Dog Food Chat banner

141 - 158 of 158 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,780 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.
objective finding, that which you see, hear, smell, and can touch and multiply those same objective findings IS a scientific study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
84 Posts
Aside from process dog foods, what are some of the preferable food for dogs? Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
84 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.
is anyone had answered this question? Am curious too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
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".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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.
 
141 - 158 of 158 Posts
Top