.


There are plenty of raw feeders on this forum, myself included, who are more than willing to offer advice on making better choices in regards to kibble and canned feeding, so this statement doesn't make much sense to me? We post in the kibble section about kibble, just as much as we do in the raw section about raw. What is baffling to me, is that when someone brings up raw in the kibble section, and raw feeders respond to it, it ticks everyone off. Why is that? In general, the raw feeders on this forum try to be pretty careful about the topic of raw staying in he right section, but if it's brought up by someone else- rest assured, we will respond. 
I've pointed out that HK is not the worst food, not even close. I just don't think it's anything special. That's all. That's my opinion based on my beliefs on canine nutrition, and I'm entitiled to it, just as you're entitled to yours. If you're feeding HK, are content with it, and like the results- GREAT! You're feeding your pets better than most of the pet owning population and should be proud of that! 



Doc said:


> Beleive it or not, there are people out there feeding their dogs a raw diet that includes fruits and vegetables. And guess what Linsey, their dogs are very healthy and live long. And in my book, thats not so bad.


I do agree with that, I've said many times over I think that ANY balanced home prepared diet is better than ANY commercial diet. 

Let's be honest- we all feed what our pets what we personally feel is BEST. (or in some cases the best we can afford at the time) I feel that PMR is in fact BEST (while others are better than others of course) so of course that's what I support in respect to raw feeding. Heck, I have a cat that eats kibble, so I am just as involved in commercial diets as anyone else. 

We are all here for the love of our pets. I think that every single member of this forum puts more thought into what they feed their fur kids than a good90% of the population- and for that, we should all be proud! Forums are a place for ideas and opinions to be exchanged, discussed, challenged, proven, disproved, and debated. It is not personal, and it is not with bad intent. I apologize if I offended you in any way. It was not my intention.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> We are all here for the love of our pets. I think that every single member of this forum puts more thought into what they feed their fur kids than a good90% of the population- and for that, we should all be proud!


Agreed. Which is why, in the past, I've sometimes said I think we're "sweating the small stuff." Just about all of us here, regardless of which foods we actually give our pets, have something in common: their dogs are eating better than the vast majority of dogs out there. And while we may argue whether A is better than B, the simple fact of the matter in almost all cases is that both A and B are a lot better than most of what's being fed out there.

It would be nice to see more discussions that keep that perspective in mind, because sometimes it _almost_ feels like the implication from *some* strictly PMR folks is that some folks are abusing or neglecting their dogs by not being "pure" to some ideal feeding cause. (I don't think it's intentional, it's just that some are very passionate about the subject.) I know I've called out in the past because sometimes it's rather palpable. It doesn't mean the discussions should be watered down, but just "debated" with that spirit in mind.


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

ziggy29 said:


> Champion Petfoods | F.A.Q
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be nice to have a replacement for EVO Wild Cravings.


Thanks so much for the information! I look forward to when the champion comes out with the treats seems to be towrds the end of the year! YEAH! and yes I agree with the Evo treat replacement! I still have over 3/4 of a bag left which is nice! My one dog doesnt like them though~~ another subject ha! But the other three do! Oh well thanks again for the info!:biggrin:


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

Just a thought! Maybe there needs to be a moderator who is a very knowledgeable kibble feeder only! IMO! Seems all moderators here are Raw feeders! 

Maybe then there would be more balance! Who knows! Just a thought not a fight!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

wags said:


> Just a thought! Maybe there needs to be a moderator who is a very knowledgeable kibble feeder only! IMO! Seems all moderators here are Raw feeders!
> 
> Maybe then there would be more balance! Who knows! Just a thought not a fight!


More balance of... what? I think that the moderators are just as educated on kibble as those who feed it. Actually, until you pointed it out,I didn't even realize that all mods are raw feeders. Ironic that that's ven an issue.. or noticed, for that matter. Time and time again, we offer kibble advice, and only discuss raw out of the raw section if it is brought up by someone else. 

I don't think that moderators should be selected based on what they feed. That, to me, doesn't make any sense. What one feeds has nothing to do with their ability to see that rules are followed. 
Champ is still on kibble, and my cat will probably ALWAYS be on kibble, so where does that place me? Why does there need to be so much segregation between raw feeders and kibble feeders? We're ALL dog lovers here for the love of our pets. What difference does it make who has what title and who feeds what way?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

wags said:


> Just a thought! Maybe there needs to be a moderator who is a very knowledgeable kibble feeder only! IMO! Seems all moderators here are Raw feeders!
> 
> Maybe then there would be more balance! Who knows! Just a thought not a fight!


Yes, balance is key. BUT you have to keep in mind who spends the most time here. If you look at the statistics, most of the moderators on here post more than any of the other members. Moderators don't always moderate what is said in posts but also have keep an eye out for spammers and keep trouble at bay. It takes more than just knowledge on food/nutrition here but also a keen understanding of how spammers work and how to get rid of them. 

Being a moderator doesn't mean that we are the "bosses" of everyone else, but more of a babysitter and keeping everyone following the rules. It has nothing to do with what we feed. Its just a coincidence that most of the mods are raw feeders...probably because we are pretty darn passionate about what we feed our dogs and are determined to help as many people as possible.

Heck, I don't know how many times I have stuck my neck out for kibble feeders against raw feeders pushing raw where they shouldn't be. I respect each and every member here, just for the reason that they spend time here and educate themselves. THAT above all is what this board is for.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> It would be nice to see more discussions that keep that perspective in mind, because sometimes it _almost_ feels like the implication from *some* strictly PMR folks is that some folks are abusing or neglecting their dogs by not being "pure" to some ideal feeding cause. (I don't think it's intentional, it's just that some are very passionate about the subject.) I know I've called out in the past because sometimes it's rather palpable. It doesn't mean the discussions should be watered down, but just "debated" with that spirit in mind.


Back when I fed raw, I felt exactly the way you do now. And after I learned about feeding raw, but couldn't for personal reasons...I did feel ashamed or guilty that I couldn't feed raw I knew that it was the best thing I could provide for my dogs. I don't know what it is about raw feeding that makes people so darn passionate about it but for some reason it does, and not just raw feeders, but kibble feeders as well.

Its a pretty taboo subject if you think about it. I would almost equate canine nutrition to the other taboo subjects that you just don't talk to people about like politics and religion. But I think that we do a pretty darn good job here keeping the peace and having some awesome discussions where all sides of an issue are covered, despite how incredibly passionate some people are...me included. 

We just all need to be respectful and act like adults. No reason not to be.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Being a moderator doesn't mean that we are the "bosses" of everyone else, but more of a babysitter and keeping everyone following the rules. It has nothing to do with what we feed. Its just a coincidence that most of the mods are raw feeders...probably because we are pretty darn passionate about what we feed our dogs and are determined to help as many people as possible.


Felt the need to stres this point. Mods are not THE bosses, or the all knowing. We just make sure things are under control. We are no more or less influential than any other member of this forum, and I think that EVERY member of this forum brings something of value to it, even those who joined today. Even those who only ask questions and never answer questions. 

We all love our pets. We all care enough to educate ourselves, for some of us, that's even on a daily basis!! How incredible is that? I love this community, I love the passion we all have for our pets' well being, and It is my sincere hope that words aren't taken on a personal level, but simply objective. I don't think anyone here has poor intentions.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Linsey, you have been educated for 20 years - a very short time compared to the older generation. I just can't accept that a 20 year old is as educated and experienced as say an 80 year old that has been formally trained and received the highest award offered in their chosen field of study, published refereed manuscripts in different fields, and has engaged in lifelong learning their entire lifetime. It's just a fact.

Your soap box is rather short compared to others. Tell me thoughts on a dogs that lived13+ years eating Pedigree and was healthy their entire life. Or the dog that ate cooked steak bones for 18 years before he died. Or the dog that died at age 2 when fed Premium Kibble or the 18 month old that died while eating a raw diet. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.

You attitude has offended me and you do come off as a "know it all". Just exactly how long have you been feeding a Prey Model Raw Diet? A year? Two years? 6 months? And where did you learn about it? 

I know what I know - from many years of studying and experiences - far more than you have been alive. Surely I have learned something over the years that you haven't encountered in your life yet.

I don't give a rat's fanny what people feed their dogs. If I am asked I will try to relay everything I know to them in a manner that is not caustic, abrasive, or shows a lack of respect. You will always catch more flys with sugar than vinegar.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Linsey, you have been educated for 20 years - a very short time compared to the older generation. I just can't accept that a 20 year old is as educated and experienced as say an 80 year old that has been formally trained and received the highest award offered in their chosen field of study, published refereed manuscripts in different fields, and has engaged in lifelong learning their entire lifetime. It's just a fact.


So...are you saying that you are canine nutritionist that has gotten a degree? Age has nothing to do with this discussion because this discussion is about opinions and very few facts.

I am in my twenties but I consider myself well educated in canine nutrition, more so than many people who are much older than me. So, whats your point here on the age issue?



> Your soap box is rather short compared to others. Tell me thoughts on a dogs that lived13+ years eating Pedigree and was healthy their entire life. Or the dog that ate cooked steak bones for 18 years before he died. Or the dog that died at age 2 when fed Premium Kibble or the 18 month old that died while eating a raw diet. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.


So just by these few examples you make your point? Which is that feeding crap kibble is better? Lets not forget about the MAJORITY rule here. MOST dogs that eat crap kibble their entire lives are not in good health and do not live life to the fullest extent. I think we both can agree on that. So, again I don't see your point here and how it relates to this topic 



> You attitude has offended me and you do come off as a "know it all". Just exactly how long have you been feeding a Prey Model Raw Diet? A year? Two years? 6 months? And where did you learn about it?


Why does this matter? Again, you seem to be fixated on the part of the discussion that is not the point. She has made well rounded, educated responses to you...as well as some others here. Raw feeding is pretty straight forward. Even someone feeding 6 months can be considered someone with good experience. It really isn't as complicated as one might think.



> I know what I know - from many years of studying and experiences - far more than you have been alive. Surely I have learned something over the years that you haven't encountered in your life yet.


And surely there is something that she knows that you do not. I don't pretend to know everything, not one little bit. And I don't think she does either. No one should.



> You will always catch more flys with sugar than vinegar.


Right back at you my friend. I don't think you live by your own principle, because you don't come off as being the friendly, open-minded person you play as your alter ego/personality that I think we all know pretty well. You might be acting respectful, but lets not forget to be polite as well.


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> More balance of... what? I think that the moderators are just as educated on kibble as those who feed it. Actually, until you pointed it out,I didn't even realize that all mods are raw feeders. Ironic that that's ven an issue.. or noticed, for that matter. Time and time again, we offer kibble advice, and only discuss raw out of the raw section if it is brought up by someone else.
> 
> I don't think that moderators should be selected based on what they feed. That, to me, doesn't make any sense. What one feeds has nothing to do with their ability to see that rules are followed.
> Champ is still on kibble, and my cat will probably ALWAYS be on kibble, so where does that place me? Why does there need to be so much segregation between raw feeders and kibble feeders? We're ALL dog lovers here for the love of our pets. What difference does it make who has what title and who feeds what way?


I wanted to even out the playing field here I am not trying to make anyone feel bad by the comment! Just seems that every time I see something on here its about people should feed raw to correct what they are having problems with. I have been on this sight for over a year and basically its starting to be all about raw! So evening out the playing field by having just one moderator ~babysitter whatever you want it to be called, would be nice to see a strictly kibblefeeder! I don't think that's so bad! And yep its all raw feeders who are moderators! 
I dont think I am the only person here who has noticed this though!


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Yes, balance is key. BUT you have to keep in mind who spends the most time here. If you look at the statistics, most of the moderators on here post more than any of the other members. Moderators don't always moderate what is said in posts but also have keep an eye out for spammers and keep trouble at bay. It takes more than just knowledge on food/nutrition here but also a keen understanding of how spammers work and how to get rid of them.
> 
> Being a moderator doesn't mean that we are the "bosses" of everyone else, but more of a babysitter and keeping everyone following the rules. It has nothing to do with what we feed. Its just a coincidence that most of the mods are raw feeders...probably because we are pretty darn passionate about what we feed our dogs and are determined to help as many people as possible.
> 
> Heck, I don't know how many times I have stuck my neck out for kibble feeders against raw feeders pushing raw where they shouldn't be. I respect each and every member here, just for the reason that they spend time here and educate themselves. THAT above all is what this board is for.


I get all this, but I am just as compassionate as a kibble feeder as you are a raw feeder always have been!


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

wags said:


> And yep its all raw feeders who are moderators!
> I dont think I am the only person here who has noticed this though!


I noticed that but I don't really see a problem with it.

I am a moderator on another high-traffic message board with membership in the thousands and probably over a hundred active members. When we aren't discussing forum business on that forum, moderators are only speaking for themselves as individuals, not as part of the "moderator team" or as some sort of "superuser". The problem is that some people have a tendency to think they have to avoid debate or (relatively civil) argument with us out of some fear that we may slap them with an infraction or ban them, which is unfortunate.

I find myself saying "speaking strictly for myself" and "speaking as a member, not a moderator" a little too often just to make it clear. I don't want people to feel like they have to "pull their punches" to anything I say as long as it's within the rules, and I hope people don't take my occasional spirited disagreement with them as "bullying" or abusing my position. 

So to that end, as long as there's no intimidation involved and as long as raw feeding isn't a "litmus test" for becoming a moderator, I see no issue. I suspect also that the raw feeders have been more likely to be consistently active, long-time regulars with a track record of civility and useful contributions, as that's usually what it takes to get the "invite".


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

wags said:


> I wanted to even out the playing field here I am not trying to make anyone feel bad by the comment! Just seems that every time I see something on here its about people should feed raw to correct what they are having problems with. I have been on this sight for over a year and basically its starting to be all about raw! So evening out the playing field by having just one moderator ~babysitter whatever you want it to be called, would be nice to see a strictly kibblefeeder! I don't think that's so bad! And yep its all raw feeders who are moderators!
> I dont think I am the only person here who has noticed this though!


It may seem like *every* thread is about raw, but that is far from the truth. Lots of people post up their problems with their dogs eating kibble, and even us raw feeders suggest feeding a different kibble or better kibble...never even mentioning raw. Look at how many pages are in the kibble/canned forum? About 33 pages worth of pretty much pure kibble talk. Then look at the raw forum...32 pages of raw talk. That seems to be right about even to me. 

I have been on this forum for nearly two years. Going from a passionate kibble feeder to a passionate raw feeder. I am no more passionate about my dogs health, but just in a new way. 

If you want a kibble feeder moderator ask RFD, he is the only one who can get into contact with the Admin here...I have tried and gotten no response. 

This forum isn't a contest for "who loves their dogs more" or "who is right." And quite frankly I'm pretty saddened that you think that all we do is push raw :frown:



wags said:


> I get all this, but I am just as compassionate as a kibble feeder as you are a raw feeder always have been!


I never once said that anyone who feeds kibble isn't as passionate as a raw feeder. Not at all.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

wags said:


> So evening out the playing field by having just one moderator ~babysitter whatever you want it to be called, would be nice to see a strictly kibblefeeder! I don't think that's so bad! And yep its all raw feeders who are moderators!


There is nothing to even out. Every moderator here has fed kibble for several years before switching to PMR. I would venture that most moderators have more knowledge of kibble than most of the kibble feeders. I don't have the knowledge I used to have because it's been 8 years since I fed kibble and have kinda lost touch with it. There are kibbles out now that weren't out back in my kibble feeding days. I'm also not as sharp because I'm getting older, maybe not as old as Doc, and my mind doesn't operate as well as it did when I was younger. :smile:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> I noticed that but I don't really see a problem with it.
> 
> I am a moderator on another high-traffic message board with membership in the thousands and probably over a hundred active members. When we aren't discussing forum business on that forum, moderators are only speaking for themselves as individuals, not as part of the "moderator team" or as some sort of "superuser". The problem is that some people have a tendency to think they have to avoid debate or (relatively civil) argument with us out of some fear that we may slap them with an infraction or ban them, which is unfortunate.
> 
> ...


*hit the nail on the head*

Exaclty and well said. 

And just to set the record straight...RFD is the only one of us who can ban someone. The rest of us mods can only give infractions and warnings. I have only had to give one warning to one person for one post. I like to let people say what they need to say as long as its respectful and tactful.


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

I have only been a memeber here for a short time. I hadn't really ever noticed that all the mods. fed raw, nor do I really care. I really never ever felt that raw was pushed onto me. I have posted in both the kibble and raw sections and have always gotten helpful replies. There are a few mods. who almost always respond to my posts weither it be questions about treats, kibble, toys, or raw (and I thank them for that! :biggrin

When I first joined I was looking into the idea of switching to raw. Where I live makes it not an option for me. I DO NOT feel bad for feeding kibble. I am feeding/will be feeding Orijen/Acana and feel that this is the absolute best I can do right now. My dogs aren't suffering. They are healthy and well cared for and loved beyond measures. Since I have made it clear that I can not do raw right now, due to my certain situation, NOT ONCE has any raw feeder made me feel bad or inferior because I am feeding kibble. 

I think the main reason that we are all here is because our dogs mean the world to us and we want to do the best for them. Wether you feed raw or kibble doesn't change that fact. :smile:


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

And what if i am a leading expert on dog nutrition. It would make no difference to some in here because they have fed a particular program for a few months/years and have all the answers and are too closed minded to hear a different point of view.

RFD, you have done a good job in promoting a Prey Model Raw Diet. At least you have had conversations with a recognized expert in the field.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Doc said:


> And what if i am a leading expert on dog nutrition. It would make no difference to some in here because they have fed a particular program for a few months/years and have all the answers and are too closed minded to hear a different point of view.


Calling people "closed minded" know-it-alls sounds like vinegar to me.... 



Doc said:


> You will always catch more flys with sugar than vinegar.


And with that, I'm bowing out of this one as I don't really have a horse in this race....


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> And what if i am a leading expert on dog nutrition. It would make no difference to some in here because they have fed a particular program for a few months/years and have all the answers and are too closed minded to hear a different point of view.


Well, are you a canine nutritionist? 

Considering we "youngsters" feed the pretty much the exact same way as RFD, many of us learning our ways from him...make us just as knowledgeable, although less experienced in years? 

And what *exactly* is your different point of view? That adding veggies and fruit is a good idea? That topic is well covered here and we all have different opinions on it. Nothing new, nothing cutting edge about that. I have come to the understanding that everyone is going to do what they think is best no matter how much someone tries to convince them otherwise.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> I think the quality of commercial food fed would run the spectrum of highest quality to lowest quality pretty much in line with what is fed overall to dogs..


again, the study does not delineate that in any way. if these dogs were all owned in europe (as the dateline for the study is Brussels), then i can assure you the grade of bibble is quite different than what is available here.

my last 4 dogs eating grain free kibbles have all exceeded the average lifespan of their breed by 2, 3, 2 1/2, and 4 years. 

i guess they were just lucky. i dont think it is at all reasonable to equate the ingredients in purina, beneful, etc.. and orijen, EVO, etc...

i suppose, then, if (for the sake of argument) you had no access to raw ingredients, you would go ahead and feed beneful or pedigree or whatever was cheapest to feed??


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Well, are you a canine nutritionist?
> 
> Considering we "youngsters" feed the pretty much the exact same way as RFD, many of us learning our ways from him...make us just as knowledgeable, although less experienced in years?
> 
> And what *exactly* is your different point of view? That adding veggies and fruit is a good idea? That topic is well covered here and we all have different opinions on it. Nothing new, nothing cutting edge about that. I have come to the understanding that everyone is going to do what they think is best no matter how much someone tries to convince them otherwise.


Cutting edge? Feeding a diet that the wolves ate is cutting edge? I guess you eat the same food as your great great grand parents? No vitamins, less red meat, more fruits and vegetables? Hasn't diets evolved much like species have evolved? Does man still swing from trees? 

I have no point to make or prove - no cutting edge raw model. I just add information for some to consider.

I am so happy that you are content with your knowledge base. Heaven forbid you would try to learn additional information that may be useful or helpful.


----------



## wags (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm not trying to start a feud here about mods or anything just a suggestion that someone could be a moderator and strictly feed kibble. It was just a thought that seems to have gotten out of control! I am being attacked because of a suggestion YIKES! I respect everyone's opinions on this forum and I believe I have said this and thanked everyone generously. Just a suggestion is what I had said and trying not to start a fight and that is what I said also! There are threads started here that end not being on the subject started quite a lot. Seems to turn to a whole different topic then! And anyone who voices an opinion is shot down . Oh well! I have 5 kids and a hubby I can argue or disagree with I don't need to argue or disagree with anyone on here! Thanks! And we hardly do have disagreements!


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Doc, what do you think of this product? NRG Pet Products Smart Nutritional Research Group Ltd dehydrated pet food dehydrated dog food


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Cutting edge? Feeding a diet that the wolves ate is cutting edge? I guess you eat the same food as your great great grand parents? No vitamins, less red meat, more fruits and vegetables? Hasn't diets evolved much like species have evolved? Does man still swing from trees?


I don't eat like my grandparents, but then again that isn't the point of this conversation either. You once again stray away from the true topic at hand. Which is adding veggies and fruit into your dog's diet is it not? Please, tell me if that really isn't your point...?

Yes, dogs have evolved from wolves...but the domestic dog has only been around for ~10,000 years. That is just a few hundred million years short for making a carnivore into an omnivore. So, in essence a dogs diet should be more of an ancestral diet...that is comparable to a wolf's natural diet.



> I have no point to make or prove - no cutting edge raw model. I just add information for some to consider.


Which I am still trying to get from you? I am more than willing to hear it....contrary to your belief. I have yet to dismiss anything you have ever said, other than the fact that younger people are not as informed as older people.



> I am so happy that you are content with your knowledge base. Heaven forbid you would try to learn additional information that may be useful or helpful.


I am always learning something new, heck I've learned tons from this site AND I'm earning a BS in Biology. I have yet to learn anything from you...as soon as you post something that is to the point and helpful I am all ears/eyes. Until then, you are just proving my point...is that age means nothing when it comes to knowledge.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Doc said:


> Linsey, you have been educated for 20 years - a very short time compared to the older generation. I just can't accept that a 20 year old is as educated and experienced as say an 80 year old.....


And I'm close minded? Did you miss the part that I have fed HK? Did you miss the part where it's the fact that I DID look into these methods of feeding and that's WHY I decided against them. I'm sorry, but I would take 2 years of accurate education over 80 years of inaccurate information any day. 

YOU are making this personal, I made it very clear that it was not that way. Personal attacks, and I'm the one who has a lot to learn. 




Doc said:


> Your soap box is rather short compared to others. Tell me thoughts on a dogs that lived13+ years eating Pedigree and was healthy their entire life. Or the dog that ate cooked steak bones for 18 years before he died. Or the dog that died at age 2 when fed Premium Kibble or the 18 month old that died while eating a raw diet. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.


13 years eating pedigree.... much like people who smoke for 90 years. It's not going to kill everyone. But, perhaps they would have lived 16 years on a better diet. We really will never know. 
Cooked bones... same theory. Doesn't mean there was not a risk every time a cooked bone was fed. It's not going cause problems every single time, but the liklihood and risk is enough for me to stay clear. 
This can really be applied to all your examples, so i'll end there.



Doc said:


> You attitude has offended me and you do come off as a "know it all". Just exactly how long have you been feeding a Prey Model Raw Diet? A year? Two years? 6 months? And where did you learn about it?


I have remained as objective as possible. Did I single you out a single time? NO. Did i even so much as say your name? NO. You, on the other hand, have tried to make this as personal as possible. You've singled me out and made personal attacks. Last I checked, that wasn't even acceptable. 



Doc said:


> I know what I know - from many years of studying and experiences - far more than you have been alive. Surely I have learned something over the years that you haven't encountered in your life yet.


You CLEARLY are under the impression that any of us "youngsters" have nothing to offer, so what's the point? If you know everything, and we know nothing, why even come here? I think everyone has something to offer this forum, yet to devalue anyone under the age of what... 60? Sorry, but that's offensive. 



wags said:


> I wanted to even out the playing field


There's nothing to even out. This isn't a competition. 



wags said:


> I am being attacked because of a suggestion YIKES!


Not one person has attacked you in the slightest. Just pointing out that mods are not bosses of the forum, we have no more or less influence than you, so what does it matter what they feed? Do you really care what the person who edits some foul language or removes spam feeds? I mean, really? Because that's all we do....It has nothing to do with what we feed, but rather time spent on the forum, and knowledge to bring to the table. When I post a thread or respond to a question, I do so as a forum member, as one of the many of you who just care about pets. I've never thought anything of it. I find it a bit silly that it even matters. 


I am NOT going to apologize for promoting raw. I do NOT bring it up in open forum in the kibble section unless it is asked about. But when I see someone who has already tried the grain free kibbles, already tried the limited ingredient kibbles, and their dog is still slipping away by the day, it is my OBLIGATION t share what I know, and I don't really give a crap what section it is in, because I've been there, I've watched my dog suffer and melt away to skin and bones. There is NO commercial food that fixes that, NO commercial kibble is low enough in carbs for dogs like that, so what? Say "sorry, your dog is gonna die, but I can't tell you how to fix it because yoou've exhausted all kibble alternatives, and your thread is in the wrong section."

THANK YOU Rannmiller, RawFedDogs, Jdatwood, and Danemama08 for NOT holding back, even though my posts were in the kibble & canned section. It saved Grissom's life, I never would have otherwise considered PMR.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

wags said:


> I'm not trying to start a feud here about mods or anything just a suggestion that someone could be a moderator and strictly feed kibble. It was just a thought that seems to have gotten out of control! I am being attacked because of a suggestion YIKES!


You certainly aren't starting a feud or even an argument. You were curious as to why all the moderators on here are raw feeders, and you got answers. No one attacked you in the slightest bit, and I'm sorry you feel attacked. I just felt that it was necessary to make it clear that moderators are NOT appointed on the fact of what they feed. They are appointed because of their participation here and their knowledge on how a forum like this works. It just so happens that some of the more active members here are raw feeders. That isn't to say that there are plenty of active kibble feeders on here as well. If you really feel that it should be more even amongst us moderators, send RFD or the admin a PM.


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

Honestly, I do not get too involved with raw discussions because I do not know much about it. I strictly feed orijen/evo.

As for the "moderators" that are all gung-ho raw, it has nothing to do with their moderator title. If they were just members, they'd still be posting the same things. The moderators here just check for spam, clean up the forums, etc. Not really different from everyone else so its pretty irrelevant what a moderator feeds. BUT...just wanted to *wave* and say i'm a moderator and i feed kibble. :biggrin:

edit: i know i haven't been too active especially to a lot of the newer people but i've been dealing with just some real life issues so I don't have the time to sit and hit the refresh button here like i used to. but i still do come on everyday and catch up on some reading. =)


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 10, 2010)

I like Honest Kitchen products :biggrin:


More importantly, it's my dogs favorite thing to eat. We add chicken, turkey or beef to the Thrive diet. I still feed Orijen and Evo and at this point I'm not concerned until I see otherwise with the P&G/Natura deal.

I'm interested in feeding raw. Time and knowledge is what holds me back... but as a pet parent and someone versed in pet nutrition and natural supplements (which I rarely hear anyone speak of) I don't feel my dogs are undernurished or fed poorly on Honest Kitchen, Orijen or Evo. I don't like the fact they are being fed processed food, but I eat processed food myself, as 99.9% of the members here do. As every pet owner starts out, it's an evolution to the best health possible.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm still trying to get Doc's opinion on this product NRG Pet Products Smart Nutritional Research Group Ltd dehydrated pet food dehydrated dog food


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

SaltyDog said:


> I like Honest Kitchen products :biggrin:
> 
> 
> More importantly, it's my dogs favorite thing to eat. We add chicken, turkey or beef to the Thrive diet. I still feed Orijen and Evo and at this point I'm not concerned until I see otherwise with the P&G/Natura deal.
> ...


completely agree. the fact that people are even on these forums show that we care about our dogs/kids health. these forums are here for everyone to contribute, learn and exchange knowledge. it seems like we get competitive with each other often but lets just remember that we ALL have the same goal in the end...to make/keep our kids as healthy and happy as we can.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> I think the quality of commercial food fed would run the spectrum of highest quality to lowest quality pretty much in line with what is fed overall to dogs. These were random dogs who happened to die during the study. All the study attempts to determine is commercial fed dogs vs. noncommercial fed dogs. Nothing more. It is pretty apparent to me that commercial fed dogs don't live as long as noncommercial fed dogs. I don't think any study has proven that dogs fed a "higher quality" commercial dog food live any longer than dogs fed "bottom of the barrel" commercial dog food. Personally I don't think there is that much difference between the highest end commercial foods and lowest end commercial foods. They are all made from refuse from human food processing plants.


I'm sorry, but I know how in love some are with prey model diets, but to say there is no proof that dogs on a food like Evo, or Orijen live longer and healthier than dogs on Iams, or Beneful, or Pedigree is ludicrous. One group has mostly all fillers, dyes, dangerous chemical preservatives, and the other group actually tries to put a high amount of meat content, with some fruits and veggies, with minerals and vitamins. 

How anyone can look at a ingredients label on a top shelf food, and at crap food, and just come out and say a dog won't have an advantage either or is pretty foolish.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

PUNKem733 said:


> I'm sorry, but I know how in love some are with prey model diets, but to say there is no proof that dogs on a food like Evo, or Orijen live longer and healthier than dogs on Iams, or Beneful, or Pedigree is ludicrous. One group has mostly all fillers, dyes, dangerous chemical preservatives, and the other group actually tries to put a high amount of meat content, with some fruits and veggies, with minerals and vitamins.
> 
> How anyone can look at a ingredients label on a to shelf food, and at crap food, and just come out and say a dog won't have an advantage either or is pretty foolish.


I have to agree here. Ingredients that are widely accepted as top allergens and culprits of issues like corn, wheat, soy, and extra added sugar are not found in top quality foods, and more importantly, foods like Evo and Orijen have far higher meat content than something like Beneful. 

While I am entirely on the "raw bandwagon" to put all commercial diets on the same platform is just plain silly. More meat, less fillers/ carbs= better. And surely you can't place foods that strive for this on the same shelf as the mainstream junk like pedigree.

We may have no "proof" but general knowledge of what is and isn't acceptable is enough to draw conclusions from.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

PUNKem733 said:


> I'm sorry, but I know how in love some are with prey model diets, but to say there is no proof that dogs on a food like Evo, or Orijen live longer and healthier than dogs on Iams, or Beneful, or Pedigree is ludicrous. One group has mostly all fillers, dyes, dangerous chemical preservatives, and the other group actually tries to put a high amount of meat content, with some fruits and veggies, with minerals and vitamins.
> 
> How anyone can look at a ingredients label on a to shelf food, and at crap food, and just come out and say a dog won't have an advantage either or is pretty foolish.


Agreed completely. It's one thing to believe that a good PMR diet is superior to any kibble. It's quite another to more or less insinuate that kibble is kibble is kibble. All one has to do is compare the ingredient list of Orijen and Ol' Roy to see that's not the case.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Yeah I do think a PMR diet is by far the best, with no need for veggies or fruits.:tongue:

I also had an issue with RFD saying that...



> Personally I don't think there is that much difference between the highest end commercial foods and lowest end commercial foods. They are all made from refuse from human food processing plants.


The last sentence irked me. Unless you have proof, I really don't think an Evo or Orijen takes rotting, diseased carcasses or other pets and puts them in their foods. Especially with Orijen, here's a Co that won't make canned foods because a third party would have to at least have their hands in it, and they don't feel comfortable with that. They could make a boatload of cash of of that, but they won't. I do think sometimes, there are companies that have a little integrity, and who stand by their principles. Sure the bottom line is the most important thing, but it's not always the be all end all with things.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

There are a lot of things I would like to say about what has been said in this particualr thread but that would only drag it on further and it wouldn't be fair to make a post about my feelings then close the thread. So without adding to the flames, I'm gonna shut down this thread. Let's all take a breather and start over with some other subject in a more calm manner. Thank you :smile:


----------

