Dog Food Chat banner
121 - 140 of 159 Posts
G

·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
539 Posts
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.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,780 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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.

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.

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 ;)



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.



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 :D). 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.

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?


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 ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Sorry, this was so large that I had to break this into 2 posts to get it all in.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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 :/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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!! :(((((
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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! :p , 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!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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%!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
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.
 
121 - 140 of 159 Posts
Top