# SportMix Wholesomes



## monster'sdad

Ooooh baby, a new line from SportMix,

Sportmix - Wholesomes Dog Food

Might cut into Pro Pac and Earthborn sales.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Thx for posting, but meh, looks like a gazillion other grain inclusives out there.


----------



## whiteleo

Looks like C**p to me. I'd never feed it to my foster/rescues


----------



## DaViking

It's three different LID's (or LiP's rather) Uncomplicated, not crazy amounts of starch since they all are on the low side in terms of energy. Impossible to judge without trying. That's about all the meaningful things that can be said. Nothing that sets them apart in the "wholesome" department but I guess they have to cater to emotional consumers as well.


----------



## monster'sdad

whiteleo said:


> Looks like C**p to me. I'd never feed it to my foster/rescues



Your choice. Wasn't meant for you. It was meant for someone that has kids to feed or put through college and can't spend that much money on dog food.

That is pretty much the grade of something like Blue Buffalo but for 1/3rd the cost.

SportMix has a big following and lots of happy customers, including some of the best hunt trial dogs in the country.


----------



## whiteleo

Well see there is the problem in this country a lot of people don't see their animals as part of the family so when they develop cancer and diabetes they choose to just put them down but if they fed a decent kibble in the first place it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's the difference between you and me I always treat animals as family and it's obvious you don't spewing this crap junk on the forums.


----------



## Sheltielover25

whiteleo said:


> Well see there is the problem in this country a lot of people don't see their animals as part of the family so when they develop cancer and diabetes they choose to just put them down but if they fed a decent kibble in the first place it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's the difference between you and me I always treat animals as family and it's obvious you don't spewing this crap junk on the forums.


Well said!


----------



## DaViking

Serious arguments going on here. Btw whiteleo, I seem to remember that you recommend Acana which happens to use rendered meals and have around 35% to 45% carbohydrates too. Which is ok but probably not that far from these new LID foods. If you don't want to be talked down to you shouldn't do it yourself. I think you are overreacting a bit here whiteleo. Just my $0.02


----------



## monster'sdad

DaViking said:


> Serious arguments going on here. Btw whiteleo, I seem to remember that you recommend Acana which happens to use rendered meals and have around 35% to 45% carbohydrates too. Which is ok but probably not that far from these new LID foods. If you don't want to be talked down to you shouldn't do it yourself. I think you are overreacting a bit here whiteleo. Just my $0.02


He or she is angry because I expose Champion. Yesterday I mentioned how Champion misused the work of an iconic researcher at Penn to support it misleading marketing about the 2006 NRC report. They choose to misquote Kronfeld because he is dead I suppose. You notice he or she never responds to facts. By the way Leo here is a piece from that 2006 NRC report that Champion cites on its website:

*"Dogs need several different kinds of nutrients to survive: amino acids
from proteins, fatty acids and carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals,
and water. The tables in this pamphlet provide recommended daily
allowances for dietary nutrients based on the minimum amount
required to maintain good health in normal dogs. Your dog’s unique
nutritional requirements will depend on its size, its breed, and its stage in life,
among other factors. A better understanding of how dogs use the various nutrients
in food and how much of them they need can help you choose a healthier
diet for your pet..........

Because dogs are descended from omnivores, they
are not strict meat eaters. They are remarkably adaptable
to a wide range of ingredients, texture, and form in
terms of what they will eat. Though many dogs may
prefer animal-based protein, they can thrive on a vegetarian
diet. Regardless of whether the protein comes
from plant or animal sources, normal adult dogs should
get at least 10% of their total calories from protein. Older
dogs appear to require somewhat more protein to maintain
their protein reserves, perhaps as much as 50% more."*

So, I am still waiting for his or her thoughts on whether Champion's use of that study and representing that the quote from Kronfeld's sled dog study was a recommendation of the NRC was honest and reasonable.

By the way, if you knew anything about diabetes it has little to do with type of diet, rather it is a Gender, Age, Breed, Weight problem, in that order.


----------



## riddick4811

I think they look pretty decent as long as they are priced affordable. Good option for those that can't afford higher priced foods and have dogs with allergies/sensitivities and need basic foods with limited ingredients. Probably better than Diamond.


----------



## CorgiPaws

I think there's a fine line between considering your pets family, and putting pets on a completely equal platform as your human children. 
I love my dogs, and they ARE my kids, my family....being infertile it may always just be that way, but the latter... well, those are the crazies....
Not everyone can afford to spend a fortune on pet foods, shoot... not everyone can afford to spend a fortune on human foods, but IF I had human kids, and IF I was strapped, I'd compromise on the dog's diet before my kid's welfare. If that makes me a bad pet owner, I can accept that. 
I don't, however, have kids, and what I choose to feed IS within my budget, so it's a non-issue.


----------



## mheath0429

monster'sdad said:


> Your choice. Wasn't meant for you. It was meant for someone that has kids to feed or put through college and can't spend that much money on dog food.
> 
> That is pretty much the grade of something like Blue Buffalo but for 1/3rd the cost.
> 
> SportMix has a big following and lots of happy customers, including some of the best hunt trial dogs in the country.



I pay 20K a year for college and pay my own bills - and I still feed my animals well. Even before switching to raw I spent a crap ton of money on kibble, freeze dried and the accompanying vet bills from feeding kibble (teeth, allergies, etc.). So, don't pull the college card. 

I think people get irritated with you because you think you know everything - you don't. You are constantly calling out names for all of these "famous" mushers, hunters and exhibitors and yet you have no proof and have only what you are limited to knowing. This is a big country and just because your sliver of it feeds these foods doesn't mean mine does.

Otherwise, it looks like a mediocre food. I wouldn't feed it, but if you are tight on cash I can see why it may be an option.


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> lot of people don't see their animals as part of the family so when they develop cancer and diabetes they choose to just put them down but if they fed a decent kibble in the first place it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.


Actually, the trigger groups for cancer are in the following order; 1) Genetics 2) Environment 3) Viral/parasitic. Most of the cancer types that the immune system could be able to deal with on its own comes from the viral group. Now, you tell me how much cancer is caused by Sportmix type foods, which falls under the Environment group? Cancer is an extremely complex topic and I don't think anyone here have any credentials to even touch on the subject. Btw, there are populations of wild canids plagued by cancer.

Not related to anything but viral/parasitic cancer, however I find this interesting.


----------



## mheath0429

DaViking said:


> Actually, the trigger groups for cancer are in the following order; 1) Genetics 2) Environment 3) Viral. Most of the cancer types that the immune system could be able to deal with on its own comes from the viral group. Now, you tell me how much cancer is caused by Sportmix type foods, which falls under the Environment group? Cancer is an extremely complex topic and I don't think anyone here have any credentials to even touch on the subject. Btw, there are populations of wild canids plagued by cancer.
> 
> Not related to anything but viral cancer, however I find this interesting.


Honey, you are gonna have to provide more proof than that  I can come back at ya with the claims that the causes are 1. Over Vaccination 2. Environment (including chemicals in house, topicals etc.) and 3. Food/Genetics....but if I don't cite things to back up all of it, its worth nothing. Gimme more to read.


----------



## DaViking

mheath0429 said:


> Honey, you are gonna have to provide more proof than that  I can come back at ya with the claims that the causes are 1. Over Vaccination 2. Environment (including chemicals in house, topicals etc.) and 3. Food/Genetics....but if I don't cite things to back up all of it, its worth nothing. Gimme more to read.


Sweety  , vaccination and whatever nasty stuff coming in via food would both be in the "Environmental" group. "Although we do not know the exact cause for each type of cancer in pets, the underlying problem is due to abnormal genes that result in uncontrolled growth of cells" Certain breeds like Golden retrievers, Boxers, flat-coated retrievers, the Bernese Mountain dogs and others are more at risk for cancer. This is all due to genes passed along. Other than that I don't see why I have to provide any proof because I don't claim to understand cancer other than the superficial stuff everyone else know too.


----------



## CorgiPaws

The simple fact that some breeds are notably more plagued by cancer (Boxers come to mind) than other breeds leads me to believe there is a hugely strong genetic link to cancer moreso even than food.... and I say this as a die hard believer in PMR.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

I think cancer is a combination of things - the ultimate manifestation of ill health. Genetics play a role..as does diet and environment. If your dog is genetically predisposed to cancer, then obviously their is a chance he can get it. If he has a genetic predisposition and a bad diet he's chances are even greater. If he has the genetic predisposition, a bad diet, and lives next to a nuclear power plant...well then he's pretty much guaranteed to get cancer.


----------



## CorgiPaws

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> I think cancer is a combination of things - the ultimate manifestation of ill health. Genetics play a role..as does diet and environment. If your dog is genetically predisposed to cancer, then obviously their is a chance he can get it. If he has a genetic predisposition and a bad diet he's chances are even greater. If he has the genetic predisposition, a bad diet, and lives next to a nuclear power plant...well then he's pretty much guaranteed to get cancer.


^^This. Agree. Completely.


----------



## Sheltielover25

Actually what you eat plays a huge role in cancer. There are many cultures around the world that eat no processed foods and cancer doesn't exist in. Also many foods aid in helping the body rid environmental toxins so if you avoid those foods you're in trouble. Many processes foods feed cancer so another area you're in trouble. And I follow a diet similar to two men who beat cancer on diet alone. That's right- cleared of terminally ill colon cancer. As fr as genetics playing a role it's largely based on what mothers ate during pregnancy and that goes down the generations. When you say environmental factors, youree right and that's why it's vital we eat organic. Less pesticides in the air and less in our body. 

Also another reason it's important not to support factory farming. They spread the feces of those Animals on the soil and that runs off in the water. Research cancer rates of those living near chicken farms.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Sheltielover25 said:


> Actually what you eat plays a huge role in cancer. There are many cultures around the world that eat no processed foods and cancer doesn't exist in. Also many foods aid in helping the body rid environmental toxins so if you avoid those foods you're in trouble. Many processes foods feed cancer so another area you're in trouble. And I follow a diet similar to two men who beat cancer on diet alone. That's right- cleared of terminally ill colon cancer. As fr as genetics playing a role it's largely based on what mothers ate during pregnancy and that goes down the generations. When you say environmental factors, youree right and that's why it's vital we eat organic. Less pesticides in the air and less in our body.
> 
> Also another reason it's important not to support factory farming. They spread the feces of those Animals on the soil and that runs off in the water. Research cancer rates of those living near chicken farms.


Even so, the fact some breeds are HUGELY more plagued makes it impossible to ignore a large genetic factor. I think diet plays a role too, absolutely. What is put into a body will always play a role in EVERY aspect of health.... but being realistic, it does not create or solve every single ailment living creatures face. 
I say this as a believer in raw foods...
I say this as a believer in eating clean...
I say this as a complete advocate of family farms...
I say this as a believer in food as medicine.....
genetics matter. A lot.


----------



## monster'sdad

mheath0429 said:


> I pay 20K a year for college and pay my own bills - and I still feed my animals well. Even before switching to raw I spent a crap ton of money on kibble, freeze dried and the accompanying vet bills from feeding kibble (teeth, allergies, etc.). So, don't pull the college card.
> 
> I think people get irritated with you because you think you know everything - you don't. You are constantly calling out names for all of these "famous" mushers, hunters and exhibitors and yet you have no proof and have only what you are limited to knowing. This is a big country and just because your sliver of it feeds these foods doesn't mean mine does.
> 
> Otherwise, it looks like a mediocre food. I wouldn't feed it, but if you are tight on cash I can see why it may be an option.


The proof is always provided. What people accept when it contradicts with what they believe is the issue.


----------



## MollyWoppy

It's not necessarily what you do say, it's what you leave out.


----------



## Sheltielover25

CorgiPaws said:


> Even so, the fact some breeds are HUGELY more plagued makes it impossible to ignore a large genetic factor. I think diet plays a role too, absolutely. What is put into a body will always play a role in EVERY aspect of health.... but being realistic, it does not create or solve every single ailment living creatures face.
> I say this as a believer in raw foods...
> I say this as a believer in eating clean...
> I say this as a complete advocate of family farms...
> I say this as a believer in food as medicine.....
> genetics matter. A lot.


Just curious do you have evidence that shows genetics being so much higher than nutrition or environmental thIngs? I just know many cultures have no cancer and they don't eat processed foods... That says a lot to me. 

For the record, I agree genetics play a role but I believe it's passed down genetically based on the nutrition of the mother and her mother and so on. Not disputing that but just not sure how one can say what has more of a role...


----------



## monster'sdad

CorgiPaws said:


> The simple fact that some breeds are notably more plagued by cancer (Boxers come to mind) than other breeds leads me to believe there is a hugely strong genetic link to cancer moreso even than food.... and I say this as a die hard believer in PMR.



Most of the major problems with domesticated dogs have very, very strong breed (ie genetic) ties. Whether it is cancer, diabetes, thyroid, seasonal alopecia, zinc deficiency and orthopedic issues, etc.

Apart from genetics the following have much more impact on the health of the animal than diet (in this country anyway)

1) Vaccination Schedule, the later the better for a puppy and after the one year booster never again
2) When or if a dog is neutered, females included
3) Amount of exercise and weight, time spent outside
4) Injury as puppy, these tend to be life-long problems

Choice of diet plays only a minor role for most dogs, the vast majority actually.

One of the reasons why some diseases are more common is simply the fact that dogs live longer due to better medical care. Years ago you never treated an arthritic dog or one with a low thyroid, never. The population of dogs age 10 -15 is much higher now, keep that in mind when you blame Purina for everything.


----------



## riddick4811

I don't have "proof", but while I do feel diet does play a part, I think it is minor in the case of cancer. Overall health, I think diet it important, but I do feel genetics affect cancer rates more. 

I don't think hardly a day goes by that someone on my Greyhound board doesn't post that they are taking their dog in to get a limp checked to come back and say it was osteosarcoma. I've lost 3 out 4 I've lost to osteosarcoma, 1 to concentric cardiomyopathy. Casey was raw fed from 2 yrs (when I got him) to 7 yrs when he died from osteo. It didn't make one difference. A friend's 5 yr old hound was diagnosed 2 weeks ago and was given 2-3 months to live. It is very prevalent in the breed no matter what they are fed. I am paranoid about any limp and have even gone to the extreme of measuring their wrist's which is a common spot and getting x-rays on a perfectly healthy dog b/c her wrist had gotten bigger. Turned out to be calcium deposit b/c she bounced too much. 

Riddick was raised on raw and high quality kibble, but it sure didn't stop him from dropping dead at 10 months. A genetic disease didn't give a rats behind about his diet.  

But on the other hand, I know Casper gets more bleeding histiocytomas on higher carb diets than he does on lower carb. So I do think diet it important, but their are somethings are going to happen no matter what you feed and I feel it is wrong to make people feel bad if they can't buy xxx food and to make them think they caused their dogs cancer or whatever disease. 

As for vaccines, I only vaccinate puppies and adults only get rabies every 3 yrs as required by law. Pongo just got his paper from Animal control saying he was due for rabies in February. I am not vaccinating him again for it. He is 15 yrs old and my vet said he would stand behind me and if they had problems, they could talk to him. There was no need to ever vaccinate Pongo again for anything.


----------



## monster'sdad

It is obvious that genetics drives the disease. 60% of Goldens die of cancer, no matter where they live or what they eat. That is twice the rate of the general population. I suspect it is the same rate of Bernese Mountain Dogs.

The genetic pool of Tasmanian Devils is so homogenous that a form of cancer is actually infectious now.


----------



## Foodie

Before forming an opinion on this food or any food for that matter, I like to know what the ash level is. It's a crime that the AAFCO doesn't require dog foods to have ash content on the label. High ash is usually associated with extra bone (by-products) and low quality ingredients in the formula. Bones contain more than just minerals, it's where heavy metals and toxins are taken up and stored as they are in many by-products. Exposure to heavy metals and toxins has shown to cause cancer. 

It's not unreasonable to think that these heavy metals and toxins cause DNA mutations within our dogs. Industrialization has put toxins in our air, water and land and we are all exposed. It's impossible to eliminate all toxins but you can consciously try to reduce exposure to them. The less exposure the better, it's the repeated or long term assaults on cells that makes DNA vulnerable to mutations, gene mutations can cause disease and cancer. EIC and VonWillibrand's disease are 2 examples of genetic diseases caused by gene mutations. Toxins aren't the only cause of gene mutation, virus's and other elements can also play a role in assaults on our cells. What we eat can certainly have an effect on a molecular level and those effects can be passed on to future generations through mutations or vulnerable DNA. 

So a cheaper food is not always the best for me if the ash value is high. Low ash meat meals with less bone cost more increasing the cost of the food. Bone is a toxic by-product and because of health risks bone meal is no longer recommended for human supplementation, so why would I want bone included in a meal that I feed my dog _everyday_. I read a study that said wolves seldom eat the bones of large prey and they get a large portion of their calcium from blood that they lap up and not bones. The less exposure to toxins the better off we are.


----------



## DaViking

Just another reason to pay attention to ash levels.


----------



## whiteleo

So since Monsters dad DaViking and even Linsey think that genetics play more of a role, who can find the statistics of cancer among dogs before kibble was developed? Bet you it's nothing compared to today


----------



## Jacksons Mom

whiteleo said:


> So since Monsters dad DaViking and even Linsey think that genetics play more of a role, who can find the statistics of cancer among dogs before kibble was developed? Bet you it's nothing compared to today


It would be impossible to tell that. And in contrary, there was nowhere near as much veterinary advances back then as there are today. A lot more people opt for treatments for certain things now that just wasn't available back then. Not to mention, most dogs weren't kept in a house or fenced yard all day, they were out roaming. I'd have a feeling most dogs died young by getting hit by cars, before even being able to determine if they were going to get cancer. You can't really correlate diet to lifespan from previous time periods to today... there are just TOO MANY factors involved. People's attitudes about the value of pets as family members and the amount of money they're willing to spend on medical care have changed drastically. There have been many advances in veterinary medicine that make us capable of giving dogs longer lives.

I remember reading that the first dog biscuits were made in the late 1800's and I believe the first kibble was in the very early 1900's. Most farm dogs, from what I've read, were fed leftovers or scraps. Sometimes cheap cornmeal-type mush stuff. And a lot of people could barely feed themselves, you think they were giving their dogs some of their good meat? Doubtful. 

Dogs are some of the most bred down creatures on the planet. With all the selective breeding involved, they are basically bred to adapt, and really are one of the most 'unnatural' animals. That's why, while I'm not against raw, sometimes I find it silly to call it the 'natural' diet of a canine. The way people feed raw nowadays is not what a wolf would eat. And dogs roaming the streets tend to survive on raiding peoples garbage and roadkill. Dogs, while very closely related, are not wolves. They are domesticated and bred to work with humans.


----------



## whiteleo

Jacksons Mom said:


> It would be impossible to tell that. And in contrary, there was nowhere near as much veterinary advances back then as there are today. A lot more people opt for treatments for certain things now that just wasn't available back then. Not to mention, most dogs weren't kept in a house or fenced yard all day, they were out roaming. I'd have a feeling most dogs died young by getting hit by cars, before even being able to determine if they were going to get cancer. You can't really correlate diet to lifespan from previous time periods to today... there are just TOO MANY factors involved. People's attitudes about the value of pets as family members and the amount of money they're willing to spend on medical care have changed drastically. There have been many advances in veterinary medicine that make us capable of giving dogs longer lives.
> 
> I remember reading that the first dog biscuits were made in the late 1800's and I believe the first kibble was in the very early 1900's. Most farm dogs, from what I've read, were fed leftovers or scraps. Sometimes cheap cornmeal-type mush stuff. And a lot of people could barely feed themselves, you think they were giving their dogs some of their good meat? Doubtful.
> 
> Dogs are some of the most bred down creatures on the planet. With all the selective breeding involved, they are basically bred to adapt, and really are one of the most 'unnatural' animals. That's why, while I'm not against raw, sometimes I find it silly to call it the 'natural' diet of a canine. The way people feed raw nowadays is not what a wolf would eat. And dogs roaming the streets tend to survive on raiding peoples garbage and roadkill. Dogs, while very closely related, are not wolves. They are domesticated and bred to work with humans.


Farm dogs were eating dead calves and animals that died on the farm, I know several farmers who to this day will slit a dead cow open and let the working dogs go at it.


----------



## monster'sdad

Foodie said:


> Before forming an opinion on this food or any food for that matter, I like to know what the ash level is. It's a crime that the AAFCO doesn't require dog foods to have ash content on the label. High ash is usually associated with extra bone (by-products) and low quality ingredients in the formula. Bones contain more than just minerals, it's where heavy metals and toxins are taken up and stored as they are in many by-products. Exposure to heavy metals and toxins has shown to cause cancer.
> 
> It's not unreasonable to think that these heavy metals and toxins cause DNA mutations within our dogs. Industrialization has put toxins in our air, water and land and we are all exposed. It's impossible to eliminate all toxins but you can consciously try to reduce exposure to them. The less exposure the better, it's the repeated or long term assaults on cells that makes DNA vulnerable to mutations, gene mutations can cause disease and cancer. EIC and VonWillibrand's disease are 2 examples of genetic diseases caused by gene mutations. Toxins aren't the only cause of gene mutation, virus's and other elements can also play a role in assaults on our cells. What we eat can certainly have an effect on a molecular level and those effects can be passed on to future generations through mutations or vulnerable DNA.
> 
> So a cheaper food is not always the best for me if the ash value is high. Low ash meat meals with less bone cost more increasing the cost of the food. Bone is a toxic by-product and because of health risks bone meal is no longer recommended for human supplementation, so why would I want bone included in a meal that I feed my dog _everyday_. I read a study that said wolves seldom eat the bones of large prey and they get a large portion of their calcium from blood that they lap up and not bones. The less exposure to toxins the better off we are.


Well said, that is another reason to take a logical approach in the use of high quality by-products and not get hysterical about it. The grade of Chicken Meal in the SportMix will be a decent grade, not the best not the worst. It is a value food, plain paper bag and sold in feed stores.


----------



## monster'sdad

Leo, I have to agree with you there but not for the reasons you stated. The general population of dogs was not dominated by a handful of broken-down breeds like it is today and dogs did not get medical care like they do today to extend their lives. Also people didn't neuter so much back then. 

So of course, cancer rates will be lower. If you eliminated the more popular breeds from the cancer statistics like Goldens, for example, and adjusted for dogs over the age of 10 years old I don't think the numbers will look that different.

I know how you feel about dry food in general, but before kibble was around many dogs ate canned horse meat loaded with chemicals and toxins. Feeding dogs canned horse meat was one way to get rid of spent, sick and dying horses. Is that better?

You can't apply your time and money standard for feeding a dog to the vast majority of familes out there. Personally, I have seen no advantage to it and I am surprised as well given what some dogs eat and how well they look and perform, and I am not talking about house dogs.


----------



## bett

monster'sdad said:


> Most of the major problems with domesticated dogs have very, very strong breed (ie genetic) ties. Whether it is cancer, diabetes, thyroid, seasonal alopecia, zinc deficiency and orthopedic issues, etc.
> 
> Apart from genetics the following have much more impact on the health of the animal than diet (in this country anyway)
> 
> 1) Vaccination Schedule, the later the better for a puppy and after the one year booster never again
> 2) When or if a dog is neutered, females included
> 3) Amount of exercise and weight, time spent outside
> 4) Injury as puppy, these tend to be life-long problems
> 
> Choice of diet plays only a minor role for most dogs, the vast majority actually.
> 
> One of the reasons why some diseases are more common is simply the fact that dogs live longer due to better medical care. Years ago you never treated an arthritic dog or one with a low thyroid, never. The population of dogs age 10 -15 is much higher now, keep that in mind when you blame Purina for everything.



i agree that food is not a major contributor to dogs getting cancer.
so i then wonder why, monster's dad, on every board you're on, you manage to alienate the population because of your discussion of kibble? (i said that politely, not really accurately, if you know what i mean)
just a question, not an attack.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

whiteleo said:


> So since Monsters dad DaViking and even Linsey think that genetics play more of a role, who can find the statistics of cancer among dogs before kibble was developed? Bet you it's nothing compared to today


I agree - I read that cancer among pets increased significantly and proportionately with the increased use of commercial kibble, which really started picking up steam in the mid 1900's.

To add to that; I think our environment is also more toxic today than it was say 50 years ago, - so again it could be both playing a big role.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

Jacksons Mom said:


> It would be impossible to tell that. And in contrary, there was nowhere near as much veterinary advances back then as there are today. A lot more people opt for treatments for certain things now that just wasn't available back then. Not to mention, most dogs weren't kept in a house or fenced yard all day, they were out roaming. I'd have a feeling most dogs died young by getting hit by cars, before even being able to determine if they were going to get cancer. You can't really correlate diet to lifespan from previous time periods to today... there are just TOO MANY factors involved. People's attitudes about the value of pets as family members and the amount of money they're willing to spend on medical care have changed drastically. There have been many advances in veterinary medicine that make us capable of giving dogs longer lives.
> 
> I remember reading that the first dog biscuits were made in the late 1800's and I believe the first kibble was in the very early 1900's. Most farm dogs, from what I've read, were fed leftovers or scraps. Sometimes cheap cornmeal-type mush stuff. And a lot of people could barely feed themselves, you think they were giving their dogs some of their good meat? Doubtful.
> 
> Dogs are some of the most bred down creatures on the planet. With all the selective breeding involved, they are basically bred to adapt, and really are one of the most 'unnatural' animals. That's why, while I'm not against raw, sometimes I find it silly to call it the 'natural' diet of a canine. The way people feed raw nowadays is not what a wolf would eat. And dogs roaming the streets tend to survive on raiding peoples garbage and roadkill. Dogs, while very closely related, are not wolves. They are domesticated and bred to work with humans.


This may be true - but I don't want my dog to survive - I want him to thrive and live a long disease free life. If I am able to feed him the best diet of fresh and natural foods, why not?

My grandma told me that their dogs use to live to the age of 17 -18 years! They didn't know such a thing as kibble existed and fed the dogs left overs and other foods from the farm - sure it wasn't always choice cut meats, but at least it was free of preservatives and chemicals, which is what I think is one of the main contributors to cancer and disease in general. I mean, logically if you had to ingest preservatives, chemicals, flavourants, colourants, etc. with every single meal you ate every single day for the rest of your life, you wouldn't be a very healthy person either.

And yes, there have been many advances in veterinary medicine, yet more pets are dying today at younger ages than before? Dogs and cats use to get cancer at around 10 years of age or older...today it is not uncommon to see a 3 year old dog or 2 year old kitten with cancer, or some other horrible disease....I don't know, to me it is crystal clear...I don't understand why the rest of the world can't see it either.


----------



## monster'sdad

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> I agree - I read that cancer among pets increased significantly and proportionately with the increased use of commercial kibble, which really started picking up steam in the mid 1900's.
> 
> To add to that; I think our environment is also more toxic today than it was say 50 years ago, - so again it could be both playing a big role.


Has nothing do with kibble and you are wrong, the enviroment is dramatically cleaner than it was 50 years ago by every objective measure. Could it be better? Of course. 50 years ago people used leaded gasoline, untreated sewage ran into every major waterway in the country, people heated home with soft coal, big companies dumped really nasty chemicals where ever they wanted. Mercury vapor was emitted without limitation from TV tube factories. Asbestos, lead paint and even lead solder in drinking water plumbing was everywhere. Much of what people ate was canned food.

Animals meant for food were given horrible food and medication. There was no EPA until the 1970's by the way.

50 years ago some people wormed dogs with wads of chewing tobacco and finely ground glass.

Cancer was not a diagnosed disease in animals 50 years ago, so you can't look at those numbers. Many diseases in animals were not specifically diagnosed back then.

Take out Goldens, Boxers and German Sheperds from the cancer rates, all three breed are in the Top Ten, two are in the Top Five and you will see much different numbers.

If you can find a book called "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible" it is a good read. You will appreciate how you live now much more.


----------



## mheath0429

Not necessarily - Canned horse meat wasn't prevalent until the early 1900's I believe...before that they ate scraps.


----------



## Sheltielover25

monster'sdad said:


> Has nothing do with kibble and you are wrong, the enviroment is dramatically cleaner than it was 50 years ago by every objective measure. Could it be better? Of course. 50 years ago people used leaded gasoline, untreated sewage ran into every major waterway in the country, people heated home with soft coal, big companies dumped really nasty chemicals where ever they wanted. Mercury vapor was emitted without limitation from TV tube factories. Asbestos, lead paint and even lead solder in drinking water plumbing was everywhere. Much of what people ate was canned food.
> 
> Animals meant for food were given horrible food and medication. There was no EPA until the 1970's by the way.
> 
> 50 years ago some people wormed dogs with wads of chewing tobacco and finely ground glass.
> 
> Cancer was not a diagnosed disease in animals 50 years ago, so you can't look at those numbers. Many diseases in animals were not specifically diagnosed back then.
> 
> Take out Goldens, Boxers and German Sheperds from the cancer rates, all three breed are in the Top Ten, two are in the Top Five and you will see much different numbers.
> 
> If you can find a book called "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible" it is a good read. You will appreciate how you live now much more.


Complete and utter BS! Look at cultures who don't have access to processed foods and factory farming and see how they don't have cancer or diabetes. Look at the cultures that were introduced to said things and see how fast their health went down from generation to generation. You seriously don't live in the same world most do lmao I'm glad the majority of people on here see through you and your jibberish.


----------



## CorgiPaws

whiteleo said:


> So since Monsters dad DaViking and even Linsey think that genetics play more of a role, who can find the statistics of cancer among dogs before kibble was developed? Bet you it's nothing compared to today


Oh no, I'm not necessarily saying that one factor is more of a cause than another... I don't know the answer to the and wont pretend to. I think it's a combination of genetics, diet, and environment and can't ignore any of the three. If a dog is genetically predisposed, AND has a high level of exposure to toxins on a constant basis, I do not think diet alone will prevent or cure it. On the same token, a dog with great genetics, fed raw, living next to a nuclear testing plant... Still could get it. There are too many factors to consider and too many variables to solely contribute cause to one thing. 
Diet is important. It's common sense to me that living creatures are designed to eat fresh foods, regardless of carnivore, omnivore, etc... 
I too would be interested in the pre-kibble statistics because I think kibble IS a leading factor (one of three) just like genetics. 

I started Grissom on raw to save his life, and it did. I started Annie on raw because she's a Boxer- incredibly prone to cancer. So, clearly I also don't ignore the role of nutrition....


----------



## InkedMarie

The food looks so so to me, three rice in the ingredients are too many, IMO. If money was a problem, I'd look more closely at that and other foods. Who makes it?


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> Complete and utter BS! Look at cultures who don't have access to processed foods and factory farming and see how they don't have cancer or diabetes. Look at the cultures that were introduced to said things and see how fast their health went down from generation to generation. You seriously don't live in the same world most do lmao I'm glad the majority of people on here see through you and your jibberish.


You cannot even understand a post. Why don't you try and read it again. Only a fool would think the US is dirtier than it was 50 years ago.

We are talking about cancer in dogs, not how people live on Crete or Okinawa. Do some research into genetics and cancer and autoimmune disease in dogs. You will learn some amazing things how breeding to a standard has caused so many problems in dogs. In some breeds the genetic cancer triggers have been identified and named. What you may not understand is that genetic problems compound as time goes on. It has been known for years that faulty p53 genes are passed down in certain breeds.

Think once in a while rather than rant. Explain why 60%, or more, of Golden's develop similar cancer.


----------



## bett

monster'sdad said:


> You cannot even understand a post. Why don't you try and read it again. Only a fool would think the US is dirtier than it was 50 years ago.
> 
> We are talkiing about cancer in dogs, not how people live on Crete or Okinawa. Do some research into genetics and cancer and autoimmune disease in dogs. You will learn some amazing things how breeding to a standard has caused so many problems in dogs. In some breeds the genetic cancer triggers have been identified and named. What you may not understand is that genetic problems compound as time goes on.
> 
> Think once in a while rather than rant.


Sweet.
Just such a nice way with words.


----------



## mheath0429

monster'sdad said:


> You cannot even understand a post. Why don't you try and read it again. Only a fool would think the US is dirtier than it was 50 years ago.
> 
> We are talking about cancer in dogs, not how people live on Crete or Okinawa. Do some research into genetics and cancer and autoimmune disease in dogs. You will learn some amazing things how breeding to a standard has caused so many problems in dogs. In some breeds the genetic cancer triggers have been identified and named. What you may not understand is that genetic problems compound as time goes on. It has been known for years that faulty p53 genes are passed down in certain breeds.
> 
> Think once in a while rather than rant. Explain why 60%, or more, of Golden's develop similar cancer.


It wasn't always that way. They haven't ALWAYS had a 60% cancer rate. 

Unleashing the Canine Genome


Furthermore, it can even be said that AMERICA has caused the cancer epidemic in Goldens - the English Goldens have HALF the incidences of cancer. I believe it is some 38% of English Goldens die of cancer. These lines also haven't been bred into the ground.

http://www.recherchegoldens.com/Documents/hsgoldenretriever-1.pdf

http://www.recherchegoldens.com/Documents/GRCA Health Survey.pdf


----------



## Jacksons Mom

I would think that the cancer rate in Goldens leaped so much because they became so popular, and too many people were breeding them that didn't know what they were doing. It happens with all breeds that become popular - they typically become more and more unhealthy. Most breeds who are not very popular, and remain somewhat untouched (or the same as they were 50+ years ago), are the healthiest.

I'm definitely not saying diet plays NO part. I believe it certainly does. But I just think genetics overrule it, most of the time.


----------



## mheath0429

Jacksons Mom said:


> I would think that the cancer rate in Goldens leaped so much because they became so popular, and too many people were breeding them that didn't know what they were doing. It happens with all breeds that become popular - they typically become more and more unhealthy. Most breeds who are not very popular, and remain somewhat untouched (or the same as they were 50+ years ago), are the healthiest.


Not necessarily true - my breed is relatively healthy and people love them. Granted, our parent club is strict about testing and we have a JC study that is on going through the club. We have eye problem - Corneal Dystrophy and Juvenile Cataracts, but responsible breeders have done a great job breeding out HD - which is now only showing up 2% of tested siberians (yes, I understand that other dogs aren't tested, blah blah blah). That is leaps and bounds better than before.


----------



## monster'sdad

SheltieLuvr,

Here you go, you may be aware of this rare cancer in Shelties:

*"The Ostrander Laboratory at the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH, the
Purdue Comparative Oncology Program at Purdue University, and the Department of Small Animal
Clinical Sciences at Michigan State University have been working since 2006 to discover the genetic
causes of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urinary bladder in dogs. TCC is a devastating disease
and Shetland Sheepdogs are four and one half times more likely to be diagnosed \ with TCC than most
other dogs. Our ultimate goal is to identify the genetic variants responsible for this much increased
susceptibility to the disease.

We have completed our first SNP based genome‐wide analysis in more than 60 Sheltie cases and
controls. Cases have a diagnosis of TCC confirmed by biopsy with histopathology. Controls have passed
the age of eight with no diagnosis of cancer of any kind. We looked for locations in the genome that
differ between affected and unaffected dogs, and have found a genomic region that appears to be
important in TCC. We believe further work will lead to the identification of causative mutations in
Shetland Sheepdogs and may be informative for other breeds at increased risk for developing the
disease."*

Breeders have known for a long time the predisposition was genetic, in some terriers as well.


----------



## monster'sdad

mheath0429 said:


> Not necessarily true - my breed is relatively healthy and people love them. Granted, our parent club is strict about testing and we have a JC study that is on going through the club. We have eye problem - Corneal Dystrophy and Juvenile Cataracts, but responsible breeders have done a great job breeding out HD - which is now only showing up 2% of tested siberians (yes, I understand that other dogs aren't tested, blah blah blah). That is leaps and bounds better than before.


There are reasons Huskies are healthier than average, like most upland bird dogs, breeders at least historically bred for function and form just not form. So you tend to bring into the gene pool very robust dogs on the basis of health and performance rather than looks. Outside of Westminster, Huskies are rather loose in terms of appearance and that diversity helps keep the breed healthier on average. Same for Jack Russels and others.

When you breed soley for form, like in giant and toy breeds or breeds with exaggerated features like Boxers, genetic problems tend to get recycled and amplified as time goes on. Huskies are a rather natural looking and featured breed. With Goldens, the priority was coat, heavy bone and temperament and you see what happens.

It is very simple. 

If in fact you are right about cancer in English Goldens that would support the whole thesis that cancer in dogs, as compared to people, is largely genetic and that poor breeding practises is responsible for the high rates in the US.


----------



## Georgiapeach

An interesting, plain English read Re: grains feeding cancer in dogs: Canine Cancer Prevention | What You Can Do To Help Prevent Cancer in Dogs. Many people in the boxer world have found this to be true. Many tumors have shrunk or disappeared when grains were removed from the dog's food. Yes, boxers have a terrible cancer rate. I've lost one myself to this insidious disease (Rip Duke!). I'd rather not tempt fate if there's something I can do to improve the odds.


----------



## monster'sdad

Georgiapeach said:


> An interesting, plain English read Re: grains feeding cancer in dogs: Canine Cancer Prevention | What You Can Do To Help Prevent Cancer in Dogs. Many people in the boxer world have found this to be true. Many tumors have shrunk or disappeared when grains were removed from the dog's food. Yes, boxers have a terrible cancer rate. I've lost one myself to this insidious disease (Rip Duke!). I'd rather not tempt fate if there's something I can do to improve the odds.


Then eliminate potato if that is your plan, and to be fair, that isn't an objective website.


----------



## Caty M

Carbs in general can feed cancer no matter the source- potato is no better than grain and can be worse than some (high GI). Most of the lower carb foods are grain free though, although most grain free foods are not low carb... if that makes sense. 

Is canned horse meat really much different to dog food except the animal source of the protein?


----------



## CorgiPaws

I find it difficult to wrap my head around how people don't think diet, genetics, AND environment play a role here.... 

To me, it seems like complete common sense that the more unnatural things you put into (feed) a living creature, the more trouble you are asking for. I'm not speaking in terms of kibble vs. raw here, but rather species appropriate vs. inappropriate ingredients. Grains, starches.... they're not species-appropriate. Cornmeal is not a natural food source for dogs. So, this would lead me to believe that the more species-inappropriate things in a diet, the more likely the diet is to cause all kinds of problems, or at least trigger/play into issues a dog is genetically predisposed to. Can diet "cause" cancer in a dog with absolutely no predisposition for it? I don't know the answer to that, maybe, maybe not.... but can it act as a catalyst in a dog whose genetics are already against it? My opinion: yes. Genetics are hugely important, but diet is the cornerstone to overall health. I can't wrap my head around someone thinking "it doesn't really matter what you feed your dogs, it will make no difference." Obviously it will. 

On the flip side, the genetic makeup of a dog will determine a large portion of his health. Unfortunately there are so many breeders out there not giving a second thought to health, only breeding to make money, or only breeding for "pretty dogs." This has caused many purebred animals to not be as robust as they once were. I speak only of purebred dogs here only because of the lack of data in mutts. Looking at statistics, Goldens, Boxers, and GSD's are more affected by cancer than other breeds. It's silly to think that's because owners of these breeds are more likely to feed a poor diet. There's OBVIOUSLY a genetic factor. 

Additionally, environment. Pump puppies full of vaccines every other week and then wonder why their systems are haywire. Makes no sense. Surely a dog (or person...) living next to some nuclear testing plant is going to be more prone to developing abnormalities. The statistics are there to back that up. It's no coincidence why communities close to these toxic types of places are riddled with illness. Look at the chemicals most people use on a nearly daily basis without thinking twice about it. 

I don't think any one of these factors can discount the others.


----------



## monster'sdad

Caty M said:


> Carbs in general can feed cancer no matter the source- potato is no better than grain and can be worse than some (high GI). Most of the lower carb foods are grain free though, although most grain free foods are not low carb... if that makes sense.
> 
> Is canned horse meat really much different to dog food except the animal source of the protein?


Horse meat is fine for dogs but not the horse meat that was used years ago as a disposal method. 

It is legal again in the US to slaughter horses but I doubt you will see a horse-based food.

As for the carbohydrate content of grain-free vs grain-inclusive, you will find the foods with lowest amount of carbohydrates measured in terms in calories are the ones with grain, and there are a lot probably as many or more than grain-free varieties.


----------



## Caty M

I'd like to see an example of that? A high protein/fat food is going to be lower carb. EVO for example is a 47/24 food I believe... Once you factor in ash and moisture there is not a whole lot of room left for carbs.


----------



## DaViking

Caty M said:


> Carbs in general can feed cancer no matter the source- potato is no better than grain and can be worse than some (high GI). Most of the lower carb foods are grain free though, although most grain free foods are not low carb... if that makes sense.
> 
> Is canned horse meat really much different to dog food except the animal source of the protein?


Carbs does not feed cancer, anything you can produce/convert glucose from is a source for cancer cells. In this discussion it's a big difference since dogs produce and regulate glucose without carbohydrates of any kind.

Horse meat is great in Salami, nom nom nom.


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> Carbs does not feed cancer, anything you can produce/convert glucose from is a source for cancer cells. In this discussion it's a big difference since dogs produce and regulate glucose without carbohydrates of any kind.
> 
> Horse meat is great in Salami, nom nom nom.



Talk to any cancer vet that treats dogs and they will all say that carbs feed cancer, if they don't well then he's a whack who shouldn't be practicing. Do your research and not ones backed by a kibble co.


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> Talk to any cancer vet that treats dogs and they will all say that carbs feed cancer, if they don't well then he's a whack who shouldn't be practicing. Do your research and not ones backed by a kibble co.


I am about trying to be accurate, read it again and see if you can't figure it out. If not, you simply do not understand how metabolism work. Stop it with this meaningless aggressive attitude. I asked you a question several pages back but never got an answer, guess it's not coming as usual.


----------



## whiteleo

What question, I'm a very busy person and am not here a lot.


----------



## Roo

> anything you can produce/convert glucose from is a source for cancer cells. In this discussion it's a big difference since dogs produce and regulate glucose without carbohydrates of any kind.


Isn't there a difference in feeding low glycemic foods and high glycemic foods in regards to glucose feeding cancer?

The study of epigenetics suggests that even genetics aren't set in stone and have the potential to be affected by outside environmental factors, I would think that one of those outside factors could be diet.


----------



## DaViking

Roo said:


> Isn't there a difference in feeding low glycemic foods and high glycemic foods in regards to glucose feeding cancer?
> 
> The study of epigenetics suggests that even genetics aren't set in stone and have the potential to be affected by outside environmental factors, I would think that one of those outside factors could be diet.


Yes, nothing more to say.


----------



## Sheltielover25

The whole point is genetics play a role but its the diet and environmental factors the bitch has had down the lines that causes this predisposition. It's why Liz's digs are so healthy because she has kept the lines free of toxins, or as free as possible in 2012. Of course genetics play a role, but it's processed foods and toxins and other things screwing up the genetics from generation to generation.


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> The whole point is genetics play a role but its the diet and environmental factors the bitch has had down the lines that causes this predisposition. It's why Liz's digs are so healthy because she has kept the lines free of toxins, or as free as possible in 2012. Of course genetics play a role, but it's processed foods and toxins and other things screwing up the genetics from generation to generation.


That is incorrect, 100% incorrect. Doesn't matter if the bitch eats Ole Roy or filet mignon every night mutated genes are mutated genes. No genetisist is going to agree with that statement. By all accounts Denmark, Australia and New Zealand are three of the cleanest places on earth, and there is little if any factory farming like we have here and strict rules on GMO, but all three countries have higher cancer rates than the US.

Norway and the US have about the same cancer rate, that one even surprised me.

Some purebred dogs come with a price tag and that is a cancer bomb.


----------



## monster'sdad

Caty M said:


> I'd like to see an example of that? A high protein/fat food is going to be lower carb. EVO for example is a 47/24 food I believe... Once you factor in ash and moisture there is not a whole lot of room left for carbs.




If you go by an estimate for Evo (42/22) of 17- 18% of calories from carbohydrates, all of the foods listed below will be plus or minus 1%-2% that number. All below are "as fed" Keep in mind the multiplier for fat.

1) Red Paw 38/25
2) Dr. Tim's Momemtum 35/25
3) Inukshuk 32/32
4) Royal Canin 4800 32/32
5) Abady High Stress & Competition 31/36
6) Abady Elevated Stress - 33/29
7) Abady State of The Art - 35/29
8) Diamond Extreme Athlete 32/25
9) Caribou Creek 37/25

Outside of EVO, pretty much every 30 - 34/20 perfomance kibble will have comparable carbohydrates to Orijen, which by calories is around 27%, and lower carbohydrate than Acana. Dr. Tim's Pursuit and Annamaet Ultra for example have lower carbohydrates than Acana GF.

Many other GF's would not be comparable to even the perfomance kibbles, Nutrisource for example.

I am not saying one is better than the other, just when it comes to low carbohydrate foods, the conventional wisdom that grain free foods win the contest is not correct.

If you take the position the fat amounts in those foods are outliers, I can easily take the position the protein in Evo is an outlier and probably overstated.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

monster'sdad said:


> That is incorrect, 100% incorrect. Doesn't matter if the bitch eats Ole Roy or filet mignon every night mutated genes are mutated genes. No genetisist is going to agree with that statement. By all accounts Denmark, Australia and New Zealand are three of the cleanest places on earth, and there is little if any factory farming, but all three countries have higher cancer rates than the US.
> 
> 
> Norway and the US have about the same cancer rate, that one even surprised me.
> 
> Some purebred dogs come with a price tag and that is a cancer bomb.


I've been staying out of this, but I have to defend Sheltilover here. She DID say genetics play a role, and they do. But, so does good nutrition. If you have a breed who is predisposed to something like cancer, are you going to just say screw it, I'll just feed crap food because he's going to probably die soon anyway? Or, be concerned with good nutrition to HELP them stay as healthy for as long as possible?


----------



## naturalfeddogs

monster'sdad said:


> That is incorrect, 100% incorrect. Doesn't matter if the bitch eats Ole Roy or filet mignon every night mutated genes are mutated genes. No genetisist is going to agree with that statement. By all accounts Denmark, Australia and New Zealand are three of the cleanest places on earth, and there is little if any factory farming, but all three countries have higher cancer rates than the US.
> 
> 
> Norway and the US have about the same cancer rate, that one even surprised me.
> 
> Some purebred dogs come with a price tag and that is a cancer bomb.


I've been staying out of this, but I have to defend Sheltilover here. She DID say genetics play a role, and they do. But, so does good nutrition. If you have a breed who is predisposed to something like cancer, are you going to just say screw it, I'll just feed crap food because he's going to probably die soon anyway? Or, be concerned with good nutrition to HELP them stay as healthy for as long as possible?


----------



## Sheltielover25

monster'sdad said:


> That is incorrect, 100% incorrect. Doesn't matter if the bitch eats Ole Roy or filet mignon every night mutated genes are mutated genes. No genetisist is going to agree with that statement. By all accounts Denmark, Australia and New Zealand are three of the cleanest places on earth, and there is little if any factory farming, but all three countries have higher cancer rates than the US.


First off, I've taken several genetics classes at college level so you're spewing incorrect information. Anyone who says what a bitch eats or a human mother, doesn't alter genetics knows nothing. Again, look at Liz's dogs and you'll see a perfect example of how much diet effects genetics. 

Also look at the diet of those countries -- can you say carbs??? Pastries??? Meat and potatoes and main staples. 

Argue all you want but what a mother eats while pregnant has lots to do with predispositions to certain things. Whether it is teeth decay, diabetes, or cancer nutritipn plays a vital role.

In the end though if you truly believe the dog foods you support are the best, then by all means continue to feed. I've noticed most people on here are sensible enough to know many factors go into making one healthy and without nutrition, proper nutrtion, nothing will thrive. And carbs are not proper nutrition no matter how many times you write it. But keep feeding carbs and we will all continue to work on learning. Since you know it all, you should perhaps start a forum for people who want cheap, poor quality kibbles.


----------



## MollyWoppy

And don't forget the cancer figures for NZ and Oz are skewed somewhat because of the rate of melanoma, which is more than double the rate of most other countries. Caused by the Ozone hole.
And, yes, carbs are a staple down there too. Bread, potatoes, pasta for every meal.


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> First off, I've taken several genetics classes at college level so you're spewing incorrect information. Anyone who says what a bitch eats or a human mother, doesn't alter genetics knows nothing. Again, look at Liz's dogs and you'll see a perfect example of how much diet effects genetics.
> 
> Also look at the diet of those countries -- can you say carbs??? Pastries??? Meat and potatoes and main staples.
> 
> Argue all you want but what a mother eats while pregnant has lots to do with predispositions to certain things. Whether it is teeth decay, diabetes, or cancer nutritipn plays a vital role.
> 
> In the end though if you truly believe the dog foods you support are the best, then by all means continue to feed. I've noticed most people on here are sensible enough to know many factors go into making one healthy and without nutrition, proper nutrtion, nothing will thrive. And carbs are not proper nutrition no matter how many times you write it. But keep feeding carbs and we will all continue to work on learning. Since you know it all, you should perhaps start a forum for people who want cheap, poor quality kibbles.


You know what. You should lecture every breed club and university that is working on tests to flag and hopefully eliminate faulty and mutated genes from breeding stock and just explain that all they have to do is adopt your raw feeding techniques. 

I will gladly pay to watch that lecture. Let's start with German Shepherds. Will you draft a letter to the national club stating your views on multifocal renal cystadenocarcinoma? Request some time at the next meeting of the club's Health Committe to present your thesis.


----------



## monster'sdad

naturalfeddogs said:


> I've been staying out of this, but I have to defend Sheltilover here. She DID say genetics play a role, and they do. But, so does good nutrition. If you have a breed who is predisposed to something like cancer, are you going to just say screw it, I'll just feed crap food because he's going to probably die soon anyway? Or, be concerned with good nutrition to HELP them stay as healthy for as long as possible?


Dogs do not get "lifestyle" cancers like humans do. Sure if you stick a dog in front radiation, then that will probably cause cancer. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about types of cancers that persist because of the genetic make-up of particular breeds. 

There is nothing you can do with nutrition to save Golden's or prevent a higher rate of bladder cancer in Shelties or kidney cancer in German Sheperds except eliminating the genetic risk. Dogs get copies of both genes because of the nature of pure bred animals.


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> Serious arguments going on here. Btw whiteleo, I seem to remember that you recommend Acana which happens to use rendered meals and have around 35% to 45% carbohydrates too. Which is ok but probably not that far from these new LID foods. If you don't want to be talked down to you shouldn't do it yourself. I think you are overreacting a bit here whiteleo. Just my $0.02


So is this the question? Yes, I recommend Acana and Orijen all the time and any grain free food that hasn't had problems and if you think Champion is bad then I guess this says it all.................


----------



## Georgiapeach

monster'sdad said:


> Then eliminate potato if that is your plan, and to be fair, that isn't an objective website.


I think you feel that only your quoted sites are objective...
I *have* eliminated grains and potato from my westie mix, Maddie's, kibble - she can't tolerate starch - drives her itchy crazy! She should probably be on a raw diet, but I'm not there yet...Right now she's on California Natural Salmon and Peas - not the best, but what she can tolerate right now...
There is no perfect kibble, IMO. As an owner, I try to feed the best I can on my budget, that will keep my dog as healthy as possible. I have 3 dogs on 2 different kibbles (thank God, my badly bred poodle, Potsie, seems to be able to eat almost anything and do great!).


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> So is this the question? Yes, I recommend Acana and Orijen all the time and any grain free food that hasn't had problems and if you think Champion is bad then I guess this says it all.................


Geez, what's with the attitude lately? Can you read at all? But no, that wasn't the question. You linked Sportmix and Sportmix type foods to cancer. I just wanted to know how much cancer is caused by Sportmix and similar type foods, which would include several Acana formulas, a brand you recommend and feed.


----------



## bett

genetics, yes.

but let's think about humans for a second. pregnant women take more vitamin a, to ward off spina bifida-right?
soft cheeses, never thought about years ago, are a no-no, for a pregnant human. hmmm.
alcohol-no-no

you think is so different with animals? i'm not convinced. i do agree that genetics is the main cancer producer but....i think some breeders who dont necessarily breed correctly (and i'm no expert here, but you get where i'm going with this) contribute to more than hip issues, eye issues, and whatever.

just like we all know that the better we eat, the better chance we have not getting diabetes, heart disease, (no smoking).

does it mean that we cant get lung cancer if we never smoked? nope.

does it mean we wont get heart disease or have a stroke if we dont eat lots of red meat? nope.

does it mean if we exercise, eat correctly , etc. we're gonna live a long healthy life? maybe yes, maybe no.

i think the statistics, (think, not swear) if you have elderly parents (you know, in the 90's) is only about 3% in your favor, that you will live that long.
(screw genetics on that one, then).

bottom line -and i think we all agree-genetics play a huge role, sometimes we ourselves skew genetics (i hope that makes sense) and food does matter. is it everything? no, of course not but it does matter.


i'm sure we all have stories about our dogs that ate whatever the supermarket sold and they lived to be old, cranky dogs. and i'm sure many dogs, who had ailments that went untreated, or unnoticed, and ate crap, didnt live life to the fullest-because of all that.

my mother cooked for everyone of her dogs. liver, chopped meat. stuff like that. but, she had a huge doxie (breeder should have been banned, 30lb dog, the bigger the better in her mind) and dog lived till he was 6 1/2 then his back went and he was completely paralyzed from his waist down. so it didnt much matter what she fed.

she never added supplements-who knew about that so many years ago. milk bone was the dog biscuit of choice (i apologize in advance if i am insulting milk bone users). her schnauzers lived but not excessively long. 
maybe she should have fed alpo or some other supermarket brand.

anyway, i do think we humans influence the genetics of the dogs we breed.
i have no scientific statistics, so dont bother asking. just years and years of owning dogs. mutts, purebreds, breeds predisposed to stuff and sometimes it mattered and sometimes it didnt.
and i do think once a dog has an illness, food is very, very important in the treatment, or whatever you want to call it, when dealing with an animal.

kind of like a human who develops diabetes. i 'm guessing you wouldnt think sitting with a box of see's chocolates, might help that person.
or if you develop lung cancer, it might not be such a good thing to take up smoking (bladder cancer actually as well)


----------



## Sheltielover25

bett said:


> genetics, yes.
> 
> but let's think about humans for a second. pregnant women take more vitamin a, to ward off spina bifida-right?
> soft cheeses, never thought about years ago, are a no-no, for a pregnant human. hmmm.
> alcohol-no-no
> 
> you think is so different with animals? i'm not convinced. i do agree that genetics is the main cancer producer but....i think some breeders who dont necessarily breed correctly (and i'm no expert here, but you get where i'm going with this) contribute to more than hip issues, eye issues, and whatever.
> 
> just like we all know that the better we eat, the better chance we have not getting diabetes, heart disease, (no smoking).
> 
> does it mean that we cant get lung cancer if we never smoked? nope.
> 
> does it mean we wont get heart disease or have a stroke if we dont eat lots of red meat? nope.
> 
> does it mean if we exercise, eat correctly , etc. we're gonna live a long healthy life? maybe yes, maybe no.
> 
> i think the statistics, (think, not swear) if you have elderly parents (you know, in the 90's) is only about 3% in your favor, that you will live that long.
> (screw genetics on that one, then).
> 
> bottom line -and i think we all agree-genetics play a huge role, sometimes we ourselves skew genetics (i hope that makes sense) and food does matter. is it everything? no, of course not but it does matter.
> 
> 
> i'm sure we all have stories about our dogs that ate whatever the supermarket sold and they lived to be old, cranky dogs. and i'm sure many dogs, who had ailments that went untreated, or unnoticed, and ate crap, didnt live life to the fullest-because of all that.
> 
> my mother cooked for everyone of her dogs. liver, chopped meat. stuff like that. but, she had a huge doxie (breeder should have been banned, 30lb dog, the bigger the better in her mind) and dog lived till he was 6 1/2 then his back went and he was completely paralyzed from his waist down. so it didnt much matter what she fed.
> 
> she never added supplements-who knew about that so many years ago. milk bone was the dog biscuit of choice (i apologize in advance if i am insulting milk bone users). her schnauzers lived but not excessively long.
> maybe she should have fed alpo or some other supermarket brand.
> 
> anyway, i do think we humans influence the genetics of the dogs we breed.
> i have no scientific statistics, so dont bother asking. just years and years of owning dogs. mutts, purebreds, breeds predisposed to stuff and sometimes it mattered and sometimes it didnt.
> and i do think once a dog has an illness, food is very, very important in the treatment, or whatever you want to call it, when dealing with an animal.
> 
> kind of like a human who develops diabetes. i 'm guessing you wouldnt think sitting with a box of see's chocolates, might help that person.
> or if you develop lung cancer, it might not be such a good thing to take up smoking (bladder cancer actually as well)


Exactly. No one is saying genetics doesn't play a role. But you can't dispute those toxins sprayed on our veggies/fruit cause genes to mutate. As does the toxins in many plastics. And so much more... Of course food isn't the only thing altering genes over generations but a combination of many things. I'm preparing to conceive a child so I've researched this quite a bit. I know the dangers of pesticides and chemicals in plastics and chemicals in the water and chemicals in soaps. Many carcinogens all around us and the less mom encounters while carrying child the better. It isn't different for canines or anything else reproducing.


----------



## bett

Sheltielover25 said:


> Exactly. No one is saying genetics doesn't play a role. But you can't dispute those toxins sprayed on our veggies/fruit cause genes to mutate. As does the toxins in many plastics. And so much more... Of course food isn't the only thing altering genes over generations but a combination of many things. I'm preparing to conceive a child so I've researched this quite a bit. I know the dangers of pesticides and chemicals in plastics and chemicals in the water and chemicals in soaps. Many carcinogens all around us and the less mom encounters while carrying child the better. It isn't different for canines or anything else reproducing.


yup, i agree. we've managed to ruin so much.
since hurricane sandy ( i live near the beach) i hesitate eating clams.
long beach's sewage went right back in the ocean.

yum.


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> Geez, what's with the attitude lately? Can you read at all? But no, that wasn't the question. You linked Sportmix and Sportmix type foods to cancer. I just wanted to know how much cancer is caused by Sportmix and similar type foods, which would include several Acana formulas, a brand you recommend and feed.


I didn't do any such thing..........Foods with grains


----------



## Sheltielover25

For those interested in learning, here are some articles/studies showing environmental toxins (which include pesticides on veggies/fruits) and how they alter DNA.

First, a Univ of Washington study: Research News & Features - Washington State University Study Points to Role of Toxins in Inherited Disease

"But researchers at Washington State University in Pullman found that when pregnant rats were exposed to permethrin, DEET or any of a number of industrial chemicals (including common ingredients in plastics), the mother rats' great grand-daughters had higher risk of early puberty and malfunctioning ovaries — even though those subsequent generations had not been exposed to the chemical."

Clearly, Monster's Dad, you don't know much about woman's health. Like I said, I'm preparring to become a mother so I've researched this extensively. And as the study shows, there' only so much I can do since it's largely dependant on previous generations.

Secondly is a Univ of Chicago study: DNA methylation alterations in response ... [Environ Mol Mutagen. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

"Our results provide experimental evidence that pesticides may modify gene promoter DNA methylation levels, suggesting that epigenetic mechanisms may contribute to pesticide-induced carcinogenesis. Further studies in other cell types and human samples are required, as well as determining the impact of these methylation changes on gene expression." 

That's enough for me to avoid such toxins when I'm pregnant or any other time for that matter.

The third one I've read about is a study in India, and I don't know where the link is to the study, but this article references it. News from the Edge | Do Pesticides Change Our DNA? | unknowncountry

"New research in India shows that exposure to pesticides could have damaged the DNA of people on farms, leading to higher rates of cancer. A study of farmers in the Punjab area of India, where cancer rates have increased, reveals that there DNA has been altered, making them more susceptible to cancer. While it's doubtful that the Roundup pesticide used on GM crops was used there, since India has few GM crops, it does point out the potential danger in spraying pesticides. In BBC News, David Loyn quotes researcher Satbir Kaur as saying, "We found significant change in the DNA, so the cancer risk is greatly increased when the extent of DNA damage is very high."

So while GMO themselves may not be causing these changes (but no one an say they don't because there's only one flawed study done on GMO and their affects) it's conventional veggies/fruits that most certainly lead to this damage. A pregnant mother should only be eating organic veggies/fruits preferably from a farmer they trust. Just like a pregnant bitch shouldn't be fed these things. Nor should a pregnant rat or a pregnant cat. PREGNANT ANYTHING. They should be avoid toxic plastics as well. Check them out and BUY ORGANIC!

This study also talks about GMO canola oil and how it's impossible to get away from it...


----------



## Caty M

monster'sdad said:


> If you go by an estimate for Evo (42/22) of 17- 18% of calories from carbohydrates, all of the foods listed below will be plus or minus 1%-2% that number. All below are "as fed" Keep in mind the multiplier for fat.
> 
> 1) Red Paw 38/25
> 2) Dr. Tim's Momemtum 35/25
> 3) Inukshuk 32/32
> 4) Royal Canin 4800 32/32
> 5) Abady High Stress & Competition 31/36
> 6) Abady Elevated Stress - 33/29
> 7) Abady State of The Art - 35/29
> 8) Diamond Extreme Athlete 32/25
> 9) Caribou Creek 37/25
> 
> Outside of EVO, pretty much every 30 - 34/20 perfomance kibble will have comparable carbohydrates to Orijen, which by calories is around 27%, and lower carbohydrate than Acana. Dr. Tim's Pursuit and Annamaet Ultra for example have lower carbohydrates than Acana GF.
> 
> Many other GF's would not be comparable to even the perfomance kibbles, Nutrisource for example.
> 
> I am not saying one is better than the other, just when it comes to low carbohydrate foods, the conventional wisdom that grain free foods win the contest is not correct.
> 
> If you take the position the fat amounts in those foods are outliers, I can easily take the position the protein in Evo is an outlier and probably overstated.


None of those foods are available in pet stores here (that I've seen, though I'll be honest, I don't look too closely as I feed raw).. but if the majority of their protein comes from meat and not from plant sourced protein "concentrates", and don't use GMO ingredients, and don't contain plant based polyunsaturated fats, then I don't find them bad foods at all. Most of the foods I see are the 25/15s and such, whether grain free or not, and none of those I would recommend. I used to be all YEAH GRAIN FREE, but potato is no better and it's best to look at the ingredients, ingredient sources and analysis imo rather than the starch source (as long as it's not GMO).


----------



## Sheltielover25

Caty M said:


> None of those foods are available in pet stores here (that I've seen, though I'll be honest, I don't look too closely as I feed raw).. but if the majority of their protein comes from meat and not from plant sourced protein "concentrates", and don't use GMO ingredients, and don't contain plant based polyunsaturated fats, then I don't find them bad foods at all. Most of the foods I see are the 25/15s and such, whether grain free or not, and none of those I would recommend. I used to be all YEAH GRAIN FREE, but potato is no better and it's best to look at the ingredients, ingredient sources and analysis imo rather than the starch source (as long as it's not GMO).


I don't know about all of them but I know Dr. Tim's momentum has canola oil, rice (80% of rice grown is GMO) and beets (95% of beets grown are GMO) so I know it's full of GMO.


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> I don't know about all of them but I know Dr. Tim's momentum has canola oil, rice (80% of rice grown is GMO) and beets (95% of beets grown are GMO) so I know it's full of GMO.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.....there is not one cultivar of rice being used that is GMO...wrong wrong wrong on all counts, all counts wrong wrong wrong, like the GMO chickens and growth hormones used poultry and hogs....always factually incorrect


----------



## meggels

monster'sdad said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong.....there is not one cultivar of rice being used that is GMO...wrong wrong wrong on all counts, all counts wrong wrong wrong, like the GMO chickens and growth hormones used poultry and hogs....always factually incorrect


Do you have proof that shows this? How do we know?


----------



## Roo

I agree with Meggels, with all due respect Monster, you can write "wrong" as many times as you like, but until you support that "wrong" with some credible sourced/factual information for one to consider, you're just writing the word "wrong" several times without any real meaning or explanation.


----------



## monster'sdad

Roo said:


> I agree with Meggels, with all due respect Monster, you can write "wrong" as many times as you like, but until you support that "wrong" with some credible sourced/factual information for one to consider, you're just writing the word "wrong" several times without any real meaning or explanation.


You must be joking...using hormones on poultry and hogs is illegal..I don't have to prove anything. It just isn't done. I keep asking for proof that hormones are used and that indivudual never responds.

Its funny how all you post and ask people to prove negatives.

You Google "hormones in poultry and hogs" and see what the result is.


----------



## meggels

monster'sdad said:


> You must be joking...using hormones on poultry and hogs is illegal..I don't have to prove anything. It just isn't done. I keep asking for proof that hormones are used and that indivudual never responds.
> 
> Its funny how all you post and ask people to prove negatives.
> 
> You Google "hormones in poultry and hogs" and see what the result is.


You are ALWAYS asking people for proof, but are never willing to give us any yourself, and just tell us to google phrases. It works both ways.


----------



## meggels

For shits and giggles, I did google "is it illegal to use hormones in chickens" and here are some of the top articles I found (that seemed to be credible, not from Wikipedia or the likes).

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/newsletter/newsletter_nov04.pdf

http://gactaern.org/Resources/Class_Starters_Enders/Hormones in Chickens_Class Starter and Ender.pdf

USDA Rescinds "Raised without Antibiotics" Label from Tyson Chicken - The Checkout

Hormones in Our Food | Healthy Child Healthy World


----------



## meggels

And some more...

Meat Poultry Nutrition

Consumer Concerns About Hormones in Food

Hormones In Food: Should You Worry?



By the way, I am not saying I agree with one side or the other, I was merely doing the Googling that has been suggested lol.


----------



## monster'sdad

It has been illegal in poultry since 1952.


----------



## meggels

I feel like you aren't comprehending. You are always asking people for PROOF, and you need to prove YOUR points also. Between what you say, and your delivery, very few people are gonna be open minded to what you say, you need some actual proof besides just saying "WRONG WRONG WRONG".


----------



## monster'sdad

meggels said:


> I feel like you aren't comprehending. You are always asking people for PROOF, and you need to prove YOUR points also. Between what you say, and your delivery, very few people are gonna be open minded to what you say, you need some actual proof besides just saying "WRONG WRONG WRONG".



No I understand but I think you should direct your point to others not me. What I say is common knowledge. When people say "all canola oil is GMO" , or growth hormones are used in chickens you should ask them for proof. 

When I provided links to bulk suppliers of non-gmo canola people avoid it.

Some people can't handle facts, it is called "cognitive dissonance".


----------



## DaViking

It's illegal to "beef" up poultry with growth hormones and it's illegal to market them as "hormone free" since all meat include natural occurring hormones. Is that such a shocker requiring aggressive responses demanding proof, or is it because it's monster's dad?


----------



## meggels

monster'sdad said:


> No I understand but I think you should direct your point to others not me. What I say is common knowledge. When people say "all canola oil is GMO" , or growth hormones are used in chickens you should ask them for proof.
> 
> When I provided links to bulk suppliers of non-gmo canola people avoid it.
> 
> Some people can't handle facts, it is called "cognitive dissonance".


I direct my point to YOU because you come in and get people worked up, and when people ask you for some proof about what you say, you say "it's common knowledge" or "google it". If you can take the time to start these threads which you know are going to get an argument going, take the damn time to go back up your claims too. It reeks of arrogance that you expect people to just believe what you say because you are the one saying it.


----------



## meggels

DaViking said:


> It's illegal to "beef" up poultry with growth hormones and it's illegal to market them as "hormone free" since all meat include natural occurring hormones. Is that such a shocker requiring aggressive responses demanding proof, or is it because it's monster's dad?


See my post above. His behavior is getting old, and I've been pretty tolerant of him.


----------



## Sheltielover25

monster'sdad said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong.....there is not one cultivar of rice being used that is GMO...wrong wrong wrong on all counts, all counts wrong wrong wrong, like the GMO chickens and growth hormones used poultry and hogs....always factually incorrect


LMAO Unless it says organic rice I don't believe it. And anyone can google and find out growth promoters are used in hogs/chickens. It's common knowledge and all you have to do is Google "growth promoters/swine" Either way, it's got GMO in it and I wasn't aware carnivores were meant to eat rice flour LMAO GMO or not it's full of fillers!


----------



## Sheltielover25

DaViking said:


> It's illegal to "beef" up poultry with growth hormones and it's illegal to market them as "hormone free" since all meat include natural occurring hormones. Is that such a shocker requiring aggressive responses demanding proof, or is it because it's monster's dad?


you don't nkow what you're talking about. It's not illegal to use growth promoters. DO you ever know what a growth promoter is?? LOL


----------



## DaViking

meggels said:


> See my post above. His behavior is getting old, and I've been pretty tolerant of him.


You feel it's getting old because some here have a vested interest in turning things on it's heads. Don't get me wrong, I love "proof" for everything but when "hormone free" poultry is called into question while the efficacy of the latest "snake oil 2000" passes with no questions things are ridiculous. But hey, that's ok but it got to be "ridiculous" on both sides then.


----------



## DaViking

Sheltielover25 said:


> you don't nkow what you're talking about. It's not illegal to use growth promoters. DO you ever know what a growth promoter is?? LOL


Big words for you sheltielover. Learn to be accurate and grow up. Yes, I know the difference between growth promoters and growth hormones. I used to own and run a commercial duck farm, I am one of those you hate so much


----------



## meggels

DaViking said:


> You feel it's getting old because some here have a vested interest in turning things on it's heads. Don't get me wrong, I love "proof" for everything but when "hormone free" poultry is called into question while the efficacy of the latest "snake oil 2000" passes with no questions things are ridiculous. But hey, that's ok but it got to be "ridiculous" on both sides then.


I don't normally get involved in these arguments, so you can't really point the finger at me. But I feel that Monster's Dad comes in here solely to stir up trouble, demands proof from everyone else, but won't give any himself. That's where I take issue.


----------



## DaViking

meggels said:


> I don't normally get involved in these arguments, so you can't really point the finger at me. But I feel that Monster's Dad comes in here solely to stir up trouble, demands proof from everyone else, but won't give any himself. That's where I take issue.


Sounds like someone else too doesn't it? I hear ya.


----------



## Sheltielover25

DaViking said:


> Sounds like someone else too doesn't it? I hear ya.


Please, Daviking, big words? I'm pretty sure you haven't taken anywhere near the level of college classes I have considering I take college classes for a living. With that, growth promoters are used in all animals raised and you can read all about them. Just because it's called a growth promoter, versus a hormone, doesn't make it any better for us. Either way, you eat your growth promoter meat and I'll continue feeding my animals free-range, correctly fed animals 

Also, I'm on a cross country moved so I have all the time in the world right now to call out the incorrect information shared on here


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> LMAO Unless it says organic rice I don't believe it. And anyone can google and find out growth promoters are used in hogs/chickens. It's common knowledge and all you have to do is Google "growth promoters/swine" Either way, it's got GMO in it and I wasn't aware carnivores were meant to eat rice flour LMAO GMO or not it's full of fillers!




You have about zero credbility but still you rant. Supplements used to increase food utilization and increase disease resistance are the things you profess to like, usually things call "phytobiotics" and enzymes that are plant-based. Aloe is a very popular "growth enhancer" but you will find chickens are only fed a mix of common enzymes to help with digestion. Most of this in response to the fact farmers are using less and less antibiotics. Some don't use any at all. In hogs, some blood proteins are commonly used and they clearly are not chemical agents. Dairy cattle have been receiving common enzymes since WWII.

The GMO-Compass is a well known activist group and they say the following:

"Although a GM rice cultivar (LL62) has been approved in the US, farmers have not yet begun using it."

So even if some farmers did, your statistic that 80% - 90% is GMO is totally incorrect.

So, you went from Growth Hormones to Growth Promoters and you expect respect. 

You should admit you are wrong rather than spin everything. Your defense that you don't believe things is not credible.


----------



## DaViking

Sheltielover25 said:


> Please, Daviking, big words? I'm pretty sure you haven't taken anywhere near the level of college classes I have considering I take college classes for a living. With that, growth promoters are used in all animals raised and you can read all about them. Just because it's called a growth promoter, versus a hormone, doesn't make it any better for us. Either way, you eat your growth promoter meat and I'll continue feeding my animals free-range, correctly fed animals
> 
> Also, I'm on a cross country moved so I have all the time in the world right now to call out the incorrect information shared on here


ound: |Thumbs Up|


It's actually a shame how some of these threads turn out when we could instead be discussing a/the food and it's particulars and uses. I guess some aren't too interested in that kind of chat. For some it's more fun to derail and bash because it suits their agenda, regardless if it ruins the value for others.


----------



## monster'sdad

DaViking said:


> ound: |Thumbs Up|


At some point she will learn that people need to be fed and that an heirloom tomato patch is not going to cut it.


----------



## whiteleo

monster'sdad said:


> At some point she will learn that people need to be fed and that an heirloom tomato patch is not going to cut it.





:blah::blah::blah:

This is how I feel about you two, and the kiss is for everyone else....Happy 2013!


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> :blah::blah::blah:
> 
> This is how I feel about you two, and the kiss is for everyone else....Happy 2013!


Blahing is all you have done lately, seems like your goal is to disrupt and act like a little girl about to tantrum in ever thread here. I suggest you stay away if all you have is negative pot stirring. If you don't like something there are adult ways to let everyone know.


----------



## whiteleo

I don't blah..........


----------



## whiteleo

*Grains? In Commercial Pet Food? - The Whole Dog 
*

*Dogs and Carbohydrates - A Surprising <wbr>Secret Revealed 
**Grains* and *Carbs* - Welcome to the Raw <wbr>*Dog* Ranch 



Have at it DaVikie.................


----------



## naturalfeddogs

DaViking said:


> Blahing is all you have done lately, seems like your goal is to disrupt and act like a little girl about to tantrum in ever thread here. I suggest you stay away if all you have is negative pot stirring. If you don't like something there are adult ways to let everyone know.


She's not the one doing the pot stirring.


----------



## Foodie

Jacksons Mom said:


> I would think that the cancer rate in Goldens leaped so much because they became so popular, and too many people were breeding them that didn't know what they were doing. It happens with all breeds that become popular - they typically become more and more unhealthy. Most breeds who are not very popular, and remain somewhat untouched (or the same as they were 50+ years ago), are the healthiest.
> 
> I'm definitely not saying diet plays NO part. I believe it certainly does. But I just think genetics overrule it, most of the time.


How people breed pure bred dogs has a impact on their genetics for sure. Our desire for exaggerated characteristics like giant breeds or brachycephalic breeds has hurt their health. Some breeds with a higher incidence of cancers might be explained by line or inbreeding because uncommon breeds with smaller gene pools are more likely to have been inbreed or utilize line breeding. When you inbreed or line breed skeletons come out of the closet. Popular breeds with large gene pools are still line bred to accentuate desired characteristics that are often a stretch of what the breed standard actually says. Breed standards ensure that a certain breed continues to look like that breed but interpretations of that standard and people breeding away from the standard does harm the breed. 

Early spay/neuter and obesity was mentioned once in this thread and studies have shown that both of these environmental factors play a significant role in cancer and longevity. Perhaps the Golden Retrievers in the UK have fewer cancers and longer lifespans is because they aren't as apt to S/N their dogs like we are.


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> *Grains? In Commercial Pet Food? - The Whole Dog
> *
> 
> *Dogs and Carbohydrates - A Surprising <wbr>Secret Revealed
> *
> 
> Have at it DaVikie.................


lol. Jeannie at the whole dog have more factual errors and convenient inaccuracies than anyone around. I have called her out numerous times. Dogfoodadvisor, really? You seriously basing your beliefs and arguments on a blog post from the dogfoodadvisor? He's a good Rolodex, that's all. Non of these individuals have any credentials what-so-ever in terms of advising ppl on dog food. Actuall Jeannie is not allowed by law to advise on any pet food. I know I know, you think the law suck but that's just a reality isn't it. Anyhow, here something from someone who actually is allowed to advise on dog nutrition.
Pet Health and Nutrition: are grains all bad?
Pet Health and Nutrition: Grains #2 - not as allergenic as you thought
I know it's not going to make any difference to you but since you insist on harping on this old theme I figured I'd at least link to someone who is allowed to advice on the subject.


----------



## DaViking

naturalfeddogs said:


> She's not the one doing the pot stirring.


Really? Look at her two first posts in this thread! It's aggressive, juvenile and does nothing but stir the pot. Sets the tone of things right of the bat.


----------



## Foodie

CorgiPaws said:


> I find it difficult to wrap my head around how people don't think diet, genetics, AND environment play a role here....
> 
> To me, it seems like complete common sense that the more unnatural things you put into (feed) a living creature, the more trouble you are asking for. I'm not speaking in terms of kibble vs. raw here, but rather species appropriate vs. inappropriate ingredients. Grains, starches.... they're not species-appropriate. Cornmeal is not a natural food source for dogs. So, this would lead me to believe that the more species-inappropriate things in a diet, the more likely the diet is to cause all kinds of problems, or at least trigger/play into issues a dog is genetically predisposed to. Can diet "cause" cancer in a dog with absolutely no predisposition for it? I don't know the answer to that, maybe, maybe not.... but can it act as a catalyst in a dog whose genetics are already against it? My opinion: yes. Genetics are hugely important, but diet is the cornerstone to overall health. I can't wrap my head around someone thinking "it doesn't really matter what you feed your dogs, it will make no difference." Obviously it will.


Diet is always a factor because all living organisms must eat and eating brings these toxins in direct contact with cells through internal chemical reactions. Toxins alter cells and these alterations can cause sporadic events or get passed on through genetics and become visible in later generations.

Environmental toxins are both natural and man made and are in the food chain. Plants and grazing animals take up toxins and heavy metals from the soil where they are stored in animal tissue, primarily parts of the animal that we normally don't eat, we call them by-products. By-products can be nutrient rich but they are also vessels for concentrated toxins and is the reason they aren't a staple in out diet. Nutrients found in by-products can be obtained from other less toxic (less concentrated) plant sources. What you call species-inappropriate ingredients are perhaps less harmful when taking toxicity into account than some species appropriate ingredients. 



CorgiPaws said:


> On the flip side, the genetic makeup of a dog will determine a large portion of his health. Unfortunately *there are so many breeders out there not giving a second thought to health, only breeding to make money, or only breeding for "pretty dogs." *This has caused many purebred animals to not be as robust as they once were. I speak only of purebred dogs here only because of the lack of data in mutts. Looking at statistics, Goldens, Boxers, and GSD's are more affected by cancer than other breeds. It's silly to think that's because owners of these breeds are more likely to feed a poor diet. There's OBVIOUSLY a genetic factor.


I agree that many people are breeding for the wrong reason. There is much more to breeding than doing x-rays and putting two pure bred dogs together. There are many well intentioned BYB's that think their dogs are healthy but haven't done all of the proper health clearances necessary for their breed. Why do you breed? Do you breed to keep something from the litter to improve your lines? 



CorgiPaws said:


> Additionally, environment. Pump puppies full of vaccines every other week and then wonder why their systems are haywire. Makes no sense. Surely a dog (or person...) living next to some nuclear testing plant is going to be more prone to developing abnormalities. The statistics are there to back that up. It's no coincidence why communities close to these toxic types of places are riddled with illness. Look at the chemicals most people use on a nearly daily basis without thinking twice about it.


Bacteria and viruses has also been shown to cause disease and cancers, stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Hepatitis viruses are two examples. Sickly individuals are more prone to cancers (repeated assault) and other maladies are frequently seen with cancer. Refrigeration and cooking helps to reduce the chance of sickness and disease as does vaccinations. Over vaccination or vaccinating when immunity already exists is not desirable but vaccinations have helped to increase our longevity. Puppies are vaccinated more often because it's not known when the individual puppy has produced an immune response. There are more puppy mortalities due to non vaccination than over vaccination.

Debating about what has the greatest influence for producing cancer is pointless as there are many many more factors to be considered. It's the epidemiologists job to determine what causes disease and it's not easy, the best we can do is become aware of possible causes to help reduce our risk.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

DaViking said:


> lol. Jeannie at the whole dog have more factual errors and convenient inaccuracies than anyone around. I have called her out numerous times. Dogfoodadvisor, really? You seriously basing your beliefs and arguments on a blog post from the dogfoodadvisor? He's a good Rolodex, that's all. Non of these individuals have any credentials what-so-ever in terms of advising ppl on dog food. Actuall Jeannie is not allowed by law to advise on any pet food. I know I know, you think the law suck but that's just a reality isn't it. Anyhow, here something from someone who actually is allowed to advise on dog nutrition.
> Pet Health and Nutrition: are grains all bad?
> Pet Health and Nutrition: Grains #2 - not as allergenic as you thought
> I know it's not going to make any difference to you but since you insist on harping on this old theme I figured I'd at least link to someone who is allowed to advice on the subject.


what make YOUR links any better than Whiteleo's? Same credibility as far as I'm concerned. No one else's links are going to be as good as yours anyway, as far as you are concerned regardless of where it comes from.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

DaViking said:


> Really? Look at her two first posts in this thread! It's aggressive, juvenile and does nothing but stir the pot. Sets the tone of things right of the bat.


Who started this thread to begin with?


----------



## monster'sdad

Foodie said:


> How people breed pure bred dogs has a impact on their genetics for sure. Our desire for exaggerated characteristics like giant breeds or brachycephalic breeds has hurt their health. Some breeds with a higher incidence of cancers might be explained by line or inbreeding because uncommon breeds with smaller gene pools are more likely to have been inbreed or utilize line breeding. When you inbreed or line breed skeletons come out of the closet. Popular breeds with large gene pools are still line bred to accentuate desired characteristics that are often a stretch of what the breed standard actually says. Breed standards ensure that a certain breed continues to look like that breed but interpretations of that standard and people breeding away from the standard does harm the breed.
> 
> Early spay/neuter and obesity was mentioned once in this thread and studies have shown that both of these environmental factors play a significant role in cancer and longevity. Perhaps the Golden Retrievers in the UK have fewer cancers and longer lifespans is because they aren't as apt to S/N their dogs like we are.


Exactly, but you see many simply will not look at facts because the facts conflict with political views (ie neutering) or emotional arguments about diet. The predominant cancers in dogs are well documented as genetic issues. The argument the bitch throws down mutated genes because of diet has no basis in science or logic.


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> lol. Jeannie at the whole dog have more factual errors and convenient inaccuracies than anyone around. I have called her out numerous times. Dogfoodadvisor, really? You seriously basing your beliefs and arguments on a blog post from the dogfoodadvisor? He's a good Rolodex, that's all. Non of these individuals have any credentials what-so-ever in terms of advising ppl on dog food. Actuall Jeannie is not allowed by law to advise on any pet food. I know I know, you think the law suck but that's just a reality isn't it. Anyhow, here something from someone who actually is allowed to advise on dog nutrition.
> Pet Health and Nutrition: are grains all bad?
> Pet Health and Nutrition: Grains #2 - not as allergenic as you thought
> I know it's not going to make any difference to you but since you insist on harping on this old theme I figured I'd at least link to someone who is allowed to advice on the subject.


I don't base my beliefs on anything I've read, it's from people who have fed the diet for more than 30 years is where I base my info from and those cannot be quoted. I think your an idiot and I hope someday you can think for yourself.


----------



## DaViking

naturalfeddogs said:


> what make YOUR links any better than Whiteleo's? Same credibility as far as I'm concerned. No one else's links are going to be as good as yours anyway, as far as you are concerned regardless of where it comes from.


lol. This is a person, a holistic vet, with years of specialized schooling and experience in dog nutrition. She is actually allowed by US law to give advice on pet nutrition as opposed to all the other jokers out there. You can try to dismiss how society works and turn everything on it's head all you want. I get it, that's the only way some' arguments will ever make sense.


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> I don't base my beliefs on anything I've read, it's from people who have fed the diet for more than 30 years is where I base my info from and those cannot be quoted. I think your an idiot and I hope someday you can think for yourself.


There it is, the last resort when you realize you have nothing more.

Secondly, you act like I have an agenda against raw. (why do you keep muddling the debate all over the place?) I don't have anything against feeding raw, I have an agenda against lies, inaccuracies and ignorance, wherever they are. And when I am wrong or inaccurate I appreciate learning new stuff. I don't go off on a little girl tantrum.


----------



## DaViking

naturalfeddogs said:


> Who started this thread to begin with?


He started it because a brand introduced 3 new products. Is that stirring the pot? Isn't that the kind of things we do here? Come on give me a break, with all due respect that's ridiculous.


----------



## monster'sdad

DaViking said:


> He started it because a brand introduced 3 new products. Is that stirring the pot? Isn't that the kind of things we do here? Come on give me a break, with all due respect that's ridiculous.


I started it because the line of foods is a good one at a very good price. I know plenty of top dogs that eat the Black Bag and they are amazing animals. 

It is sad so many turned it political, and that is what it is, with a dash of inexperience.


----------



## mheath0429

Daviking, regardless who is stirring the pot now, I know personally that he consistently stirs the pot. At one point Monster's Dad even posted my work information on the forum for everyone to see. We all have moments that are less then classy. 

Honestly, who knows the validity of any studies done today? There is always an agenda, whether we like it or not. I have chosen to feed raw because I have seen it work for my two, but that was after trial and error with kibbles, freeze dried food, canned food...I just never got the results necessary for my female to be happy and healthy. I have a dog plagued with issues and no study is going to win me over either way. The only way to know what works is to try it. 

Some kibble is fantastic and I understand that not everyone has the time and resources to feed raw. Thus, I enjoy keeping up with the kibble part of the forum because there is much to learn.


----------



## monster'sdad

mheath0429 said:


> Daviking, regardless who is stirring the pot now, I know personally that he consistently stirs the pot. At one point Monster's Dad even posted my work information on the forum for everyone to see. We all have moments that are less then classy.
> 
> Honestly, who knows the validity of any studies done today? There is always an agenda, whether we like it or not. I have chosen to feed raw because I have seen it work for my two, but that was after trial and error with kibbles, freeze dried food, canned food...I just never got the results necessary for my female to be happy and healthy. I have a dog plagued with issues and no study is going to win me over either way. The only way to know what works is to try it.
> 
> Some kibble is fantastic and I understand that not everyone has the time and resources to feed raw. Thus, I enjoy keeping up with the kibble part of the forum because there is much to learn.


What you define as stirring the pot, I define as stating the facts, whether it is about supplements, health or diet. 

Too many people on here are way too cavalier about playing vet and nutritionist just because they "feel" a certain way. The threads on thyroid and heartworms were absolutely bone-chilling.

We are very fortunate in this country that 99% of the problems dog have are not related to diet.


----------



## mheath0429

I would disagree with that. I would say a lot more than 1% can be attributed to diet For example, pancreatitis, bloat, liver disease, obesity in general..etc.


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> There it came, the last resort when you realize you have nothing more.
> 
> Secondly, you act like I have an agenda against raw. (why do you keep muddling the debate all over the place?) I don't have anything against feeding raw, I have an agenda against lies, inaccuracies and ignorance, wherever they are. And when I am wrong or inaccurate I appreciate learning new stuff. I don't go off on a little girl tantrum.


Tell me where I lied? I ask again when did I lie?


----------



## Herzo

I haven't read all this thread but.....have a long one on the other so won't redo. I'm sorry mheath0429 that he did that. I don't know of what you speak but i have had the same thing happen and yes we do. My grandfather always said don't write down what you don't want others to find out. It's a very good statement but sometimes we just do.

During hunting season there is a hunting guide that comes out and helps with an outfitter every year. Man I wish he was here now. He is a vet for a pig farm, can't remember what state. I would love to ask him the hormone question, next year. He is a very nice guy and I always see him several times. So next year I promise I will do this.

Now, now, monster'sdad you do stir the pot ( as I have stated I don't really care ) and I am sure you state facts but as has been pointed out before you also like to leave some out, some very important ones out.


----------



## Sheltielover25

Taking advice from someone who finds it okay to feed growth promoters, none of which have ever been studied to see what long-term effects they cause, isn't something I will ever do. Torturing an animal by feeding it steroids for the sole purpose of proftting shows where your interests are. 

It's disgusting someone would put an animal through that. You know growth promoters cause chickens to become so big their legs break. Anyone okay with that is a sick individual who clearly only cares about profit. 

Also no one on here cares about these low quality foods. People on here are interested in feeding foods that use quality ingredients. This group advocates feeding animals properly and that extends to the animals we are feeding to our animals. Only a sick person thinks feeding steroids to animals is okay.


----------



## DaViking

whiteleo said:


> Tell me where I lied? I ask again when did I lie?


Read carefully. I'd didn't say you lied in this thread. I told everyone what I care about in general. In this thread your are just a pot stirrer and and instigator. However, I did say stop it with the lies in the other thread when you said all studies we reference is a result of kibble companies wanting to line their pockets. Which is a lie.


----------



## DaViking

Sheltielover25 said:


> Taking advice from someone who finds it okay to feed growth promoters, none of which have ever been studied to see what long-term effects they cause, isn't something I will ever do. Torturing an animal by feeding it steroids for the sole purpose of proftting shows where your interests are.
> 
> It's disgusting someone would put an animal through that. You know growth promoters cause chickens to become so big their legs break. Anyone okay with that is a sick individual who clearly only cares about profit.
> 
> Also no one on here cares about these low quality foods. People on here are interested in feeding foods that use quality ingredients. This group advocates feeding animals properly and that extends to the animals we are feeding to our animals. Only a sick person thinks feeding steroids to animals is okay.


I don't know who you are addressing, maybe you don't either, but something must be hindering your ability to read and comprehend what is said because you are constructing an awful lot of "facts" here to make what you say look good and have a bearing on anything really. Or maybe you are just interpreting at will?


----------



## whiteleo

DaViking said:


> Read carefully. I'd didn't say you lied in this thread. I told everyone what I care about in general. In this thread your are just a pot stirrer and and instigator. However, I did say stop it with the lies in the other thread when you said all studies we reference is a result of kibble companies wanting to line their pockets. Which is a lie.


Hahahahahaha.............You kill me


----------



## Sheltielover25

whiteleo said:


> Hahahahahaha.............You kill me


Lol I'm waitin for them to claim obesity isn't diet related. 

I'm thankful to be moving to an area where very few people these two exist! Thank god for small miracles lol


----------



## CorgiPaws

monster'sdad said:


> We are very fortunate in this country that 99% of the problems dog have are not related to diet.


Working professionally with dogs, mostly pets but also some show dogs, and plenty of hunting,agility and rally dogs... The amount of ailments I've seen diet and diet alone fix, I have to say this statement goes 100% against what I've personally witnessed. 
Diet is the cornerstone to health. How can you honestly believe that the things being put into our dog's bodies does NOT play a huuuuuuuuge role in overall health. To me, its simple logic....


----------



## Sheltielover25

whiteleo said:


> Hahahahahaha.............You kill me


Lol I'm waitin for them to claim obesity isn't diet related.


----------



## 46and2

Just joined. Looked at the food and IMO it seems good. Not the best out there but certainly affordable! You definitely get what you pay for


----------



## DaViking

mheath0429 said:


> Daviking, regardless who is stirring the pot now, I know personally that he consistently stirs the pot. At one point Monster's Dad even posted my work information on the forum for everyone to see. We all have moments that are less then classy.
> 
> Honestly, who knows the validity of any studies done today? There is always an agenda, whether we like it or not. I have chosen to feed raw because I have seen it work for my two, but that was after trial and error with kibbles, freeze dried food, canned food...I just never got the results necessary for my female to be happy and healthy. I have a dog plagued with issues and no study is going to win me over either way. The only way to know what works is to try it.
> 
> Some kibble is fantastic and I understand that not everyone has the time and resources to feed raw. Thus, I enjoy keeping up with the kibble part of the forum because there is much to learn.


Are you referring to when he said you where (prev) working at Blue Buffalo? Anyway, there are a lot of pot stirrers here actually. Very few can say they have never commented in a way that can be seen as stirring the pot, very few. Sometimes it turns dumb, nasty and childish, that's what we want to avoid if you ask me.


----------



## monster'sdad

Herzo said:


> I haven't read all this thread but.....have a long one on the other so won't redo. I'm sorry mheath0429 that he did that. I don't know of what you speak but i have had the same thing happen and yes we do. My grandfather always said don't write down what you don't want others to find out. It's a very good statement but sometimes we just do.
> 
> During hunting season there is a hunting guide that comes out and helps with an outfitter every year. Man I wish he was here now. He is a vet for a pig farm, can't remember what state. I would love to ask him the hormone question, next year. He is a very nice guy and I always see him several times. So next year I promise I will do this.
> 
> Now, now, monster'sdad you do stir the pot ( as I have stated I don't really care ) and I am sure you state facts but as has been pointed out before you also like to leave some out, some very important ones out.


It is illegal to feed growth hormones to hogs, period.

Which facts did I leave out, do tell. By the way I found out directly from Dallas that he uses as much as 2/3rd's dry food. That is certainly more than a base.


----------



## DaViking

46and2 said:


> Just joined. Looked at the food and IMO it seems good. Not the best out there but certainly affordable! You definitely get what you pay for


Thanks for staying on topic. Unlike the rest of us who can't figure it out. Yeah, it could be a good alternative if the meals used are of good quality and highly digestible if the starch is properly cooked.


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> Lol I'm waitin for them to claim obesity isn't diet related.


In dogs, obesity is not related to a deficiency in diet. Most obese dogs simply eat too much, eat a food that is too rich, or live a lifestyle like their owners, which tend to be overweight as well and don't exercise enough. 

Also, there is a strong breed tendency in canine obesity and neutered dogs are far more likely to be obese. Dog with thyroid issues tend to be overweight and many times it sadly goes without treatment.

In virtually all cases, it is the owner's fault.


----------



## monster'sdad

Sheltielover25 said:


> I'm realllly confused on how saying someone believes, as many do, someone is a certain religion is insulting?? The whole point was these people who believe GMOs and factory farmed meat but into that whole mind frame. I think not being able to link obesity and diet it more insulting than thinking someone with the middle name Husain is Muslim LOL. Whatever though..


Do you have the cultivar names for the 80% of rice that is GMO? GMO Compass says no GMO Rice is being grown in the US. You never addressed that.


----------



## mheath0429

DaViking said:


> Are you referring to when he said you where (prev) working at Blue Buffalo? Anyway, there are a lot of pot stirrers here actually. Very few can say they have never commented in a way that can be seen as stirring the pot, very few. Sometimes it turns dumb, nasty and childish, that's what we want to avoid if you ask me.


Do me a favor and clean out your inbox. lol


----------



## DaViking

mheath0429 said:


> Do me a favor and clean out your inbox. lol


ok, cleaned a little.


----------



## bett

monster'sdad said:


> It has been illegal in poultry since 1952.


 Yeah, lots of things are illegal, and done.

Cattle farmers use small amounts of hormones to increase their size. But it's illegal to use hormones.
Chickens get antibiotics but now, companies like tyson and purdue arent doing that anymore.
Isnt google great?


----------



## 46and2

DaViking said:


> Thanks for staying on topic. Unlike the rest of us who can't figure it out. Yeah, it could be a good alternative if the meals used are of good quality and highly digestible if the starch is properly cooked.


It does seem like there is a lot of defensiveness on this board. Not sure why? This is a thread about kibble in the kibble section of the forum is it not?


----------



## monster'sdad

It is, but there are double standards for some. Despite the finest dogs in the world, owned and trained by seasoned professionals, in bench and sport eating mostly or entirely dry food there are people that believe they know better. 

It is very entertaining. The discourse on food is harmless but the advice in some other sections is shocking.

In any event I am putting together a list of stand-out products for various budgets and applications, and right now only one is a raw product, a complete product.


----------



## CorgiPaws

monster'sdad said:


> It is, but there are double standards for some. Despite the finest dogs in the world, owned and trained by seasoned professionals, in bench and sport eating mostly or entirely dry food there are people that believe they know better.
> 
> It is very entertaining.
> 
> In any event I am putting together a list of stand-out products for various budgets and applications, and right now only one is a raw product, a complete product.


The thing is... Some of us trust nature more than rigged trials funded by major pet food companies. My logic tellse whole, fresh foods are always healthier than processed foods. Always, regardless of carnivore, omnivore, etc. Every living thing is born with an appropriate diet found in nature, no species is designed to BEST utilize processed food. 

You like to claim all over the place that diet doesn't really matter and that its mostly genetics and what you feed doesn't really make a difference, but then you turn around and say "This is what these hot shot professionals feed, and therefore it is great." Which completely contradicts your 'diet doesn't really matter' stance. 

I don't claim to know every single thing about dog foods, but I know what I've witnessed in my own dogs (all 7 of them..." On raw. And undreds of dogs I've worked with professionally and I know that what I witness is often the exact opposite of what you preach.


----------



## monster'sdad

CorgiPaws said:


> The thing is... Some of us trust nature more than rigged trials funded by major pet food companies. My logic tellse whole, fresh foods are always healthier than processed foods. Always, regardless of carnivore, omnivore, etc. Every living thing is born with an appropriate diet found in nature, no species is designed to BEST utilize processed food.
> 
> You like to claim all over the place that diet doesn't really matter and that its mostly genetics and what you feed doesn't really make a difference, but then you turn around and say "This is what these hot shot professionals feed, and therefore it is great." Which completely contradicts your 'diet doesn't really matter' stance.
> 
> I don't claim to know every single thing about dog foods, but I know what I've witnessed in my own dogs (all 7 of them..." On raw. And undreds of dogs I've worked with professionally and I know that what I witness is often the exact opposite of what you preach.


That is not what I said at all. What I said was insofar as canine cancer was concerned diet would not change the odds. Don't misquote me. I went further by saying there were things one could do to improve the health of the animal apart from genetics and better breeding, and yes diet in the United States was not one of them. I have also said the dry foods the "hot shots" use were only needed in extreme applications, but what was learned from them benefited the average dog. I was clear as crystal on these points. 

The fact is that most of problems you see in dogs are the result of bag breeding or genetics, overvaccination, early (or at all) neutering, overfeeding and lack of exercise. The choice of diet for us here in the United States and other parts of the world is largely irrelevant.

And by the way, the work Tim has done over about 8 years and what Annamaet has done over almost 30 years independently is certainly not "rigged".

I will gladly respect any real science when it comes to raw feeding but there is none that shows it superior. In fact, the Nutrition Advisory Group of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association recommends dry food for wolves in captivity and they seem to live almost 20 years on pretty unimpressive kibbles. Here is one:

http://www.mazuri.com/mazuriexoticcaninediet.aspx

And it is made by Land O Lakes, a co-op.

And for the record I use green tripe because they enjoy not because it is any better than what they normally eat.


----------



## meggels

Monster's Dad - what are your thoughts on premade raws that include vitamins and minerals to be balanced for each feeding?


----------



## monster'sdad

meggels said:


> Monster's Dad - what are your thoughts on premade raws that include vitamins and minerals to be balanced for each feeding?


I think they are very expensive but certainly if they are made by a company with experience then sure. I wouldn't say they are better than dry foods. If I were to pick one premade raw it would be one of the Abady completes because they have been used for so long and aren't glamoured up for marketing purposes. That bothers me the most. If I could get Abady NPF easily I would buy it from time to time.


----------



## meggels

I feed Murphy Northwest Naturals, which only has 10-15% fruits/veggies. A premade raw has been the only thing that has stopped his reoccurring ear infections. I saw that you mentioned deficiencies with raw diets (homemade), so was curious to hear your opinion on the premades that add vitamins and minerals to make them "balanced"


----------



## DaViking

46and2 said:


> It does seem like there is a lot of defensiveness on this board. Not sure why? This is a thread about kibble in the kibble section of the forum is it not?


There are a few here that can't contain their disgust for anything commercial, processed or "factory" Their motto is "there is never a bad time for a confrontational rant" Ever so often they break contain and make a mad dash for the kibble section 
Discussions are usually more civilized than this though.


----------



## Herzo

monster'sdad said:


> It is illegal to feed growth hormones to hogs, period.
> 
> Which facts did I leave out, do tell. By the way I found out directly from Dallas that he uses as much as 2/3rd's dry food. That is certainly more than a base.


Sorry I bent a nail, I just thought it would be nice to hear from someone that was really in the business. Can't say I know about it but this period thing sounds like you don't want to know any more. Even if it may be true, and I am in no way saying it is. I really don't have any idea.

Any by the way I hope YOU are right.

I guess you already know what facts you left out as you mention Dallas so I guess I don't need to tell.


----------



## Foodie

monster'sdad said:


> The discourse on food is harmless but the advice in some other sections is shocking.


I agree with this. I'm surprised the administrator doesn't have some sort of disclaimer. Actually, I doubt the administrator even reads this forum.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse

Mother Nature provided all living species with real wholesome food ....who are we to say: " hey, this freshly caught deer is not good enough for me, I'm gonna add some preservatives and chemicals, then cook it and process it and there! Now it's better!" Common people.

I do have a question for you two: Champion/Orijen pet foods won pet food of the year in 2012 for the third year in a row! This award was given by the glycemic research institute who conducts INDEPENDENT research on pet food. Orijen as we know use 80% meat and 20% fruits & vegetables. If you go to their website and read through the ingredient lists of their food you will find they use NO corn or grain of any kind. Why is this then? Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?

Also, Dr. Greg K. Ogilvie, oncologist at Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and his team conducted intensive research into the dietary needs of canine cancer patients. In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores. I would think that a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbs will then also help prevent the cancer from developing in the first place?


----------



## Jacksons Mom

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Mother Nature provided all living species with real wholesome food ....who are we to say: " hey, this freshly caught deer is not good enough for me, I'm gonna add some preservatives and chemicals, then cook it and process it and there! Now it's better!" Common people.
> 
> I do have a question for you two: Champion/Orijen pet foods won pet food of the year in 2012 for the third year in a row! This award was given by the glycemic research institute who conducts INDEPENDENT research on pet food. Orijen as we know use 80% meat and 20% fruits & vegetables. If you go to their website and read through the ingredient lists of their food you will find they use NO corn or grain of any kind. Why is this then? Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?


I don't think anyone is saying corn is a very important ingredient in pet food. I think, more or less, what is being said is that people are paying a lot of extra money for foods that have just as slick marketing as Purina and Royal Canin, and are just replacing corn with fancier ingredients that aren't necessarily 'better'. 

With that said, I personally won't feed a food with corn. I just find it unnecessary. I don't think it's totally harmful, but just my preference and what I'm comfortable with.


----------



## dr tim

Quite a conversation rolling here. I hope someone is learning something.

The Glycemic Institute. I looked into this a few years back and it is a yearly 2500 payment to the institute per formula for them to review it and then they rate them, is what I remember. Maybe someone else can look further into that would be considered unbiased but it is what it is, just a FYI.


----------



## kevin bradley

I've posed this question about 10x with no answer.

Monster/others in your camp....

Do you EVER worry that the conventional Veterinary/University/Laboratory Community, due to the need for extensive Proof, studies, testing, etc... Is SLOW coming to the forefront on what good nutrition means?

Its really a double edge sword. On one hand, you have the Holistic community which peddles every witch serum on earth...MANY doing nothing. Literally, NOTHING. I worked at GNC in college. What a joke. The money people would blow, utterly BLOW on pills, potions and powders. Really sad.

But on the FLIP side, I don't want to be so closed minded that I won't consider ANYTHING as possible.

As I said many times, the HUMAN medical community was sickenly slow accepting Nutrition as a viable means to good cardiovascular health. I wonder in 50 years if we might look back and say, DAMN, some of these "whacko's" were right?


----------



## Caty M

I am assuming you are referring to natural rearing as being shocking? There are quite a few NR people here, myself somewhat included. I don't vaccinate but I dont have heartworms here either and rabies is exceedingly rare, and my dogs are never off leash in rural areas. Both my dogs were titer tested at o e year and show resistance to parvo and distemper despite not having shots. I do also feed raw and stand behind it 100%... But I also do not think people doing otherwise should be in any way made to feel as if what they are doing is bad or wrong...


----------



## bett

dr tim said:


> Quite a conversation rolling here. I hope someone is learning something.
> 
> The Glycemic Institute. I looked into this a few years back and it is a yearly 2500 payment to the institute per formula for them to review it and then they rate them, is what I remember. Maybe someone else can look further into that would be considered unbiased but it is what it is, just a FYI.


certainly no surprise, and i'm not at all shocked.
makes me want to hate everyone.


----------



## dr tim

Kevin;

I recently went to the largest national veterinary convention this past August. Of 1600 lectures available, there were 4 on anything nutrition and they were not put on by an university nutritionist. You know who ran those forums. 4 out of 1600, you do the math. The universities are funded by the monster companies, be it pharmaceutical or pet food. Innovation and a thought outside the so called "MD" approach is very tough to find, but there are some young vets that might start to help turn the tables, I don't know. Maybe all the nutrition research has all been uncovered but I do not think so. Why risk losing your funding if a small company has interests and a different approach is the answer I receive. Really is unfortunate, IMO.


----------



## Foodie

Dr. Tim, can you tell me what the fluoride content is in your food? I'm specifically interested in Pursuit if you have that information.


----------



## Foodie

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Mother Nature provided all living species with real wholesome food ....who are we to say: " hey, this freshly caught deer is not good enough for me, I'm gonna add some preservatives and chemicals, then cook it and process it and there! Now it's better!" Common people.
> 
> I do have a question for you two: Champion/Orijen pet foods won pet food of the year in 2012 for the third year in a row! This award was given by the glycemic research institute who conducts INDEPENDENT research on pet food. Orijen as we know use 80% meat and 20% fruits & vegetables. If you go to their website and read through the ingredient lists of their food you will find they use NO corn or grain of any kind. Why is this then? Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?
> 
> Also, Dr. Greg K. Ogilvie, oncologist at Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and his team conducted intensive research into the dietary needs of canine cancer patients. In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores. I would think that a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbs will then also help prevent the cancer from developing in the first place?


I don't know who your questions are directed at but I can give you a short answer. If it's a debate your looking for then you should ask someone else.

Q. "Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?"
A. Because they are marketing their food to specific buyers. It's the same reason you can buy a loaf of cinnamon bread with or without raisins. Having choices is a good thing, isn't it?

Q. " I would think that a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbs will then also help prevent the cancer from developing in the first place?"
A. No. If your statement was true then cancer wouldn't exist in dogs fed PMR and this isn't the case. Dogs still make glucose from proteins and fats.


----------



## Foodie

Caty M said:


> I am assuming you are referring to natural rearing as being shocking? There are quite a few NR people here, myself somewhat included. I don't vaccinate but I dont have heartworms here either and rabies is exceedingly rare, and my dogs are never off leash in rural areas. Both my dogs were titer tested at o e year and show *resistance* to parvo and distemper despite not having shots. I do also feed raw and stand behind it 100%... But I also do not think people doing otherwise should be in any way made to feel as if what they are doing is bad or wrong...


There is an error in your thinking. Your dogs titer test does not mean they have a resistance to parvo and distemper, it shows that at the moment the blood was drawn your dogs had been exposed to the viruses and developed an immune response. How long an immune response lasts depends on the vaccine given (or type of exposure) and the individual dog. Duration of immunity testing is being researched but the results will only apply to the type of vaccine that was tested. 

It's incorrect to believe that rabies is only found in rural areas and if your dog is on leash he can't be exposed. Rabies and the animals that carry the disease are also found in all cities and suburbs. In the US if your dog has a biting incident and you don't have proof of a current rabies vaccination it's likely that your dog will be destroyed to examine his brain. They don't go by titers. You probably think your dogs would never bite someone but never say never. Sick, injured and frightened dogs act quite differently than what your used to seeing.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

Foodie said:


> There is an error in your thinking. Your dogs titer test does not mean they have a resistance to parvo and distemper, it shows that at the moment the blood was drawn your dogs had been exposed to the viruses and developed an immune response. How long an immune response lasts depends on the vaccine given (or type of exposure) and the individual dog. Duration of immunity testing is being researched but the results will only apply to the type of vaccine that was tested.
> 
> It's incorrect to believe that rabies is only found in rural areas and if your dog is on leash he can't be exposed. Rabies and the animals that carry the disease are also found in all cities and suburbs. In the US if your dog has a biting incident and you don't have proof of a current rabies vaccination it's likely that your dog will be destroyed to examine his brain. They don't go by titers. You probably think your dogs would never bite someone but never say never. Sick, injured and frightened dogs act quite differently than what your used to seeing.


I know the law here in Alabama says that any dog who bites someone has to stay at a vets office for a 10day rabies observation, vaccinated or not. After the 10 days if no signs of rabies are shown the dog goes home. If there are signs shown, then the dog is euthanized and the head is sent to Auburn University for examination to confirm rabies or not. I don't know about other states, but here dogs are not autamaticaly euthanized.


----------



## 46and2

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Mother Nature provided all living species with real wholesome food ....who are we to say: " hey, this freshly caught deer is not good enough for me, I'm gonna add some preservatives and chemicals, then cook it and process it and there! Now it's better!" Common people.
> 
> I do have a question for you two: Champion/Orijen pet foods won pet food of the year in 2012 for the third year in a row! This award was given by the glycemic research institute who conducts INDEPENDENT research on pet food. Orijen as we know use 80% meat and 20% fruits & vegetables. If you go to their website and read through the ingredient lists of their food you will find they use NO corn or grain of any kind. Why is this then? Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?
> 
> Also, Dr. Greg K. Ogilvie, oncologist at Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and his team conducted intensive research into the dietary needs of canine cancer patients. In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores. I would think that a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbs will then also help prevent the cancer from developing in the first place?


I read this entire thread and many others on this board that boil down to a raw vs kibble debate. 
I think the point that some pro Purina or pro Royal Canin advocates are attempting to make isnt that kibble is SUPERIOR to whole foods but more that it is sufficient for an every day, average dog. I tend to agree with them. 
Also how people use raw diets as a catch all. A miracle. It will do this, and this, oh and EVEN THIS! Life doesn't work like that. There are risks to each feeding style, it is all what risks you are comfortable with taking. 
Also how some (not all) raw feeders will throw together a diet (because so and so said it was ok) and not research the nutritional requirements for that specific dog. Creating a diet that is nutritionally lacking and begins to affect the animal's over all health. 
I would have to say that I only start defending kibble when someone criticizes me and/or my feeding choices. Otherwise I *generally* live and let live. 
I notice that this thread was on track until some raw advocate decided it was time to pick apart and judge someone else's opinion (not only to give their own). 
If you want to bash kibble or create threads on why Purina Dog Chow is inadequate, then do it in the raw section... right? I'm sure if someone tried to point out how raw can be done SO INCORRECTLY (and I've seen this a million times) in the raw section, that someone might be banned 
Case in point: original poster: "my dogs had diarrhea for 3 straight weeks on the raw diet, what should I do?" 
Suggestive poster: "what are you feeding the dog currently?" 
OP: "chicken backs" 
SP: "do you cut the fat trim off as well as the kidneys that may be attached?" 
OP: "yes I've done that" 
SP: "well, this is what we call detox... for some dogs it may take a day or two and it took my dog 6 months to finally transition"
OP: "gee, sounds great, I'll just let my detox then"
^^^ THAT is insanity. No suggestions to consult a professional, using buzz words that have no scientific backing (detox), no suggestions to see a vet. And a dog continues to suffer and perhaps even worse. 
No offense guys, but I've seen this many times going on in the raw section and it scares me....


----------



## Caty M

I don't live in the US an have no legal requirement for vaccinations. Vaccines cause an immune response, it's how they work. Picking up the virus also does the same. I am confident in my dogs health and that's what matters  fwiw, my vet supports me.

I also have had a cat have grand mal seizures immediately following vax so I might be biased, but I am confident in both my food choice and my choice in veterinary care.


----------



## Sprocket

46and2 said:


> I read this entire thread and many others on this board that boil down to a raw vs kibble debate.
> I think the point that some pro Purina or pro Royal Canin advocates are attempting to make isnt that kibble is SUPERIOR to whole foods but more that it is sufficient for an every day, average dog. I tend to agree with them.
> Also how people use raw diets as a catch all. A miracle. It will do this, and this, oh and EVEN THIS! Life doesn't work like that. There are risks to each feeding style, it is all what risks you are comfortable with taking.
> Also how some (not all) raw feeders will throw together a diet (because so and so said it was ok) and not research the nutritional requirements for that specific dog. Creating a diet that is nutritionally lacking and begins to affect the animal's over all health.
> I would have to say that I only start defending kibble when someone criticizes me and/or my feeding choices. Otherwise I *generally* live and let live.
> I notice that this thread was on track until some raw advocate decided it was time to pick apart and judge someone else's opinion (not only to give their own).
> If you want to bash kibble or create threads on why Purina Dog Chow is inadequate, then do it in the raw section... right? I'm sure if someone tried to point out how raw can be done SO INCORRECTLY (and I've seen this a million times) in the raw section, that someone might be banned
> Case in point: original poster: "my dogs had diarrhea for 3 straight weeks on the raw diet, what should I do?"
> Suggestive poster: "what are you feeding the dog currently?"
> OP: "chicken backs"
> SP: "do you cut the fat trim off as well as the kidneys that may be attached?"
> OP: "yes I've done that"
> SP: "well, this is what we call detox... for some dogs it may take a day or two and it took my dog 6 months to finally transition"
> OP: "gee, sounds great, I'll just let my detox then"
> ^^^ THAT is insanity. No suggestions to consult a professional, using buzz words that have no scientific backing (detox), no suggestions to see a vet. And a dog continues to suffer and perhaps even worse.
> No offense guys, but I've seen this many times going on in the raw section and it scares me....


You just joined....How can you be so informed about how we operate here? I know you can see posts before you join but you seem rather biased without having have been an active participating member.

My point is, I suggest you stick around and get to know us as individuals before you make enemies by assuming and labeling.


----------



## Caty M

If a dog has prolonged diarrhea it should be taken to the vet. Some initial is common but if it was for three weeks I would certainly tell the owner to see the vet. It's just hard to find a vet that is somewhat well versed on raw. My old one told me my dog would grow up to be deformed ecause of a calcium deficiency... Even though he gets plenty of bone and his diet is within the recommended parameters in terms of nutrients. And he is nearly three years and is not deformed. Lol


----------



## Sprocket

Caty M said:


> If a dog has prolonged diarrhea it should be taken to the vet. Some initial is common but if it was for three weeks I would certainly tell the owner to see the vet. It's just hard to find a vet that is somewhat well versed on raw. My old one told me my dog would grow up to be deformed ecause of a calcium deficiency... Even though he gets plenty of bone and his diet is within the recommended parameters in terms of nutrients. And he is nearly three years and is not deformed. Lol


Gunner is deformed. His head is way too big :tongue:


----------



## naturalfeddogs

46and2 said:


> I read this entire thread and many others on this board that boil down to a raw vs kibble debate.
> I think the point that some pro Purina or pro Royal Canin advocates are attempting to make isnt that kibble is SUPERIOR to whole foods but more that it is sufficient for an every day, average dog. I tend to agree with them.
> Also how people use raw diets as a catch all. A miracle. It will do this, and this, oh and EVEN THIS! Life doesn't work like that. There are risks to each feeding style, it is all what risks you are comfortable with taking.
> Also how some (not all) raw feeders will throw together a diet (because so and so said it was ok) and not research the nutritional requirements for that specific dog. Creating a diet that is nutritionally lacking and begins to affect the animal's over all health.
> I would have to say that I only start defending kibble when someone criticizes me and/or my feeding choices. Otherwise I *generally* live and let live.
> I notice that this thread was on track until some raw advocate decided it was time to pick apart and judge someone else's opinion (not only to give their own).
> If you want to bash kibble or create threads on why Purina Dog Chow is inadequate, then do it in the raw section... right? I'm sure if someone tried to point out how raw can be done SO INCORRECTLY (and I've seen this a million times) in the raw section, that someone might be banned
> Case in point: original poster: "my dogs had diarrhea for 3 straight weeks on the raw diet, what should I do?"
> Suggestive poster: "what are you feeding the dog currently?"
> OP: "chicken backs"
> SP: "do you cut the fat trim off as well as the kidneys that may be attached?"
> OP: "yes I've done that"
> SP: "well, this is what we call detox... for some dogs it may take a day or two and it took my dog 6 months to finally transition"
> OP: "gee, sounds great, I'll just let my detox then"
> ^^^ THAT is insanity. No suggestions to consult a professional, using buzz words that have no scientific backing (detox), no suggestions to see a vet. And a dog continues to suffer and perhaps even worse.
> No offense guys, but I've seen this many times going on in the raw section and it scares me....


Then if it scares you, then don't feed raw. And yes, there is a detox. All of mine went through it, one way or another. 

I've even had a horse go through it. We got him in November several years ago. At 14 years old he had been fed nothing but peanut hulls the majority of his life. Got him home and on a normal equine diet. Within two weeks he was shedding like it was spring. (it was now December) His new coat was soft, shiny and darker. But anyway, if you want to keep on with the whole raw/detox thing I think you should discuss it on the raw forums.


----------



## kevin bradley

dr tim said:


> Kevin;
> 
> I recently went to the largest national veterinary convention this past August. Of 1600 lectures available, there were 4 on anything nutrition and they were not put on by an university nutritionist. You know who ran those forums. 4 out of 1600, you do the math. The universities are funded by the monster companies, be it pharmaceutical or pet food. Innovation and a thought outside the so called "MD" approach is very tough to find, but there are some young vets that might start to help turn the tables, I don't know. Maybe all the nutrition research has all been uncovered but I do not think so. Why risk losing your funding if a small company has interests and a different approach is the answer I receive. Really is unfortunate, IMO.



Tim, I think that kind of backs up what I'm eluding to.

If they are so disinterested in "moving the ball" with regards to nutrition....

How could we ever expect the industry to settle alot of these debates we are having. Monster is constantly citing studies which I assume originate from some of these Universities and more conventional outlets.

I'm not saying he's wrong. By and large, I agree with him... the "holistic" world is coming out with so much crap, I'm not sure how anyone could keep up with whats real and whats not.

I'm just saying that he may need to open his mind a bit... because if something REALLY DOES work, the last place to verfiy it will probably be the places he's going for proof.


----------



## mheath0429

46and2 said:


> I read this entire thread and many others on this board that boil down to a raw vs kibble debate.
> I think the point that some pro Purina or pro Royal Canin advocates are attempting to make isnt that kibble is SUPERIOR to whole foods but more that it is sufficient for an every day, average dog. I tend to agree with them.
> Also how people use raw diets as a catch all. A miracle. It will do this, and this, oh and EVEN THIS! Life doesn't work like that. There are risks to each feeding style, it is all what risks you are comfortable with taking.
> Also how some (not all) raw feeders will throw together a diet (because so and so said it was ok) and not research the nutritional requirements for that specific dog. Creating a diet that is nutritionally lacking and begins to affect the animal's over all health.
> I would have to say that I only start defending kibble when someone criticizes me and/or my feeding choices. Otherwise I *generally* live and let live.
> I notice that this thread was on track until some raw advocate decided it was time to pick apart and judge someone else's opinion (not only to give their own).
> If you want to bash kibble or create threads on why Purina Dog Chow is inadequate, then do it in the raw section... right? I'm sure if someone tried to point out how raw can be done SO INCORRECTLY (and I've seen this a million times) in the raw section, that someone might be banned
> Case in point: original poster: "my dogs had diarrhea for 3 straight weeks on the raw diet, what should I do?"
> Suggestive poster: "what are you feeding the dog currently?"
> OP: "chicken backs"
> SP: "do you cut the fat trim off as well as the kidneys that may be attached?"
> OP: "yes I've done that"
> SP: "well, this is what we call detox... for some dogs it may take a day or two and it took my dog 6 months to finally transition"
> OP: "gee, sounds great, I'll just let my detox then"
> ^^^ THAT is insanity. No suggestions to consult a professional, using buzz words that have no scientific backing (detox), no suggestions to see a vet. And a dog continues to suffer and perhaps even worse.
> No offense guys, but I've seen this many times going on in the raw section and it scares me....


You have made some pretty bold statements....

For every thread that is similar to this situation, there is one where we suggest they get to a vet. A day or two of diarrhea, without other complications, is not something I would worry about and it truly does happen when a dog switches from processed food to raw meat. Mine shed their entire coat as well, and it grew back beautifully. 

No, we wouldn't dissect a kibble in the raw forum...that isn't about raw. As I stated before, I feed raw but I understand people don't always have that option, for whatever reason, and I prefer to stay informed. Kibble is a huge industry, and I know there are so bad seeds. I've learned a lot about Dr. Tim's and some other decent kibbles, but there are still many I would never suggest. 

In some cases, raw can work like a miracle. Have you ever fed raw? Have you ever known someone with a dog that has severe allergies or other diet related illness? If not, you have no right to claim it doesn't work. I have a female plagued with horrible allergies, and she went into anaphylactic shock after eating kibble with undeclared chicken. After that point, I took matters into my own hands. A good friend has a dog that has Irritable Bowel and would throw up constantly and have diarrhea almost daily, she switched her to raw and she miraculously hasn't had a problem since. Miracle-like things can happen. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean we aren't telling the truth. 


I think you aren't reading threads fully if you think any of us here just "throw together" a diet. On the contrary, many of us spend a great deal of time researching and deciding what is right for our breed of dog. Perhaps you should read a bit more before assuming we don't know what we are doing.


----------



## mheath0429

kevin bradley said:


> Tim, I think that kind of backs up what I'm eluding to.
> 
> If they are so disinterested in "moving the ball" with regards to nutrition....
> 
> How could we ever expect the industry to settle alot of these debates we are having. Monster is constantly citing studies which I assume originate from some of these Universities and more conventional outlets.
> 
> I'm not saying he's wrong. By and large, I agree with him... the "holistic" world is coming out with so much crap, I'm not sure how anyone could keep up with whats real and whats not.
> 
> I'm just saying that he may need to open his mind a bit... because if something REALLY DOES work, the last place to verfiy it will probably be the places he's going for proof.


It's not all crap. I firmly believe supplements can help a lot of ailments...I mean heck, even human doctors suggest taking fish oil for things. I mean, I'm not gonna go eat grass, but some holistic remedies do work.


----------



## kevin bradley

don't disagree MH. However, I think you'd concede that the shelves are litterred with much of it that isn't necessary and some that borders harmful.


----------



## mheath0429

True Kevin, btw hi, nice to see another Michigander... 

As with prescription medication, if you don't seek a professional, it could be harmful.

There is some crap, but that can be said of both sides. I mean a leadign killer these days is the abuse of prescription drugs (including incorrect diagnosis etc)...its especially high for antidepressants and anti psychotics.


----------



## kevin bradley

hey, you too. whereabouts are ya?...if you don't mind saying.

Oh yeah, I've seen it plenty around me... recently, I heard some people I know reciting the litany of prescription drugs that they are on, that their kids are on, that their friends are on... it blew me away. 

I think its the hidden dirty secret in America...prescription drugs and our dependency on them. 

Don't mean to digress but all this stuff is intertwined.


----------



## mheath0429

kevin bradley said:


> hey, you too. whereabouts are ya?...if you don't mind saying.
> 
> Oh yeah, I've seen it plenty around me... recently, I heard some people I know reciting the litany of prescription drugs that they are on, that their kids are on, that their friends are on... it blew me away.
> 
> I think its the hidden dirty secret in America...prescription drugs and our dependency on them.
> 
> Don't mean to digress but all this stuff is intertwined.


Livonia - Metro Detroit. 

It's most certainly a dirty secret. I even took myself off of antidepressants, because I realized it was harming me long term. I take a passion flower supplement, and placebo or not, it works for me. Otherwise, I take fish oils. Only drug I'll take is contraceptives on a daily basis.


----------



## 46and2

Sprocket said:


> You just joined....How can you be so informed about how we operate here? I know you can see posts before you join but you seem rather biased without having have been an active participating member.
> 
> My point is, I suggest you stick around and get to know us as individuals before you make enemies by assuming and labeling.


I have been reading for well over a year. Saw no reason to join until I noticed that no one was permitted an opinion opposing raw. That is what I have seen, that is what this entire thread has been about.


----------



## 46and2

mheath0429 said:


> You have made some pretty bold statements....
> 
> For every thread that is similar to this situation, there is one where we suggest they get to a vet. A day or two of diarrhea, without other complications, is not something I would worry about and it truly does happen when a dog switches from processed food to raw meat. Mine shed their entire coat as well, and it grew back beautifully.
> 
> No, we wouldn't dissect a kibble in the raw forum...that isn't about raw. As I stated before, I feed raw but I understand people don't always have that option, for whatever reason, and I prefer to stay informed. Kibble is a huge industry, and I know there are so bad seeds. I've learned a lot about Dr. Tim's and some other decent kibbles, but there are still many I would never suggest.
> 
> In some cases, raw can work like a miracle. Have you ever fed raw? Have you ever known someone with a dog that has severe allergies or other diet related illness? If not, you have no right to claim it doesn't work. I have a female plagued with horrible allergies, and she went into anaphylactic shock after eating kibble with undeclared chicken. After that point, I took matters into my own hands. A good friend has a dog that has Irritable Bowel and would throw up constantly and have diarrhea almost daily, she switched her to raw and she miraculously hasn't had a problem since. Miracle-like things can happen. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean we aren't telling the truth.
> 
> 
> I think you aren't reading threads fully if you think any of us here just "throw together" a diet. On the contrary, many of us spend a great deal of time researching and deciding what is right for our breed of dog. Perhaps you should read a bit more before assuming we don't know what we are doing.


Yes I have fed raw. It's not that it scared me it was just too much bs work. Work that wasn't worth the results, not at ALL.
My dog looks like **** on raw and looks amazing on kibble, go figure. 
Members came into the kibble/canned section to bash kibble. Why? You don't like it, don't feed it. You like it, you come to this section... it's literally that simple. 
I doubt VERY HIGHLY that your dog went into anaphylactic shock from eating chicken. Who confirmed that for you?
Dogs are not obligate carnivores so I don't see the need to feed them like they are.  
So if someone were to start a thread in the raw forum about a specific cut of meat and some of the "kibblers" came over and started bashing... what do you suspect the mods would do?
Those same "miracles" could (in theory) happen if you switched to another kibble. 
Also what I stated about how some threads go in the raw section- very rarely does someone suggest a vet. It's pretty anti-vet over *there*.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

46and2 said:


> Yes I have fed raw. It's not that it scared me it was just too much bs work. Work that wasn't worth the results, not at ALL.
> My dog looks like shit on raw and looks amazing on kibble, go figure.
> Members came into the kibble/canned section to bash kibble. Why? You don't like it, don't feed it. You like it, you come to this section... it's literally that simple.
> I doubt VERY HIGHLY that your dog went into anaphylactic shock from eating chicken. Who confirmed that for you?
> Dogs are not obligate carnivores so I don't see the need to feed them like they are.
> So if someone were to start a thread in the raw forum about a specific cut of meat and some of the "kibblers" came over and started bashing... what do you suspect the mods would do?


99% of the time, when there are problems with raw it's user error. With that said, I would finish the discussion in the raw section.


----------



## 46and2

Caty M said:


> If a dog has prolonged diarrhea it should be taken to the vet. Some initial is common but if it was for three weeks I would certainly tell the owner to see the vet. It's just hard to find a vet that is somewhat well versed on raw. My old one told me my dog would grow up to be deformed ecause of a calcium deficiency... Even though he gets plenty of bone and his diet is within the recommended parameters in terms of nutrients. And he is nearly three years and is not deformed. Lol


I've seen it numerous times and no one recommends the vet. They just keep recommending higher bone content.


----------



## MollyWoppy

46and2 said:


> I have been reading for well over a year. Saw no reason to join until I noticed that no one was permitted an opinion opposing raw. That is what I have seen, that is what this entire thread has been about.


That is simply not true. What is true is that most of us started off feeding kibble, some of us still do with different pets, so by our very nature we've done research on and have some experience in the various types and qualities of kibble around. 
And, I think 99% of people here understand and respect that raw isn't for everyone and don't have any problems with people feeding kibble, as long as it is a decent brand with decent ingredients. 
Do you know the name of the thread in the Raw Food Section from which you were quoting in your message above?


----------



## 46and2

naturalfeddogs said:


> 99% of the time, when there are problems with raw it's user error. With that said, I would finish the discussion in the raw section.


Why? Ya'll don't mind starting a raw discussion in a kibble thread/section. 
I can guarantee you it wasn't user error, but I appreciate the underhanded, passive aggressive insult  I guess I'm one of those 1% rarities. 
It was gross and a PIA to handle/prepare, difficult to source, cause a few bowel impactions in one of my older dogs, caused a case of salmonella poisoning in one of my relatives dogs (necropsy performed by a top veterinarian with NO bias) and a bad case of liver disease in another friends dog (the dog died within 6 months of the diet switch but I can't say if it was user error in that situation). 
I don't hate the raw diet, what I DO hate is when people can't be grown up enough to allow people to have their own minds and do what they see fit. 
The original poster was innocently mentioning a new food. Then he got gang banged by the raw feeders. How do you think that reflects on ya'll?


----------



## mheath0429

46and2 said:


> Yes I have fed raw. It's not that it scared me it was just too much bs work. Work that wasn't worth the results, not at ALL.
> My dog looks like shit on raw and looks amazing on kibble, go figure.
> Members came into the kibble/canned section to bash kibble. Why? You don't like it, don't feed it. You like it, you come to this section... it's literally that simple.
> I doubt VERY HIGHLY that your dog went into anaphylactic shock from eating chicken. Who confirmed that for you?
> Dogs are not obligate carnivores so I don't see the need to feed them like they are.
> So if someone were to start a thread in the raw forum about a specific cut of meat and some of the "kibblers" came over and started bashing... what do you suspect the mods would do?
> Those same "miracles" could (in theory) happen if you switched to another kibble.
> Also what I stated about how some threads go in the raw section- very rarely does someone suggest a vet. It's pretty anti-vet over *there*.


You can call my conventional vet, the e vet, and the holistic vet I have been to for it - she had previously been diagnosed with a chicken allergy after testing, then I switched kibbles because she was getting a swollen itchy muzzle from the kibble she had been eating with chicken. Then, I was feeding a kibble which had no chicken labeled and I thought was a good brand...soon after ingesting it her face swelled up, she became lethargic, gums became white, she wouldn't move and was very sick...so i took her in. They pumped her stomach and did an analysis of the food ( I live in an area with these capabilities) and 3 - 4 days later I found out there was chicken in it. So yes, I know that is what happened, thank you.

Feel free to feed kibble, none of us will tell you not to. If you would like to discuss raw, perhaps do it in the raw section of the forum.


----------



## 46and2

mheath0429 said:


> You can call my conventional vet, the e vet, and the holistic vet I have been to for it - she had previously been diagnosed with a chicken allergy after testing, then I switched kibbles because she was getting a swollen itchy muzzle from the kibble she had been eating with chicken. Then, I was feeding a kibble which had no chicken labeled and I thought was a good brand...soon after ingesting it her face swelled up, she became lethargic, gums became white, she wouldn't move and was very sick...so i took her in. They pumped her stomach and did an analysis of the food ( I live in an area with these capabilities) and 3 - 4 days later I found out there was chicken in it. So yes, I know that is what happened, thank you.
> 
> Feel free to feed kibble, none of us will tell you not to. If you would like to discuss raw, perhaps do it in the raw section of the forum.


Is there a genetic component I wonder..? Maybe contact your breeder. Hopefully they would pull dogs from their breeding program that reproduce animals that are that affected by allergies.
Yet again, some members sure don't starting crap in the kibble section. I don't know why I can't talk raw right here when everyone else is doing it. 
Some members need a spanking :suspicious:


----------



## Roo

46and2 said:


> Yes I have fed raw. It's not that it scared me it was just too much bs work. Work that wasn't worth the results, not at ALL.
> My dog looks like shit on raw and looks amazing on kibble, go figure.
> Members came into the kibble/canned section to bash kibble. Why? You don't like it, don't feed it. You like it, you come to this section... it's literally that simple.
> I doubt VERY HIGHLY that your dog went into anaphylactic shock from eating chicken. Who confirmed that for you?
> Dogs are not obligate carnivores so I don't see the need to feed them like they are.
> So if someone were to start a thread in the raw forum about a specific cut of meat and some of the "kibblers" came over and started bashing... what do you suspect the mods would do?
> Those same "miracles" could (in theory) happen if you switched to another kibble.
> Also what I stated about how some threads go in the raw section- very rarely does someone suggest a vet. It's pretty anti-vet over *there*.


I think the problem with food/diet bashing, is everyone has a different opinion and a different line as to what they consider to be acceptable and unacceptable. To focus solely on raw vs kibble bashing seems pointless to me, because the same type of bashing occurs between different types of kibble (example Beneful vs Acana). While some may think that feeding Beneful is unacceptable, others have a different line of acceptability, for example, I once heard an owner say she was fine with feeding the sugar amount in Beneful because her dog was highly active and would easily work it off. I guess my whole point in all this is I think it's difficult to just generalize opinions across the board, when everyone is not on the same page when it comes to nutrition.

So you're upset for others judging and bashing, and then you're judging someone's feeding experience with chicken? It doesn't make sense to me.

If another member (raw or kibble) suggests a vet or not, it's not their responsibility to, it's the dog owner's to make decisions when it comes to the health of their dogs, it's called personal responsibility.


----------



## mheath0429

46and2 said:


> Why? Ya'll don't mind starting a raw discussion in a kibble thread/section.
> I can guarantee you it wasn't user error, but I appreciate the underhanded, passive aggressive insult  I guess I'm one of those 1% rarities.
> It was gross and a PIA to handle/prepare, difficult to source, cause a few bowel impactions in one of my older dogs, caused a case of salmonella poisoning in one of my relatives dogs (necropsy performed by a top veterinarian with NO bias) and a bad case of liver disease in another friends dog (the dog died within 6 months of the diet switch but I can't say if it was user error in that situation).
> I don't hate the raw diet, what I DO hate is when people can't be grown up enough to allow people to have their own minds and do what they see fit.
> The original poster was innocently mentioning a new food. Then he got gang banged by the raw feeders. How do you think that reflects on ya'll?




You obviously know NOTHING about this forum if you think Monster's Dad is innocent. Not to say he doesn't know his stuff, but he's not innocent.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

46and2 said:


> Why? Ya'll don't mind starting a raw discussion in a kibble thread/section.
> I can guarantee you it wasn't user error, but I appreciate the underhanded, passive aggressive insult  I guess I'm one of those 1% rarities.
> It was gross and a PIA to handle/prepare, difficult to source, cause a few bowel impactions in one of my older dogs, caused a case of salmonella poisoning in one of my relatives dogs (necropsy performed by a top veterinarian with NO bias) and a bad case of liver disease in another friends dog (the dog died within 6 months of the diet switch but I can't say if it was user error in that situation).
> I don't hate the raw diet, what I DO hate is when people can't be grown up enough to allow people to have their own minds and do what they see fit.
> The original poster was innocently mentioning a new food. Then he got gang banged by the raw feeders. How do you think that reflects on ya'll?



Hence the reason I have twice now said to take it to the raw forum. To avoid an argument here, in the kibble section.


----------



## mheath0429

46and2 said:


> Is there a genetic component I wonder..? Maybe contact your breeder. Hopefully they would pull dogs from their breeding program that reproduce animals that are that affected by allergies.
> Yet again, some members sure don't starting crap in the kibble section. I don't know why I can't talk raw right here when everyone else is doing it.
> Some members need a spanking :suspicious:


She is a rescue. If it were genetic I'd never know because I can't trace her.


----------



## 46and2

Roo said:


> I think the problem with food/diet bashing, is everyone has a different opinion and a different line as to what they consider to be acceptable and unacceptable. To focus solely on raw vs kibble bashing seems pointless to me, because the same type of bashing occurs between different types of kibble (example Beneful vs Acana). While some may think that feeding Beneful is unacceptable, others have a different line of acceptability, for example, I once heard an owner say she was fine with feeding the sugar amount in Beneful because her dog was highly active and would easily work it off. I guess my whole point in all this is I think it's difficult to just generalize opinions across the board, when everyone is not on the same page when it comes to nutrition.
> 
> So you're upset for others judging and bashing, and then you're judging someone's feeding experience with chicken? It doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> If another member (raw or kibble) suggests a vet or not, it's not their responsibility to, it's the dog owner's to make decisions when it comes to the health of their dogs, it's called personal responsibility.


I wasn't attempting to judge. I have never, in my life, heard of an allergy to chicken so severe that it cause anaphylactic shock. 
I agree with you on personal responsibility, which is what led me to kibble. My dogs didn't do well on raw so I changed their diet. 
If I had a dog that required a raw diet then I would use it.


----------



## 46and2

mheath0429 said:


> You obviously know NOTHING about this forum if you think Monster's Dad is innocent. Not to say he doesn't know his stuff, but he's not innocent.


No he isn't. He was in THIS thread.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Back on topic of the OP, or the thread will be shut down.

Because, oh no, the big bad R word was dropped in the kibble section again.


----------



## Foodie

naturalfeddogs said:


> I know the law here in Alabama says that any dog who bites someone has to stay at a vets office for a 10day rabies observation, vaccinated or not. After the 10 days if no signs of rabies are shown the dog goes home. If there are signs shown, then the dog is euthanized and the head is sent to Auburn University for examination to confirm rabies or not. I don't know about other states, but here dogs are not autamaticaly euthanized.


My apologies, I shouldn't have said "likely" but it is a possibility. When in quarantine a dog is observed for signs of rabies, if your certain that your dog will act the same when confined at the vets or animal control facility and doesn't have another issue that has similar symptoms to rabies then you should be ok. Some states allow quarantine in the home but not all and not if the dog has no proof of current vaccination. After the quarantine the dog is vaccinated before release.

If your dog is not vaccinated for rabies and is bitten by a stray or wild animal your dog could be quarantined for 6 months at your expense. Anyone with questions about rabies and the law should contact their local health department.


----------



## 46and2

CorgiPaws said:


> Back on topic of the OP, or the thread will be shut down.
> 
> Because, oh no, the big bad R word was dropped in the kibble section again.


I don't think it's that raw was discussed, it's that kibble is even bashed in the KIBBLE section. Yeesh!
As a moderator I would think you would read this stuff!


----------



## Foodie

Caty M said:


> I don't live in the US an have no legal requirement for vaccinations. *Vaccines cause an immune response, it's how they work. Picking up the virus also does the same.* I am confident in my dogs health and that's what matters  fwiw, my vet supports me.
> 
> I also have had a cat have grand mal seizures immediately following vax so I might be biased, but I am confident in both my food choice and my choice in veterinary care.


Your confidence might be shaken if you knew more about immunity. It's not as simple as "Vaccines cause an immune response, it's how they work. Picking up the virus also does the same." Having a casual exposure to a virus can produce an immune system response but that's not to say it's sufficient to prevent disease. What's called natural immunity comes from actually having the disease itself (not just exposure) and it's not known how long this immunity lasts either, in most cases re-exposure acts like a booster. Unfortunately people can make bad decisions when then aren't properly versed with the knowledge to make those decisions properly, it's called learning the hard way. I hope your not a breeder and I hope you don't have any problems.

From a google search I learned that rabies vaccinations are recommended in most areas of Canada and are required in some areas, Ontario is one area that I know has a legal requirement. This vet (Vaccination) in Calgary considers rabies a "core vaccine" and has posted the following (from your area):



> 2010 : On April 5th of 2010 a 3.5 year old cat was presented to the Cremona Vet Clinic for exam. This family pet was UNVACCINATED and roamed both outdoors and indoors. It was diagnosed with Rabies at post mortem examination. The CFIA authorities did not quarantine the entire farm, but did order that all pets on the premises are to be vaccinated against Rabies at the owner's expense. The veterinary staff and cat's owners, 3 adults and 4 children all received a series of 5 intramuscular injections with Rabies vaccine over a 28 day period, as well as 2 X 4ml intramuscular injections of Rabies Immunoglobulin. No clues as to as to type of animal that infected this cat, but brown bats, skunks, foxes and coyotes are all found in the area.
> 
> 2007 : A 73 year old man died in April 2007 after being bitten by a bat in August 2006. He did not seek any post exposure treatments when he found the dead bat in his bed one morning on his farm east of Edmonton. He survived 68 days of clinical illness before being declared brain dead and life support was withdrawn.
> 
> 2006 : Rabies has been diagnosed in a fourteen week old kitten in the Spruceview area of Alberta (North West of Innisfail). The kitten came from an UNVACCINATED litter and had been ill for about a week. The kitten was hospitalized where its condition deteriorated and was euthanized the next day. The kitten was sent for Rabies analysis and a diagnosis of Rabies was confirmed. The health authorities were informed and all people who came into contact with the kitten have been treated.


----------



## CorgiPaws

46and2 said:


> I don't think it's that raw was discussed, it's that kibble is even bashed in the KIBBLE section. Yeesh!
> As a moderator I would think you would read this stuff!


Much like a few here have gone to the raw section to bash raw? 
I am a moderator, in fact... Apparently the ONLY one who has not been run off yet. But I'm also a person with a life outside the Internet, am raising two litters of pups, and. Running a business... So forgive me if reading 19 pages of childish bickering isn't exactly what I do first thing in the morning. I get to it when I get to it, and I don't have time to read every post in every section. When the debate stays civil, I could care less if threads go off topic... But the behavior in this one is embarrassing... At best.


----------



## whiteleo

kevin bradley said:


> hey, you too. whereabouts are ya?...if you don't mind saying.
> 
> Oh yeah, I've seen it plenty around me... recently, I heard some people I know reciting the litany of prescription drugs that they are on, that their kids are on, that their friends are on... it blew me away.
> 
> I think its the hidden dirty secret in America...prescription drugs and our dependency on them.
> 
> Don't mean to digress but all this stuff is intertwined.


And Kevin who do you think maks the money on those prescription drugs? The Drs. get a slice of the pie with every new prescription they write for a new product, so they line each others pocket...Just like anything whether it is human or pets people MUST be their own advocate and not just trust whatever is told to them...


----------



## InkedMarie

monster'sdad said:


> I think they are very expensive but certainly if they are made by a company with experience then sure. I wouldn't say they are better than dry foods. If I were to pick one premade raw it would be one of the Abady completes because they have been used for so long and aren't glamoured up for marketing purposes. That bothers me the most. If I could get Abady NPF easily I would buy it from time to time.


I know someone who feeds Abady, has for years and speaks very highly of it.


----------



## monster'sdad

meggels said:


> I feed Murphy Northwest Naturals, which only has 10-15% fruits/veggies. A premade raw has been the only thing that has stopped his reoccurring ear infections. I saw that you mentioned deficiencies with raw diets (homemade), so was curious to hear your opinion on the premades that add vitamins and minerals to make them "balanced"


In theory they should be fine if the company knows what its doing. Even so I don't believe they are better than dry. If Murphy was 75lbs you wouldn't be using it, right? If you can get Abady's raw, give it a whirl. There is decades of experience in that formula and a better balance of ingredients for less money. Just a thought.


----------



## monster'sdad

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Mother Nature provided all living species with real wholesome food ....who are we to say: " hey, this freshly caught deer is not good enough for me, I'm gonna add some preservatives and chemicals, then cook it and process it and there! Now it's better!" Common people.
> 
> I do have a question for you two: Champion/Orijen pet foods won pet food of the year in 2012 for the third year in a row! This award was given by the glycemic research institute who conducts INDEPENDENT research on pet food. Orijen as we know use 80% meat and 20% fruits & vegetables. If you go to their website and read through the ingredient lists of their food you will find they use NO corn or grain of any kind. Why is this then? Why do they not use any corn if it's such an important ingredient in pet food?
> 
> Also, Dr. Greg K. Ogilvie, oncologist at Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and his team conducted intensive research into the dietary needs of canine cancer patients. In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores. I would think that a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbs will then also help prevent the cancer from developing in the first place?


You really swallowed the hook on the Glycemic Index. Do some digging on that I think you won't be so impressed if do some research on that "seal".


----------



## meggels

monster'sdad said:


> In theory they should be fine if the company knows what its doing. Even so I don't believe they are better than dry. If Murphy was 75lbs you wouldn't be using it, right? If you can get Abady's raw, give it a whirl. There is decades of experience in that formula and a better balance of ingredients for less money. Just a thought.


I've never seen Abadys raw sold locally.


----------



## monster'sdad

46and2 said:


> I read this entire thread and many others on this board that boil down to a raw vs kibble debate.
> I think the point that some pro Purina or pro Royal Canin advocates are attempting to make isnt that kibble is SUPERIOR to whole foods but more that it is sufficient for an every day, average dog. I tend to agree with them.
> Also how people use raw diets as a catch all. A miracle. It will do this, and this, oh and EVEN THIS! Life doesn't work like that. There are risks to each feeding style, it is all what risks you are comfortable with taking.
> Also how some (not all) raw feeders will throw together a diet (because so and so said it was ok) and not research the nutritional requirements for that specific dog. Creating a diet that is nutritionally lacking and begins to affect the animal's over all health.
> I would have to say that I only start defending kibble when someone criticizes me and/or my feeding choices. Otherwise I *generally* live and let live.
> I notice that this thread was on track until some raw advocate decided it was time to pick apart and judge someone else's opinion (not only to give their own).
> If you want to bash kibble or create threads on why Purina Dog Chow is inadequate, then do it in the raw section... right? I'm sure if someone tried to point out how raw can be done SO INCORRECTLY (and I've seen this a million times) in the raw section, that someone might be banned
> Case in point: original poster: "my dogs had diarrhea for 3 straight weeks on the raw diet, what should I do?"
> Suggestive poster: "what are you feeding the dog currently?"
> OP: "chicken backs"
> SP: "do you cut the fat trim off as well as the kidneys that may be attached?"
> OP: "yes I've done that"
> SP: "well, this is what we call detox... for some dogs it may take a day or two and it took my dog 6 months to finally transition"
> OP: "gee, sounds great, I'll just let my detox then"
> ^^^ THAT is insanity. No suggestions to consult a professional, using buzz words that have no scientific backing (detox), no suggestions to see a vet. And a dog continues to suffer and perhaps even worse.
> No offense guys, but I've seen this many times going on in the raw section and it scares me....


You are spot on with that little thread. I love all the buzz words like "grain-heavy", "species appropriate", "detox", "low glycemic index", "corn-based", "the first 3 ingredients should be NAMED meats". LOL, like poultry meal could be so many horrible things. The other funny one is "XXXX is a by-product of the XXXX industry".

And when it comes to destroying your dog's kidneys with high ash, they generally yawn.


----------



## 46and2

CorgiPaws said:


> Much like a few here have gone to the raw section to bash raw?
> I am a moderator, in fact... Apparently the ONLY one who has not been run off yet. But I'm also a person with a life outside the Internet, am raising two litters of pups, and. Running a business... So forgive me if reading 19 pages of childish bickering isn't exactly what I do first thing in the morning. I get to it when I get to it, and I don't have time to read every post in every section. When the debate stays civil, I could care less if threads go off topic... But the behavior in this one is embarrassing... At best.


If you are that busy, why are you moderating? I know I wouldn't have the time to be a moderator... that's why I'm not one.


----------



## 46and2

monster'sdad said:


> You are spot on with that little thread. I love all the buzz words like "grain-heavy", "species appropriate", "detox", "low glycemic index", "corn-based", "the first 3 ingredients should be NAMED meats". LOL, like poultry meal could be so many horrible things. The other funny one is "XXXX is a by-product of the XXXX industry".
> 
> And when it comes to destroying your dog's kidneys with high ash, they generally yawn.


Which foods specifically would you say are high in ash?? I'm feeding Horizon Legacy Adult, the chicken formula.


----------



## monster'sdad

46and2 said:


> Which foods specifically would you say are high in ash?? I'm feeding Horizon Legacy Adult, the chicken formula.




The ones that are dangerous are EVO Chicken and Earthborn Primitive at 12%, among others. TOTW gives me pause because they are about 
10%. Nature's Variety and Nature's Logic are very high too.

Others are high relative to the protein level, meaning they are not dangerous but the ash relative to protein tells me the protein source is not very good. DaViking has mentioned the clay in some foods contributes to ash, so some may not be due to poor quality protein.

Canidae at 24% protein and over 8% ash is good example, while Dr. Tim's Pursuit and Momentum are 6%'ish at 30% and 35%, respectively. Annamaet, Precise and Fromm have low ash foods as well. Canidae's number tell me the protein is not the best available. Overall, smaller companies use better protein because they can get the amounts they need. Some foods like Pro Plan and Eukanuba are very low too but they do it a different way. 

The most dangerous part of ash is phosphorous, many foods are at the maximum levels allowed even with pretty decent overall levels.

Horizon is more than respectable given the high protein level of 34%.

Overall, Dr. Tim's and Annamaet have the best ash/protein relationships, considering they don't use any vegetable concentrates like corn gluten or pea protein. 

So there is high in ash as in dangerous and high in ash relative to protein.

I use Dr. Tim's Pursuit 30/20 and really like it. I used Annamaet Ultra for a long time and really liked it as well. They are quite different but both are thoroughly tested foods and pretty reasonably priced.


----------



## 46and2

monster'sdad said:


> The ones that are dangerous are EVO Chicken and Earthborn Primitive at 12%, among others.
> 
> Others are high relative to the protein level, meaning they are not dangerous but the ash relative to protein tells me the protein source is not very good. DaViking has mentioned the clay in some foods contributes to ash, so some may not be due to poor quality protein.
> 
> Canidae at 24% protein and over 8% ash is good example, while Dr. Tim's Pursuit and Momentum are 6%'ish at 30% and 35%, respectively. Annamaet, Precise and Fromm have low ash foods as well. Canidae's number tell me the protein is not the best available. Overall, smaller companies use better protein because they can get the amounts they need. Some foods like Pro Plan and Eukanuba are very low too but they do it a different way.
> 
> The most dangerous part of ash is phosphorous, many foods are at the maximum levels allowed even with pretty decent overall levels.
> 
> Horizon is more than respectable given the high protein level of 34%.
> 
> Overall, Dr. Tim's and Annamaet have the best ash/protein relationships, considering they don't use any vegetable concentrates like corn gluten or pea protein.
> 
> So there is high in ash as in dangerous and high in ash relative to protein.


Ah I see! Thank you for the explanation. 
Do you have a website where I can order Dr. Tim's formulas online? I know we don't have them locally...


----------



## bett

monster'sdad said:


> In theory they should be fine if the company knows what its doing. Even so I don't believe they are better than dry. If Murphy was 75lbs you wouldn't be using it, right? If you can get Abady's raw, give it a whirl. There is decades of experience in that formula and a better balance of ingredients for less money. Just a thought.


Abady, who claims food causes hip displaysia?


----------



## CorgiPaws

46and2 said:


> If you are that busy, why are you moderating? I know I wouldn't have the time to be a moderator... that's why I'm not one.


Because exactly zero other candidates have been approved to take over....
And it's not ALWAYS this hectic, but when I have puppies here they take first priority, always.... And its very time consuming. 
And because adults should know how to act it. Moderating USED to be mostly removing spam... Not babysitting.


----------



## Liz

Corgi Paws - you should not feel you need to defend yourself to such nastiness. The childishness is ridiculous. You don't owe anyone a reason for being busy.


----------



## Foodie

CorgiPaws said:


> Much like a few here have gone to the raw section to bash raw?
> I am a moderator, in fact... Apparently the ONLY one who has not been run off yet. But I'm also a person with a life outside the Internet, *am raising two litters of pups, *and. Running a business... So forgive me if reading 19 pages of childish bickering isn't exactly what I do first thing in the morning. I get to it when I get to it, and I don't have time to read every post in every section. When the debate stays civil, I could care less if threads go off topic... But the behavior in this one is embarrassing... At best.


Wow! 2 litters of pups, congratulations, you must be quite the accomplished breeder. Still wondering why you breed (since your rant about people breeding earlier in the thread). No answer?


----------



## CorgiPaws

46and2 said:


> If you are that busy, why are you moderating? I know I wouldn't have the time to be a moderator... that's why I'm not one.





Foodie said:


> Wow! 2 litters of pups, congratulations, you must be quite the accomplished breeder. Still wondering why you breed (since your rant about people breeding earlier in the thread). No answer?


Foodie, I am against people slapping two dogs together with no thought other than $$ and no purpose, no health testing, and no regard for what defects their dogs might be passing on.

Like I said previously... Get this thread back on topic. My personal life isn't any of your concern.


----------



## monster'sdad

46and2 said:


> Ah I see! Thank you for the explanation.
> Do you have a website where I can order Dr. Tim's formulas online? I know we don't have them locally...


Petflow has the best deal, carries all the sizes, including the 44#lb breeder bags for most of the formulas. Mr. Chewy has it as well.


----------



## bett

http://www.abadyfeeds.com

interesting read.
i'd never.....dont care what ingredients it has.
why lie?


----------



## meggels

bett said:


> http://www.abadyfeeds.com
> 
> interesting read.
> i'd never.....dont care what ingredients it has.
> why lie?


I couldn't find the ingredients on the website anywhere! Is it just me? I find it very NOT user friendly haha.


----------



## kevin bradley

me neither, Megs. The guy seems to have done a lot of work on canine nutrition...or at least sounds like he has.

He says Beat Pulp is horrible. Monster says its great. 

Do we flip a coin? Seriously, this is becoming more and more challenging every day.


----------



## DaViking

wow, a 22 pager already.

:first: goes to... Sportmix.

Lot's of nonsense imo from some of the hardliners here. Not gonna bother with the pointless bickering.

Kevin; I kind'a get your point on progress through new products etc. My take on it is that progress via new products from companies like Champion and similar doesn't necessarily produce stellar more appropriate products but it does contribute knowledge, and that is important for everyone to keep developing. So in that light I don't see any point in bashing manufacturers who break with the norms. I know I am a man but I can still juggle two lines of thoughts in my brain, I can say "I welcome your products and efforts" at the same time as I say "sorry, your food is really inappropriate in a variety of situations and for a number of dogs" That is a balanced and informed stance, as opposed to many others who say "yeehaw, fresh meats legumes and squash, this is the best since... ever" The latter one is just ignorant because it indicates close to zero knowledge on the digestive process and how dogs process kibble.

Have anyone seen the Nutrient Analysis panel on these 3 new Sportmix formulas?


----------



## Sprocket

kevin bradley said:


> me neither, Megs. The guy seems to have done a lot of work on canine nutrition...or at least sounds like he has.
> 
> He says Beat Pulp is horrible. Monster says its great.
> 
> Do we flip a coin? Seriously, this is becoming more and more challenging every day.


Right? I'm SO torn!:dizzy::noidea:


----------



## DaViking

dr tim said:


> Quite a conversation rolling here. I hope someone is learning something.
> 
> The Glycemic Institute. I looked into this a few years back and it is a yearly 2500 payment to the institute per formula for them to review it and then they rate them, is what I remember. Maybe someone else can look further into that would be considered unbiased but it is what it is, just a FYI.


The Glycemic Institute like woganvonderweidenstrasse mentioned and other similar "Institutes" are a dime a dozen. There is a closed "Institute" out there for every company who want a favorable rating for their product and if one doesn't exist they will fund one. Just pay attention to TV commercials and you'll get an overload of them every day of the week. First line consumer protection in North America is very weak, it's the only way to maintain desired economic output. The result is polarization between the absent minded consumer and the extreme elitist. Anyone in the middle trying to think for him/her self catch h**l from both.


----------



## Herzo

Yes usually you can follow the money with most things and find out the truth. Just I think, hard to do at times. Most things indeed one is best in the middle, extreme on either end is most times not good. 

But I guess it's human nature to think if I think this way it must be right so I will push it on everyone. I hate this type of thinking, not everything is the same or fare that's just life. I wish I was taller but I ain't.

I also think it takes allot of training in oneself to be able to discuss without getting angry, I know I am a work in progress. And when you get angry about everything out of your mouth is wrong........ period. Ok now that was just meant to keep the "conversation lively". That's a quote from a movie.

We all need to get better at this so new comers don't get so upset at these threads. And we can all maybe learn more if we don't have to jab at each other.

And yes I do believe I have learned something from this thread, also got some entertainment from it.


----------



## DaViking

kevin bradley said:


> He says Beat Pulp is horrible. Monster says its great.
> 
> Do we flip a coin?


Mr Abady had his particular views on all sources of dietary fiber, not just beet pulp. Just like he had his opinions on vitamin K3, by-products, grains, fats and a slew of other topics. One can cherry pick of course but his overall views was certainly not in line with many here who like to quote him on the beet pulp issue. When reading the company' rationale on this it is clear that it is a case against all sources of special purpose dietary fiber, not the particulars of beet pulp.


----------



## bett

meggels said:


> I couldn't find the ingredients on the website anywhere! Is it just me? I find it very NOT user friendly haha.


i posted it because on the left, there 's a whole story about how their food, takes away hip issues and a whole host of other ailments. you know, the genetic ones?
lol.
i copied and pasted just a bit of what is written.




HOME


WHAT CAUSES HIP DYSPLASIA, BLOAT, TORSION, CHRONIC GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS, AND THYROID BREAKDOWN?



AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PANDEMICS OF THE ABOVE PROBLEMS.



The Abady Company is the only company in the marketplace to demonstrate through a review of a 20-year feeding program (non company affiliated), conducted at the prestigious Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation, Inc. in Bloomfield, Connecticut, that feeding Abady foods, as directed, eliminated hip dysplasia in all dogs under the direct control of the Foundation and in 90% of puppies placed in foster homes. The remaining 10% exhibited mild dysplasia, possibly due to underfeeding or mixing Abady with other brands. Prior to feeding Abady, while feeding national brands, the Foundation experienced high levels of hip dysplasia (50%), much of it severe or crippling. In its own tests, conducted a decade earlier, the Abady Company experienced similar results in its own breeding colony. Anecdotally for the 20 years Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation had been feeding Abady Products, not one occurrence of bloat or torsion was observed. 

WHAT CAUSES HIP DYSPLASIA - a woefully inadequate level of nutrition.

How do we know that nutrition is at fault? Other than the fact that hip dysplasia can be prevented through the judicious feeding of Abady products, hip dysplasia along with the other conditions listed in the title of this article, have reached pandemic levels and are on the increase. Since no one is breeding for these faults, if anything, people are trying unsuccessfully to breed against them, these conditions cannot be genetic. They are not breed-specific either, since all breeds are affected. Environment is not a consideration, since dogs all over the country exhibit the same symptoms. The only factor remaining is the food supply and the uniform level of nutrition that it delivers. This should come as no surprise since the majors set the price parameters and everyone scrambles to produce products within or close to those margins.


----------



## InkedMarie

Meg, I'm on my tablet, can't get to it but I believe I still have the email someone sent to me with Abadys ingredients, etc. Someone else I know tried Abady, I think one of the geanulars for one specific dog. The dog is doing better than he has done on any other food. Go figure.


----------



## bett

you can go to the left of the page-they have special food- you know, according to size, for toys, etc and the ingredients are there. i had to make it larger to read it.but you can.

amazing, food for different size breeds (i thought that was bologna), and it's truly an amazing thing. all the diseases that i thought were genetic can be cured nearly 100% with this fabulous food.

uh huh. 
you know that bridge in brooklyn-it's for sale.

what it is, is a relatively inexpensive dog food, but please, dont tell me about marketing hype and then recommend this.


----------



## meggels

I saw the ingredients for the kibbles, but couldn't find them for the raw...


----------



## kevin bradley

I get more and more confused on subjects the more I analyze them. The internet only makes things worse. At your fingertips is a plethora of information that can contradict everything you just "researched" within seconds.

Raw?... depending on what site you go to, its either superior to Kibble or a recipe for everyone in your house to get Salmonella poisoning including your Dogs. 

Beat Pulp?... its either a fabulouse source of Fiber or the DEVIL depending upon what "expert" you are willing to listen to. 

The hard PART? When I tell you about these "sources," I'm not talking about any old person on a Dog Food forum. I'm talking about people who have really done alot of work on BOTH sides of these issues. Its not like any of us have our own laboratory to test BEAT pulp. We RELY on people to provide information and I'm just not certain its even possible to discern fact from fiction vs whatever any longer. 

About my only position is to be very skeptical of wild claims about cure-alls and quick fixes.


----------



## DaViking

meggels said:


> I saw the ingredients for the kibbles, but couldn't find them for the raw...


The ones on their website are granulates if I'm not mistaken. Their kibble formulas are here


----------



## meggels

DaViking said:


> The ones on their website are granulates if I'm not mistaken. Their kibble formulas are here


I was trying to find the raw food though.


----------



## Makovach

monster'sdad said:


> Your choice. Wasn't meant for you. It was meant for someone that has kids to feed or put through college and can't spend that much money on dog food.
> 
> That is pretty much the grade of something like Blue Buffalo but for 1/3rd the cost.
> 
> SportMix has a big following and lots of happy customers, including some of the best hunt trial dogs in the country.


No offense, JMHO But if some one has to skimp on food for their dogs because they have kids to feed and put through college maybe they shouldn't have a dog. They should have thought about that before they got a dog. I am only 20 yrs old. Live on my own, support myself with no job and feed my dogs a premium diet as well as myself.

I would not even compare this to BB or Eathborn. Maybe a few steps below it. I know quite a few hunters, they feed a lot of crap to their dogs. A lot of them swear by ol'roy and gravy train and have very good hunting/trial dogs.


----------



## meggels

Makovach said:


> No offense, JMHO But if some one has to skimp on food for their dogs because they have kids to feed and put through college maybe they shouldn't have a dog. They should have thought about that before they got a dog. I am only 20 yrs old. Live on my own, support myself with no job and feed my dogs a premium diet as well as myself.
> 
> I would not even compare this to BB or Eathborn. Maybe a few steps below it. I know quite a few hunters, they feed a lot of crap to their dogs. A lot of them swear by ol'roy and gravy train and have very good hunting/trial dogs.


I don't think that's really reality though, there's way too many dogs on this earth to just say that if their dog food budget is tighter than a premium food, they shouldn't have a dog. 

I live on my own and manage to feed Abbie a premium kibble and Murph a premade raw, but who's to say what would happen under all of life's different circumstances...


----------



## Foodie

CorgiPaws said:


> Foodie, I am against people slapping two dogs together with no thought other than $$ *and no purpose*, no health testing, and no regard for what defects their dogs might be passing on.
> 
> Like I said previously... Get this thread back on topic. My personal life isn't any of your concern.


Corgipaws, this (genetics) is part of what we've been talking about and you brought this up. This is what you said the first time:
_"On the flip side, the genetic makeup of a dog will determine a large portion of his health. Unfortunately there are so many breeders out there not giving a second thought to health, only breeding to make money, or only breeding for "pretty dogs." _

Your current response isn't much different from your first statement, you still have not provided an answer to my question. Breeders should be open and straight forward to common questions. What is your purpose for breeding? Are you keeping something to improve your lines? Do you work your dogs or compete with them in any way? 2 litters, that's a lot of puppies and a lot of $. After visiting your website you yourself seem to fit the profile of what your protesting. No eye clearances at all on your dogs? Heart exam (not echo) done by a practitioner? (OFA recommends examination by a Diplomate in this specialty) 

Here is what the parent club for Great Danes says about health clearances:



> RECOMMENDED DISEASE SCREENINGS
> OFA offers a public database where breeders can record the health status of their dogs. The minimum recommendations for the Great Dane to be used for breeding are a baseline at approximately two years with normal hip, heart, thyroid & eye results established. Heart & thyroid testing should be repeated at least every 2-3 years as results done on young adults do not remain valid for the life of the dog. Echocardiograms (for heart testing) are recommended for all adult Great Danes used for breeding, but are particularly important for stud dogs. Records of other disease issues should be maintained on all potential breeding stock (i.e. these four tests are not enough on their own). Note owners may wish to perform any &/or all of these tests on their own dogs, as health is a concern for all owners, not just breeders of Great Danes, and results publically recorded can benefit the whole breed.





> For cardiac testing, an ausculation on young Danes isn't really enough. This will screen for basic congenital defects, but will not ferret out such defects as SAS (subaortic stenosis) and DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy). To protect the breed, Great Dane breeders ideally should have a full cardiac work-up, to include an ECG & echocardiogram, done on all adult breeding stock on a regular basis into the veteran years. Visit the main page at the Health & Welfare section of the GDCA website for more information on heart disease in the Great Dane. CERF (eye) testing must be done yearly to be current.



I don't mean to sound harsh but if you are going to breed and use health as one of the selling points you should breed responsibly and at a minimum follow the recommendations of the parent club for your breed. By doing this you can minimize defects that can be passed on and it makes you look good too. I hope you don't truly believe that feeding raw covers these bases alone. I know everyone has to start somewhere and finding a mentor that does more than just breeds for pets is vital. Finding good mentor-ship isn't easy, joining the parent club or a specialty club near you can help. Danes on Line Directory And get a CGC on those dogs! It's not hard and it does tell something about you and your dogs. American Kennel Club -Canine Good Citizen- Dog Owners


----------



## kevin bradley

meggels said:


> I don't think that's really reality though, there's way too many dogs on this earth to just say that if their dog food budget is tighter than a premium food, they shouldn't have a dog.
> 
> I live on my own and manage to feed Abbie a premium kibble and Murph a premade raw, but who's to say what would happen under all of life's different circumstances...




I'm not even sure how we can have this debate, Megs. We(dog community) really can't come to an agreement on what even constitutes a premium food.

I thought I could at least put the non corn, non by product, etc... stuff into one "bad" bucket. 

Monster and these guys have me questioning that now. Before you know it, I'm going to be running to the store looking for Pedigree.

And I'm only half kidding.


----------



## mheath0429

Foodie said:


> Corgipaws, this (genetics) is part of what we've been talking about and you brought this up. This is what you said the first time:
> _"On the flip side, the genetic makeup of a dog will determine a large portion of his health. Unfortunately there are so many breeders out there not giving a second thought to health, only breeding to make money, or only breeding for "pretty dogs." _
> 
> Your current response isn't much different from your first statement, you still have not provided an answer to my question. Breeders should be open and straight forward to common questions. What is your purpose for breeding? Are you keeping something to improve your lines? Do you work your dogs or compete with them in any way? 2 litters, that's a lot of puppies and a lot of $. After visiting your website you yourself seem to fit the profile of what your protesting. No eye clearances at all on your dogs? Heart exam (not echo) done by a practitioner? (OFA recommends examination by a Diplomate in this specialty)
> 
> Here is what the parent club for Great Danes says about health clearances:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to sound harsh but if you are going to breed and use health as one of the selling points you should breed responsibly and at a minimum follow the recommendations of the parent club for your breed. By doing this you can minimize defects that can be passed on and it makes you look good too. I hope you don't truly believe that feeding raw covers these bases alone. I know everyone has to start somewhere and finding a mentor that does more than just breeds for pets is vital. Finding good mentor-ship isn't easy, joining the parent club or a specialty club near you can help. Danes on Line Directory And get a CGC on those dogs! It's not hard and it does tell something about you and your dogs. American Kennel Club -Canine Good Citizen- Dog Owners



She has testing - look again. Just because CERF isn't listed, doesn't mean she doesn't have it done. Plenty of breeders don't have time to update a lot of things...you are lucky she has time to update her site at all. I think you should think twice before insinuating you know everything.


----------



## Sheltielover25

Foodie said:


> Corgipaws, this (genetics) is part of what we've been talking about and you brought this up. This is what you said the first time:
> _"On the flip side, the genetic makeup of a dog will determine a large portion of his health. Unfortunately there are so many breeders out there not giving a second thought to health, only breeding to make money, or only breeding for "pretty dogs." _
> 
> Your current response isn't much different from your first statement, you still have not provided an answer to my question. Breeders should be open and straight forward to common questions. What is your purpose for breeding? Are you keeping something to improve your lines? Do you work your dogs or compete with them in any way? 2 litters, that's a lot of puppies and a lot of $. After visiting your website you yourself seem to fit the profile of what your protesting. No eye clearances at all on your dogs? Heart exam (not echo) done by a practitioner? (OFA recommends examination by a Diplomate in this specialty)
> 
> Here is what the parent club for Great Danes says about health clearances:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to sound harsh but if you are going to breed and use health as one of the selling points you should breed responsibly and at a minimum follow the recommendations of the parent club for your breed. By doing this you can minimize defects that can be passed on and it makes you look good too. I hope you don't truly believe that feeding raw covers these bases alone. I know everyone has to start somewhere and finding a mentor that does more than just breeds for pets is vital. Finding good mentor-ship isn't easy, joining the parent club or a specialty club near you can help. Danes on Line Directory And get a CGC on those dogs! It's not hard and it does tell something about you and your dogs. American Kennel Club -Canine Good Citizen- Dog Owners



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## whiteleo

Makovach said:


> No offense, JMHO But if some one has to skimp on food for their dogs because they have kids to feed and put through college maybe they shouldn't have a dog. They should have thought about that before they got a dog. I am only 20 yrs old. Live on my own, support myself with no job and feed my dogs a premium diet as well as myself.
> 
> I would not even compare this to BB or Eathborn. Maybe a few steps below it. I know quite a few hunters, they feed a lot of crap to their dogs. A lot of them swear by ol'roy and gravy train and have very good hunting/trial dogs.


You are so correct...Everyone feels it's their right to have a dog but it shouldn't be just as with kids, they should have to prove they can afford all care, trips to the vet and e-vet and a decent life


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Makovach said:


> No offense, JMHO But if some one has to skimp on food for their dogs because they have kids to feed and put through college maybe they shouldn't have a dog. They should have thought about that before they got a dog. I am only 20 yrs old. Live on my own, support myself with no job and feed my dogs a premium diet as well as myself.
> 
> I would not even compare this to BB or Eathborn. Maybe a few steps below it. I know quite a few hunters, they feed a lot of crap to their dogs. A lot of them swear by ol'roy and gravy train and have very good hunting/trial dogs.



that's ridiculous. I am 22 and support Jackson myself, and he gets top notch vet care, food, essentials, every day things, etc. But if I ever came down on a hard time, and had to feed him something a little more friendly on my wallet for a year or two, he's not going to die because of it. And he'd much rather stay with me than go somewhere else!

Sorry, not everything is so black and white.


----------



## Foodie

mheath0429 said:


> She has testing - look again. Just because CERF isn't listed, doesn't mean she doesn't have it done. Plenty of breeders don't have time to update a lot of things...you are lucky she has time to update her site at all. I think you should think twice before insinuating you know everything.


*I'm *lucky she has time to update her site at all? I don't see how her site benefits me, lol. 

Read my post, I asked "No eye clearances at all on your dogs?" I'm sure she will clear up this point, that's why I asked. If she didn't know about CERF then she does now. If she did know and cut corners, well...... She probably won't respond at all.

OFA lists her dogs as having a cardiac exam by a practitioner, this is only an auscultation and it wasn't done by a specialist. This is a biggie, read what I posted, "For cardiac testing, an ausculation on young Danes isn't really enough. This will screen for basic congenital defects, but will not ferret out such defects as SAS (subaortic stenosis) and DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy). *To protect the breed*, Great Dane breeders ideally should have a full cardiac work-up, to include an ECG & echocardiogram, done on all adult breeding stock on a regular basis into the veteran years." and this "*Echocardiograms (for heart testing) are recommended for all adult Great Danes used for breeding, but are particularly important for stud dogs*."


----------



## Makovach

Jacksons Mom said:


> that's ridiculous. I am 22 and support Jackson myself, and he gets top notch vet care, food, essentials, every day things, etc. But if I ever came down on a hard time, and had to feed him something a little more friendly on my wallet for a year or two, he's not going to die because of it. And he'd much rather stay with me than go somewhere else!
> 
> Sorry, not everything is so black and white.


I've been there done that. I was 17 living out of my truck, couch to couch with my three boxers, making less than $500 a month. They still ate earthborn grain free. I guess to me its mind over matter. I know what they need. And just as I would with children, I would go without to give them what they need. I strive to give my dogs the best and keep them as healthy as possible. It may not go that way for everyone, everyone may not feel he way I do. I feel like once I graduate to a better food for them that they do better on, it is a selfish act to go backwords.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Foodie said:


> Your current response isn't much different from your first statement, you still have not provided an answer to my question.


If you think for one second that I feel I owe *you* any kind of explanation on absolutely anything I do in my personal life or with my dogs... you're sorely fooling yourself. 
The term "ethical" is hugely open to interpretation, what you think is ethical... what I think is ethical... and what Joe schmo thinks is ethical are all going to be different and that's OK. What I don't understand is why after repeatedly saying to get this thread back on topic (which is a particular dog food....) you insist on making it some personal thing about me. 



Foodie said:


> What is your purpose for breeding? Are you keeping something to improve your lines? Do you work your dogs or compete with them in any way?


I'd be happy to discuss my breeding program.... however, I don't feel this forum is the proper venue for that. In short: I breed for healthy, solid companions, and my plans for the next 5 years hugely involve actively working on changing the color family standard, which I (and MANY others) feel hugely does a lot of harm, and no good to the breed as a whole. 



Foodie said:


> 2 litters, that's a lot of puppies and a lot of $. After visiting your website you yourself seem to fit the profile of what your protesting.


Yeah, it is a lot of money.... a lot of money that I've put into it, and will never see back. If you think I'm making any kind of profit off of my dogs, that's comical at best. I'm new at this, and I admit that. I've made mistakes along the way, and learn from them. The point is to be always learning and always improving. 

My parent club allows breedings KNOWN to produce deaf/blind whites because they also produce show marked dogs... so... sorry but I can think for myself. People will either like what we do, or hate it, and that's fine. I can see both sides of the fence and I "get it" but I'm not going to blindly believe in one way of thinking just because someone tells me to. I work closely with a respected specialist, and I DO have a mentor that does more than breeds for pets. At the end of the day I'm doing what I feel is best, have made zero decisions based on money, and am passionate about what I do. 
You probably should stop assuming you know everything about me, when clearly you don't.

And my website is HUGELY under construction... and lacks updating. I won't apologize for having a life outside of the internet. In fact, I'm so sorry you don't seem to, all that free time you seem to have.



*ETA*: For what it's worth, *I* did not close this thread... and I'm not sure who did. :twitch:


----------

