[DaneMama]

Poop. Murph had slight diarrhea tonight. Humph. That doesn't give me a whole lot of hope!

You need to give the adjustment time, at least a month. If you switched him to any other food you'd probably see diarrhea too. Just take it slow and have patience. In time he will get used to the new food. And if he doesn't have normal consistent stools after a few weeks then I would start to lose faith.

 

[meggels]

You need to give the adjustment time, at least a month. If you switched him to any other food you'd probably see diarrhea too. Just take it slow and have patience. In time he will get used to the new food. And if he doesn't have normal consistent stools after a few weeks then I would start to lose faith.

Thank you for the reassurance. It was just a bummer because while I was transitioning Murph from Premium Edge to Acana, his poops got better and better the more Acana he was given.

 

[PUNKem733]

I think *some* quality grains are desirable and as already said, your dog will let you know.

PDS

You are so wrong it hurts. Your dog doesn't need to tell you anything, grains are not a biologically appropriate food for a dog. That is the key word "biologically", their bodies are not meant or made to process grains. These are carnivores, not omnivores.

I NEVER recommend any food with grain.

 

[ghostrunner]

You are so wrong it hurts. Your dog doesn't need to tell you anything, grains are not a biologically appropriate food for a dog. That is the key word "biologically", their bodies are not meant or made to process grains. These are carnivores, not omnivores.

First off, I feed my dogs grain-free foods.

Help me to understand something, from a scientific viewpoint. I raise this because the idea that grains are not "biologically" appropriate for a dog has the qualities of religion: lots of belief, but little proof. I'm not aware of any properly controlled clinical study demonstrating that grains are not biologically appropriate for canines. Sure, dogs may not husk rice in the wild, but that means nothing. My understanding, based on normal mammalian physiology, is that dogs possess the standard panel of carbohydrate digestive enzymes (amylase, etc). And that, like humans, they cannot digest cellulose (corn, etc.). That suggests that they should have no problems handling grains such as brown rice.

But how do you go move from this to the claim that they are biologically inappropriate? I hear the point that grains are responsible for more allergies in dogs, but that could simply be the law of large numbers (more dogs out there on corn/wheat based foods than on pea starch foods).

So why, you may ask, do I feed my dogs Orijen? Simply because I think their overall quality is the highest, and I agree with the Company's ideals.

 

[pdsway]

Some good discussion here, thanks to everyone for their input and (most importantly) for being civil about it!

I will certainly consider grain-free kibble but as others said, be careful of the fillers in either case.

 

[kevin bradley]

If anyone comes up w/ a diet that makes Harry(my soul mate buddy) live to 100, I'll liquidate my 401k for it....

I'd give anything to have him w/ me forever.:smile:

 

[JayJayisme]

First off, I feed my dogs grain-free foods.

Help me to understand something, from a scientific viewpoint. I raise this because the idea that grains are not "biologically" appropriate for a dog has the qualities of religion: lots of belief, but little proof. I'm not aware of any properly controlled clinical study demonstrating that grains are not biologically appropriate for canines. Sure, dogs may not husk rice in the wild, but that means nothing. My understanding, based on normal mammalian physiology, is that dogs possess the standard panel of carbohydrate digestive enzymes (amylase, etc). And that, like humans, they cannot digest cellulose (corn, etc.). That suggests that they should have no problems handling grains such as brown rice.

But how do you go move from this to the claim that they are biologically inappropriate? I hear the point that grains are responsible for more allergies in dogs, but that could simply be the law of large numbers (more dogs out there on corn/wheat based foods than on pea starch foods).

So why, you may ask, do I feed my dogs Orijen? Simply because I think their overall quality is the highest, and I agree with the Company's ideals.

First of all, you have to accept that dogs are carnivores. If you are of the false belief that dogs are omnivores, you will never be convinced that high-starch food is inappropriate for a dog. Carb-laden, high-starch food includes grains, potatoes, etc.

Once you accept that dogs are carnivores, it's time to move on to their physiology to understand why grains and dogs don't mix well.

Unlike omnivores, which begin the digestion process in their mouths, carnivores do NOT produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches.

Amylase in saliva is produced in omnivores and herbivores, not carnivores, and is essential in the proper digestion of starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter.

Since this process doesn't start during the mastication process in dogs, like it does in a human or a horse, it has to start in the stomach which places the burden to produce large amounts of the necessary enzymes (primarily amylase) entirely on the dog's pancreas.

Feeding carnivores an omnivore diet taxes the pancreas, placing extra strain on it as it's forced to work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food. It's not unlike the mechanism in humans where a frequent intake of high glycemic carbs pushes the pancreas to produce an unusual amount of insulin to control the glucose spike. This goes on and on, day in and day out, until the pancreas is simply worn out and then, bang, you have diabetes.

So yes, technically, a dog CAN deal with grains that are processed heavily enough to be digested in it's short digestive tract. But it is a very inefficient process that repeatedly taxes the dog's system, potentially leading to health problems.

Granted, like people, some dogs do fine and live long, healthy lives with no obvious ill effects of crap diets. But why take the chance? If you add to this all the allergy issues that grains cause (it's practically an epidemic), obesity, and diabetes in dogs, it seems clear that nature is trying to tell those of us willing to listen that in general, grains and dogs don't mix. You may disagree but sadly, once you find out you were wrong, it's too late to reverse the damage caused by inappropriate diet.

If they could, your dogs would thank you for feeding them high quality, low carb, grain-free food, even if you don't know all the reasons why this is so important to their quality of life and longevity.

 

[ghostrunner]

Thank you for that very helpful reply. I have a few quick points:

1. While it is true that canids do not produce salivary amylase, they do--as you point out--produce quite high levels of pancreatic amylase. I'm coming at this question as a human/mammalian cardiac physiologist/physician, not a GI specialist. But assuming that the enzyme is evolutionarily similar in dogs as in other mammals, amlyase is produced by the exocrine pancreas, not the endocrine. I am not aware of any known disorder in mammals where strain on the exocrine pancreas leads to pancreatic failure. If you can point me to the literature there, I would be interested. Clearly, beta cell dysfunction and Langerhans cell activity are affected by the glycemic index, but I that's only on the endocrine side.

2. That's important because your argument, if true, suggests that dogs should not just stay away from grains, but all carbohydrates wholesale. That doesn't seem to be supported by any scientific research of which I am aware. Put another way, the "grains are bad because dogs can't digest them" proves too much.

3. If dogs are like most mammals, salivary amylase and mastication are a small part of the digestive process. True, they can't start the process, but dogs produce amylase at much higher levels, measured in U/ml, than other mammals (cats, humans, etc) suggesting less chance of pancreatic "burnout." And again, this argument, if true, would suggest that dogs should eat no carbs at all.

4. Because of my interest in the subject, I had our library order a copy of a very nice book called "Nutrient Requirements in Dogs and Cats" published in 2006 by the NRC. From what I can gather, it summarizes and cites the known clinical and cellular research on cat/dog nutrition and digestion. This book, and the studies it cites, are my main source of information here. Page 55, in particular, lists some very interesting recent laboratory studies--none of which were funded by dog food companies--concerning the digestibility of starches and, in particular, grains. One quick quote: "Ileal and total tract digestibilities of raw rice and corn starch...are greater than 90%, but digestibilities of raw tapioca and potato starches are only 65 and 0% respectively." (Schlineman et al, 1989).

 

[RawFedDogs]

1. While it is true that canids do not produce salivary amylase, they do--as you point out--produce quite high levels of pancreatic amylase.

Where do you get that information? My information has always said that there is very little pancreatic amylase in a canid's body.

2. That's important because your argument, if true, suggests that dogs should not just stay away from grains, but all carbohydrates wholesale.

Thats a true statement. Dogs have no dietary need for carbs in any form. My 10yo Great Dane, Abby, hasn't eaten any carbs in over 8 years. My 5yo Great Dane, Thor, has never eaten carbs in his life. If they were necessary, you would think there would be some kind of sign of some dietary defficiency somewhere, wouldn't you?

That doesn't seem to be supported by any scientific research of which I am aware. Put another way, the "grains are bad because dogs can't digest them" proves too much.

They can't digest them in their natural state for several reasons, mainly jaw structure and dentation as well as lack of proper enzymes. If they can't digest carbs in their natural state, that would tell me that they don't need them.

3. If dogs are like most mammals, salivary amylase and mastication are a small part of the digestive process.

I think that is a semi-true statement. Mastication and salivary amylase are a small part of the digestive process in CARNIVORES. In herbivores and omnivores, its a much larger part.

True, they can't start the process, but dogs produce amylase at much higher levels, measured in U/ml, than other mammals (cats, humans, etc) suggesting less chance of pancreatic "burnout." And again, this argument, if true, would suggest that dogs should eat no carbs at all.

Again, yes you are correct, they shouldn't.

4. Because of my interest in the subject, I had our library order a copy of a very nice book called "Nutrient Requirements in Dogs and Cats" published in 2006 by the NRC. From what I can gather, it summarizes and cites the known clinical and cellular research on cat/dog nutrition and digestion.

Eventhough this book uses the false premise that dogs are omnivores, no where in the book can you find a minimum daily reqirement nor an average daily requirement for carbs in a dogs diet. It lists the requirements for every nutrient except carbohydrates.

Just the fact that the authors of the books think dogs are omnivores is enough to discredit the whole book. Like the dog food companies, they are selling an omnivore diet for a carnivore. You can't turn a carnivore into an omnivore simply by feeding it an omnivore diet.

 

[kevin bradley]

Raw,

How do you guys afford RAW feeding? Hamburg and even the cheapest chicken parts at the grocery would seem to cost far more than even Orijen/Acana. Am I missing something?

Do you guys feed your guys the entire bones and everything? Aren't there choking issues with chicken bones?

Forgive my naive questions...I'm literally clueless on what you guys do.

 

[ghostrunner]

1. To clarify, the "authors" of the book I'm referencing are a panel of about 25 scientists commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences of the NIH to review the comprehensive scientific literature on dog and cat nutritional physiology. Nowhere in the book do the authors take any position on the question of whether dogs are carnivores. The book takes no position on anything--it is a textbook summarizing the most recent science on dog/cat physiology: nothing more, nothing less. The book uses no premises -- it just collects the best known science.

2. Dogs have quite high amylase levels--higher than humans, and three times higher than cats. See page 55 of the above-mentioned textbook. Why do dogs have such high amylase levels if they don't "need" carbs? This says nothing of the dozen other carbohydrate enzymes they have (oligosaccharideases, maltase, etc).

3. The effects of carbohydrate restriction are not often clinically observable. But other groups of which I am aware have studied striated cardiac muscle deprived of all carbohydrates and observed a significant breakdown in their intercalated disc function. In humans, this is observed as cardiac arrhythmia, which I have seen in patients who put themselves on ridiculous carb-free diets for long periods of time. As to your dogs not showing any symptoms, as I've said, they are often sub-clinical.

4. As to the argument that their dentition doesn't allow them to digest carbs, that doesn't square anatomically. True, their mandibles and teeth may have evolved to tear meat, but it doesn't preclude them from eating potato or rice.

Thoughts??

 

[ziggy29]

4. As to the argument that their dentition doesn't allow them to digest carbs, that doesn't square anatomically. True, their mandibles and teeth may have evolved to tear meat, but it doesn't preclude them from eating potato or rice.

If you believe that the jaws and teeth of an animal evolved in a way that maximizes their ability to process the type of food it should eat for best health and vitality -- in other words, if you believe that evolution tends to favor the adaptations most conducive to maximum fitness and survivability in the wild -- then it *does* make sense. I tend to think that if there were some biological and/or evolutionary advantage for canines to eat grains in addition to meat and bones, the canine teeth and jaws would have evolved toward a more omnivorous form, such as the ones found in humans. Such an adaptation would have favored them over hundreds of thousands of years (or more) of natural selection.

It doesn't mean they *can't* eat some grains or other plant matter, but it probably does mean that there is no evolutionary/survival advantage for doing so. In other words, it's highly unlikely that they are better off with a grain-inclusive diet than a grain-free diet. The animal world hasn't generally evolved in a way that promotes the survival of less-advantageous adaptations.

It's not much different than some of the processed junk many humans eat. A little of it once in a while isn't likely too harmful and a steady diet of it probably won't kill you in the near future, but you *will* feel the difference in terms of how well you feel, how much energy you have, and perhaps what conditions (diabetes, heart disease, cancer) you may increase the chances of suffering years or decades down the road. We didn't develop to derive our optimal nutrition from stuff loaded with processed flours and sugars, excessive sodium, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup or alcohol, to name a few. Yet most of us do have the ability to process these *in appropriately moderate quantities* without any significant negative health effects. Same with a dog, I think; they *can* eat some grains, but Darwin suggests to us there's very likely no species-based advantage to be doing so.

 

[kevin bradley]

Ziggy,

Does much of your stance predicate itself on the belief that evolution is perfect and anything we do(like inserting grain into a carnivores diet) to change it will be disruptive?

 

[ziggy29]

Ziggy,

Does much of your stance predicate itself on the belief that evolution is perfect and anything we do(like inserting grain into a carnivores diet) to change it will be disruptive?

No, not necessarily disruptive and evolution doesn't always guarantee that what was *once* best for a species will always be best for it (or else there would be no evolutionary use for adaptation).

It's just that when our research -- our nutrition science -- is sometimes contradictory, inconclusive or even biased, I'd sooner look at the anatomy and physiology of a species to get a pretty good clue about what the species has evolved to eat. Because the chances are very good that whatever genetic variations or mutations there are over time, the ones that provide the optimal fitness for survival are the ones which will tend endure.

And even if the anatomy of a canine jaw and mouth isn't 100% proof that an all-meat diet MUST be the superior diet, I consider it significantly better evidence than any other research into canine nutrition I've seen. In other words, I trust the evolution of the canine mouth and digestive system more than I trust any current research, much of which is often contradictory. On the other hand, I see nothing in the canine anatomy that contradicts the idea that canines evolved to be carnivorous.

 

[kevin bradley]

thats fair.

I've always thought that YES, our Dogs/Wolves have seemed to evolve on a pretty strict diet of meat/protein.

I've just always wondered to myself...."yeah, so what?" IE-maybe other options would improve their life and evolutionary occurrences maybe weren't in their best interest.

Interesting. Very much.

 

[DaneMama]

Raw,

How do you guys afford RAW feeding? Hamburg and even the cheapest chicken parts at the grocery would seem to cost far more than even Orijen/Acana. Am I missing something?

Do you guys feed your guys the entire bones and everything? Aren't there choking issues with chicken bones?

Forgive my naive questions...I'm literally clueless on what you guys do.

Here is a post I made a while back....

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/raw-feeding/1648-breakdown-cost.html

If getting started on RAW, breaking down your cost of meat and freezer space is VERY important especially if you have big dogs or multiple dogs.

Here is our breakdown for our dogs (we don't include the cost of the cat...she gets the scraps LOL)

Finding a freezer is easier than you think, free ones are posted on craigslist all the time so I would say that cost is neglegible.

Here is a guide for determining how much freezer space you will need:

28 cu. ft. of freezer space for ~500 lbs. of meat
14 cu. ft. of freezer space for ~250 lbs. of meat
7 c u. ft. of freezer space for ~125 lbs. of meat

We have an upright freezer that is about 24 cu. ft. and we routinely buy ~300# of meat at a time. We could fit much more considering we package our meat into containers that hold 2-3 days worth of meat.

300# of meat usually will last about a month and a half or two.

We have 4 dogs that weigh:

Shiloh: 65
Emmy: 65
Akasha (currently growing): 65
Bailey: 115

We buy meat that is on average (adding up all the costs of the different meats we buy and dividing by the # of meats) 60-75 cents per pound

Shiloh, Emmy and Akasha all cost us ~ $1 per day to feed

Bailey costs us ~$2 per day to feed

The meats we buy on a regular basis:

chicken backs, turkey necks, beef heart, pork ribs, pork roasts, whole tilapia, pollock fillets, lamb ribs, beef liver, chicken liver, beef kidneys, etc.

This breakdown does not include all the free meat that we have found to come in contact with (trust me its out there, ya just gotta know where and how to look for it

So, looking at the breakdown, is RAW worth it???

 

[RawFedDogs]

How do you guys afford RAW feeding?

Feeding raw is cheaper than feeding a good quality kibble. Much cheaper than feeding a top of the line kibble.

Hamburg and even the cheapest chicken parts at the grocery would seem to cost far more than even Orijen/Acana. Am I missing something?

I think so. I rarely feed hamburger. I get chicken backs for around $.33/lb. I get chicken leg quarters for around $.50/lb. I get beef heart for less than $1/lb. I do pay around $1.75 to $1.90/lb for Boston Butt pork roast on sale but they only eat one of those a week. I figured up one time that I spend around $.77/lb for all the raw meats I feed. I don't have the figures close to me but I don't think you can buy top notch kibble for much less than $1/lb, sometimes more.

Most of us save money by buying our food in bulk. I buy chicken parts in 40# cases. Most turkey parts come in 30# cases. I have bought beef heart in 60# cases. I have large dogs. They eat a lot.

Do you guys feed your guys the entire bones and everything?

Yes, I hand my dogs a chicken quarter, or chicken back and they eat it all, bones and all. It's the same with the other animal parts I feed.

Aren't there choking issues with chicken bones?

Not w/ raw bones. Only cooked ones. Wolves/dogs have eaten bones for millions of years. They know how to do it and they are well equipped to do it.

 

[Foodie]

To answer the OP question, I believe the best grain inclusive food is Eagle Pack Power Formula a super premium food. It's a very clean food with a simple formula and has very high quality ingredients. I fed grain free foods since their introduction and after some extensive research I recently changed to this food because of excess shedding on grain free foods. I'm ecstatic to say it's working GREAT for us! Grain free is NOT carb free and what dogs really do best on is a low carb food that gets the bulk of it's protein from a good quality meat and without glutens. For those who don't know, corn gluten meal is not a gluten at all! All dry dog foods need carbs, the dog, not so much because energy can be obtained from fats and protein. Carbs are utilized and can be beneficial for a bitch in whelp or a dog that's recovering from an injury.

I put my faith in science and not theories. My well fed dogs have always eaten grass, berries and fruit from my many different fruit trees, tell them they aren't omnivores! For the health of your dogs, quality of ingredients should be the most important factor that one should consider when selecting a dog food, not whether or not it has grains in it. FWIW, potatoes or any member of the nightshade family are not good for a dog with arthritis.

Here's something for those who lack some facts about corn:

Corn (Whole Ground)

Corn is an ideal ingredient when used correctly in a formula. It is 99% digestible, an excellent energy source, and one of the best natural Omega 6 fatty acid sources.

Carbohydrates are used in pet food primarily to provide energy. Energy is required for the central nervous system, normal and high levels of physical activity and is also needed when anabolic activities like gestation, lactation and growth are proceeding at a high rate. With little or no dietary carbohydrates available there is added strain on fat and protein. This extra burden on fats and proteins can cause serious problems at birthing time.(1) Judicious use of carbohydrates in a meat meal based formula, i.e. corn, not listed first on the ingredient panel is a nutritionally sound and healthy use of corn and other quality carbohydrates.

(1) Hypoglycemia prior to whelping, reduced plasma concentrations, reduced number of live births, lethargy, reduced mothering ability, fetal abnormalities, embryo resorption and reduced milk production.

It Is Not A Filler...
While we believe in meat meal based diets, meaning meat meal should be listed first on the ingredient panel, corn makes an important nutritional contribution to the formula, as noted above; fillers, such as wheat mids and peanut hulls, do not.

Rarely Does Corn Cause Allergies...
A complete literature review shows that corn is rarely incriminated as causing allergies. "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition" addresses this twice: "There have been only six confirmed cases of allergy to corn in dogs reported in the veterinary literature out of 253 total cases." "Corn is a nutritionally superior grain compared with others used in pet foods because it contains a balance of nutrients not found in other grains. Corn provides a highly available source of complex carbohydrates and substantial quantities of linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid important for healthy skin. Corn also provides essential amino acids and fiber. In a survey of veterinary dermatologists, corn was not listed among the ingredients most often suspected to cause food allergies. A review of over 200 confirmed canine cases of food allergy in the veterinary literature revealed only three were caused by corn."

A Very Digestible Carbohydrate...
One pet food company that does not have ready access to corn states, rather crudely, that look how corn comes out after we eat corn on the cob and therefore it can't be very digestible. This company knows full well that corn is ground very finely before it is added to the pet food formula. According to "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition", 4th Edition, "Several reports (3) indicate that dogs and cats readily digest starches in commercial pet foods. In studies, dogs were fed foods in which 30 to 57% of the food came from extruded corn, barley, rice or oats. The starch was nearly 100% digested in the small intestine."

It is difficult to do the math because some base numbers are not available, but probably only one dog out of several hundred thousand dogs are likely to be allergic to corn when used correctly in a Super Premium, meat meal-based diet. With an ingredient that quality research shows to be an excellent ingredient, why would you not want to feed it as the carbohydrate component in the diet?

Sources: The information above was drawn from fifteen research studies as listed in Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Edition.

The Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog. Wendy Volhard and her husband, Jack, train dogs and conduct "Camps" on dog training, nutrition, and holistic care. Howell Book House recently published a second edition of "The Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog". Volhard regards carbohydrates as crucial for a dog's health, and utilizes grains as the major provider of carbohydrates.

Eagle Pack Super Premium Pet Foods

 

[RawFedDogs]

Does much of your stance predicate itself on the belief that evolution is perfect and anything we do(like inserting grain into a carnivores diet) to change it will be disruptive?

Inserting grain into a dogs diet is a completely difference premise than evolution. It will have no effect on evolution. However, optimum health cannot be achieved by feeding any animal food that it's body is not equipped ot handle. A dog's body is not equipped to handle grain. Many people argue that a human's body isn't either.

 

[RawFedDogs]

To answer the OP question, I believe the best grain inclusive food is Eagle Pack Power Formula, a super premium food.

Hey Foodie. Welcome to the board. Let me explain a few things to you about dog food and dog food companies. First, "premium", "super premium" and "holistic" are terms with no legal definitions. Any dog food company can call their product any or all of these things regardless of the quality of the ingredients in them. Ol' Roy can declare it's products "Super Premium" if they wish. None of the Eagle Pack foods would meet what a normal person would call "premium". They are all pretty medicore foods on the lower end of the spectrum.

It's a very clean food with a simple formula and has very high quality ingredients.

Words straight from their marketing department.

Carbs are utilized and can be beneficial for a bitch in whelp or a dog that's recovering from an injury.

More words straght from Eagle Pack marketing department.

I put my faith in science and not theories.

Then understand that words you see printed on the web page of a dog food manufacturer are not science. Heck, they aren't even theories. They are sales pitches designed to entice you to buy their products.

My well fed dogs have always eaten grass, berries and fruit from my many different fruit trees, tell them they aren't omnivores!

They aren't omnivores. Dogs eat those things for the same reason we eat cake, ice cream, and candy. For the sugar and the taste. They derive no nutrition from them.

For the health of your dogs, quality of ingredients should be the most important factor that one should consider when selecting a dog food, not whether or not it has grains in it.

Despite what Eagle Pack's marketing department says, corn is a very low quality "food" and is used in dog food as a filler. When you are researching ingredients, look to other places than the dog food companies for your information. Always be wary of information given to you by someone who will make money from the decisions you make based on the information they give you. Get your information from disinterested parties.

FWIW, potatoes or any member of the nightshade family are not good for a dog with arthritis.

They are not good for any dogs.

Here's something for those who lack some facts about corn:

This is promotional material straight from Eagle Pack's web site. It absolutely cannot be believed. Again, the purpose of their web site is to entice you to buy their product. IT IS NOT SCIENCE.