# Sticky  backed by scientific study??



## dogtrainer1507

I'm new and just reading some of the threads and peoples opinions and ways that people feed their dogs. What I am interested to know is if any of you have seen actual scientific studies on these or your just internet surfing and seeing what other people have to say? Not accusing anyone, I was just curious.


----------



## DaneMama

I don't need scientific studies to tell me that the natural diet for my dog works wonders. Because is does. I the proof I see is the health of my dogs and cats.

Most of the "scientific studies" or "clinical trials" are all backed by big business. That is how they are funded. They are based completely on the notion of how they can produce the CHEAPEST food that will sustain a dog, or fix some kind of ailment that was probably due to poor/inadequate nutrition anyway.

Most studies are also trying to tell me that my dog is an omnivore and should be eating grains or other carb sources. Which in and of itself is a 100% false statement. End of story.

The reason why there is no clinical trials behind raw diets? Because there is no money in it. It takes big bucks to fund clinical trials because they are usually very in depth and take a long time to complete. And you would most likely be appalled at the regulations and requirements for these "clinical" trials anyways because they are in no way sufficient to produce accurate, life long results. I know that I am appalled at them. No one wants to fund a study that they wont make money off of. Because a raw diet is completely self sustaining...meaning we don't buy any certain brand or type of food. We get our food supplies from all over and from private sources. 

Not to mention the decreased business that vet practices would see from lack of nutrition based illnesses that would be noticed if everyone was feeding raw.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I was just interested in knowing because I get crap all the time for what food I feed my dog b/c you won't find it in a pet store. I feel like I have seen my pets do well on it. I don't take much stock in what I read off the internet b/c my honest opinion is you never know who is behind writing it. But thanks for the comment. I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## DaneMama

What do you feed your dog?


----------



## dogtrainer1507

Lifes Abundance. Yeah people give me crap on how its sold and where it stands on the How Great Is My Dog Food List. But all I know is that all my animals do great on it, and a lot of my clients use it as well and seem to really like the results. the one thing I love is that I can talk to the vet that formulates it anytime that I want. And if she thinks her food might not be the best option she doesn't have a problem telling you. I think the thing I like the most is the freshness factor of the food. And it's a small company and been around for about 10 years. I'm sure I'll get crap for even writing this


----------



## harrkim120

On slightly the same topic...has anyone on here had blood work done for any reason since being on PMR or anyother diet change that's displayed their health? That might help dogtrainer1507 out. :smile:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

come again???


----------



## harrkim120

dogtrainer1507 said:


> come again???


lol...I'm asking if anyone has any blood work results showing that the diet they've chosen for their dog has either improved their health (obviously they would need blood work from before the diet change as well) or at least showing that their dog is healthy now.


----------



## DaneMama

I have had bloodwork done on all four of our dogs and they all have perfect values, its been about a year for most of it but I'm confident that they are still doing well. Their kidney and protein levels were always a bit high, not dangerously high but just elevated. That is because the bloodwork panels range values are geared towards kibble fed dogs, not raw fed dogs. Will probably recheck values again soon.


----------



## DaneMama

Looks like its a mediocre food based on the quality of the used ingredients. Rating a 3 star on dogfoodanalysis.com

Dog Food Reviews - All Products - Powered by ReviewPost


----------



## CorgiPaws

Dog are carnivores. 
I feel them as such. 


It's not complicated, nor does it require scientific studies to back it up. I wouldn't feed a rabbit meat, so why would i feed a dog salad?





ps. I've seen Life's Abundance sit on shelves for months and months. And yes, it can be found in pet stores, because apparently pet stores qualify to be distributors, so all their "we ship straight to the customer" crap is bogus. Just sayin'


----------



## harrkim120

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Lifes Abundance. Yeah people give me crap on how its sold and where it stands on the How Great Is My Dog Food List. But all I know is that all my animals do great on it, and a lot of my clients use it as well and seem to really like the results. the one thing I love is that I can talk to the vet that formulates it anytime that I want. And if she thinks her food might not be the best option she doesn't have a problem telling you. I think the thing I like the most is the freshness factor of the food. And it's a small company and been around for about 10 years. I'm sure I'll get crap for even writing this


I say that if you're comfortable with the results, then use what you want. You have the right to feed what you feel is best...hopefully with a little research behind it. 

Being a dog trainer myself I hear all sorts of stories and testimonials and complaints. I try to educate everyone as best as I can putting my own opinions and bias aside. I, myself feel that dogs should get as much meat as possible and when asked about my own opinion I will state such. But as I stated before...if you're pleased with your dog's condition then by all means continue what you're doing. Just please don't close out other possibilities as well. :smile:


----------



## GermanSheperdlover

LOL, I don't need any blood work work done to know my dog is heathy. I just ask all the other dogs at the dog park who he terrorizes. I feed Orijen and California Natural and I am in the process of replacing CN with TOTW Wetlands.
Your dog food seems a little grain heavy (good grain) and I really don't like seeing Dried Beet Pulp. Their were some studies done at Purdue Universty about chicken fat in the first 5 Ingedients and it wasn't good. I can't recall what their studies found but I recall it was not good. Back to the game

INGREDIENTS: 
Chicken Meal, Ground Brown Rice, Oat Groats, Chicken Fat (Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, a natural source of Vitamin E), Dried Beet Pulp, Brewers Dried Yeast, Flaxseed Meal, Natural Flavors, Dried Egg Product, Catfish Meal, Potassium Chloride, Salt, L-Lysine, Canola Oil, DL-Methionine, Calcium Carbonate, Monosodium Phosphate, Dried Carrots, Dried Celery, Dried Beets, Dried Parsley, Dried Lettuce, Dried Watercress, Dried Blueberries, Dried Broccoli, Dried Lactobacillus acidophilus Fermentation Product, Dried Lactobacillus casei Fermentation Product, Dried Bifidobacterium thermophilum Fermentation Product, Dried Enterococcus faecium Fermentation Product, Pomegranate Extract, Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin E Supplement, Inositol, Niacin Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin Supplement, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Vitamin A Acetate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Citric Acid, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Folic Acid, Zinc Proteinate, Zinc Sulfate, Manganese Proteinate, Manganese Sulfate, Ferrous Sulfate, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Proteinate, Selenium Yeast, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

And I'm a dog trainer also and I try to stay bias as well. I personally think that if you look hard enough you will find something wrong with every food and every method of feeding. And most of the studies on beet pulp by the way were on horses. But again I do appreciate everyone's reply. I feel what it comes down to is how your feel about what your feeding and how your animals do on it. There is one thing I find interesting with the whole no grains thing though. So many people say they base that feeding on the fact that wolves eat only meat and that they never eat grains. But when you think about it, the prey that they catch and eat, a lot of them do eat grains and if a wolf will eat the whole animal, then whatever is in that animals system and organs would have those grains in them. I don't know just my thought on that whole subject. And I'm sure someone will jump on me for that comment too.


----------



## CorgiPaws

dogtrainer1507 said:


> So many people say they base that feeding on the fact that wolves eat only meat and that they never eat grains. But when you think about it, the prey that they catch and eat, a lot of them do eat grains and if a wolf will eat the whole animal, then whatever is in that animals system and organs would have those grains in them. I don't know just my thought on that whole subject. And I'm sure someone will jump on me for that comment too.


http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/pictures/2200-raw-feeding-its-finest-caution-graphic-photos.html


----------



## DaneMama

Its been shown in many different studies done on wolves that they do not eat the stomach contents of their larger prey items, like in the pictures above. They do sometimes eat the stomach contents of smaller prey items when they eat the entire carcass. I personally don't think that amount of stomach content can be part of the nutrient profile of a wolf, or a dog, because it constitutes such a negligible amount in the grand scheme of things. So in other words I don't think that this principle is enough to justify feeding a dog a diet that contains more carbs/grains than it does meat source.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I'm glad everyone has their opinion. Honestly though I kind of feel like this forum is just all about people using raw diets trying to get others to convert.Not what I expected.. Especially in the dry and canned dog food section. But thanks for the feedback. Sorry I even asked a question


----------



## DaneMama

Wow...I totally did not notice that this thread was in the kibble forum. I wouldn't have mentioned raw in the slightest bit if I had known, because its just an unspoken rule that raw isn't discussed in the kibble forum out of respect. But I will say that the question was kind of a loaded one, in that it was a general question about all diets out there, not just kibble. If it were me I would have posted this topic in the General Discussion forum or Dog Food Ingredients forum or have reworded the question to be specifically just about kibble. I am tempted to move this thread to a more appropriate area because of the question asked... 

Don't be sorry that you asked a question at all. You don't have to like what other people say, or even pay attention to what we say. We are all entitled to our own opinions and since you asked a generalized question you got specific answers from all different people. I will say that when you post a question asking about clinical trials and such it usually is in context and referenced to raw diets, because there is absolutely no trials done on them. And since that is one of the main reasons why people are opposed to raw, we have kinda gotten used to jumping to the defense on what we believe.


----------



## spookychick13

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm glad everyone has their opinion. Honestly though I kind of feel like this forum is just all about people using raw diets trying to get others to convert.Not what I expected.. Especially in the dry and canned dog food section. But thanks for the feedback. Sorry I even asked a question


Sorry if it seems that way, I think we're all just so pleased with the results we have had from making the conversion to raw, we are excited to share the info.

Anyway, back to kibble.
If your dogs do well on that particular brand of kibble, I say stick with it and sod what others think!
Why fix it if it isn't broke?

The reason I switched from Orijen to raw was simply because one of my dogs had HORRID teeth no matter what I was feeding him. I could have cleaned his teeth every 3 months.  I really LIKED Orijen and the results I had from it...aside from the teeth issue. My 10 month old pup was starting to get tartar, but I think with both of my dogs it just is what it is. We see dogs at our practice with lovely teeth on kibble of all kinds, so again, is say use what is good for you and your dog.


----------



## harrkim120

It is true...when you're used to being constantly questioned and interrogated you start to assume that every question is that way. :frown:

Don't be sorry though...some people just have strong beliefs. lol


----------



## CorgiPaws

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm glad everyone has their opinion. Honestly though I kind of feel like this forum is just all about people using raw diets trying to get others to convert.Not what I expected.. Especially in the dry and canned dog food section. But thanks for the feedback. Sorry I even asked a question


I'm sorry you feel this way. We try very hard to make this a well rounded forum, but we don't have that many member active on a daily, or even often basis, and raw feeders make up a good portion ofthose of us who are here a lot. (maybe too much) 
Kibble and canned questions are of course more than welcome, and even the raw feeders will chime in and try to give the best advice ever within your specifications. No one is trying to get anyone to convert.

I will say that I don't feel this thread has been hijacked by raw feeding in the slightest though, because wolves in the wild was brought up to support grain inclusive kibble diets. Here:



dogtrainer1507 said:


> There is one thing I find interesting with the whole no grains thing though. So many people say they base that feeding on the fact that wolves eat only meat and that they never eat grains. But when you think about it, the prey that they catch and eat, a lot of them do eat grains and if a wolf will eat the whole animal, then whatever is in that animals system and organs would have those grains in them.


I used a thread already posted (so as to not retype everything) with images to show the statements in the above quote are inaccurate, and gave support to show otherwise. I wasn't trying to push raw on anyone, by any means, just responding to an assumption made about what dogs do and do not eat in the wild, relating it to what ingredients are and are not appropriate.

ETA: That being said, this thread has nothing to do with kibble only or raw only. It just asks if "what you feed" is backed by scientific study. I think it would be more appropriate maybe in general dog discussion, or the way the conversation went, maybe even ingredients.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I understand people having their own opinions and I'm fine with that I just wasn't expecting to be bombarded like that. I even stated I wasn't accusing anyone just wanting to know. I say if your fine with raw good for you. But like everything else some people have issues with that two. I don't beleive there is one strict this is the only way to feed your dog. I think dogs are different just like people are all different and may need different things. I really like meat myself to eat but that doesn't mean I don't like other things or eat other things either. I wasn't saying that my food was the best or anything. I was just curious if people care or are interested in what the scienc says that was all.


----------



## harrkim120

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I was just curious if people care or are interested in what the scienc says that was all.


I was kind of interested too. That's why I asked if anyone had blood work information on ANY feeding program. :wink:

By the way...I'm still interested if anyone has any. :biggrin:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

Thank you you give your opinion but in a nice way! What company r u with for dog training or do you do it on your own. Probably in the wrong section too.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I wish there were more studies on this subject by people other then the companies that make the foods or create the certain form of feeding but there aren't


----------



## ruckusluvr

i have been here a while now. not one time has anyone tried to "convert" me.


----------



## DaneMama

harrkim120 said:


> I was kind of interested too. That's why I asked if anyone had blood work information on ANY feeding program. :wink:
> 
> By the way...I'm still interested if anyone has any. :biggrin:


I am going to see if I can still get the electronic lab results on my dogs bloodwork, and if I can I will post it up. If not I will do more bloodwork here in the near future and when I do I will post that up.

I wish I had before and after photos of my dogs teeth when I made the switch...because there was a huge difference. Bright and shiny white now!



dogtrainer1507 said:


> I wish there were more studies on this subject by people other then the companies that make the foods or create the certain form of feeding but there aren't


You and me both. It would have to be a well rounded study comparing all the different diets out there so as to get accurate results. We just need to find someone with a few extra hundred thousand dollars lying around, a huge facility we can use and lots and lots of trials dogs. I have thought about trying to do just a case history trial study in the works but that would take a ton of time and energy that I don't have LOL!

I'm sorry if we bombarded you, that certainly wasn't any of our intents or at least mine. I am just guilty of being too passionate about it I guess :wink:

I want to welcome you to the forum because everyone is welcome here! I hope that you will continue to post here despite your rather eventful first thread! :biggrin:


----------



## RawFedDogs

dogtrainer1507 said:


> There is one thing I find interesting with the whole no grains thing though. So many people say they base that feeding on the fact that wolves eat only meat and that they never eat grains. But when you think about it, the prey that they catch and eat, a lot of them do eat grains and if a wolf will eat the whole animal, then whatever is in that animals system and organs would have those grains in them. I don't know just my thought on that whole subject. And I'm sure someone will jump on me for that comment too.


Wolves do eat animals who eat grains. Thats how they get their nutrition. They are incapable because of the way their bodies are built to extract nutrients from grains, hence they don't eat them. There are no nutrients in grain that is not in the bodies of the prey animals that eat them. Thats the way carnivores work.

Why do so many of your posts end with something like "I'm sure someone will jump on me for ....."? People will comment on your posts regardless of what you say. Thats what a discussion forum is for.


----------



## RawFedDogs

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I don't beleive there is one strict this is the only way to feed your dog. I think dogs are different just like people are all different and may need different things.


People are omnivores and need a great variety of food. Dogs are carnivores and need only meat, bones, and organs. Nothing more. Those items contain all the nutrients needed by a dog.



> I was just curious if people care or are interested in what the scienc says that was all.


Many many studies say that wolves in the wild eat only meat, bones, and organs. Thats all I need to know. Have you asked the people at Life's Abundance if dogs truly need rice or oat groats in their diet and why? Their food is moslty rice and oat groats. Neither is anything a dog would eat in the wild.


----------



## harrkim120

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Thank you you give your opinion but in a nice way! What company r u with for dog training or do you do it on your own. Probably in the wrong section too.


Haha...no problem. :biggrin: I'm used to having to tell people that their food sucks. j/k :wink:

I currently work for Petsmart in Davenport, FL. I used to work with a regular training school up in Rhode Island, but I moved down to Florida about 2 years ago. 

How about you?


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I was looking for something more solid then someones opinion if that makes sense. There like I mentioned previously I wish there were more studies on the different ways people feed their dogs. That was it maybe I should have made myquestion clearer


----------



## RawFedDogs

harrkim120 said:


> I was kind of interested too. That's why I asked if anyone had blood work information on ANY feeding program. :wink:
> 
> By the way...I'm still interested if anyone has any. :biggrin:


Blood tests don't really tell you how good a diet your dog is eating. The ONLY thing they tell you is how SOME organs are working at the very instant the blood was drawn. For example, a blood test can tell you how well the liver is functioning or how well the pancreas is functioning but tells you nothing of the dogs overall diet. Test results can vary greatly depending on how recently the dog has eaten and what he ate.


----------



## RawFedDogs

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I was looking for something more solid then someones opinion if that makes sense. There like I mentioned previously I wish there were more studies on the different ways people feed their dogs. That was it maybe I should have made myquestion clearer


There are many many research papers and books about wild wolves and the diet they have been eating for a million years. I would guess if their diet weren't pretty close to optimum, they would have gone extinct a few hundred thousand years ago. Google L. David Mech and read his studies and books. He has spent 30 years studying wolves in the wild and is considered the world's formost wild wolf researcher. IMO his best book is Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003) He also has many peer reviewed research papers. It's the best source for research on diet for our dogs.

Think about this. What nutritionist will tell you that a highly processed food is healthier for you than fresh whole foods? I think you can find nutritionists every day that preach "eat fresh whole foods and cut out processed foods." There is not a food more processed than dog food kibble. That alone should tell you all you need to know without any "scientific research".


----------



## harrkim120

RawFedDogs said:


> Blood tests don't really tell you how good a diet your dog is eating. The ONLY thing they tell you is how SOME organs are working at the very instant the blood was drawn. For example, a blood test can tell you how well the liver is functioning or how well the pancreas is functioning but tells you nothing of the dogs overall diet. Test results can vary greatly depending on how recently the dog has eaten and what he ate.


My assumption is that the food that the dog eats is going to affect the overall function of the organs though. Isn't the whole reason to feed a quality diet that their body functions work properly, including the organs? And I can understand how this could be an issue if the dog's diet is constantly changing, but for those who have dogs that eat the same thing, day in, day out that shouldn't effect it. 

I agree though that it would be much more accurate if there were multiple tests done, but I'm not looking for the exact science on the topic...I'm just curious. :biggrin:


----------



## RawFedDogs

harrkim120 said:


> My assumption is that the food that the dog eats is going to affect the overall function of the organs though. Isn't the whole reason to feed a quality diet that their body functions work properly, including the organs? And I can understand how this could be an issue if the dog's diet is constantly changing, but for those who have dogs that eat the same thing, day in, day out that shouldn't effect it.


I'm not a vet, but I saw one on TV one time. :smile: You are probably correct over a long period of time. I have heard of dogs with pancreatic problems get better real fast when switched to a raw diet. But it will take a poor diet a long time to create the pancreatic problem. I know of many dogs with digestive problems (IBD and IBS) that have had symptoms disappear after switching to raw but I think it takes a long time for a poor diet to create these digestive problems.

All this post is opinion only. I don't have anything to back it up and I may be full of it. :biggrin: (I have been accused of being full of it before.) :biggrin:


----------



## DaneMama

You are correct in assuming this. Organ function stays relatively constant. Organ failure usually takes a bit of time to show up on bloodwork. That is why bloodwork stays "current" for only about a month and why its routine to do a recheck once every 6 months to a year.

Bloodwork is indicative of overall organ function and health, which is very dependent on proper nutrition. It is one of the best ways to tell how the body is working. I recommend doing it for any and all dogs once a year with an annual physical, no matter how "healthy" a dog appears to the eye. There are so many things that you can't tell by just "looking" at the dog. Which is why I recommend the physical AND bloodwork, which is the only way to get a picture of internal health.


----------



## harrkim120

RawFedDogs said:


> I'm not a vet, but I saw one on TV one time. :smile: You are probably correct over a long period of time. I have heard of dogs with pancreatic problems get better real fast when switched to a raw diet. But it will take a poor diet a long time to create the pancreatic problem. I know of many dogs with digestive problems (IBD and IBS) that have had symptoms disappear after switching to raw but I think it takes a long time for a poor diet to create these digestive problems.
> 
> All this post is opinion only. I don't have anything to back it up and I may be full of it. :biggrin: (I have been accused of being full of it before.) :biggrin:


I agree...on the food topic, and the opinion topic. :wink:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

That's my problem right there anyone can say that about their food because there are those who have great results and those who don't, there are people, even breeders that say the same thing about the dog food I use. Maybe it's pointless to even think a study of this subject is possible because you will probably never find some bias to do it.


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> You are correct in assuming this. Organ function stays relatively constant. Organ failure usually takes a bit of time to show up on bloodwork. That is why bloodwork stays "current" for only about a month and why its routine to do a recheck once every 6 months to a year.
> 
> Bloodwork is indicative of overall organ function and health, which is very dependent on proper nutrition. It is one of the best ways to tell how the body is working. I recommend doing it for any and all dogs once a year with an annual physical, no matter how "healthy" a dog appears to the eye. There are so many things that you can't tell by just "looking" at the dog. Which is why I recommend the physical AND bloodwork, which is the only way to get a picture of internal health.


Is their something you should ask them to test in particular? Or is it like a "do the works" thing?


----------



## DaneMama

I always get a senior panel done, even though my dogs are not senior dogs. The only thing that is different on a "senior" panel is just more chemistry panels and blood values, you just get more out of it. Most bloodwork panels should include a fecal sample and urinalysis as well, at least it does at our lab.


----------



## harrkim120

dogtrainer1507 said:


> That's my problem right there anyone can say that about their food because there are those who have great results and those who don't, there are people, even breeders that say the same thing about the dog food I use. Maybe it's pointless to even think a study of this subject is possible because you will probably never find some bias to do it.


Science is science and opinion is opinion. Unfortunately, when you get enough opinions swaying one way, it doesn't matter how much science you throw at it. People are convinced more by others' "testimonies" more than hard facts sometimes. 

A study is possible, but as said earlier it's the dog food companies that do all the studying. It would have to be a private study if it was going to involve something not commercial. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have the bucks to shell out for that...as much as I wish I did. lol


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> I always get a senior panel done, even though my dogs are not senior dogs. The only thing that is different on a "senior" panel is just more chemistry panels and blood values, you just get more out of it. Most bloodwork panels should include a fecal sample and urinalysis as well, at least it does at our lab.


Sounds like it costs a fortune...:frown:


----------



## CorgiPaws

harrkim120 said:


> Science is science and opinion is opinion.


Unfortunately anyone can sway the results of a "clinical trial" so most of the "research" out there regarding dog food is pretty useless. 


Anyone who has done a 6th grade science fair project knows that. lol:biggrin:


----------



## jdatwood

harrkim120 said:


> Science is science and opinion is opinion. Unfortunately, when you get enough opinions swaying one way, it doesn't matter how much science you throw at it. People are convinced more by others' "testimonies" more than hard facts sometimes.
> 
> A study is possible, but as said earlier it's the dog food companies that do all the studying. It would have to be a private study if it was going to involve something not commercial. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have the bucks to shell out for that...as much as I wish I did. lol


Here's my thing with studies and research...

Wolves & wild dogs have been eating whole prey for thousands or millions of years (depends on your beliefs). If it wasn't the ideal diet for them they would have either evolved to eat something else or died off

It's only within the past ~60 years or so that someone saw a market for making $$ off of dog food.

If I win Powerball there WILL be a study done of kibble vs. raw :wink:


----------



## DaneMama

I am very fortunate to work at a clinic and get a discount on it. But to me I would still shell out $170 bucks a year to have it done. My pet's health does not have a price tag on it. They are a part of my family as much as anyone else. They are the closest thing to children that I will ever have so to me its worth every penny to know that they are healthy.


----------



## harrkim120

jdatwood said:


> Here's my thing with studies and research...
> 
> Wolves & wild dogs have been eating whole prey for thousands or millions of years (depends on your beliefs). If it wasn't the ideal diet for them they would have either evolved to eat something else or died off
> 
> It's only within the past ~60 years or so that someone saw a market for making $$ off of dog food.
> 
> If I win Powerball there WILL be a study done of kibble vs. raw :wink:


lol...I'll agree to do the same. I also agree on the fact that dogs are better off eating raw or even homecooked than kibble, but now we're back to opinions again. I'm mainly interested in a study on how each affects the dog internally...not so much the versus thing. :smile:


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> I am very fortunate to work at a clinic and get a discount on it. But to me I would still shell out $170 bucks a year to have it done. My pet's health does not have a price tag on it. They are a part of my family as much as anyone else. They are the closest thing to children that I will ever have so to me its worth every penny to know that they are healthy.


Oh I totally agree, but you have to admit that it still sucks that it is so expensive...thanks expensive clinics!!! :wink:


----------



## DaneMama

Vet clinics have to mark up the price of the bloodwork because the labs that we send the samples off to are expensive to us! Not to mention the supplies for collecting the blood and the time/energy spent to get the blood. Markups in cost are pretty much routine in any service industry.


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> Vet clinics have to mark up the price of the bloodwork because the labs that we send the samples off to are expensive to us! Not to mention the supplies for collecting the blood and the time/energy spent to get the blood. Markups in cost are pretty much routine in any service industry.


Thanks expensive labs!!! :biggrin:


----------



## Guest

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm glad everyone has their opinion. Honestly though I kind of feel like this forum is just all about people using raw diets trying to get others to convert.Not what I expected.. Especially in the dry and canned dog food section. But thanks for the feedback. Sorry I even asked a question


You're not alone in feeling this way. Just so you know. I don't come on this Forum much anymore.


----------



## spookychick13

Just a head's up...my friend is in vet school up in Madison.
She told me that her nutrition textbooks (along with some other textbooks) were written by a major dog food company. 

Not a good, holistic one either, obviously.


----------



## Guest

danemama08 said:


> Wow...I totally did not notice that this thread was in the kibble forum. I wouldn't have mentioned raw in the slightest bit if I had known, because its just an unspoken rule that raw isn't discussed in the kibble forum out of respect.


Just pay better attention next time.

No offense to anyone on here now but I liked this Forum a whole lot more when I first joined up. Now I don't like it as much and don't come on as much anymore.


----------



## 1605

jdatwood said:


> Here's my thing with studies and research...
> 
> Wolves & wild dogs have been eating whole prey for thousands or millions of years (depends on your beliefs). If it wasn't the ideal diet for them they would have either evolved to eat something else or died off
> 
> It's only within the past ~60 years or so that someone saw a market for making $$ off of dog food.
> 
> If I win Powerball there WILL be a study done of kibble vs. raw :wink:


Now, I don't want this thread to devolve into the kibble vs raw debate, but I did want to bring up one point.

Dogs are not the same creatures as wolves in that the former have been domesticated for hundreds of years. Yes, their basic physiology may be the same. However, there is the fact that each are living and evolving in very different environments. And each will have both their genetics and health affected by this fact. Especially when you consider that humans have been breeding dogs in very specific ways to achieve very specific results, many of which are unlikely to occur naturally.

So while a wolf may do very well on a prey model diet because its genetic ancestors have been doing that for thousands of years, how can we say the same of domesticated dogs when we all admit there have not been any true studies done on the subject?

Just a thought....


----------



## RawFedDogs

SubMariner said:


> So while a wolf may do very well on a prey model diet because its genetic ancestors have been doing that for thousands of years, how can we say the same of domesticated dogs when we all admit there have not been any true studies done on the subject?


A couple of things. 

1. Kibble has only been around for a little over 50 years. Not NEARLY long enough for dogs to have evolved any at all because of it.

2. There are many many many studies on humans that point to the fact that humans are MUCH healthier when they eat fresh whole foods rather than processed foods. There is no more highly processed food than kibble.

I don't think we need a study to show which wins in a fresh whole food vs. highly processed food contest.


----------



## wags

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm new and just reading some of the threads and peoples opinions and ways that people feed their dogs. What I am interested to know is if any of you have seen actual scientific studies on these or your just internet surfing and seeing what other people have to say? Not accusing anyone, I was just curious.


Thats an interesting question! I feed my dogs kibble what I think is quality kibble! I dont let anyone influence me into doing anything I don't feel comfortable with! I feel fine with adding toppers to my dogs dry food in the evenings and adding raw if I like but to the kibble! I just now bought wieght management core and the fish core food! I have Innova canned, Evo canned and gee that stinky tripe canned! When I am cooking whatever if I want to toss something to the dogs be it beef, pig, chicken, turkey whatever, I will. 
If someone disagrees with the way your feeding its an opinion as you have stated. You can agree or disagree. I think though that needing scientific proof is not always needed. I like to hear what works best for everyone then I can form my opinion and research it further if I like! Which I have done! 
Scientific evidence can also vary with the results!


----------



## DaneMama

LabbieMama said:


> Just pay better attention next time.


I know I need to. I don't search the forums, I just hit the "New Posts" at the top of the page and search that way. But I will say that people also need to consider their questions better as well.



> No offense to anyone on here now but I liked this Forum a whole lot more when I first joined up. Now I don't like it as much and don't come on as much anymore.


Why did you like it more when you first joined up? Why is it not great for you now? I guess I'm asking what has changed? A small forum like this one is what you make it. If it seems like the raw feeders are "dominating" all you have to do is strike up more conversation with other kibble feeders on here. There are plenty of active kibble feeders here that post up on a regular basis. Some raw feeders will post up in the kibble section because most of us have kibble experience but were unhappy with the results, hence the switch. 

If you are happy with the way that your dogs are doing on kibble, then by all means keep up with feeding them kibble! I don't look down my nose at anyone on here for what they feed. I give my opinions, but that is not telling anyone "shame on you" in the slightest bit. 

Even the kibble feeders jump on someone just joining that say that they feed their dogs Nutro or Purina, etc. People look down their nose at me, because I don't feed organic, free range meats to my dogs. I'm okay with that because I will never feel guilty for feeding what I feel is the best that I can provide to my dogs. I get them the best that money can buy, and that is not organic, free range, grass fed meats plain and simple. Everyone should feel that way, and not let what people say over the internet get under their skin. End rant


----------



## Jordan S.

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Lifes Abundance. Yeah people give me crap on how its sold and where it stands on the How Great Is My Dog Food List. But all I know is that all my animals do great on it, and a lot of my clients use it as well and seem to really like the results. the one thing I love is that I can talk to the vet that formulates it anytime that I want. And if she thinks her food might not be the best option she doesn't have a problem telling you. I think the thing I like the most is the freshness factor of the food. And it's a small company and been around for about 10 years. I'm sure I'll get crap for even writing this


Life's abundance is ok. better then purina at least. but a little grain heavy for my taste. 

and why has this transformed into a raw vs kibble debate. Shouldn't this be a high quality vs low quality kibble debate as it is in the kibble/canned forum  nothing against raw as Chocolate is fed raw once a week and EVO all the other days. but lets stay on topic here.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

People freak out because it's sold by network marketing and think that people only recommend it because they want to make money off it and so on. My opinion is all those other companies make money off people recommending them but I highly doubt they pay them. And the food is good and my fog who has bad allergies is doing awesome on it and so that in itself makes me happy.


----------



## jdatwood

I could care less if it's sold by a network marketing company. I LOVE a good MLM

Problem is they're selling an average product. Look at the ingredients list. It's FILLED with crap that doesn't belong in dog food.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I've talked to the vet that makes it and her reasoning behind each ingredient and it makes sense to me. The cool thing is she takes calls every other week and even if you not a client or selling it she welcomes anyone to listen. I'm not a vet and I didn't formulate it so I don't try to explain each reasoning behind it I tell people to ask themselves. And I posted this question on purpose in the nibble section I'm not sure how this huge debate started. I guess I figured if i meant the question for raw I would have put it in that section. Not that all opinions aren't welcome. But I definately didn't think I would draw this much attention.


----------



## jdatwood

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I've talked to the vet that makes it and her reasoning behind each ingredient and it makes sense to me. The cool thing is she takes calls every other week and even if you not a client or selling it she welcomes anyone to listen. I'm not a vet and I didn't formulate it so I don't try to explain each reasoning behind it I tell people to ask themselves. And I posted this question on purpose in the nibble section I'm not sure how this huge debate started. I guess I figured if i meant the question for raw I would have put it in that section. Not that all opinions aren't welcome. But I definately didn't think I would draw this much attention.


This isn't a debate about raw vs. kibble.

I'm questioning the ingredients in the food.

What qualifications does this vet have aside from general veterinary medicine? Has she taken continued education into proper carnivore nutrition?

I'm curious what makes sense about the following Highlighted ingredients...



> Chicken Meal, *Ground Brown Rice*, *Potato Product*, *Chicken Fat *(Preserved with Natural Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E)), *Dried Beet Pulp, Brewers Dried Yeast,* Natural Flavors, Flax Seed Meal, *Egg Product*, Catfish Meal, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, L-Lysine, *Carrots, Apples,* Canola Oil, *Alfalfa Leaf Meal, Celery*, *Lactobacillus Acidophilus Fermentation Product, Lactobacillus Casei Fermentation Product, Bifido Bacterium Fermentation Product, Enterococcus Faecium Fermentation Product, Aspergillus Oryzae Fermentation Product*, *Spinach, Grape Seed Extract,* Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Biotin, Niacin Supplement, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin A Acetate, *Riboflavin* Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Citric Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate, Zinc Proteinate, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganese Sulfate, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Manganous Oxide, Selenium Yeast, Calcium Iodate.


Dogs are carnivores and there is only 1 primary meat source in this food

If I were to ever recommend a kibble to someone it would have to look a little more like this quality kibble (to remain unnamed)



> *Turkey, chicken, turkey meal, chicken meal,* potatoes, *herring meal,* chicken fat, natural flavors, *egg*, apples, tomatoes, potassium chloride, carrots, vitamins, garlic, cottage cheese, minerals, alfalfa sprouts, ascorbic acid, dried chicory root, direct-fed microbials, vitamin E supplement, lecithin, rosemary extract.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

Like I said you are more then welcome to ask her youself. I know what works for me and I don't feel the need to defend it or debate it. That wasn't the reason I asked my first question, it was just a question if other people had trial or studies behind their kibble.


----------



## ziggy29

Wasn't this originally in the dry/canned forum? Why was it moved? To allow hard-core raw advocates to continue to belittle those who don't follow the One True Way?

Look. I'm a newbie here who is transitioning my own dog's diet to better food. For now that's probably going to be a combination of raw and higher-quality (i.e. mostly meat) kibble with an intent to eventually go mostly raw. I'm not looking to rock the boat, but my initial observation is that some folks who are strongly advocating raw are bordering on bullying here. And moving the thread from its original location seems to be a moderator decision to allow it to continue. 

I came here for more information, not for people who don't tow the line to be insulted.

There are plenty of people who have dogs who would not have dogs (i.e. more dogs euthanized) if they felt compelled to give them a raw diet. And we do them (and a lot of dogs who might otherwise not have homes) a huge disservice, IMO, by insulting and belittling those who don't want to go that far but might still want to at least find better kibble for their dogs. We've done no dogs a favor if someone wants to know what's better than Ol' Roy if we immediately turn them off of this forum by making them feel like a negligent dog owner for feeding them kibble of any form.

I'm very disappointed. At first it looked like a supportive and informational place, but it looks more like a clique where the advocates of raw feeding gang up and slam those who haven't completely found religion. It's not going to change my ultimate interest in putting our dog on more of a raw diet, but it might change where I want to get the information on it.


----------



## jdatwood

ziggy29 said:


> I'm very disappointed in this place. At first it looked like a supportive and informational place, but it looks more like a clique where the advocates of raw feeding gang up and slam those who haven't completely found religion. It's not going to change my ultimate interest in putting our dog on more of a raw diet, but it might change where I want to get the information on it.


I guess I'm confused.

Nobody is being bashed here. Nobody is ganging up on or slamming anyone. Please show me where this is happening. Please direct me to the posts where someone has said "XXXXX, you're a horrible person for feeding the food you do"

What IS happening is a discussion about the ingredients of a food and also the science behind studies done on foods.


----------



## CorgiPaws

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I've talked to the vet that makes it and her reasoning behind each ingredient and it makes sense to me.


Of COURSE she's going to have some bogus way of explaining it, the more she sells, the fatter her poskets are, silly. And "she" doesn't make it. I have a hard time imagining her in her kitchen baking up every batch. It's a processed kibble, just like all the rest. 



dogtrainer1507 said:


> And I posted this question on purpose in the nibble section I'm not sure how this huge debate started.


What debate? I just see a bunch of people discussing how appropriate certain things are and rean't in a dog's diet. It was in fact YOU who brought up wolves in the wild, not a raw feeder. I'd quote you on that, but I already did that the first time you threw your hands in the air confused. 



dogtrainer1507 said:


> I guess I figured if i meant the question for raw I would have put it in that section. Not that all opinions aren't welcome. But I definately didn't think I would draw this much attention.


Well you kind of left it open by just asking if what we feed is backed. There was no reference to kibble, but I'll take note that being a raw feeder, my input is not welcome in any of your threads. I think it's a GOOD thing when a thread draws a lot on input. It's nice to have activity, and I think the content might help those who might be lurking, and it's ALWAYS good to have your ideas and methods challenged because it encourages you to learn more. It's healthy to keep the wheels turning. I only wish people didn't take it so personal. It's not personal, it's about educating yourself and having a healthy debate.



dogtrainer1507 said:


> I know what works for me and I don't feel the need to defend it or debate it.


But that's what a forum is. We talk. we debate. challenge eachother's ideas, and learn more. You are of course more than welcome here, and I really do hope that you stick around and continue to post, you could be a real asset to our kibble feeders, but this IS a forum where ideas are discussed, supported, challenged, debated, and thrown around, and that what makes it such a useful tool. Please understand that.


----------



## CorgiPaws

ziggy29 said:


> Wasn't this originally in the dry/canned forum? Why was it moved? To allow hard-core raw advocates to continue to belittle those who don't follow the One True Way?


I'm not a mod, nor am I the one who moved it, but right from the start this thread was never specified that no one could repond to it unless they feed kibble and kibble only. For those who browse by using the "new topics" feature, rather than searching by section, it was left wayyyyy out in the open. 
Furthermore, it was a kibble feeder who brought up dogs in the wild, not a raw feeder pushing raw. The topic of what dogs eat in the wild was brought up to determine which ingredients are appropriate in KIBBLE, and what's not, particularly refering to grains. 



ziggy29 said:


> I'm not looking to rock the boat, but my initial observation is that some folks who are strongly advocating raw are bordering on bullying here. And moving the thread from its original location seems to be a moderator decision to allow it to continue.


I am sorry you feel that way, as it is NEVER our intention to bully or anything of the sort. I welcome kibble feeders to this forum, we need more of them. Raw feeders make up a good portion of the active members on this forum. 



ziggy29 said:


> We've done no dogs a favor if someone wants to know what's better than Ol' Roy if we immediately turn them off of this forum by making them feel like a negligent dog owner for feeding them kibble of any form.


I honestly do not EVER see this going on. Yes, raw is sometimes mentioned, but every member of this forum, raw feeders included, have been more than happy to offer ANYONE advice on feeding a diet superior to what they currently have. I've seen every raw feeder on here recommend a more quality kibble to people who don't want to feed raw. 



ziggy29 said:


> I'm very disappointed. At first it looked like a supportive and informational place, but it looks more like a clique where the advocates of raw feeding gang up and slam those who haven't completely found religion. It's not going to change my ultimate interest in putting our dog on more of a raw diet, but it might change where I want to get the information on it.


I hate to see any member leave, as we need more members. It might come off as clique, but that's because the majority of active members that are here, have been here a long time, and there aren't many of us! We welcome new members with open arms, and most definately do not want people to feel unwelcome. 

At the end of the day we're all people who love our dogs and are trying to do what is best for them and what we feel is in their best benefit. It bothers me to see everything taken SO personal. It's not intended like that. 

This is a FORUM. Ideas are going to be challenged and debated. it is not a personal attack. I take it as an opportunity to learn more, rather than curl up in a ball and call uncle and go sulking home because someone disagreed with me.


----------



## ziggy29

jdatwood said:


> I guess I'm confused.
> 
> Nobody is being bashed here. Nobody is ganging up on or slamming anyone. Please show me where this is happening. Please direct me to the posts where someone has said "XXXXX, you're a horrible person for feeding the food you do"


No one is being directly bashed, but the collective response makes it possible for a reasonable person to feel otherwise amidst the sometimes harsh criticism of their actions. Heck, I'd say that someone who wants to know about how to improve the quality of their dog's kibble is better served with answers than with making them feel bad about ANY kibble as I've seen in this thread. (I again point out that this was originally in the dry/canned forum for discussion there, and unless it was moved by the OP's request I am left to assume it was moved by the moderators to allow continued debate about raw versus dry/canned.)

I don't disagree with that idea. I just didn't think it appropriate, especially given the forum area where it was originally posted. And if this place creates an environment where dog owners who feed kibble (especially lousy, low-meat kibble) are made to feel like negligent dog owners, they may not feel comfortable coming here for help and their poor dog may be stuck on Ol' Roy forever.


----------



## DaneMama

ziggy29 said:


> Wasn't this originally in the dry/canned forum? Why was it moved? To allow hard-core raw advocates to continue to belittle those who don't follow the One True Way?


It was, I moved it. As you will see in one of my first posts in this thread I was thinking about moving it because of the topic. The OP did post this in the kibble section, but worded their question in a way that invited all to join in (the OP actually said that all opinions were invited). You will find that when feeding raw, and being an advocate of the raw diet (not everyone chooses to be), that newbies will come in and ask to see proof behind our different ideas on nutrition. Usually, this is in context to raw feeding. That is think is where the confusion set in.



> Look. I'm a newbie here who is transitioning my own dog's diet to better food. For now that's probably going to be a combination of raw and higher-quality (i.e. mostly meat) kibble with an intent to eventually go mostly raw. I'm not looking to rock the boat, but my initial observation is that some folks who are strongly advocating raw are bordering on bullying here. And moving the thread from its original location seems to be a moderator decision to allow it to continue.


I didn't move the thread so it could continue down the road that it is heading. I don't like the fact that people are getting "hurt" by it because this is all opinion based anyhow, you make it what it is...either you take what people say to heart or just let it go. I like a good discussion and debate, but that is hard to do when people don't bring a good debate to both sides of the issue.

I urge you to look at some of the older posts. Not very many of these "drama" filled threads happen here. I think that if you look, the majority by far of the threads are light hearted and fun, while also being informative.



> I came here for more information, not for people who don't tow the line to be insulted.


I have seen no insults. As soon as I do I will lock the thread down, or another mod will. But until that point this thread is open for discussion. NO name calling please.



> There are plenty of people who have dogs who would not have dogs (i.e. more dogs euthanized) if they felt compelled to give them a raw diet. And we do them (and a lot of dogs who might otherwise not have homes) a huge disservice, IMO, by insulting and belittling those who don't want to go that far but might still want to at least find better kibble for their dogs. We've done no dogs a favor if someone wants to know what's better than Ol' Roy if we immediately turn them off of this forum by making them feel like a negligent dog owner for feeding them kibble of any form.


No one is insulting anyone! We are giving our opinions on things, backed up by experience and outside, non biased sources! It is up to the individual if they are getting insulted by what someone else says, and in the internet world that is very common because we are not talking face to face. We are all anonymous so it is easier to say what is on your mind.

Of course we tell them to get off of Ol' Roy...who wouldn't? This is DOG FOOD CHAT where we talk about canine nutrition and try and better the world. I would hope that if someone were coming on here they would want to better their understanding of this subject and come into it with an open mind.



> I'm very disappointed. At first it looked like a supportive and informational place, but it looks more like a clique where the advocates of raw feeding gang up and slam those who haven't completely found religion. It's not going to change my ultimate interest in putting our dog on more of a raw diet, but it might change where I want to get the information on it.


Look at the majority of the threads on here. THIS thread in and of itself is a rarity on here. There is no forum out there that is going to be perfect, trust me I know from lots of experience. Why? Because we are all passionate about how we feel in regards to our dogs who are often times our pride and joy.

All that being said, I hope that you stick around and get a better impression of who is here and why we are here. 

Welcome to the boards :biggrin:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

O the part of the forum that said for dry and kibble threads. Wow I was mistaken to think that is what might be discussed there. Silly me. I don't recall posting to the raw thread. And you need to go back and read all my posts. And whoever asked who moved my thread I would love to know. I don't think I have been trying to push my food on anyone and I just can't figure out why you guys are. This whole thing is way out of hand and the first questions is pointless now. I feel like you are just looking for something to argue over. I was interested in facts. If that bothers you to bad I guess and yes what most of you say is bashing and does make others who don't feed the way you think we should the way you do that their just stupid idiots. Like I said so far not impressed.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

Won't post again, I did request my post moved and the topic has basicly run amuck. If I got everyone all upset Im sorry


----------



## DaneMama

dogtrainer1507 said:


> O the part of the forum that said for dry and kibble threads. Wow I was mistaken to think that is what might be discussed there. Silly me. I don't recall posting to the raw thread. And you need to go back and read all my posts. And whoever asked who moved my thread I would love to know. I don't think I have been trying to push my food on anyone and I just can't figure out why you guys are. This whole thing is way out of hand and the first questions is pointless now. I feel like you are just looking for something to argue over. I was interested in facts. If that bothers you to bad I guess and yes what most of you say is bashing and does make others who don't feed the way you think we should the way you do that their just stupid idiots. Like I said so far not impressed.


You have to keep in mind the topic of the thread that you posted, not just where you posted it. 

Again, I moved it for the content of the thread. The way that you worded it directed it to all people out there, not just kibble feeders. This is why I moved it. I would have moved a kibble content based thread out of raw, etc.

Not once on here has anyone said that "You should feed raw, shame on you for not!!!" Not once has anyone said that "Shame on you for feeding kibble!!!"


----------



## jdatwood

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Won't post again, I did request my post moved and the topic has basicly run amuck. If I got everyone all upset Im sorry


Natalie said she was going to move it like 2 pages ago and you never spoke up to not have it moved. 

You brought raw into the discussion

The way the original post was worded would have led ANYONE reading it to believe it applied to ALL food types, NOT simply kibble

I'm sorry you're going to leave because of a healthy debate.


----------



## DaneMama

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Won't post again, I did request my post moved and the topic has basicly run amuck. If I got everyone all upset Im sorry


Absolutely no reason to be sorry! Debate is what this forum is all about. We all have to respect one another, and I haven't seen any disrespect. I would have closed the thread down long ago if I had seen it. If I do see any I will lock it.


----------



## dogtrainer1507

Sorry I did not move my thread or ask anyone else to move it


----------



## CorgiPaws

dogtrainer1507 said:


> O the part of the forum that said for dry and kibble threads. Wow I was mistaken to think that is what might be discussed there. Silly me. I don't recall posting to the raw thread. And you need to go back and read all my posts. And whoever asked who moved my thread I would love to know. I don't think I have been trying to push my food on anyone and I just can't figure out why you guys are. This whole thing is way out of hand and the first questions is pointless now. I feel like you are just looking for something to argue over. I was interested in facts. If that bothers you to bad I guess and yes what most of you say is bashing and does make others who don't feed the way you think we should the way you do that their just stupid idiots. Like I said so far not impressed.


Are we going to keep ignoring the fact it was YOU who brought up what wolves do and don't eat in the wild? It was YOU who brought natural diets into the discussion on what is and is not appropriate. 

I don't understand why everyone is so butt hurt on this! I don't see this as a kibble. raw debate. it IS a debate on ingredients. 

I am REALLY tired of every time I chime into a kibble thread, no matter what I say, it's pushing raw, because I'm a known raw feeder. If I say "dogs are carnivores" I'm pushing raw. If I say "dogs actually don't eat the stomach contents of their prey" I'm pushing raw. 
Not ONCE did anyone in thie thread say that raw was the only way. Not once. But for some reason you think that's all we're doing. 

I really do hope that you do decide to stick around, but if you don't I understand. Some people just aren't up for a healthy discussion.


----------



## CorgiPaws

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Sorry I did not move my thread or ask anyone else to move it


No need to be sorry for something like that. Heck, I post stuff in the wrong section all the time and have to PM someone to move it for me! haha.


----------



## DaneMama

CorgiPaws said:


> Are we going to keep ignoring the fact it was YOU who brought up what wolves do and don't eat in the wild? It was YOU who brought natural diets into the discussion on what is and is not appropriate.
> 
> I don't understand why everyone is so butt hurt on this! I don't see this as a kibble. raw debate. it IS a debate on ingredients.
> 
> I am REALLY tired of every time I chime into a kibble thread, no matter what I say, it's pushing raw, because I'm a known raw feeder. If I say "dogs are carnivores" I'm pushing raw. If I say "dogs actually don't eat the stomach contents of their prey" I'm pushing raw.
> Not ONCE did anyone in thie thread say that raw was the only way. Not once. But for some reason you think that's all we're doing.
> 
> I really do hope that you do decide to stick around, but if you don't I understand. Some people just aren't up for a healthy discussion.


THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Seriously just said what I have wanted to say, but didn't know how to say it for the LONGEST TIME!!! :biggrin:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I never wanted a debate I simply asked a question and am still getting slammed for it and I end my posts now because whether you admit or not you come off rude and make some feel picked on and that isn't how you treat people if you want them stick around. Thanks for making my first forum experience a horrible one.


----------



## harrkim120

It is true...the intention wasn't to start a debate, but it did. It happens. BUT I keep hearing you guys saying that you hope dogtrainer1507 stays around and that you don't want them to feel unwelcome. I don't know how many times the OP admitted defeat and kept stating that they didn't want a debate...even though it ended up becoming that, yet the majority of the following posts were debates and telling the OP how they brought this on themself. 

No matter what was previously said or done, IMO the only way this thread is going to be saved is if everyone stops comparing and actually stays on the main topic which was the search for any scientific studies, etc. I understand that some of you don't need this to feel that you're doing the right thing(myself included...sometimes :wink, but that wasn't the issue.


----------



## DaneMama

harrkim120 said:


> It is true...the intention wasn't to start a debate, but it did. It happens. BUT I keep hearing you guys saying that you hope dogtrainer1507 stays around and that you don't want them to feel unwelcome. I don't know how many times the OP admitted defeat and kept stating that they didn't want a debate...even though it ended up becoming that, yet the majority of the following posts were debates and telling the OP how they brought this on themself.


Its hard to come onto a forum as a "newbie" and have your first post as this kind of thread and not feel unwelcome, especially if everyone doesn't agree with you. Dogtrainer1507 may have put up the white flag, but also just brushed off the reasons as to why we all posted the way that we did....?

The best way to welcome yourself onto a forum is to introduce yourself in the Introductions forum, tell us all a little bit about yourself and why you are interested in being here. Its just proper netiquette.



> No matter what was previously said or done, IMO the only way this thread is going to be saved is if everyone stops comparing and actually stays on the main topic which was the search for any scientific studies, etc. I understand that some of you don't need this to feel that you're doing the right thing(myself included...sometimes :wink, but that wasn't the issue.


I don't think this thread can be saved LOL...its a bit too far gone. At this point we can all agree to disagree and go on living life and take what we all said with a grain of salt, no hard feelings.

I actually already contributed to the original question at hand, like others did as well. But then the thread took on a whole new dimension because new questions were being asked in later posts. Threads will do that from time to time, and we will split them off if its necessary.


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> I don't think this thread can be saved LOL...its a bit too far gone. At this point we can all agree to disagree and go on living life and take what we all said with a grain of salt, no hard feelings.


I do indeed agree.  lol


----------



## DaneMama

harrkim120 said:


> I do indeed agree. lol


Yay!!! We can at least agree on something!!! Woot!!!! :biggrin: :wink: :tongue: :smile:


----------



## harrkim120

danemama08 said:


> Yay!!! We can at least agree on something!!! Woot!!!! :biggrin: :wink: :tongue:


haha...hang on...I don't think you used all the emoticons there...:tongue:

I even had to take one of yours off so I could post mine. lol


----------



## spookychick13

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I never wanted a debate I simply asked a question and am still getting slammed for it and I end my posts now because whether you admit or not you come off rude and make some feel picked on and that isn't how you treat people if you want them stick around. Thanks for making my first forum experience a horrible one.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but in your original posts, YOU said you got bashed for the dogfood you choose.
YOU said it.
No one bashed or slammed you, you seem to have come aboard with a persecution complex?


----------



## JayJayisme

I agree that this thread has degraded to a point of no return but I also have to side a little with dogtrainer1507 here. His/her original question asked (paraphrased), What is the SCIENCE behind your decision to feed whatever you have chosen? The question wasn't, "What INFORMATION did you use to decide what to feed your dog?". 

The question was immediately bombed with responses like, "I don't need science...", or "Evolution tells me everything I need to know." None of those responses answered the question and they really do come off as being somewhat defensive. Of course, this "attitude" here is probably still being fueled by posts like the one SuZQuzie started not long ago titled "Credentials", which was nothing more than an attempt by her to put all of us non-scientists in our place as though we have nothing between our ears and are incapable of critical thinking. Typical academic-snob BS. 

Now understand that I don't think anyone here tried to push a raw agenda in this thread and I thought the overall discussion, even though a little off-topic, was a healthy exchange of ideas. I took the carnivore comments as support of the belief by many here (myself included) that dogs are carnivores and nothing more. That's not exactly pushing the "RAW agenda". 

But the bottom line is that nobody really answered the OP's very valid question. And the reason why it wasn't answered is simply because there is no answer. Natalie hit on this when she stated, "...when you post a question asking about clinical trials and such it usually is in context and referenced to raw diets, because there is absolutely no trials done on them."

I asked a similar question here soon after I joined and I ended up in a very...uh...lively discussion/debate over this same subject because "research" was being quoted that was totally irrelevant to my question. Fortunately I have a very thick skin (or head, whatever) and I stuck around long enough to sift through all the anecdotal information being tossed about here until I came to some conclusions about all of this. 

But at the end of the day, the amount of science available on this subject is only enough for you to use to "connect the dots" and come to a reasonable conclusion. There is not enough science on this subject to give anyone a black-and-white answer on what to feed your domestic canine. Only hints toward reaching a logical conclusion. As with most complex subjects like this, the actual truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes but probably closer to one than the other. But there isn't, and probably never will be, enough scientific evidence to provide a definitive conclusion on this once and for all. 

Unfortunately all the money is in commercial dog food and veterinary medicine rather than in raw meat and bones and disease prevention. So if you follow the money, you'll find virtually no incentive for anyone to actually do a proper scientific study on this besides maybe zoologists and dog owners. Sadly, the dogs themselves have no lobbying group and owners aren't motivated or organized enough to fund research this extensive. So the "studies" we do get are, of course, slanted to benefit the pet food industry and the veterinary medicine industry. 

So sorry dogtrainer1507, the answer to your questions is, "There is no answer", which nobody really wanted to say and which is why you kind of got bombed with a lot of anecdotal information. The best thing you can take from this thread is a clear understanding that the pet food industry should be looked at suspiciously and your decisions should always be made with that in mind. When a multi-billion dollar industry like this is in bed with the very medical profession that we SHOULD be able to rely on to give us the truth about our pet's nutrition, that is collusion. Therefore, anything that industry or profession states can be used to create monetary gain for themselves and each other. That should be a clue for you, and all pet owners, to be open to ideas on nutrition that are being promoted by those who have nothing to gain from it. 

As far as I know, NOBODY that works to promote prey model raw works in the agriculture/meat packing/meat market industry. Once you patiently dissect everything you read and hear and you will eventually figure out the path that is right for you and your dogs.

Jay


----------



## DaneMama

^^^ Well said Jay! Awesome post...you always have a way of saying what we all want to but fail at LOL :wink:


----------



## dogtrainer1507

I appreciate your post. Sadly if others had the same way of speaking as you have then maybe I wouldn't have felt like I was being bashed. I just feel that especially if you are posting to someone who at the very beginning states they are new, maybe you should tone down your opinions and ideals and give an answer verse and arguement. Thank you for answering honestly and without seeming pushy. I realize that a lot of you have been here sometime and may feel passionately about what you do and I don't have a problem with that. But maybe you need to think before you type and find a nice but informative way to say something. Otherwise your turn over rate is going to be huge. I may stay around for a while. On a note to moderators, maybe you guys need to get together and make some rules that if you see someone saying they feel they are being attacked whether you think its justified or not, perhaps the best thing to do is block the thread and start a new one so the comments are no longer pointed to the person who posted the thread. I don't see why that should be such a big deal. I don't know just a thought. But I do appreciate the one person who gave and honest answer to the actual question. thank you


----------



## 1605

RawFedDogs said:


> A couple of things.
> 
> 1. Kibble has only been around for a little over 50 years. Not NEARLY long enough for dogs to have evolved any at all because of it.
> 
> 2. There are many many many studies on humans that point to the fact that humans are MUCH healthier when they eat fresh whole foods rather than processed foods. There is no more highly processed food than kibble.
> 
> I don't think we need a study to show which wins in a fresh whole food vs. highly processed food contest.


Actually, there was no mention of kibble in my post. There was simply a statement that dogs in the wild are different from domesticated dogs, especially since the latter have been subjected to more changes in their genetics and environment. 

It is illogical to assume that no changes in domesticated dogs have occurred due to their close association with humans. They are not out hunting/killing/eating their own prey. Nor are they exposed to the same diseases or living conditions. Lifespans are different, physiognomy is different due to breeding lines that man has established. 

IMHO it's like saying that a Bengal tiger is the same as a Persian cat. Are there similarities? Yes. Are they the same? No.


----------



## JayJayisme

SubMariner said:


> IMHO it's like saying that a Bengal tiger is the same as a Persian cat. Are there similarities? Yes. Are they the same? No.


Sorry but I have to disagree with this based on the context of this discussion, which is strictly about nutrition. Of course a Bengal tiger is as similar to a Persian cat as a Wolf is to a Poodle. But domestication and breeding does not suddenly alter nutritional requirements or "breed out" nutritional characteristics. Evolution does, and nothing in the mammal world can evolve in a hundred-years time. 

It is widely accepted that cats, even domesticated breeds, are strict carnivores. Not only do they not derive any nutrition from plant-based foods, but that they require meat for basic survival. Yet this is not widely accepted with regards to canines simply because of the Taurine issue present in felines. Whatever you believe, that dogs are obligate carnivores, or facultative carnivores, or omnivores, you really can't make an argument for any kind of evolution to their nutritional needs occurring over such a relatively short period of time. A hundred years, heck even a thousand, is a blip in their history, for all intents and purposes.


----------



## DaneMama

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

Even through selective breeding, it would take a LONG time to change the physiology of an animal. Selective breeding that has happened in dogs is mostly due to look and behavioral traits, not nutrition. Selective breeding in domesticated dogs pin points certain traits or behaviors and fixes on those, but not really any of the others. So if we have only been selectively breeding for coat color, body shape and behavior...who's to say that the rest of the "blueprint" for the dog isn't the same, if not very similar to the original "copy" the wolf? 

The canine genome project has shown through DNA that the domesticated dog's closest extant species is the grey wolf. They are so close in physiological, biological, morphological, and behavioral genes that the domesticated dog is just a sub species of the grey wolf. 

Click on the link below. Its a great article about canine genetics that covers all topics. The one that I want to use for this discussion is based on Figure 10, page 14. Look at the picture and read the caption (I recommend reading the WHOLE article, but it is very fact dense). Based on these results from genetic study link dogs and wolves as more closely related than any other canid species out there. To me, this is conclusive research into what and why I feed my dogs a prey model raw diet, because a PMR diet is what closely tries to imitate what their wild counterpart consumes.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/pdf/nature04338.pdf


----------



## Broken

I'm not sure exactly why there are so many allegations of aggressive behaviour being thrown around in this topic.

From the perspective of a new member of this forum, this topic contains interesting discussion and opinions. Regardless of whether I agree with them or not, they are presented in a logical and respectful manner.

A discussion board where everyone is spouting rainbows, puppies and rolling out the "you're totally right!" carpet might seem like a more welcoming ideal, but it doesn't provide useful info. It seems that some people are looking for a pat on the back to make themselves feel better about their pet's diet, rather than to engage in an exchange of opinions.

Ultimately, I am interested in the welfare of my dog. A forum in which people actually discuss and debate the merits of a food (and the contents of said food) is far more useful to me than one in which people engage in collective backslapping. Frankly, I value my dog's health far more than my ego. All of the posts in this thread have addressed a point, and not attacked a specific poster.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Broken said:


> I'm not sure exactly why there are so many allegations of aggressive behaviour being thrown around in this topic.
> 
> From the perspective of a new member of this forum, this topic contains interesting discussion and opinions. Regardless of whether I agree with them or not, they are presented in a logical and respectful manner.
> 
> A discussion board where everyone is spouting rainbows, puppies and rolling out the "you're totally right!" carpet might seem like a more welcoming ideal, but it doesn't provide useful info. It seems that some people are looking for a pat on the back to make themselves feel better about their pet's diet, rather than to engage in an exchange of opinions.
> 
> Ultimately, I am interested in the welfare of my dog. A forum in which people actually discuss and debate the merits of a food (and the contents of said food) is far more useful to me than one in which people engage in collective backslapping. Frankly, I value my dog's health far more than my ego. All of the posts in this thread have addressed a point, and not attacked a specific poster.


As much as you're not concerned with yout ego:
You're totally right, way to go! *insert pat on the back here*:biggrin:


----------



## 1605

danemama08 said:


> Click on the link below. Its a great article about canine genetics that covers all topics. The one that I want to use for this discussion is based on Figure 10, page 14. Look at the picture and read the caption (I recommend reading the WHOLE article, but it is very fact dense). Based on these results from genetic study link dogs and wolves as more closely related than any other canid species out there. To me, this is conclusive research into what and why I feed my dogs a prey model raw diet, because a PMR diet is what closely tries to imitate what their wild counterpart consumes.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/pdf/nature04338.pdf


I started to read the study, but unfortunately had to quit due to the intense numbing sensation I was getting in my eyes trying get through all the polysyllabic babble. 

Oh, it STARTED off well... :wink:


----------



## DaneMama

I did say that it was fact dense and hard to read 

I generally only read the introduction, summary and conclusion types of scientific articles like this. You really do have to read, reread, reread, go and take a break, and reread it once more to get anything from the data/analysis section of these papers. I have had experience with reading things like this for school but I am way out of practice.

Did you at least see the part that I was referring to? That was the point that I wanted people to see where I am coming from...this study proves it well enough.


----------



## 1605

danemama08 said:


> I did say that it was fact dense and hard to read
> 
> I generally only read the introduction, summary and conclusion types of scientific articles like this. You really do have to read, reread, reread, go and take a break, and reread it once more to get anything from the data/analysis section of these papers. I have had experience with reading things like this for school but I am way out of practice.
> 
> Did you at least see the part that I was referring to? That was the point that I wanted people to see where I am coming from...this study proves it well enough.


Although I've had experience reading that type of paper (i.e. nitrogen loading, tissue half times, decompression theory, blah, blah, blah) this one was filled with technobabble so dense that it's impossible to determine exactly WHAT it's trying to say without a firm background in that science. Which I obviously do not have.

So I'm unable to agree or disagree whether or not it proves your point.


----------



## Orange

.............


----------



## DaneMama

SubMariner said:


> Although I've had experience reading that type of paper (i.e. nitrogen loading, tissue half times, decompression theory, blah, blah, blah) this one was filled with technobabble so dense that it's impossible to determine exactly WHAT it's trying to say without a firm background in that science. Which I obviously do not have.
> 
> So I'm unable to agree or disagree whether or not it proves your point.


If you refer back to the post where I first mentioned this article, you will see that the part I wanted people to look at was a figure/diagram. Figure 10 to be exact if you want to go back and look at it. It's on page 14, I just mentioned that it was a good article to read but it's very fact dense. You will probably be able to agree or disagree with me by looking at the picture.


----------



## RawFedDogs

danemama08 said:


> If you refer back to the post where I first mentioned this article, you will see that the part I wanted people to look at was a figure/diagram. Figure 10 to be exact if you want to go back and look at it. It's on page 14, I just mentioned that it was a good article to read but it's very fact dense. You will probably be able to agree or disagree with me by looking at the picture.


Great!! I love looking at pictures and don't have to read words. :biggrin:


----------



## jiml

Dogs are carnivores and need only meat, bones, and organs. Nothing more.>>>>


while that is true a dog is a non obligate carnivore who's diet consists PRIMARILY of meat but can survive without unlike a cat. wolves in the southern hem eat up to 40% fruits and grasses during the summer. NA timberwolves eat a greater percentage of meat. The evolution into dogs in the last 14000 yrs occurred w dogs varying there diet becoming opportunist and scavengers around humans. 
All that said Id rather a kibble not be primarily corn. they can eat a varied diet and do well if not thrive (no more evidence of this is nec than the # of dogs that do well on crap dog food). but no one should convince themselves that this is best or that dogs are cows.


----------



## RawFedDogs

jiml said:


> Dogs are carnivores and need only meat, bones, and organs. Nothing more.>>>>
> 
> 
> while that is true a dog is a non obligate carnivore who's diet consists PRIMARILY of meat but can survive without unlike a cat.


Anytime I see this statement, and I see it from time to time, I know the person who is making the statement is going to try to convince me that a dog is not a carnivore.



> wolves in the southern hem eat up to 40% fruits and grasses during the summer.


You are talking about the mained wolf who is a wolf in name only and not very closely related to the gray wolf, the forefathers of our dogs. The mained wolf is way off on a branch all by himself in the tree of life. 



> NA timberwolves eat a greater percentage of meat.


Yeah, something like 98% or better.



> The evolution into dogs in the last 14000 yrs occurred w dogs varying there diet becoming opportunist and scavengers around humans.


Dogs in their domesticated life have eaten what they had to to survive and still do. You can't feed a carnivore plant material and make an omnivore out of him. He is still a carnivore. I would eat tree bark if it was all I could eat to survive.



> All that said Id rather a kibble not be primarily corn. they can eat a varied diet and do well if not thrive (no more evidence of this is nec than the # of dogs that do well on crap dog food). but no one should convince themselves that this is best or that dogs are cows.


I think the greatest percentage of us who actually feed our dogs a carnivore diet will argue that dogs do not thrive on any type of omnivore food. You have to actually feed carnivore food exclusively for a period of time to witness this phenomenon.

There are physical characteristics that make a dog a carnivore and prevent him from being an omnivore.

*ETA:* Welcome to the board. :smile:


----------



## jiml

Welcome to the board. >>>>>

thanks. glad to be here. 

While I may disagree w some of what you say. from what i have read I prob agree more than not.


----------



## jiml

Being a HUMAN doctor I have to think that with the greater amount of "holistic" vets and the increase frequency in some of them to recommend raw diets or higher meat based foods along with the expanding "premium" dog foods and prepared raw that research IS going on. Most research in medicine is not done by the big universities and big pharma. Its done in controlled case studies. when a few point in a direction It then is taken and followed up by larger groups. 

I will argue not to outright dismiss any research (even if its backed by a dog food company and does not support the conclusion you want) just log its results, possible bias, the quality of the study (size, efforts to eliminate a pre-determined outcome). No single study really means a whole lot. Its only after a few studies combined (sometimes pieces of each) w observation do the have meaning. 

It seems to me at this point most is opinion based stating such "raw is makes evolutionary sense" or "wolves live longer when fed in captivity with dog food"

An example would be this Cautions Against Raw Food Diets If looked at purely from a scientific standpoint w no bias towards raw or kibble one would say interesting. obviously had conclusions that supported the studies author's product, poorly done. 
interesting, log the result, take with a grain of salt until more research supports the conclusion.

Anyway I simply have to believe that many case studies are in the works. Ultimately its up to the individual to weight benefits and potential risks(with the best info available) of any diet and make a choice.


----------



## dobesgalore

spookychick13 said:


> Just a head's up...my friend is in vet school up in Madison.
> She told me that her nutrition textbooks (along with some other textbooks) were written by a major dog food company.
> 
> Not a good, holistic one either, obviously.


I also have a friend about to graduate from Auburn vet school in Alabama, and she said she has only had part of one semester in pet nutrition. Thats it. Vets don't get a whole lot of that in schooling. We know more about it than they do.


----------



## jiml

Vet school, if like med school, gives you the basis to understand nutrition by giving you the background in physiology, biochemistry ect. Most everything else is post graduate which is guided by the individuals interest


----------



## RawFedDogs

jiml said:


> An example would be this Cautions Against Raw Food Diets If looked at purely from a scientific standpoint w no bias towards raw or kibble one would say interesting. obviously had conclusions that supported the studies author's product, poorly done.
> interesting, log the result, take with a grain of salt until more research supports the conclusion.


I've been feeding raw for 8 years and began after a year of my own research. So for 9 years I've been seeing Lisa Newman's articles against raw feeding while pushing her own products. I don't buy anything she says any more than I buy the marketing material from the dog food companies.

I always view with suspicion any information given to me by someone who stands to make money from any decision I make based on this information. 

In this particular aritcle that you linked to, she is "studying" a BARF diet which is not the diet most of us feed. BARF diet in general contains a lot of inappropriate foods for carnivores. It includes about 20% or more of carbohydrates. The BARF diet as recommended also contains too much bone and not enough meat.

Most of us here feed a Prey Model Raw diet. It's made up of meat, bones, and organs from a variety of animals. Mostly meat, some bone, and some organs.



> Anyway I simply have to believe that many case studies are in the works. Ultimately its up to the individual to weight benefits and potential risks(with the best info available) of any diet and make a choice.


I really don't know of any studies at present and I don't think you will find any studies on any raw diet. Who would benefit from such a study? I think if you stay around here you will see our "study". 

We do the same as scientific researchers. We take an animal, we do something different, and we observe the results. All of us raw feeders have done this. Many of us more than once. We take a kibble fed dog, switch him to a raw diet and observe the results. Overwhelmingly we find great improvment with the raw diet. Very rarely someone will have to switch back to kibble for one reason or another and then they observe those imporvements disappear.

One more good test. Join a lot of groups like ours. You will see many posts saying, "I am switching my dog to a raw diet ......". You will see very few posts saying, "I switched my dog to a raw diet and it didn't work and I'm switching back to kibble." You will also see a lot of posts saying, "I switched to raw because my dog had XYZ problem and after a short period the problem disappeard (or got significently better)." Again, rarely will you see, "I switched my dog to a raw diet because he had XYZ problem and he got worse on the diet." I can't remember seeing one of these ever.


----------



## ruckusluvr

i fed BARF for a while, and switched back to kibble after 4 months. my dogs lost weight and looked like crap.

but thats not PMR, so i cant comment on that.


----------



## jiml

Who would benefit from such a study?>>>>>

As stated - most case studies are practice based. with more vets advocating raw, you will start to see it in the literature.


----------



## jiml

A quick look at Pub MEd shows quite a bit of research regarding various aspects of a raw diet, biodegradability of byproducts, even some controversy in the vet field. However its $20 a pop to read them


----------



## John Rambo

I am a scholarly man, and that being said i would "tend" to believe that feeding a raw diet is more natural and healthier than feeding kibble. However, I do believe kibble has come along way, and I feed my dogs kibble. My animals coats are shiny with no signs of scaling or flaking of the skin. I do believe this forum is for debating/learning/sharing knowledge of KIBBLE, not the advantages or disadvantages of RAW diets. On a sidenote, I would love to hear if the people feeding their dogs RAW diets ever eat Mcdonalds, Wendys, drink milkshakes, ect or anything else deemed BAD by society. I would hope all these people have sculpted bodies!!!! It does seem as if the raw diet folks seem to constantly be defending/promoting themselves. I would say to try to stay on course and post in the correct forum. Once again, I do believe a raw diet is more natural and beneficial, lets just post in the correct places and let others who feed kibble learn in this forum...


----------



## DaneMama

Actually John, this forum is the "catch all" here where anyone can chat about anything pertaining to diets and nutrition, regardless of if it's raw or kibble. People who want to discuss and learn about kibble should look in the kibble section or here. People who want to discuss and learn about raw should look in the raw forum and here.


----------



## spookychick13

John Rambo said:


> I am a scholarly man, and that being said i would "tend" to believe that feeding a raw diet is more natural and healthier than feeding kibble. However, I do believe kibble has come along way, and I feed my dogs kibble. My animals coats are shiny with no signs of scaling or flaking of the skin. I do believe this forum is for debating/learning/sharing knowledge of KIBBLE, not the advantages or disadvantages of RAW diets. On a sidenote, I would love to hear if the people feeding their dogs RAW diets ever eat Mcdonalds, Wendys, drink milkshakes, ect or anything else deemed BAD by society. I would hope all these people have sculpted bodies!!!! It does seem as if the raw diet folks seem to constantly be defending/promoting themselves. I would say to try to stay on course and post in the correct forum. Once again, I do believe a raw diet is more natural and beneficial, lets just post in the correct places and let others who feed kibble learn in this forum...


I don't eat any fast food, and try to eat as healthy and organic as I can afford.
I also do 150 minutes of cardio per week, and lift free weights 3-4 times a week in addition to that.
I also feed my parrot raw and natural as well, but our cat isn't having it.
Some dogs do fine on kibble.
My friend, who is 5'7 and 125lbs eats McDonald's, Taco Bell or Qdoba nearly every day for lunch, she doesn't cook and eats a ton of candy. She doesn't work out, yet she is thin, lithe and has nice hair. *shrug*
Life is unfair like that.


----------



## JayJayisme

John Rambo said:


> I am a scholarly man, and that being said i would "tend" to believe that feeding a raw diet is more natural and healthier than feeding kibble. However, I do believe kibble has come along way, and I feed my dogs kibble. My animals coats are shiny with no signs of scaling or flaking of the skin. I do believe this forum is for debating/learning/sharing knowledge of KIBBLE, not the advantages or disadvantages of RAW diets. On a sidenote, I would love to hear if the people feeding their dogs RAW diets ever eat Mcdonalds, Wendys, drink milkshakes, ect or anything else deemed BAD by society. I would hope all these people have sculpted bodies!!!! It does seem as if the raw diet folks seem to constantly be defending/promoting themselves. I would say to try to stay on course and post in the correct forum. Once again, I do believe a raw diet is more natural and beneficial, lets just post in the correct places and let others who feed kibble learn in this forum...


Hmm...aside from it sounding incredibly condescending, I'm always suspicious of anyone who starts a post with something like, "I am a scholarly man." What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that those of us who aren't "scholarly" have no business deciding what to feed our animals, we aren't entitled to an opinion on this, and we're not supposed to discuss it or exchange ideas on it?

You DO know that the academics of the world have most of canine nutrition wrong thanks to perversion of their studies from the pet food industry, right? Is it wrong for us to challenge the "conventional wisdom" on canine nutrition just because we don't walk around university laboratories wearing white coats? Do you have any idea how many times in history conventional wisdom that came from academia turned out to be completely wrong? 

Moving forward, as Natalie said, this is the correct place for this discussion. This is a general nutrition forum, not the kibble forum which is here: Dry and Canned Dog Food - Dog Food Forum and not the Raw Feeding forum, which is here: Raw Feeding - Dog Food Forum

With regards to your comment about human junk food, I offer you this perspective. As a human I get to make choices, whether good or bad, that affect myself. I am also intelligent enough to exercise MODERATION. As such, if I eat a predominately wholesome diet (exactly what comprises that in humans is still a matter of great debate, regardless of what "society" deems as bad) and I choose to occasionally eat fast food or a treat from the bakery, it's not going to affect my overall health and well being. But that is MY decision.

My dogs, on the other hand, have no choice. They rely entirely on *me* for their nutritional needs so it's up to _*me*_ to keep them on track with a proper diet. Again, what comprises a proper canine diet is a matter of debate, but whatever you feed your dogs, that is what they have to eat. They have no options to make changes to their own diet.

While kibble has improved in many ways in recent years as you say, many of us feel that even the best commercial pet food still has too many species-inappropriate ingredients for our dogs. To me, feeding a dog kibble every day would be like feeding my kid breakfast cereal every day. You may have a different opinion and you are entitled to it but as usual, those who wag their fingers at us raw feeders for being too "defensive" or "self promoting" are usually people who have never tried raw and have no idea what it's really like. Nearly every raw feeder was once a kibble feeder so understand that we've seen both sides first-hand. 

Furthermore, raw feeders have no "commercial representation" in the world. This is it, a place to discuss. So that is what we do. 99% of dog owners probably don't even read the information on the bag or can of food they buy their dogs. They aren't interested in discussions or sharing ideas and information. They just want to open the bag or can and plop some product in a bowl and walk away. That is the extent of their participation in the process.

Raw feeding isn't as simple and requires research and discussion. Once you've done it for awhile, it's easy. But getting started requires reading and asking questions. That's why you see more discussions about raw here than commercial food. And again, since we've all been on both sides of the fence and we've seen the incredible results of raw, we like to talk about it and "promote" it. Who else is going to advocate this diet, the animals? All we care about is what is best for dogs. Nobody here is making money from promoting raw and that alone should get your attention and make you realize that collectively, there is a LOT of feeding experience here, a lot of great advice available, and we are here to help you do what is ultimately best for your dog. You don't have to agree, and yes, sometimes you need a bit of thick skin around here. But you won't get the raw people around here blowing smoke up your rear and trying to sell you something. 

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## spookychick13

Perfectly put, as usual, Jay.


----------



## magicre

how many studies, do you suppose, and clinical trials have been performed on coffee and eggs?

it's become somewhat of a joke to pick up a newspaper or google the news and read that, today, a study came out to talk about the perils of eggs and the benefits of coffee or vice versa.....for thirty years, these studies change like a fair weathered friend.

i am one who feeds my dogs raw, and i do not eat fast food. i exercise. and we keep no junk in our home. if we want a treat badly enough, we have to get into the car.

it is said that we pay for our eating habits in our forties.....along with whatever genetics we've been blessed with or cursed with....i believe that is true for humans and dogs...

the body is an amazing structure and tries to adapt to anything....which is why people say you never feel the bullet...those endorphins are wonderful.

all the processed crap we ate as teens and twenties and thirties may not show up until forties or fifties, no matter how much exercise is involved...because the organs only adapt for so long until they can no longer adapt; hence, high cholesterol is not just genetic, it's diet induced....diabetes II - adult onset diabetes is now directly related to diet....i could go on with human disease but i think it's pretty clear....

the thing about processed foods is they pay you back. and they pay back your dog, too....

we live in spite of what we eat.....we survive, but do we thrive?

i know of dogs fed pedigree who have lived beyond their normal life span and i know of dogs who have died before their time...

everyone has an expiration date...but i don't feed raw to extend the life of my dog, although i hope it does....removing extraneous ingredients, i believe, will help their bodies thrive.....

the quality of their lives, however long, is paramount to me. and that is why i feed raw.

my observations include no more diarrhea, no more tooth decay, no more gingivitis....whereas on kibble, my malia had giardia at age ten, which is unusual and she had to have a tooth pulled because of a cavity when she was nine. sugar feeds disease.
dogs are carnivores - meat organ bone animal fat
humans are omnivores - protein and veggies and fruits and animal and plant fat
cattle are herbivores - grains

that's how i see it. i'm sure others see it differently....and

i like what jay said about my dogs having no choice.....he's right. i am their only advocate...it's my job to feed them what *I* consider the best choice.....i did it for my son and i research for myself and my husband, too...i can do no less for my dogs.

my 2c


----------



## John Rambo

The passion breemed by the raw enthusiasts is most desirable! Again my comments suggest NOT to be elitists, yet be teachers and accept the decisions made by RESPONSIBLE dog owners who make the choice to feed a high quality kibble due to time/money constraints. Most folks have an understanding of RAW, yet those still feeding kibble still do come to this forum to learn about :tongue:which kibble to feed . Thanks:smile:


----------



## magicre

out of curiousity, what is YOUR definition of 'breemed'?


----------



## John Rambo

In this situation..exuded...:smile:


----------



## magicre

John Rambo said:


> In this situation..exuded...:smile:


i prefer exuberance to a high pitch or squeal 

thanks.


----------



## josh83

danemama08 said:


> Looks like its a mediocre food based on the quality of the used ingredients. Rating a 3 star on dogfoodanalysis.com
> 
> Dog Food Reviews - All Products - Powered by ReviewPost


 
Another good site for dog food reviews is: www.dogfoodadvisor.com


----------



## josh83

dogtrainer1507 said:


> Lifes Abundance. Yeah people give me crap on how its sold and where it stands on the How Great Is My Dog Food List. But all I know is that all my animals do great on it, and a lot of my clients use it as well and seem to really like the results. the one thing I love is that I can talk to the vet that formulates it anytime that I want. And if she thinks her food might not be the best option she doesn't have a problem telling you. I think the thing I like the most is the freshness factor of the food. And it's a small company and been around for about 10 years. I'm sure I'll get crap for even writing this


 
It got a good review here: Life’s Abundance Dry Dog Food | Review and Rating


----------



## Guest

For those of you who know Susan Thixton, author of the "Truth About Pet Food" web site, blog, and the Petsumer Report, she admitted to me that she feeds her own dogs Life's Abundance. Just a FYI.


----------



## Chocx2

I guess I was a kibble feeder for years and years and believed in what my vet told me, who by the way is my friend. But, now that I have branched off to raw she fights about it all the time, raw vs kibble.

But here is a thought on what I observed, and I am paid for a living to observe. The vet, who pushes Science diet and sells it in her office also gets a free supply to feed her pack of dogs?

I don't see the health in her dogs vs mine now, I can look at my dog and tell right away, my dog is way healthier than her dogs and they have the benifit of her being a vet?

I also am a dog trainer on the side and see other trainers promote their brand of food only because they get the benifit, maybe free food?


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom

John Rambo said:


> I am a scholarly man, and that being said i would "tend" to believe that feeding a raw diet is more natural and healthier than feeding kibble. However, I do believe kibble has come along way, and I feed my dogs kibble. My animals coats are shiny with no signs of scaling or flaking of the skin. I do believe this forum is for debating/learning/sharing knowledge of KIBBLE, not the advantages or disadvantages of RAW diets. On a sidenote, I would love to hear if the people feeding their dogs RAW diets ever eat Mcdonalds, Wendys, drink milkshakes, ect or anything else deemed BAD by society. I would hope all these people have sculpted bodies!!!! It does seem as if the raw diet folks seem to constantly be defending/promoting themselves. I would say to try to stay on course and post in the correct forum. Once again, I do believe a raw diet is more natural and beneficial, lets just post in the correct places and let others who feed kibble learn in this forum...


I am guilty of that ! LOL I am better pet owner than for myself. LOL


----------



## GermanSheperdlover

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm new and just reading some of the threads and peoples opinions and ways that people feed their dogs. What I am interested to know is if any of you have seen actual scientific studies on these or your just internet surfing and seeing what other people have to say? Not accusing anyone, I was just curious.


These so called scientific studies you might hear about are done by low grade dog food companies themselves, trying to B.S. people. They are supposedly done in their high grade department faucilities, LOL. Let me see Purnia came out with one and about 6 months later they were found to be putting PLASTIC and SAWDUST in their dog foods. 

Really it doesn't take much time to read an ingredient list and check out websites like the one I will leave. Just keep in mind, the more meat the better a dog food usually is. And that is 99.9 percent true. You can get a ton of bad info on this forums and many others and if poster don't leave links, they most likely are just leaving you their personal opinions. And we all know about opinions. 

The Dog Food Project - Ingredients to avoid

My personal list on the top dog foods are 
The A list
1.	Orijen
2.	Acana, Harvest, pacifica & grassland Only.
3.	Horizon Legacy
4.	Taste of the Wild, wetlands & prairie, ONLY.
5.	GO, grain free /Endurance Only.
6.	Fromm, 4 star.
7.	Merrick
8.	Wellness Core
9.	Blue Wilderness
10.	Acana, the rest of Acana products.
11.	Artemis

The B list
1. GO, the rest of their products.
2. Evangers
3. Timberwolf
4. Fromm, the rest of their products.
5. Instinct
6. Wellness super 5 mix
7. Now, Grain free. 
8. Solid Gold
9. Precise Holistic Complete, Only.
10. Natures Logic
11. Pinnacle
12. First Mate
13. Kirkland or Natural Domain, Costco!(mainly because of cost)
14. Now, the rest of their products.
15. Evo
16. Whole Earth Farms 

There are others that are pretty darn good but I had to draw the line somewhere.
I do want to point out that a lot of dog food manufactures are starting to follow in Orijen's footsteps by listing the percentage of meat in their product. But this can be misleading, another topic for another thread. If you would like to know, you can P.M. me.....


----------



## CavePaws

Honestly I put zero scientific weight on what most people say about how they see their dog doing on the dog food they are feeding. Unless you know a good deal about nutrition, then I'm probably not going to think much of how someone thinks their dog is doing on a specific type of food. Any number of the health problems people see can be due to the food they feed and they might never know if they don't make a switch. The dog might look fine, and some of the symptoms you see you probably won't think are bad, thus you think it's fine or the dog is just always like that. I don't like just looking to see if my dogs are fine, I like knowing, I put a bit more deal of weight on what my vet says my dogs health is - regardless of what food I'm feeding. Sometimes I think vets just look for an okay bill of health though, rather than an excellent bill, which is what I strive for. It's been mentioned that dogs can look "fine" on foods as poor as Pedigree...I wouldn't tend to agree at all...

I don't think that Life's Abundance has sufficient meat content for any canine. That is what I think based upon the things I've learned about canine nutrition...You don't have to put much weight on my opinion, though.


----------



## nykea

JayJayisme said:


> Hmm...aside from it sounding incredibly condescending, I'm always suspicious of anyone who starts a post with something like, "I am a scholarly man." What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that those of us who aren't "scholarly" have no business deciding what to feed our animals, we aren't entitled to an opinion on this, and we're not supposed to discuss it or exchange ideas on it?
> 
> You DO know that the academics of the world have most of canine nutrition wrong thanks to perversion of their studies from the pet food industry, right? Is it wrong for us to challenge the "conventional wisdom" on canine nutrition just because we don't walk around university laboratories wearing white coats? Do you have any idea how many times in history conventional wisdom that came from academia turned out to be completely wrong?


Hehe, I think that stating that someone is a scholarly man was directed rather at being called a scholarly snob few posts away. I am an academic as well, and I don't think I'm any better than you, in fact I'm absolutely sure that you guys know more about feeding than I do, it's just that being a scholar you like to see hard facts. Numbers, statistics... And as much as I agree that feeding raw products is way better than any kibble, I think that from each study, even funded by a huge company, there are things we could take out. For example I fed my dog raw for few months, and LOVED it! I had to move to kibble for now, because my dog was diagnosed with hyperuricosuria. I'm planning on keeping him on Hill's u/d for about a month, because it contains ingredients that not only prevent the crystals from forming, but also dissolve the ones that are already in bladder. Having removed those, I plan on going back raw, only adjusted so new crystals are not being formed. However now I'm trying to find any SCIENTIFIC information on dog nutrition, because I'd like to know that I'm feeding him enough nutrients, without increasing the risk of crystals forming. And no offence, but here the fact that hundreds of people have their dogs on raw and feeding raw is what nature intended is not going to help, because if I just went back to nature, my dog would be dead within a year. So there are cases where science is necessary. 
Now going to the second point that was mentioned here, I fed my dog Barf and believe in it. I don't really think that dogs need the same food as wolfes. In the millenia that we lived with dogs, we bred them selectively to look and behave and certain way, but there was another kind of selection going, not really deliberate. Dogs for ages were fed with scraps from our tables, and those that were not adjusted to it, just died out. And please don't get me wrong, in no way I'm suggesting we feed grains to dogs, as I believe that grains were the least important part of their diet (grains were for poultry  ), but fruit and veg - very much so. I also believe that instead of comparing our dogs to wolves, it would be more sensible to compare them to feral dogs, which live off scraps and rubbish. Also, even when thinking about wolves, most of their prey is small animals that are eaten whole. These small animals live on grasses, fruits, vegetables... any kind of plant material. Unless you are feeding your dogs on free range, or best wild animals, the meat you're feeding them will be mostly obtained from animals fed grain only. Also the stomach contents will contain mostly grain, plus maybe hay/straw.


----------



## RawFedDogs

nykea said:


> I fed my dog raw for few months, and LOVED it! I had to move to kibble for now, because my dog was diagnosed with hyperuricosuria.


Hi Nyka,
Welcome to the forum. You need to get in contact with LuvMyBRT. She has a dog with that same problem and has done A LOT of research. Purines (sp) are whats key with that and she has learned which foods contain purines and which don't contain so much. She also feeds veggies to get some nutrients that are missing in the low purine stuff. I'm sure she can give you a lot of information. BTW: I THINK she never went back to kibble, just adjusted the raw diet. She can correct me on that.



> I'm planning on keeping him on Hill's u/d for about a month, because it contains ingredients that not only prevent the crystals from forming, but also dissolve the ones that are already in bladder.


Hill's stuff is garbage. I'd be interested in knowing exactly which ingredients dissolve the crystals.




> Now going to the second point that was mentioned here, I fed my dog Barf and believe in it. I don't really think that dogs need the same food as wolfes. In the millenia that we lived with dogs, we bred them selectively to look and behave and certain way, but there was another kind of selection going, not really deliberate.


In the special case of your dog with crystals, you may be right about needing veggies but for the greatest percentages of dogs, that couldn't be further from the truth. In the first place, dogs ARE wolves. I can get you the scientific information on that if you want but most here have seen it many times so I won't go into it unless you really want it. Second, yes, we selectively bred them, their digestive system has not changed. From the smallest to largest breed of dogs, their digestive system is identical to that of a wolf. Their bodies are not designed to digest and extract nutrients from plant matter and they are very inefficient in attempts to do so. I can also get you evidence for that also.



> Dogs for ages were fed with scraps from our tables, and those that were not adjusted to it, just died out.


There is no scientific evidence to determine exactly what dogs were fed longer than a couple of hundred years ago. For example, it COULD be that when a cave man killed an animal, he removed the meat he could use and left the rest for the dogs to eat. That may have been the only food those dogs got. We just don't know. What we do know is that the GI tract is unchanged from a million years ago. Dog's and wild wolves have identical GI tracts today.



> I also believe that instead of comparing our dogs to wolves, it would be more sensible to compare them to feral dogs, which live off scraps and rubbish.


Feral dogs live off scraps and rubbish because thats what's available to them. Any of our dogs would be in serious trouble if they had to make a living out in the wild. They have become big sissy's. They are lost their speed and strength due to not working hard enough. However, their GI tract has not changed.



> Also, even when thinking about wolves, most of their prey is small animals that are eaten whole. These small animals live on grasses, fruits, vegetables... any kind of plant material. Unless you are feeding your dogs on free range, or best wild animals, the meat you're feeding them will be mostly obtained from animals fed grain only.


You are correct on this point and because of it, the grocery store meat we feed our dogs is lacking in Omega 3 fatty acids. That can be compensated for by feeding fish regularly or feeding wild game regularly or supplementing w/ salmoin oil or fish oil.



> Also the stomach contents will contain mostly grain, plus maybe hay/straw.


One more piece of information - contrairy to popular opinion, wild wolves don't eat the stomach contents of their prey unless they are eating prey small enough to eat in one big gulp (rats, mice, etc.). I can give scientific proof of that information also if you require it.

Again welcome to the board. I think you will enjoy the discussions here. :biggrin:


----------



## magicre

RawFedDogs said:


> Hi Nyka,
> Welcome to the forum. You need to get in contact with LuvMyBRT. She has a dog with that same problem and has done A LOT of research. Purines (sp) are whats key with that and she has learned which foods contain purines and which don't contain so much. She also feeds veggies to get some nutrients that are missing in the low purine stuff. I'm sure she can give you a lot of information. BTW: I THINK she never went back to kibble, just adjusted the raw diet. She can correct me on that.


man, great minds and all that....

welcome to the forum.....LuvMyBRT has a dog with the same conditon; and, no, she never did go back to kibble...but she made many compromises for her dog to keep him healthy....

seriously do a search for her and see her posts about the diet she feeds...it's worked for her black russian terrier......and she researched plenty for this.


----------



## sassymaxmom

The script food has its purpose. Not all dog owners will study up on just what is needed to properly treat medical conditions that require special diets. If you are up to it then feeding fresh, whether raw or cooked, designed for your dog's needs is completely out of the ball park better than the script foods.

I fed Sassy cooked chicken and rice for 3.5 years to treat her kidney disease. I could get the phosphorus level lower than the script food, fine tune the fat level and give her more and better quality protein. On the script food she would have gone into pancreatitis and gone down in less than a year and that would have been that. On cooked food she lived to her 17th birthday taking short walks daily, getting in and out of the house just fine and her digestion was in fine shape.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Bill- your right....I never went back to kibble. Never will. :smile:

I've pm'd nykea and look forward to chatting with her/him. 

Thank you guys for the kind words.....it means a lot to me that all my research will hopefully be able to help another owner and BRT (or any dog for that matter).

BTW....I have to apologize for my mia! I went on a trip...drove from OR to NM and back with kids and dogs. Now, hubby is on a job detail again in Portland, OR, so I have been staying there often....and driving back and forth....with kids and dogs in tow. Busy, busy, busy. Fun...but exhausting! Can't wait for things to settle down so I can get back on! :smile:


----------



## nykea

Sorry for late response. Yes, I have e mailed Sarah, actually she's the reason why I joined this forum because not only we share the same disease, but I also have a Black terrier!! I know already about purines, have all the tables but of course it's better to talk to someone who's already been through all that.



RawFedDogs said:


> Hill's stuff is garbage. I'd be interested in knowing exactly which ingredients dissolve the crystals.


Potassium citrate. I think traditionally they were using sodium bicarbonate, but it has some negative side effects.



RawFedDogs said:


> In the first place, dogs ARE wolves. I can get you the scientific information on that if you want but most here have seen it many times so I won't go into it unless you really want it. Second, yes, we selectively bred them, their digestive system has not changed. From the smallest to largest breed of dogs, their digestive system is identical to that of a wolf. Their bodies are not designed to digest and extract nutrients from plant matter and they are very inefficient in attempts to do so. I can also get you evidence for that also.


Would you be talking about genetics? Hm, I think I know the paper you're talking about, with all the colourful graphs etc... Well, I do believe in what they are showing, that large proportion of the genome is shared between dogs and wolves, but I do not believe that dogs are wolves. We share a very large proportion of our genes with mice, and yet we are very different... It's enough to look at behaviour of dogs and wolves. It is very different, especially looking at some toy breeds, and yet it's not that obvious when looking at genes. We simply don't know all the genes, so the small proportion of the genome that is different between dogs and wolves might also be the most important one! But I'd love to see the evidence you are talking about! If I could see that the digestive enzymes, time food spends in the stomach etc is the same, I'd be forced to change my mind 





RawFedDogs said:


> There is no scientific evidence to determine exactly what dogs were fed longer than a couple of hundred years ago. For example, it COULD be that when a cave man killed an animal, he removed the meat he could use and left the rest for the dogs to eat. That may have been the only food those dogs got. We just don't know.


As per the cave dogs, I couldn't agree more. Both we and the early dogs were eating largely meat. But soon (well, in archeological terms  ) after domesticating dogs the early humans switched from nomadic lifestyle, with the first crops and other livestock domesticated. Actually, depending on the theory, some studies say that dogs were domesticated during that period, rather than nomadic, hunter's based period (30,000 - 7,000, when we became more immobile about 11,000). And I guess (I don't really know, I never searched for that, as it just made sense) there are no scientific studies to back me up, but I think we've all been to countryside and have seen how traditionally dogs were fed. I'm Polish, and our countryside is still quite poor. Standard diet for dogs there is still the same as it was for years and years, with the mix they are getting consisting mainly of bread, pasta, some meat scraps, bones, and all other waste. I believe that during centuries there were dogs, that had a better life, especially those owned by noble men, but I don't think they were the majority. I believe that most our dogs come from ratty mongrels, that lived on the streets, eating what they could.





RawFedDogs said:


> Feral dogs live off scraps and rubbish because thats what's available to them. Any of our dogs would be in serious trouble if they had to make a living out in the wild. They have become big sissy's. They are lost their speed and strength due to not working hard enough. However, their GI tract has not changed.


Oh, I totally agree with that our dogs are sissys. Definitely my dog is...  But I think that's because of the way we bring them up (my dog is spoiled to the limits ). And again, going back to Poland, I've known dogs, that were born to pets, but because no one really wanted them, when they grew up they started separating from humans, living basically like foxes. On the rubbish they found. And now, their genome is exactly the same as our beloved pet dogs, but they survive easily on diet consisting of at most 50% meat. So while we may argue if this is the best way to feed dogs, I do believe that they CAN and they DO digest plant material.



RawFedDogs said:


> You are correct on this point and because of it, the grocery store meat we feed our dogs is lacking in Omega 3 fatty acids. That can be compensated for by feeding fish regularly or feeding wild game regularly or supplementing w/ salmoin oil or fish oil.


Assuming that you accept my argument about dogs digesting plant material, does the benefit of raw not apply here? If they can use it from plants, why feed an artificial supplement?




RawFedDogs said:


> One more piece of information - contrairy to popular opinion, wild wolves don't eat the stomach contents of their prey unless they are eating prey small enough to eat in one big gulp (rats, mice, etc.). I can give scientific proof of that information also if you require it.


I think I heard that before. I would like to see the information, although it's just to broaden my knowledge, I'm not arguing with that. What I think is more important though is what is the proportion of large prey, where they can choose what parts they eat, and what proportion is the small prey? I have no scientific proof for that, but I think I remember watching a documentary once about wolves, in which they said that majority of wolves prey is the small animals.
Also, I know a few people who have working dogs and feed them mainly tripe, with occassional chicken carcass. Also, my dog would kill for a nice chunk of tripe. And I do believe in what my dog is saying to me... Well, I used to because now no meat for him :/

Thank you guys for welcoming me, I'm sure I will enjoy the discussion!!

Also, I had a good look at the label of Hill's yesterday, the protein content is higher than reported on some "pro-raw" websites, the crude protein is at 10%. The good point is that they also add taurine and L-carnityne. I still am planning on feeding raw, no matter how good it is, but I prefer to have confirmed info


----------



## RawFedDogs

Sorry, this was so large that I had to break this into 2 posts to get it all in.



nykea said:


> Would you be talking about genetics? Hm, I think I know the paper you're talking about, with all the colourful graphs etc... Well, I do believe in what they are showing, that large proportion of the genome is shared between dogs and wolves, but I do not believe that dogs are wolves.


No, I'm talking about DNA, more specifically mtDNA. Studies done by Robert Wayne shows that there is about 0.2% difference between dog & wolf mtDNA. MtDNA is the DNA that is passed between mother and offspring and is used in determining ancestory. These studies determine that wolves did not breed with another animal to produce dogs. Soooo .... if you breed wolf to wolf, the offspring is always a wolf. Human/chimp relationship is often brought up but the mtDNA difference between them is 2%. Dogs/wolves are 10 times closer. 

To read one of Dr. Wayne's studies you can go to http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Heredity_Dog_Paper_1999.pdf You can google him for many more of his studies.

Also, "_The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists._"
Dog - New World Encyclopedia

Those are the people whose job it is to determine what a species is and they say dogs are a subspecies of the gray wolf. They are the experts and the final authority.




> It's enough to look at behaviour of dogs and wolves.


This is the point I need to refer you to the famous Russian Fox experiment of the early part of the 20th century. There was a fox farm in Russia that decided they would try to make the foxes easier to handle as they were quite wild. They began a breeding program of breeding on the most meek and mild of the foxes together trying to create these easier to handle foxes.

In just a few generations (35 if I remember correctly) they began to see some remarkable changes in the foxes. They began having more varied coloring. Some of their ears began to be floppy instead of standing upright. Their tails begain getting curly and some curled up over their back. These "domestic" foxes began to bark. All of these changes are the exact differences between dogs and wolves. They simply came about by selectively breeding meek foxes together. They don't know how to explain it except hormones have probably changed. Probably producing less adrenlin or testosterone. However, no one calles these new foxes a different species. Although they don't act as the original wild foxes they are still foxes. There is no mention of these "domestic" foxes requiring a different diet. You can read more about it in greater detail here http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf



> As per the cave dogs, I couldn't agree more. Both we and the early dogs were eating largely meat. But soon (well, in archeological terms  ) after domesticating dogs the early humans switched from nomadic lifestyle, with the first crops and other livestock domesticated. Actually, depending on the theory, some studies say that dogs were domesticated during that period, rather than nomadic, hunter's based period (30,000 - 7,000, when we became more immobile about 11,000). And I guess (I don't really know, I never searched for that, as it just made sense) there are no scientific studies to back me up, but I think we've all been to countryside and have seen how traditionally dogs were fed.


As far as I know there is no evidence on what humans fed their dogs thousands of years ago but it's possible that food was too valuable of a resource to feed to dogs and they merely got the leftover parts of the prey after the humans removed that was useful to them. There is a good chance that since there was no refigeration back in those days that humans only used what they could eat immediately which could have left a good amount of good nutritious carcass for the dogs. Of course this is just theory but no less probable that feeding veggies, IMO.



> So while we may argue if this is the best way to feed dogs, I do believe that they CAN and they DO digest plant material.


It's just not possible for dogs to digest plant material efficiently enough to be healthy. Each cell of plant material is covered in a protective cellulose covering. In order to absorb nutrients from plants, this covering must be opened up exposing the inside of the cell to digestive juices. Omnivores do this by crushing the plants with their flat molars. Dogs/wolves don't have flat molars to do this. Omnivores also have a horizontal movement to their lower jaw as well as a vertical movement. This helps crush the cellulose. Dogs/wolves don't have the ability to move their lower jaw horizontally. These 2 limitations prevent them from crushing the cellulose covering of the plant cells. Omnivores have a digestive enzyme called amylase in their saliva to begin the digestive process in the mouth while they chew. Omnivores chew their food into a mush before swallowing. Dogs simply rip & tear meat and crush bones in their mouth until their food is small enought to fit down their throat then they swallow it. They don't chew into a mush. Dogs don't have amylase in their saliva. Amylase is necessary in the digestive process to properly digest carbohydrates. Omnivores have relatively long intestinal tracts to allow the carbohydrated to ferment in the gut while it is digesting. Dogs have relatively short intestines to allow the meats to pass through quickly before it rots. About the only way dogs can efficiently digest plant material is for it to be pureed or crushed for them before they eat it. Nature provides every animal with proper food and a method of extracting nutrients from their food. Since nature doesn't provide dogs with the means to digest plant material, that tells me that nature didn't intend dogs to eat plants. Nature doesn't provide dogs with food processors or any other method of crushing their plant material before they eat it.


----------



## RawFedDogs

nykea said:


> Assuming that you accept my argument about dogs digesting plant material, does the benefit of raw not apply here? If they can use it from plants, why feed an artificial supplement?


Just because dogs eat plant material because they are forced to by humans doesn't mean this is what their bodies were designed to eat this stuff and it doesn't mean that they digest it efficiently nor that they can be in great health on a diet high in carbs. I don't feed artificial supplements nor are they needed by dogs if they are fed a diet of mostly meat, some bone, and some organs from a variety of animals. I have been feeding a raw diet to my dogs for 9 years and haven't feed any veggies since maybe the first 3 or 4 months. My 6yo Dane, Thor, has never eaten any plant material in his life with the possible exception of grass occasionally.

I am not saying that you shouldn't supplement a dog's diet for a known health problem. Of course if your dog has a health problem that would be helped by feeding supplments then by all means give him supplements but don't give them "just in case they might do some good". Or they MIGHT provide some nutrient missing from the prey model raw diet. They are missing no nutrients from meat, bones, and organs.



> I think I heard that before. I would like to see the information, although it's just to broaden my knowledge, I'm not arguing with that. What I think is more important though is what is the proportion of large prey, where they can choose what parts they eat, and what proportion is the small prey?


It depends on whats available but wolves prefer to eat large ungulats (deer, elk, moose, etc). They will eat everything except the stomach contents and intestines.



> I have no scientific proof for that, but I think I remember watching a documentary once about wolves, in which they said that majority of wolves prey is the small animals.


I think they eat small animals only when they can't find large ones.



> Also, I know a few people who have working dogs and feed them mainly tripe, with occassional chicken carcass. Also, my dog would kill for a nice chunk of tripe. And I do believe in what my dog is saying to me... Well, I used to because now no meat for him :/


Tripe is the stomach itself, not the contents other than what may be sticking to the sides. Even so, it is grass, not squash, carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. You will probably be interested in this:
From David Mech's Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003):
"_Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site._"
-p123

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


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

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

BTW: David Mech is one of the world's most respected researcher of wild wolves after spending more than 30 years observing them in the wild.



> Thank you guys for welcoming me, I'm sure I will enjoy the discussion!!


Hehe, I'm enjoying it too. :smile:



> Also, I had a good look at the label of Hill's yesterday, the protein content is higher than reported on some "pro-raw" websites, the crude protein is at 10%. The good point is that they also add taurine and L-carnityne. I still am planning on feeding raw, no matter how good it is, but I prefer to have confirmed info


You can look on the FDA's website and the the amount of protein in most any cut of meat and its close to 20% is most all of it. This is wet weight considering that meat is 60%+ water. There is no need to add taurine as the source of taurine is raw meat. :smile: I don't know what L-carnityne is but if dogs need it, its in the meat, bones, or organs of prey animals.

I hope this makes you feel better about feeding raw. I've been doing it for 9 years and my dogs have always been healthy. No vet visits at all until my 11yo Dane got liver cancer last November. She as already outlived the time the vet gave her.


----------



## magicre

the russian fox experiment. did not know about that.

off to look it up...oorah, bill


----------



## nykea

Wow, great! Thanks very much, you totally satisfied my "scholarly" hunger  Honestly, great food for thoughts. I still hold on to the idea of pulped vegetables, as they are in the form of what would be in prey's stomach, but you shook my point of view a little.... 

Maybe just one thing again about wolves and dogs. For me a subspecies is a different form of the original. Because the DNA is dynami, there are new mutations accumulating all the time, and as for quite a while now dogs have not mixed with wolves (except ceskoslovensky vlcak, and few other experimental crosses) they have accumulated different mutations. They will be similar, very similar in fact, but I'd still argue they are different.
I am familiar with the silver fox experiment, it is quite remarkable. Perhaps I should have thought of it before I mentioned behavioural differences. And of course I agree that these foxes are not a different species, but if the experiment lasted for 30,000 years, rather than 30 generations (I think they started it soon after WWII? I know the first paper by Belyaev was published in 1979), then I think that the situation would be a little different....
As for the paper by R. Wayne and C. Vila the same authors also mention, that using the mtDNA you mentioned, dogs are grouped to 4 different clades, and the most diverse of those differ by as much as 1% in DNA sequence.
If you haven't got it I recommend this book:
CABI Bookshop | The Genetics of the Dog
Although it's bloody expensive :/


----------



## RawFedDogs

nykea said:


> Wow, great! Thanks very much, you totally satisfied my "scholarly" hunger  Honestly, great food for thoughts. I still hold on to the idea of pulped vegetables, as they are in the form of what would be in prey's stomach, but you shook my point of view a little....


The big thing is that many people use that argument to feed pulped veggies to their dogs but IF wolves ate stomach contents, those stomach contents would be either grass, weeds, leaves, or twigs. Not the veggies they are feeding.



> Maybe just one thing again about wolves and dogs. For me a subspecies is a different form of the original. Because the DNA is dynami, there are new mutations accumulating all the time, and as for quite a while now dogs have not mixed with wolves (except ceskoslovensky vlcak, and few other experimental crosses) they have accumulated different mutations.


There are MANY dog/wolf crosses in the world. They are called wolfdogs and have varying percentages of wolves and dogs. One of our members here (DanaMama) owns a wolfdog. I keep going back to the old thing that if you breed two wolves the resultant progeny will be wolves. Nothing else bred with wolves to create dogs.



> They will be similar, very similar in fact, but I'd still argue they are different.


Whatever small differences, they don't change the digestive system nor nutritional requirements.



> If you haven't got it I recommend this book:
> CABI Bookshop | The Genetics of the Dog
> Although it's bloody expensive :/


I probably couldn't udnerstand it any more than I understand a lot of stuff I know. :biggrin:


----------



## nykea

Hehe, now I'm trying to put some of your arguments on a polish doggy forum in Barf-related topic. We'll see how they react!! There is one person there who is a salesperson for national equivalent of Billinghurst patties, I expect most discussion from her side!! If she brings up any valid point that I missed, I will post them here!!
But I have to admit, after sitting on it for few days, I think that my next dog will be kept on PMR.... Unfortunately it will be a while before I can get it!! ((((


----------



## nykea

RawFedDogs said:


> I think they eat small animals only when they can't find large ones.


Dave had a paper: 
Fritts, S. H., and L. D. Mech. 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly
protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs No. 80.
October 1981. 79 pp

And they found there that 
"White-tailed deer was the most important food of wolves in the Beltrami Island State Forest in winter and summer, both in terms of biomass and number of individuals eaten"

I'm thinking that if the "scientific nobs" like me find papers that support our view (or contradict it.... if you're man enough to share it!  , we could be putting them in here (or another topic), so we can all check them out, and perhaps have a better argument in our hand when talking to others!!


----------



## nykea

From the same study:
"Consumption of carcasses usually was complete, with only rumen contents, skin, and scattered parts of the skeleton remaining at kill sites. "

Also, the deer was the most popular kill at 74.8%, followed by moose at 10.1%. Smaller animals like hare and beaver were at 3.4 and 3.1% respectively. Small rodents which I related to were only 0.5%, BUT they list also Fruit in there, at 2.7%!!


----------



## sadysaneto

well, i´ve got no study, but got my personal experience.

i´ve got 3 dogs - two 4-month Campeiro Bulldogs (Aggro and Hannya) anda a 12 yrs beagle (zouki).

zouki has been suffering w demodecic mange for over 8 yrs - poor thing was always with a rash, shedding and stinking like hell.

she would be on antibiotics and irvectin every other month (actually is a miracles shes still around).

since I statarted raw, guess what?

no more shedding, no more rash, no more smelling, skin, ears and eyes infection are history.

you know, it was not seeing my dogs healthy what changed my mind about raw.

it is seeing zouki not sick anymore.


----------



## nykea

Hm, I just realised that this topic is in food ingredients and my previous posts are only slightly related to the subject. Can I please ask for them to be moved to appropriate section?


----------



## Celt

A book I use is Dogs All In One for Dummies. It isn't a scientific study but it does explain what a dog needs in its diet in a very basic, simple way (which as a kinder teacher-basic and simple is good). Now it says that dogs need carbs (which many argue against but <shrug> others argue for). But when it talks about protein sources, the book states theat there are protein sources that are considered complete because they provide all the essential amino acids that a dog needs to be healthy and incomplete sources they are missing some of these essential amino acids. A quote from the book: Your dog can get protein from both animal and plant sources. But only animal source proteins are complete protein sources, and not all of them are complete (me--which is why vareity is neccessary). Examples of complete protein sources that come from animals are eggs, whole meilk, and lean meats. Grains are another important source of protein in dog foods, but they are imcomplete protein sources because they don't contain some of the essentail amino acids your dog needs. Plant proteins sources frequently used in dog foods include sooybeans wheat, and corn. Your dog's major source of protein should be animal product's, not grain.Don't buy dog food in which soybean meal, soy flour, or corngluten meal is the primary or even the secondary, source of protein <skip reference to another chapter> Dogs don't have the enzymes to use grains properly as main sources of protein.. It later states that simple carbs are better to feed because they are the easiest for your dog to digest if properly cooked and is added to dog food to make it more palatable. The book's stance on carbs, is that they are needed to give dogs a readily available (me-"preprocessed") form of glucose which is needed to maintain high energy levels, but they should only be used after proteins and fats to make up a food.
As I said it is very basic, but it was what help me really "see" what a dog needs and why. Not that I agree with everything in the book, but I did find it helpful. Well that's my 2 cents worth. (all the underlining, etc was done by me).


----------



## magicre

sadysaneto said:


> well, i´ve got no study, but got my personal experience.
> 
> i´ve got 3 dogs - two 4-month Campeiro Bulldogs (Aggro and Hannya) anda a 12 yrs beagle (zouki).
> 
> zouki has been suffering w demodecic mange for over 8 yrs - poor thing was always with a rash, shedding and stinking like hell.
> 
> she would be on antibiotics and irvectin every other month (actually is a miracles shes still around).
> 
> since I statarted raw, guess what?
> 
> no more shedding, no more rash, no more smelling, skin, ears and eyes infection are history.
> 
> you know, it was not seeing my dogs healthy what changed my mind about raw.
> 
> it is seeing zouki not sick anymore.


objective finding, that which you see, hear, smell, and can touch and multiply those same objective findings IS a scientific study.


----------



## dustinshaw98

dogtrainer1507 said:


> I'm new and just reading some of the threads and peoples opinions and ways that people feed their dogs. What I am interested to know is if any of you have seen actual scientific studies on these or your just internet surfing and seeing what other people have to say? Not accusing anyone, I was just curious.


If you check the profiles for the AAFCO, they're not reproducible; that means what they post as the nutritional needs of dogs are NOT scientific conjectures. Plus, the digestive tract of domestic dogs are exactly the same as that of wolves, their counterparts in the wild. 

I've been raw-feeding my dogs for years, and they don't smell, don't get sick. My neighbor's dog is kibble-fed. The dog has halitosis. None of my dog has bad breath. That's proof enough for me that plant-based foods are not something that's good for dogs.


----------



## 1605

dustinshaw98 said:


> If you check the profiles for the AAFCO, they're not reproducible; that means what they post as the nutritional needs of dogs are NOT scientific conjectures. Plus, the digestive tract of domestic dogs are exactly the same as that of wolves, their counterparts in the wild.
> 
> I've been raw-feeding my dogs for years, and they don't smell, don't get sick. My neighbor's dog is kibble-fed. The dog has halitosis. None of my dog has bad breath. That's proof enough for me that plant-based foods are not something that's good for dogs.


You do realize that you are guilty of what you are claiming of others: conjecture without scientific proof? 

Without an actual study, you have no way of knowing or illustrating why "The dog has halitosis"... other than an unsubstantiated hypothesis.


----------



## ROJOR1979

This is exactly the place that i've come to....it just makes sense...


----------



## xchairity_casex

> I wish there were more studies on this subject by people other then the companies that make the foods or create the certain form of feeding but there aren't


really i think this site is the best y\human study your going to find lots of mebers feeding differnt diets to differnt dogs with differnt health needs (puppies,seniors,big dogs,little dogs ect)
all you need to do is ASK the RIGHT questions
perhapes instead of asking "is your dogs food backed by a study?"
maybe try asking "which food does YOUR dog do best on?"
or maybe "what food would you reccomend and which would you NOT reccomend and why?"
or maybe
"good and bad opinions on diets,brands ect"
and basically tally up the votes find out whos dogs do well on which diet and why
and dont just stick with this site for all the answers go around to differnt dog sites and ask the saem questions and tally up how many people ahve bad experiences with raw,kibble,canned,and homecooked diets
then tally up how many people have good results with all the same foods heck you can even add up good and bad with specific brands if you want!
would be an intrestign result

heck i might even try this myself and see what the results are cause im curious now myself!


----------



## xchairity_casex

dang i mistyped alot...SORRY but im too lazy to to fix it​


----------



## Roger Biduk

DaneMama said:


> I don't need scientific studies to tell me that the natural diet for my dog works wonders. Because is does. I the proof I see is the health of my dogs and cats.
> 
> Most of the "scientific studies" or "clinical trials" are all backed by big business. That is how they are funded. They are based completely on the notion of how they can produce the CHEAPEST food that will sustain a dog, or fix some kind of ailment that was probably due to poor/inadequate nutrition anyway.
> 
> Most studies are also trying to tell me that my dog is an omnivore and should be eating grains or other carb sources. Which in and of itself is a 100% false statement. End of story.
> 
> The reason why there is no clinical trials behind raw diets? Because there is no money in it. It takes big bucks to fund clinical trials because they are usually very in depth and take a long time to complete. And you would most likely be appalled at the regulations and requirements for these "clinical" trials anyways because they are in no way sufficient to produce accurate, life long results. I know that I am appalled at them. No one wants to fund a study that they wont make money off of. Because a raw diet is completely self sustaining...meaning we don't buy any certain brand or type of food. We get our food supplies from all over and from private sources.
> 
> Not to mention the decreased business that vet practices would see from lack of nutrition based illnesses that would be noticed if everyone was feeding raw.


Well said.
The only scientific studies are by companies like Hill's, Purina, Pedigree, Iams, etc who's ingredients in their foods are better used as fertilizer than pet food.
You can go here to read how Iams conducted their "scientific study".

There is nothing whatsoever in a cat/dog (teeth, jaw structure, G.I. tract, ph, bile, no salivary amylase, etc.) that remotely suggests that cats are nothing but obligate carnivores and dogs being carnivores.
The only reason the AVMA and AAHA now dissuade veterinarians from feeding raw is exactly what you said... up to 90% of vet visits are from illness and disease caused by food containing "inappropriate ingredients".

The worst thing that could happen to vets and big pharma are healthy animals...
Best regards, Roger Biduk


----------



## Jan Fred

Aside from process dog foods, what are some of the preferable food for dogs? Thanks!


----------



## sassymaxmom

If the food contains the protein, fat, vitamins and minerals needed then dogs do well on almost any combination of foods. You can find the old NRC requirements in this book. Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985 Yes these requirements were developed from various invasive and non invasive experiments and I am sure they were mostly funded by pet food companies but it is the best approximation we have to date.

As long as you understand the dog's needs then with carefully thought out additions you can feed from the table, make their own cooked food, feed raw bits, feed whole animals or any combination of the above. You can use a site such as this one to figure out what is in what foods you are considering feeding. NDL/FNIC Food Composition Database Home Page

Maxwell's condition has improved tremendously on a high fat, high protein diet that is completely raw and nearly free of any sort of carbohydrate and I hope to be able to keep feeding this way to all future pets.


----------



## Jan Fred

> I'm new and just reading some of the threads and peoples opinions and ways that people feed their dogs. What I am interested to know is if any of you have seen actual scientific studies on these or your just internet surfing and seeing what other people have to say? Not accusing anyone, I was just curious.


 is anyone had answered this question? Am curious too.


----------



## Roger Biduk

DaneMama said:


> I don't need scientific studies to tell me that the natural diet for my dog works wonders. Because is does. I the proof I see is the health of my dogs and cats.
> 
> Most of the "scientific studies" or "clinical trials" are all backed by big business. That is how they are funded. They are based completely on the notion of how they can produce the CHEAPEST food that will sustain a dog, or fix some kind of ailment that was probably due to poor/inadequate nutrition anyway.
> 
> Most studies are also trying to tell me that my dog is an omnivore and should be eating grains or other carb sources. Which in and of itself is a 100% false statement. End of story.
> 
> The reason why there is no clinical trials behind raw diets? Because there is no money in it. It takes big bucks to fund clinical trials because they are usually very in depth and take a long time to complete. And you would most likely be appalled at the regulations and requirements for these "clinical" trials anyways because they are in no way sufficient to produce accurate, life long results. I know that I am appalled at them. No one wants to fund a study that they wont make money off of. Because a raw diet is completely self sustaining...meaning we don't buy any certain brand or type of food. We get our food supplies from all over and from private sources.
> 
> Not to mention the decreased business that vet practices would see from lack of nutrition based illnesses that would be noticed if everyone was feeding raw.


WOW... Great post, DaneMama... the pet industry is the only one in the world that does "research" on what cats/dogs should eat, of course funded by Hill's, Purina, Pedigree, Iams, Royal Canin, Eukanuba, etc.

The best and only diet to feed any animal is one that they've been eating and thriving on for the last forty million years... 

Many good vets will tell you that 90% of all illness and disease are diet-related... and as far as vets go, 80% of the ones that I know of are no good; pet owners MUST see a vet who practices allopathic + holistic veterinary... you won't see any "Prescription Diets" in their offices.
Roger Biduk


----------



## Roger Biduk

sassymaxmom said:


> If the food contains the protein, fat, vitamins and minerals needed then dogs do well on almost any combination of foods. You can find the old NRC requirements in this book. Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985 Yes these requirements were developed from various invasive and non invasive experiments and I am sure they were mostly funded by pet food companies but it is the best approximation we have to date.
> 
> As long as you understand the dog's needs then with carefully thought out additions you can feed from the table, make their own cooked food, feed raw bits, feed whole animals or any combination of the above. You can use a site such as this one to figure out what is in what foods you are considering feeding. NDL/FNIC Food Composition Database Home Page
> 
> Maxwell's condition has improved tremendously on a high fat, high protein diet that is completely raw and nearly free of any sort of carbohydrate and I hope to be able to keep feeding this way to all future pets.


I agree with your last paragraph and don't with the first.

Junk from Hill's, Ol' Roy, Pedigree, Purina, Science Diet, etc. all meet these "requirements" but cats/dogs most certainly won't do well on them.

The reason Maxwell's doing so well is the diet you described is exactly what the ancestral diet of canines is: 49% protein, 45% fat and only 6% carbohydrates.
Roger Biduk


----------



## Meike

Good question? I noticed a lot of info on forums that people just heard and repeated. Because people couldn't give proper reasons for what they said, I started looking into the 'evidence'. There are a lot of studies about petfood, but not so many on raw feeding. 

One of the 'trends' I see is grainfree. But nowhere I can find a clue why potatoes are better than rice for instance.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Meike, LOL! there are excellent studies being done out there by companies and universities that are helping to discover better ways of managing feline diabetes, canine and feline obesity through changing metabolism, new Sadie's on urinary stone formation in dogs and cats, etc. It is a real shame that the public never sees the money,time, and passion that nutritionists do vote to the welfare of dogs and cats and instead trust the hype and marketing of companies that do NO research and just sell pet food. sadly it is the age we live in. makes me wish I was in a different industry becasue the people that care the most are the ones being duped. Whoever said Buyer Beware was so right!


----------



## Celt

I have problems with scientifc studies being "proof" of much. Most are backed/financed/implemented by the product's "owner" and very often the results "prove" exactly what the "owners" claim. Another reason is that many studies are limited in time, "samples" and/or "subjects" leading to results that are skewed, only partial correct or totally incorrect (in the " long run", most often). Studies can be helpful but, personally, not to be accepted as proof positive of the "value" of something. Definitely, buyers should beware and use their brain, not just their "heart".


----------



## dogsforever

I know of at least one food product that lists scientific studies on their website. That would be Buddy Custard. Their wellness protocol was designed to help dogs lead healthy lives, but is based on the work of Dr. Johanna Budwig who created the Budwig diet in the 1950s. They also have testimonials from actual dog owners who've tried their product. I think scientific studies are helpful and there are people who are interested in those, but the fact that they have testimonials too really makes me trust them. Ultimately what works for one person or dog may not work for another which is where I think the scientific studies come in, but either way, it's up to you to decide what to give your dog and see what works best for him.


----------



## DylanPico

Hi guys! I have noticed, that there is a lot of different opinions on dog nutrition topic, and just wanted to admit that you should always check info in various sources. Personally I have got my favorite web page, which my friend showed me. A few weeks ago I was wondering if my dog should be allowed to eat several plant on the street, because they may be bad for health, so I asked my close friend for a piece of advice. His response saved me from so much troubles! Maybe, the page would be usefull for you too, guys.


----------

