# Carbs for Dogs



## 3DogMom

Information from a breeder (of 30 years) and a vet (a close friend and of 15 years)....dogs NEED carbs. Their diet should be 2/3 carbs and 1/3 protein.....dogs have been domesticated for many thousands of years and have evolved....YES, they have!!! They absolutely need protein...some need more then others. You need to discuss what your dogs needs are with your vet or with support of a knowledgeable canine specialist (eg. reputable breeder). Is your dog active, working, sedentary...does your dog have any health issues? All of this needs to be considered!!! The information on here could be from someone who considers themselves a "specialist" however they may just be an average person. Take all the information you have and consult someone IN PERSON!!!

My experience....my beautiful Labrador fell ill to either stomach ulcers (she suffers from terrible anxiety) or from gastroenteritis (vomitting blood - large amounts). She was critically ill for many days. Once home the first food she ate was greek yogourt for the probiotics, followed by brown rice and eventually a protein (plain chicken). This was continued for weeks as her digestive system was so traumatized. She ate 2/3 carbs with 1/3 protein and was in the best condition of her life...her eyes shone, her anxiety was decreased, her coat while always shinny was even brighter and she recovered beautifully from a disorder that often is fatal. 

Her history...she has always had loose stools and digestive issues. I used pumpkin often to support her digestive system and it was extrememly helpful. What finally fixed the digestive issues (after weeks of research as she recovered)...potatoes, recommended to me many times by my aunt who is the breeder I mention. Her shedding is the lowest it has EVER been (she's almost 9), her stools are the firmest and smallest they have ever been and her energy level and anxiety are at "normal" levels. She remains at 2/3 carbs and 1/3 protein 

Read others experiences, take all the information into account but always talk to a vet or a reputable breeder to determine YOUR dogs needs. What is good for one dog is not always for another, much like the human world that dogs have evolved within!

Good luck and the fact you have read all of this proves you will decide what is BEST for your beloved pet!!!


----------



## Unosmom

> In the Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition (2nd edition, 1988), we read that
> "There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the dog or the cat. Based on investigations in the dog and with other species it is likely that dogs and cats can be maintained without carbohydrates if the diet supplies enough fat or protein from which the metabolic requirement for glucose is derived."
> 
> How can this be? Let us discuss just how the dog and cat are able to fulfill their requirement for glucose through a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs.
> 
> Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy. However, it is not 'carbs' that maintain the health of the organs listed in the quotes above, but glucose. Glucose can be obtained from both fat and protein through a process known as gluconeogenesis, where amino acids and fat (not fatty acids; those use a different cycle) are "converted" to glucose. If carbs are present, though, they will be converted to energy first before fat and protein because they are easier to use. This is the reason that carbs regulate how much starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. If there is a plethora of carbohydrates, fat will be stored instead of used. If there are not enough carbs to fulfill energy needs, then fat will be converted to glucose and used. If no carbs are present, then fat and protein are used to fill energy needs.
> 
> Excess carbohydrates are stored in the liver and the muscles as glycogen AND in the body as fat. However, since carboydrates are not the only source of glycogen (which also comes from proteins and fats through a process known as glyconeogenesis), they are not absolutely necessary. Human athletes commonly perform 'carbo loading' techniques where they eat huge carby meals of things like pasta to rapidly replenish their glycogen stores in their muscles and liver before a competition. The carbohydrates, when in excess, are more rapidly converted and stored as glycogen compared to fat and protein. HOWEVER, once again, fat and protein can also be stored as glycogen, which makes carbohydrates unnecessary unless you want to perform 'carbo loading'. I believe it is Purina that has capitalized on this and now has "energy bars" of complex carbohydrates for the canine athlete to help them recover more quickly between events. But, carbohydrates do not rebuild spent muscle tissue, etc. Protein does that. Fat is also easily utilized for quick energy, too, and provides more energy per gram that carbohydrate does.
> 
> It is not low carbohydrate intake that causes things like cardiac symptoms and angina; it is low blood glucose. If there is not enough glucose in the blood system, then you run into many problems including black outs, cardiac symptoms (like arrhythmia), and angina (chest pain). Of course, it is interesting that wolves can go without food for weeks and still survive well enough. How do they do that without eating carbs? Simple: they use up fat reserves and may even dip into their own muscle to get the necessary proteins and fats to provide glucose and energy for their bodies. So carbohydrates themselves are not actually necessary; glucose is necessary, and that can be obtained from protein and fat.
> 
> What about the brain? The brain is preferentially given glucose above all other organs. Glucose in its ready form, at that. But does this mean carbohydrates are necessary? Since glucose can be had from fat and protein as well, then no.
> 
> What about the claim of protein and fat—when converted to energy—weakening the immune system? This seems to be taken from human research where athletes in intensive training had suppressed immune systems which could be improved by consuming proper amounts of carbohydrate. Additionally, white blood cell production in humans seems linked to glucose production. More glucose present means the body is better able to mount an immune response—until there is "too much" glucose around and insulin spikes and starts suppressing all other pathways in the body except for those needed to force the glucose into cells (fat cells). High amounts of simple carbohydrates and sugars are known to suppress the immune system. If this is the case, though, one could wonder how a diet high in grain affects our pets—overstimulation of the immune system due to high concentrations of glucose from the grain? Perhaps this is why many pets suffer "allergies" while on grain!
> 
> One other comment I have here is that as long as the animal is receiving appropriate fat and protein, glucose production will not be an issue. And for carnivorous animals like dogs, I cannot help but wonder if their white blood cells are more sensitive to glucose than ours—meaning, less glucose is needed to "stimulate" canine white blood cell (WBC) production compared to human WBC production.
> 
> Using protein and fat for energy does not weaken the immune system unless there is not enough to go around, so to speak. If someone is starving, then using protein and fats for energy—while necessary—is a little 'cost-intensive' on the body. But it is not the lack of carbs that is hurting them; it is the simple lack of enough food. Similarly, a human athlete in intensive training may overwork their body to the point that using protein and fats for fuel becomes too cost-intensive to their body.
> 
> What about poor hair growth and constant shedding resulting from a lack of carbohydrates? Can these indicate a 'need' for carbs? Maybe, but more likely it indicates a need for better overall nutrition. I personally have NEVER heard of 'carbohydrate deficiency' in any animal. Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING as a "necessary carbohydrate," just necessary glucose. Our bodies, and our dogs' bodies, can do without carbohydrates (although I would say our dogs would fare better than humans, since we are omnivores who do well with fresh vegetables in our diet—except for some cultures that eat mostly meat!). Fats and proteins can be converted easily to necessary glucose. Poor hair growth and constant shedding are linked to an overall poor diet, poor consumption of essential fatty acids, biotin deficiencies, some vitamin and mineral deficiencies, AND a lack of good fats and proteins in the diet. PROTEIN, not carbohydrate, is the building block for hair and skin and all other parts of the body. Carbohydrates do nothing for building and maintaining the body structures except provide easy glucose to fuel the rebuilding process.
> 
> What about thyroid function? Thyroid function is dependent upon the correct amount of GLUCOSE produced by the dog's body, not by the correct amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Too much glucose from easily available carbohydrate energy sources can cause just as many problems as not enough glucose. Since we have already established that glucose can be produced from fat and protein, then it would again seem that carbohydrates are actually unnecessary provided that there is enough protein and fat to go around (and a raw diet has PLENTY!).
> 
> B compounds, or B vitamins, are found not only in the dog's own intestine (bacteria produce some B vitamins) but also in the meat and organs of prey animals. Feeding a variety of organ meats as part of a proper raw diet will cover the B-vitamin requirement quite easily. One has to wonder: how much of the B compounds in grain and starch and veggies is actually available to the dog? Compared to something more bioavailable like liver, then I would say 'not much.'


Myths About Raw: Do dogs really need carbohydrates?


----------



## RawFedDogs

3DogMom said:


> Information from a breeder (of 30 years) and a vet (a close friend and of 15 years)....dogs NEED carbs.


Those are the two worst sources for nutritional information. Most breeders recommend the absolute worst of the worst kibbles. This is mainly because, "I've fed Purina Puppy Chow (or whatever brand) to my puppies for 30 years and they have always done well." Canine nutritional knowledge has increased greatly in the last 30 years and breeders aren't known for their research in these areas. Vets are just as bad. Vets take ONE course in animal nutrition during their studies to be a vet and that covers all domestic animals not just dogs. So they spend one quarter studying nutrition for all animals, how much time could be spent on dogs? Not much. Basically vets know what the dog food reps tell them when they visit their office. And you know what the dog food reps are going to tell them. So these two sources for your nutritional information are very poor sources.



> Their diet should be 2/3 carbs and 1/3 protein...


How are you going to get these carbs into them? Their bodies are designed to digest meat, bones, and organs and are very very inefficient at digesting plant matter.



> ..dogs have been domesticated for many thousands of years and have evolved....YES, they have!!!


They have evolved in size and appearance but their digestive systems haven't. Their internal organs haven't. Internally our domestic dogs are identical to wild wolves of today. That would indicate that the same diet is needed for both and I don't think you are going to say wild wolves eat a lot of carbs. There is nothing in the dogs body that needs carbs. I have an 11 1/2 year old Great Dane that hasn't had a carb in her diet in almost 10 years. I see no nutritional deficiency. I have an almost 7 year old Dane who has never had a carb in his life. He runs around like a young puppy.



> You need to discuss what your dogs needs are with your vet or with support of a knowledgeable canine specialist (eg. reputable breeder).


Again, stopping the average person on the street and asking them would get you as good of canine nutritional information as you get from those two sources.




> Is your dog active, working, sedentary...does your dog have any health issues? All of this needs to be considered!!!


They all need meat bones and orgsns. Some need more than others. The dog will tell you what he needs if you know how to understand him.



> The information on here could be from someone who considers themselves a "specialist" however they may just be an average person. Take all the information you have and consult someone IN PERSON!!!


I am an average person. I have no degrees in anything. I have spent over 10 years researching canine nutrition. I am confident I have more knowledge about the subject than 98% of the vets or breeders in the country. I have 10 years experience feeding multiple dogs a diet of nothing but meat, bones, and organs. I know what I'm talking about. This is not new to me. :smile:



> My experience....my beautiful Labrador fell ill to either stomach ulcers (she suffers from terrible anxiety) or from gastroenteritis (vomitting blood - large amounts). She was critically ill for many days.


I would bet good money that carbs in her diet caused those very problems. Dogs bodies are not designed to digest carbs. They can overwork the pancreas, liver and the whole GI tract. I can't tell you how many similar dogs I have seen whose problems cleared up within weeks of eating no carbs at all.



> Once home the first food she ate was greek yogourt for the probiotics, followed by brown rice and eventually a protein (plain chicken). This was continued for weeks as her digestive system was so traumatized.


I'm sure it was.



> She ate 2/3 carbs with 1/3 protein and was in the best condition of her life...her eyes shone, her anxiety was decreased, her coat while always shinny was even brighter and she recovered beautifully from a disorder that often is fatal.


So she got better in spite of your treatment. Good for her. :smile: 



> Her history...she has always had loose stools and digestive issues.


Thats a very common condition with dogs that eat carbs. Their bodies can't handle carbs.



> I used pumpkin often to support her digestive system and it was extrememly helpful.


Pumpkin masks the symptoms. It does nothing to cure the problem. Pumpkin absorbs water in the GI tract causing stools to be more solid. It does not help the problem that caused loose stools.



> What finally fixed the digestive issues (after weeks of research as she recovered)...potatoes, recommended to me many times by my aunt who is the breeder I mention.


Thats just more absorption of water in the GI tract. Potatoes do the same thing as the pumpkin. They are not eliminating the cause of poor digestion they are just masking the symptom. If you don't believe me, stop potatoes and pumpkin for a week or so and see what happens.



> Her shedding is the lowest it has EVER been (she's almost 9), her stools are the firmest and smallest they have ever been and her energy level and anxiety are at "normal" levels. She remains at 2/3 carbs and 1/3 protein


These are subjective things that you have no measurement for. How much did she shed before? How much is she shedding now? You have no way to measure. Yes stools are smaller and firmer because of the water being absorbed in the GI tract by potatoes and pumpkin. Eliminate those from the diet and see what happens. Energy level and anxiety are pretty difficult to measure also.



> Read others experiences, take all the information into account but always talk to a vet or a reputable breeder to determine YOUR dogs needs. What is good for one dog is not always for another, much like the human world that dogs have evolved within!


I have been reading others experiences and talking to them and working with them for 10 years. Meat, bones, and organs is ALL a carnivore (dog) needs for perfect health and happiness. What is good for one dog is exactly whats good for them all. Dogs have not evolved within. If you think they have, please enlighten me. What is different internally between a dog and a wild wolf? I say nothing. 



> Good luck and the fact you have read all of this proves you will decide what is BEST for your beloved pet!!!


Hehe, did that 10 years ago. Thats why my dog's diets are carb free and have been for almost 10 years.

I hope you read that entire link that Unosmom posted. Lots of good information on that page and in all the "Myths" pages. I know the lady who wrote all those pages. Used to converse with her a lot back in my early raw feeding days. Carrie is a very impressive person and has great credentials. I have great respect for her and her knowledge.

ETA: Welcome to the board. Hope you become a regular member here and enjoy your stay. You will learn a lot. :biggrin:


----------



## Caty M

1/3 protein, 2/3 carbs.. where's the fat? Fat is necessary to dogs... mine probably eat 2/3 protein, 1/3 fat. From 8 weeks. They are lookin' good! Far better than the dogs you see eating a carb based diet.

By the way- my vet feeds prey model raw- no carbs.


----------



## meggels

Just playing devil's advocate here but Bill...

You say that just because a breeder has fed puppy chow for years and their dogs are 'doing well' does not mean that's someone that you should listen to. But doesn't that sort of hold true for raw feeding as well?


I'm just having a hard time lately with the concept that PMR style raw is the best for every.single.dog (barring any medical conditions of course).


----------



## Caty M

Everyone should do their own research and not just listen solely to one person.. whether it be for feeding kibble OR raw.

Why do you believe that Meggels? It's far and away the closest to a natural diet barring whole prey (which I'd love to do but can't)...


----------



## Liz

Part of the problem is what people call "doing well". I know breeders who have pups that really are not really doing well. They survive and are no worse than other dogs but they are not thriving. They have adequate coats that really don't shine, they have yuck teeth, rotten breath, low energy or nutsy energy, low focus, erratic behavior, etc. I am sadly speaking from experience. My dogs were always ok on the food they got even low grade kibble. We never had huge problems. The difference on raw is night and day. My current dogs and pups just glow. Their behavior is calm and playful, they are happy, exuberant but not obnoxious. My dogs can focus longer, train easier and display very few behavior problems. Their looks are amazing and even my old almost 12 year old boy acts like a youngster and is showing no signs of even arthritis. They are clean smelling, fresh breathed and have lovely teeth. I could go on and on but you get the picture. Ok and thriving are two vastly different things. Personally I want my pups to thrive nto just be O.K.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

I'm iffy about the whole thing. I just don't think raw is the best option for EVERY dog, just like kibble does not work for EVERY dog. I totally get, understand, and preach that dogs are, internally at least, like wolves. It just makes SENSE to me. At the same time, a wolf would not be getting handed freshly cut meat from the butcher or the grocery store like most raw feeders feed, either. They would also not be getting vet care, they wouldn't get bathes, they wouldn't get their nails clipped, and all the other special perks we do for our dogs. In general, I would say carbs are NOT beneficial to dogs, but I also don't think they are all necessarily harmful, either, and some may do better with more.

Also, domesticated dogs each have their own set of problems within each breed. Schnauzers, for example, are VERY prone to pancreatitis due to the high levels of lipoproteins in their blood streams, as are Silky's and Yorkies. These are issues wolves would not be dealing with... 

So, I do believe that every dog is an individual. I think raw is great for those that thrive and do well on it. I wouldn't hesitate to feed it if I had the desire to and my dog did not have special dietary needs. Granted, when I was feeding pre-made raw, I did not notice a big difference from him being kibble fed (on "high quality" kibble), so I really don't see how he would be benefiting from it when his coat is already really shiny, his teeth are pretty darn good for a 3 year old Yorkie who never gets 'em brushed, he never has any ear infections or other bacterial stuff, he's in really good shape, great energy levels, very active, poops are great, etc, etc, etc. So, to me, I don't really think it'd be all that worth it to feed it, especially when my dog was super picky and would often not eat the pre-made raw at all... which, in turn, would be a big waste of money. Knowing him, if I gave him a raw chicken thigh or something, he'd just whine and carry it around and never eat it. I'd consider trying pre-made raw again if I could find one low in fat.

I do agree that "doing well" means different things to so many people. But to me, it means a healthy coat, solid firm (but not TOO firm) poop, good energy level, healthy teeth and good breath, and stuff like that. I've seen some say their dog is doing fine on Kibbles n Bits but I see a dog that is overweight, horrendous breath and teeth, smelly ears, lots of poop, but... since they are still happy and wagging their tail, they must be doing well, right?


----------



## magicre

since this is in the dry and canned dog food section, i will merely say i disagree with the OP's post.


----------



## meggels

I think it's a great concept, don't get me wrong. I guess what I have a problem with lately is the holier than thou attitude when it comes to pmr feeding. I think many dogs can thrive (not just survive) on high quality kibbles. I just think sometimes there's an overwhelming attitude of life or death when it comes to raw vs kibble....


----------



## magicre

as a passionate believer in prey model raw feeding, i am not holier than thou.

i say that because i have fed kibble, i've home cooked for my dogs.

i've been where people who feed kibble are.

i am in a place where people who feed kibble are not. and until they are in the place i am standing, i don't think i should be considered holier than thou when i think i've found the holy grail of dog feeding.

it's hard not to be passionate. but it's an insult to be called holier than thou. 

i won't apologise for the way i think and speak. and it's really a shame that people who don't see what i see.....it's truly a shame they don't climb the mountain. the view is awesome.

i truly believe i have the answer.....and the dog is living proof...


----------



## MollyWoppy

meggels said:


> I think it's a great concept, don't get me wrong. I guess what I have a problem with lately is the holier than thou attitude when it comes to pmr feeding. I think many dogs can thrive (not just survive) on high quality kibbles. I just think sometimes there's an overwhelming attitude of life or death when it comes to raw vs kibble....


Personal feelings regarding raw aside, I do tend to agree with you. I just get a tad sad lately when I see people who have been here a long time and have been fun and valuable members packing up their bags and leaving in droves.
I mean, it's not like they are feeding Ol Roy or crap foods, these people are great owners and they research and believe in the high quality kibbles they feed, but they are still made to feel like inferior owners.


----------



## DaViking

meggels said:


> I think it's a great concept, don't get me wrong. I guess what I have a problem with lately is the holier than thou attitude when it comes to pmr feeding. I think many dogs can thrive (not just survive) on high quality kibbles. I just think sometimes there's an overwhelming attitude of life or death when it comes to raw vs kibble....


Agree with this. Combine a high quality kibble with high quality ingredients with love, respect and meaningful activity and you have the base for a thriving dog.


----------



## Unosmom

My only true dislike is people who adamantly believe that dogs NEED carbs to survive, which isnt true. Dogs can get some nutrition from carbs once its processed and chances are, it wont kill your dog, but they wont be getting that much out of it to begin with. I'm not a hypocrite, I still feed my dog half kibble/canned, granted its grain free, but not starch free which isnt that much better then grain. Its kind of impossible for kibble to be entirely carb free due to the way its processed. If I could get rid of potatoes, I would, but its just not feasible at this point. So I'm doing the best I can and my dog is pretty darn healthy. 

I also agree with the previous poster that you have to take it case by case, dogs are so heavily inbred that many come with congential issues that arent present in wolves and need special considerations.


----------



## tem_sat

DaViking said:


> Agree with this. Combine a high quality kibble with high quality ingredients with love, respect and meaningful activity and you have the base for a thriving dog.


To be completely honest with you, your above statement would be fine if only said "high quality kibble" would keep my Doxie from needing dentals on a consistent basis. 50-50 Acana + RMB's + daily brushing didn't work either. My original reason for feeding PMR was certainly not for anything as highbrow as "thriving", it was to avoid the dang dentals. Plain and simple.


----------



## DaViking

MollyWoppy said:


> I mean, it's not like they are feeding Ol Roy or crap foods, these people are great owners and they research and believe in the high quality kibbles they feed, but they are still made to feel like inferior owners.


Why is that? From my own experience and my own circles of owners of working dogs and search and rescue dogs the majority ends up with a high quality kibble after trying raw. This is not ppl who judge on the basis of a gut feeling or a few weeks or months of observation. This is owners who rely on peak performance and a happy thriving dog 24/7. I know some who stayed with a lamb based raw diet and personally I couldn't say if those dogs had a lesser performance. They performed good and looked great to me. I tend to stay away from ppl who claim to know the truth. Conviction and enthusiasm is all good


----------



## xellil

I say feed whatever the heck you want. But make a decision out of knowledge, not ignorance.


----------



## meggels

magicre said:


> as a passionate believer in prey model raw feeding, i am not holier than thou.
> 
> i say that because i have fed kibble, i've home cooked for my dogs.
> 
> i've been where people who feed kibble are.
> 
> i am in a place where people who feed kibble are not. and until they are in the place i am standing, i don't think i should be considered holier than thou when i think i've found the holy grail of dog feeding.
> 
> it's hard not to be passionate. but it's an insult to be called holier than thou.
> 
> i won't apologise for the way i think and speak. and it's really a shame that people who don't see what i see.....it's truly a shame they don't climb the mountain. the view is awesome.
> 
> i truly believe i have the answer.....and the dog is living proof...


I never said YOU were holier than thou. I never said anyone specifically, so please do not take it personal. 

I think sometimes people who feed raw get a little TOO passionate and scare away people or insult them because like someone else said, they are made to feel inferior. 

I feed raw. To one dog that is. I feed kibble to another, so maybe it's easy for me to see both sides.


----------



## DaViking

tem_sat said:


> To be completely honest with you, your above statement would be fine if only said "high quality kibble" would keep my Doxie from needing dentals on a consistent basis. 50-50 Acana + RMB's + daily brushing didn't work either. My original reason for feeding PMR was certainly not for anything as highbrow as "thriving", it was to avoid the dang dentals. Plain and simple.


And thats fine, that was you and your Doxie's situation. No problem with that. My answer is still fine.


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> I think sometimes people who feed raw get a little TOO passionate and scare away people or insult them because like someone else said, they are made to feel inferior.


I kind of agree with you. I've probably been guilty of it.

It's like a smoker who quits - they are the worst nags to people who still smoke. Because they have "seen the light" they think everyone should.

The thing that does bother me is when people say "I'm not feeding raw because it's messy (or I'll get salmonella, etc.)" - that tells me a decision was made without any real thought. 

In the end, there aren't alot of places where people who feed raw gather together - this is one of them. It may just be the nature of the beast that to be here is to run into enthusiastic raw feeders.


----------



## magicre

meggels said:


> I never said YOU were holier than thou. I never said anyone specifically, so please do not take it personal.
> 
> I think sometimes people who feed raw get a little TOO passionate and scare away people or insult them because like someone else said, they are made to feel inferior.
> 
> I feed raw. To one dog that is. I feed kibble to another, so maybe it's easy for me to see both sides.


maybe you do. but when you wanted to switch one of your dogs, all of us came running to help you out. not one person said, well, if you're switching one, why not switch them all....or maybe someone did and you explained that you could not afford it for the others and if i recall,

everyone concentrated on the dog you had. no one condemned or judged you....we just gathered to help you.


and i'm sorry if people don't like their method of feeding challenged.

these are our dogs. we try to do best by them. and, in my life i've never seen so much resistance to what might be the best way.

i can't tell you how many forums i visit and it's the same oh same oh sensitive tummy, picky eater, yeast infections, goobers, allergies, etc. etc. etc. only to be cured miraculously when the dog is put on a raw diet of some sort, be it whole, prey or even barf....

so yeah, i do take it personally.....and i bet a few others do too..

meggels, maybe you didn't mean me, per se.....it's just a shame that every time this happens, someone, whether it's you or someone else, has to comment on how holier than thou we all are....when that just isn't the case....

just because we know we are right doesn't mean we are holier than thou.


----------



## Liz

I did not post to bash anyones methods. Someone stated carbs were necessary - fact is they are not. You should feed your dog whatever keeps him the healthiest and fittest, as well as happiest. After feeding innumerable kibbles, home cooking and now raw - raw is the one for us. It takes some time and commitment. My dogs would be okay on good kibble but not the same as they are now. The main point is not to try to convince people that dogs need carbs - that is just not true. Feed kibble and be okay with that - I have no problem with what others feed their dogs, that is their responsibility and they have to live with their decision. Research and know what you are feeding, we did and no matter what anyone says I am comfortable with raw and my dogs are doing extremely well.


----------



## meggels

magicre said:


> maybe you do. but when you wanted to switch one of your dogs, all of us came running to help you out. not one person said, well, if you're switching one, why not switch them all....or maybe someone did and you explained that you could not afford it for the others and if i recall,
> 
> everyone concentrated on the dog you had. no one condemned or judged you....we just gathered to help you.
> 
> 
> and i'm sorry if people don't like their method of feeding challenged.
> 
> these are our dogs. we try to do best by them. and, in my life i've never seen so much resistance to what might be the best way.
> 
> i can't tell you how many forums i visit and it's the same oh same oh sensitive tummy, picky eater, yeast infections, goobers, allergies, etc. etc. etc. only to be cured miraculously when the dog is put on a raw diet of some sort, be it whole, prey or even barf....
> 
> so yeah, i do take it personally.....and i bet a few others do too..
> 
> meggels, maybe you didn't mean me, per se.....it's just a shame that every time this happens, someone, whether it's you or someone else, has to comment on how holier than thou we all are....when that just isn't the case....
> 
> just because we know we are right doesn't mean we are holier than thou.



Even when people feed premade, even if it's vital essentials with no veggies/fruit/carbs, they are still given a hard time. I think people that feed premade, and higher quality kibble, are made to feel like it's never "good enough".

I'm just giving you my honest opinion. I appreciate how helpful people are on these boards, I've never seen such a passion on anything HELP so many people, but I think in the same token, sometimes that abundance of passion can hurt people's feelings if it's people coming on too strong or bashing kibble. 




I'm going to shut my mouth now. I'm very stressed the past few days, am not making enough money to pay my bills, and found an online job posting today for my exact job at my company so apparently will be getting replaced soon. I'm very very grouchy and sensitive  Sorry guys.


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> I'm going to shut my mouth now. I'm very stressed the past few days, am not making enough money to pay my bills, and found an online job posting today for my exact job at my company so apparently will be getting replaced soon. I'm very very grouchy and sensitive  Sorry guys.



I'm so sorry - but don't assume you are being replaced, maybe they are adding a position. I think that's pretty crappy if they are posting your position and not telling you - you don't want to work for them anyway if that's the case. There are more classy places to work.


----------



## baggie

I kind of agree with everyone in this thread. Common sense would tell one that a balanced raw food diet, all else being equal, closely resembling wolves' natural diet would be ideal. However, things aren't always equal. Common sense also tells us that unnatural inter/intra breeding undoubtedly creates complications not found in the wild. And if they were, natural selection would insure this trait would not persist. Advancements in understanding, medicine, science, etc. allow many 'undesirable' traits to persist today.


----------



## Liz

I am sorry for your troubles Meggels, everything is still so hard in this ecomony. I think everyone is more touchy. It may be me but I didn't feel bad when feeding kibble no matter what others said or when I home cooked or now that I feed raw. I think you should be confident and happy in your decision and if you change your mind later on great if not at least be comfortable with your choices. It sounds like there are a lot of other variables in your life that could be making this a hot issue. I go to a forum for naturopathic health care for dogs and wow, they are hard core on everything. I get the information I need because they really know their stuff and they have a right to get indignant when people come on and sya silly innaccuracies. his board is really easy going - especially when comapred to others out there. I hope things look up for you at work or you find a better job.


----------



## CorgiPaws

This is from a species that has existed for thousands of years: they don't need carbs. 

Period. 
The end.


----------



## meggels

xellil said:


> I'm so sorry - but don't assume you are being replaced, maybe they are adding a position. I think that's pretty crappy if they are posting your position and not telling you - you don't want to work for them anyway if that's the case. There are more classy places to work.



It's only me and the boss/owner....and there are many times where I'm left with not enough to do, so I don't think he's adding on. 


I've only been there 1.5 months and I have that typical 3 month probation period. We had "personality training" a few weeks ago because he told me I wasn't friendly or welcoming enough on the phone and was turning customers off (I guess he had complaints? Really caught me off guard, I thought I was doing okay)....His wife did "personality training" with us (mostly me) and I thought things were improving....but hes away today and tomorrow and I was going to turn on the fan on his desk and saw some resumes with his writing on them....did a craigslist search, and found my position posted on 9/15.


I had a bad feeling in my gut for the past week or so...guess I was right. I'm beginning to apply to more places but it's very frustrating. Esp when I have $1700 a month in various bills/living expenses that need to be paid!


----------



## xellil

I'm so sorry - I found out in July that my job is being eliminated in December so I'll be jobless soon. It's a scary feeling. 

I will keep my fingers crossed that you get a great job that you love and not a boss that posts for your replacement without telling you. That is just plain sorry.


----------



## cprcheetah

They are called Carnivores for a reason....not Carbivores, Herbivores, Cornivores, Riceavores etc. End of story! I know for my dogs they actually thrive and are healthier without carbs in their diet than they EVER were with carbs in their diet.


----------



## RawFedDogs

meggels said:


> You say that just because a breeder has fed puppy chow for years and their dogs are 'doing well' does not mean that's someone that you should listen to. But doesn't that sort of hold true for raw feeding as well?


There is a lot of sarcasm in my statement. These breeders feel the pups are doing well. It doesn't mean they actually are. In fact they aren't. The breeders in this category only see those pups for 6 to 8 weeks and usually never sees them again. These breeders have never done long term follow up. These breeders don't care what the pups are fed after they leave their home. These breeders never see a pup with proper nutrition. They have no comparison. Remember I'm not talking about all breeders. I'm talking about the breeders that would say dogs need 2/3 carbs in their diet.

About raw feeders, I don't know any that didn't feed kibble at one time. Raw feeders have something to compare to. They are as familiar with kibble fed dogs as they are with raw fed dogs. Raw feeders have experience both ways. They are very familiar with the differences between raw and kibble.



> I'm just having a hard time lately with the concept that PMR style raw is the best for every.single.dog (barring any medical conditions of course).


I understand that. Many people do UNTIL they study the physiology of a dog and learn how his digestive system works and/or they feed a PMR diet for a good period of time and whittness what it does for their dogs. You can't learn the latter from a book. Perfect health or imperfect health. PMR is best for all dogs. Once you understand how dog's bodies work, logic will tell you that.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU

cprcheetah said:


> They are called Carnivores for a reason....not Carbivores, Herbivores, Cornivores, Riceavores etc. End of story! I know for my dogs they actually thrive and are healthier without carbs in their diet than they EVER were with carbs in their diet.


CARBIVORES AND CORNIVORES! LOL! Ahhh, I love it!


----------



## Caty M

RawFedDogs said:


> About raw feeders, I don't know any that didn't feed kibble at one time. Raw feeders have something to compare to. They are as familiar with kibble fed dogs as they are with raw fed dogs. Raw feeders have experience both ways. They are very familiar with the differences between raw and kibble.


Umm.. I've never fed a dog kibble! :wink: But seriously... the idea of 2/3 carbs with no mention of fat is ridiculous.


----------



## cprcheetah

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> CARBIVORES AND CORNIVORES! LOL! Ahhh, I love it!


 Shellie is also a Kittycrispyavore & I have a cat who is a cardboardavore.....doesn't mean it's healthy or good for them lol.


----------



## hmbutler

cprcheetah said:


> Shellie is also a Kittycrispyavore & I have a* cat who is a cardboardavore*.....doesn't mean it's healthy or good for them lol.


hahaha so there are other cats who love to eat cardboard too? my cat is CONSTANTLY chewing on the corners of books, boxes, paper, etc. When we moved house, it was like heaven on earth for her, with cardboard boxes everywhere haha


----------



## Porphyria

meggels said:


> Even when people feed premade, even if it's vital essentials with no veggies/fruit/carbs, they are still given a hard time. I think people that feed premade, and higher quality kibble, are made to feel like it's never "good enough".
> 
> I'm just giving you my honest opinion. I appreciate how helpful people are on these boards, I've never seen such a passion on anything HELP so many people, but I think in the same token, sometimes that abundance of passion can hurt people's feelings if it's people coming on too strong or bashing kibble.


I appreciate that you've expressed these feelings, Meggels, because now I know I'm not alone! When I first joined the forum I felt a bit unwelcome because there seemed to be so much opposition to kibble. But after being here a while and getting to "know" the posters here better, I have come to realize that people weren't intending to come off as rude or closed-minded, as I had previously thought, but that they simply found something that worked great for their dogs, and were very passionate about it. However there is still the occasional post, or even full thread, that makes me (and not me personally, but me as someone who feeds commercial food) feel a bit put out. 

I used to feed raw, so I am not ignorant regarding it. But my dog didn't do well on it, so I switched to kibble, and he is thriving. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with raw; so many dogs do extremely well on it. But not every dog does thrive on raw, and that is a sentiment that I do think tends to be overlooked sometimes.


----------



## stajbs

Meggels, I am sorry to hear you found out about your job in the manner you have. How cold and unprofesional. I can truly sympathize as I have been with the same employer through numerous layoffs for over 23 years now. They've changed my position 3 times in the past 18 months because I am capable of doing several jobs where I work. What I am hating right now is that they have decided what positions will make me happy, without ever checking with me, and without any regard to my feelings. I wish you best of luck in finding a position/job where they appreciate you.

As for the PNR feeders being holier than thou, I've honestly never felt that, even on my most down depressed day. They have accepted my raw phobias and accepted that I am feeding what makes me comfortable and what my dogs are doing well with. Having had dogs for 17 years I have gone from quality kibble with grains, to quality kibble without grains, to cooked and 95% canned. I have seen improvement in my dogs, especially on the cooked and 95% canned foods. My dogs and I are content with this. I take great satisfaction in actually cooking for my dogs. I control where I purchase their meats, that being a local butcher who I have grilled as to his sources of meat. I have few if any worries about recalls with the current diet. 

Most important thing is to feel comfortable with your choice of food for your dogs, and to feed them the best you can within your comfort zone. I do avoid carbs where possible, but my guys do get the NV grain free biscuits. That's where I am stuck right now, one day hopefully my raw phobias go bye bye. For now I have tried raw meaty bones and chicken necks with my one sibe. The other has some issues and I am more comfortable keeping his entire diet cooked because he has had no issues on this diet.

Best of luck to you on the job front.


----------



## CorgiPaws

On raw not being "right" for every dog:

I do think that different dogs may have some variance in their requirements. I mean, makes sense right? Some dogs do well on Evo, some don't. Some dogs do well on Canidae, some don't. It's a well known and accepted fact that there is no one kibble that will sit right with every dog, so it makes sense that one might think PMR does not sit right with every dog, right? Wrong, here's why. 

Dogs are carnivores. True, not obligate carnivores, but carnivores nonetheless. The only thing that separates a dog from an obligate carnivore is that they do not have to get their taurine by eating it, they make their own. A carnivore is a carnivore is a carnivore... there is no "kinda carnivore" or "almost carnivore" or "mostly carnivore." 
The reason some dogs respond so negatively to one kibble or another is simple: it's unnatural. No matter how much meat content there may be, it is still cooked, processed, and unnatural. Finding a kibble is like playing a guessing game with the digestive system, figuring how much of each unnecessary ingredient each dog can tolerate. Raw is so much more simple. 
Now, there are some dogs that transition very roughly. There are even dogs that don't do well initially. But, it's about finding balance within the raw diet- just like people have to find balance with kibble... only more simple, with far less factors. 
I have 6 dogs. 
Two eat mostly red meat, with very little poultry- just enough to get decent bone content in. (Mousse & Annie)
One of mine eats very, very little chicken, and does awesome with a diet very high in turkey and lamb. (Zailey)
The rest seem to be awesome no matter what they eat. They can eat nothing but bone heavy chicken for a week and be fine, and then turn around and have boneless lamb for a few days straight- it just doesn't matter what they eat. (Braxton, Timber, Kola)
Some dogs are easier to balance than other dogs, but more often than not they just do great on a natural raw diet no matter what. 

By saying "I tried raw and it didn't work for us" is like me trying one or two kibbles and saying "I tried kibble, and it didn't work for us" when reality is, the real problem was you did not take the time to find the right balance for your dog. I made this mistake with Annie, and threw in the towel for a couple weeks last year. I was feeding her too much chicken. She thrives better on red meat. Once I figured that out, bam, solved. 
If anyone feels that my firm belief in raw, and my firm belief that no kibble will ever come close to offering the overall health and benefits of PMR then I don't know what to tell you, because I make no apologies. I don't think someone is a bad dog owner for feeding kibble at all. I don't think that the fact that I feed PMR makes me a "better" owner than some kibble feeders. In fact, I know of a NUMBER of raw feeders that in my book are pretty bad dog owners, if I'm being totally honest! I know a lot of GREAT dog owners that feed kibble to their pets, but that doesn't meant I'm going to sugar coat it and say that I think it's the best or justify feeding it. I think that a lot of feelings are really unnecessarily hurt by becoming too hung up on one or two very minimal aspects of pet ownership. 


So, in short, do I think that PMR is for EVERY single dog? Yes, I do... but different dogs may need different ratios of everything. If someone doesn't feed PMR, then that's their choice, and I will not claim to approve of it any more than I do, but really.... why do people care so much what a bunch of strangers on the internet think anyway???


----------



## 3DogMom

*Wow!!!*

I'm truly shocked at the responses to my original thread!!! I will leave this response and then leave this site

1st....my breeder (my Aunt) has taken MANY courses on animal nutrition and health, thus her dogs are the top performers in shows and her puppies are the most sought after in North America!!! My vet (my friend) has taken extra nutrition courses as has her clinic partner. My friends husband is also a vet and is a nutrition specialist and is a consultant to the top canine nutrition programs and clinics across the country (as well as the world, has traveled to Europe to be a consultant)....so....my sources are educated in their expertise!!! Unless you received an education from an accredited university in animal sciences you are simply like myself, well informed!

Pumpkin...only a cover for a problem, answer this then....JRT has allergies...the ONLY thing I have done different this season is give him pumpkin! We live in Southeast Ontario....allergy season is awful, his allergies are GONE!!!

As for carbs....when a wolf pack brings down an animal...what are the 1st items of that animal they eat. Remember, the top wolf (strongest and healthiest) eats first....and he eats the stomach (think of the type of animal they are eating...that's right...plant eaters)

I simply wanted to share my story. Each animal, like people, are different. What is killing people and subsequently our pets is an over processed society of convenience. Eat food as close to as it was grown/raised. That is what I promote in my family, 2 and 4 legged.


----------



## cprcheetah

hmbutler said:


> hahaha so there are other cats who love to eat cardboard too? my cat is CONSTANTLY chewing on the corners of books, boxes, paper, etc. When we moved house, it was like heaven on earth for her, with cardboard boxes everywhere haha


Wow, I thought my Tiggles was just a weirdo. She actually has eaten entire FLAPS off cardboard boxes. Never seen anything like it.


----------



## cprcheetah

3DogMom said:


> I'm truly shocked at the responses to my original thread!!! I will leave this response and then leave this site
> 
> 1st....my breeder (my Aunt) has taken MANY courses on animal nutrition and health, thus her dogs are the top performers in shows and her puppies are the most sought after in North America!!! My vet (my friend) has taken extra nutrition courses as has her clinic partner. My friends husband is also a vet and is a nutrition specialist and is a consultant to the top canine nutrition programs and clinics across the country (as well as the world, has traveled to Europe to be a consultant)....so....my sources are educated in their expertise!!! Unless you received an education from an accredited university in animal sciences you are simply like myself, well informed!
> 
> Pumpkin...only a cover for a problem, answer this then....JRT has allergies...the ONLY thing I have done different this season is give him pumpkin! We live in Southeast Ontario....allergy season is awful, his allergies are GONE!!!
> 
> As for carbs....when a wolf pack brings down an animal...what are the 1st items of that animal they eat. Remember, the top wolf (strongest and healthiest) eats first....and he eats the stomach (think of the type of animal they are eating...that's right...plant eaters)
> 
> I simply wanted to share my story. Each animal, like people, are different. What is killing people and subsequently our pets is an over processed society of convenience. Eat food as close to as it was grown/raised. That is what I promote in my family, 2 and 4 legged.


Um actually you are mistaken, they DO NOT eat the stomach/intestines, that is a myth that my dad will admit he was taught in Vet school, my uncle actually raises sheep/cattle and has lost some to wolves/coyotes and guess what? The stomachs/intestines are usually left: These are some pictures a member here got in her backyard: http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/pictures/2200-raw-feeding-its-finest-caution-graphic-photos.html 

My Little Carnivores: A day with the wolf pack (ACTUAL observations of someone who witnessed Wolves at eating time)

Most vets have 'extra' nutrition courses sponsored/taught by Hill's, Royal Canin, Eukanuba or Purina...not exactly what I would call high class education, as they think CORN is a high quality ingredient for CARNIVORES. I have seen VERY few if ANY classes taught about PROPER nutrition for Carnivores. So I would be interested to know where she is taking these classes and what they are actually about.

I am VERY involved in AKC Showing and have many friends who show and I've never heard the whole 'carb' thing. My sister shows Standard Poodles, and her dogs eat a grain free diet. My father has been a vet for 40+ years, and the vet I am currently working for has been working for 23 years. Neither one of them will admit they know enough about pet nutrition.


----------



## Roo

I agree, I think the nutritional knowledge of vets does vary greatly, unfortunately I've talked with some vets who have mentioned to me that the nutritional training they received at their school was minimal. I've also heard this mentioned from a couple supposed vets on pet forums. The article _"What do vets learn about nutrition?"_ on the subject written by Veterinarian Shawn Messonnier does make me curious how much most are receiving and what it entails.
http://www.lukesallnatural.com/images/WhatdoVetslearnaboutnutrition.pdf

As far as carbs, according to the USDA nutrient data website, I think there are small amounts of carbohydrates in some raw organs like liver, so supposedly even if you feed PMR (which I do and love), you are still feeding a tiny amount of carbohydrates. I do think that the source of the carbohydrates matters, dogs being carnivores, probably benefit more nutritionally from an animal source of carbohydrates than a plant source. That said if carbohydrates were necessary, wouldn't there be a % amount listed in the dog nutritional standard tables put out by AFFCO or the NRC? There isn't a number listed in either, which I think means they aren't considered essential in a dogs diet.


----------



## magicre

meggels and xellil....you two are in very hard positions...and it sucks to be in such a position...i'm sorry both of you are going through that.....


----------



## Caty M

I just want to add... that even IF a dog eats stomach contents which normally, they don't for large prey, IT DOES NOT MAKE UP 2/3 OF THE ANIMAL. University nutrition courses are of course, funded by companies such as Hill's, Royal Canin and Purina... and their foods are all crappy, CARB LADEN foods. However... even most KIBBLES aren't even 2/3 carbs. Humans have selectively bred dogs for looks, behavior, size... but not digestive health and a dogs digestive system in no way differs from a wild wolf's. If dogs "need" 2/3 carbs there woudn't be countless dogs improving going on higher quality kibbles which are around 1/3 or less in the case of Orijen and EVO, or RAW which is NO carbs..

Vets know more than me in surgeries. They do not in nutrition especially if their textbooks are written by a dog food company.


----------



## DaViking

3DogMom said:


> I'm truly shocked at the responses to my original thread!!! I will leave this response and then leave this site
> 
> 1st....my breeder (my Aunt) has taken MANY courses on animal nutrition and health, thus her dogs are the top performers in shows and her puppies are the most sought after in North America!!! My vet (my friend) has taken extra nutrition courses as has her clinic partner. My friends husband is also a vet and is a nutrition specialist and is a consultant to the top canine nutrition programs and clinics across the country (as well as the world, has traveled to Europe to be a consultant)....so....my sources are educated in their expertise!!! Unless you received an education from an accredited university in animal sciences you are simply like myself, well informed!


Not addressing your aunt or friends here but in general vets, breeders and various trainers are not the place to get advice on dog food. Having top show dogs doesn't mean optimal feeding. I have talked to vets who flat out admits they will sell you Science Diet because they get it heavily discounted, provided they display Hills products in high traffic areas and carry Hills therapeutic foods. Breeders will feed and recommend you pretty much anything if they can get it cheap and get some "cool" tents, cribs, crates, bandanas, stickers, kibble keepers etc thrown in for free. Trainers can be bought, plain and simple. I have personally gone to puppy classes where the trainer/owner spent 5 mins of each class explaining how amazing Pedigree is (Scandinavian formula). The same person travels (or at least he used to) northern Europe giving lectures related to canine nutrition and high performance working dogs. Again, I know there are exceptions to any rule but this rule is pretty common in the dog world i am afraid.


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> meggels and xellil....you two are in very hard positions...and it sucks to be in such a position...i'm sorry both of you are going through that.....


Well, I have a house in Texas on fifteen acres with a lake a five minute walk away. If I can pay the property taxes, we won't starve and we can swim and walk in the country. So it's a good thing for me. I am actually thinking about changing careers and going to vet tech school. I'd like to start a doggy day care but I don't have the money so I'll keep playing the lottery  - you guys here that work with animals have made me realize that I don't really like my career any more. Losing a job is a scary thing, but I think that stuff about a door closing and a window opening is true. I just hope I can continue to afford to take care of my dogs properly, and to have human insurance. Everything else is cake!

Hopefully, it will be th same for meggels. As someone who has not been without a job in 30 years, I totally understand the waking up in the middle of the night freaking out about one's future. 

And I do agree that not all dogs eat PMR the same - one of my dogs dog eats the prey model perfectly and the other one has had so many adjustments that except for the raw food you'd wonder if I was following any guidelines at all. BUT in the last month we've only had one bout of constipation and I am very aware of the calcium/phosphorus ratio and the need to floss those teeth!


----------



## xellil

on the other hand, I have an ER vet to thank for feeding raw in the first place. His patronizing, supercilious attitude and determination that I understand that Science Diet full of corn was the only thing that would help my dog brought me here - I was determined to prove him wrong but I didn't know how. This board did that for me.

Unfortunately, we haven't had to go to the ER since April when we started this diet! I haven't even been able to thumb my nose at him.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Also on topic:
Considering carb damn near killed my dog (and not even in amounts so high as 2/3 of the diet, Evo amounts!) I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say YES excess carb ARE damaging to dogs. Each dog may have a different threshold but why play that game? I don't respond to crap like this because I am "holier than thou" I do it because this advice might kill the next dog that comes along.


----------



## RawFedDogs

3DogMom said:


> 1st....my breeder (my Aunt) has taken MANY courses on animal nutrition and health, thus her dogs are the top performers in shows and her puppies are the most sought after in North America!!! My vet (my friend) has taken extra nutrition courses as has her clinic partner. My friends husband is also a vet and is a nutrition specialist and is a consultant to the top canine nutrition programs and clinics across the country (as well as the world, has traveled to Europe to be a consultant)....so....my sources are educated in their expertise!!!


They got their "education" from Hills Pet Foods. They were taught the Hill's promotional material. I know all about that. If they were taught anything about dogs needing 2/3 carbs, that is where they got that information. Not from an accredited college.



> Unless you received an education from an accredited university in animal sciences you are simply like myself, well informed!


I don't have a degree but I took 2 animal nutrition courses at Emory University.



> Pumpkin...only a cover for a problem, answer this then....JRT has allergies...the ONLY thing I have done different this season is give him pumpkin! We live in Southeast Ontario....allergy season is awful, his allergies are GONE!!!


They would probably have gone away without the pumpkin. What were the allergy sumptoms? Pumpkins have no effect on allergies at all.



> As for carbs....when a wolf pack brings down an animal...what are the 1st items of that animal they eat. Remember, the top wolf (strongest and healthiest) eats first....and he eats the stomach (think of the type of animal they are eating...that's right...plant eaters)


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


From: Foraging and Feeding Ecology of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, 
Daniel R. Stahler, Douglas W. Smith and Debra S. Guernsey 

"_Wolves do not feed on the contents of the rumen; so this, along with the larger unbreakable bones and some of the hide, are often the only things remaining when wolves and associated scavengers are done._"

This research is done by acctual accredited wolf researchers. David Mech spent 30 years observing wild wolves in their natural habitat. These people actually write the college text books. They have been published many times with both books and research papers. They know what they are talking about. They are not just vets and breeders.



> I simply wanted to share my story. Each animal, like people, are different. What is killing people and subsequently our pets is an over processed society of convenience. Eat food as close to as it was grown/raised. That is what I promote in my family, 2 and 4 legged.


On this we agree. However dogs do not have the ability to digest whole plants. Their teeth, jaw structure and short smooth intestines prevents it. They just cannot extract nutrients from whole plants. If they don't have his ability, then they have no dietary need for them. Plain and simple.


----------



## schtuffy

xellil said:


> Well, I have a house in Texas on fifteen acres with a lake a five minute walk away. If I can pay the property taxes, we won't starve and we can swim and walk in the country. So it's a good thing for me. I am actually thinking about changing careers and going to vet tech school. I'd like to start a doggy day care but I don't have the money so I'll keep playing the lottery  - you guys here that work with animals have made me realize that I don't really like my career any more. Losing a job is a scary thing, but I think that stuff about a door closing and a window opening is true. I just hope I can continue to afford to take care of my dogs properly, and to have human insurance. Everything else is cake!
> 
> Hopefully, it will be th same for meggels. As someone who has not been without a job in 30 years, I totally understand the waking up in the middle of the night freaking out about one's future.
> 
> And I do agree that not all dogs eat PMR the same - one of my dogs dog eats the prey model perfectly and the other one has had so many adjustments that except for the raw food you'd wonder if I was following any guidelines at all. BUT in the last month we've only had one bout of constipation and I am very aware of the calcium/phosphorus ratio and the need to floss those teeth!


My company might run out of money by the end of December or early next year. Funny thing was I was browsing vet tech info a couple days ago too! I often daydream about opening my own doggy daycare, or pet shop. Makes the thought of losing my job seem not so dismal.

Keep your chin up Meggels...we all get thrown curve balls in life, but there will always be other opportunities. If the company is really treating you this way, they are not worth your time, bottom line!! :smile:


----------



## magicre

3DogMom said:


> I'm truly shocked at the responses to my original thread!!! I will leave this response and then leave this site
> 
> 1st....my breeder (my Aunt) has taken MANY courses on animal nutrition and health, thus her dogs are the top performers in shows and her puppies are the most sought after in North America!!! My vet (my friend) has taken extra nutrition courses as has her clinic partner. My friends husband is also a vet and is a nutrition specialist and is a consultant to the top canine nutrition programs and clinics across the country (as well as the world, has traveled to Europe to be a consultant)....so....my sources are educated in their expertise!!! Unless you received an education from an accredited university in animal sciences you are simply like myself, well informed!
> 
> Pumpkin...only a cover for a problem, answer this then....JRT has allergies...the ONLY thing I have done different this season is give him pumpkin! We live in Southeast Ontario....allergy season is awful, his allergies are GONE!!!
> 
> As for carbs....when a wolf pack brings down an animal...what are the 1st items of that animal they eat. Remember, the top wolf (strongest and healthiest) eats first....and he eats the stomach (think of the type of animal they are eating...that's right...plant eaters)
> 
> I simply wanted to share my story. Each animal, like people, are different. What is killing people and subsequently our pets is an over processed society of convenience. Eat food as close to as it was grown/raised. That is what I promote in my family, 2 and 4 legged.


so now you'll take your toys and go off in a huff.....

when you're right. what is killing people and subsequently our pets is an OVER PROCESSED society of convenience.

what is kibble, then?


----------



## dr tim

I am actually very curious as to where the best way of learning nutrition is if we can't; 

1. Believe in vets because they typically have 1 class of nutrition before graduating.
2. Believe in vet schools because of their funding from big pet food companies.
3. Animal nutritionists are typically veterinarians.
4. Who's left to listen to then?


Is it just the most recent word on the street,the most recent internet trend, looking at what a prey animal is comprised of and mimicking that in a food? A best guess on what pet food should be comprised of? The loudest voice that all give into? Can we just look at a dog or cat and know the nutrition must be correct because the animal just looks good, thus this will make us an expert?


----------



## minnieme

MollyWoppy said:


> Personal feelings regarding raw aside, I do tend to agree with you. I just get a tad sad lately when I see people who have been here a long time and have been fun and valuable members packing up their bags and leaving in droves.
> I mean, it's not like they are feeding Ol Roy or crap foods, these people are great owners and they research and believe in the high quality kibbles they feed, but they are still made to feel like inferior owners.


I agree with this. I think raw is the best thing in the world and I can't wait to give it another go once Minnie has a bit more meat on her bones (we're getting there!). And I felt AWFUL when I made the decision to switch back to kibble for the time being. But I am FAR from an inferior dog owner... Minnie is the love of my life! :biggrin1: I would do pretty much anything for her... and I don't think me feeding kibble right now means I love her any less than the raw feeders on this board. I agree too that it's hard not to be passionate about it... hell, I'm very passionate about it and I'm not even feeding it atm! But I do think that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar... so in order to sway people, I think it's wiser to approach them with kindness rather than accusations (again, not pointing out anyone in particular and I know it's hard not to do so when you know raw is the best thing for a dog).

Edit: that aside, there are all kinds of technical things wrong with your claims, 3DogMom, so while I do wish to reach out to you in kindness, I highly suggest you do some research on canine anatomy and subsequent nutritional needs before leaving in a huff. Perhaps the best thing that could come of this thread is that you take it upon yourself to read up on the aforementioned topics, instead of exclusively relying on some faulty sources.

I don't care how people feed, as long as they do their own research. Do I know that kibble is less than ideal? Yes, I'm not blind to this fact -- but I'm helping my cause by feeding a high quality grain-free one. This doesn't make me better than anyone else, it just means that I was willing to do the research.


----------



## xellil

I know this -- all the advice, the dry food, the medications, the fiber, the better and more expensive food, and MORE expensive food did no good. I listened to all those "experts" and they let me down, time after time - all the while with their hand out for my credit card.

Had my dogs been healthy, without allergies, without constipation and regular expensive trips to the ER, I would never be here. So for me it's sure not the loudest voice, a best guess, or how they look. It's how they feel.

I think alot of people have a good point - most of us don't have a degree in nutrition to feed ourselves. But we know Pop Tarts aren't as good as a salad. 

I don't think raw feeding is an internet trend. The trend for dry food was started a couple generations ago. The marketing gurus sold it to the world. The pet food companies make millions of dollars from it. People like me buy into it and feed their machine. Just like my parents, and my children.

Maybe it's time the cycle was broken.


----------



## minnieme

dr tim said:


> Is it just the most recent word on the street,the most recent internet trend, * looking at what a prey animal is comprised of and mimicking that in a food?*


The one in bold seems like an obvious and logical choice to me when in regards to a carnivore. No?


----------



## KittyKat

dr tim said:


> I am actually very curious as to where the best way of learning nutrition is if we can't;
> 
> 1. Believe in vets because they typically have 1 class of nutrition before graduating.
> 2. Believe in vet schools because of their funding from big pet food companies.
> 3. Animal nutritionists are typically veterinarians.
> 4. Who's left to listen to then?
> 
> 
> Is it just the most recent word on the street,the most recent internet trend, looking at what a prey animal is comprised of and mimicking that in a food? A best guess on what pet food should be comprised of? The loudest voice that all give into? Can we just look at a dog or cat and know the nutrition must be correct because the animal just looks good, thus this will make us an expert?


It's pretty sad isn't it? I mean most people assume a vet has training not only in surgery but also in animal nutrition... but when top vet schools (Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph for example) offer nutrition courses as optional, and they are backed by Hill's - you stop and take a step back and go "Hey now...".

At this point I would rather talk about nutrition with an animal biologist who studies wolves then my veterinarian; who thinks Science Diet is the best dog food available, because all dogs need a good portion of carbs.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

First off the starting part of this whole thread makes me laugh and want to cry at people's ignorance all at the same time!! :tape2:



PuppyPaws said:


> On raw not being "right" for every dog:
> 
> I do think that different dogs may have some variance in their requirements. I mean, makes sense right? Some dogs do well on Evo, some don't. Some dogs do well on Canidae, some don't. It's a well known and accepted fact that there is no one kibble that will sit right with every dog, so it makes sense that one might think PMR does not sit right with every dog, right? Wrong, here's why.
> 
> Dogs are carnivores. True, not obligate carnivores, but carnivores nonetheless. The only thing that separates a dog from an obligate carnivore is that they do not have to get their taurine by eating it, they make their own. A carnivore is a carnivore is a carnivore... there is no "kinda carnivore" or "almost carnivore" or "mostly carnivore."
> The reason some dogs respond so negatively to one kibble or another is simple: it's unnatural. No matter how much meat content there may be, it is still cooked, processed, and unnatural. Finding a kibble is like playing a guessing game with the digestive system, figuring how much of each unnecessary ingredient each dog can tolerate. Raw is so much more simple.
> Now, there are some dogs that transition very roughly. There are even dogs that don't do well initially. But, it's about finding balance within the raw diet- just like people have to find balance with kibble... only more simple, with far less factors.
> I have 6 dogs.
> Two eat mostly red meat, with very little poultry- just enough to get decent bone content in. (Mousse & Annie)
> One of mine eats very, very little chicken, and does awesome with a diet very high in turkey and lamb. (Zailey)
> The rest seem to be awesome no matter what they eat. They can eat nothing but bone heavy chicken for a week and be fine, and then turn around and have boneless lamb for a few days straight- it just doesn't matter what they eat. (Braxton, Timber, Kola)
> Some dogs are easier to balance than other dogs, but more often than not they just do great on a natural raw diet no matter what.
> 
> By saying "I tried raw and it didn't work for us" is like me trying one or two kibbles and saying "I tried kibble, and it didn't work for us" when reality is, the real problem was you did not take the time to find the right balance for your dog. I made this mistake with Annie, and threw in the towel for a couple weeks last year. I was feeding her too much chicken. She thrives better on red meat. Once I figured that out, bam, solved.
> If anyone feels that my firm belief in raw, and my firm belief that no kibble will ever come close to offering the overall health and benefits of PMR then I don't know what to tell you, because I make no apologies. I don't think someone is a bad dog owner for feeding kibble at all. I don't think that the fact that I feed PMR makes me a "better" owner than some kibble feeders. In fact, I know of a NUMBER of raw feeders that in my book are pretty bad dog owners, if I'm being totally honest! I know a lot of GREAT dog owners that feed kibble to their pets, but that doesn't meant I'm going to sugar coat it and say that I think it's the best or justify feeding it. I think that a lot of feelings are really unnecessarily hurt by becoming too hung up on one or two very minimal aspects of pet ownership.
> 
> 
> So, in short, do I think that PMR is for EVERY single dog? Yes, I do... but different dogs may need different ratios of everything. If someone doesn't feed PMR, then that's their choice, and I will not claim to approve of it any more than I do, but really.... why do people care so much what a bunch of strangers on the internet think anyway???


OF COURSE, a great post by Linsey, as always......and something to add to it. My Mum's dogs have been on raw since before she got Jazzy, she has had Jazzmyn for nearly 8 weeks...she has been on PMR since she picked her up at 8 weeks old. Just this past few days her poops finally evened out.....you know why? Because, instead of feeding her little not even 10lbs puppy(probably get to about 22lbs), 8oz she upped it to 10oz!!! :twitch:
Now for our other dogs, had we upped their food it wouldnt have worked....but as Linsey said, and like we all say ALL THE TIME, every dog is different.....but it doesnt make our SPECIES APPROPRIATE diet any less appropriate for them, as it doesnt make them a different species!!!:wink:


**Warning rant below**

And just me personally.....well I dont give a sh*t if you think I have a "holier-then-thou" attitude....because ya, maybe I do....maybe I do NOT understand how someone(MANY SOMEONES, not just YOU!) can overlook the fact that they(we all) own CARNIVORES!! I cant tell you how many days I have gone without food so that my babes can eat...thats what water is for!:wink: I have 6 pets, they all 6 need something slighly different with their diet(Im lucky enough that I dont have an major issues with anyone) but still...I pull my self up by my boot straps, cowboy up and DO MY JOB as their provider.


----------



## cprcheetah

dr tim said:


> I am actually very curious as to where the best way of learning nutrition is if we can't;
> 
> 1. Believe in vets because they typically have 1 class of nutrition before graduating.
> 2. Believe in vet schools because of their funding from big pet food companies.
> 3. Animal nutritionists are typically veterinarians.
> 4. Who's left to listen to then?
> 
> 
> Is it just the most recent word on the street,the most recent internet trend, looking at what a prey animal is comprised of and mimicking that in a food? A best guess on what pet food should be comprised of? The loudest voice that all give into? Can we just look at a dog or cat and know the nutrition must be correct because the animal just looks good, thus this will make us an expert?


1- Do I listen to my own personal Dr in regards to my nutrition....normally I don't, however I have an AMAZING Dr who figured out my hubby is gluten/grain intolerant and my hubby has since reversed numerous diseases because of his advice. So do I listen to my 'vet' about nutrition, not entirely, although the vet I work for now is aware that corn is an awful ingredient in dog food, and a poor quality ingredient.
2- There is a difference in believing in Vet schools and believing in nutrition. Just because they fund the vet school doesn't make the vet school bad, although I recently worked with a vet whom I think got her license in a cracker jack box, yep she was that idiotic, and shouldn't be allowed to treat/diagnose animals PERIOD. But yep she graduated from Vet school, how I have NO idea.
3- Not necessarily, Animal Nutritionists are few and far between.
4- Why do you have to listen to anyone? I listen to biology/evolution etc, I am an Omnivore, my dogs are Carnivores therefore guess what they eat? Omnivores have different teeth than CARNIVORES do....therefore their diets should differ.


----------



## meggels

Ahem


I'd like to apologize for the "holier than thou" comment. It seems I've offended/pissed off some people. It was probably not the right choice of words, and I've been in a bad/upset mood all week. 

I DO believe raw is an amazing thing for animals, I by no means was trying to detract for that. 

I might take a little break, seems I've burned some bridges.


----------



## Unosmom

Cars for dogs? mine wants a porsche, I tell his he's got an expensive taste...


----------



## magicre

dr tim said:


> I am actually very curious as to where the best way of learning nutrition is if we can't;
> 
> 1. Believe in vets because they typically have 1 class of nutrition before graduating.
> 2. Believe in vet schools because of their funding from big pet food companies.
> 3. Animal nutritionists are typically veterinarians.
> 4. Who's left to listen to then?
> 
> 
> Is it just the most recent word on the street,the most recent internet trend, looking at what a prey animal is comprised of and mimicking that in a food? A best guess on what pet food should be comprised of? The loudest voice that all give into? Can we just look at a dog or cat and know the nutrition must be correct because the animal just looks good, thus this will make us an expert?


i'm not sure i understand the question, but i'll give it a shot in answering it.

as a doctor, i took an elective in nutrition. it was a three credit course.

i learned nothing that was useful.

and when i was in school, the relationship between food and health and illness did not get the attention it deserved.

it was a life event that got me to begin studying nutrition and here is where all doctors have an advantage, be they vets or medical doctors. that life event involved a five year old homicidal child who tried to kill his mother. end of story, he was allergice to orange juice and it manifested itself in psycopathy. no oranges, no homicidal child. took a long time to uncover and it was a last resort, but it was uncovered because doctors at the hospital where he was involuntarily admitted dug and dug deeply.

it's called continuing education. and an unrelenting thirst for knowledge.

we have access to university studies, medical journals, alternative medical studies, nutrition studies.

this here internet is not so bad either. there is plenty of information that can be found just by taking a google walk.

nutrition is huge now. aside from being a great money maker for large corporate structures who fill us with information that is bogus...

there are also studies and organisations out there who would tell the truth as they know it.

and it's now up to us, the individual..... to learn and become our own advocates....and learn what makes sense and what doesn't.

there are so many books being written by people and doctors and vets who really want to get their word out....

and the word is not always kibble. not anymore.

i don't not listen to my vet. i do. 

but not when he says makes no sense to me. to tell me my dog will die from eating raw bone, that he will die from salmonella from raw meat is telling me he doesn't understand the physiology of a dog. it also tells me that he doesn't get or know there is salmonella everywhere, including kibble.

in the same light, my doctor whom i no longer see, tells me that all i have to do is take a thyroid replacement pill and i will be fine, when study after study after practicum after common sense says that without a thyroid, i'm going to have all kinds of things that just aren't as right as they would be if i still had a thyroid....and then when he tells me that my feet and hands hurting is all in my head....that's when i find another doctor.

and the reason for that, is i learned how to look things up...and continue my education....

so it stands to reason, that, i am now the author of my own destiny and it is up to me to learn that if processed foods are not good for me, then how in g'ds name can they be good for my dogs...

and if that makes sense, that processed foods are garbage...then even the best company in the world, using the finest ingredients has slurried and processed those ingredients to the point where nutrition must be added back in....

and, if that makes sense, then i have to think why should i feed a product where the ingredients and nutrients need to added back in when i can feed my dogs a product that is the actual source of the nutrients.

now. how did i learn that? by an internet ad? no.
by some trend on the market? noi

i hardly think feeding raw can be considered an internet trend anymore...

and it's not just about looking at the dog....it's about knowing the insides of the dog are healthy....that i'm not going to the vet for ailments my dogs had on kibble.

is that a coincidence? or did i finally stumble upon the food that is best and most appropriate for my dogs...and it made sense...instead of feeding something that gave my dogs stomach issues, scratching, teeth issues, etc....and all that that entails..

i now give my dogs a food where they thrive and don't need dentals, nor do they need their ears cleaned other than prophylactically....they look healthy, yes, but they are also healthy on the inside.

and the approach is the same as it would be for my own nutrition....anyone who knows me on this board, knows that i study nutrition...and not just one version of what's best to eat.....

if i have learned nothing else, enriched flour and mac and cheese in a box are bad for me.

and, if that is true, kibble cannot cannot cannot be good for my dogs.

it's called education and i get very upset with my doctors and my vets because they don't take the time to learn and continue the education they paid so dearly to get.


----------



## jdatwood

meggels said:


> I'd like to apologize for the "holier than thou" comment. It seems I've offended/pissed off some people. It was probably not the right choice of words, and I've been in a bad/upset mood all week.
> 
> I DO believe raw is an amazing thing for animals, I by no means was trying to detract for that.
> 
> I might take a little break, seems I've burned some bridges.


Apology accepted :wink: No bridges have been burned. Just don't attack the people that have been trying to help you for so long now.... :biggrin:

No need to take a break. Just choose your battles more carefully. 

Sorry your week has been so bad. Hope is gets better...


----------



## xellil

Meggels, what you said was milder than what alot of people say - including some of the moderators. There's no need to apologize. It was how you felt.

if you were a little strong in your wording, folks will get over it.


----------



## doggiedad

cross feeders unite.

i feed my dog kibble, can, cooked chicken,
raw chicken, raw ground beef, cooked fish,
canned fish (in water no salt added), cooked beef,
Asian Pears (he doesn't like other varieties of pears),
blueberries, sweet potato (fresh), organic yogurt (topping for his kibble)
and a host of other things (what's a host??). :biggrin:


----------



## DaViking

doggiedad said:


> cross feeders unite.
> 
> i feed my dog kibble, can, cooked chicken,
> raw chicken, raw ground beef, cooked fish,
> canned fish (in water no salt added), cooked beef,
> Asian Pears (he doesn't like other varieties of pears),
> blueberries, sweet potato (fresh), organic yogurt (topping for his kibble)
> and a host of other things (what's a host??). :biggrin:


Me likey 

Not that I have fed all that stuff but I have always added various raw foods as an addition to the kibble base. Lamb products is a favorite of mine. Together with meaningful activities this works great for any dog that doesn't have special needs brought on by messed up genetics or ignorance.


----------



## PDXdogmom

DaViking said:


> Agree with this. Combine a high quality kibble with high quality ingredients with love, respect and meaningful activity and
> you have the base for a thriving dog.


Kind of nice to see a balanced statement with a little levity amongst all the fury and passion I've read in this thread.

I must say that at times, I'm almost convinced I'm reading a thread in the "raw forum" when it's actually a thread in the "dry and canned forum" that seems to once again be viewed as an opportunity to gain more converts to prey model raw.


----------



## Caty M

PDXdogmom said:


> Kind of nice to see a balanced statement with a little levity amongst all the fury and passion I've read in this thread.
> 
> I must say that at times, I'm almost convinced I'm reading a thread in the "raw forum" when it's actually a thread in the "dry and canned forum" that seems to once again be viewed as an opportunity to gain more converts to prey model raw.


Is mentioning raw not allowed at all on the kibble side? I feel like we are all dog lovers, we all have opinions, we should all be able to state what we feel. No one came out and said 'kibble sucks', it was mentioned simply that there is no biological need for carbs as our raw fed dogs are thriving without any carbs whatsoever in their diet.

It's just a fact that the raw feeders outnumber the kibble people.


----------



## malluver1005

3DogMom said:


> Information from a breeder (of 30 years) and a vet (a close friend and of 15 years)....dogs NEED carbs.


Disagree. Carbs feed the cancer. Not a good thing...


----------



## DaViking

Caty M said:


> It's just a fact that the raw feeders outnumber the kibble people.


Not really, you are outnumbered in the millions. In the thousands if we are speaking of owners who use/train their dogs in some form of working or high performance situation.
In my short time here I have read tons of statements from ppl packaged as facts but are really highly questionable and debatable. Some stuff are outright false. The thing is that, even if it is annoying to read, I don't see the big point in starting what would surely be one heated argument after another. As a "kibble person" I see that, done by an educated person, feeding raw is a great alternative for our loved companions. So therefor my only interest is too have more ppl who feed kibble feed better kibble and get more educated on feeding dogs, and praise and encourage everyone who are interested in feeding raw to learn more so their raw diet are optimal for their dogs needs. I am in no way interested in the Kibble vs raw fight. I can do more good turning ppl away from crap grocery store kibble to a higher quality food than I can trading arguments with raw feeders.


----------



## schtuffy

Caty M said:


> It's just a fact that the raw feeders outnumber the kibble people.


I think she meant on this forum.

Anyways, I grow tired of this finger pointing. This was a thread about the misinformation that carbs are good for dogs, which they are not. I would say most people on this forum, regardless of if they feed raw or kibble, agree to that fact. It's not like the raw feeders came into the kibble section just to prove how superior we are. We saw the title of the thread, which goes against the very principles that raw and grain-free diets are based upon, and offered our input.

We all love our dogs, which is why we are even on this forum in the first place. Since when was it wrong to be passionate about what you feed? I'm sure people who go around saying they feed Orijen, Evo, or any 'high quality kibble' probably come off as being arrogant and pushy to the masses that feed Science Diet and Iams -- the exact same way that kibble feeders feel about raw feeders.

Bottom line...stop turning this into another raw vs. kibble debate. This was a debate about carbs. Carbs are bad. We love our dogs. Blah.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Caty M said:


> *Is mentioning raw not allowed at all on the kibble side?* I feel like we are all dog lovers, we all have opinions, we should all be able to state what we feel. No one came out and said 'kibble sucks', it was mentioned simply that there is no biological need for carbs as our raw fed dogs are thriving without any carbs whatsoever in their diet.
> 
> It's just a fact that the raw feeders outnumber the kibble people.


Not at all. I think raw should be able to be mentioned on the "dry and canned food" section just as dry should be able to be mentioned on the "raw" section. Without doing an actual count, I tend to believe that raw is mentioned much more on the dry forum than the reverse. 

Some people express their views and opinions in a civil manner by sharing great personal experiences and perhaps linking to sources they've found valuable. The following quotes from this thread are examples:

_I know for my dogs they actually thrive and are healthier without carbs in their diet than they EVER were with carbs in their diet._

_Research and know what you are feeding, we did and no matter what anyone says I am comfortable with raw and my dogs are doing extremely well._

The above statements make a reader willing to listen and maybe wanting to know more. Compare those to this next set of statements in this thread made in posts by raw feeders. They don't exactly make one think they really care to discuss or listen. It's not a matter of "sugar-coating" the way a person speaks. It's more a matter of being savvy in choosing your words so people will want to listen to what you have to say; plus showing a base line civility.

_PMR is best for all dogs

just because we know we are right doesn't mean we are holier than thou.

Period. 
The end._


----------



## kathylcsw

Just out of curiosity do kibble feeders go into the raw Feeding sections to extol the virtues of kibble feeding? If so how does that go over? I also understand that a raw diet is probably better for my dog. But I also know that my budget cannot afford it considering that I have a mortgage, studnet loans, and a child all on 1 income. I can feed Lola top quaility dry food and canned food on about $20 per month and their is no way that I could feed raw at that price. I also know that I love my dog every but as much as any raw feeder on this board and make sacrficies for her all the time. I am not selfish, or lazy, or a bad pet owner. I just know that I lack the resources to feed raw.

People post here in the Dry and Canned Dog Food because they have made the choice to feed kibble. It sometimes feels like raw feeders pile on after OP's have been fairly clear that they are interested in kibble info. It can be off putting since again people are posting in the section specifically for their preferred method of feeding.


----------



## Caty M

To be fair, the OP post was not about kibble and was about dog's needs for carbs. YES it was in the kibble/canned section but maybe would have been better off elsewhere.


----------



## Porphyria

kathylcsw said:


> Just out of curiosity do kibble feeders go into the raw Feeding sections to extol the virtues of kibble feeding? If so how does that go over? I also understand that a raw diet is probably better for my dog. But I also know that my budget cannot afford it considering that I have a mortgage, studnet loans, and a child all on 1 income. I can feed Lola top quaility dry food and canned food on about $20 per month and their is no way that I could feed raw at that price. I also know that I love my dog every but as much as any raw feeder on this board and make sacrficies for her all the time. I am not selfish, or lazy, or a bad pet owner. I just know that I lack the resources to feed raw.
> 
> People post here in the Dry and Canned Dog Food because they have made the choice to feed kibble. It sometimes feels like raw feeders pile on after OP's have been fairly clear that they are interested in kibble info. It can be off putting since again people are posting in the section specifically for their preferred method of feeding.


Yes, there seems to be a double standard. There are so many threads in the kibble/canned section in which a member posts about an issue a dog has had on a particular food, and another member will reply with something like, "a raw diet would solve your problem," or "have you considered raw?" Now there is nothing inherently wrong with politely suggesting raw like that. Except if I went into a thread in the raw forum where a poster's dog was having, say, diarrhea, and said, "have you considered switching to kibble?" I am sure it would _not_ go over well. If a person posting in the kibble/canned forum was considering switching to raw, he/she would go over to the raw forum and ask about it. There was one thread I read a few months ago in which a new member was asking about food for allergies. Another member asked if he/she was considering raw, and when the new member said no, the raw feeder said something along the lines of "why not? It would really help in your situation." Maybe the raw diet would help the memeber's dog, but those of us who choose to feed commercial shouldn't have to justify our choices in the forum that is supposedly dedicated to commercial food.


----------



## tem_sat

Porphyria said:


> Yes, there seems to be a double standard. There are so many threads in the kibble/canned section in which a member posts about an issue a dog has had on a particular food, and another member will reply with something like, "a raw diet would solve your problem," or "have you considered raw?" Now there is nothing inherently wrong with politely suggesting raw like that. Except if I went into a thread in the raw forum where a poster's dog was having, say, diarrhea, and said, "have you considered switching to kibble?" I am sure it would _not_ go over well. If the person posting in the kibble/canned forum was considering switching to raw, he/she would go over to the raw forum and ask about it. There was one thread I read a few months ago in which a new member was asking about food for allergies. Another member asked if he/she was considering raw, and when the new member said no, the raw feeder said something along the lines of "why not? It would really help in your situation." Maybe the raw diet would help the memeber's dog, but those of us who choose to feed commercial shouldn't have to justify our choices in the forum that is supposedly dedicated to commercial food.


To be honest, if there were an issue which would indeed be best aided by a switch to kibble, I cannot imagine why that would not be a valid response or suggestion. We do have an example with minnieme's Great Dane. She switched to kibble from raw to gain weight. She may not stay on kibble, however, that is what occured and it seems to be working. Obviously, this is not a raw vs. kibble contest. It is what others feel is in the best interest of the pet based upon the original poster's issue.


----------



## magicre

ya know, i'm reading these responses and it's almost laughable...

pdxmom...you who know so much about food feed your dog the very stuff you yourself won't even eat. nor will your son who is vegan and doesn't eat soy...which is laudable.
kibble = carbs in my book and the words are interchangeable.

to the rest of you.

the 'holier than thou' comment was directed toward me from meggels.

that she is losing her job is very hard. i had to close my business, a profitable one and i know where she is.
still, it is not a reason to call me or anyone like me holier than thou. she apologised and so it's over.

that also goes for minnie me.
more time was spent with you in private message trying to help you convert your dog to raw and when it was upsetting you so much, i suggested you put her back on kibble until you were in a better place.

you still post in the raw section giving advice, as do many feeders of kibble who are straddling both worlds....

and nothing, in the raw section is said..not one word to you or to those who feed kibble to one or more dogs and raw to others in their family.

not one. and nothing is said to any of the others who feed some raw and some kibble who post in the raw section....


y'all are such delicate wallflowers when the stumbling russian peasant comes in with her rough, blunt and direct talk...


and had any of you read my post before getting your hackles in an uproar, you would have seen it was directed at dr. tim. 

there was his quote above it.

in my life, i have never seen such defensiveness in a group of people..

and, if your widdle feelings get hurt so easily, perhaps forums are not the place for any of you.

no worries, though, i hardly visit the kibble forum. and now i will never visit again.

this happened the last time i came in....

to leave you with one last thought. did you ever know something was a truth?

and you know that truth is so true, you want to yell it to the rooftops?

i'm quite sure each and every one of you knows of a truth like that.

for me, one of my truths is raw food for dogs.

kibble equals carbs and carbs and processed food do not a marriage make for dogs.

now i hope y'all have your pantaloons re adjusted so you can go back to being socially correct and well mannered and your dresses, suits, and makeup is in place....


and that is my last word.


----------



## meggels

Wait wait wait, I want to clarify, that my comment was not directed specifically at you Re, I'm not sure why you think that. It was directed towards some posts and attitudes I've seen throughout my time here. Not at one person in general. But I apologized to anyone I might have offended by it, because I was angry and upset and was just spewing it in here when I should not have.


----------



## minnieme

magicre said:


> the 'holier than thou' comment was directed toward me from meggels.
> 
> that she is losing her job is very hard. i had to close my business, a profitable one and i know where she is.
> still, it is not a reason to call me or anyone like me holier than thou. she apologised and so it's over.
> 
> *that also goes for minnie me.*
> more time was spent with you in private message trying to help you convert your dog to raw and when it was upsetting you so much, i suggested you put her back on kibble until you were in a better place.
> 
> you still post in the raw section giving advice, as do many feeders of kibble who are straddling both worlds....
> 
> and nothing, in the raw section is said..not one word to you or to those who feed kibble to one or more dogs and raw to others in their family.
> 
> not one. and nothing is said to any of the others who feed some raw and some kibble who post in the raw section....
> 
> 
> y'all are such delicate wallflowers when the stumbling russian peasant comes in with her rough, blunt and direct talk...
> 
> 
> and had any of you read my post before getting your hackles in an uproar, you would have seen it was directed at dr. tim.
> 
> there was his quote above it.
> 
> in my life, i have never seen such defensiveness in a group of people..
> 
> and, if your widdle feelings get hurt so easily, perhaps forums are not the place for any of you.
> 
> no worries, though, i hardly visit the kibble forum. and now i will never visit again.


I have no idea where that came from as I have been solely supportive of raw in my endeavors and time on this forum and do consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject even though Minnie isn't on it right now. I think your comment, Re, was completely out of line. I have admitted time and time again that Minnie didn't work on raw at the time NOT because of raw itself, but because of stuff I was doing wrong. PERIOD. I don't know how many more times I have to say that for you to get that *I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU, YOUR HELP, OR THE CONCEPT OF RAW.* I appreciate all the info you have given me along the way, I have said that repeatedly and I have no idea why this is even directed at me... when even in this whole thread I have been a cheerleader for raw, not for kibble. I am feeding kibble right now, and I will stand by my comment of that still making me a great dog owner. I can chime in on the raw forum whenever I damn well please, because my mistakes have taught me VALUABLE lessons....lessons I would not want others to endure ever. Considering I did everything in the book wrong that could possibly be wrong, acknowledged it, learned from it, and tried to move on, I'm not sure why you're gunning for me. My goal is only to spare others from the same fate. 

I am not delicate. I have admitted I did everything wrong when it comes to raw, yet am so excited to get back on track with it when Minnie gains weight again. I agree that kibble equates to carbs. I know that kibble is far less superior than raw. I am DONE with the attacks and done with this thread. I don't need to justify my feeding decisions to anyone here and I am disappointed that it seems I am less welcome in the raw forum than I thought. I said nothing in any of my previous posts to warrant that condescension.

With that said, OP, I do hope you look further into the truth about carbs. Anecdotal evidence aside, here is a link that talks about why carbs are bad for our dogs: Why Carbohydrates Are Unhealthy For Dogs

Ultimately, since raw is a fairly new feeding trend (at least among people alive at the moment!), a lot of the evidence we have is anecdotal. But the shift is indeed happening. You couldn't find pre-made raw ten years ago (to my knowledge). Dog nutrition is become a more widely evaluated topic and regardless of how you choose to feed, I urge you to do your own research and not just rely on sources that most here have debunked as false.


----------



## DaViking

minnieme said:


> Ultimately, since raw is a fairly new feeding trend (at least among people alive at the moment!), a lot of the evidence we have is anecdotal. But the shift is indeed happening. You couldn't find pre-made raw ten years ago (to my knowledge). Dog nutrition is become a more widely evaluated topic and regardless of how you choose to feed, I urge you to do your own research and not just rely on sources that most here have debunked as false.


In my circles ppl where starting to try raw 20 years ago. Back then we bought it in 40lbs frozen blocks.


----------



## PDXdogmom

magicre said:


> ya know, i'm reading these responses and it's almost laughable...
> 
> pdxmom...you who know so much about food feed your dog the very stuff you yourself won't even eat. nor will your son who is vegan and doesn't eat soy...which is laudable.
> kibble = carbs in my book and the words are interchangeable.
> 
> to the rest of you.
> 
> the 'holier than thou' comment was directed toward me from meggels.
> 
> that she is losing her job is very hard. i had to close my business, a profitable one and i know where she is.
> still, it is not a reason to call me or anyone like me holier than thou. she apologised and so it's over.
> 
> that also goes for minnie me.
> more time was spent with you in private message trying to help you convert your dog to raw and when it was upsetting you so much, i suggested you put her back on kibble until you were in a better place.
> 
> you still post in the raw section giving advice, as do many feeders of kibble who are straddling both worlds....
> 
> and nothing, in the raw section is said..not one word to you or to those who feed kibble to one or more dogs and raw to others in their family.
> 
> not one. and nothing is said to any of the others who feed some raw and some kibble who post in the raw section....
> 
> 
> y'all are such delicate wallflowers when the stumbling russian peasant comes in with her rough, blunt and direct talk...
> 
> 
> and had any of you read my post before getting your hackles in an uproar, you would have seen it was directed at dr. tim.
> 
> there was his quote above it.
> 
> in my life, i have never seen such defensiveness in a group of people..
> 
> and, if your widdle feelings get hurt so easily, perhaps forums are not the place for any of you.
> 
> no worries, though, i hardly visit the kibble forum. and now i will never visit again.
> 
> this happened the last time i came in....
> 
> to leave you with one last thought. did you ever know something was a truth?
> 
> and you know that truth is so true, you want to yell it to the rooftops?
> 
> i'm quite sure each and every one of you knows of a truth like that.
> 
> for me, one of my truths is raw food for dogs.
> 
> kibble equals carbs and carbs and processed food do not a marriage make for dogs.
> 
> *now i hope y'all have your pantaloons re adjusted so you can go back to being socially correct and well mannered and your dresses, suits, and makeup is in place....*
> 
> and that is my last word.


Some of the most opinionated but thoughtful and civilly-spoken people I've known have never worn a dress or a suit and rarely make-up. Perplexing why you would intermix remarks on dress. I've never met you, but your reference to yourself as a "stumbling . . . peasant" is also surprising. You come across as a very educated, both formally and informally, individual who can be quite the wordsmith. So, not sure how dress or financial means became a part of this.


----------



## minnieme

DaViking said:


> In my circles ppl where starting to try raw 20 years ago. Back then we bought it in 40lbs frozen blocks.


Good to know.... I have asked my grandparents and both of them looked at me like I was nuts when I said I was starting Minnie on this. O_O I'm sure back in their time it was mostly meat scraps and/or canned, but the fact that they thought raw was a totally repulsive idea reallllly surprised me. Glad to stand corrected though. I hope we see it become a "norm" among dog owners soon!


----------



## SerenityFL

PLEASE! Can we all stop the back and forth infighting?! PLEASE!!!!!!!

I will say my peace and then I'm out of here for awhile. The drama around here lately is overwhelming. I have enough going on in my personal life...I liked to come here and talk to people, share a laugh, learn something, see great photos of awesome dogs...but it's becoming too much. And I've even found myself swept up in it.

THIS IS NOT ME! I HATE drama!

We all love our dogs. As was mentioned, NONE of us would be here if we didn't love our dogs. We all raise our dogs differently. THAT IS OK as long as we are not torturing or abusing or neglecting our dogs. I will draw the line at THAT!

But I'm sorry, no matter what anyone knows or thinks, those of us here are NOT abusing or torturing or neglecting our dogs because of what we choose to feed.

I personally feed raw. BUT, I was one of those who used to feed that God awful crap from the grocery store! I did NOT know any better. I CHOSE to search out alternatives because of my CAT. I already wrote about it in the Success Stories thread so I won't repeat it here but I CHOSE to seek out this information.

Do you think, for one moment, I would have listened, with an open mind, if someone had talked to me the way I see some people talking to each other on here? 

NO!

There IS a way to speak to people and making them feel like they don't love their dogs, like they aren't doing enough, like they aren't sacrificing enough is B! S!

I have said this repeatedly, for some people, raw is NOT inexpensive. I am hanging on by a very thin thread right now trying to keep feeding my pets raw. It is horribly expensive for me. I'm trying but if I have to switch to kibble, I do not want to hear anyone say I "didn't do enough" or I "didn't try hard enough" or I "didn't sacrifice enough". The HELL I didn't! There are SO. MANY. THINGS I do NOT get for myself BECAUSE I'm TRYING to keep feeding raw.

Did my cat improve dramatically on raw? YES. She did! In such a short amount of time it felt like a miracle. Does it fricken KILL ME to think I have to go back to kibble? YES! A thousand times, YES!

So, if someone says that feeding kibble is what they can afford, you really MUST accept that answer! Maybe others are not as open as I am about how it really is a challenge and a struggle to keep affording it so I am telling you, for some of us, IT IS! 

For those who choose to feed kibble because they just can't "do raw" right now, it squeams them out, whatever, that is ok. IT IS Ok! 

If someone doesn't believe everything they are reading about raw or they really truly do feel that what they are feeding their dog(s) IS healthy for their dogs, THAT IS OK.

A LOT of you do things that I do not like, when it comes to pets. A lot of you do things differently than I do. I have kept my mouth CLOSED on many, many, MANY things that I do not agree with because I TRY to be respectful. Again, where I draw the line is with something I feel is either torturing, abusive or neglectful, other than that, I don't say diddly squat. You might be surprised at some of the things some of you do that I fricken loathe. But what difference does it make? Do you love your dogs? Yes, you do. I can see that. So why should I pipe up saying what I think you are doing is the wrong way? It's pointless.

I believe that people here, no matter what they are feeding, have read and read and read and listened and read and researched and read and listened some more. I don't think a single person that comes on here thinks, "I'm going to give my dog the absolute worst sh*t I can find because who cares about my dog." They wouldn't fricken be here if they thought like that.

And I also agree, this IS the dry and canned dog food section. In THIS particular post, it wasn't about dry food or raw food, it was a question of carbs so anyone who answered was not wrong. I fully believe this thread was put in the wrong section. Where could it have gone? I don't know, I'm not a moderator, that's not for me to decide but because it was open to any kind of feeding, (some people who feed raw still feed their pets carbs, not everyone who feeds raw does it the PMR way), I think every response about feeding was ok.

But I think sometimes we ARE harsh and pushy. Hate me with that statement, it's ok, but I cringe sometimes. 

I will never forget that poor guy who came here with his amazing BARF video. It was truly a work of art what he went through for his dogs. I was impressed. Would I feed BARF? No. But that did NOT warrant the responses he got. No WONDER that guy left! I felt terrible for him. He was proud of what he had done. And he did a lot of work. BECAUSE HE CARED ABOUT HIS DOGS! And what did he get in return? "Why would you do THAT!?!?!?" Such a horrible way to treat someone. He felt that what he was doing was a good thing. If we don't agree with that, it's ok. But we can choose our words differently when we debate...YES?!

On the other hand, those of you who feed kibble and ask open ended questions, please note, there are a lot of raw feeders here and they have seen what life is like feeding kibble and they have seen what life is like feeding raw.

I have been there. As I said, my cat made incredible improvement in such a short time that I cannot help BUT advocate raw. Especially when I see someone writing the same fricken problems my cat had. I KNOW raw works.

Those who come here to threads such as this and ask if you have tried raw or say something about raw are not doing that to be a militant b***ard and tell you that you HAVE to do it the PMR way or you are worthless scum, they say what they say because every single last one of us has done the kibble. Every one of us.

Some of us fed grocery crap like Friskies or Pedigree. (Guilty as charged!) Some fed higher end kibble. We have all been there. We have all seen problems with our pets. And we have all seen those problems go away when we switched. (In almost all cases..there was one person, I forget who, could not feed raw because their dog had some sort of ailment or malady...but that is rare.)

The people who talk about raw to you aren't doing it to give you the proverbial smack upside the head, they are saying it because they want you to think of another way to make your dog feel better, to stop the allergies, to stop the runny eyes, to stop the diarrhea, to stop the stomach upset, to stop the disinterest in food, to stop the dentals, to stop all kinds of things that happen to far too many pets these days.

They WANT TO HELP!

Do they come across strong and abrasive at times? YES. They do. And I totally understand how it comes across and how it makes some of you feel.

And those who do advocate raw, please understand that it DOES matter how you make someone feel when speaking to them. Feelings must be validated.

We are all adults here. We all love our dogs. We all try to do the best that we can with what we have, for our dogs. We do not have to agree on everything. 

Kibble people, if you feel as if you have been preached to, I apologize. I know the intentions ARE genuine and that people really are trying to help. Please try to see the words that way in the future. 

Raw people, I know you want to help. I know you have seen what raw can do. I know you have passion. I know you get sh*t on by so many out in the real world. Don't take that out on the people here, it's not their fault that people treat you that way. There are ways to say things that will draw people to your words and get them to remain open minded and listen. But also accept it when someone says they don't want to feed raw. They do NOT have to explain themselves to you. It could be for a myriad of reasons. If they say they don't want to, it must be accepted. And like someone said earlier, if they truly WERE interested in raw, they would be on the raw section asking questions and/or reading. 

Can we all please accept that some people feed kibble, some people feed raw, some people feed BARF and just live and let fricken live?!

And can we PLEASE not take every single word written as a direct attack and insult?! 

We are all here for one reason: Our pets.

Let's not forget that.

Maybe I'll get hate mail for what I've said...that's fine. I have to take a break from here for a little bit. When I find myself getting caught up things like this, I know it's time to step back for some time. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with this post. I just really wish we could all respect each other and remember why we are here. Please, let's cut the drama that has taken over in the last month or two...in all different sections of this forum.


----------



## Celt

Umm, wanted to add my 2 cents on "carbs". While I don't think carbs are necessary for dogs, I can see that dogs can "use" them. It's true that dogs can't fully digest unprocessed carb, but they can survive on it. That being said, most dog foods do not have unprocessed carbs (or pretty much anything else) in them. IMO, most dogs can do wonderfuly on an all protein diet, but not all do. As been stated time again, processed carbs are a cause for weight gain, and takes longer to "move" through the digestive track. Because wolves are used so much as examples. In the wild, a wolf that needed a "larger" portion of meat to maintain weight would die from starvation really early on. I've seen it said that some dogs have to have their raw meals "augmented" to rather "high" percentages because of the dog not being able to maintain weight. Of course it would be just as easy (and maybe less stressful) to just add a carb into the diet. The dog's body will use the process carb with less energy output and the dog maybe left feeling "less starved" because of the slower digestion rate. 
I've been blessedly lucky with my pets, in that I haven't had to deal with the problems that so many others have but there are things I've noticed. One being that in my experiences with dogs, I never had a dog that seemed almost constantly hungry. Until I started feeding raw. I find myself feeling limited by feeding a "true PMR" diet. I think the reason raw works "miracles" sometimes is because it's the ultimate "limited ingredient" diet. I don't think that because someone would rather have their dog's diet "balanced" for them that it implies that they aren't "working hard enough", being lazy, or selfish. I find it a tad insulting for people to imply that a person who is unable/unwilling to hunt out deals, "beg" for freebies, or "short change" themselves are being "bad" pet owners. It would be nice if everyone remembered the golden rule and to be persuasive, not insistive (?). Hmm, not sure if any of this made sense but <shrug>, it's my 2 cents.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Ho. Lee. Sh*t. 

Lets start at the top. I moved this thread. Sorry I didn't do it sooner. I actually had a life away from the PC this weekend. (eta. this is not implying no one else did, lol... it's just rare for ME)
This thread did not belong in the kibble section to begin with. If it did, the OP really should have made it clear. Even so, when I see such a load of crap posted, I don't give a damn what section it's in. I don't really care what you feed, doesn't change the fact dogs do not need carbs. 

Second, when raw feeders mention raw, it's not because we want to convert everyone in the world, and kibble feeders are bad, bad, bad. It's because we see a struggle that we know is painful to watch, and we found a solution. MOST of the time raw is mentioned other than respectfully in passing, it's not even done by raw feeders. 

When I see raw being disrespectfully pushed here, rest assured, people get warning PMs... it doesn't just fly. However, when general misconceptions, half-truths, and flat out bullsh*t is posted about canine nutrition or anything else, yeah... everyone has a right to respond no matter what they feed. 

This forum has never seemed more divided than it has in the last two or so months here. Raw feeders expected to water down their thoughts and tip toe around the truths of canine nutrition.... kibble feeders made to feel inadequate when they love their pets JUST AS MUCH. 

Yeah, I've probably been part of it. It's hard not to do when the raw feeders in the kibble section saved my dog's life. I've seen the wonders. I'm a firm believer. But no, it's not doable by everyone. I look at what I do to be able to feed raw, and I can understand why some people don't, won't, or can't. It's easy to get caught up in the "cause" but reality... I don't even know if I can do it after Jon & I have kids, which is hopefully next year, and I'm really freaking tired of feeling guilty for that, or feeling like I could loose friends or respect because of it. 

Moral of the story: Who the hell cares what anyone feeds anyway? I'm sorry to anyone I've offended in this or previous posts. I'm also sorry that DFC has been such a damn drama pit the last two months.... but I think the vinegar is coming from BOTH sides of the pool here. Can we all just get over ourselves, throw on the bikinis, and have a party?


----------



## xellil

One sure way to run everyone off these boards is for me to put on a bikini


----------



## catahoulamom

Great posts, Serenity & Linsey!

Now, "can't we all just get along?"?!?!?


----------



## JayJayisme

dr tim said:


> 4. Who's left to listen to then?


Mother Nature. She knows her stuff.


----------



## JayJayisme

3DogMom said:


> Information from a breeder (of 30 years) and a vet (a close friend and of 15 years)....dogs NEED carbs.


Ask your vet friend how many cases of diabetes they see in their practice these days. It's an epidemic. Even OMNIVOROUS HUMANS don't NEED carbs, let alone carnivores. Your breeder and vet friends are living in the dark ages.


----------



## Unosmom

While on the topic, I received my latest copy of Dog Fancy, and theres a nice little article on puppy nutrition, guess whats the first thing I read " Dogs are not carnivores, they're omnivores. Their diet should contain carbs, vitamins, minerals and protein from a mix of meat, vegetables and grains." Goes on to say how dogs being carnivores is a myth according to one vet and they can do just fine on a balanced vegetarian diet. *FACEPALM*

You bet I'm sending a letter to the editor.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

minnieme said:


> I agree with this. I think raw is the best thing in the world and I can't wait to give it another go once Minnie has a bit more meat on her bones (we're getting there!). And I felt AWFUL when I made the decision to switch back to kibble for the time being. But I am FAR from an inferior dog owner... Minnie is the love of my life! :biggrin1: I would do pretty much anything for her... and I don't think me feeding kibble right now means I love her any less than the raw feeders on this board. I agree too that it's hard not to be passionate about it... hell, I'm very passionate about it and I'm not even feeding it atm! But I do think that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar... so in order to sway people, I think it's wiser to approach them with kindness rather than accusations (again, not pointing out anyone in particular and I know it's hard not to do so when you know raw is the best thing for a dog).
> 
> Edit: that aside, there are all kinds of technical things wrong with your claims, 3DogMom, so while I do wish to reach out to you in kindness, I highly suggest you do some research on canine anatomy and subsequent nutritional needs before leaving in a huff. Perhaps the best thing that could come of this thread is that you take it upon yourself to read up on the aforementioned topics, instead of exclusively relying on some faulty sources.
> 
> I don't care how people feed, as long as they do their own research. Do I know that kibble is less than ideal? Yes, I'm not blind to this fact -- but I'm helping my cause by feeding a high quality grain-free one. This doesn't make me better than anyone else, it just means that I was willing to do the research.


You can catch even MORE with a bug zapper! Seriously... We have been having a HUGE issue with bugs the size of mice lately and we finally broke down and bought a bug zapper after going through several big buckets of wax (citronella candles). We were sitting outside trying to enjoy the evenings in a circle of candles... it kind of looked like we were performing some kind of ritual from far away... We only leave it on when we are outside though. Why kill bugs when we aren't outside for them to feast on?

On a more serious and relevant note...



Scarlett_O' said:


> First off the starting part of this whole thread makes me laugh and want to cry at people's ignorance all at the same time!! :tape2:
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE, a great post by Linsey, as always......and something to add to it. My Mum's dogs have been on raw since before she got Jazzy, she has had Jazzmyn for nearly 8 weeks...she has been on PMR since she picked her up at 8 weeks old. Just this past few days her poops finally evened out.....you know why? Because, instead of feeding her little not even 10lbs puppy(probably get to about 22lbs), 8oz she upped it to 10oz!!! :twitch:
> Now for our other dogs, had we upped their food it wouldnt have worked....but as Linsey said, and like we all say ALL THE TIME, every dog is different.....but it doesnt make our SPECIES APPROPRIATE diet any less appropriate for them, as it doesnt make them a different species!!!:wink:
> 
> 
> **Warning rant below**
> 
> And just me personally.....well I dont give a sh*t if you think I have a "holier-then-thou" attitude....because ya, maybe I do....maybe I do NOT understand how someone(MANY SOMEONES, not just YOU!) can overlook the fact that they(we all) own CARNIVORES!! I cant tell you how many days I have gone without food so that my babes can eat...thats what water is for!:wink: I have 6 pets, they all 6 need something slighly different with their diet(Im lucky enough that I dont have an major issues with anyone) but still...I pull my self up by my boot straps, cowboy up and DO MY JOB as their provider.


I am in the same situation. I have 2 dogs. One is a 78 lb smooth collie and the other is a 6 month old bluetick coonhound pup who should mature to be between 70 and 80 lbs. Both should be getting about the same amount of food. Dude, the collie get 1.5 lbs and Buck, the bluetick, gets 2 lbs. Buck needs more than Dude. Dude could probably do well on 1 1/4 lbs. For him we actually just weigh it and if a chicken quarter ends up being between 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 lbs then we feed that much. 

Dude also needs much more bone than Buck does. Buck gets 10-20% while Dude gets closer to 40%. He just needs that amount of bone to keep his poo firm. After being on raw for a while, the bone amount has actually gone down about 5%. The longer he is on it, the less bone he will probably need. This just goes to show that my boys are fed as individuals. I don't just toss them the same amount of meat even though they are and will mature to around 80lbs. Their diets are tailor made just for them. It wasn't the easiest thing in the world to figure out exactly what each boy needs, but it certainly wasn't the hardest.

I am the same way as Abi. I don't care what people think of me. I don't have a "holier than thou" attitude. At east I try not to. EVERY time I have talked to someone about switching their dog to raw for the obvious reasons, I have received nothing but shock and awe about how they couldn't believe they didn't know what was really going on. I have managed to convince most of the people I have told about raw and I believe that if I had a holier than thou attitude none of these people would have asked for sites they could do more research and they wouldn't have asked so many in depth questions about raw. If someone isn't interested, I ask them to at least think it over and look up some things about canine nutrition that aren't produced by a dog food company and if they ever do have any questions that I would be more than willing to answer them. Just the other day I convinced someone who was feeding Pedigree to research raw and if she wasn't comfortable with that, to switch to a better kibble. I was super happy with how that went. Sure, she didn't decide to feed raw, but at least now she knew that what she was feeding was terrible and was very interested in looking into a better kibble. That is good enough for me. I know I won't be able to convince everyone to feed raw but I can damn well educate them on their dog's needs and aim them towards at least a better kibble.

I, too, have gone without so my boys could eat. I would love a new camera, but am I getting one? Maybe in the future, but right now all of our money is being saved towards a freezer for them so that they can have more variety on hand. If we hit financial hardship during a paycheck (which happens often when your husband is in the military) we eat crap so they can eat the way they should. As their owner and the one with the human intelligence and opposable thumbs, I can choose whether or not I want to subject myself to crap food but my dogs cannot and I need to feed them as best as possible. For me, feeding an affordable kibble (such as Iams, Pedigree, Eukanuba, etc) is not feeding them as best as possible. Feeding an affordable kibble is saying that I only love my dogs enough to feed what is convenient for me. Whether you believe a high quality kibble is best OR raw is best, going without when necessary to maintain feeding what is best is necessary in order to be the best pet owner you can be.




Caty M said:


> To be fair, the OP post was not about kibble and was about dog's needs for carbs. YES it was in the kibble/canned section but maybe would have been better off elsewhere.


I honestly think this should be moved into the "Dog Food Ingredients" sections. It isn't really even about kibble at all. It's about carbs in a dog's diet.

*EDIT* I see that this has been moved so excuse me for being Captain Obvious  My apologies



Unosmom said:


> While on the topic, I received my latest copy of Dog Fancy, and theres a nice little article on puppy nutrition, guess whats the first thing I read " Dogs are not carnivores, they're omnivores. Their diet should contain carbs, vitamins, minerals and protein from a mix of meat, vegetables and grains." Goes on to say how dogs being carnivores is a myth according to one vet and they can do just fine on a balanced vegetarian diet. *FACEPALM*
> 
> You bet I'm sending a letter to the editor.


Well it looks like the editor will be getting at least 2 letters. I have yet to pick that one up.

And back on topic, I don't really think it is necessary for me to even say but dogs do not need carbs!


----------



## hmbutler

minnieme said:


> I have no idea where that came from as I have been solely supportive of raw in my endeavors and time on this forum and do consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject even though Minnie isn't on it right now. I think your comment, Re, was completely out of line. I have admitted time and time again that Minnie didn't work on raw at the time NOT because of raw itself, but because of stuff I was doing wrong. PERIOD. I don't know how many more times I have to say that for you to get that *I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU, YOUR HELP, OR THE CONCEPT OF RAW.* I appreciate all the info you have given me along the way, I have said that repeatedly and I have no idea why this is even directed at me... when even in this whole thread I have been a cheerleader for raw, not for kibble. I am feeding kibble right now, and I will stand by my comment of that still making me a great dog owner. I can chime in on the raw forum whenever I damn well please, because my mistakes have taught me VALUABLE lessons....lessons I would not want others to endure ever. Considering I did everything in the book wrong that could possibly be wrong, acknowledged it, learned from it, and tried to move on, I'm not sure why you're gunning for me. My goal is only to spare others from the same fate.
> 
> I am not delicate. I have admitted I did everything wrong when it comes to raw, yet am so excited to get back on track with it when Minnie gains weight again. I agree that kibble equates to carbs. I know that kibble is far less superior than raw. I am DONE with the attacks and done with this thread. I don't need to justify my feeding decisions to anyone here and I am disappointed that it seems I am less welcome in the raw forum than I thought. I said nothing in any of my previous posts to warrant that condescension.
> 
> With that said, OP, I do hope you look further into the truth about carbs. Anecdotal evidence aside, here is a link that talks about why carbs are bad for our dogs: Why Carbohydrates Are Unhealthy For Dogs
> 
> Ultimately, since raw is a fairly new feeding trend (at least among people alive at the moment!), a lot of the evidence we have is anecdotal. But the shift is indeed happening. You couldn't find pre-made raw ten years ago (to my knowledge). Dog nutrition is become a more widely evaluated topic and regardless of how you choose to feed, I urge you to do your own research and not just rely on sources that most here have debunked as false.


Not sure if I totally read Re's comment the wrong way (never can tell the tone of a "post" lol) but I read it as she was using you as an example of how Raw feeders ARENT being "holier than thou", because you were recommended, by raw feeders, to go back to kibble for a while. And the fact that no one has criticised you or attacked you for your choice is further proof of the non-existant "holier than thou" attitude... I dont think she was attacking you in that post (but again, maybe I'm wrong, lol).

All in all, from what I have researched and read and been told, dogs (like humans) dont NEED carbs at all, and dog's appear to thrive a whole lot better on a diet low on carbs or without carbs at all. But I agree everyone here (on a DOG FOOD forum) is feeding their dog what they believe is the best thing they possibly can feed. 

For the record, I have a raw fed dog and a kibble fed cat (but since learning about the "bad" commercial foods, I did switch my cat to a kibble that I believe is a lot better for her, and it is lower in carbs)

PS I read this whole thread and posted my reply while eating potato chips that are 53% carbs... hmm... lucky I have better control over Duke's diet than I do over my own!! Haha


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

hmbutler said:


> Not sure if I totally read Re's comment the wrong way (never can tell the tone of a "post" lol) but I read it as she was using you as an example of how Raw feeders ARENT being "holier than thou", because you were recommended, by raw feeders, to go back to kibble for a while. And the fact that no one has criticised you or attacked you for your choice is further proof of the non-existant "holier than thou" attitude... I dont think she was attacking you in that post (but again, maybe I'm wrong, lol).
> 
> All in all, from what I have researched and read and been told, dogs (like humans) dont NEED carbs at all, and dog's appear to thrive a whole lot better on a diet low on carbs or without carbs at all. But I agree everyone here (on a DOG FOOD forum) is feeding their dog what they believe is the best thing they possibly can feed.
> 
> For the record, I have a raw fed dog and a kibble fed cat (but since learning about the "bad" commercial foods, I did switch my cat to a kibble that I believe is a lot better for her, and it is lower in carbs)
> 
> PS I read this whole thread and posted my reply while eating potato chips that are 53% carbs... hmm... lucky I have better control over Duke's diet than I do over my own!! Haha


I read Re's post the same way you did. I'm PRETTY sure that's how she meant it. I saw her using MinnieMe as an example as well. I didn't see anything in there that was malicious towards her because we all saw how thin Minnie got and if feeding her kibble gets some meat back on her so she can successfully eat raw again I don't see why anyone would condemn her for that.


----------



## DaViking

Celt said:


> Of course it would be just as easy (and maybe less stressful) to just add a carb into the diet. The dog's body will use the process carb with less energy output and the dog maybe left feeling "less starved" because of the slower digestion rate.
> I've been blessedly lucky with my pets, in that I haven't had to deal with the problems that so many others have but there are things I've noticed. One being that in my experiences with dogs, I never had a dog that seemed almost constantly hungry. Until I started feeding raw. I find myself feeling limited by feeding a "true PMR" diet. I think the reason raw works "miracles" sometimes is because it's the ultimate "limited ingredient" diet.


Spot on. The right carbs in right amounts (not 2/3 like OP suggested!) enhance and balance the food with, among other things, energy, but not needed for all and a no-no for some. In my 20+ years of experience being around owners and dogs with a medium to high level of activity I have seen very few owners who stuck with a pure raw diet. For those who tried, including myself, most go back to a wet-dry food regime supplemented with raw ingredients as needed. Why? Because there was no evidence that the dogs mentally or physically performed better on a pure raw diet. Feeding raw and having a medium to high level of activity at the same time means you have to allocate a lot of time and money to "food" or the dog(s) will go constantly hungry, in some cases become malnourished if you'r not careful and know what you are doing.

I think you are right in that raw can be an excellent diet for many dogs who struggle with various illnesses plus medium to low activity dogs where the owner is committed and educated. In some cases a therapeutic food is a must tho.


----------



## schtuffy

hmbutler said:


> Not sure if I totally read Re's comment the wrong way (never can tell the tone of a "post" lol) but I read it as she was using you as an example of how Raw feeders ARENT being "holier than thou", because you were recommended, by raw feeders, to go back to kibble for a while. And the fact that no one has criticised you or attacked you for your choice is further proof of the non-existant "holier than thou" attitude... I dont think she was attacking you in that post (but again, maybe I'm wrong, lol).


That's how I took it too, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't 100% sure...and I didn't want to go around putting words into Re's mouth :tape2: LOL


----------



## RawFedDogs

DaViking said:


> The right carbs in right amounts (not 2/3 like OP suggested!) enhance and balance the food with, among other things, energy, but not needed for all and a no-no for some.


In what ways could carbs possibly enhance and balance a dog's diet? Saying that implies that a PMR diet is deficient in some nutrients. If a dog requires more energy in his diet, increasing fat content will certainly accomplish that. You also can't say that some dogs need carbs and some don't. They are all dogs. It would be like saying some dogs need calcium (or any other nutrient) and some don't.



> In my 20+ years of experience being around owners and dogs with a medium to high level of activity I have seen very few owners who stuck with a pure raw diet.


In my 10 years of talking to MANY raw feeders via various forums such as this, I have known almost none who went back to kibble. I don't know of ANY who when back to kibble after feeding raw for 6 months or more.



> For those who tried, including myself, most go back to a wet-dry food regime supplemented with raw ingredients as needed. Why? Because there was no evidence that the dogs mentally or physically performed better on a pure raw diet.


How did you measure this?



> Feeding raw and having a medium to high level of activity at the same time means you have to allocate a lot of time and money to "food" or the dog(s) will go constantly hungry, in some cases become malnourished if you'r not careful and know what you are doing.


I say if you are working your dog so hard that a raw diet doesn't provide enough energy, you are overworking your dog. You are asking him to expend more energy than his body is capable of putting out without the aid of "boosters". Wolves will travel up to 20 miles a day regularly and they don't need carbs in their diet. The only thing carbs provide is quick sugar. If you have to artificially provide energy to your dogs to maintain their "performance", then look at how much you are demanding of your dogs.

I don't know how long you fed raw but it takes a while to both learn how to buy supplies for raw fed dogs and to set up a routine to make it easy to "handle" the work of it. I think all of the medium to long term raw feeders can feed PMR a good bit cheaper than a midgrade commercial food.



> I think you are right in that raw can be an excellent diet for many dogs who struggle with various illnesses plus medium to low activity dogs where the owner is committed and educated. In some cases a therapeutic food is a must tho.


All the "therapeutic food" I've seen is nothing but garbage. I've never seen a raw fed who needed them. I don't know of any dog that wouldn't fare better on a raw diet than ANY of the so called therapeutic diet.


----------



## Caty M

DaViking said:


> Spot on. The right carbs in right amounts (not 2/3 like OP suggested!) enhance and balance the food with, among other things, energy, but not needed for all and a no-no for some. In my 20+ years of experience being around owners and dogs with a medium to high level of activity I have seen very few owners who stuck with a pure raw diet. For those who tried, including myself, most go back to a wet-dry food regime supplemented with raw ingredients as needed. Why? Because there was no evidence that the dogs mentally or physically performed better on a pure raw diet. Feeding raw and having a medium to high level of activity at the same time means you have to allocate a lot of time and money to "food" or the dog(s) will go constantly hungry, in some cases become malnourished if you'r not careful and know what you are doing.
> 
> I think you are right in that raw can be an excellent diet for many dogs who struggle with various illnesses plus* medium to low activity dogs* where the owner is committed and educated. In some cases a therapeutic food is a must tho.


Neither of my dogs could be considered med to low energy. Both dogs get a solid two hours of exercise per day plus Bish is starting in agility (Tess will also come 12 months of age). Bishops parents are working sheep herders who basically run for six hours a day and are fed raw.


----------



## 3Musketeers

PuppyPaws said:


> Can we all just get over ourselves, throw on the bikinis, and have a party?


Woah now, can I sit back and watch this? :biggrin:


----------



## Liz

Yeah, I've probably been part of it. It's hard not to do when the raw feeders in the kibble section saved my dog's life. I've seen the wonders. I'm a firm believer. But no, it's not doable by everyone. I look at what I do to be able to feed raw, and I can understand why some people don't, won't, or can't. It's easy to get caught up in the "cause" but reality... I don't even know if I can do it after Jon & I have kids, which is hopefully next year, and I'm really freaking tired of feeling guilty for that, or feeling like I could loose friends or respect because of it.

Babies can make raw hard just by how much time they take but once they are older they are actually helpful - LOL I don't know where I would be without the help of my two.


----------



## minnieme

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I read Re's post the same way you did. I'm PRETTY sure that's how she meant it. I saw her using MinnieMe as an example as well. I didn't see anything in there that was malicious towards her because we all saw how thin Minnie got and if feeding her kibble gets some meat back on her so she can successfully eat raw again I don't see why anyone would condemn her for that.


Reread it today and I can see that angle too... Sorry Re, I didn't yesterday. I just saw the "delicate wallflowers," and the "widdle feelings" things and I took it way too personally and thought it was aimed at me. I guess I got caught up in the drama too.... sure seems like there are lots of fights breaking out lately -- and I'm sorry I got wrapped up in one as well -- when it was sooo not meant that way. 

Sorry, everyone... I'll shut my trap. Oh and carbs are still bad. :wink:


----------



## PDXdogmom

I think post #89 about the Dog Fancy magazine puppy nutrition article; and posts #93 and # 95 are the perfect example of how everybody's "truths" aren't always the same.


----------



## DaneMama

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I've been here long enough to see this whole split division between kibble and raw feeders time and time again. Heck, I used to BE on the kibble side...but if it weren't for the raw feeders showing me the other side of things I'd still be feeding kibble. Sometimes I think its good to have some opposition to the norm, only if done respectfully and its been a LONG time since I've seen any disrespect from the raw feeders towards the kibble feeders. 

We've come to an unspoken agreement to not mention raw in the kibble section because it upsets the kibble feeders. I don't particularly like this agreement because I feel that everyone should be able to mention things anywhere here as long as its done with dignity and respect...but since this is the internet, its hard to get inflections and tone from people's messages. But even still, I will continue to respect that agreement. I think as of late, a lot of newbies here don't realize that agreement, but we haven't gotten any complaints lately either...even though I've personally come across several mentions of raw in the kibble section. 

I can relate to why people get bent out of shape about the raw feeders posting in the kibble section, like I said, I was there. It did feel like "they" were acting superior because they are feeding the diet dogs are SUPPOSED to eat. That kind of statement in and of itself feels like a put down to a kibble feeder. Why? Well, because it makes it seem like what kibble feeders DO feed their dogs isn't what they're supposed to eat. But in all reality, kibble isn't what dogs are supposed to eat, IMO (as well as the opinion of most of the members here).

So, to the kibble feeders out there...what ARE dogs supposed to eat? What IS the correct diet for a dog? Is kibble the correct diet? 

Do the kibble feeders here truly feel that they are feeding the appropriate diet for their dogs? Or is there something better or different? 

Lets set aside the constraints that some people are faced with like budget, space, time, morals/ethics, hygiene, personal etc. 

I in no way mean this as a put down, but merely a thought provoking discussion. Instead of getting bent over us seeming to be "superior" for feeding raw...tell me more about WHY kibble is better and more appropriate.


----------



## minnieme

DaneMama said:


> Lets set aside the constraints that some people are faced with like budget, space, time, morals/ethics, hygiene, personal etc.


I'm curious about this too -- as I feel most people feed kibble because of the aforementioned reasons. Sure, they may recognize that raw is ideal, but the constraints you mentioned sway them to feed kibble. I am genuinely curious about this too.... because as a current kibble feeder, I KNOW that logically raw is the best thing for a dog (when balanced of course). It's just not nearly as fattening (at first) as most kibbles, thus our current situation. 

I've always been curious about this too... some people say the domestic dog has evolved to eat a more omnivorous diet, but I can't find any proof of that in a dog's anatomy  (Note: I'm no expert, just curious)


----------



## DaViking

RawFedDogs said:


> In what ways could carbs possibly enhance and balance a dog's diet? Saying that implies that a PMR diet is deficient in some nutrients. If a dog requires more energy in his diet, increasing fat content will certainly accomplish that. You also can't say that some dogs need carbs and some don't. They are all dogs. It would be like saying some dogs need calcium (or any other nutrient) and some don't.


Vegetables and fruits are a good source of trace minerals, vitamins and dietary fiber. Carbs in the amounts I'd consider ok are slowly digested and released as energy. If you don't want that energy, find a food without the complex grains and just stick with the minerals, fiber and vitamins.
I am not saying some dogs need carbs and some don't, in general. I am saying carbs in moderate levels *is fine* in the diet as a base, *full stop*. Only if issues arise should you evaluate if you should eliminate sources of carbohydrates (as you evaluate other ingredients/causes as well) Or take it all the way and switch to raw if you are able to do it. I have nothing against a raw diet if it make sense for you to do it. I just don't agree that it have any significant benefit for otherwise thriving and healthy dogs on a balanced diet.



RawFedDogs; said:


> In my 10 years of talking to MANY raw feeders via various forums such as this, I have known almost none who went back to kibble. I don't know of ANY who when back to kibble after feeding raw for 6 months or more.


Most active dog ppl are not overly active on forums and boards and amounts to close to zilch in the big scheme of things.




RawFedDogs; said:


> How did you measure this?


Good question. When you are in the field, up in a snowy mountain or working a live noisy industrial area 5 out of 7 days per week training you develop pretty good skills at reading your dogs performance and body language. You have to become 1 with your dog or else you will fail. Except for teeth and stool, the apparent basics like skin, coat, etc didn't change much if recall correct. Stool was more random, teeth was better. Beyond that, most felt the dogs ability to work was diminished. None saw any increase in mental toughness or other behavior like changes, at home or in the field.



RawFedDogs; said:


> Wolves will travel up to 20 miles a day regularly and they don't need carbs in their diet. The only thing carbs provide is quick sugar. If you have to artificially provide energy to your dogs to maintain their "performance", then look at how much you are demanding of your dogs.


I don't want a wolf and I don't train wolves. I train dogs. And I do it for mainly two reasons 1) To be a happy thriving dog because it gets mentally and physically stimulated and 2) To be tough enough to walk next to a Caterpillar in a pile of rubble in search of signs of life.

Except for a few owners who choose to stay on raw and sporadic anecdotal reports on boards I have not seen much evidence that raw is the answer as soon as the activity level raises beyond a cpl of hrs per day in walks or what have you. Sure you can find the odd working dog owner who feed pure raw but in the end she/he is in a huge minority.



RawFedDogs; said:


> I don't know how long you fed raw but it takes a while to both learn how to buy supplies for raw fed dogs and to set up a routine to make it easy to "handle" the work of it. I think all of the medium to long term raw feeders can feed PMR a good bit cheaper than a midgrade commercial food.


They where fed raw well over 12 months. Re the price; Maybe, maybe not, probably depends on where you live. Not sure what you consider midgrade commercial food either.


----------



## DaneMama

DaViking said:


> Vegetables and fruits are a good source of trace minerals, vitamins and dietary fiber. Carbs in the amounts i'd consider ok are slowly digested and released as energy. If you don't want that energy, find a food without the complex grains and just stick with the minerals, fiber and vitamins.
> I am not saying some dogs need carbs and some don't, in general. I am saying carbs in moderate levels *is fine* in the diet as a base, *full stop*. Only if issues arise should you evaluate if you should eliminate sources of carbohydrates (as you evaluate other ingredients/causes as well) Or take it all the way and switch to raw if you are able to do it. I have nothing against a raw diet if it make sense for you to do it. I just don't agree that it have any significant benefit for otherwise thriving and healthy dogs on a balanced diet.


There is nothing in fruits and vegetables that isn't found in raw meat, bones and organs that are necessary for a dog. Dog utilize fats as their energy source, making carbs useless to a dog. 

Dogs may be healthy and thriving NOW...but what happens in 2, 5, 10 years? The cost of kibble can show up much later in life for some dogs, not to mention that kibble I'm sure is the culprit for cases of cancer (cancer feeds on sugars). Others its plain as day, but I have seen many times that dogs "healthy and thriving" switched to raw from kibble get even healthier and thrive even more. 





> Most active dog ppl are not overly active on forums and boards and amounts to close to zilch in the big scheme of things.


You're absolutely right, raw feeders are at a extreme minimum in the grand scheme of things. 



> Good question. When you are in the field, up in a snowy mountain or working a live noisy industrial area 5 out of 7 days per week training you develop pretty good skills at reading your dogs performance and body language. You have to become 1 with your dog or else you will fail. Except for teeth and stool, the apparent basics like skin, coat, etc didn't change much if recall correct. Stool was more random, teeth was better. Beyond that, most felt the dogs ability to work was diminished. None saw any increase in mental toughness or other behavior like changes, at home or in the field.


I personally think that the true testament to raw is the wolf. Without the hazards of the wild, wolves fed their natural diet live longer, healthier lives than kibble fed dogs would. The fact that wolves can live a life in the wild WITH the hazards on 100% raw foods is extraordinary. Couple the natural diet of a dog with the cushy lifestyle of a companion dog (ie comfy bed to sleep in, medical care, etc)...just think of the possibilities. 

I also would like to know what "kind" of raw diet were you/they feeding? There are HUGE differences between the common raw feeding practices that I think make all the difference in performance and "toughness" 




> I don't want a wolf and I don't train wolves. I train dogs. And I do it for mainly two reasons 1) To be a happy thriving dog because it gets mentally and physically stimulated and 2) To be tough enough to walk next to a Caterpillar in a pile of rubble in search of signs of life.


Both of these reasons are great, but you do realize that the dogs you train share 99.2% of their DNA with a wolf right? And neither of these reasons are based on diet alone? Diet does play a role here though. 



> Except for a few owners who choose to stay on raw and sporadic anecdotal reports on boards I have not seen much evidence that raw is the answer as soon as the activity level raises beyond a cpl of hrs per day in walks or what have you. Sure you can find the odd working dog owner who feed pure raw but in the end she/he is in a huge minority.
> 
> They where fed raw well over 12 months. Re the price; Maybe, maybe not, probably depends on where you live. Not sure what you consider midgrade commercial food either.


Raw feeders in general are a minorty...well, except here on DFC maybe. But like I said, I'm curious to find out what kind of raw diet you were feeding...


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU

I have a question. What exactly is the process in which dogs break down and utilize carbs for energy? I've been doing a ton of research for my website, and from what I gather, a dog's pancreas is incapable of secreting cellulase, which is the enzyme that splits cellulose into glucose. Instead, their glucose is derived from the catabolism of fats and proteins. They're also incapable of fermenting carbs and starches in order to break them down, due to their very short digestive tracts. To me, that indicates that dogs are incapable of efficiently processing and using carbs for energy. If I'm wrong and there's another process in which carbs can be broken down and utilized, I'd love to learn about it.


----------



## DaViking

DaneMama said:


> There is nothing in fruits and vegetables that isn't found in raw meat, bones and organs that are necessary for a dog.


But that doesn't mean the nutrients in question found in fruits and vegetables are useless. They are very much useful for the dog. The only thing you say here is that it is your personal preference to source them from raw meat, bones and organs. Fine, your call.



DaneMama; said:


> Dog utilize fats as their energy source, making carbs useless to a dog.


Gonna re-phrase to make more sense. A quality kibble shouldn't be discarded just because it contains processed (cooked) carbs in limited amounts.



DaneMama; said:


> Dogs may be healthy and thriving NOW...but what happens in 2, 5, 10 years?


You can use that argument about all kinds of stuff, doesn't make much sense because it is way generic.



DaneMama; said:


> not to mention that kibble I'm sure is the culprit for cases of cancer.


I am sure kibble can be "the culprit for cases of cancer" So can a whole lot of other things too. Not to mention genetics. I will switch today if you can point me to any serious research saying raw will prevent cancer in my dogs. If not it will just be a matter of exchanging arguments.



DaneMama; said:


> I also would like to know what "kind" of raw diet were you/they feeding? There are HUGE differences between the common raw feeding practices that I think make all the difference in performance and "toughness"


They where fed a lamb meat and bone based diet. Lamb because it is plentiful where I come from. I am sure some regimes are better or more suited than others.



DaneMama; said:


> Both of these reasons are great, but you do realize that the dogs you train share 99.2% of their DNA with a wolf right?


You do realize the you share 99% of your DNA with the chimpanzees right? And still you don't drink your own urine.
You share 50% of your genes with the banana. You are not a banana from the waist down are you? ( Sorry, not mad or trying to be rude, just couldn't resist the last one  )


----------



## DaneMama

DaViking said:


> But that doesn't mean the nutrients in question found in fruits and vegetables are useless. They are very much useful for the dog. The only thing you say here is that it is your personal preference to source them from raw meat, bones and organs. Fine, your call.


I choose to source these nutrients from meat, bones and organs because I don't have to cook, puree, process any of it at all to make the nutrients bioavailable to my dogs unlike you'd have to do with feeding plant matter to a dog. It has to be processed in some way for a dog to gain anything from it. 





> Dogs utilize fats and carbs as a source of energy.


See Rachel's post about carbohydrate metabolism in dogs. 




> I am sure kibble can be "the culprit for cases of cancer" So can a whole lot of other things too. Not to mention genetics. I will switch today if you can point me to any serious research saying raw will prevent cancer in my dogs. If not it will just be a matter of exchanging arguments.


I'm not about to claim that feeding a raw diet will prevent cancer at all...thats outlandish to say the least. But could it decrease the odds? Yes, I think so because I'm not giving my dogs processed foods with all kinds of additives, even if they are "natural" 




> They where fed a lamb meat and bone based diet. Lamb because it is plentiful where I come from. I am sure some regimes are better or more suited than others.


What does this mean? Just lamb meat and bone? Because that by itself isn't ideal and I can see why you didn't see much improvement. What did you feed on a daily basis? Was it ground? What other things did you add in? 

I only ask these questions because there's a good chance that you didn't see the results from "feeding raw" because of HOW you went about doing it. I'd say there are many different "ways" to raw feed a dog, but only a few are really correct based on the individuals needs of course. Usually when people don't see good results on raw, it is due to user error and not the food itself. 




> You do realize the you share 99% of your DNA with the chimpanzees right? And still you don't drink your own urine.
> You share 50% of your genes with the banana. You are not a banana from the waist down are you? ( Sorry, not mad or trying to be rude, just couldn't resist the last one  )


I get what you're saying and no offense taken! But you cannot compare apples to oranges. Dogs and wolves are so closely related that we can learn about behavior, biology, physiology, reproduction, etc by studying the wolf. Yes, we share 99% of our genes with chimps, but we cannot produce viable offspring, so we might as well be 50% genetically different. Wolves and dogs CAN produce viable offspring, which tells you that they are nearly one and the same.


----------



## DaViking

DaneMama; said:


> See Rachel's post about carbohydrate metabolism in dogs.


She is missing the fact that dogs can utilize starch from grains after it has been converted/broken down by processing at the manufacturer and also absorb carbs from the same grains. Digestability varies greatly between the grains. From rice (good) to corn (not so good)
Also, try to feed a 100% wild rice diet and see what happens. Or better yet, try adding handsome amounts of plain rice to your average couch hogger's diet and see what happens.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> ...try adding handsome amounts of plain rice to your average couch hogger's diet and see what happens.


I'd prefer not to see my dog's pancreas implode, even if it takes 12 or 15 years. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## schtuffy

DaViking said:


> She is missing the fact that dogs can utilize starch from grains after it has been converted/broken down by processing at the manufacturer and also absorb carbs from the same grains. Digestability varies greatly between the grains. From rice (good) to corn (not so good)
> Also, try to feed a 100% wild rice diet and see what happens. Or better yet, try adding handsome amounts of plain rice to your average couch hogger's diet and see what happens.


But why feed something that requires a machine to break it down in order to digest? Kibble is a human invention...where were dogs, cats, fish, birds etc. before humans came along and invented a pelleted diet? Were they dropping dead from malnutrition?

And if we humans have created this miracle kibble/pellet that contains all the nutrients for survival, why have we not created one for ourselves? Even if we have created something...like a cereal with all the trace vitamins and minerals and daily nutritional needs, would you be willing to eat this day after day for the rest of your life? 

Not trying to make an attack or direct this at you specifically, just questions to think about :smile:


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> I'd prefer not to see my dog's pancreas implode, even if it takes 12 or 15 years. But hey, that's just me.


You don't have to wait 15 years to see whats happening. ...and trust me, nothing will be imploding.


----------



## DaViking

schtuffy said:


> But why feed something that requires a machine to break it down in order to digest? Kibble is a human invention...where were dogs, cats, fish, birds etc. before humans came along and invented a pelleted diet? Were they dropping dead from malnutrition?
> 
> And if we humans have created this miracle kibble/pellet that contains all the nutrients for survival, why have we not created one for ourselves? Even if we have created something...like a cereal with all the trace vitamins and minerals and daily nutritional needs, would you be willing to eat this day after day for the rest of your life?


See this is a whole other discussion. It's not a new subject. I have no problem feeding processed food, nor do I have any problem eating it myself. I do every day, most of us do. Well, not sure on this forum tho  Stay informed and use common sense. Would I like to eat the same effing kibble every day, or in the same shape or form? No I would not. But 1) I am a human with a whole other set of emotions and feelings canines does not posses and 2) I don't recommend feeding your dog 1 and the same kibble day in and day out. Mix it up, he/she is your buddy god damn it, throw in some greasy snacks 

It's a little conundrum to me that so many here are all about raw, PMR, the wolf this and the wolf that, no processing of anything, carbs are the devil, dont feed my pupps plants, etc etc etc etc but fail to address, discuss or remotely touch how so many dogs/breeds (including here) are miles away from the natural, healthy and vital wolf used as model and witness of truth. You are talking about raw food while your faux wolf is in distress or are likely to suffer in the future because of mans crazy breeding desires. Doesn't sit right with me. Not pointing fingers at anyone particular here, just raising the issue. Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is. Start campaigning for healthy genes instead of spreading inaccuracies about dry dog food. Hardly gonna happen since you are here passionate about raw, but it's my 2cents anyway.


----------



## tem_sat

DaViking said:


> I am saying carbs in moderate levels *is fine* in the diet as a base, *full stop*. Only if issues arise should you evaluate if you should eliminate sources of carbohydrates (as you evaluate other ingredients/causes as well) [...] I just don't agree that it have any significant benefit for otherwise thriving and healthy dogs on a balanced diet.


Back to my original reason for switching from Acana to PMR. You seem to be forgetting the relationship between carbs and periodontal disease. Improved and / or excellent dental health is a HUGE benefit of choosing to feed PMR.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is.


Certain breeds or lineages possess inherent health issues. No doubt about it. But any dog, regardless of breed, pedigree, size, weight, activity level, and so on, can be so negatively affected by its diet that even the most "genetically healthy" dog _can_ suffer from any number of minor to serious issues. Anything from a poor coat, weeping eyes, or periodontal disease up to allergies, insulin resistance, diabetes, thyroid issues, autoimmune/inflammatory diseases, cancer, and on and on. 

You can't do anything to change the genetics of the dog you have, but you sure as hell can feed it an appropriate ancestral diet so it can be as healthy as nature is going to allow it to be.


----------



## Liz

We breed collies and shelties. Overall I cannot change anything but my own breeding practices and methods. I can control the health and take great care with the genetics I introduce into my dogs. I can also control their health through what I feed them, vaccinations and other chemicals they just don't need. If something has the potential to damage my dog whether immediately or in the long term it is my responsibility to research alternatives or to decide if a certain product is the lesser evil to the diease/or problem it is supposed to prevent. I do not expect other people to have my standards as even very close friends who breed are in a place where they believe very differently than I do. That being said I do not crossbreed to their lines or bring in to my lines any dog I feel substandard or compromised due to feeding, vaccinations, etc. That is just me, it makes it alot harder to breed but my dogs are so healthy, tempermentally sound and without health issues that I cannot compromise on my stand. I have seen the difference over 35 years in dogs. Again, I do not place my standards on anyone else nor do I think they are bad owners or even breeders. They are doing what they believe best - I am too.


----------



## DaViking

Liz said:


> I do not crossbreed to their lines or bring in to my lines any dog I feel substandard or compromised due to feeding, vaccinations, etc


So are you saying the dogs in question would have their genes altered, contaminated or otherwise made unsuited by the feeding regime they are on?


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Certain breeds or lineages possess inherent health issues. No doubt about it. But any dog, regardless of breed, pedigree, size, weight, activity level, and so on, can be so negatively affected by its diet that even the most "genetically healthy" dog _can_ suffer from any number of minor to serious issues. Anything from a poor coat, weeping eyes, or periodontal disease up to allergies, insulin resistance, diabetes, thyroid issues, autoimmune/inflammatory diseases, cancer, and on and on.


Yes, funny how life is sometimes. Only one small thing, campaigning for healthy breeds and healthy lines will reduce all these issues greatly.



JayJayisme; said:


> You can't do anything to change the genetics of the dog you have, but you sure as hell can feed it an appropriate ancestral diet so it can be as healthy as nature is going to allow it to be.


I am sure the dog who can't breathe cause his tongue is in the way are thrilled over his ancestral diet. Phew, at least I got the ancestral diet he says. Mom is happy so it must be all good in the hood.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaViking said:


> I am sure the dog who can't breathe cause his tongue is in the way are thrilled over his ancestral diet. Phew, at least I got the ancestral diet he says. Mom is happy so it must be all good in the hood.


So, now poor breeding is an excuse to not feed raw?


----------



## meggels

PuppyPaws said:


> So, now poor breeding is an excuse to not feed raw?



I would think it would be the opposite....


I mean, as far as frenchies go, Murph comes from good bloodlines. But frenchies as a whole aren't a hardy breed, so I would think feeding them PMR would be their best option for having as healthy a life as possible.


----------



## CorgiPaws

meggels said:


> I would think it would be the opposite....
> 
> 
> I mean, as far as frenchies go, Murph comes from good bloodlines. But frenchies as a whole aren't a hardy breed, so I would think feeding them PMR would be their best option for having as healthy a life as possible.


That would have been my thoughts, exactly. But there will always be thosewho don't understand the difference between processed and whole foods, I guess.


----------



## DaViking

PuppyPaws said:


> That would have been my thoughts, exactly. But there will always be thosewho don't understand the difference between processed and whole foods, I guess.


Exactly why you won't get any meaningful answers back.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaViking said:


> Exactly why you won't get any meaningful answers back.


There... are... none. My post was not malicious, but there will ALWAYS be those who are such firm believers in kibble for one reason or another, that they don't get that whole will ALWAYS be better than processed. To use poor breeding as a reason not to feed raw is equally nuts. 
I don't care what anyone feeds their dogs, as long as they feel they are giving the best they can in their situation. For some that's going to be free-range, organic red meats... and for some it's going to be Kirkland dry food, and any option in between and it doesn't make any one person better than the next. I can say I do believe raw is best, but there are reasons people have to not feed it and that's absolutely fine. I'm sure they're still awesome dog owners! However, I will chime in when misconceptions or false information are being thrown around. 
But to claim that processed foods are better than whole foods for any species is unreasonable. I've fed kibble, canned, home cooked, and raw. I can say that what I fed did not have any bearing on how much I loved my dogs.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

DaViking said:


> See this is a whole other discussion. It's not a new subject. I have no problem feeding processed food, nor do I have any problem eating it myself. I do every day, most of us do. Well, not sure on this forum tho  Stay informed and use common sense. Would I like to eat the same effing kibble every day, or in the same shape or form? No I would not. But 1) I am a human with a whole other set of emotions and feelings canines does not posses and 2) I don't recommend feeding your dog 1 and the same kibble day in and day out. Mix it up, he/she is your buddy god damn it, throw in some greasy snacks
> 
> It's a little conundrum to me that so many here are all about raw, PMR, the wolf this and the wolf that, no processing of anything, carbs are the devil, dont feed my pupps plants, etc etc etc etc but fail to address, discuss or remotely touch how so many dogs/breeds (including here) are miles away from the natural, healthy and vital wolf used as model and witness of truth. You are talking about raw food while your faux wolf is in distress or are likely to suffer in the future because of mans crazy breeding desires. Doesn't sit right with me. Not pointing fingers at anyone particular here, just raising the issue. Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is. Start campaigning for healthy genes instead of spreading inaccuracies about dry dog food. Hardly gonna happen since you are here passionate about raw, but it's my 2cents anyway.


Then I don't think you know us raw feeders all that well. I raw feed and am very passionate about it but does that mean that, in my eyes, it is ok to breed substandard dogs? Heck no! we have a friend at the dog park who has a 13 week old Boston Terrier pup who is from decent lines, but wouldn't be the best candidate as a stud. She wants to breed him to her mom's bostons when he is older because she thinks he will "make cute puppies". Do you think that, just because I convinced her to switch to a better brand of kibble and convinced her to consider raw that I am going to keep my mouth shut about her producing mediocre puppies? No way! 

Those of us who are raw feeders don't just care about what kind of food people feed their dogs. we care about dogs asa species. To me, breeding substandard dogs who are not going to better the breed should be punishable by law. I am not against people adopting shelter dogs because they deserve homes too but I think that people need to promote purebreds who have been PROPERLY bred so that we can get everyone on board with breeding healthier dogs.

To me, what it sounds like is you are telling us that we should not be promoting raw and should be promoting better breeding *instead*. why can't we do both? I can tell you one thing: I am not going to stop promoting the diet that my dogs thrive on more than they did on kibble. I do believe that I am allowed to promote more than one thing... Just my 2 cents.


----------



## DaViking

PuppyPaws said:


> There... are... none. My post was not malicious, but there will ALWAYS be those who are such firm believers in kibble for one reason or another, that they don't get that whole will ALWAYS be better than processed. To use poor breeding as a reason not to feed raw is equally nuts.


Holy mackerel. If that's your take-out from what I said please read again, or not, whatever, maybe you won't understand.



PuppyPaws; said:


> But to claim that processed foods are better than whole foods for any species is unreasonable.


Source?

Travel the world and you will find that the healthiest regions of the world, Scandinavia and parts of Asia, have a completely different view of what constitute a processed food or not. Only N. Americans which have the worst health around with the most obese population ever look at processed food in such narrow and simplistic ways you seem to preach. Time to smarten up. You don't have to go all out wolf to provide great nutrition for a long happy life.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaViking said:


> Holy mackerel. If that's your take-out from what I said please read again, or not, whatever, maybe you won't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Travel the world and you will find that the healthiest regions of the world, Scandinavia and parts of Asia, have a completely different view of what constitute a processed food or not. Only N. Americans which have the worst health around with the most obese population ever look at processed food in such narrow and simplistic ways you seem to preach. Time to smarten up. You don't have to go all out wolf to provide great nutrition for a long happy life.


It's pointless to argue. 
If you feel great about how you feed, and your dog is healthy, then, well, at the end of the day you're doing pretty great. 
You're not going to get a bunch of people, nutritionists, vets, or any other titles, to agree on ALL the reasons, "facts," or sources. 
There's room for improvement in the way I feed PMR, but I'm doing the best I can in my situation... that's all I can do.


----------



## xellil

DaViking said:


> Yes, funny how life is sometimes. Only one small thing, campaigning for healthy breeds and healthy lines will reduce all these issues greatly.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure the dog who can't breathe cause his tongue is in the way are thrilled over his ancestral diet. Phew, at least I got the ancestral diet he says. Mom is happy so it must be all good in the hood.


you almost sound like you are blaming raw feeders for 

a) ignoring or even supporting or breeding deformed dogs
b) believing raw food will fix those problems, or make them inconsequential


there is no correlation between feeding and breeding

Just because someone is concerned about one thing doesn't mean they can't/won't be concerned about the other.


----------



## hmbutler

PuppyPaws said:


> It's pointless to argue.
> *If you feel great about how you feed, and your dog is healthy, then, well, at the end of the day you're doing pretty great. *
> You're not going to get a bunch of people, nutritionists, vets, or any other titles, to agree on ALL the reasons, "facts," or sources.
> There's room for improvement in the way I feed PMR, but I'm doing the best I can in my situation... that's all I can do.


This is true, and what really matters I think... this argument is just going round and round in circles, it could probably go on for another 200 pages and we'd still get nowhere...


----------



## DaViking

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> To me, what it sounds like is you are telling us that we should not be promoting raw and should be promoting better breeding *instead*. why can't we do both? I can tell you one thing: I am not going to stop promoting the diet that my dogs thrive on more than they did on kibble. I do believe that I am allowed to promote more than one thing... Just my 2 cents.


You absolutely should do both since that is your passion, no doubt about it. That shouldn't stop me addressing all the half baked truths scattered around here. It's not like this forum needs to be more skewed towards raw.


----------



## DaViking

xellil said:


> you almost sound like you are blaming raw feeders for
> 
> even supporting or breeding deformed dogs


Holy mackerel II; where do you read that? I am questioning the extreme back to nature attitude on one side vs raising dogs with severe issues on the other side. What does natural selection say? 




xellil; said:


> believing raw food will fix those problems, or make them inconsequential


Something raw absolutely will not do.


----------



## xellil

> Holy mackerel II; where do you read that? I am questioning the extreme back to nature attitude on one side vs raising dogs with severe issues on the other side. What does natural selection say?


Most people here don't breed. Alot don't even have purebred dogs. I have never bought a dog in my life, and certainly don't support deformity. I have owned very poorly bred dogs but because they were rescues, not because I approve of it. i don't think there's reason to think the people who breed these horrible traits into dogs feed them raw food - nor is there reason to think people who feed raw food don't care about the health of the breed.

Making statements comparing feeding to deformed dogs is not making an argument for anything. To me, it seems like a misdirection and is just argumentative because you have already said everything you want to say about raw feeding.



> Something raw absolutely will not do.


 I didn't see anyone say it would.


----------



## tem_sat

DaViking said:


> Travel the world and you will find that the healthiest regions of the world, Scandinavia and parts of Asia, have a completely different view of what constitute a processed food or not.


I decided to Google "processed food Scandinavia", and we come up with:



> Sales of chilled processed food continued to be strongly influenced by the intense debate about the increasing demand for fresh and “natural” food without too many additives, flavour enhancers or E-numbers. According to the industry, the trend is towards “back-to-basics”, and food which is made as grandmother made it. The impact of this trend was mainly on specific brands of sausages, ham and meat balls, rather than as a whole product category. Newspapers published brands and explained what each E-number and additive stood for, and many consumers studied the content more carefully than before. A study in 2010 by retail chain Coop Sverige stated that 60% of Swedish consumers studied what chilled meat products contained. Some producers took this seriously, and some abandoned the use of unnecessary additives. Many smaller producers were first to react to this trend, and introduced ham and sausages without any additives other than preservatives. This trend favoured smaller regional and local producers of chilled processed meat.


From: Chilled Processed Food in Sweden

Basically it's a stretch to compare something like smoked or pickled herring to extruded dog food...


----------



## DaViking

tem_sat said:


> I decided to Google "processed food Scandinavia", and we come up with:
> 
> 
> 
> From: Chilled Processed Food in Sweden
> 
> Basically it's a stretch to compare something like smoked or pickled herring to extruded dog food...


Hahahaha :biggrin: What are you talking about, lol. You Google'ed "processed food Scandinavia" and came up with a link to some seafood stuff, whats the point with that? :shocked: Seriously, if that's where we'r at now we should just let things be. Can't possibly bring this back :thumb:


----------



## xellil

DaViking said:


> Hahahaha :biggrin: What are you talking about, lol. You Google'ed "processed food Scandinavia" and came up with a link to some seafood stuff, whats the point with that? :shocked: Seriously, if that's where we'r at now we should just let things be. Can't possibly bring this back :thumb:


Well, then why don't you explain to us how Scandanavians are so enlightened with their processed food? Since you know so much about it - and after all, YOU brought it up.


----------



## mischiefgrrl

DaViking said:


> See this is a whole other discussion. It's not a new subject. I have no problem feeding processed food, nor do I have any problem eating it myself. I do every day, most of us do. Well, not sure on this forum tho  Stay informed and use common sense. Would I like to eat the same effing kibble every day, or in the same shape or form? No I would not. But 1) I am a human with a whole other set of emotions and feelings canines does not posses and 2) I don't recommend feeding your dog 1 and the same kibble day in and day out. Mix it up, he/she is your buddy god damn it, throw in some greasy snacks


Wow, that's one stunning comment. Do you pick up dog poop with a spatula out of your yard? Switching kibbles causes explosive diarrhea, no matter what kind of kibble it is. Greasy snacks on top of it? 

I'm not buying your certifications in training search and rescue dogs. I would think a person who does that respectfully would have knowledge of a dog's basic digestive needs as wells as the emotions they do possess that would be the same as a human's and all living creatures.


----------



## DaViking

xellil said:


> because you have already said everything you want to say about raw feeding.


Actually much more. I didn't want to say much at all about raw. I believe I can do more good getting ppl who currently feed low quality foods to feed a higher quality kibble. If you read some of my first posts you'll see just that. But it's pretty hard reading half baked truths and vague statements packaged as facts.

It's your right call it misdirection. I call it healthy questions, Everyone is free to call it what they want.


----------



## DaViking

mischiefgrrl said:


> Wow, that's one stunning comment. Do you pick up dog poop with a spatula out of your yard? Switching kibbles causes explosive diarrhea, no matter what kind of kibble it is. Greasy snacks on top of it?
> 
> I'm not buying your certifications in training search and rescue dogs. I would think a person who does that respectfully would have knowledge of a dog's basic digestive needs as wells as the emotions they do possess that would be the same as a human's and all living creatures.


Holy mackerel III; Don't switch out your kibble every day! Switch things up by adding raw or cooked snacks, etc. Train your dog to also accept it wet, mix it up that way. I am sorry if you misunderstood what I said, my first language is not English. To be clear, you should not rapidly and often switch to a new brand/formula. Some believe in rotation but that is something entirely different.

Thanks for the judgement tho.


----------



## Caty M

Find me any human nutritionist. All will say unprocessed foods are best. It's the same for dogs.... unprocessed, natural foods are the best for any animal. Cooking destroys nutrients. There are many reasons to feed a commercial food but honestly health is not one of them.


----------



## DaneMama

DaViking said:


> She is missing the fact that dogs can utilize starch from grains after it has been converted/broken down by processing at the manufacturer and also absorb carbs from the same grains. Digestability varies greatly between the grains. From rice (good) to corn (not so good)
> Also, try to feed a 100% wild rice diet and see what happens. Or better yet, try adding handsome amounts of plain rice to your average couch hogger's diet and see what happens.


So...you're a fan of feeding something that has to be physically altered just to get a dog to derive nutrients from? That in itself is illogical. Why not feed them something they can process themselves naturally? Hand a raw meaty bone to a dog and let them do the work instead of a machine that physically/chemically alters it for them. Processed foods lose so much nutrition through the process of production...so there's that as well to take into account. Whole, raw, fresh foods have more nutrients, enzymes and overall nutrition compared to anything processed. 

I just can't wrap my head around your logic here.... :doh:



schtuffy said:


> But why feed something that requires a machine to break it down in order to digest? Kibble is a human invention...where were dogs, cats, fish, birds etc. before humans came along and invented a pelleted diet? Were they dropping dead from malnutrition?
> 
> And if we humans have created this miracle kibble/pellet that contains all the nutrients for survival, why have we not created one for ourselves? Even if we have created something...like a cereal with all the trace vitamins and minerals and daily nutritional needs, would you be willing to eat this day after day for the rest of your life?
> 
> Not trying to make an attack or direct this at you specifically, just questions to think about :smile:


THANK you 1000X over :hail:



DaViking said:


> See this is a whole other discussion. It's not a new subject. I have no problem feeding processed food, nor do I have any problem eating it myself. I do every day, most of us do. Well, not sure on this forum tho  Stay informed and use common sense.


I certainly try and stay away from processed foods at all costs. They are in no way better than whole, fresh foods. Just because lots of people eat processed foods doesn't mean they are good for us or ideal. 



> Would I like to eat the same effing kibble every day, or in the same shape or form? No I would not. But 1) I am a human with a whole other set of emotions and feelings canines does not posses and 2) I don't recommend feeding your dog 1 and the same kibble day in and day out. Mix it up, he/she is your buddy god damn it, throw in some greasy snacks


You are in fact human, who decides whats best to feed your dog. You do in fact have different feelings and emotions than dogs, but that doesn't mean they are devoid of emotion and feeling. They DO in fact get bored, depressed, angry, sad. I'm glad to hear that you do at least give your dogs variety in their food. 



> It's a little conundrum to me that so many here are all about raw, PMR, the wolf this and the wolf that, no processing of anything, carbs are the devil, dont feed my pupps plants, etc etc etc etc but fail to address, discuss or remotely touch how so many dogs/breeds (including here) are miles away from the natural, healthy and vital wolf used as model and witness of truth. You are talking about raw food while your faux wolf is in distress or are likely to suffer in the future because of mans crazy breeding desires. Doesn't sit right with me. Not pointing fingers at anyone particular here, just raising the issue. Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is. Start campaigning for healthy genes instead of spreading inaccuracies about dry dog food. Hardly gonna happen since you are here passionate about raw, but it's my 2cents anyway.


You are sorely incorrect in your statements. PEOPLE are to blame for unhealthy dog breeds who have been genotypically and phenotypically altered in ways that cause huge health problems (IE English Bulldog, Frenchies, Shih Tzus, really any brachycephallic breed). Phenotype and genotype are NOT directly affected by diet. BUT overall health is HUGELY affected by diet, spend a week in a vet hospital and it wont take you long to see that as fact, bold and clear. These genetically "altered" dogs compared to their wolf ancestry still have the digestive system that works best on their natural diet. Just because their bodies don't look wolf like, doesn't mean they should eat like one. Flip side, take a wonderfully healthy (genetically and physically) normally structured dog and feed them a processed, crap diet and you will end up with health issues directly related to that food (dental disease is the TOP, which then plays out to all different kinds of organ failures due to bacteria entering the blood stream originating in the mouth, lodging in those said organs and reaping havoc...the reason why many older dogs with bad teeth have heart murmurs). 

Anyone who's been here long enough knows that at least I am not a fan of breeding dogs who have massive health problems or cannot naturally survive without human intervention due to their structure. BUT I am also a fan of people who are conscientious about breeding healthy dogs AND giving their dogs the care and sustenance they should eat (ie Raw feeding breeders like Liz). Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.....dogs who aren't genetically "healthy" still deserve to eat a species appropriate diet.


----------



## Celt

A tad off topic, but in all my years, I have never had a dog get explosive diarrhea from switching kibble or adding in greasy snacks. As I've stated before I may have been blessedly lucky with my dogs but I've always switched kibbles without any kind of transitioning and it's not just proteins. I would switch entire brands/"quality" (with my 2 iggies, they use to get a different kibble every day) and would often add the drained bacon grease, hamburger drippings, fat trimmed from meats whenever they were available. I will say that with the bacon grease there would be softer stool ("pudding") but not diarrhea. I've had more "cases" of soft stools on raw than I've had before.
On wolves had energy needs/food requirements. Wolves have been naturally selected to not have particularly high metabolisms. After all a wolf that had a metabolism that needed a lot of "fuel" would not have survived for very long. Wolves have to be able to deal well with "slim pickings" without losing "conditioning" quickly. A wolf that needed a significant amount more than "average" wouldn't be able to get enough to eat to maintain its strength to survive through the lean times. These are not conditions that dogs have to deal with normally. Human beings have bred dogs long enough for high metabolisms to be back into the species which can be supported with "large" servings of meat or by a "smaller" serving of meat and carb; with meat being the main component so that the carb can be the support until the meat can be "processed", then the "extra" can be stored for later use (causing weight gain).


----------



## DaViking

DaneMama said:


> So...you're a fan of feeding something that has to be physically altered just to get a dog to derive nutrients from? That in itself is illogical. Why not feed them something they can process themselves naturally? Hand a raw meaty bone to a dog and let them do the work instead of a machine that physically/chemically alters it for them. Processed foods lose so much nutrition through the process of production...so there's that as well to take into account. Whole, raw, fresh foods have more nutrients, enzymes and overall nutrition compared to anything processed.


1) You referred to someone else with halfway knowledge as if you believed that person to have the correct answer, I answered that. Don't remember typing the word fan anywhere. Again it's emotionally laden words raw feeders here spread around without understanding how it affects a discussion. Thank good I am not truthdog.
2) I have no problem taking my processed supplements. I'll leave it there.



DaneMama; said:


> You are sorely incorrect in your statements. PEOPLE are to blame for unhealthy dog breeds who have been genotypically and phenotypically altered in ways that cause huge health problems (IE English Bulldog, Frenchies, Shih Tzus, really any brachycephallic breed). Phenotype and genotype are NOT directly affected by diet.


That's exactly what I am saying too so I don't get why you say I am sorely incorrect. I just have a problem understanding the duality.


----------



## DaViking

xellil said:


> Well, then why don't you explain to us how Scandanavians are so enlightened with their processed food? Since you know so much about it - and after all, YOU brought it up.


I guarantee you I will chime in on the subject. But not here and not tonight. Seeing what this thread lead too it's bound to come up sooner rather than later. Hint the clue is to combine fresh foods sourced locally with better processed food, not less processed food. You get that with authorities that put ppl before corporations.


----------



## jdatwood

DaViking said:


> I guarantee you I will chime in on the subject. But not here and not tonight. Seeing what this thread lead too it's bound to come up sooner rather than later. Hint the clue is to combine fresh foods sourced locally with better processed food, not less processed food. You get that with authorities that put ppl before corporations.


What do you consider a "better processed food"?


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU

DaViking said:


> 1) You referred to someone else with halfway knowledge as if you believed that person to have the correct answer, I answered that. Don't remember typing the word fan anywhere. Again it's emotionally laden words raw feeders here spread around without understanding how it affects a discussion. Thank good I am not truthdog.


I certainly hope you aren't referring to me with that blatant disrespect and condescension. My question was a sincere request for answers, NONE of which you provided, nor did you have the decency to address me personally. Furthermore, the points stated in my previous post are scientifically factual. That's just the way a dog's body works. Period, end of story. Look it up. Where's the fact in any of the crap you've spouted? You've merely danced around every question asked of you and have responded with only frivolous arguments, sarcasm and insults. Simply laughing at somebody and telling them they're incorrect doesn't make it so. But if you have all the answers, by all means, enlighten us! Perhaps your point would come across a little more clearly if you were a tad more tactful and your attitude didn't suck so bad. Oh, and try backing up some of the crap you pull out of thin air. That might help, too. 



DaViking said:


> She is missing the fact that dogs can utilize starch from grains after it has been converted/broken down by processing at the manufacturer and also absorb carbs from the same grains. Digestability varies greatly between the grains. From rice (good) to corn (not so good)
> Also, try to feed a 100% wild rice diet and see what happens. Or better yet, try adding handsome amounts of plain rice to your average couch hogger's diet and see what happens.


If you're going to address something I said or asked in the future, feel free to address me personally. Thank you.


----------



## hmbutler

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> I certainly hope you aren't referring to me with that blatant disrespect and condescension. My question was a sincere request for answers, NONE of which you provided, nor did you have the decency to address me personally. Furthermore, the points stated in my previous post are scientifically factual. That's just the way a dog's body works. Period, end of story. Look it up. Where's the fact in any of the crap you've spouted? You've merely danced around every question asked of you and have responded with only frivolous arguments, sarcasm and insults. Simply laughing at somebody and telling them they're incorrect doesn't make it so. But if you have all the answers, by all means, enlighten us! Perhaps your point would come across a little more clearly if you were a tad more tactful and your attitude didn't suck so bad. Oh, and try backing up some of the crap you pull out of thin air. That might help, too.
> 
> If you're going to address something I said or asked in the future, feel free to address me personally. Thank you.


for someone who is only halfway knowledgable, you is ok at writing stuff. :thumb:


----------



## DaViking

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> I certainly hope you aren't referring to me with that blatant disrespect and condescension. My question was a sincere request for answers, NONE of which you provided, nor did you have the decency to address me personally. Furthermore, the points stated in my previous post are scientifically factual. That's just the way a dog's body works. Period, end of story.


And yet you failed to realize that the level of processing you talked about is done at the manufacturing level so dogs can utilize the energy. How convenient in the "carbs are useless for dogs" discussion. Regardless if you approve of it or not it is a crucial piece of information readily available everywhere. When I saw it referenced as some kind of answer to why carbs are _useless_ for dogs I couldn't let it stand. The critique was more towards the reference and not towards you tho.



RachelsaurusRexU; said:


> Where's the fact in any of the crap you've spouted? You've merely danced around every question asked of you //..snip..// Oh, and try backing up some of the crap you pull out of thin air. That might help, too.


Specifics? Let me know what kind of crap I pull out of thin air and I will try to back it up for you.


----------



## Caty M

If something has to be highly processed in order to extract some nutrients that's a pretty big hint that it's not necessary nor beneficial. :wink:


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU

DaViking said:


> And yet you failed to realize that the level of processing you talked about is done at the manufacturing level so dogs can utilize the energy. How convenient in the "carbs are useless for dogs" discussion. Regardless if you approve of it or not it is a crucial piece of information readily available everywhere. When I saw it referenced as some kind of answer to why carbs are _useless_ for dogs I couldn't let it stand. The critique was more towards the reference and not towards you tho.


"Failed to realize"? 



RachelsaurusRexU said:


> I have a question. What exactly is the process in which dogs break down and utilize carbs for energy? I've been doing a ton of research for my website, and from what I gather, a dog's pancreas is incapable of secreting cellulase, which is the enzyme that splits cellulose into glucose. Instead, their glucose is derived from the catabolism of fats and proteins. They're also incapable of fermenting carbs and starches in order to break them down, due to their very short digestive tracts. To me, that indicates that dogs are incapable of efficiently processing and using carbs for energy. If I'm wrong and there's another process in which carbs can be broken down and utilized, I'd love to learn about it.


A) I didn't mention a damn thing about kibble. 

That being said, considering the processes in which dogs digest and utilize their food, and even moreso the processes that their bodies are physically incapable of completing, I don't see how the production of kibble makes it any more possible for dogs to utilize carbs. Kibble can be processed and extruded til the cows come home, a dog's pancreas still can't produce cellulase. You still haven't really answered my question. 




Caty M said:


> If something has to be highly processed in order to extract some nutrients that's a pretty big hint that it's not necessary nor beneficial. :wink:


B) ^What she said.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

DaViking said:


> You absolutely should do both since that is your passion, no doubt about it. That shouldn't stop me addressing all the half baked truths scattered around here. It's not like this forum needs to be more skewed towards raw.


I don't need you to confirm that it is ok for me to do what I am already doing. I just think it was highly inappropriate for you to suggest that we don't also care about better breeding. 

I don't see any half baked truths regarding raw feeding being said here. Carbs are not something that should be in a dog's diet. I fail to see what is false about that. Raw feeding, done correctly, can and does improve the health of already healthy dogs. My collie was the picture of health to most dog owners. Never been sick a day in his life. He was on Pedigree. He had a thick coat, bright eyes, and plenty of energy. He got tons of exercise and so was muscular, but once I switched him to raw, I saw a huge improvement in his health. His thick coat got even thicker and shinier and much more healthy looking. His teeth, which were covered in 7 years of plaque from eating kibble has completely disappeared (see the thread "Dude's teeth") and he has more energy now than he ever had. He has become leaner and has built even more muscle and our vet goes on and on about him when we take him in for vaccinations. My pup never had that fat, puppy belly that kibble fed pups have. He consistently gets comments from people saying that he is the best looking bluetick they have ever seen. He is so healthy it amazes even me. How anyone can say that correct raw feeding makes no improvement clearly wasn't doing it right.

Skewed towards raw? That's just silly. There is simply more of us here. I have no opposition to kibble feeders wanting to discuss kibble in their section. It is their right and of course I will be here in the event they would like to ask me any questions about feeding their dog raw. We are, by far, the minority as far as raw vs kibble goes. Forgive us for finding a forum where we can all gather and talk about a common interest.



DaViking said:


> Holy mackerel II; where do you read that? I am questioning the extreme back to nature attitude on one side vs raising dogs with severe issues on the other side. What does natural selection say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something raw absolutely will not do.


You need to go back and read your posts. There is no doubt that the way you come across is that you blame raw feeders for the issues various breeds have. Maybe you should consider rephrasing what you mean.

Natural selection says survival of the fittest. Our dogs are not in the wild, no, but that does not mean that their digestive systems don't function the same way a wolf's does. If you are so intent on what natural selection says, then should we put down dogs who have various medical conditions?

That last section I don't know the total meaning to since you took it out of context. You could be saying that raw can't fix physical problems, mental problems, or health problems. I don't know. Raw can and does fix medical problems. Is it a medical cure? No, but that does not mean that it is not capable of fixing various things. Some people on this forum have had dogs with seizures and upon feeding raw, the seizures stopped or became less frequent. Severe allergies can be related to food and feeding raw can and does allow dogs who previously led very itchy lives to lead normal itch free lives. We understand it does not cure everything, but it can fix many, many health issues.



DaViking said:


> And yet you failed to realize that the level of processing you talked about is done at the manufacturing level so dogs can utilize the energy. How convenient in the "carbs are useless for dogs" discussion. Regardless if you approve of it or not it is a crucial piece of information readily available everywhere. When I saw it referenced as some kind of answer to why carbs are _useless_ for dogs I couldn't let it stand. The critique was more towards the reference and not towards you tho.
> 
> 
> 
> Specifics? Let me know what kind of crap I pull out of thin air and I will try to back it up for you.


If something has to be processed by a machine because a dog's body can't do it on it's own that sounds to me like it is something pretty useless to dogs. I don't care about foods that have been processed for my dog. If he can't process it himself, I'm not going to feed it to him because if he needed it, he would be able to process it without human help.

Some of the crap you have pulled out of thin air? well, how about that brachycephalic breeds don't enjoy eating raw because they are brachycephalic and that raw feeders don't care about bettering the health of dog breeds. Shall I go on?


----------



## DaViking

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> He is so healthy it amazes even me. How anyone can say that correct raw feeding makes no improvement clearly wasn't doing it right.


I am glad you feel you have the truth, that's all that matters



Dude and Bucks Mamma; said:


> You need to go back and read your posts. There is no doubt that the way you come across is that you blame raw feeders for the issues various breeds have. Maybe you should consider rephrasing what you mean.


I never blame raw feeders for all the medical issues various breeds have. That's outlandish. I question the whole duality of the healthy back to nature thing going on



Dude and Bucks Mamma; said:


> If you are so intent on what natural selection says, then should we put down dogs who have various medical conditions?


Depending on the condition, yes.



Dude and Bucks Mamma; said:


> well, how about that brachycephalic breeds don't enjoy eating raw because they are brachycephalic


I never said that. It was irony over what I feel is an odd duality in the midst of all this back to nature thing. I am sure the flatheads love their raw chicken.


----------



## Caty M

I don't see it as a duality. Just because I may like Italian greyhounds which are very far from a natural canine and have their health problems (chronic leg breaks) and own one doesn't mean I don't realize that a structure closest to a wolf is healthiest, and of course I would do my best to prevent leg breaks- part of that is feeding a natural diet to support bone growth and muscle to cushion the bone.

Just because I own an unnatural animal doesn't mean I should feed it an unnatural diet due to ethics, morals and double standards.... I strive for the healthiest dog DESPITE what man has done.


----------



## xellil

I wonder what people fed their dogs before 1930, without all this wonderful processed food in a bag. People act like raw feeding is some kookoo earthpeople fad.


----------



## JayJayisme

Boy, this thread has turned into a giant steaming turd. 

If you will recall, the ORIGINAL POSTER made the statement "DOGS NEED CARBS". I think we can all agree, even DaViking, that dogs don't NEED carbs. Whether they are useful or not for a dog will remain a matter of debate for the foreseeable future. There is a similar endless argument over this in the human nutrition circles. People are going to believe whatever is convenient for them, even if science supports a differing theory. This wasn't the first time this topic has been beaten to death, nor will it be the last.

But what I don't understand the whole "duality" comment by DaViking about raw feeding. How is there duality?


----------



## Caty M

JayJayisme said:


> Boy, this thread has turned into a giant steaming turd.
> 
> If you will recall, the ORIGINAL POSTER made the statement "DOGS NEED CARBS". I think we can all agree, even DaViking, that dogs don't NEED carbs. Whether they are useful or not for a dog will remain a matter of debate for the foreseeable future. There is a similar endless argument over this in the human nutrition circles. People are going to believe whatever is convenient for them, even if science supports a differing theory. This wasn't the first time this topic has been beaten to death, nor will it be the last.
> 
> *But what I don't understand the whole "duality" comment by DaViking about raw feeding. How is there duality?*


Because if we agree with "back to nature" for feeding we also should for dog structure. Which I do agree to some degree- we should not be breeding dogs who have extreme health problems and structure- but at the same time I feel we need to preserve our breeds through careful breeding and health testing, not solely through beauty contests. 

At the same time though, dogs are domesticated and do not need to survive in the wild, so though I generally prefer the natural looking breeds, as long as the dog is healthy does it really matter?

And again, just because I have an unnatural dog doesn't mean I shouldn't strive to give it a healthy diet.


----------



## magicre

to da viking: i believe you said:

Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is.

diabetes II is directly related to food. 

food is part of environmental factors that trigger predispositions toward certain diseases.

carbs, specifically starches

which contain sugar

feeds cancer as it develops and could feed said cancer years before it shows up on objective testing.

starches which have sugar rots the teeth of dogs and hurts their gums (gingivitis)

contributes to heart disease in dogs already predisposed to said problems, like cocker spaniels.

knowing that certain breeds carry with them inherent diseases or genetic problems....since you already know that, having stated it, makes for a compelling reason to NOT feed starchy carbs to dogs.

what you are saying is simply incorrect.

:::::::::::k. going back to the shadows::::::::::::


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> to da viking: i believe you said:
> 
> Breeds/genetics is a much bigger factor in health and wellness than food is.
> 
> diabetes II is directly related to food.
> 
> food is part of environmental factors that trigger predispositions toward certain diseases.
> 
> carbs, specifically starches
> 
> which contain sugar
> 
> feeds cancer as it develops and could feed said cancer years before it shows up on objective testing.
> 
> starches which have sugar rots the teeth of dogs and hurts their gums (gingivitis)
> 
> contributes to heart disease in dogs already predisposed to said problems, like cocker spaniels.
> 
> knowing that certain breeds carry with them inherent diseases or genetic problems....since you already know that, having stated it, makes for a compelling reason to NOT feed starchy carbs to dogs.
> 
> what you are saying is simply incorrect.
> 
> :::::::::::k. going back to the shadows::::::::::::


My ancestors was as healthy as they come. They ate tons of grain products, supplemented with fish from the lake and game from the woods. Before they ate all those grain products they tirelessly worked the field that gave them the very same grain products. No need for a treadmill.

Before anyone accuse me of saying you should feed "tons" of grains to our dogs, I am not! It is just a reflection on the above "diabetes II is directly related to food" statement and where we are today.


----------



## magicre

DaViking said:


> My ancestors was as healthy as they come. They ate tons of grain products, supplemented with fish from the lake and game from the woods. Before they ate all those grain products they tirelessly worked the field that gave them the very same grain products. No need for a treadmill.
> 
> Before anyone accuse me of saying you should feed "tons" of grains to our dogs, I am not! It is just a reflection on the above "diabetes II is directly related to food" statement and where we are today.


i am not accusing you of anything. you stated you fed processed foods to your dogs and there is a direct correlation between processed foods, too much starch which is in many dog foods, i.e. sweet potatoes, rice, etc....

dogs are not human; yet, the incidences of diabetes II for them, is also on the rise. and it is directly related to a lifetime of starches.

it doesn't have to be tons and tons.

but just out of curiousity, do your dogs work tirelessly in the fields? they'd have to or the equivalent every day to burn those carbs.

it's a matter of putting it into perspective.

one half of one sweet potatoe per meal per day per week per month per year is enough to tax the pancreas. that's not a lot of starch. 

it is, however, too much for a dog.

and you do what you want. to me, it's enough of a risk that i won't feed my dogs starchy carbs. ever. not having to brush their teeth or have dentals done is wonderful. saves me money and my dogs don't have gingivitis or cavities.

::::ach, the hell with the shadow::::::


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> It is just a reflection on the above "diabetes II is directly related to food" statement and where we are today.


Wait. Are you denying that on a whole in society, there is not an epidemic of type II diabetes today? BTW, this used to be called "adult onset diabetes" because only a few generations ago, it mostly affected only adults. But today, there are so many children diagnosed with it, I'm talking young children, that they renamed it "type II". 

If you are not denying this, do you understand that there is a direct correlation between the introduction of grains into the human diet as a staple, and the rise in insulin-related disease?

Just because your family is blessed with the genetic constitution to withstand the toxicity and insulin response that is the result of the consumption of grains, doesn't mean you can disregard the situation on a historical and global level. Your experience is anecdotal. Many people have varying degrees of the same experience. But you can't ignore the reality when you are talking about health in general and you certainly cannot apply your genetic blessings to your or anyone else's dogs. This, sadly, has reached epidemic proportions in the domesticated dog world as well.

Here's some background on cereal grains and their introduction to the food chain that might be of interest to you.

http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cerealgrainhumanitydoublesword.pdf


----------



## Porphyria

xellil said:


> I wonder what people fed their dogs before 1930, without all this wonderful processed food in a bag. People act like raw feeding is some kookoo earthpeople fad.


They ate table scraps; most often probably a combination of raw and cooked meat, but surely other things as well.

A few pages ago (don't have time to go back and find the exact post to quote) somebody asked what kibble feeders believe is the ideal canine diet. I do not speak for all kibble feeders, but I will express what I believe personally. I am going to get tons of flack for this, but I am a firm believer that dogs are not strict carnivores. Now I am NOT saying they are omnivores. Rather, I think the most accurate description is "opportunistic carnivore." Yes, their diet would "naturally" (though, like DaViking I have my reservations regarding determining what is "natural" for such an extraordinarily unnatural species) consist of mostly meat, but not solely meat. Dogs evolved for thousands of years, not through natural selection, but through much faster-working artificial selection, to be dependent on humans, and to survive on whatever humans feed them. Historically speaking, that has often been raw meat. But it has also been cooked meat, cooked grains, vegetables, etc. Because of this, dogs can obtain nutrients from a wide variety of sources, and thus thrive on different kinds of diets.

Dogs are not wolves. They are a subspecies of the grey wolf, but that does not make them grey wolves. Yes they can interbreed with wolves, but coyotes can also interbreed with dogs and wolves, though few believe that coytoes and dogs, or coyotes and wolves are the same species. Grizzly bears and polar bears can also interbreed and they are _ definitely_ not the same species. Yes, dogs and wolves are closely related, but the fact that they have any difference whatsoever in their DNA proves that they're not the same species. Dogs are dependent on humans, and have evolved to consume the wide variety of foods humans have historically fed. 

So, to make a long story short, what is the _ideal_ diet for a dog? There is no one ideal. Raw, home-cooked, kibble, canned, or any combination of them can be perfectly fine if done properly (ie properly balancing a raw or home cooked diet, or feeding a quality commercial diet rather than Ol' Roy or some crap). Dogs may not _need _ anything other than meat, but there is nothing wrong with feeding foods in addition to meat, it's been done since dogs were first domesticated. Dogs can get plenty of nutrients from plant-based sources; of course, they can get the same nutrients from raw meat, but if someone wants to feed a dog good kibble, good canned, BARF, or well-balanced home-cooked, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. So for me, the ideal diet is whatever diet works best for both dog and owner.


----------



## KittyKat

Caty M said:


> Because if we agree with "back to nature" for feeding we also should for dog structure. Which I do agree to some degree- we should not be breeding dogs who have extreme health problems and structure- but at the same time I feel we need to preserve our breeds through careful breeding and health testing, not solely through beauty contests.


I agree... I think humans desire for various looks of dogs has far outstretched the health and well being of dogs. I really think that we need to get back to ensuring that breeds are healthy and sound. Yes, some breeds would have to vanish or be changed a lot - but we caused these health issues in the first place. Some breeds will just have the clock turned back on them.


----------



## PDXdogmom

tem_sat said:


> Back to my original reason for switching from Acana to PMR. You seem to be forgetting the relationship between carbs and periodontal disease. Improved and / or excellent dental health is a HUGE benefit of choosing to feed PMR.


I don't doubt that dogs fed PMR can have excellent dental health. But I've found that dogs eating a high quality kibble and given a raw bone to gnaw every week also can have excellent dental health.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Wait. Are you denying that on a whole in society, there is not an epidemic of type II diabetes today? BTW, this used to be called "adult onset diabetes" because only a few generations ago, it mostly affected only adults. But today, there are so many children diagnosed with it, I'm talking young children, that they renamed it "type II".
> 
> If you are not denying this, do you understand that there is a direct correlation between the introduction of grains into the human diet as a staple, and the rise in insulin-related disease?
> 
> Just because your family is blessed with the genetic constitution to withstand the toxicity and insulin response that is the result of the consumption of grains, doesn't mean you can disregard the situation on a historical and global level. Your experience is anecdotal. Many people have varying degrees of the same experience. But you can't ignore the reality when you are talking about health in general and you certainly cannot apply your genetic blessings to your or anyone else's dogs. This, sadly, has reached epidemic proportions in the domesticated dog world as well.
> 
> Here's some background on cereal grains and their introduction to the food chain that might be of interest to you.
> 
> http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cerealgrainhumanitydoublesword.pdf


Look up the word "reflection"

I am ending this now on my end cause there is no use in continuing when ppl read what ever they want into things. And, tho related in this case, discussing humans is off topic.


----------



## tem_sat

PDXdogmom said:


> I don't doubt that dogs fed PMR can have excellent dental health. But I've found that dogs eating a high quality kibble and given a raw bone to gnaw every week also can have excellent dental health.


If it worked for my specific dog, then I would agree with you, however, even with 4 days PMR and 3 days Acana per week + daily brushing, I still could not achieve the results I have currently. I realize that I have a breed which is very highly prone to periodontal disease, so that of course is a factor.


----------



## PDXdogmom

mischiefgrrl said:


> Wow, that's one stunning comment. Do you pick up dog poop with a spatula out of your yard? *Switching kibbles causes explosive diarrhea, no matter what kind of kibble it is.* Greasy snacks on top of it?
> 
> I'm not buying your certifications in training search and rescue dogs. I would think a person who does that respectfully would have knowledge of a dog's basic digestive needs as wells as the emotions they do possess that would be the same as a human's and all living creatures.


I don't agree at all with your statement that I bolded. I rotate the kibbles I feed my dogs. One dog can transition "cold turkey" while the other dog needs several days of transitioning. But in no way do they get explosive diarrhea. I often think that people who feed dogs one exact kibble formula month after month and year after year are unintentionally creating a very unadaptable digestive system. Rotating kibbles or having a "base kibble" to which you add a variety of fresh foods promotes a healthier digestive system, IMO.


----------



## CavePaws

Porphyria said:


> They ate table scraps; most often probably a combination of raw and cooked meat, but surely other things as well.
> 
> A few pages ago (don't have time to go back and find the exact post to quote) somebody asked what kibble feeders believe is the ideal canine diet. I do not speak for all kibble feeders, but I will express what I believe personally. I am going to get tons of flack for this, but I am a firm believer that dogs are not strict carnivores. Now I am NOT saying they are omnivores. Rather, I think the most accurate description is "opportunistic carnivore." Yes, their diet would "naturally" (though, like DaViking I have my reservations regarding determining what is "natural" for such an extraordinarily unnatural species) consist of mostly meat, but not solely meat. Dogs evolved for thousands of years, not through natural selection, but through much faster-working artificial selection, to be dependent on humans, and to survive on whatever humans feed them. Historically speaking, that has often been raw meat. But it has also been cooked meat, cooked grains, vegetables, etc. Because of this, dogs can obtain nutrients from a wide variety of sources, and thus thrive on different kinds of diets.
> 
> Dogs are not wolves. They are a subspecies of the grey wolf, but that does not make them grey wolves. Yes they can interbreed with wolves, but coyotes can also interbreed with dogs and wolves, though few believe that coytoes and dogs, or coyotes and wolves are the same species. Grizzly bears and polar bears can also interbreed and they are _ definitely_ not the same species. Yes, dogs and wolves are closely related, but the fact that they have any difference whatsoever in their DNA proves that they're not the same species. Dogs are dependent on humans, and have evolved to consume the wide variety of foods humans have historically fed.
> 
> So, to make a long story short, what is the _ideal_ diet for a dog? There is no one ideal. Raw, home-cooked, kibble, canned, or any combination of them can be perfectly fine if done properly (ie properly balancing a raw or home cooked diet, or feeding a quality commercial diet rather than Ol' Roy or some crap). Dogs may not _need _ anything other than meat, but there is nothing wrong with feeding foods in addition to meat, it's been done since dogs were first domesticated. Dogs can get plenty of nutrients from plant-based sources; of course, they can get the same nutrients from raw meat, but if someone wants to feed a dog good kibble, good canned, BARF, or well-balanced home-cooked, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. So for me, the ideal diet is whatever diet works best for both dog and owner.


I just can't get over it, I'm sorry, I had to chime in. But, even _if _ dogs were omnivorous, how does that make incredibly processed foods appropriate to feed them? I wonder how one can justify feeding processed foods with the statement that dogs are omnivores. If they are omnivores feed them a diet of vegetables, fruit, meat, bones, and organs. If you're not into feeding raw then cook it and don't feed bones, I guess you won't have to worry about cooking the veggies and fruits as there is little risk of salmonella or e-coli poisoning. But then you have the whole issue of needing to pulverize the plant matter because dogs cannot digest fruits and vegetables in their whole form. You probably won't even have to worry about supplementing, because I'm sure your dog will survive just fine on a diet of vegetables, fruit, and meat. Similarly, dogs were "surviving just fine" on table scraps before the invention of highly processed, yet nutritionally balanced, commercial diets.

Coyotes and grey wolves are actually separated further genetically than the grey wolf and the domestic dog. Interbreeding can occur between all three; their dentition and digestive tracts are still so similar you could probably swap them out between each other and they would survive. The difference in a coyote and a wolf's diet is slim, why then would the more closely related dog and wolf have different nutritional needs?

Lastly, if dogs "evolved" to digest what humans eat then we would see a much larger difference in their dentition and digestive tract at this point. The fact is we don't see a whole lot of grinding surface in there and their digestive tracts haven't become any more efficient in digesting vegetation.


Okay okay, one last thing, the *ideal *diet of a _dog _as an individual and a completely separate species from _humans _should not be based upon the convenience of feeding said diet. I think it is utterly ridiculous to claim that a diet is *ideal* just because it keeps the animal alive and is easy to pop the lid off of or scoop into a bowl.


and a disclaimer: I feed kibble to my cats and continue feeding Orijen cat kibble as treats to my dogs. 




edit: And my biggest question is, in another million years, if we continue feeding them highly processed foods which they don't need their carnivorous teeth to eat, will their dentition actually change - as well as their digestive tract? Will they evolve to become more efficient at digesting the foods we are feeding them. Just wondering. It seems they haven't evolved to change much of their internal workings just yet. But, who knows what the future holds. I won't be around for those pseudo canines.


----------



## PDXdogmom

xellil said:


> I wonder what people fed their dogs before 1930, without all this wonderful processed food in a bag. People act like raw feeding is some kookoo earthpeople fad.


According to my deceased mother who lived on a farm during her childhood, the dogs pretty much ate the scraps and leftovers from the owners' home-cooked dinner. Chicken, pork, bones green beans, sweet potatoes, etc. (not raw). I saw pictures of some of her childhood shepherd mix dogs - beautiful and full healthy-looking coats and clear eyes. Raw was not the average way dogs were fed in the 1920s.


----------



## JayJayisme

Porphyria said:


> Dogs evolved for thousands of years.


Well, right there you blew your whole argument. Physiological evolution or morphology in mammals does not happen in thousands of years. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but not even in several thousand years. Mammals aren't bacteria.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Porphyria said:


> They ate table scraps; most often probably a combination of raw and cooked meat, but surely other things as well.
> 
> A few pages ago (don't have time to go back and find the exact post to quote) somebody asked what kibble feeders believe is the ideal canine diet. I do not speak for all kibble feeders, but I will express what I believe personally. I am going to get tons of flack for this, but I am a firm believer that dogs are not strict carnivores. Now I am NOT saying they are omnivores. Rather, I think the most accurate description is "opportunistic carnivore." Yes, their diet would "naturally" (though, like DaViking I have my reservations regarding determining what is "natural" for such an extraordinarily unnatural species) consist of mostly meat, but not solely meat. Dogs evolved for thousands of years, not through natural selection, but through much faster-working artificial selection, to be dependent on humans, and to survive on whatever humans feed them. Historically speaking, that has often been raw meat. But it has also been cooked meat, cooked grains, vegetables, etc. Because of this, dogs can obtain nutrients from a wide variety of sources, and thus thrive on different kinds of diets.
> 
> Dogs are not wolves. They are a subspecies of the grey wolf, but that does not make them grey wolves. Yes they can interbreed with wolves, but coyotes can also interbreed with dogs and wolves, though few believe that coytoes and dogs, or coyotes and wolves are the same species. Grizzly bears and polar bears can also interbreed and they are _ definitely_ not the same species. Yes, dogs and wolves are closely related, but the fact that they have any difference whatsoever in their DNA proves that they're not the same species. Dogs are dependent on humans, and have evolved to consume the wide variety of foods humans have historically fed.
> 
> So, to make a long story short, what is the _ideal_ diet for a dog? There is no one ideal. Raw, home-cooked, kibble, canned, or any combination of them can be perfectly fine if done properly (ie properly balancing a raw or home cooked diet, or feeding a quality commercial diet rather than Ol' Roy or some crap). Dogs may not _need _ anything other than meat, but there is nothing wrong with feeding foods in addition to meat, it's been done since dogs were first domesticated. Dogs can get plenty of nutrients from plant-based sources; of course, they can get the same nutrients from raw meat, but if someone wants to feed a dog good kibble, good canned, BARF, or well-balanced home-cooked, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. So for me, the ideal diet is whatever diet works best for both dog and owner.


That is pretty much my take on it also.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> Look up the word "reflection"
> 
> I am ending this now on my end cause there is no use in continuing when ppl read what ever they want into things. And, tho related in this case, discussing humans is off topic.


Good grief. Are you kidding? YOU are the one who brought up the human equation by stating that your "healthy" family eats grains. Whatever. Feed your dogs garbage for all I care. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## magicre

JayJayisme said:


> Good grief. Are you kidding? YOU are the one who brought up the human equation by stating that your "healthy" family eats grains. Whatever. Feed your dogs garbage for all I care. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


actually, jay, he was speaking of his ancestors, so my question to da viking would be, just how far back are you going, when you speak of ancestors? they were still human, yes?


----------



## magicre

PDXdogmom said:


> According to my deceased mother who lived on a farm during her childhood, the dogs pretty much ate the scraps and leftovers from the owners' home-cooked dinner. Chicken, pork, bones green beans, sweet potatoes, etc. (not raw). I saw pictures of some of her childhood shepherd mix dogs - beautiful and full healthy-looking coats and clear eyes. Raw was not the average way dogs were fed in the 1920s.


i think that food back in the twenties is not comparable to the food of today. 

i'm not so sure we can make comparisons from then to now. 

not with the advent of cloning and modifications, such as they are.

and that includes animal protein, also....


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Good grief. Are you kidding? YOU are the one who brought up the human equation by stating that your "healthy" family eats grains. Whatever. Feed your dogs garbage for all I care. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Good grief, are you kidding? Ancestors as in all our ancestors, yours too.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Caty M said:


> If something has to be highly processed in order to extract some nutrients that's a pretty big hint that it's not necessary nor beneficial. :wink:


Not in all cases. Take spirulina powder. It's dried and processed from algae. But it has huge benefits with its high amino acid profile and other minerals and vitamins. It can be especially beneficial for people who may not have easy access to other protein sources or prefer non-meat sources for protein. It may not be "necessary"; but it is processed and highly beneficial. There are many article about spirulina - here is one fairly simple one: Spirulina Powder Profile

While on the same note of processed foods, it's been stated in this thread that "unprocessed natural foods are best for any animal" and "cooking destroys nutrients" - two statements that hold a lot of merit. But I'm curious, what percentage of any of our daily diets consists of raw food? Because unprocessed and non-cooked basically means you're eating raw.


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> actually, jay, he was speaking of his ancestors, so my question to da viking would be, just how far back are you going, when you speak of ancestors? they were still human, yes?


Tell you what, there is one thing I am gonna stop feeding right now and that is the trolls.


----------



## PDXdogmom

magicre said:


> i think that food back in the twenties is not comparable to the food of today.
> 
> i'm not so sure we can make comparisons from then to now.
> 
> not with the advent of cloning and modifications, such as they are.
> 
> and that includes animal protein, also....


Exactly! Which is why I'm fine with not eating meat and encourage those who do to look for the best sources of it - not factory farming.

That's also why people who purchase meat for their dogs (and feed it raw or cooked) may not be achieving as beneficial of a result as they hope to unless they're carefully sourcing it and know what the animal was fed and if it had antibiotics or hormones.


----------



## Porphyria

JayJayisme said:


> Well, right there you blew your whole argument. Physiological evolution or morphology in mammals does not happen in thousands of years. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but not even in several thousand years. Mammals aren't bacteria.


I stressed the difference between evolution through natural selection and evolution through artificial selection in my post. Dogs evolved through artificial selection to become highly "adapted," to living with humans. Artificial selection produces morphological changes much more rapidly than natural selection. There has been a scientific study in Russia, basically to create domestic foxes. It's been going on for less than fifty years, and already the foxes are displaying some phenotypic and genotypic divergeances from wild foxes.


----------



## CavePaws

Porphyria said:


> I stressed the difference between evolution through natural selection and evolution through artificial selection in my post. Dogs evolved through artificial selection to become highly "adapted," to living with humans. Artificial selection produces morphological changes much more rapidly than natural selection. There has been a scientific study in Russia, basically to create domestic foxes. It's been going on for less than fifty years, and already the foxes are displaying some phenotypic and genotypic divergeances from wild foxes.


Yes, they are selectively breeding the foxes for less aggressive tendencies which is resulting in change of behavior and outward appearance. They have not reported internal changes in their dentition or digestive system yet, right? It seems to me, when I look at their domestic foxes and their wild foxes that they still clearly appear to be foxes , albeit the change in coat color, tail carriage, and emotional relationship to humans.


----------



## Porphyria

CavePaws said:


> I just can't get over it, I'm sorry, I had to chime in. But, even _if _ dogs were omnivorous, how does that make incredibly processed foods appropriate to feed them? I wonder how one can justify feeding processed foods with the statement that dogs are omnivores. If they are omnivores feed them a diet of vegetables, fruit, meat, bones, and organs. If you're not into feeding raw then cook it and don't feed bones, I guess you won't have to worry about cooking the veggies and fruits as there is little risk of salmonella or e-coli poisoning. But then you have the whole issue of needing to pulverize the plant matter because dogs cannot digest fruits and vegetables in their whole form. You probably won't even have to worry about supplementing, because I'm sure your dog will survive just fine on a diet of vegetables, fruit, and meat. Similarly, dogs were "surviving just fine" on table scraps before the invention of highly processed, yet nutritionally balanced, commercial diets.
> 
> Coyotes and grey wolves are actually separated further genetically than the grey wolf and the domestic dog. Interbreeding can occur between all three; their dentition and digestive tracts are still so similar you could probably swap them out between each other and they would survive. The difference in a coyote and a wolf's diet is slim, why then would the more closely related dog and wolf have different nutritional needs?


Sorry if my post about wolves seemed out of nowhere, it was actually a response to a conversation earlier in the thread where someone insinuated that because dogs and wolves can interbreed, they are the same species. 

A bit off topic, but I think this thread is interesting in the context of our current thread here. It has some interesting discussion about the coyote's diet, and how it relates to wolves and dogs.


> Lastly, if dogs "evolved" to digest what humans eat then we would see a much larger difference in their dentition and digestive tract at this point. The fact is we don't see a whole lot of grinding surface in there and their digestive tracts haven't become any more efficient in digesting vegetation.


 As I said, dogs are opportunistic (rather than strict) carnivores; their diet should consist primarily of meat, so it makes perfect sense that their physiology would be in line with other carnivores. They don't have the traits that omnivores have because they are not omnivores. They're primarily carnivores. Just not strictly so.

Another random side-note: 
I mentioned grizzly bears in my previous post, so I guess I just have grizzlies on the brain! But an interesting thing about them is that they have the digestive system of a carnivore, yet their feeding patterns are omnivorous. So while teeth and physiology can provide insight as to what an animal eats, it's not always cut and dry.



> Okay okay, one last thing, the *ideal *diet of a _dog _as an individual and a completely separate species from _humans _should not be based upon the convenience of feeding said diet.
> 
> utterly ridiculous to claim that a diet is *ideal* just because it keeps the animal alive and is easy to pop the lid off of or scoop into a bowl.


It's not always about the convenience for people, though sometimes it is, and sometimes it is about the monetary concern for people. But there are many reasons people choose not to feed raw. And there is no evidence that dogs can't thrive and be healthy on a quality commercial diet. 


> edit: And my biggest question is, in another million years, if we continue feeding them highly processed foods which they don't need their carnivorous teeth to eat, will their dentition actually change - as well as their digestive tract? Will they evolve to become more efficient at digesting the foods we are feeding them. Just wondering. It seems they haven't evolved to change much of their internal workings just yet. But, who knows what the future holds. I won't be around for those pseudo canines.


Who knows what the future holds is exactly right, for humans and for dogs!


----------



## Porphyria

CavePaws said:


> Yes, they are selectively breeding the foxes for less aggressive tendencies which is resulting in change of behavior and outward appearance. They have not reported internal changes in their dentition or digestive system yet, right? It seems to me, when I look at their domestic foxes and their wild foxes that they still clearly appear to be foxes , albeit the change in coat color, tail carriage, and emotional relationship to humans.


I was just using the foxes as an example of how rapid changes can occur through artificial selection. I haven't seen any information on the foxes' digestion or diets. A lot depends on what they're actually feeding the foxes, but again, that's something I don't know.


----------



## magicre

DaViking said:


> Tell you what, there is one thing I am gonna stop feeding right now and that is the trolls.


and here we go again.

ya just had to go down the trail of name calling.

the question stands...how far back in your ancestry are you talking about?



very adult.


----------



## magicre

just to clarify for my own edification...please.

those who are on the other side of this discussion....as to carbs and whether or not they are okay to feed dogs....

are you saying that dogs and humans share a similar if not the same physiology on the insides?

their digestion and acids and enzymes are similar to humans?

i'm not arguing nor am i being sarcastic. i truly want to know.


----------



## magicre

PDXdogmom said:


> Exactly! Which is why I'm fine with not eating meat and encourage those who do to look for the best sources of it - not factory farming.
> 
> That's also why people who purchase meat for their dogs (and feed it raw or cooked) may not be achieving as beneficial of a result as they hope to unless they're carefully sourcing it and know what the animal was fed and if it had antibiotics or hormones.


i get what you're saying and do not disagree.

fish, too, has its own risks these days. and i would bet that you look for the freshest, the least commercial fish you can buy.

it is the same with any animal protein. i can't speak for others, but i try to get pasture raised, support our local farmer raised proteins, both for us and for the dogs...although right now, neither honey nor i am eating animal protein as an experiment. so we are vegan for the moment. 

as long as the animal is healthy and free ranged, which we can find through our local farmers and fish markets....even fowl if it's in a true free range, and allowed to eat an omnivore's diet....i would once again eat eggs and fowl....but i haven't been able to find it.

my dogs do eat chicken from our store. and they eat it for bone content and do not eat very much of it. 

you and i are always in the pursuit of finding what is best for ourselves and our dogs. i imagine many of us on this forum are engaged in the same pursuit.

but, just as i believe that starchy carbs are not on the 'a' list for humans or dogs....you might believe that they are.

and never the twain shall meet and that's okay.


----------



## PDXdogmom

magicre said:


> just to clarify for my own edification...please.
> 
> those who are on the other side of this discussion....as to carbs and whether or not they are okay to feed dogs....
> 
> are you saying that dogs and humans share a similar if not the same physiology on the insides?
> 
> their digestion and acids and enzymes are similar to humans?
> 
> i'm not arguing nor am i being sarcastic. i truly want to know.


Well I, for one, have not said nor do I believe that dogs and humans share the same physiology. I don't recall any other post in this thread actually saying that either. The posts seem more focused on how absolute, or not, are the similarities and differences between, wolves and dogs.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Porphyria said:


> Sorry if my post about wolves seemed out of nowhere, it was actually a response to a conversation earlier in the thread where someone insinuated that because dogs and wolves can interbreed, they are the same species.
> 
> A bit off topic, but I think this thread is interesting in the context of our current thread here. It has some interesting discussion about the coyote's diet, and how it relates to wolves and dogs.
> 
> 
> As I said, dogs are opportunistic (rather than strict) carnivores; their diet should consist primarily of meat, so it makes perfect sense that their physiology would be in line with other carnivores. They don't have the traits that omnivores have because they are not omnivores. They're primarily carnivores. Just not strictly so.
> 
> *Another random side-note:
> I mentioned grizzly bears in my previous post, so I guess I just have grizzlies on the brain! But an interesting thing about them is that they have the digestive system of a carnivore, yet their feeding patterns are omnivorous. So while teeth and physiology can provide insight as to what an animal eats, it's not always cut and dry.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's not always about the convenience for people, though sometimes it is, and sometimes it is about the monetary concern for people. But there are many reasons people choose not to feed raw. And there is no evidence that dogs can't thrive and be healthy on a quality commercial diet.
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future holds is exactly right, for humans and for dogs!


I find that bit of information very intriguing. As I suspected, we can't always draw a straight line between an observation and what it means or denotes in behavior.


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> the question stands...how far back in your ancestry are you talking about?


Depending on country and region you don't have to go back that many generations to find a substantial amount of families in the society that were self sufficient and lived of the land in some way, even in cities with their small patches. Pre the industrial revolution this was to a large extent the norm. Didn't think it was necessary to explain this.


----------



## CavePaws

Porphyria said:


> I was just using the foxes as an example of how rapid changes can occur through artificial selection. I haven't seen any information on the foxes' digestion or diets. A lot depends on what they're actually feeding the foxes, but again, that's something I don't know.


Well if you google russian domesticated foxes, it states on the sibfox website in care of domestic foxes that they are fed meat, bones, fruits, and vegetables. It also says that for anyone looking to buy one canned dog food will suffice. It sound to me that they have not seen any change in dietary needs.


----------



## KittyKat

PDXdogmom said:


> I find that bit of information very intriguing. As I suspected, we can't always draw a straight line between an observation and what it means or denotes in behavior.


It's not actually true.... its an oversimplification of the matter. Bears have an elongated digestive tract compared to carnivorous, so it's not the same... although that doesn't mean it's efficient. Herbivores usually have multiple chamber stomachs to deal with plant matter (which is hard to digest). Their diet is about 90% plants... but because their digestive system is pretty cruddy, they only eat plants in their most nutritious stage, otherwise they wouldn't be getting anything out of them because of how difficult it is to digest plant matter. They also hibernate in the winter because their majour food source is missing (anything left isn't in it's most nutritious stage anymore). Bears are poor hunters, hence their reliance on plant matter.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

DaViking said:


> Tell you what, there is one thing I am gonna stop feeding right now and that is the trolls.


Actually, none of us you have been arguing with are trolls. We didn't join this forum just to cause arguments as a real troll would do. We have plenty of experience with trolls here on DFC and we can spot them when we see them. I am very sorry that you can't hold your side of the argument and feel the need to stoop down to name calling to make yourself feel better.



Here's MY question... to those who oppose raw and think kibble is best... Why? I am not talking about your money or your lack of time or convenience for you because honestly, in my opinion, if you lack the time, money, and it's inconvenient to feed a dog properly, you probably shouldn't even have one. 

Every animal has a natural food source. Dogs, cats, guinea pigs, horses, cattle... EVERYTHING has a natural food source. Kibble is not natural. Everything does better when given what it is supposed to eat. Even humans. Give them over processed crap and you get health problems related to poor diet. 

For those who think kibble is best... don't we want what is best for our bodies? Don't we want to make sure we eat as "organic" as possible? Those who are big into health and their bodies know that eating all of the sugary processed crap is bad and they try to avoid that. Why would you feed that same stuff to your dogs?

Where does kibble come from? Are there naturally grown kibble trees that I am not aware of? Are there kibble farms? Nope. Not that I have been told about. It is created out of everything that we humans don't want to subject OUR bodies to. It is a human creation. It is not natural so dogs are not going to do as well on it as they would a natural diet. 

Just because dogs have changed in physical appearance does not mean that their bodies have changed to be able to digest kibble. Yea, they make do, but it is causing serious health issues added onto how we have already physically changed them. 

And carbs are bad.


----------



## DaViking

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Actually, none of us you have been arguing with are trolls. We didn't join this forum just to cause arguments as a real troll would do. We have plenty of experience with trolls here on DFC and we can spot them when we see them. I am very sorry that you can't hold your side of the argument and feel the need to stoop down to name calling to make yourself feel better.


In some cases the arguments are just so bizarre it's hard to make sense of it.
The definition of board trolls; Making outlandish interpretations of someone else' statements or arguments in order to keep an argument or discussion going which otherwise would go nowhere. When I get accused of denying the existence of the huge increase of diabetes II just because I ask ppl to reflect on the fact that back in the day most had a huge intake of energy where most came from grains and some produce, then some fish and game and intake was balanced by a big outtake of energy in the form of manual labor, I get a little baffled. How I can deny current days surge of DII based on this statement I can not fathom? This and other odd interpretations are plain trolling. Hence my, I'm done feeding the trolls comment.

I'm done with this thread, it's going nowhere.


----------



## 3Musketeers

Porphyria said:


> Another random side-note:
> I mentioned grizzly bears in my previous post, so I guess I just have grizzlies on the brain! But an interesting thing about them is that they have the digestive system of a carnivore, yet their feeding patterns are omnivorous. So while teeth and physiology can provide insight as to what an animal eats, it's not always cut and dry.


NOOPE, I have to disagree with this.

Look at those flat Grizzly molars, nice for grinding plant matter:










Dogs (and wolves) on the other hand, pointy teeth all around, made to tear meat:










As for Belyaev's foxes, I believe it is strictly a behavioral change, as well as some traits which wouldn't survive in the wild like fancy colors, not like their digestive tract or teeth change as they learn to coexist with humans, they're just breeding the aggression and possibly prey drive out of them. Just because they might not kill mice anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't still eat them ;P.


----------



## CavePaws

I would imagine the foxes still have a high prey drive. They couldn't have possibly completely manipulated that out of their genetics yet. It is so ingrained in them. I'd like to see some studies on it. I'd actually love a domesticated fox as a pet.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Kelly, Google _Russian fox exepriment_ and you should get plenty of information.


----------



## CavePaws

I have, they just kind of make me sad the way they arw kept. I've watched a video on this and thought the conditions were deplorable. It was especially dad seeing the ones selectively bred to be even more aggressive.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Actually, none of us you have been arguing with are trolls. We didn't join this forum just to cause arguments as a real troll would do. We have plenty of experience with trolls here on DFC and we can spot them when we see them. I am very sorry that you can't hold your side of the argument and feel the need to stoop down to name calling to make yourself feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's MY question... to those who oppose raw and think kibble is best... Why? I am not talking about your money or your lack of time or convenience for you because honestly, in my opinion, if you lack the time, money, and it's inconvenient to feed a dog properly, you probably shouldn't even have one.
> 
> Every animal has a natural food source. Dogs, cats, guinea pigs, horses, cattle... EVERYTHING has a natural food source. Kibble is not natural. Everything does better when given what it is supposed to eat. Even humans. Give them over processed crap and you get health problems related to poor diet.
> 
> For those who think kibble is best... don't we want what is best for our bodies? Don't we want to make sure we eat as "organic" as possible? Those who are big into health and their bodies know that eating all of the sugary processed crap is bad and they try to avoid that. Why would you feed that same stuff to your dogs?
> 
> Where does kibble come from? Are there naturally grown kibble trees that I am not aware of? Are there kibble farms? Nope. Not that I have been told about. It is created out of everything that we humans don't want to subject OUR bodies to. It is a human creation. It is not natural so dogs are not going to do as well on it as they would a natural diet.
> 
> Just because dogs have changed in physical appearance does not mean that their bodies have changed to be able to digest kibble. Yea, they make do, but it is causing serious health issues added onto how we have already physically changed them.
> 
> And carbs are bad.


You paint quite a black and white picture. First of all, I don't think many posters in this thread actually "oppose raw". At the same time, not all posters believe all carbs are bad or that if you don't feed raw to a dog "you probably shouldn't even have one." That's a rather extreme viewpoint.

As far as your point about "people big into health" not eating "sugary processed crap", that is why they may have a bowl of Kashi 7 Whole Grain Flakes instead of a bowl of Fruit Loops. Neither is a natural food source for humans, but "people big into health" see a heck of a big difference in the two products. Just like many savvy dog owners see a big difference between feeding Beneful compared to Acana or Fromm's Surf & Turf. 

Have you eaten anything this week that has been cooked (other than meat) or processed in any way? If so (and I'm sure it is for all of us), then you haven't been close to eating humans "natural food source". Again, feeding and nutrition is not as black and white as you portray it.


----------



## Caty M

I would argue that Kashi cereal isn't that great for people either... as I don't think grains are a natural food source for people- not edible really in their natural state. 

There is also a difference between what I DO eat and what I SHOULD eat.. most definitely. Since I am responsible for my dog's health and wellbeing I choose to give them the most natural food possible. I wish I would eat healthy but that's a matter of willpower. :heh:

Carbs may not be bad in the short term but they are unneeded at best and tax the pancreas and feed cancers at worst. So... why feed them?

If dogs have evolved to eat a diet more suited towards people, as Kelly said their dentition and internal digestive anatomy would have changed- it hasn't.

Even if you say dogs are an opportunistic carnivore rather than a strict one (I don't like that since it always means that people are going to try to convince me that dogs are omnivores!!) then meat would still be their main and desired food source and plant material primarily eaten in times of famine. There are no famines in my house and I want the most ideal diet- so I feed protein and fats only. No carbs. :smile:


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaViking said:


> Tell you what, there is one thing I am gonna stop feeding right now and that is the trolls.


No name calling, it's against forum rules. :smile:




Porphyria said:


> As I said, dogs are opportunistic (rather than strict) carnivores; their diet should consist primarily of meat, so it makes perfect sense that their physiology would be in line with other carnivores. They don't have the traits that omnivores have because they are not omnivores. They're primarily carnivores. Just not strictly so.


...did you read what you posted?
An omnivore's ideal diet includes meat AND plant matter. 
A carnivore's ideal diet includes animal parts. 

You're saying they are carnivores, that should only have mostly meat. 
It's a contradiction. They either* ARE* carnivores, or they are* NOT* carnivores. There is no kinda carnivore, or almost carnivore. That, is what we call an Omnivore... which dogs are not.


----------



## kathylcsw

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Actually, none of us you have been arguing with are trolls. We didn't join this forum just to cause arguments as a real troll would do. We have plenty of experience with trolls here on DFC and we can spot them when we see them. I am very sorry that you can't hold your side of the argument and feel the need to stoop down to name calling to make yourself feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's MY question... to those who oppose raw and think kibble is best... Why? I am not talking about your money or your lack of time or convenience for you because honestly, in my opinion, if you lack the time, money, and it's inconvenient to feed a dog properly, you probably shouldn't even have one. *Every animal has a natural food source. Dogs, cats, guinea pigs, horses, cattle... EVERYTHING has a natural food source. Kibble is not natural. Everything does better when given what it is supposed to eat. Even humans. Give them over processed crap and you get health problems related to poor diet.
> 
> For those who think kibble is best... don't we want what is best for our bodies? Don't we want to make sure we eat as "organic" as possible? Those who are big into health and their bodies know that eating all of the sugary processed crap is bad and they try to avoid that. Why would you feed that same stuff to your dogs?
> 
> Where does kibble come from? Are there naturally grown kibble trees that I am not aware of? Are there kibble farms? Nope. Not that I have been told about. It is created out of everything that we humans don't want to subject OUR bodies to. It is a human creation. It is not natural so dogs are not going to do as well on it as they would a natural diet.
> 
> Just because dogs have changed in physical appearance does not mean that their bodies have changed to be able to digest kibble. Yea, they make do, but it is causing serious health issues added onto how we have already physically changed them.
> 
> And carbs are bad.


It is this kind of hateful, arrogant, and yes holier than thou attitude that makes those of us who do not feed raw for whatever reason feel totally unwelcome here. People keep posting how raw feeders are unfairly called out for being ugly yet never comment when s^&t like this is posted. How dare you tell me or anyone that we should not have dogs. Considering all the homeless dogs and dogs that get euthanized every year I think maybe you are the one who does not care for dogs. Are the tiny minorty of raw feeders going to take in all those dogs that the rest of us worthless, useless kibble feeders shouldn't even have? Or would they be better off dead than kibble fed???? Give me a freaking break

I was so excited to find this site when I started researching on how to improve what I fed my dogs after learning that Pedigree was crap. I honestly had no idea and ths site helped me make better, healthier choices for my new puppy. I do get that raw fed is probably better but for my own reasons am not making that choice. I say raw fed is probably better because to this point not a single person has quoted any scientific studies comparing raw fed versus kibble fed for the long term Plenty of anecdotal evidence but no hard science. If it has been posted and I missed it then my apology. Are your raw fed dogs having longer life spans than kibble fed? Any raw fed dogs living beyond normal life expectancy? Any real, hard proof??

I understand that dogs and wolves are genetically very close and that is what raw fed diets are based upon. I also know that humans share 95% DNA with chimps - our closest ancestor. Chimps eat mostly fruit with about 5% of diet coming from termites and other bugs. Do you think humans would survive long following our "ancestral diet'? I cannot imagine that a diet so low in protein would add much to our health and life span. Just wanted to point out how species dietary needs may/do change as subspecies branch off.

I want to finish by suggesting that the name of the forum be changed from Dog Food Forum to Raw Fed Forum as there is little love, respect, or understanding for those of us who feed differently. I haven't been here long but I have yet to see a raw feeder being attacked for how they choose to feed their dogs. I can only imagine the uproar if they were told they probably shouldn't even have dogs at all. It is clear that there are a number of members who cannot tolerate anyone who chooses to feed kibble. It is time to find another forum that is actually welcoming to all dog owners who LOVE their pets and are trying to do right by them.


----------



## tem_sat

kathylcsw said:


> It is this kind of hateful, arrogant, and yes holier than thou attitude that makes those of us who do not feed raw for whatever reason feel totally unwelcome here. People keep posting how raw feeders are unfairly called out for being ugly yet never comment when s^&t like this is posted. How dare you tell me or anyone that we should not have dogs.





> *Here's MY question... to those who oppose raw and think kibble is best... Why? I am not talking about your money or your lack of time or convenience for you because honestly, in my opinion, if you lack the time, money, and it's inconvenient to feed a dog properly, you probably shouldn't even have one. *


This argument has been made over and over again for more than just PMR. Try substituting this:

Here's MY question... to those who oppose *Orijen* and think *Pedigree* is best... Why? 

I assume you would take offense to that wording as well? Were you offended when you realized that Pedigree was "crap"?

I do agree that the original quote could be have been softened a tad, however, I feel that what Dude and Bucks Mamma was trying to point out was the element of *convenience*. If, for the sheer sake of your own *convenience*, you have not considered switching to a non-processed diet, you are in fact not feeding your dog their natural food source for a seemingly selfish reason.


----------



## kathylcsw

The difference here is that I would never be judgemental enough to tell those people that *they probably shouldn't even have a dog *if Pedigree was what they were going to feed. My JRT died in June at 14 years of age after a lifetime of grocery store type dog food. She had a long, relatively healthy life even factoring in that she had 8 feet of intestines removed at age 4 after eating a tampon and was hit by a car at age 6 after getting away from my mother while I was out of town. My point being that even having significant accidents she managed to have 14 good years eating crap. How much better was she expected to do no matter what she was fed? How would a raw diet have improved upon her life? She was loved, she was healthy, and she was happy. I defy anyone on here to suggest that I should not have had her because she wasn't fed raw. I am also pretty sure that could she have chosen to stay with me and eat Kibbles and Bits or Pedigree or go to live in a home where she was fed raw that she would have stayed with me. 

Regardless of what raw feeders think you DO NOT love your dogs more than I love mine nor are you better dog owners than I am.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

tem_sat said:


> This argument has been made over and over again for more than just PMR. Try substituting this:
> 
> Here's MY question... to those who oppose *Orijen* and think *Pedigree* is best... Why?
> 
> I assume you would take offense to that wording as well? Were you offended when you realized that Pedigree was "crap"?
> 
> *I do agree that the original quote could be have been softened a tad, however,* I feel that what Dude and Bucks Mamma was trying to point out was the element of *convenience*. If, for the sheer sake of your own *convenience*, you have not considered switching to a non-processed diet, you are in fact not feeding your dog their natural food source for a seemingly selfish reason.


Well the thing is we dont have to soften EVERYTHING we say! Jess's comment is FAR nicer then how I would have put it!

God people, not everything has to be sugar coated and as if we are talking to a scared rescues! 

Ya'll are adults, suck it up and realize that WE ARE FEEDING CARNIVORES...they should be fed as CARNIVORES to the best of your abilities, that means getting them THE BEST food that you can...if you arent up for that....then you shouldnt have them. If you "HAVE" to do processed then they should be eating the highest quality available to you.

I would tell the same thing to ANYONE if they weren't going to take care of ANY animal properly!(I have with fish, birds, small animals, reptiles, horses, etc) 

I think that dogs have, in our society, been seen as FAR too much of a commodity and that "every person should have one" while people go out, get dogs and dont know how to take care of them properly...it makes me sick!!


----------



## PDXdogmom

Caty M;126539[B said:


> *]I would argue that Kashi cereal isn't that great for people either*[/B]... as I don't think grains are a natural food source for people- not edible really in their natural state.
> 
> There is also a difference between what I DO eat and what I SHOULD eat.. most definitely. Since I am responsible for my dog's health and wellbeing I choose to give them the most natural food possible. I wish I would eat healthy but that's a matter of willpower. :heh:
> 
> Carbs may not be bad in the short term but they are unneeded at best and tax the pancreas and feed cancers at worst. So... why feed them?
> 
> If dogs have evolved to eat a diet more suited towards people, as Kelly said their dentition and internal digestive anatomy would have changed- it hasn't.
> 
> *Even if you say dogs are an opportunistic carnivore rather than a strict one* (I don't like that since it always means that people are going to try to convince me that dogs are omnivores!!) then meat would still be their main and desired food source and plant material primarily eaten in times of famine. There are no famines in my house and I want the most ideal diet- so I feed protein and fats only. No carbs. :smile:


I was simply drawing a comparison between food choices. I know a number of people in my city and area who would be described by the general public as serious, serious "health and nutrition" focused athletes. I can't think of one of them that never eats any processed food or eats entirely raw except for cooked meats. So, yes, they might very well on some mornings eat a well-chosen cereal in addition to to raw fruits, nuts, etc.

As for the second bolded statement, that was not I who posted it. I have not entered the labeling debate.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Scarlett_O' said:


> Well the thing is we dont have to soften EVERYTHING we say! Jess's comment is FAR nicer then how I would have put it!
> 
> *God people, not everything has to be sugar coated* and as if we are talking to a scared rescues!
> 
> Ya'll are adults, suck it up and realize that WE ARE FEEDING CARNIVORES...they should be fed as CARNIVORES to the best of your abilities, that means getting them THE BEST food that you can...if you arent up for that....then you shouldnt have them. If you "HAVE" to do processed then they should be eating the highest quality available to you.
> 
> I would tell the same thing to ANYONE if they weren't going to take care of ANY animal properly!(I have with fish, birds, small animals, reptiles, horses, etc)
> 
> I think that dogs have, in our society, been seen as FAR too much of a commodity and that "every person should have one" while people go out, get dogs and dont know how to take care of them properly...it makes me sick!!


There is a huge and long continuum in ways to communicate between your term "sugar-coating" on one end and how you and Dude and Bucks mamma express your opinions on the other end.


----------



## DaneMama

I am not one to think that for whatever reason, that people shouldn't own dogs if they cant feed raw. There are some who think that and while I don't agree, I will respect that opinion. I also respect the opinion of people who need cold, hard, scientific proof that raw is better than kibble to make that decision, even though I know thousands, upon thousands of people singing their praises to raw was enough to convince me to switch. It is a personal choice, not one that makes someone obligated just because they own a dog. 

I do think that people need to feed their dogs the best that they possibly can, taking into consideration personal, moral, financial constraints. As well as provide adequate healthcare, training and love. Do all pet owners fall into the "good" category? In my experience working in the vet industry, less than 10% I would consider good pet owners. This includes people who are feeding a high quality food, have well trained/socialized dogs, provide necessary vet care when needed, and just simply respect their dogs. 

In the end I know that this isn't a debate over who loves their dogs more. Do I love my dogs more now that they're raw fed? Absolutely not. I do love that they're healthier, cleaner and thriving. So let's just drop this whole side of the debate since this thread is about "carbs for dogs"


----------



## magicre

is there a tactful, nice, diplomatic way of saying that raw feeders think that kibble feeders feed kibble so they don't have to spend the time, money, preparation ...........'insert way too much to do' here...... that we spend feeding our dogs raw?

when, in reality, it takes a few minutes more to feed raw? 

when i hear people say they are not opposed to feeding raw, and then rattle off the list of why they don't feed raw, this is what i hear:

time
children
work
cost
preparation
fear
salmonella
e.coli
blood on carpets
inconvenient
not balanced

not once have i ever heard someone say.....here is the reason i feed kibble. i see nothing wrong with processed dog food. there are nutrients, even though they are added back in...and i brush my dogs' teeth, so they stay clean. i would rather not deal with the separate freezers nor would i want to have to break down forty pound boxes of food. my dogs look good on kibble and that's how it's going to be.

instead, i or my friends get attacked. we get called holier than thou...or trolls....(good one, da viking -- it was a legit question as to how far back you were going in ancestry). 

whether jesse used the proper according to whom, i don't know....language in addressing this issue....we are expected to dance around how we really feel about people who do not research the food their dogs are eating...

that people do not research the physiology and anatomy of the dog they are feeding. 

there seems to be a continuation of what momma and poppa did, no questions asked. go to pound. pick out dog. buy dog from breeder. feed whatever is on sale.
the more fortunate dogs get orijen or totw or whatever eases the conscience because it's the best of the best of the best.

and then put us down for feeding raw and preaching raw. and, yes, we do proselytise...if i can get one person to convert to raw, it's a good day.

i don't usually go into the canned/dry food section because of what i read. the allergies, the eye goobers, the stools not being right, the irritable bowel syndrome or disease, the diabetes, which is on the rise, da viking, in both humans and dogs....

what i read breaks my heart.

the thread i started on human nutrition told me a lot about people.....and how they choose to eat and also how they feed their dogs.

in all honesty, i never felt badly when i fed kibble, until the lightbulb went off, so i've been there...where it's almost an autonomic action. get dog. buy kibble and toys.

but now, i go into the dry food section and not just THIS forum, others....and it makes me want to cry. 

if that makes carb people feel like i feel as if i am better than they are, so be it.

what it really means to me is that i've read more, studied more, and researched more.

if you guys want to think of us as holier than thou, then i challenge you to a six month raw feeding challenge. and then tell me we're wrong and holier than thou and bullies and all the insulting names you can think of.


----------



## kathylcsw

I have yet to read a thread where raw feeders are bullied or called names for how they choose to feed but it happens over and over to kibble feeders. I am glad that you have the time, money, resources, extra love for you dogs that we kibble feeders lack. What does annoy me is how you keep telling me that my reasons for feeding kibble are not good enough and are selfish. To be quite honest it isn't your business why I choose not to feed raw. *You don't know me, my life, or my resources so quit judging me*. I choose to put myself and my son ahead of my dog's needs and think that reasonable (dare I say sane) people would agree that my priorities are in the right place. My dog has a great life, with all her needs met but my son will not go without for the dog period. 

Kibble feeders are not abusing their dogs - no not even Pedigree feeders! Go after the people who get a dog and chain it up in the back yard never letting it come in the house or playing with it. Go after the people who think their dgs are disposable once they are no longer cute, convenient, or easy to manage. Go after the people who engage in dog fighting. Go after the people who allow their dogs to indisciminately breed and bring unwanted puppies into the world. Go after the people who run puppy mills. Go after the people who think abusing a helpless animal is fun. Just stop judging people who choose to feed differently than you do. WE LOVE OUR DOGS AS MUCH AS YOU DO!!! And again show me empirical evidence that raw feeding is so superior to kibble that we are all killing our dogs. Not anecdotal evidence but real hard, scientific data and not merely the same old because it is how wolves eat. As I said my JRT lived a healthy 14 years on Pedigree so anecdotally Pedigree is good for dogs. She had no major health issues and 12-14 years is the average life span for a JRT.


----------



## magicre

kathylcsw said:


> I have yet to read a thread where raw feeders are bullied or called names for how they choose to feed but it happens over and over to kibble feeders. I am glad that you have the time, money, resources, extra love for you dogs that we kibble feeders lack. What does annoy me is how you keep telling me that my reasons for feeding kibble are not good enough and are selfish. To be quite honest it isn't your business why I choose not to feed raw. *You don't know me, my life, or my resources so quit judging me*. I choose to put myself and my son ahead of my dog's needs and think that reasonable (dare I say sane) people would agree that my priorities are in the right place. My dog has a great life, with all her needs met but my son will not go without for the dog period.
> 
> Kibble feeders are not abusing their dogs - no not even Pedigree feeders! Go after the people who get a dog and chain it up in the back yard never letting it come in the house or playing with it. Go after the people who think their dgs are disposable once they are no longer cute, convenient, or easy to manage. Go after the people who engage in dog fighting. Go after the people who allow their dogs to indisciminately breed and bring unwanted puppies into the world. Go after the people who run puppy mills. Go after the people who think abusing a helpless animal is fun. Just stop judging people who choose to feed differently than you do. WE LOVE OUR DOGS AS MUCH AS YOU DO!!! And again show me empirical evidence that raw feeding is so superior to kibble that we are all killing our dogs. Not anecdotal evidence but real hard, scientific data and not merely the same old because it is how wolves eat. As I said my JRT lived a healthy 14 years on Pedigree so anecdotally Pedigree is good for dogs. She had no major health issues and 12-14 years is the average life span for a JRT.


we all judge. from the first word to the first look, everyone judges.

raw feeding is superiour. even orijen says so in their white paper. it's been posted so many times here, i've lost count. 

white papers are not cheap to create and when a kibble company of the most respected order comes out and compares dogs to wolves and says they are carnivores and you who have not read this paper, still calls for empirical evidence.

yeah, i do think that if you loved your dog enough, you would feed raw. but don't jump on me for that. you think i'm holier than thou and a bully.

we can call that one even.

and i do think you're selfish and no i don't believe you love your dog as much as i love mine, or you'd have your hands knee deep in raw food, and you'd be telling us of the latest research and asking questions about what's a good variety to feed your dog in the raw world....

these discussions keep turning on a dime. one wrong word and some one gets their panties in an uproar, me included.

and, even when the discussees calm down and try again, same thing happens.

so, i guess my conclusion is an emphatic no. we cannot get along. because, yes, i judge you and think you are not doing best by your dog.

yes, i do not believe that feeding raw costs too much or takes too much of my time because these are living, breathing beings who do so much for us. and in return, i am going to do what is best for my carnivore.

you do what you want. you can go on believing what you believe and in a blip of a second, once you leave this thread, i will be nothing more than an annoying memory.

but your dog still eats kibble and it was never about longevity...so stop defending how long your JRT lived.

this has always been about quality of life. 

believe what you want. feed what you want. but for every carb fed dog, my heart breaks because his or her owner doesn't care enough. note the word enough.

and, now, believe it or not, i am truly done....since we cannot stick to whether carbs are beneficial or evil.

since i am on the side that believes carbs are not good for dogs and thought i presented sound, medical reasoning, then i shall leave this thread....


----------



## Caty M

I most certainly do NOT think that feeding a high quality kibble is abuse. I DO think that feeding Pedigree or similar brands is, kind of.. by ignorance. By the same coin I'd consider having a child and feeding it nothing but Fruit roll ups abuse, also. I feel that any animal (I guess kids included in there!) should be researched thoroughly, especially health and nutrition.... unfortunately in our society, that doesn't happen. We are no longer responsible for the choices we make, so seems the general consensus.


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> the diabetes, which is on the rise, da viking, in both humans and dogs....


I had no idea! Ok that's it, we should all be eating raw and ban starch and carbs so we can relax and watch Springer and Judge Judy all day long!



magicre; said:


> so, i guess my conclusion is an emphatic no. we cannot get along. because, yes, i judge you and think you are not doing best by your dog.


Well, at least you are honest.


----------



## Caty M

DaViking said:


> I had no idea! Ok that's it, we should all be eating raw and ban starch and carbs so we can relax and watch Springer and Judge Judy all day long!


What does Judge Judy (awesome as she is) have anything to do with anything in this conversation.... generally if people go to the ultimate in diets (raw.. people DO do it!) they will improve on other aspects of their life also.. that includes exercise.


----------



## PDXdogmom

magicre said:


> is there a tactful, nice, diplomatic way of saying that raw feeders think that kibble feeders feed kibble so they don't have to spend the time, money, preparation ...........'insert way too much to do' here...... that we spend feeding our dogs raw?
> 
> when, in reality, it takes a few minutes more to feed raw?
> 
> when i hear people say they are not opposed to feeding raw, and then rattle off the list of why they don't feed raw, this is what i hear:
> 
> *time
> children
> work
> cost
> preparation
> fear
> salmonella
> e.coli
> blood on carpets
> inconvenient
> not balanced
> *
> not once have i ever heard someone say.....here is the reason i feed kibble. i see nothing wrong with processed dog food. there are nutrients, even though they are added back in...and i brush my dogs' teeth, so they stay clean. i would rather not deal with the separate freezers nor would i want to have to break down forty pound boxes of food. my dogs look good on kibble and that's how it's going to be.
> 
> instead, i or my friends get attacked. we get called holier than thou...or trolls....(good one, da viking -- it was a legit question as to how far back you were going in ancestry).
> 
> whether jesse used the proper according to whom, i don't know....language in addressing this issue....we are expected to dance around how we really feel about people who do not research the food their dogs are eating...
> 
> that people do not research the physiology and anatomy of the dog they are feeding.
> 
> there seems to be a continuation of what momma and poppa did, no questions asked. go to pound. pick out dog. buy dog from breeder. feed whatever is on sale.
> the more fortunate dogs get orijen or totw or whatever eases the conscience because it's the best of the best of the best.
> 
> and then put us down for feeding raw and preaching raw. and, yes, we do proselytise...if i can get one person to convert to raw, it's a good day.
> 
> i don't usually go into the canned/dry food section because of what i read. the allergies, the eye goobers, the stools not being right, the irritable bowel syndrome or disease, the diabetes, which is on the rise, da viking, in both humans and dogs....
> 
> what i read breaks my heart.
> 
> the thread i started on human nutrition told me a lot about people.....and how they choose to eat and also how they feed their dogs.
> 
> in all honesty, i never felt badly when i fed kibble, until the lightbulb went off, so i've been there...where it's almost an autonomic action. get dog. buy kibble and toys.
> 
> but now, i go into the dry food section and not just THIS forum, others....and it makes me want to cry.
> 
> if that makes carb people feel like i feel as if i am better than they are, so be it.
> 
> what it really means to me is that i've read more, studied more, and researched more.
> 
> if you guys want to think of us as holier than thou, then i challenge you to a six month raw feeding challenge. and then tell me we're wrong and holier than thou and bullies and all the insulting names you can think of.


You left out this reason: some people don't believe it's necessary to feed raw to have a thriving, healthy and happy dog. Their beliefs about the subject may be different than yours. That's not an excuse; that's just the way it is. Not even all scientists would agree that prey model raw is the only way and the absolute truth to dog feeding.

And once again, there is that whole in-between area of people who don't think it's necessary to feed raw; but do think that feeding a "base" kibble supplemented with an egg, or fresh cooked meat, etc. can be a good thing.


----------



## DaViking

Scarlett_O' said:


> If you "HAVE" to do processed then they should be eating the highest quality available to you.


And with that quote... wouldn't you and all the other raw ppl here agree that dogs all over the world will be much better off if kibble ppl with various knowledge actually find it meaningful to hang around here trying to get ppl who currently feed crappy food to switch to a higher quality kibble? And further educate new owners about additives, chemicals and other stuff that goes into the food. Feeding raw will always be a healthy niche alternative, there will always be more kibble fed dogs, so there are greater potential to do good. Personally to me that makes sense and was why I joined here in the first place. Instead I find myself here trading silly arguments with raw ppl and not making a bit of difference for a single pup. What's the point in that?

On the other side, *if *the general consensus among raw ppl here is that kibble ppl hurt and mistreat their dogs this forum will never work. Close down the dry kibble section and rename the whole board. Then raw ppl will have carte blanche to make whatever statement about kibble they want.


----------



## Liz

There is a lot of contention around here recently. I think we all need to act like grown up and agree to disagree. I have differences or feeding, vaccinating, topicals and breeding with many friends and we just agree to disagree. If there is a thread going on that someone doesn't like just don't add to it, there are plenty of other threads were there is good information and exchange of ideas flowing. Letting one or a few threads upset you is silly. Every forum has hto spot and topics, if you don't like to argue or debate than avoid those threads and enjoy all the others. Almost all the other posts have been easy and genuine without sarcasm or name calling. Seeing people say they are leaving the forum becasue of one thread is silly and childish. Take all the information you can get and use what you believe to be true or what is possible in your particular situation. I can't think of anyone here that does nto truly love their pet - that does nto mean we agree on everything or that we should. I don't agree on some things like training, there is no need to fight, just state your point and let it go. Having to win is childish. JMHOhwell: I do love this forum.


----------



## PDXdogmom

DaViking said:


> And with that quote... wouldn't you and all the other raw ppl here agree that dogs all over the world will be much better off if kibble ppl with various knowledge actually find it meaningful to hang around here trying to get ppl who currently feed crappy food to switch to a higher quality kibble? And further educate new owners about additives, chemicals and other stuff that goes into the food. Feeding raw will always be a healthy niche alternative, there will always be more kibble fed dogs, so there are greater potential to do good. Personally to me that makes sense and was why I joined here in the first place. Instead I find myself here trading silly arguments with raw ppl and not making a bit of difference for a single pup. What's the point in that?
> 
> *On the other side, if the general consensus among raw ppl here is that kibble ppl hurt and mistreat their dogs this forum will never work. Close down the dry kibble section and rename the whole board. Then raw ppl will have carte blanche to make whatever statement about kibble they want.*




My thoughts exactly. One simple question I have to which I truly don't know the answer: Is there any moderator on this board who is not a raw feeder? If not, then there probably shouldn't be a "dry and canned" forum and perhaps a re-naming of the board would be appropriate. I must say though that I have truly appreciated the tone and fairness from moderator DaneMama.


----------



## JayJayisme

Remember, everyone who is currently a raw feeder, was at one time a kibble feeder. It's not like we haven't "been there, done that."


----------



## RawFedDogs

PDXdogmom said:


> One simple question I have to which I truly don't know the answer: Is there any moderator on this board who is not a raw feeder?


The answer to that question is "NO". I don't know why there should be. Moderating has nothing to do with feeding. Moderators merely keep order. A post by a moderator has no more strength than any other post unless it was made to maintain order in the thread.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Remember, everyone who is currently a raw feeder, was at one time a kibble feeder. It's not like we haven't "been there, done that."


Which speaks to your dedication and love, very commendable but that's all it is.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> Which speaks to your dedication and love, very commendable but that's all it is.


Now you're just being a jerk.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Now you're just being a jerk.


Thanks.
Take it any way you want but it's the truth. To most you are just another person who for all we know fed kibble pumped up with chemicals, you had no idea how to truly balance the diet or what have you. Your circumstance and reason for switching could be any number of things. It's not being a jerk and I still think the dedication is commendable.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> Thanks.
> Take it any way you want but it's the truth. To most you are just another person who for all we know fed kibble pumped up with chemicals, you had no idea how to truly balance the diet or what have you. Your circumstance and reason for switching could be any number of things. It's not being a jerk and I still think the dedication is commendable.


"To most"? What, now you are speaking for the entire membership here? You haven't been here long enough to know my dog's histories, or why I switched to raw, or what kind of kibble brands I tried to feed them before I switched. Pretty arrogant for a noob. Why don't you just retire from this thread like you said you would a couple dozen posts back? You are making no sense at all at this point and just seem to be trolling for a pointless debate.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> "To most"? What, now you are speaking for the entire membership here? You haven't been here long enough to know my dog's histories, or why I switched to raw, or what kind of kibble brands I tried to feed them before I switched. Pretty arrogant for a noob. Why don't you just retire from this thread like you said you would a couple dozen posts back? You are making no sense at all at this point and just seem to be trolling for a pointless debate.


Thanks again.
There is currently 17 members and 62 guests browsing the forum. To most dog ppl out there skimming the various boards in search of dog food information your story is totally unknown. Been there, done that statements, as is, doesn't mean much. I have those too but I am not really pushing those to much since they doesn't really mean much and in a thread like this will surely be shot down and questioned in all kinds of ways.


----------



## Kapalua

I don't know Jay's story (sorry if that's not your name) and am a even newer member than DaViking. I by no means speak for everyone or even a majority but my impression of those who feed raw (and for some who feed high end kibble) is not that of people who fed kibble pumped with chemicals and decided to "wing" it and feed raw. It is usually a last resort option. People have dogs with medical issues and allergies etc... and are looking for something to help. They've exhausted a lot of different options and turn to raw. Many start with a kibble, graduate to a higher end kibble, maybe an Honest Kitchen or something, home cooking, and then they look at raw. As a person who was just a browser here just because a person's story is unknown I didn't consider them to be some ignorant chemical filled kibble moron.


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> To most dog ppl out there skimming the various boards in search of dog food information your story is totally unknown.


And therefore anyone who doesn't know, and is too arrogant to ask, has no business making assumptions about how, what, or why I feed my dogs. Give it a rest.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> And therefore anyone who doesn't know, and is too arrogant to ask, has no business making assumptions about how, what, or why I feed my dogs. Give it a rest.


Wasn't making any assumptions or judgements in any way, just saying it's all blank so therefor it's not worth much either way. At best it's anecdotal from a handful of ppl.


----------



## PDXdogmom

RawFedDogs said:


> The answer to that question is "NO". I don't know why there should be. Moderating has nothing to do with feeding. Moderators merely keep order. A post by a moderator has no more strength than any other post unless it was made to maintain order in the thread.


I'll agree that moderators are on boards to keep order; but how they define "order" is a fluctuating grey zone. While a board may have a few established concrete rules that are black and white for moderators to enforce, there are also many times where it's a judgment call. It's only human for a moderator's judgment to be influenced by strong beliefs concerning one of the major discussion topics, "food", on dogfoodchat. It's kind of like the supreme court having some balance of moderates, liberals and conservatives.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Actually, there IS a kibble feeding mod. BabyHusky. She's not as active, but she is a mod. Even so... it doesn't matter.

And rest assured, infractions are not given based on what someone feeds at all. its about how they break the rules... like calling someone a troll, for example... constitutes a warning, and infractions if they continue. If you think the raw feeding mods favor the raw feeding members, go ahead and ask DaViking how many Pm warnings or infractions he has gotten from this thread... because he qualifies for a couple, but has gotten none.


----------



## RawFedDogs

PDXdogmom said:


> I'll agree that moderators are on boards to keep order; but how they define "order" is a fluctuating grey zone.


Yes, order is always is a fluctuating gray zone. Each moderator must look at a situation and make a decision. I have seen other moderators do things I wouldn't do. I have done things other moderators didn't like. Believe me, all the moderators know the other's feelings. We communicate quite a bit in the background. Often we discuss situations to determine whether or not to take action and what action to take. We discuss individual posters and what should be done about them. We often argue about it. All that said, I don't know of a single instance were what we feed or what the poster feeds has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion or eventual outcome.



> It's only human for a moderator's judgment to be influenced by strong beliefs concerning one of the major discussion topics, "food", on dogfoodchat. It's kind of like the supreme court having some balance of moderates, liberals and conservatives.


On this board that statement is absolutely, 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt false. Our decisions are always based on one of two things ... behavior or SPAM. I usually don't even read the kibble posts unless traffic starts getting heavy to a particular thread and I take a look to see if any arguments are going on and make sure everyone is acting civily.


----------



## PDXdogmom

PuppyPaws said:


> Actually, there IS a kibble feeding mod. BabyHusky. She's not as active, but she is a mod. Even so... it doesn't matter.
> 
> And rest assured, infractions are not given based on what someone feeds at all. its about how they break the rules... like calling someone a troll, for example... constitutes a warning, and infractions if they continue. If you think the raw feeding mods favor the raw feeding members, go ahead and ask DaViking how many Pm warnings or infractions he has gotten from this thread... because he qualifies for a couple, but has gotten none.


Upon looking into BabyHusky's postings I see you're right about her inactivity. Her last activity on this board was one month ago and she has posted 333 times in a little over 3 years. So, I guess one couldn't say she is actively monitoring the posts to any degree.


----------



## DaViking

PuppyPaws said:


> Actually, there IS a kibble feeding mod. BabyHusky. She's not as active, but she is a mod. Even so... it doesn't matter.
> 
> And rest assured, infractions are not given based on what someone feeds at all. its about how they break the rules... like calling someone a troll, for example... constitutes a warning, and infractions if they continue. If you think the raw feeding mods favor the raw feeding members, go ahead and ask DaViking how many Pm warnings or infractions he has gotten from this thread... because he qualifies for a couple, but has gotten none.


I can confirm this 

If it's more than the "board troll" comment I prefer you pm it to me so I know what other I said that broke the rules.


----------



## PDXdogmom

Bill: glad to hear that there is discussion in the background among the moderators and that you're not all always on the same page. I would tend to guess that in the various posting styles. Thank you for the info.


----------



## meggels

how does one become a mod?


----------



## JayJayisme

DaViking said:


> Wasn't making any assumptions or judgements in any way, just saying it's all blank so therefor it's not worth much either way. At best it's anecdotal from a handful of ppl.


Don't try to rewrite history. You said, "To most you are just another person who for all we know fed kibble pumped up with chemicals, you had no idea how to truly balance the diet or what have you." 

That, on its face, is an assumption. Your grain-laden diet is making your brain foggy. Go eat some meat and maybe your head will clear up.


----------



## DaViking

JayJayisme said:


> Don't try to rewrite history. You said, "To most you are just another person who for all we know fed kibble pumped up with chemicals, you had no idea how to truly balance the diet or what have you."
> 
> That, on its face, is an assumption. Your grain-laden diet is making your brain foggy. Go eat some meat and maybe your head will clear up.


"{snip} ...or what have you. Your circumstance and reason for switching could be any number of things." includes any other possible scenario, good or bad.


----------



## CorgiPaws

meggels said:


> how does one become a mod?


You get asked. You'd have to ask Bill based on what.


----------



## SpooOwner

I skipped most of this thread because reading bickering is boring and a waste of my time. But I read enough to be confused on an elementary point: when people use the word "carb" in this thread, do they mean carbohydrate, or grain, or starch, or fruit and veg? Meat has _some_ carbohydrates, so I'd think that even the raw feeders would be pro-carb (but not pro-grain, or -starch, or -fruit and veg).


----------



## DaneMama

DaViking said:


> And with that quote... wouldn't you and all the other raw ppl here agree that dogs all over the world will be much better off if kibble ppl with various knowledge actually find it meaningful to hang around here trying to get ppl who currently feed crappy food to switch to a higher quality kibble? And further educate new owners about additives, chemicals and other stuff that goes into the food. Feeding raw will always be a healthy niche alternative, there will always be more kibble fed dogs, so there are greater potential to do good. Personally to me that makes sense and was why I joined here in the first place. Instead I find myself here trading silly arguments with raw ppl and not making a bit of difference for a single pup. What's the point in that?
> 
> On the other side, *if *the general consensus among raw ppl here is that kibble ppl hurt and mistreat their dogs this forum will never work. Close down the dry kibble section and rename the whole board. Then raw ppl will have carte blanche to make whatever statement about kibble they want.


I think you're basing these thoughts off of one or two threads, this one as well, that have become a heated debate over a hot topic. If you look at the majority of posts her you'll see that they're helpful, informative, positive, and downright nice. Spend some time here, ask questions, learn and get to know the people you're disagreeing with. 

I know how these boards work because I've been here longer than most members. I really do invite you to learn more here in other threads. 



DaViking said:


> Thanks again.
> There is currently 17 members and 62 guests browsing the forum. To most dog ppl out there skimming the various boards in search of dog food information your story is totally unknown. Been there, done that statements, as is, doesn't mean much. I have those too but I am not really pushing those to much since they doesn't really mean much and in a thread like this will surely be shot down and questioned in all kinds of ways.


Actually most "guests" are search engines for people researching things. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience here that generate worldwide searches. 

Again I think you're judgments of this forum are inaccurate based on your activity here. Spend more time, cool off and be respectful and you'll bound to appreciate the environment more. 



Kapalua said:


> I don't know Jay's story (sorry if that's not your name) and am a even newer member than DaViking. I by no means speak for everyone or even a majority but my impression of those who feed raw (and for some who feed high end kibble) is not that of people who fed kibble pumped with chemicals and decided to "wing" it and feed raw. It is usually a last resort option. People have dogs with medical issues and allergies etc... and are looking for something to help. They've exhausted a lot of different options and turn to raw. Many start with a kibble, graduate to a higher end kibble, maybe an Honest Kitchen or something, home cooking, and then they look at raw. As a person who was just a browser here just because a person's story is unknown I didn't consider them to be some ignorant chemical filled kibble moron.


Unfortunately you are correct. Its not until people realize there's something wrong with their dog before choosing a diet that ultimately would have prevented the issues from ever starting in the first place. Cary M is an exception off the top of my head that knew she wanted to feed raw the moment she brought her first puppy home. There really aren't many people who join up like that. I was like her with my first dogs but for financial and personal reasons wasn't able to feed raw until my dogs were almost 2 and 3 years old (Bailey and Emmy). I knew that kibble was not the best thing for dogs because it's just so...weird. The whole concept of kibble has been weird to me since I was a kid. 



meggels said:


> how does one become a mod?


Linsey is right, we have all been asked by Bill to be a part of the team. You know what it's based on primarily? Activity. Look at the top ranked members here and then compare them to who has mod status....

And I take it very personally when people think we moderate this forum unfairly, swayed in the favor of raw feeders. You know what gets people banned or given infractions? Being rude, name calling, insensitive people OR spammers. And we do deliberate, sometimes at great length, sometimes even getting angry at one another for opposing views on how things are handled. Every other forum I've spent time on, the mods do take advantage of their "power" and ban people on personal vendettas or differences in opinions. I disagree with a lot of people here, even raw feeders! But that doesn't mean that they'll get banned based on that. 

I'm just about done with letting this thread go on much longer....


----------



## meggels

Well, maybe someday Bill will feel that a certain Meggels is good enough to be a mod  I never was aware who the head honcho was LOL.


----------



## DaViking

DaneMama said:


> I think you're basing these thoughts off of one or two threads, this one as well, that have become a heated debate over a hot topic. If you look at the majority of posts her you'll see that they're helpful, informative, positive, and downright nice. Spend some time here, ask questions, learn and get to know the people you're disagreeing with.


I respectfully disagree. When I read up on old threads it struck me how many knowledgeable ppl was put off hanging out here, it usually ended in silliness and the forum lost out on great knowledge. Is it possible that it might just not be those "other" persons fault? I am just the last one. For the record, I am not "truthdog" but it's hard to not become like him with all kinds of odd statements flying left, right and center. Just sayin. I have also seen it all before. Dog ppl are no different where-ever you go. And the interwebs is no different. Thanks for answering the question tho. You are the only raw person who did!




DaneMama said:


> Actually most "guests" are search engines for people researching things. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience here that generate worldwide searches.


I know how search engines work. It's my daily job to drive traffic to websites and getting ppl to click affiliate links, banners and other linkbait. Except for a selection of SE spiders traversing the forum for updates and new posts your "guests" are random ppl who found this site via a targeted keywords or a long tail keyword search. I.e. living breathing ppl. Let me know if you need any revenue boosting help  In fact I already did, lol. Big G *loves* all the activity this thread have, however the site could do with a little SEO do-over


----------



## Scarlett_O'

PDXdogmom said:


> There is a huge and long continuum in ways to communicate between your term "sugar-coating" on one end and how you and Dude and Bucks mamma express your opinions on the other end.


Maybe to you, but not to I. 

So Im not going to walk on egg shells around ya'll. 

I talk how I talk, I tell stuff bluntly and dont care if who Im talking to ends up going into a corner and crying because I spoke my mind and hurt feelings.

If someone doesnt like it then dont read my posts.

I have MANY people who I help daily with MANY things, including their pets health....but I dont walk on egg shells around any one.


----------



## hmbutler

DaViking said:


> Thanks.
> Take it any way you want but it's the truth. To most you are just another person who for all we know fed kibble pumped up with chemicals, you had no idea how to truly balance the diet or what have you. Your circumstance and reason for switching could be any number of things. It's not being a jerk and I still think the dedication is commendable.


I'm confused with why that's a problem?? I've told my story before, and while it's a little embarrassing, I'm happy to admit it... I fed a pretty shitty kibble (purina supercoat, a slight moderation in Australia of the US Purina, I think) to my dog and cat because my vet told me it was a good quality dry food... I had no reason to question him. These are the first pets I'VE owned, because other pets I've had were pets I had at home, so even though I might've fed them, it was my mum who bought their food, and I never thought anything of it.

However when I was presented with the information that carbs, corns, starches etc are BAD for carnivores, I researched it a bit more. I was leaning towards switching Duke to a BARF diet when I came across PMR and this forum, and based on all the information I had found along the way and on here, I made the switch to PMR.

So yes, I've " been there, done that" with kibble, and I had absolutely no idea what I was doing wrong. But now I have the information I have, I could not consider changing back to Purina - not in a million years. The problem I have is when people are given the information, and they know the damage they could be doing (with shitty brand kibble etc) but they don't care, because its inconvenient to change. And for the record, my cat is still on kibble, but I switched her to the best option I could find in Australia (I have to drive 2 hours to buy her food, because Australia only has TWO grain-free, high meat content options to chose from)

So I dont understand why its an insult to say an ex-kibble feeder may have pumped their pets full of chemicals because they had no idea what they were doing... I'd rather they were doing it BECAUSE they had no idea, not in spite of the fact they knew what they were doing to their pets...


----------



## PDXdogmom

Scarlett_O' said:


> Maybe to you, but not to I.
> 
> So Im not going to walk on egg shells around ya'll.
> 
> I talk how I talk, I tell stuff bluntly and dont care if who Im talking to ends up going into a corner and crying because I spoke my mind and hurt feelings.
> 
> If someone doesnt like it then dont read my posts.
> 
> I have MANY people who I help daily with MANY things, including their pets health....but I dont walk on egg shells around any one.


Can't speak for anyone else, but there's no "going into a corner and crying" on my end whatsoever.

If your intent in this thread's posts is to vent and alienate, then you've accomplished your goal.

If your intent is to share your experiences, why you believe what you do, or engage in productive discussion; then mission not accomplished, IMHO.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

PDXdogmom said:


> Can't speak for anyone else, but there's no "going into a corner and crying" on my end whatsoever.
> 
> If your intent in this thread's posts is to vent and alienate, then you've accomplished your goal.
> 
> If your intent is to share your experiences, why you believe what you do, or engage in productive discussion; then mission not accomplished, IMHO.


And thankfully I dont give a crap what a bitter person like you thinks of what I "accomplish" or not, I said my peace about what I had to add to this thread, all of the smart raw feeders have said everything else that needed to be said about carbs and dogs.


----------



## xellil

Personally, I think this thread should have been closed about 20 pages ago. I have seen them closed for alot less.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

xellil said:


> Personally, I think this thread should have been closed about 20 pages ago. I have seen them closed for alot less.


How many pages do you show it having?!?!? LOL


----------



## xellil

Twenty-five now!


----------



## minnieme

xellil said:


> Personally, I think this thread should have been closed about 20 pages ago.


Ditto. Time to move on.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

xellil said:


> Twenty-five now!


REALLY?!?!?!

Im showing 7!!LOL (I must have it set to show more posts per page!:smile


----------



## xellil

i need to change my options then.


----------



## hmbutler

haha yes mine is on 25 pages now too


----------



## happygirlx3

Hello everyone, 

I've been a browser here for several years now and because of this forum I have switched my dogs from Beneful to Holistic Select to TOTW to Orijen and to finally raw. Honestly, I never knew there was anything wrong with my dogs on Beneful. They seemed healthy enough. They also seemed healthy on all the other kibbles. I was like most kibble feeders and was completely against raw (mostly out of laziness). I thought raw meat was disgusting and that people who fed raw were hippies or something. But the more I looked into my own health and how processed foods were not good for people, much less animals, I started to look at my dog's diet. 

I was at the grocery store one day and bought a bag of chicken wings (small dog). I didn't think my dog would eat it, much less enjoy it. After several posts on this forum, I finally switched my dog over to raw. I have had no problems and she still looks great. Honestly, I can't tell a huge difference other than sparkling teeth and she's a little pudgy now. But it makes me feel better knowing I'm feeding my dog the best I can. It just makes sense to me.

I feel this way with my other animals too. I just bought a betta fish and some glofish for my room and researched the proper diet for them. Did you know flakes and pellets are not a healthy diet? Live or frozen brine shrimp and bloodworms are the "best" food for carnivorous fish. Confirms the fact that processed foods just aren't healthy. My friend owns a rabbit and feeds it a non-processed herbivore diet. I feel like the raw diet isn't about dogs being carnivores so much as it's about not feeding them processed foods and trying to mimic what a dog is made to eat. Doesn't it make more sense to feed what their bodies are made to eat? If we know scientifically that an animal's insides are designed to eat a certain food, why would we think anything else would work as good? I just don't see the logic... Which is why I switched! 

My friend recently switched her 5 month old puppy to raw. I was telling her how I fed my dog raw and she said she never even thought about the way dogs were fed. She knew dogs were carnivores and felt stupid for having never thought about it before. After her duh moment, she went out and switched her puppy to raw the next day. 

I guess my point is, I am so thankful for this forum and all the knowledgeable members here. My pets and I are much happier and healthier now. Thanks everyone!


----------



## Liz

It is so good to hear you have had a good experience and are showing others how to improve their dog's life and diet. It is nice to hear you were able to transition your dog smoothly. Congrats and thank you - it is nice to hear something positive in this thread.eace:


----------



## Scarlett_O'

happygirlx3 said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I've been a browser here for several years now and because of this forum I have switched my dogs from Beneful to Holistic Select to TOTW to Orijen and to finally raw. Honestly, I never knew there was anything wrong with my dogs on Beneful. They seemed healthy enough. They also seemed healthy on all the other kibbles. I was like most kibble feeders and was completely against raw (mostly out of laziness). I thought raw meat was disgusting and that people who fed raw were hippies or something. But the more I looked into my own health and how processed foods were not good for people, much less animals, I started to look at my dog's diet.
> 
> I was at the grocery store one day and bought a bag of chicken wings (small dog). I didn't think my dog would eat it, much less enjoy it. After several posts on this forum, I finally switched my dog over to raw. I have had no problems and she still looks great. Honestly, I can't tell a huge difference other than sparkling teeth and she's a little pudgy now. But it makes me feel better knowing I'm feeding my dog the best I can. It just makes sense to me.
> 
> I feel this way with my other animals too. I just bought a betta fish and some glofish for my room and researched the proper diet for them. Did you know flakes and pellets are not a healthy diet? Live or frozen brine shrimp and bloodworms are the "best" food for carnivorous fish. Confirms the fact that processed foods just aren't healthy. My friend owns a rabbit and feeds it a non-processed herbivore diet. I feel like the raw diet isn't about dogs being carnivores so much as it's about not feeding them processed foods and trying to mimic what a dog is made to eat. Doesn't it make more sense to feed what their bodies are made to eat? If we know scientifically that an animal's insides are designed to eat a certain food, why would we think anything else would work as good? I just don't see the logic... Which is why I switched!
> 
> My friend recently switched her 5 month old puppy to raw. I was telling her how I fed my dog raw and she said she never even thought about the way dogs were fed. She knew dogs were carnivores and felt stupid for having never thought about it before. After her duh moment, she went out and switched her puppy to raw the next day.
> 
> I guess my point is, I am so thankful for this forum and all the knowledgeable members here. My pets and I are much happier and healthier now. Thanks everyone!


GREAT post, and thank you SOO much for posting here!!!:thumb::hug:

And yes, my dogs, cats, fish, frog and as soon as I can(although its all he gets anyways) my leased gelding will also be on TOTALLY species appropriate diets!


----------



## hmbutler

happygirlx3 said:


> I've been a browser here for several years now and because of this forum I have switched my dogs from Beneful to Holistic Select to TOTW to Orijen and to finally raw. Honestly, I never knew there was anything wrong with my dogs on Beneful. They seemed healthy enough.


My point exactly :biggrin: glad this forum has been as helpful to you as it has been to me! :thumb:


----------



## Celt

Umm, kinda totally off topic, but when I joined this forum I posted what I thought was an imflamatory topic (Devil's Advocate). I did this on purpose to find out how "accepting" the forum was. I was pleasantly surprised at how "nice" the discussion remained. This is one of the main reason I decided to "become" a member. I have to say though that the topic I chose was no where near as controversial as this one in comparision. And, sadly, if my post had received this kind of response, I would not have "joined". I've seen a few posts on people being on forums where all they do is "lurk" because they don't want to deal with the "flak" if they posted. I think when it comes to what to feed your dog that this is what's happening here. 
I'm not exactly a "wilting flower" but I also try to be nonconfrontal. Being told that I shouldn't own a dog because I don't feed a "species appropriate diet" really peeves me. I have fed some of the (in y'alls opinions)crappiest kibble in creation and most of my feeding "style" goes against the stream too. Yet, not one of my dogs has "suffered" digestive upsets, allergic reactions, bad coats, big poops, "rotten" teeth, etc and not one has lived less that 14 years (knock on wood). And the majority of my dogs were big. And yet I'm being told that although I've obviously taken great care and loved each of them to death that I should have never been allowed to own any of my babies because I didn't feed them a meat only diet.
I think that from now on, it might be best that I avoid any discussion on feeding. I don't need to be made to feel belittled and hated.


----------



## Liz

Please remember we are all allowed to our opinions. I haven't met anyone on this forum who doesn't love their pet. Sometimes what we believe comes out more harshly than intended or hits a person harder than desired. You obviously love your pets. Don't lose all the good this forum gives because of one post or one opinion, that would be shooting yourself in the foot.:smile: Take the good, let go of what you can't use - you know best how you love and care for your animals. We are all at different places but all here are learning and growing and trying to do their best.


----------



## DoglovingSenior

Meggels, you are RIGHT-for me it is an "overwhelming attitude of life and death". Not that I really try to convince others. I say what I have to and leave their choice to them. I just find it interesting that my dogs are checked out ONCE a year-when it is time for their Rabies. I began raw when my heart dog (were well bred) died from Cancer at 8 years old. 

He looked great to up until the time he couldn't hold down anything, and oh yes-I had his teeth cleaned a few times. He was the best dog that I have ever had before or since. I do not know whether it was the stoppage of the unnecessary vaccines (which his oncologist first warned me of) or the switch after his death to RAW for my remaining two Rotties, but they lived to be 14 and 11 years. I have not had any dog, mostly Rotties, die before 10 since then. My present Rottie will be 13 in February my APBT 11 next month. My newly adopted little girl loves raw and is thriving! Neither of my old guyz has EVER had to have his teeth cleaned! Like I stated, to me is did become a "life or death" choice that I was making for MY dogs-up to others to make one for theirs.


----------



## DoglovingSenior

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Eleanor Roosevelt


----------



## CavePaws

Without raw feeding most of my pups would still be riddled with little issues that maybe I noticed but not many people would. My dogs have terrible allergies to tons of things in kibble and one never received enough real fiber in his diet to have hard enough poop to express his glands correctly. Pretty amazing what the care of strangers did for my pack. Even when I fed half and half the raw feeders still supported me. I had the same argument as a lot of you who think carbs are okay. After more research and a couple threads with RFD, puppy paws, and dane mama I actually changed my view point. When I disagreed with the majority I pulled my bootstraps up and went to research more. I can't remember ever really being disrespected by a regular user here. We all seem to learn that once the personal insults start flying your side of the argument quickly loses merit. I'm actually extremely surprised at some of the things I have read. I think any dog is better off with a loving, caring owner, even eating pedigree, than starving on the streets or on the kill list at a shelter. I hope you all who felt belittled or insulted stickaround. I mean at the end of the day those are your dogs and if you feel youre doing right by them, then that is completely and utterly your business.


----------



## DoglovingSenior

minnieme said:


> Ultimately, since raw is a fairly new feeding trend (at least among people alive at the moment!), a lot of the evidence we have is anecdotal. But the shift is indeed happening. You couldn't find pre-made raw ten years ago (to my knowledge).


Yes you could, I used to order it from DC & it arrived packed in dry ice. I did this whenever I was going to be out of town for the convenience of the pet sitters back in '99 or 2000.


----------



## minnieme

DoglovingSenior said:


> Yes you could, I used to order it from DC & it arrived packed in dry ice. I did this whenever I was going to be out of town for the convenience of the pet sitters back in '99 or 2000.


Was it available in pet stores like it is now? Or was it all special order or only in bigger cities?


----------



## DoglovingSenior

DaViking said:


> Most active dog ppl are not overly active on forums and boards and amounts to close to zilch in the big scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a few owners who choose to stay on raw and sporadic anecdotal reports on boards I have not seen much evidence that raw is the answer as soon as the activity level raises beyond a cpl of hrs per day in walks or what have you. Sure you can find the odd working dog owner who feed pure raw but in the end she/he is in a huge minority.
> 
> They where fed raw well over 12 months. Re the price; Maybe, maybe not, probably depends on where you live. Not sure what you consider midgrade commercial food either.


Boy there is a trainer & owner of working dogs that I certainly wish were on here, as he would dispute EVERYTHING that you have said. He has fed nothing but RAW since 1999. Not only to his grown dogs but to his two litters of pups. Before he collected sperm and had his dogs spayed and neutered. He even made it a part of his puppy contracts to feed raw & actually went and took one back when he discovered that the dog was not being fed that way. He has dogs that were so impressive to the Belgian and French Ring people that they purchased some of his puppies. One of the pups was the first APBT to appear on the cover of Dog World. 

His dogs have been and are active in many activities-including, but not limited to personal protection, Mondio Ring, French Ring,weight pull, agility, obedience etc, etc. They also live to ripe old ages, not the 10 years of most dogs in this country!


----------



## DoglovingSenior

Kathylcsw-Do you have the empirical evidence that kibble is so superior to raw feeding??? Not published by a dog food company of course. Who, what said that 12-14 years is a JRT's average life span? Kibble companies or kibble feeders???


----------



## CorgiPaws

My take on this whole raw vs. kibble thing...

Every creature on this planet has a diet in which they were designed to do best on. Mother Nature did not mess up. There's an ideal natural diet for every species. 

Kibble, is not natural. Nothing about it is natural. It is processed, rendered, cooked food most (if not all) of which is waste left from the human food industry. No creature was created to eat a diet of 100% processed food like that. No one species. 

I can not wrap my head around someone believing that kibble is better than a natural diet. I can't imagine that if someone wrote up a sales pitch for a complete and balanced cereal, with everything you need to maintain health that parents everywhere would flock to the store and feed that and ONLY that to their kids for their entire lives. It just doesn't appeal to logic. The same applies to our pets. LOOK at kibble. Does it even look like food, smell like food, feel like food? no. 
I will absolutely correct misconceptions about raw. And YES, it is irritating to see people say they don't feed raw for [insert FALSE statement here] reason.... and if correcting that means that I am pushing or forcing raw on someone then I'm sorry but it's not the motive. At the end of the day, what does it matter what I think anyway?!

I understand many reasons why people don't feed raw, and I would never say that someone doesn't love their pets if they feed kibble. That is nuts, in my opinion. I understand why it just doesn't work for some families, but to say that they do not deserve to own their pets based on the fact they feed kibble is entirely and completely out of line and I can TOTALLY see where it gives some kibble feeders the impression that some raw feeders are holier than thou. If someone told me I didn't deserve to have a dog based on what I fed them, well... to be honest it would be one of the most hurtful, insulting things they could possibly say to me. I believe firmly that raw is absolute,y without a doubt the BEST thing you can possibly feed a pet carnivore, without the shadow of a doubt. Yes, I do. I believe that kibble is mostly junk, and the DIRECT cause of many health issues that are on the rise including diabetes and allergies. BUT... but... is it going to kill every dog that eats it? no. Is all kibble created equal? no. So, at the end of the day, if someone is giving the best they can in their situation, and loving the freaking hell out of their dogs, then that is all that matters, really. I know a couple of raw feeders, both on and off of this forum, that honestly in my mind are pretty crappy dog owners. On the flip side, I know a lot of people IN PERSON that feed their dogs really junky kibble that are wonderful pet owners. I fed kibble until just over two yeas ago and I love my pets no more or less than I did then. To say someone does not love their pets enough is INCREDIBLY close-minded and insensitive.

I support any educated decision. If you understand a dog's natural diet, but you can't do it in your own personal decision, but you do the best you can then more power to you! I DO sacrifice to feed my dogs raw. I run FIVE freezers to store their food. I give up an entire Saturday a month to prep and package their food. It takes Annie over an hour to eat every day. I pay a lot more for a pet sitter when we go out of town. I really honestly think it's worth it for me in *MY* situation but honestly, I can understand where that's not doable for some families, and I pass no judgement on it. Will I give up a Saturday with my future skin kids to do it? I don't know, we'll see. Will I always have a $700/month budget for dog food? I don't know, we'll see- I hope so. (sure would be nice if a diet high in chicken didn't give my dogs awful gas!) 

Just don't tell me you're not gonna feed it because bones are bad for dogs, or you'll catch salmonella, or because it will make your dogs blood thirsty. :smile:

Shoot, in some of these threads you'd think someone mentioned something actually controversial like waterbirth or parenting. LOL


----------



## wiliana

Im not strict about carbs, everything really depends of dog. I also think that raw is their nature but I think that...my dog most of the time doesn't think that hwell:

First year of his life he eated grain free kibbles-Canidae, TOTW and Orien as base and raw ribs and meaty bones for "dessert". When I found out Barf, we replased kibble for it. Barf was also without grains-95% meat parts+rest.
As very active dog that is not greedy and will not eat anything if he is not really hungry, he couldn't get a normal weight for his breed. Muscels were there, but he was builted as gaselle, not as a Schnauzer.

First, I tryed adding different sorts of whole grain flakes into Barf, and he eated less than before cause he he did not liked the taste.
Next experiment was like the first, but with chicken soup...better appetite but that was not that...
He wanted to eat everything and a lot if meet is coocked, but I didn't want that. Fish never, I tryed so many ways...

Then I started preparing home meels... Arround 70-80% fresh meat (all sorts), and rest were wholegrain cereals, or pasta or rice in soup and season vegetables or fruits+lineseed or other omega rich seeds, sometimes fresh cheese, eggs...
Offcourse, ribs and bones are still on the menu.
That is our winning combination. With trainings that we have and with more carbs callories, he builted his musculature very well, he is not fat or thiny, very healthy and agile, with normal apetite for his activity.
Poop is a little bit bigger than on raw or barf, which is expected, but the shape is the same.

So...what do I think about carbs in dog diet? If dog is active, if he is living outside during the winter, if he is having bad poop while eating greasy meet etc ... If carbs are proceeded well while preparing them and they are a small part of meet rich diet- carbs can be good.

Kibble is something totally different. The best kibble on the market is like a human soup from the bag. I always prefered real food, either for me, either for my dog


----------



## kathylcsw

DoglovingSenior said:


> Kathylcsw-Do you have the empirical evidence that kibble is so superior to raw feeding??? Not published by a dog food company of course. Who, what said that 12-14 years is a JRT's average life span? Kibble companies or kibble feeders???


I have had a JRT since 1998 and have read about the breed and consider myself familiar with it. This link Jack Russell Dogs and Puppies states that 13-15 years is the lifespan so I apoloogize for not being totally accurate. I don't have empirical evidence for kibble feeding nor have I ever said that it was a better way to feed. I merely pointed out to some of the more negative posters (without crying cause I am a big girl just raised to disagree in a civil, respectful manner) who said that we kibble feeders should not have dogs at all that there was no scientific evidence to prove their method of feeding is superior. I just noted the lifespan of my dog to show that you can make a case for anything. Plus lifepsan is actually an objective piece of data. 14 years is 14 years and is not subjective in any way. Nothing elusive about an actual number. To say a dog had a better quality of life on a raw diet is quiet subjective. What defines "quailty of life'? That is open to interpretation and the dog cannot tell us exactly what they think their quaility of life might be.

I have absolutely nothing against raw feeders and find them them to be some of the most infomed dog owners on the internet. I have learned so much on here from several members who state their case in respectful ways. It is not about "sugar coating" or telling the turth as you see it. To me it is about being civil and respectful. There is never any reason to be rude, hateful, or harsh when someone has a different opinion than yours. Some people are just more decent than others and probably those people tend to be listened to more and can better make a case for their position.


----------



## hmbutler

I only just clicked that JRT is jack russell terrier haha. Well why we're on the topic, my friend has a jack russell who just turned 19, and is still going. Don't know what he gets fed though :tongue:


----------



## DaViking

DoglovingSenior said:


> Boy there is a trainer & owner of working dogs that I certainly wish were on here, as he would dispute EVERYTHING that you have said. He has fed nothing but RAW since 1999. Not only to his grown dogs but to his two litters of pups. Before he collected sperm and had his dogs spayed and neutered. He even made it a part of his puppy contracts to feed raw & actually went and took one back when he discovered that the dog was not being fed that way. He has dogs that were so impressive to the Belgian and French Ring people that they purchased some of his puppies. One of the pups was the first APBT to appear on the cover of Dog World.
> 
> His dogs have been and are active in many activities-including, but not limited to personal protection, Mondio Ring, French Ring,weight pull, agility, obedience etc, etc. They also live to ripe old ages, not the 10 years of most dogs in this country!


Well, you just confirmed what you quoted. Anyways, I am officially out of this thread as said in another thread. I won't reply to any more quotes. Canadian thanksgiving weekend too, so I have tons of stuff to do before we hit the road


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

PDXdogmom said:


> You paint quite a black and white picture. First of all, I don't think many posters in this thread actually "oppose raw". At the same time, not all posters believe all carbs are bad or that if you don't feed raw to a dog "you probably shouldn't even have one." That's a rather extreme viewpoint.
> 
> As far as your point about "people big into health" not eating "sugary processed crap", that is why they may have a bowl of Kashi 7 Whole Grain Flakes instead of a bowl of Fruit Loops. Neither is a natural food source for humans, but "people big into health" see a heck of a big difference in the two products. Just like many savvy dog owners see a big difference between feeding Beneful compared to Acana or Fromm's Surf & Turf.
> 
> Have you eaten anything this week that has been cooked (other than meat) or processed in any way? If so (and I'm sure it is for all of us), then you haven't been close to eating humans "natural food source". Again, feeding and nutrition is not as black and white as you portray it.


I was merely asking these questions to find out why people believe kibble is so great when it is so simple to feed dogs a completely unprocessed diet. For ME, feeding dogs is pretty black and white. And those who feed high quality kibbles and spend all that money on their dogs' kibble vs just buying a cheap bag of Pedigree or whatever without taking the time to actually learn about the brand they are buying are doing MUCH better than those who do buy whatever for their dog because it's cheap. I don't believe that you shouldn't have a dog just because you don't feed raw. I apologize if I came across that way.

Time- By taking the time to research a kibble to find out which one is healthiest for your dog vs trusting the company and the label and buying something like Pedigree or Purina

Money-Many people buy cheap brands because their dog isn't worth the extra money to pay for a quality kibble.

Convenience- For many people, they buy whatever is convenient. We have friends here who go 30 minutes out of their way to get Orijen for their dogs because none of the local pet or feed stores carry it and they refuse to give in to convenience and just go to PetsMart (who doesn't carry it but is a few minutes from their house).

Did I add some shades of grey in there?

I will be the first to admit that I don't eat the healthiest foods out there. If I had the money to, I would. My money goes towards my dogs' food. With our income, we are considered to be below poverty level but we still manage to feed our dogs the best diet for them as possible. We go without so they can have what is best for them. We have the ability to choose what we want to eat and they don't. They have to eat what we feed them so it is our responsibility to take care of their nutritional needs.

I still say that, to me, feeding dogs is pretty black and white, but I get that it isn't for everyone. I guess my question would be: If feeding a species appropriate diet is so simple, why do we still feed processed nuggets?



kathylcsw said:


> It is this kind of hateful, arrogant, and yes holier than thou attitude that makes those of us who do not feed raw for whatever reason feel totally unwelcome here. People keep posting how raw feeders are unfairly called out for being ugly yet never comment when s^&t like this is posted. How dare you tell me or anyone that we should not have dogs. Considering all the homeless dogs and dogs that get euthanized every year I think maybe you are the one who does not care for dogs. Are the tiny minorty of raw feeders going to take in all those dogs that the rest of us worthless, useless kibble feeders shouldn't even have? Or would they be better off dead than kibble fed???? Give me a freaking break
> 
> I was so excited to find this site when I started researching on how to improve what I fed my dogs after learning that Pedigree was crap. I honestly had no idea and ths site helped me make better, healthier choices for my new puppy. I do get that raw fed is probably better but for my own reasons am not making that choice. I say raw fed is probably better because to this point not a single person has quoted any scientific studies comparing raw fed versus kibble fed for the long term Plenty of anecdotal evidence but no hard science. If it has been posted and I missed it then my apology. Are your raw fed dogs having longer life spans than kibble fed? Any raw fed dogs living beyond normal life expectancy? Any real, hard proof??
> 
> I understand that dogs and wolves are genetically very close and that is what raw fed diets are based upon. I also know that humans share 95% DNA with chimps - our closest ancestor. Chimps eat mostly fruit with about 5% of diet coming from termites and other bugs. Do you think humans would survive long following our "ancestral diet'? I cannot imagine that a diet so low in protein would add much to our health and life span. Just wanted to point out how species dietary needs may/do change as subspecies branch off.
> 
> I want to finish by suggesting that the name of the forum be changed from Dog Food Forum to Raw Fed Forum as there is little love, respect, or understanding for those of us who feed differently. I haven't been here long but I have yet to see a raw feeder being attacked for how they choose to feed their dogs. I can only imagine the uproar if they were told they probably shouldn't even have dogs at all. It is clear that there are a number of members who cannot tolerate anyone who chooses to feed kibble. It is time to find another forum that is actually welcoming to all dog owners who LOVE their pets and are trying to do right by them.


Read my response above. Again, I will apologize for the way it was worded. Most people here HAVE put in the time, money, and have inconvenienced themselves. No need to freak. I don't have a holier than thou attitude. I was merely asking questions that had occurred to me. I don't feel that people who feed high quality kibbles are bad owners. I was merely wanting to know the reasoning behind it. I have no malicious feeling towards kibble feeders who know not to feed kibbles like Pedigree and Iams and what not. I fed Pedigree for a long time before I wised up and stopped trusting the labels. I was feeding crap kibble at one point too just like many people, raw feeders and kibble feeders alike.



tem_sat said:


> This argument has been made over and over again for more than just PMR. Try substituting this:
> 
> Here's MY question... to those who oppose *Orijen* and think *Pedigree* is best... Why?
> 
> I assume you would take offense to that wording as well? Were you offended when you realized that Pedigree was "crap"?
> 
> I do agree that the original quote could be have been softened a tad, however, I feel that what Dude and Bucks Mamma was trying to point out was the element of *convenience*. If, for the sheer sake of your own *convenience*, you have not considered switching to a non-processed diet, you are in fact not feeding your dog their natural food source for a seemingly selfish reason.


Ahh!! THANK YOU! You put it much better than I did. This, my friends, is EXACTLY what I meant. If your dog becomes an inconvenience because of his required nutrition then NO! You shouldn't have a dog. My dogs, although we have to sometimes drives a couple of hours away to get their food are NEVER an inconvenience and never will be.



Scarlett_O' said:


> Well the thing is we dont have to soften EVERYTHING we say! Jess's comment is FAR nicer then how I would have put it!
> 
> God people, not everything has to be sugar coated and as if we are talking to a scared rescues!
> 
> Ya'll are adults, suck it up and realize that WE ARE FEEDING CARNIVORES...they should be fed as CARNIVORES to the best of your abilities, that means getting them THE BEST food that you can...if you arent up for that....then you shouldnt have them. If you "HAVE" to do processed then they should be eating the highest quality available to you.
> 
> I would tell the same thing to ANYONE if they weren't going to take care of ANY animal properly!(I have with fish, birds, small animals, reptiles, horses, etc)
> 
> I think that dogs have, in our society, been seen as FAR too much of a commodity and that "every person should have one" while people go out, get dogs and dont know how to take care of them properly...it makes me sick!!


I had a much harsher version of what I put all typed out then re read it and knew I would offend some people so I retyped it as "gently" as I could.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

kathylcsw said:


> I have yet to read a thread where raw feeders are bullied or called names for how they choose to feed but it happens over and over to kibble feeders. I am glad that you have the time, money, resources, extra love for you dogs that we kibble feeders lack. What does annoy me is how you keep telling me that my reasons for feeding kibble are not good enough and are selfish. To be quite honest it isn't your business why I choose not to feed raw. *You don't know me, my life, or my resources so quit judging me*. I choose to put myself and my son ahead of my dog's needs and think that reasonable (dare I say sane) people would agree that my priorities are in the right place. My dog has a great life, with all her needs met but my son will not go without for the dog period.
> 
> Kibble feeders are not abusing their dogs - no not even Pedigree feeders! Go after the people who get a dog and chain it up in the back yard never letting it come in the house or playing with it. Go after the people who think their dgs are disposable once they are no longer cute, convenient, or easy to manage. Go after the people who engage in dog fighting. Go after the people who allow their dogs to indisciminately breed and bring unwanted puppies into the world. Go after the people who run puppy mills. Go after the people who think abusing a helpless animal is fun. Just stop judging people who choose to feed differently than you do. WE LOVE OUR DOGS AS MUCH AS YOU DO!!! And again show me empirical evidence that raw feeding is so superior to kibble that we are all killing our dogs. Not anecdotal evidence but real hard, scientific data and not merely the same old because it is how wolves eat. As I said my JRT lived a healthy 14 years on Pedigree so anecdotally Pedigree is good for dogs. She had no major health issues and 12-14 years is the average life span for a JRT.


Honestly, there is no need to get so angry. I do not think that you don't love your dog. Again, our income is below poverty level. My resources are desperately lacking.

I do go after all of those people. I think all of those people are sick, twisted people. I also never said you love your dogs less than I love mine. Pedigree is not good for dogs. Sorry. I fed it too. And the average life span of a Jack? What if he had been able to live a little bit longer? I can't say for sure that raw will keep Dude alive longer since he ate Pedigree for 7 years but there is no doubt that eating unprocessed vs Pedigree is better. I would do ANYTHING to keep my boy around even just a little bit longer. 

People are the priority in this house as well and they always will be... unless they are someone who threatens my dogs but that's a whole different story 



PuppyPaws said:


> ...but to say that they do not deserve to own their pets based on the fact they feed kibble is entirely and completely out of line and I can TOTALLY see where it gives some kibble feeders the impression that some raw feeders are holier than thou. If someone told me I didn't deserve to have a dog based on what I fed them, well... to be honest it would be one of the most hurtful, insulting things they could possibly say to me.


And Linsey, as I am sure you read above, in my mind feeding raw does not determine whether or not you should be able to own a dog or not. That was my fault for using the wording I did although nowhere did I actually say "If you feed kibble you should not have a dog." What I said was that people who don't have the time and money and their dogs nutrition is an inconvenience to them should not have a dog. There are many people who have dogs just because. Why should dogs be treated like an object vs a valued member of the family? And no, I am not accusing anyone here of doing so.


----------



## kathylcsw

Tne reality is that many, maybe most(?) people feeding Pedigree DO think that they are feeding good stuff. I certainly did. I really had no clue that there was an entire world of dog feed outside the Kroger aisle! Then I had 2 dogs die within 3 weeks of each other and the pain was overwhelming. Like most grieving people I started to question what I might have done differently to increase not only their lifespan but also the quality of their lives. 

I had never even heard of the concept of raw feeding until this June. I live in a more rural part of Virgnia and had no clue! Once I did hear about it I read up on it to see what it was all about. Unfortunately I live in an area that the local supermarket is the only source for meat. No butchers, no co-ops, no ethnic groceries to get better deals. I plan on incorporating some raw into Lola's diet but the expense and the space needed to store it are just too much for me right now. Perhaps when my son is grown and gone things will change. I would like to learn more about incorporating raw with kibble but quite frankly have been afraid to even broah that subject given the way this thread has gone!

Anyway it is nice to see that this thread is taking a decided turn for the better!


----------



## xellil

Does anyone besides me see the following trend?

a) People who have fed kibble with no bad results in their dogs dont' believe that it's all that horrible

b) People like me who have seen kibble literally killing their dogs have a totally different view of it.

If I'd never had a bad experience with dry dog food, I'd still be happily feeding it. And probaby thinking "oh those nutcase raw feeders - they are just extremists." Like some of you do.

What I did when my dogs were having problems was change food and add supplements and various other foods to the point that I was making things alot worse, not better.

Many of us are here because of severe, extreme physical problems that we directly attribute to dry dog food BECAUSE when we switched, we don't have those problems any more.

But if your dog does ok on it, maybe you don't see what the big deal is about raw food. I would conjecture that when/if you start having chronic problems with your dog's health, the perception might change somewhat.


----------



## xellil

kathylcsw said:


> I had never even heard of the concept of raw feeding until this June.


Me too - and i don't live in a rural area. I only found this site out of desperation. It's really easy to dump dry food in a bowl and call it good as long as nothing bad seems to be happening.

My condolences on the death of your pets. That is very hard.

One thing I have read (and I'm sure there are no scientific studies) is that raw-fed dogs may not live longer, but their end-of-life period is short, and they have a better chance of not having long drawn-out deaths. I am hoping for that for my dogs.


----------



## 7766

Hi Hi everyone, this is my first post. I have been reading/lurking for a few moths now, trying to learn all I can. Specially I spent the last 2 hours reading this thread and stopped on about page 19 because at some point I needed to actually work. But, I wanted to give my two cents as a true outsider on this forum who is here to learn about the best kibble/raw food for her dogs. I also apologize in advance for the length of this post. 

First off, I have mutts and I love them like they were purebreds. Growing up I had the runt of the litter of champion blood line Samoyeds. (This will be addressed again later.) My male dog is a 4 yr Catahula mix, I would like to think his is a purebred because I can’t really tell what he is mixed with, but since he was found on a relatives farm four years ago I can’t say that. My female dog is a true mutt. She has the head of a beagle, body of a small cattle dog, coloring and eyes of a corgi. (I have always wanted to do a DNA test because I swear I se a new breed trait in her all the time). She is approximately 5 years old. In the beginning I fed Puppy Chow, and then switched to Pedigree (thinking I was being good at the time). The lived on an acre of land and played like crazy. Then we had a life issue and moved into a one bedroom apt. They got walked once a week if lucky and no real chance to run and play. In an act of desperation I bought a treadmill to at least increase all of our exercise levels.

In March I moved into a house that also has an acre of land. Within about 2 months my female dog starting limping, at first I thought she just over extending a muscle, but then it didn’t get better and she stopped doing a lot of the jumping up and down she used to do. After a pretty decent vet bill, I was told she had mild hip dysplasia and to give her a daily supplement of Glucosimien/Chondriotin and use a dog food with higher concentration of it. So I set off to Petsmart to find a better food. A Nutro rep just happened to be there. So I decided to go with the Nutro Natural Choice Lamb and Rice. They were on that for about a month until I read the article on how the synthetic vitamin K was bad. So that is when I found my self here and on several other dog food rating websites. I chose Orijen, only because it had the highest Glucosime/Chondroitin levels of all the Grain Free brands. I do not love the price, but I am making it work. They have been on it since mid August. Honestly I haven’t noticed much of a change at all. Aside from better stool. I have a foster dog that is on Beneful and he has more energy than mine do. I did try transitioning him and it did not go well at all. The poor dog threw up after every feeding even with just a handful of the kibble mixed in. 

I came on here today to look for a less expensive kibble that is just as good as Orijen, then I found this thread. I have to admit, after reading some of the comments it almost felt like my questions didn’t matter because the only answer I was going to get was feed raw. You can call me a bad pet owner all you want, but a raw diet at this moment in my life is not an option. I read a comment that an owner went without eating so their dogs could eat raw. While I think it is admirable, if I went without eating I would go into diabetic shock and end up in the hospital unable to work, which leave me unable to pay my mortgage and my dogs and I would end up homeless and what I fed them wouldn’t really matter.

What I have noticed is my female’s neck has gotten bigger; I have had to loosen her collar a notch. This has worried me slightly and will be addressing it with the vet next month at their annual visit. Which is about all they go, aside from the limp issue I have never had a health issue with either of them in the 3 plus years I have had them. Oh, I have also cut back on the amount of food, because I have done the research and know they don’t need as much. As for her limping, it seems she has good days and bad days. Since she has been on the Orijen I have used two different supplement brands Nutri Vet and 21st Century. The amounts of the supplements are identical but she seems to respond much better on 21st Century. Which is back to why I was her today, to look for a kibble with a lower level of Glucosamine and stay with the 21st Century. 

Finally, I know it was touched upon in the thread and it was about where I got tired of reading (sorry just was a lot for one sitting). The Samoyed I had growing up was free fed with a nothing special grocery store bough kibble and lived to be 15. Also I grew up on fish stick and mac and cheese from a box, spaghetti sauce out of a jar and numerous amounts of other processed foods. I survived, and have no major health issues. If it wasn’t for a George Forman grill ad frozen veggies I wouldn’t eat remotely healthy. My dogs on Orijen eat WAY better than I do. 

So to sum up, I would love recommendations on good kibble and I am also open to listening to how raw diets actually work, but and not open to implementing one at this time. 

Thanks


----------



## xellil

good luck. hope you find the dry dog food that makes your dogs feel good.


----------



## PDXdogmom

To nlboz post #271: I commend you for trying to do the best you can for your dogs even under difficult circumstances.

I would not choose a kibble by its level of glucosamine - better to give that as a supplement as you are doing.

Yes, you certainly can feed your dog responsibly without the high cost of Orijen. If you want to keep feeding grain-free, then you might want to take a look at:

Acana - same company as Orijen but a little less expensive and with slightly lower protein
Taste of the Wild - one of the more reasonably priced grain frees
By Nature


----------



## DaneMama

nlboz said:


> Hi Hi everyone, this is my first post. I have been reading/lurking for a few moths now, trying to learn all I can. Specially I spent the last 2 hours reading this thread and stopped on about page 19 because at some point I needed to actually work. But, I wanted to give my two cents as a true outsider on this forum who is here to learn about the best kibble/raw food for her dogs. I also apologize in advance for the length of this post.
> 
> *****
> 
> Thanks


First off, hello and welcome to the forum! I'm glad you've joined up and are looking for better options. 

The only time people are going to push raw feeding on you is in the actual raw forum. Yes, it may be mentioned now and then in the kibble section as well as this one, but don't take it as the "only way" here. Its not in the slightest bit. I was in your shoes when I first got my dogs, not in a position to even consider feeding raw. I did do my homework, found a good kibble and stuck with it. Do your best and forget the rest (the words of Tony Horton LOL)!!!

I sure do hope you stick around, we need a good community of kibble feeders since this forum is mostly raw feeders. Happy posting!


----------

