# Lonsdale quote



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

When talking about feeding a raw meaty bone diet, Ton Lonsdale also mentions feeding table scrapes to your dog. Here is a direct quote from him concerning the feeding of table scrapes:

"_Wild carnivores eat small amounts of omnivore food, part-digested in liquid form, when they eat the intestines of their prey. Our table scrapes, and some fruit and vegetable peelings, are omnivore food which has not been ingested. Providing scrapes do not form too great a proportion of the diet they appear to do no harm and may do some good. I advise an upper limit of one-third scrapes for dogs and rather less for cats. Liquidising scrapes, both cooked and raw, in the kitchen mixer may help to increase their digestibility."_


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Is it just me or is anyone else sad that the Honest Kitchen thread was closed down? 

I, personally, give my dogs a PMR diet. HOWEVER, I also give them frozen mixed berries because I feel that they might nibble on some in the wild. I have thought and wondered many times if veggies and fruit would benefit my dogs. I still do from time to time. I've come to terms with this, and have discovered that offering my dogs some berries once every few days just makes me feel better. 

I just wanted to throw my thoughts out there because I was too busy yesterday to add to the other thread. :biggrin:


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

I moved the thread because its a continuance of the Honest Kitchen debate about what Lonsdale has said. Debating is fine, BUT please keep it civil. Once any of the moderators see this getting negatively heated, it will be closed.

Doc: Thank you for the exact quote. But I think you may have solidified what RFD was saying even more. In that quote, Lonsdale states that it MAY do some good, and that it is NOT harmful. No one where does he say that it is good for the dog and that he recommends it. To me, it sounds like more like he is saying "if you must, you can."


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

BabyHusky said:


> I moved the thread because its a continuance of the Honest Kitchen debate about what Lonsdale has said. Debating is fine, BUT please keep it civil. Once any of the moderators see this getting negatively heated, it will be closed.
> 
> Doc: Thank you for the exact quote. But I think you may have solidified what RFD was saying even more. In that quote, Lonsdale states that it MAY do some good, and that it is NOT harmful. No one where does he say that it is good for the dog and that he recommends it. To me, it sounds like more like he is saying "if you must, you can."


From Tom Lonsdale:

_I *advise *an upper limit of one-third scrapes for dogs and rather less for cats. Liquidising scrapes, both cooked and raw, in the kitchen mixer may help to increase their digestibility."_

He may not "recommend" it but he does "advise" it. I guess it is open to one's interpretation what he means.

If you have read Raw Meaty Bones, Lonsdale main thrust has to do with canine tooth decay leading to an AIDS like conditions in dogs due to the toxic substances caused by tooth decay and gum disease and a dog's ability to fight off infection and diseases (perhaps another need for a good vitamin program - i.e. Mega C or the like). I found the book dwelling into the dental aspects of dogs and cats more than a book addressing the strengths of a raw fed diet. There is no doubt that raw meaty bones positively impacts the tooth and gum health of dogs which reduces diseases that are caused by such. But in my opinion, this is Lonsdale main emphasis in his book. I agree with the concept of raw meaty bones, but I haven't seen any scientific data that shows that a dog is overall healthier i.e. blood serium levels, lower incidences of cancer, SIBO, EPI, pancreas defficiency etc. when fed a 100% raw meaty bone, organs and meat diet. 

One major argument proponents tout is that a Prey Model Raw diet has all that is needed as far as nutrients for a dog. Although I have never seen any research or data that reports this, I submit that although the prey model may contain the necessary elements and nutrients, it may not be in a usable forum. No one has shown me any information that states that raw meat, bones and organs (1) has all the needed elements to sustain health and growth, and (2) if it does, how much of it is in the available form. Don't dogs pass bone fragments in their stools? Did the dog obtain the needed material from the bone before it was passed? It obviously wasn't broken down into a liquid form so how available was it?

In my opinion, the prey model is great for what is does. The great unknown is what it doesn't do.


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

Yes I suppose it is how we interpret the quote. I read that he was advising to give at most a 1/3 of scraps and less for cats. He then goes to say to use a kitchen mixer to make digesting easier. If it was something meant for them to eat, they would have no problem digesting it no?

Once again, I'm just saying what I got from the quote. I feed kibble so no way am I a "meat and only meat" activist. :biggrin:

edit: Your post got longer Doc! haha.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

BabyHusky said:


> Yes I suppose it is how we interpret the quote. I read that he was advising to give at most a 1/3 of scraps and less for cats. He then goes to say to use a kitchen mixer to make digesting easier. If it was something meant for them to eat, they would have no problem digesting it no?
> 
> Once again, I'm just saying what I got from the quote. I feed kibble so no way am I a "meat and only meat" activist. :biggrin:
> 
> edit: Your post got longer Doc! haha.


I do not understand his reference to a mixer either. Cusick's research and diets include vegetables that are lighty cooked on the stove and mixed with meat. I'm not sure he talks about preping the vegetables in a mixer but I could be wrong.


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

BabyHusky said:


> I moved the thread because its a continuance of the Honest Kitchen debate about what Lonsdale has said. Debating is fine, BUT please keep it civil. Once any of the moderators see this getting negatively heated, it will be closed.


Sweet. Thanks. :biggrin:


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Doc said:


> From Tom Lonsdale:
> 
> _I *advise *an upper limit of one-third scrapes for dogs and rather less for cats. Liquidising scrapes, both cooked and raw, in the kitchen mixer may help to increase their digestibility."_
> 
> He may not "recommend" it but he does "advise" it. I guess it is open to one's interpretation what he means.


I interpreted this as saying this: "*if* you give table scraps, I'd advise not giving more than 1/3 of their calories in table scraps." I didn't really see any indication that he recommended *any* for a dog, but if you want to give them, keep them to less than 1/3 of their diet and they'll probably be okay. 

I read this similarly to a suggestion that eating a Big Mac once in a while probably won't harm us if we're good about the majority of our diet and this isn't our "typical" eating habit. That doesn't mean it's good or healthy for us to eat them *ever*, but it's really just a call to moderation in less than ideal foods.

As for his indicating that a little in table scraps *may *help, I'd suggest that depends on what the scraps are and what the regular food is. If you are feeding crap kibble where most of the calories come from corn and wheat, meaty table scraps may very well be better for the dog than if 100% of the calories come from the crappy grain-loaded kibble. On the other hand, if you feed PMR or high-quality grain-free kibble, I doubt feeding a little bit of your pasta dinner would help at all. Again, *small* amounts probably aren't harmful, but not beneficial, either.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> From Tom Lonsdale:
> 
> _I *advise *an upper limit of one-third scrapes for dogs and rather less for cats. Liquidising scrapes, both cooked and raw, in the kitchen mixer may help to increase their digestibility."_
> 
> He may not "recommend" it but he does "advise" it. I guess it is open to one's interpretation what he means.


Tom wrote that book before I knew him. I know he is the one that convinced me that I could stop feeding any plant material whatsoever. That the dogs have no nutritional need for anything that doesn't come from the body of an anima.



> If you have read Raw Meaty Bones, Lonsdale main thrust has to do with canine tooth decay leading to an AIDS like conditions in dogs due to the toxic substances caused by tooth decay and gum disease and a dog's ability to fight off infection and diseases (perhaps another need for a good vitamin program - i.e. Mega C or the like).


In my mind, the main thrust of Raw Meaty Bones is to explain WHY someone should feed their dogs an RMB diet. There is very little about how to. I told him so after I read it and thats when he wrote Work Wonders. That is more of a "how to" book than a "why" book.

You mention further down in this post about wanting to see studies. Why don't you ask for studies as to what benefit, if any, there is to a dog when giving him Vitamin C. The advice I've seen from some people is that if you give megadoses of Vit C, you must do many doses throughout the day because they eliminate the excess so fast.



> I found the book dwelling into the dental aspects of dogs and cats more than a book addressing the strengths of a raw fed diet.


Thats because Tom's profession is a vet dentist.





> I agree with the concept of raw meaty bones, but I haven't seen any scientific data that shows that a dog is overall healthier i.e. blood serium levels, lower incidences of cancer, SIBO, EPI, pancreas defficiency etc. when fed a 100% raw meaty bone, organs and meat diet.


And you never will. Who would pay for such research? Certainly not dog food companies. There is really no one who has any great benefit if you switch dogs to a raw diet. I don't think you will find any scientific data on how much a dog's health is improved by giving megadoses of Vit C. 



> One major argument proponents tout is that a Prey Model Raw diet has all that is needed as far as nutrients for a dog. Although I have never seen any research or data that reports this, I submit that although the prey model may contain the necessary elements and nutrients, it may not be in a usable forum.


Actually we are doing the research now. What does a researcher do? He does something and observes the results. I have fed my dogs a PMR diet for 8 years. Not one single plant item have I fed my dogs or cats in that time. I know people who have gone 30 years without feeding plant material. My dogs are healthy and so are theirs. I have no doubt that PMR contains ALL the necessary ingredients for dogs to live a long healthy life. That has been proven by the fact that dogs/wolves have eaten this diet for a million years.

No one has shown me any information that states that raw meat, bones and organs (1) has all the needed elements to sustain health and growth, and (2) if it does, how much of it is in the available form.[/quote]

Since dogs/wolves have eaten a PMR diet for a million years and kibble has been around for maybe 50 years and only popular for maybe 30, kibble is the FAD diet, not PMR. Why don't you ask the same question of the kibble manufacturers? No one seems to need them to prove anything. All the proof is left up to the PMR feeders to provide. We have a million years to back us up, kibble has 30. Let them provide proof. They don't. All the research they have done is to show that 6 of 8 dogs can live 6 months on a kibble diet. Thats the sum total of their research.



> Don't dogs pass bone fragments in their stools?


Occasionally. More so in newly switched dogs until they learn to produce the necessary enzymes to digest bone. I rarely see any bone fragments anymore. It's no big deal. They pass without problem.



> Did the dog obtain the needed material from the bone before it was passed?


If they didn't, we'd have a bunch of dogs with calcium deficiency and we don't.



> It obviously wasn't broken down into a liquid form so how available was it?


We feed our dogs much more bone that is needed. I'm surprised that we don't see more bone fragments.



> In my opinion, the prey model is great for what is does. The great unknown is what it doesn't do.


I hope I cleared some of that up. If there was something it didn't do, wolves would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. Nature got it right. We still have wolves and dogs.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

The studies on Mega dose Vitamin C has been done - in this country and in Finland. I'm not making it up.

And here is what Lonsdale says about wild carnivores eating:

"*Wild carnivores eat small amounts of omnivore food, part-digested in liquid form, when they eat the intestines of their prey.* Our table scrapes, and some fruit and vegetable peelings, are omnivore food which has not been ingested.

Are you reading what you want to read or are you reading everything Lonsdale wrote? LOL

I feed a 90% raw meaty bone diet. I add up to 1/3 meat.vegs/fruits in a rehydrated form (not really soup but rather thick and moist). FYI, dehydration is a way to _preserve_ food not process it.

And why do dogs eat grass? Or the poop of a kibble fed dog? hehehehe

So you will take a dentists advice about how to feed your dog? I understand the advantages of RMB on dentistry, Lonsdale is spot on but is he a nutritionist? hehehe

I also specified a particular form of Vitamin C - one that does not pass through their system because it is in a form that is better utilized within the body. 

What is the average life span of a wolf?

So many questions and parts to the puzzle ...


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet. In the wild wolves encounter countless threats that limit their average lifespan. Hunters, famine, other predators, injury, disease, etc all play a factor in determining the average age of wolves in the wild. Guaranteed a wolf in captivity will live longer, much longer than its wild counterpart. Even a wolf in captivity fed crap kibble will probably survive longer than its wild counterpart. 

So with that in mind, if a wild wolf was living in captivity (in your home because the domestic dog is only 0.02% genetically different than wild wolves) what would you feed it? What would seem natural to feed it? That is why PMR diet is ideal. 

Whether you add veggies/fruits in or not, your dog is still getting their ideal diet. Because lets face it...the miniscule amount of nutrition added into a PMR diet by the fruits/veggies doesn't really make a difference in the long run. As someone on here has said many times before...let's not sweat the small stuff since we are all here for the benefit of our dogs.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet. In the wild wolves encounter countless threats that limit their average lifespan. Hunters, famine, other predators, injury, disease, etc all play a factor in determining the average age of wolves in the wild. Guaranteed a wolf in captivity will live longer, much longer than its wild counterpart. Even a wolf in captivity fed crap kibble will probably survive longer than its wild counterpart.
> 
> So with that in mind, if a wild wolf was living in captivity (in your home because the domestic dog is only 0.02% genetically different than wild wolves) what would you feed it? What would seem natural to feed it? That is why PMR diet is ideal.
> 
> Whether you add veggies/fruits in or not, your dog is still getting their ideal diet. Because lets face it...the miniscule amount of nutrition added into a PMR diet by the fruits/veggies doesn't really make a difference in the long run. As someone on here has said many times before...let's not sweat the small stuff since we are all here for the benefit of our dogs.


What ever. Do you have any pertinent information to add to this discussion or are you trying to expose what little you understand about nutrition?

And since there is only 0.02% genetic difference in wolves and domesticated dogs, perhaps the average lifespan of a dog is not indicative of a healthy diet. 

It sounds as if you are saying that there is no correlation between lifespan and diet. And if that is the case, why debate what to feed a dog?


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Doc said:


> What ever. Do you have any pertinent information to add to this discussion or are you trying to expose what little you understand about nutrition?


More vinegar.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> The studies on Mega dose Vitamin C has been done - in this country and in Finland. I'm not making it up.


Were the studies on humans or dogs? If dogs, I'd be interested in them.



> And here is what Lonsdale says about wild carnivores eating:
> 
> "*Wild carnivores eat small amounts of omnivore food, part-digested in liquid form, when they eat the intestines of their prey.* Our table scrapes, and some fruit and vegetable peelings, are omnivore food which has not been ingested.
> 
> Are you reading what you want to read or are you reading everything Lonsdale wrote? LOL


I'm not reading anything. I'm telling what he told me in person. Again, he is the sole person who convinced me that fruits/veggies were unnecessary. I fed veggie slop once a week until I met Tom and never fed it again.



> I feed a 90% raw meaty bone diet. I add up to 1/3 meat.vegs/fruits in a rehydrated form (not really soup but rather thick and moist). FYI, dehydration is a way to _preserve_ food not process it.


6 of one and half dozen of the other.



> And why do dogs eat grass?


I don't know and don't think anyone does. When they do, they either pretty quickly throw it back up mixed with some yellow bile or they will poop it out the back end twisted into a neat little rope. Wonder how they do that? Either way, it comes out looking just like it did when it went in so no nutrition was extracted. 



> Or the poop of a kibble fed dog?


Sugar



> So you will take a dentists advice about how to feed your dog?


Yep :smile:



> I understand the advantages of RMB on dentistry, Lonsdale is spot on but is he a nutritionist?


He knows more about canine nutrition than 95% of the vets out there. Heck, I know more about canine nutrition than 95% of the vets out there. :smile:



> I also specified a particular form of Vitamin C - one that does not pass through their system because it is in a form that is better utilized within the body.


I'm still not convinced that its needed or utilized at all. 



> What is the average life span of a wolf?


As Natalie said, its just not relevent to this discussion. I doubt there have been many wolves that have lived out a natural life because of all the hazzards of living in the wild.

You didn't answer my question from my previous post. Why don't you ask the kibble companies for research proving their product supplies all the nutrients necessary for a dog to live a long healthy life? They are the new kids on the block. They haven't proved one thing about the nutritional value of their product. Why should I have to and they don't?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> What ever. Do you have any pertinent information to add to this discussion or are you trying to expose what little you understand about nutrition?
> 
> And since there is only 0.02% genetic difference in wolves and domesticated dogs, perhaps the average lifespan of a dog is not indicative of a healthy diet.
> 
> It sounds as if you are saying that there is no correlation between lifespan and diet. And if that is the case, why debate what to feed a dog?


Go back and read my post. Maybe read it twice since it's obvious you didn't comprehend what I was saying the first time I posted. Then read it one more time just to be safe. 

I was comparing the lifespan of a wild wolf to one in captivity. The fact that not only diet comes into play when you are talking about overall health and longevity are directly associated with one another.

Where in my post did I say that diet and health and lifespan are not associated??? 

I would like to tell you now to keep your posts respectful. I do not find your lack of tact in responding to me in any way respectful.


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

Doc, as Natalie stated, your post was very disrespectful. Debating is one thing, but insulting is another. No one here knows EVERYTHING about dogs and wolves. Everyone is merely stating what they have learned from others and their own experiences. There is no need to insult anyone. Please do not make the moderators have to lock this thread also.

There is a lot of good information being passed back and forth and I am sure many people are learning from it. Please don't ruin that.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

BabyHusky said:


> Doc, as Natalie stated, your post was very disrespectful. Debating is one thing, but insulting is another. No one here knows EVERYTHING about dogs and wolves. Everyone is merely stating what they have learned from others and their own experiences. There is no need to insult anyone. Please do not make the moderators have to lock this thread also.
> 
> There is a lot of good information being passed back and forth and I am sure many people are learning from it. Please don't ruin that.


So my information is good? You could of fooled me by all the anti Doc information responses.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Here's your quote

The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet.

I think we speak a different language.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

> And why do dogs eat grass? Or the poop of a kibble fed dog?


Why do dogs eat CD cases? And hair brushes? And hair ties? And pens? And walls? And dirt? *shrugs* Must be healthy for them, just because they eat them. I think I'll give them a nice helping of wooden shelves tonight.



Doc said:


> What ever. Do you have any pertinent information to add to this discussion or are you trying to expose what little you understand about nutrition?


Really? "What ever"? You know how immature that sounds? You sit here and try to talk down to people, and tell them that you are more informed, that you are more mature and older and knowledgeable, and yet you use words like "what ever"?



Doc said:


> It sounds as if you are saying that there is no correlation between lifespan and diet. And if that is the case, why debate what to feed a dog?


There is, but in the wild, this is not determined by the sheer fact that they eat deer or berries. In cavemen times, the average lifespan of a human being was thirty years. With modern advancements in technology and health care, the average lifespan is now up to the eighties and nineties.

Also, look at all the people in real life that live on junk food and greasy cheeseburgers from McDonald's and smoke and drink their whole lives. Not all of them die young. Many of them also live into their nineties. Does eating unhealthy food, drinking, smoking, and all that jazz guarantee that you're going to live until you're ninety? Do you think you would have a better chance if you did?

I, personally, am a firm believer that dogs do not _need_ fruits or veggies in their diets. Do they enjoy them? Just as much as we enjoy our ice cream, I'm sure.



RawFedDogs said:


> I don't know and don't think anyone does. When they do, they either pretty quickly throw it back up mixed with some yellow bile or they will poop it out the back end twisted into a neat little rope. Wonder how they do that? Either way, it comes out looking just like it did when it went in so no nutrition was extracted.


I can attest to that. Amaya LOVES to eat grass. I see it in her poop all the time, completely green and all. Sometimes, when she eats dried out long grasses, they cause the poops to separate, but still be connected, and she has a hard time pooping them out and ends up screaming her pretty little head off while trying to get it all out.

This, alone, is enough to assure me that they are completely undigestible for her, and that I'd prefer they not enter her system as a part of her diet, unless they're entering her system against my will or by way of treats.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Doc said:


> The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet.
> 
> I think we speak a different language.


How so? The average wolf in the wild's life expectancy is cut down early by disease, by injuries sustained in a hunt, by injured animals being targeted as prey, by many environmental factors not relevant to a wolf in captivity, let alone a dog. 

In other words, a wolf in the wild (where most of them are) is less likely to die of "old age" or "natural causes" than a dog or a wolf in captivity -- and many of them die for these other "natural hazard" reasons before diet becomes a factor in longevity. So one can't look at the fact that a wolf may live 6-8 years on average in the wild and 12-15 years in captivity as indicative of diet. There are too many other variables and dangers that are removed in captivity. Plus, I doubt that wolves in captivity eat too many grains and vegetables anyway.

I understand you probably feel like folks here are "piling on," but it seems to me you're grasping at straws here. I had no trouble parsing this and I'm not a PMR feeder.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

RFD, the Vitamin C studies2were done on dogs. Since you folks so much about wolves, I think you should all get adopt wolves.

The "what ever" phrase is something I recently learned from a class full of 20 years old. I knew most of you all would respond to that.

There is another saying I learned from my younger generation and that is "you can't fix stupid"; I'm not sure what they meant but I think I have an idea ...


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I really think that this group of PMR feeders have become a "closed minded bunch" I hope you are happy with your self righteous selves!


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> I really think that this group of PMR feeders have become a "closed minded bunch" I hope you are happy with your self righteous selves!


I joined here in January and posted a few times, and that was my (almost) immediate takeaway. I said as much early on and got into a bit of a debate over it, and I stopped posting and lurked for a while. But the longer I lurked, the more I realized it wasn't so much about "self-righteousness" as it was about feeling strongly and passionately about what was right for dogs.

In reality, only a small number of "PMR feeders" are hard core enough to suggest that anything other than PMR is doing a serious disservice to your dog (and thus make you feel like a bad dog owner). I would agree that the coming-on-strong can feel like "piling on" but I don't think the intent is to come across as smug and superior in most cases. 

Having said that, I hope those who are passionate about the PMR feeding model take it to heart. I know it felt a bit intimidating and unwelcoming to me at first when it felt like raw was so strongly pushed. I've been enough of a message board and old Usenet veteran to know to back off and lurk for a while to really learn the culture, and consider the intent behind the statements. A lot of folks aren't. I've been at these online communities for over 20 years and I still felt it coming in as a newbie despite my experience.

But I don't think anyone is intending to make someone feel like a "bad owner" if they don't feed raw. Some strongly want to encourage it, yes, but I don't think the intent is to disparage anyone unless they proudly and defiantly feed the dog the crappiest of the crap. And those folks would simply be trolls and not someone sincere about wanting to learn how to provide better nutrition for their four-legged buddies.

(I promise I won't ask everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. It only looks that way, ha!)


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> RFD, the Vitamin C studies2were done on dogs. Since you folks so much about wolves, I think you should all get adopt wolves.


Why don't you point us to these studies?

Natalie and Jon have a wolfdog. All our dogs are actually wolves. :smile:


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

Doc said:


> Here's your quote
> 
> The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet.
> 
> I think we speak a different language.


Ah, how convenient it is to selectively quote someone to skew the meaning to your benefit.

Here's the full quote you seemed to overlook



> The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet. In the wild wolves encounter countless threats that limit their average lifespan. Hunters, famine, other predators, injury, disease, etc all play a factor in determining the average age of wolves in the wild. Guaranteed a wolf in captivity will live longer, much longer than its wild counterpart. Even a wolf in captivity fed crap kibble will probably survive longer than its wild counterpart.


The average lifespan of a wolf in the WILD has no bearing on this discussion. If you'd like to research and find out the average lifespan of a wolf in captivity however it would certainly contribute to one side or another of this petty arguement.



Doc said:


> we speak a different language.


Yes, you obviously do. Most of us here actually read what's being said instead of selectively reading to serve our agenda :wink:




Doc said:


> Since you folks so much about wolves, I think you should all get adopt wolves.


I'm on my 3rd generation of "wolfdog" having 50% or higher wolf content (highest was pure wolf). What would you like to know???


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

whiteleo said:


> I really think that this group of PMR feeders have become a "closed minded bunch" I hope you are happy with your self righteous selves!


Thanks! Appreciate the support there :wink: 

Guess I'm lost as to where this comment is even coming from. Just because most of us don't agree with your miracle green tripe you're going to lash out at the PMR group as a whole?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Here's your quote
> 
> The average lifespan of a wolf is not indicative of a healthy diet.
> 
> I think we speak a different language.


So, you just pick out *one* sentence out of a whole paragraph that later goes into discussion of why this statement can make sense. If I would have added just one word to this sentence it would have made better sense, sorry for that, but I figure since I go into further detail later on....it wouldn't be a big deal. But thanks for dissecting my posts and reading out of context. 



whiteleo said:


> I really think that this group of PMR feeders have become a "closed minded bunch" I hope you are happy with your self righteous selves!


Wow. If you don't like it here don't post up. There are plenty of other forums out there that may better suit your needs. But posting up and insulting a lot of the core members on this forum is just childish and lame. Grow up. You are more than welcome to stay but you had better knock off the rude comments and stay respectful. Nuff said 



Doc said:


> RFD, the Vitamin C studies2were done on dogs. Since you folks so much about wolves, I think you should all get adopt wolves.
> 
> The "what ever" phrase is something I recently learned from a class full of 20 years old.  I knew most of you all would respond to that.
> 
> There is another saying I learned from my younger generation and that is "you can't fix stupid"; I'm not sure what they meant but I think I have an idea ...


Um....I am done responding to you. Its obviously a waste of time and effort on my part. Not only do you fail miserably at bringing a valid and intelligent debate to the boards...you are just plain rude. Plus, you are no longer making *any* sense.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't believe I pointed any fingers at any given member of this forum, I've been here for a long long time even before Gorgi was feeding a PMR diet and I'm really tired of a few pushing the PMR diet. 

As you all know I feed a PMR diet but I'm "open minded" enough to think that there just might be something to why dogs seem to want to eat more grass when they start a PMR diet, obviuosly you guys have never asked yourselves that question or you'd be open to the fact that maybe they do need some type of other enzymes in their system.
But, you are the know alls of know alls and there is no if ands or buts to it that dogs need nothing more than meat, bones and organs.

Why would I need to go to another forum, you don't like the fact that someone has a different theory than your holier than almighty PMR diet, only the raw feeders who believe in PMR diets can be here?

I just really have a problem with as many people that I've seen come and go really quickly from this forum, they feel pretty intimidated by some of the moderaters who like to push a PMR diet, so don't look at me to leave this forum because I've not done anything wrong and I haven't even been disrespectful to one forum member.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Really? Wow...

This conversation started out as a DEBATE about whether we believe vegetables or fruits should be included in a dog's diet. From all that I have read, ALL of the strictly PMR feeders have read everything and responded a in respectful manner their opinions and the things that they have personally researched.

Doc, all you are doing is trying to discredit everyone by opinion, providing no facts for your own statements, and being rude on top of that.

And somehow we have become the "self-righteous, closed-minded bunch?" Yet...Doc won't even READ our replies? And Whiteleo, by supporting Doc, and saying such things, doesn't that make you the "self-righteous, closed-minded" person? If you had read what we had wrote, you would have seen that we were at least TRYING to keep things civil, and that we were at least TRYING to point out our own knowledge of certain subjects and quotes from actual scientists, and all that jazz, yet you and Doc are the ones putting us down for it.

So, really? How old are we now?

I'm just going to go feed my dogs their wooden shelves now.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

whiteleo said:


> I've not done anything wrong and I haven't even been disrespectful to one forum member.


No, you've only been disrespectful to every PMR feeder on here with your recent blanket statements. It seems you're only siding with "DOC" because he's going against the PMR group (even if it's with unfounded statements)

I've asked you time and again what you feel the benefits of feeding green tripe are. You've failed over and over to explain these to me.

If feeding green tripe stops my dogs from eating grass... well, I'd say that's a waste of hard earned $$ for me. I could care less if they eat grass from time to time. I'd rather spend my $1-2/lb on good game meat that they wouldn't be able to eat otherwise.

We don't "push" the PMR diet. We support it wholeheartedly because nobody has been able to bring any valid argument to light as to why we should feed anything else. We've VERY open to any discussion that might benefit our dogs. Not sure why you feel otherwise. 

Why should you go somewhere else? If you're frustrated to the point you're calling the core group of the forum "close minded" and "self righteous" maybe this just isn't the right place for you. 

I'm not saying that we don't want you here. My point is if you're taking our discussions as insulting then maybe you're just not cut from the right cloth to hang out here....


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

ziggy29 said:


> I joined here in January and posted a few times, and that was my (almost) immediate takeaway. I said as much early on and got into a bit of a debate over it, and I stopped posting and lurked for a while. But the longer I lurked, the more I realized it wasn't so much about "self-righteousness" as it was about feeling strongly and passionately about what was right for dogs.
> 
> In reality, only a small number of "PMR feeders" are hard core enough to suggest that anything other than PMR is doing a serious disservice to your dog (and thus make you feel like a bad dog owner). I would agree that the coming-on-strong can feel like "piling on" but I don't think the intent is to come across as smug and superior in most cases.
> 
> ...


I whole-heartedly agree with this. When I first joined this forum, I noticed a lot of strong opinions, but OPINIONS they were. I never felt pressured or bullied at all. This is a small forum with a lot of very strong minded people. We all have our own beliefs and thoughts, and they should be respected. Also, this is a forum...things are SUPPOSED to be debated here. However debating can be quite difficult in a world of very little fact and a whole bunch of opinion. This is how we come to where we are. Insults are never necessary though. They just make it come across as though there is nothing constructive to be said, and that you are just trying to one-up the next person. 

I, personally, like this thread. I want to hear what people think about veggies vs. no veggies. And if DOC would be so kind as to contribute, I would like to see more information about this test done on dogs with vitamin C as well. :biggrin:


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

So grnen tripe is useless for dogs? Here I am noticing an improvement in my dog's coat and skin, and his teeth are slightly cleaner/more white than before.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

PUNKem733 said:


> So grnen tripe is useless for dogs? Here I am noticing an improvement in my dog's coat and skin, and his teeth are slightly cleaner/more white than before.


Nobody ever said that... 

We've been asking whiteleo for months what she finds to be beneficial about feeding it.

Your dogs teeth are cleaner than before feeding tripe? What were you feeding prior to tripe?

Improvement in coat & skin? What were you feeding before you saw the improvements? 

What other changes have been made to the diet?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

whiteleo said:


> As you all know I feed a PMR diet but I'm "open minded" enough to think that there just might be something to why dogs seem to want to eat more grass when they start a PMR diet, obviuosly you guys have never asked yourselves that question or you'd be open to the fact that maybe they do need some type of other enzymes in their system.


There is a big difference between open minded and gullible. I have studied green tripe for many years. I have tried to find some reason to find it. Dogs/wolves don't eat it in the wild. Any enzymes in it would be enzymes to digest grass which is pretty useless to our dogs. In my 9 years of research, I have never run across a statement from a knowledgable person that says, "you should feed tripe because it contains ....... which is not contained in the meat, bones or other organs." Believe me, I have looked at any reason I can find to feed it and have come up empty handed.

Now, if you look on the web pages of places that sell it, they can give you a zillion reasons to feed it. They will give you all kinds of healing properties and reasons your dog will not be healthy if you don't feed it. But they are selling it. It's marketing. Believing anything someone is telling you about a product they are trying to sell is just plane gullible. You always need to find other sources of information.

I have never said it's harmful to feed it. It's not. It's a body part like any other body part. It's no more or less useful than any other body part. If you want to feed it, you are not harming your dogs in the least. I have just never seen any credible evidence you are helping them any more than feeding any other body part.



> I just really have a problem with as many people that I've seen come and go really quickly from this forum, they feel pretty intimidated by some of the moderaters who like to push a PMR diet, so don't look at me to leave this forum because I've not done anything wrong and I haven't even been disrespectful to one forum member.


No one has asked you to leave. We welcome you to stay and hope you do.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

whiteleo said:


> I don't believe I pointed any fingers at any given member of this forum, I've been here for a long long time even before Gorgi was feeding a PMR diet and I'm really tired of a few pushing the PMR diet.
> 
> As you all know I feed a PMR diet but I'm "open minded" enough to think that there just might be something to why dogs seem to want to eat more grass when they start a PMR diet, obviuosly you guys have never asked yourselves that question or you'd be open to the fact that maybe they do need some type of other enzymes in their system.
> But, you are the know alls of know alls and there is no if ands or buts to it that dogs need nothing more than meat, bones and organs.
> ...


So...why do we deserve to be insulted by you when all we do is just not agree with feeding green tripe? And how does that make us close minded?

You tell us the benefit of it, dogs not eating grass, and we (I speak for Jon and I) decided that isn't enough of a "benefit" to feeding it. Its expensive and I've heard that its messy...so I just don't want to deal with it. I really don't think this decision warrants your insults and put downs. 

And you didn't point specific fingers at any single person, but *I* felt it was directed at least me since I had posted in this thread and have disagreed with you in the past about green tripe. I'm sure I'm not the only one that felt that you were hurtful and petty. I can think of at least 5 people who would definitely feel that your post was directed at them!

I never once said that I wanted you to leave. I said that if you're not happy here (going off of your last few posts in threads, tells me you're not) that you should find another community. I've never said that you're not welcome here either. BUT when you post up just a post that is nothing more than an insult and put down, THAT is disrespectful. You did do something wrong in my book. I would love for you to find for me any insult to you made by us "close minded, self righteous PMR" group...but you probably wont find any, at least not from me. Also, go and read through the introductions pages and see how many times we push a raw diet on a newbie? Not very often and its pretty much when someone asks about it. Don't make us out to be something that we're not. I don't appreciate it.

Now, keep your posts insult free and we wont have a problem here again. Respect is all that I have ever asked ANYONE here for, its pretty simple.




Lets now get back to the topic at hand....I would love to see the studies done on vitamin C because I personally believe that there ARE benefits to giving it. I have seen it work with puppy warts and making them go away nearly instantly when supplementing with it. I really don't want this thread to close down before we get a chance to see these studies.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

jdatwood said:


> Ah, how convenient it is to selectively quote someone to skew the meaning to your benefit.
> 
> Here's the full quote you seemed to overlook
> 
> ...


It is a direct quote from you. You can defend it anyway you see fit. You said it. Perhaps you should think before you type. It is not out of context. It is your opening sentence.

I disagree that dogs are wolves. And therein lays the differences in this discussion. The dog has evolved from a wolf. It is not genetically (i.e 0.02% DNA) the same as a wolf. I also think their diet has evolved. To be told different is being closed minded.

RFD, Google Dr. Wilard Belfield. He also references other PhDs in the field of animal study that have scientific (not antidotel) publications.

I do not care to discuss hybrid wolfdogs or anything about them.

Let's see, I quote Ton Lonsdale - a direct quote, but am told he "told me something different". I use a direct quote from another source and am told I took it out of context. I find that rather closed minded, but then again, I am always wrong in here.


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Well if you'd like to be right then how about those studies on vitamin C? :smile:

Unless they can be found by googling that doctor you were mentioning to RFD.....


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> RFD, Google Dr. Wilard Belfield. He also references other PhDs in the field of animal study that have scientific (not antidotel) publications.


I don't have time right now to do thorough research on Dr. *Wendell* Belfield but what I found quickly isn't very impressive. You can find some doctor anywhere that will recommend most anything to cure most anything but I will look into it deeper in the next day or two.



> Let's see, I quote Ton Lonsdale - a direct quote, but am told he "told me something different". ... I find that rather closed minded, but then again, I am always wrong in here.


I guess I should have recorded our conversations. I didn't realize I would have a discussion 8 years later questioning what was said. :smile: For the fourth time ... Tom Lonsdale was the sole person who convinced me that my dogs have no dietary need for fruits or veggies. I stopped feeding them immediately after my first discussions with him.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I have supplied quotes, names, and publications in my posts. I have been told Tom Lonsdale has changed his mind about table scrapes, yet he writes books that includes them.

What scientific evidence have the PMR given? Experience (not scientific), Lonsdale (he has published nothing pertaining to the science of nutrition for dogs), and the debatable topic that dogs are wolves (not the same DNA).

What other evidence can I provide to you? I guess I need to buy the books, copy the articles, and read them to you?

I read what is written. It is not my fault if leave out a word in a sentence.

It is real clear that the camps are entrenched in here. 99% of the moderates have the same beliefs when it comes to feeding dogs and then another backs up everything his girl friend has to say and oh yeah, they are both moderators.

Perhaps I don't make sense to some. But for someone who has published articles and research, I find it interested that I do not make sense. Perhaps they are not capable in grasping what I am saying.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> I don't have time right now to do thorough research on Dr. *Wendell* Belfield but what I found quickly isn't very impressive. You can find some doctor anywhere that will recommend most anything to cure most anything but I will look into it deeper in the next day or two.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should have recorded our conversations. I didn't realize I would have a discussion 8 years later questioning what was said. :smile: For the fourth time ... Tom Lonsdale was the sole person who convinced me that my dogs have no dietary need for fruits or veggies. I stopped feeding them immediately after my first discussions with him.


I do not doubt what Tom told you. That isn't the question. We both know what he published in his book. They contradict each other.

Wendell Belfield is as good a resource on his topic as Lonsdale is on his. Lonsdale says RMB is the way to go, Belfield says mega doses of Vitamin C is the way to go. As a smart man, surely you see the similarities.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

harrkim120 said:


> Well if you'd like to be right then how about those studies on vitamin C? :smile:
> 
> Unless they can be found by googling that doctor you were mentioning to RFD.....


I'm a firm believer in the idea of supporting one's claims themself. He who brought the topic up for discussion should be the one to provide all the supporting studies, documents and research. You shouldn't be the one who has to go on a hunt for these studies :wink:


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I'm a firm believer in the idea of supporting one's claims themself. He who brought the topic up for discussion should be the one to provide all the supporting studies, documents and research. You shouldn't be the one who has to go on a hunt for these studies :wink:


I think you will find the studies by Googling "the role of Vitamin C in dogs", "Dr. Wendell Belfield" or "calcium ascorbate". I'm sorry i can't quote the reference title and page numbers off the top of my head. Remember, I'm older than God's dog.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> I think you will find the studies by Googling "the role of Vitamin C in dogs", "Dr. Wendell Belfield" or "calcium ascorbate". I'm sorry i can't quote the reference title and page numbers off the top of my head. Remember, I'm older than God's dog.


When I make claims, I make sure to include all references that support it. I'm not as presumptuous as to make everyone else to do the research for me :wink:

So it would be great if you could provide links to these articles please.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

So, am I really the only one who gets it? RFD you have made reference 3 different times that the wolf will "shake out the contents of the stomach and then eat it", do you think that the wolf takes a towel and wipes the stomach lining dry before eating it? Do you think that there is enzymes left in that stomach lining from eating grasses or whatever, let's see what would a wolf kill in the wild, elk, deer, rabbit, etc. all grass eaters. 


So please explain to me how they wipe that stomach lining clean before they eat it?


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Doc said:


> I disagree that dogs are wolves. And therein lays the differences in this discussion. The dog has evolved from a wolf. It is not genetically (i.e 0.02% DNA) the same as a wolf. I also think their diet has evolved. To be told different is being closed minded.


I've said this before here...

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study-9.html#post21649

...but I'll say it again.

Domestication and breeding does not suddenly alter nutritional requirements or "breed out" nutritional characteristics. Evolution does, and nothing in the mammal world can evolve in a hundred-years time. Whatever you believe, that dogs are obligate carnivores, or facultative carnivores, or omnivores, you really can't make an argument for any kind of evolution to their nutritional needs occurring over such a relatively short period of time. A hundred years, heck even a thousand, is a blip in their history, for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> When I make claims, I make sure to include all references that support it. I'm not as presumptuous as to make everyone else to do the research for me :wink:
> 
> So it would be great if you could provide links to these articles please.


You make very few scientific claims. And therefore need little support. I think you want to be spoon fed everything. Look things up for yourself, you may learn something or don't they teach that at the University you attend.

If you are truly interested in something, you will find the information. Give me a break. You really expect me to cite references in this form. Obviously you don't, you take everything you know as general knowledge. Horse hockey. And besides, not willing to look up a reference is the height of laziness.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> When I make claims, I make sure to include all references that support it. I'm not as presumptuous as to make everyone else to do the research for me :wink:
> 
> So it would be great if you could provide links to these articles please.


"I would like to say that the evolution needed to change a species nutritional needs would take the equivalent of million(s) of years depending on environmental and genetic factors and advantages". 

This is a statement from you. I am sure you can provide references for this statement. If not, what are you basing this on? You stated it, is it based on experience, conversations? Where is the proof?


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> I've said this before here...
> 
> http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study-9.html#post21649
> 
> ...


references please- your word isn't good enough in this form.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Hold on, there's a wolf out back using my power washer to clean out the guts of his morning kill. I have to remind him to cut the water off when he's done. And next time bring his own gas.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> You make very few scientific claims. And therefore need little support. I think you want to be spoon fed everything. Look things up for yourself, you may learn something or don't they teach that at the University you attend.
> 
> If you are truly interested in something, you will find the information. Give me a break. You really expect me to cite references in this form. Obviously you don't, you take everything you know as general knowledge. Horse hockey. And besides, not willing to look up a reference is the height of laziness.


Ok Doc, let me tell you how this forum works. When *you* start a thread claiming to have articles that back up your statements, it's not anyone's job to find your articles. It's your job to provide them. Make sense?

I would gladly look them up, but it's the principle of the matter and your condescending attitude that turns me off the search. And I certainly don't need to be spoon fed...that's not what I'm asking of you. I'm asking you to uphold your responsibility in providing the necessary components to back up your claims.



Doc said:


> "I would like to say that the evolution needed to change a species nutritional needs would take the equivalent of million(s) of years depending on environmental and genetic factors and advantages".
> 
> This is a statement from you. I am sure you can provide references for this statement. If not, what are you basing this on? You stated it, is it based on experience, conversations? Where is the proof?


Proof? Evolutionary proof is in DNA studies and fossil findings. But that isn't enough proof that evolution exists to most people. It's whether or not you believe that evolution exists...so do you think evolution is real? 

I guess this statement is based off of experience and things I have read and been taught in all of my evolution classes. I can't tell you exactly where or from whom I read/heard all the bits of knowledge that I have gained from making this statement, but I sure could find you some studies done on evolution that can explain to you HOW evolution works. Since it seems you need a refresher. I guess it was my mistake to assume that you know how evolution works... 

ETA: here are some basic links that you can read up on evolution and how it works. I figure with just a bit of deductive reasoning you will be able to realize that evolution does take millions, hundreds of million years to change animals so extensively that they change their
diet completely.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> I have supplied quotes, names, and publications in my posts. I have been told Tom Lonsdale has changed his mind about table scrapes, yet he writes books that includes them.


I didn't say he changed his mind. I said what he told me in several conversations. His newer book that he wrote after I met him says the same thing along those lines although in my mind, "*Probably* won't hurt and *may* help" is hardly a ringing endorcement of feeding fruits/veggies. That quote is from his latest book, Work Wonders.



> What scientific evidence have the PMR given?


I keep asking you what scientific evidence have the dog food companies given? Why do you ask for PMR proof and don't ask for kibble proof? Who would do research on PMR? Who would pay for it? Who would benefit from such research? Thats why I think you will never see it. BUT, dog food companies could afford to publish research that proved their food is at least as nutritious and healthy for dogs as PMR yet, I haven't seen any. Maybe they did the research and it didn't produce the results they wanted? Don't know but looks like if it were possible for the dog food companies to prove their diet is at least as good, they would certainly do it. Why wouldn't they?

Experience (not scientific), Lonsdale (he has published nothing pertaining to the science of nutrition for dogs), and the debatable topic that dogs are wolves (not the same DNA).

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Lonsdale's first bood is well referenced but I agree it's not a book so much on nutrition as it is a book on why commercial food is bad. There is no debate about wolves/dogs. That has been settled long ago. _"The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."_ I don't remember exactly where I got that quote but it's pretty easily verified. There has been much DNA research proving it. Google Robert Wayne.



> What other evidence can I provide to you? I guess I need to buy the books, copy the articles, and read them to you?


I gotta find time to read the last stuff you sent first. :smile:


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Doc said:


> references please- your word isn't good enough in this form.


Sorry Doc, this is Biology 101. If you think the fundamental nutritional requirements of any mammal can EVOLVE in 50 or 100 years time, then arguing the counterpoint with you is a complete waste of time. I guess I just need to go back to sKoOl!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Wow, things I miss by sleeping in! Quite a refreshing sleep, though! *stretch*
Ok, time for business...

I think that what I'm seeing happen here is differing opinions not being respected and rather being pointed at as "close mindedness." It especially struck me at the sentence "to think any different is close minded."

Perhaps, have you considered that people HAVE researched Tripe and it's "benefits" and it's BECAUSE of that research they've decided not to feed it, rather than to assume it's a lack of knowledge? What you think is worth feeding tripe over (skin, coat, grass eating, etc.) others might not feel their dogs need aid in any of those areas. That personal EDUCATED opinion is now considered being close minded? I think not. 

And yes, to make a blanket statement over ALL the raw feeders on this forum is quite offensive. MY opinion on green tripe (which you so feel to need to randomly throw into EVERY discussion) is that it's NOT a necessary part of the diet. That being said, Annie has taken to eating the new sweet blades of grass springing up this time of year, so much so that she's having a difficult time passing them (hmm, sounds healthy, huh?) and based on YOUR claims I HAVE purchased green tripe. I have no access to a co op, and am paying $3 a can for Tripett. Do I think it will work? Honestly, I don't have much faith, but I hope it will. It's only been a week so far, it gives her diarrhea, and hasn't stopped the grass eating yet, but I'm going to give it a good month or two. Thanks for throwing me under a rude blanket statement when really you have NO idea. (Actually, I remember a thread that had a website that sold chubs of organ meats and tripe, and I distinctly remember Natalie and Jon showing interest in said chubs. I can not find the post right now, I am in a rush)

And I'm sorry that some people are so intimidated by the raw feeding group on this forum. I find it silly, personally. COme to the raw section, and of course we'll be discusing raw. Other than that, the ONLY time raw is debated in a kibble thread is when a kibble feeder brings it up. EVERY single raw feeder on thsi forum has been MORE than willing to help people make better kibble choices for their pets. Of course, no one decides to remember that part. 



I've said this MANY time over: *a forum is a place for ideas to be presented, discussed, debated, proven, disproved, exchanged, and challenged.* Lets keep in mind that we are ALL here for the wellness of our pets, and we are ALL educated individuals on the matter, and differing opinions and beliefs do NOT equal close mindedness. If you mention studies, link them. Do not disreguard because of age, gender, or what one decides to feed. I've learned a lot here, from both sides of the fence. I have enjoyed the community here, because it's usually a POSITIVE environment with people willing to help. Blanket statements, attacks based on age, and personal attacks are not needed, nor will be tolerated. Disagree, by all means, it's what the forum thrives on, but lets debate in our grown up pants today.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

whiteleo said:


> So, am I really the only one who gets it? RFD you have made reference 3 different times that the wolf will "shake out the contents of the stomach and then eat it", do you think that the wolf takes a towel and wipes the stomach lining dry before eating it? Do you think that there is enzymes left in that stomach lining from eating grasses or whatever, let's see what would a wolf kill in the wild, elk, deer, rabbit, etc. all grass eaters.


Of course not. That's just silly. Just use a little logic here. What enzymes would be in the stomachs of those herbivores? It would be enzymes to digest grass or it would be enzymes to digest weeds, leaves, or twigs depending on whether the herbivore was a grazer or a browser. There would be NO enzymes designed to aid in the digestion of meat, bones, or organs. The latter would be useful to our dogs but the former is pretty useless.

Dogs produce the enzymes necessary to digest the food they would eat in nature. Its one of those cases where if you have all you need, adding more is not productive. 

Although my dogs do shake out stomach contents and eat the stomach. My cats don't even eat the stomach at all. Neither my dogs or cats eat intestines. 

I gotta run now. I won't be back until late tonight. Y'all be good to each other while I'm gone. :smile:


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

So it's ok not to reference anything to do with raw feeding as long as Lonsdale said it in a book on canine dentistry and says another in a personal conversation but I am expected to list references, dates, publications, manuscripts, and web-sites?

Evolution, now there's a real non-controversial topic!

RFD, I can send you my 50+ years of notes if you want some more reading. But I can't send you my research. It's under lock and key in a fire proof safe. All these dang radicles running around wanting to feed raw meat to every animal - you never know what they may do.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> Sorry Doc, this is Biology 101. If you think the fundamental nutritional requirements of any mammal can EVOLVE in 50 or 100 years time, then arguing the counterpoint with you is a complete waste of time. I guess I just need to go back to sKoOl!


references please. Go back to school? Good luck.:smile:


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

For those who wanted a reference to the role of vitamins and minerals in your dog.

How to Have a Healthier Dog

The Benefits of Vitamins and Minerals for Your Dog's Life Cycles

By Wendell O. Belfield, DVM and Martin Zucker

You can thank me anytime.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> So it's ok not to reference anything to do with raw feeding as long as Lonsdale said it in a book on canine dentistry and says another in a personal conversation but I am expected to list references, dates, publications, manuscripts, and web-sites?
> 
> Evolution, now there's a real non-controversial topic!
> 
> RFD, I can send you my 50+ years of notes if you want some more reading. But I can't send you my research. It's under lock and key in a fire proof safe. All these dang radicles running around wanting to feed raw meat to every animal - you never know what they may do.


Once again, you evade the questions asked of you. It's exhausting trying to debate with someone who won't participate fully.

There are no studies done on raw, RFD has said that to you numerous times. Surely you know this yourself if you have 50 years worth of research and notes. Unless you are doing studies on a raw diet yourself...which I hope to be the case so we don't have to have anymore of these dead end discussions. Last I checked everyone here is feeding raw meats to their dogs and cats...I wouldn't attempt to feed an omnivore an inappropriate diet, that would just be silly!!!


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Are two animals really the same if they have different DNA? Just a rhetorical question.

From the sound of things, some people are closer related to the south bond end of a north bound mule than an ape.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> For those who wanted a reference to the role of vitamins and minerals in your dog.
> 
> How to Have a Healthier Dog
> 
> ...


I didn't realize this "article" you had was a book. A book that I would have to buy to get the info out of. Can you tell me if this book is written with raw fed dogs in mind or kibble fed dogs in mind? I would think that supplementation would be necessary for a kibble fed dog more so than a raw fed dog...


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Once again, you evade the questions asked of you. It's exhausting trying to debate with someone who won't participate fully.
> 
> There are no studies done on raw, RFD has said that to you numerous times. Surely you know this yourself if you have 50 years worth of research and notes. Unless you are doing studies on a raw diet yourself...which I hope to be the case so we don't have to have anymore of these dead end discussions. Last I checked everyone here is feeding raw meats to their dogs and cats...I wouldn't attempt to feed an omnivore an inappropriate diet, that would just be silly!!!


Evade what question? I'm lost.

So far, my raw research looks promising but it is with a small sample and extraneous variables. That's why i asked the question about organ meat in another post.

Of course, the study will have to be replicated and conducted on various breeds to be a significant study. But I don't have time to explain all that. I think what we are seeing, with kibble companies going grain-free and additional meat protein, is a direct result of the fact that dogs need more meat protein and less grain in their diet. So in my opinion, the trend has started. Couple that with the hideous deaths of dogs from eating contaminated kibble and things are now on the front burner. And I think that is progress. High meat content and low/no grain is relatively new item in the kibble business. Based on theory, it should be much more efficient and nutritious for a dog. Granted, the processing diminishes it overall value. Plus the fact that we know very little about the role of fruits and vegetables in dog diets. They may have their place, they may not. " I'd advise up to 1/3 of their calories be supplied by table scrapes and fruits and vegetables". LOL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Are two animals really the same if they have different DNA? Just a rhetorical question.
> 
> From the sound of things, some people are closer related to the south bond end of a north bound mule than an ape.


Keep your insults coming. It just further diminishes any respect you hold with many of the members here. Keep diggin' that hole buddy!!! If anything it will lead to you getting a one way ticket out of this forum. I will tell you again to live by the rules of this forum and stay respectful.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Evade what question? I'm lost.
> 
> So far, my raw research looks promising but it is with a small sample and extraneous variables. That's why i asked the question about organ meat in another post.
> 
> Of course, the study will have to be replicated and conducted on various breeds to be a significant study. But I don't have time to explain all that. I think what we are seeing, with kibble companies going grain-free and additional meat protein, is a direct result of the fact that dogs need more meat protein and less grain in their diet. So in my opinion, the trend has started. Couple that with the hideous deaths of dogs from eating contaminated kibble and things are now on the front burner. And I think that is progress. High meat content and low/no grain is relatively new item in the kibble business. Based on theory, it should be much more efficient and nutritious for a dog. Granted, the processing diminishes it overall value. Plus the fact that we know very little about the role of fruits and vegetables in dog diets. They may have their place, they may not. " I'd advise up to 1/3 of their calories be supplied by table scrapes and fruits and vegetables". LOL


Finally!!! Thank you for a post that has some substance and is insult free!

I asked you if you believe in evolution.

So does your trial include a raw diet group? Kibble fed group? Homecooked fed group? I'm merely curious because I have given doing a study on feeding trials with raw, homecooked and kibble as my test groups major thought, but I just don't have the resources, time or money. Doing a study done solely on case studies is also plausible but that would take a long time to gather enough case histories needed to make results statistically accurate enough to prove a point. It would take several other eager minds working full time to get information, medical records/histories etc. Maybe the day I win the lottery will be the day I start my independent research study trials on raw feeding :biggrin:

ETA: I started a success stories thread for raw feeders so we could see some of these case histories first hand. Granted these dogs aren't all getting the same thing to eat but there is a positive trend with dogs switched from kibble to raw. No doubt about that!


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Doc said:


> From the sound of things, some people are closer related to the south bond end of a north bound mule than an ape.


More vinegar!

Doc, by ridiculing and putting down the members of this forum, you are getting nowhere fast, unless the object of all of your discussions is to further discredit your own opinions and research with your overall immature attitude towards us all. The more and more you put us down, the less and less it makes us want to hold you as a credible source of information. To me, you are sounding like a stuck-up fifteen-year-old who thinks he knows it all, and you claim to be as old as dirt. If you want us to listen to you, and respect your views and ideals, then you had better earn that respect first.

Now, I am no expert on any of this, and I will never claim to be, but in my opinion, you just can't change a dog's diet in the fifty-some-odd years that people have been feeding dogs things like kibble and veggies. Yes, dogs are opportunistic eaters, and they will eat veggies if given the chance. Perhaps they taste good? I mean, we like ice cream, but does that give us any sort of nutritional advantage? Before kibble, dogs were pretty much fed scraps of meat.

As per believing everything someone will tell you to sell a product......Just look at this website:

Dogs and Corn: Myths and Half Truths | Gomestic

All I've ever heard from this forum is about how BAD corn is for your dogs, and why, and how dogs don't actually need carbohydrates, because they get all the energy they need from protein and fat. Yes, they can get energy from carbohydrates, and pet food scientist use this as a basis for their arguments, stating that they need them, but do they ever once state that dogs can ALSO get energy from protein and animal fats?


----------



## Jordan S. (Feb 2, 2010)

I _*honestly*_ don't get all this fighting. A raw diet is a thousand times better than kibble regardless of whether fruit/veg are included or not. Fruits and veggies are not harmful to a dog. The worst they could be is useless, not harmful, so if people wanna feed them i don't see why not.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I don't see why there is so much hostility either. BUT I will NOT tolerate insults and disrespect from anyone towards anyone on this forum.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

Jordan S. said:


> I _*honestly*_ don't get all this fighting. A raw diet is a thousand times better than kibble regardless of whether fruit/veg are included or not.


A *thousand* times better than even the best kibble? A *thousand*???

You say you don't get all the fighting and then you say something like this which will provoke it. Color me confused. This is the sort of statement that some of the folks here have been talking about in terms of feeling unwelcome if they don't follow a strict raw diet.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm sorry, but I do have to agree with Ziggy here. A thousand times better than crap kibble, perhaps, but nobody here is feeding crap kibble, unless they're the newbies who are looking for better education about dog nutrition and to switch. I don't think that anyone here is feeding anything that is a thousand times better than what anyone else here is feeding.

I will say that I do believe RAW is the best that you can give, whether you include veggies or not, but good kibble is good kibble, and sometimes, RAW is just not an option for some people. Some people don't have the sources, as I've come to realize, and some people don't have the stomach for it.

But remember, guys, this is all just debating. Let's try to keep it at that, and not making things personal. :wink: After all, we here are ALL a thousand times more dedicated to our pets than probably 90% of the pet-owning population out there, which gives us all one very big thing in common.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> A *thousand* times better than even the best kibble? A *thousand*???
> 
> You say you don't get all the fighting and then you say something like this which will provoke it. Color me confused. This is the sort of statement that some of the folks here have been talking about in terms of feeling unwelcome if they don't follow a strict raw diet.


I can see what you're saying about all of us raw feeders pushing the idea that raw is much better than kibble. But I think Jordan here just has a case of simple over exaggeration and wasn't intending to be pushy or rude. I exaggerate in the same way all the time. While I wholeheartedly believe that raw is better than any kibble, I don't think it's any where near statistically 1000X better than even the worst kibble out there.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> I will say that I do believe RAW is the best that you can give, whether you include veggies or not, but good kibble is good kibble, and sometimes, RAW is just not an option for some people. Some people don't have the sources, as I've come to realize, and some people don't have the stomach for it.


And then there are some, like me, who are investigating it and looking into the logistics of going raw (extra freezer? Are there good, cheap local suppliers? How do I make sure I'm doing it right? Et cetera -- it takes some time) with the possibility of going purely PMR at some point. 

I'm sure I'm not alone. But if they are chased away in their learning process because they are bombarded with the sentiment that they are not doing "good" by their dogs -- whether they are learning about going from kibble to raw or from crap kibble to quality kibble -- because they aren't currently feeding raw, they just may leave because they feel dumped on and their choices are being judged harshly. And that will do them no service, and certainly not their dogs.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Can we put this in perspective for a moment??

We are not in the raw section OR the kibble section in this thread, so by all means, EVERY form of feeding is promoted or shot down here. If you can not handle someone telling you that they think something could be better for your pet, well... then I'm not really sure what to say other than perhaps you're taking things a bit too personal. I've never seen anyone say "feed your dogs raw or you're killing them, and are a terrible owner" not directly, nor implied. So what's everyone so ticked off about?

I think that for the most part, the designated feeding sections are very much so kept to their topic. Sure, every now and then kibble debated pop up in raw, and raw is mentioned in the kibble section, but we're really going to sit here and cry about it? I mean, REALLY?!

Members who have some here seeking kibble advice have gotten it, I'm not sure at what point anyone was bombarded. So I ask, what are us raw feeders to do when raw feeding IS mentioned? shut up? Because you can have your opinion but apparently we can not have ours? 

I can honestly say that I've been a very active member of this forum for over a year, and I started as a kibble feeder. Right away I noticed the strong raw feeding community, but I ALWAYS got my answers on kibble, and most of those answers even came from raw feeders! Many of us raw feeders, myself included, have been MORE THAN WILLING to answer kibble questions because half the time, we've been there, we've had the same questions, we've experienced it with our own pets. I still feed one of my dogs, and my cat commercial food, and I post about them all the time. I feel that recent debates have created an us-them mentality between kibble and raw feeders, and I'll be ENTIRELY honest, I think it's because BOTH sides are being a bit too sensitive and taking objective statements personal. 

This thread might as well be dead, I mean, we have one person offering very little information, and putting everyone else down and making personal attacks. Then a few people asking for more information on random claims, then a bunch of posts pointing out how silly it all is. 


*It amazes me that so many purely objective statements can be taken SO personally. * If all you have to say about this community is how we're all close minded, or how we are all so clocely related to some animal's a** then perhaps you ought to seek a community you can stand. No, I am not asking ANYONE to leave, we ALL have something t offer this community, but the negative energy and personal attacks the last few days are FAR more off-putting than anyone promoting a form of feeding. 

/rant


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

You kibble feeders need to relax a little and understand that what you perceive as venom or passion from the raw feeding community isn't directed towards you as kibble feeders. It's primarily directed to the lying, cheating bastards that comprise the pet food industry. 

If some of us come across as sounding a little harsh, it's not directed towards you. Remember that at one time nearly EVERYONE who feeds raw now was at one time a kibble feeder. We get it. We've been there. We know that not everyone has the resources, time, or whatever to feed their dogs a diet of raw meaty bones and organs. 

We are not your enemy. We are just trying to speak for our community since we have no other means to educate and inform. We don't have a trade group, lobbyists, marketing campaigns, television ads, and such like the pet food industry does. We don't pay for the pet nutrition credit courses that veterinarians in training get like the pet food industry does. And heaven knows our pets can't speak for themselves.

We only have us. The commercial pet food industry is the enemy, even the "good" ones. They all lie. They all put inappropriate ingredients into their food, just some more than others. We just want everyone to know that carnivores should eat meat, even if dog owners ultimately decide that good quality kibble is a "reasonable compromise" between optimum nutrition and convenience. As long as you base that decision on the basic understanding that there should be a high volume of named meat sources in the food, then we've done our job and your dog will thank you.


----------



## Jordan S. (Feb 2, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> I'm sorry, but I do have to agree with Ziggy here. A thousand times better than crap kibble, perhaps, but nobody here is feeding crap kibble, unless they're the newbies who are looking for better education about dog nutrition and to switch. I don't think that anyone here is feeding anything that is a thousand times better than what anyone else here is feeding.





ziggy29 said:


> A *thousand* times better than even the best kibble? A *thousand*???
> 
> You say you don't get all the fighting and then you say something like this which will provoke it. Color me confused. This is the sort of statement that some of the folks here have been talking about in terms of feeling unwelcome if they don't follow a strict raw diet.




sorry to the fifth power sorry. jeez. I was talking about crappy kibble. Besides I was under the impression that this was a prey model vs b.a.r.f thread. People on here can get so touchy sometimes. Tell me when we can safetly utter a word on the forum without stepping on people's toes! Someone could tap you guys with a q-tip and everything turns to hysteria.

Heck and ironically, I feed _partial_ raw. %50 raw %50 wellness core.


----------

