[meggels]

Oh and Abbie is on a grain inclusive food from Hi-Tek and is doing amazing on that too. Smaller stools than on a grain free and her coat looks beautiful.

Why can't we all be a little more open minded????

 

[mythbuster]

And there are tons of people out there, sadly, who dont feed raw properly(80%meat, 10%bone, 10%organs half being liver) but the thing is, you cant lump us all in together.
WE feed a proper mix, so, I like Natalie would ask you....why dont you as us about raw, rather then just judging. We have, nearly all, tried the kibble/canned thing, MANY of us also have done different types of home-made, BARF, etc....but the true way to feed a pet carnivore is 80/10/10.

I'm not judging. Someone asked if I supported raw and why or why not. So I answered. But until there are peer reviewed studies that show 80/10/10 is the best way to feed a dog, I'm not convinced, my client was very confident that what she was doing was right. I don't know what proportions she used, but it worked great for her until her dog's leg broke.

THIS thread is supposed to be about finding the best diet for a bulldog though, and we are WAYYYYY off that track.

 

[DogLuver]

THIS thread is supposed to be about finding the best diet for a bulldog though, and we are WAYYYYY off that track.

You're right, but this is good educational information, even if it went off track, it's good conversation.

I'm not judging mythbuster, or The Expert, I'm glad you are both here, we can all learn a lot from you both.

But...
I don't understand all of this. Please bare with me, I'm really trying to understand. Why is it so much more complex to feed a dog than a human? I don't measure the nutrients/vitamins and percentages in every single thing that I eat? I know that apples, oranges, broccoli, whole wheat, lean meats, amongst other health choice foods are good for me, based on how I feel, look, my energy, alongside with some education of coarse. But why when it comes to dogs we need to analyze every little nutrition digestibility and so forth?

It just seems more common sense that we know what we're supposed to eat naturally (fruits/vegetables from the earth, chemical free, as natural as possible), and we (assume) we know what dogs are supposed to eat based on the way their bodies are built, what they would eat in the wild (ideally), and what produces positive results. We cannot be analyzing every nutrient and digestibility of every single thing we eat, why would we have to do that with dogs?

For me, I wouldn't choose a processed food that has been backed up by nutrient analysis, studies and science, over an all natural diet (meaning not processed, but whole foods)...so why would it make sense to feed a dog a processed food that's backed up by nutrient analysis, science and studies, over an all natural (raw meat, like what they would eat in the wild, a diet that with experience people see great results with)?

I'm not trying to knock educated people, or scientific studies...we need that kind of stuff, but sometimes I think going back to the way nature intended is what's best, and often produces wonderful natural results. With science, we can clone animals, and create all kinds of un-natural things in this world...I'm not entirely sure if it's bettering this world or taking it all further away from nature and the way mother nature intended for things to be. This may be a little whish-washy and "tree-hugger-ish" of me, but that's the way I see it, and JMO of coarse. The way living organisms work is a miracle in itself, and regardless of science and human knowledge, living bodies are machines that were designed to work with nature...I think the further we get from a natural diet, the further we get from natural health. Can humans really create something that is better than what nature can provide?

Not to get all religious on anyone (I'm not religious, just believe in the way we were created/evolved) but sometimes we should put more trust in the way things were MEANT to be, how nature would be without analyzing every detail, and not try to improve what doesn't need to be improved. I feel like feeding RAW is an idea that is getting people back to the way nature intended. As time went on, companies realized they could make an "all in one" kibble for dogs, and people bought the idea, and became brainwashed that all dogs need "dog food" meaning kibble, but as with humans we realized that growing our own gardens, killing our own cows, and farming our own grains is best, people have started "going back to what's natural" and I feel that is a great change??? Same thing I see with dog food...Dog kibble is human made, and unnatural no matter which food you choose and why. I dunno?? I could be very wrong. Just me trying to understand and rationalize all of this

 

[meggels]

Raw feeders (myself included) always say the results are in their dog. That they see the proof.


But I look at my hound, and I hear it from others all the time about her, and I see a beautiful, shiny, lean, muscular, energetic dog. She's never had a health issue. My vet didn't even know that I owned her, because she's never there.

I look at Murph eating his premade raw meals, with his supplements, and I am beginning to see the same thing finally after such a long struggle.


So those are the results I see. And those are the results that I'm going to be happy with. This is why it bothers me when we say there is only one way to achieve a positive end result. Because I'm taking two pretty different paths, and am seeing similar results.

 

[Liz]

Personally you can feed your dogs whatever you think is right but have a youngish or in prime dog look good is not all that hard. Many people think their dog is healthy when they are really just young and can process the stuff we give them. My dogs looked amazing, won shows, competed well, but when they got old is when I saw what the effects of their diet truly were. My dogs got old and got sick. Their bodies could no longer repair the damage done by their diet and we fed quality kibble and canned. My oldest collies (from the same lines) will be showing Veteran's class this Spring at 13. There is a world of difference. P.S. My mentors at the beginning of feeding raw have fed their dogs raw meat, bone and organ for over 28 years and a few others from that group are over the 20 year mark. I value that experience and knowledge.

 

[Jacksons Mom]

I just browsed through this thread, don't have time to read the whole thing, but I have to say... it's really annoying how just because some posters, whether new or what, have a different opinion (and are stating their opinions/facts in a very mature reasonable way, it's not like they are like "omgzz feeding raw is disgusting, it's the WORST!1!!!1!" They are presenting their opinion with their own facts and views, etc, and then they are labeled as being "brain washed people". That's just dumb. There are some very valid points being made in this thread and simply because some think one way is the best for all dogs, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case.

 

[The Expert]

I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others.

One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what were you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know

One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!

Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrients are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added.

The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased productivity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product.

I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)

 

[whiteleo]

I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others.

One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what where you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know

One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!

Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrietns are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added.

The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased producvitity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product.

I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)

I used just about every high quality kibble out there, grain inclusive too, and spent probably about $8,000 in vet bills trying to figure out why my dog had the worst runny poo ever....Once I switched to real food (RAW) it was an amazing difference, no more vet bills and no more nasty runny poo, unless of course I feed too much liver or organ. Blood work is done once a year and is perfect, teeth are perfect, so much that the vet asked me what I give. We don't discuss my diet choice for my dogs but I love my vet....

 

[Liz]

I have raised/bred and showed collies and shelties for over 20 years. We started out with grocery store kibble, then moved though most kibbles upgrading from Purina, to Eukanuba, to Kirkland, Nature's Domain, Wellness, Acana, Origen, then to canned food which was too expensive in my situations, the home cooked for a short period of time and now Prey Model Raw. I have seen the differences int he generations of my own dogs. I have kept similar lines of course bringing in out crosses. My current dogs have a longer and healthier lifespan since switching to raw and not vaccinating. My pups have incredible muscle tone, happy satisfied temperments. I have never had pups like this and my old guy is still not on anything for arthritis and will be shown in Spring. He moves like a dream and appears much younger than his age. We will never go back to processed food. My family also eats pretty close to a Paleo diet and I see increased health and immune system with them.

 

[Huginn]

I 100% agree with meggels, and people are the same. Some (usually due to genetics) can do better on certain ingredients compared to others.

One thing I would likse to ask everyone is what where you feeding before you switched? For how long? What else did you try, and how long was it fed for? I just ask this for my knowledge, as when I talk to people I am seeing the same trends. So I just like to know

One thing I am hoping to see come to the pet food industry is nutrigenetics (or nutrigenomics), this will really settle out all agruments!

Now just in a jist when you eat certain foods genes turn off and some turn on. They can be good or bad, it depends. So with this knowledge we can determinet he good ones and cater a diet to this. This allows the animal to reach their full genetic potential. Now before you think this is some crazy science experiement and think GMO. IT IS NOT! These are genes we have, they normally come on or off, so by looking we can find what foods and more specifically what nutrietns are required to do good things and which ones do bad things. We can cater their food to this. Nothing crazy added.

The livestock industry is seeing amazing results with this!! They are seeing increased producvitity, fertility, decreased disease (your immune system will be much healthier being fed this way) as well as increased quality in product.

I truly think if this were to start being used we would truly be able to end this debate as results speak for themselves If you have any questions I can lead you to some good agriculture sites on it (and please do not think of this as mad scientiest, it really isnt!)

I learned a little about this in my last genetics class, I found it really interesting (but only had an introductory lecture on it) and would be very interested in reading more about it. If you could link me please? I love gene expression and am hoping to make some of my electives next year upper level genetics classes.

 

[meggels]

I just browsed through this thread, don't have time to read the whole thing, but I have to say... it's really annoying how just because some posters, whether new or what, have a different opinion (and are stating their opinions/facts in a very mature reasonable way, it's not like they are like "omgzz feeding raw is disgusting, it's the WORST!1!!!1!" They are presenting their opinion with their own facts and views, etc, and then they are labeled as being "brain washed people". That's just dumb. There are some very valid points being made in this thread and simply because some think one way is the best for all dogs, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case.

Agree.

Multiple people have stated throughout my 2 years or so on here that raw feeders have become pushy and taken over the forum, and the raw feeders never seem to see it. But I think perhaps this is why the kibble portion of this forum is much less active. People are scared away. It's fine to have your opinion, but this thread is a pretty good example that sometimes kibble feeders can't just have their space to discuss their feeding method without being bashed.

 

[Scarlett_O']

Oh and Abbie is on a grain inclusive food from Hi-Tek and is doing amazing on that too. Smaller stools than on a grain free and her coat looks beautiful.

Why can't we all be a little more open minded????

Well that's a different story then when you said she looked and felt horrid on grain inclusive food, but that you only noticed it when she was in class and around other dogs.....




But I will once again say, no one can knock one way of doing it without experiencing it all, for a decent period of time. I've fed pretty much just like Liz, but I've also done homemade and premade "raw" (actually BARF)......and the ONLY dogs who I have ever had who look, feel and smell AMAZING, who can NOT be guess in age are my PMRaw fed ones! They are the only ones who can go MANY MANY months without NEEDING a bath, etc.

But whatever, you guys aren't ever going to relize it until you have experienced it for your selves.

 

[meggels]

Well that's a different story then when you said she looked and felt horrid on grain inclusive food, but that you only noticed it when she was in class and around other dogs.....




But I will once again say, no one can knock one way of doing it without experiencing it all, for a decent period of time. I've fed pretty much just like Liz, but I've also done homemade and premade "raw" (actually BARF)......and the ONLY dogs who I have ever had who look, feel and smell AMAZING, who can NOT be guess in age are my PMRaw fed ones! They are the only ones who can go MANY MANY months without NEEDING a bath, etc.

But whatever, you guys aren't ever going to relize it until you have experienced it for your selves.

It is a different story because that was a Natural Balance formula where the first ingredient was brown rice This has a first ingredient of chicken meal from a different company. Nice try at taking a dig at me though


My dogs only get a few baths a year, unless Abbie gets incredibly muddy up at the farm. My dogs smell great. A lot of people can get great results on different ways of feeding.

I have one friend who swears by a certain brand of food (that no one has probably even heard of) that is minimally processed, she has seen the plant, and truly believes in this company. She's fed raw, she's fed the premium kibbles, and this is what she swears by. Her dogs are GORGEOUS, healthy (healthier than a lot of littermates), and she even mentions all the time when we discuss food that they don't "smell like dogs". She is just as passionate about this particular food as you are about PMR. So does that mean she's wrong because it's not your way of doing things? Seriously?



It's fine to really be passionate about your feeding method, but when you get downright arrogant, judgmental and rude, then it is crossing a line. If a lot of the raw feeders don't care about making this a forum that is welcoming to ALL feeders, then you can keep acting that way, I'm sure you'll get the results you want.

 

[Unosmom]

I agree, its never my goal to put down any kibble feeders, I fed kibble for 5 years with no real health issues (aside from gunky teeth and big poos), I dont care what anyone else feeds as long as they make an informed decision based on unbiased research. I cant stand people that go " science diet is the best because my vet says so and I trust him" or "beneful is the best because of those commercials showing veggies and meat falling from the sky".. sorry, but I'd have to call you ignorant in that regard.

 

[lucky]

IMO the raw feeders here have mostly seen/experienced great results with their dogs so they are just trying to share this experience so that others consider trying it for their dogs. I don't really see any judging going on, not really. Kibble has loads of backing and the way I see it raw feeders here are just backing raw and why shouldn't they.

 

[meggels]

I've seen name calling and some of Abi's posts have been edited apparently by mod's because of name calling????? That's judging.

 

[mythbuster]

Okay, I have to back up a little to try to answer a question, it took a long time to type and the thread kept going while I was doing it.......

But...
I don't understand all of this. Please bare with me, I'm really trying to understand. Why is it so much more complex to feed a dog than a human? I don't measure the nutrients/vitamins and percentages in every single thing that I eat? I know that apples, oranges, broccoli, whole wheat, lean meats, amongst other health choice foods are good for me, based on how I feel, look, my energy, alongside with some education of coarse. But why when it comes to dogs we need to analyze every little nutrition digestibility and so forth?

It just seems more common sense that we know what we're supposed to eat naturally (fruits/vegetables from the earth, chemical free, as natural as possible), and we (assume) we know what dogs are supposed to eat based on the way their bodies are built, what they would eat in the wild (ideally), and what produces positive results. We cannot be analyzing every nutrient and digestibility of every single thing we eat, why would we have to do that with dogs?

Humans have a higher GIT weight:body weight ratio compared to dogs (meaning they have more guts for digestion). Intestinal transit time is doubled in humans compared to dogs (there is more time for digestion). Humans have 10,000,000 diversified bacteria/g while dogs have 10,000 targeted bacteria/g. What does this mean? It means people change what they eat (almost) every day and every meal. They are able to do this because they have very long digestive tracts and a lot of bacteria in their intestine adapted to breaking down a wide variety of food. People eat a variety of foods and likely day to day consume significant nutrient excesses and deficiencies, but over time those level out. Dogs do not have the digestive diversity required to be efficient doing this. They are built to eat the same thing every day. They have a decreased ability to adjust to changes in diet. Further, if presented with poorly digestible nutrients, their bodies have less ability to utilize the nutrition in their food. It is very important to provide highly digestible nutrients to maximize the health of dogs, and important to do so in a consistent manner.

For me, I wouldn't choose a processed food that has been backed up by nutrient analysis, studies and science, over an all natural diet (meaning not processed, but whole foods)...so why would it make sense to feed a dog a processed food that's backed up by nutrient analysis, science and studies, over an all natural (raw meat, like what they would eat in the wild, a diet that with experience people see great results with)?

It’s important to remember... processed ‘people’ food is not the same as processed pet food. For us, processed food is produced for convenience, cost, and taste. As a general rule, nutrition is not even a consideration (or at least is bottom of the list) when producing Michelina’s or McDonald’s or Pizza Pockets. In pet food (at least for some companies) the priority is to provide optimal nutrition, and the formulas are based on what research shows the requirements of pets to be. Some companies lump all dogs into the same group, claiming the nutrient requirements of a Pug=German Shepherd=Whippet=English Mastiff=wolf. These companies play on the consumer’s emotions; making them feel like if they are not treating their dog like it’s distant ancestor, they are not doing the best for their beloved pet. They have no scientific data to back up what they claim, and rely on marketing to sell their products. Sadly, this is very effective. Other companies actually do research to look for similarities and differences between different sizes and breeds. They test their products and compare to other products to see if they can improve on what has already been done. They assess the nutrient requirements of dogs (and cats), based on clinical trials, feedback from veterinarians, breeders, and consumers, and emerging research. In my opinion, the number of companies doing this can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare, so when I hear someone say "I've tried every diet out there, from bottom of the barrel to top of the line", it doesn't mean anything to me. The majority of diets that are currently considered 'top of the line' are not anything I would feed my pets.

I'm not trying to knock educated people, or scientific studies...we need that kind of stuff, but sometimes I think going back to the way nature intended is what's best, and often produces wonderful natural results. With science, we can clone animals, and create all kinds of un-natural things in this world...I'm not entirely sure if it's bettering this world or taking it all further away from nature and the way mother nature intended for things to be. This may be a little whish-washy and "tree-hugger-ish" of me, but that's the way I see it, and JMO of coarse. The way living organisms work is a miracle in itself, and regardless of science and human knowledge, living bodies are machines that were designed to work with nature...I think the further we get from a natural diet, the further we get from natural health. Can humans really create something that is better than what nature can provide?

Not to get all religious on anyone (I'm not religious, just believe in the way we were created/evolved) but sometimes we should put more trust in the way things were MEANT to be, how nature would be without analyzing every detail, and not try to improve what doesn't need to be improved. I feel like feeding RAW is an idea that is getting people back to the way nature intended. As time went on, companies realized they could make an "all in one" kibble for dogs, and people bought the idea, and became brainwashed that all dogs need "dog food" meaning kibble, but as with humans we realized that growing our own gardens, killing our own cows, and farming our own grains is best, people have started "going back to what's natural" and I feel that is a great change??? Same thing I see with dog food...Dog kibble is human made, and unnatural no matter which food you choose and why. I dunno?? I could be very wrong. Just me trying to understand and rationalize all of this

Dogs are not a natural species, they are a species that was selectively chosen, bred, and changed by man. They are the most varied mammal on earth, ranging in size from 2lbs to 200lbs. The GIT weight:body weight ratio of a small dog is 2x’s that of a large dog. What does that translate to? Small dogs are more prone to constipation, large dogs are more prone to diarrhea. I don’t think it’s news to anyone that the smaller the dog the more likely there is to be severe dental disease. Large dogs have joint issues, they tear ACLs and develop arthritis. Different breeds are prone to different diseases ranging from heart, joint, skin, eye, etc...... These are all issues that can be addressed, at least partially, with nutrition. How do we know that a wolf’s diet is the best approach for a species we created that is more varied than any other species on earth? We don’t. The only way to determine one approach is better than another is to do research and do trials to assess results. Yup, a lot of these studies are done by food companies, but the results are real. And a lot of research is being done OUTSIDE of food companies as well.

As 'Expert' said; it is EXPENSIVE to do research. So these companies that are constantly innovating and doing research and offering new solutions? They are pumping millions of dollars into finding the best nutritional answers for our pets, instead of throwing money into marketing or following the 'status quo'.

 

[DogLuver]

Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.

This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section .

 

[lucky]

Aren't the digestive systems of dogs and wolves practically the same?? See, thats enough for me. I see PMR as a natural diet, one that wolves would eat so ultimately one that my dog should eat.

 

[lucky]

Lets not start an argument about arguing lol.

This is the dry food/kibble section. RAW feeders have the right to give their reasoning and proof of why RAW feeding is great....in the RAW section .

posted the same time, sorry. I wasn't deliberately ignoring your post