Dog Food Chat banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm seeing that this is turning into a why raw is better than ANY kibble argument. You all know why I don't feed raw and don't advocate it, not to mention that is not appropriate for this forum. Also, fights are being picked where there were none; that's not my thing.
But raw is better than any kibble :wink:

And that is why it comes down to the "raw is better" attitude. I am just seeing if there is someone out there that can convince me otherwise...so far there hasn't been anyone to do so.

Its not an argument at all...its a debate. Bring your side of the story to the table for discussion. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree or that one wins...but at least people bring all that they can give to the debate and try and win.

While it is unfortunate what happened with you and your experience with raw, that doesn't mean that you can't stand up for your side of the debate right? I don't think anyone is asking you to support a raw diet, but rather prove that raw isn't better.

But, I will address two thing: the food pyramid vs. NRC. The food pyramid was made by the government so that any idiot could look at the pretty pictures and eat their real counter parts. The NRC publishes numbers based on multiple studies for use by educated animal nutritionists to formulate the best diet for the animals they need to feed.
So I guess I'm an idiot for following a food pyramid then LOL :tongue:

And, yes, pregnant animals will vary their diet to meet the altered requirements. It's called cravings. Want some ice cream? Calcium. Pickles? Contains several B vitamins. Both are have elevated requirements essential for the development of a prenate.
Cravings? That is a human quality that I do not think applies to animals, because we have the ability to "problem solve." Unless you can find a well documented "cravings study" about other species...I couldn't find any.

Wouldn't you get more calcium and B vitamins by just eating more of a complete and balanced diet? Why eat more ice cream when you can drink a glass of milk or something else without the added sugar and fat? I think the "cravings" part doesn't necessarily come from the need for added nutrients, but more the mother's need for a sweetie :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,550 Posts
I think cravings actually come from the chemicals in our brains that are produced by the foods we eat. So when we stop introducing those chemicals to our brain, it goes through withdrawals, which is why people get addicted to things like sugar and caffeine. Because when we take it away, our brain starts to become deficient in the chemicals it produced when on those foods, so it goes through withdrawals and you crave it. I'm pretty sure I've heard that, but I could just be pulling all of that out of my a$$ :biggrin:

I also think the food pyramid is crap, though I tend to follow it more than I'd like because carbohydrates are just so much easier to get ahold of than healthier foods when you're on your feet at work all day. Ugh!

That being said, I don't think it makes much sense to say that people shouldn't get their nutrition in a pill, but then they advocate feeding kibble to dogs to make sure it's "perfectly balanced." I'm sure if they sold "people chow" people would love to eat that too, out of pure laziness. In fact, I would be stoked if they sold a "weight control" food for humans that actually worked, but I'm sure it wouldn't actually work (soylent green, anyone?) and I'd get sick of it after a very short amount of time.

If people really say they love their dogs and want to feed them as well as they feed the rest of their family, why wouldn't that include feeding them whole, wholesome, REAL food?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't get why if someone's asking for input on a kibble/wet brand, the raw people come and lecture about raw.
Where did we start lecturing about raw? The last thing that I remember me saying is that if vitamins and minerals have to be calculated down the the tenth of a percentage point, then maybe looking to what is natural is best. No where did I say "Feed raw...raw is best."

I actually stated that Suz was right and started a new thread in the raw forum because this thread was taking on a quality of "raw is best"...

Some people don't want to feed their dog raw. My dog eats processed raw (and sometimes kibble she her tummy grumbles late at night, at probably at the kennel but she hasn't been since changing). Processed raw works for us. Kibble works for some dogs. My ex had a rescued Great Dane that lived for 16 (yes, 16) years and ate commercial dog food - not even the expensive kibble. I got bitched at in the raw forum b/c Lucy didn't eat for 4 days when raw meet was her only option until I offered her Primal.
I understand that some people don't want to feed raw, and I respect that.

Where does anyone in this thread say to the OP or anywhere in the discussion of "Everyone needs to feed raw!" ?

I am glad that you feed what you think is best for your dog. That is awesome. But its not something that we agree on what is best. That is it. It is what it is. I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

On a side note: 4 days isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. I don't know the whole, or don't remember, the extent of why your dog didn't eat (ie if you were just switching or what)...but that doesn't mean he/she is not capable of eating PMR. It just means she is headstrong and thick skinned. You getting "b*tched" at was probably you just hearing things that you didn't want to hear, but that doesn't mean they were necessarily incorrect.

Just because a GD lived to be 16 on crap kibble doesn't mean its something that should be recommended for all dogs. Just FYI, there are dogs that live into their 20's on Kibbles n' Bits. Does that make it the best diet out there or appropriate? Nope. Did it work for that one dog? Apparently, but who's to say if that dog lived to the fullest extent for that 20 some odd year life span.

Primal has been great for my dog - she hated the raw bones and meat. But she jumps for her primal. And my main reason for switching was her creatnine level in her blood. All the raw people said "it probably won't lower her creatnine level, but it is better for her". Got my results of her latest test, and her creatnine is now well within healthy range (below 1.8) from 2.1 (unhealthy, esp for a 2 year old). And that's 'commercial' raw food. I'm very, very pleased.
I am glad that your dog is doing well. But she would have the same, if not better results, on a PMR diet. Giving her Primal was just you giving into her not eating what you gave her to eat. No dog will starve itself when presented with something edible to eat. There are dogs that will resort to eating nothing but bark to survive if they have to. But the picky eater discussion can be taken to another thread as well, if you want to learn more about that.

Different food works for different dogs. Would you tell the guy with the 16 year old Dane that she'd have lived to 17 with raw? no - because you don't know for sure.
This statement is changing this whole discussion completely. This is going into the discussion of whether dogs are carnivores or omnivores...and that should be taken to another thread.

Like I said earlier...just because 1 dog lived to a ripe old age on crap kibble, does not in any way make it appropriate. If you feel so strongly about this one Dane that lived so long on it, why not feed it?

And most likely I would tell the guy to switch to raw. There is no one that I wouldn't try and enlighten or educate. Its up to the other person to have an open mind about it. And I have come to find out that not everyone is open-minded about raw and how it needs to be done correctly.

If someone asks for a kibble rec, the way the raw people here lecture, it just turns people off even instead of encouraging them to explore it themselves.
I never recommended raw in the beginning. I started posting in this forum because I thought that it was important to address the Ca/P ratios in the different "formulas" and the possible disastrous outcomes. And from my experience the people who come here to learn about raw are usually happy with the results are are willing to learn anything and everything they can about it.


I'll also add that the meat people are feeding their dogs is often meat they wouldn't eat themselves. I wouldn't feed my dog Tysons, Purdue, or other huge commercially produced meat. It's bad for humans, it's bad for dogs. So I hope all the raw advocates are encouraging organic/free range (including grass fed beef) meat for their dogs. That's what they'd eat in the wild, after all.
Sure, I have no interest in eating a chicken back or turkey neck, beef heart or pork kidney. But I have no reservations about giving HUMAN grade meat to my dogs. I guess if I were to go with the majority of what people think is best to feed their dogs it would be highly processed, cooked nuggets of surprise meat.

Rules governing organic processes and free range meats are a total joke in this country. To me they mean absolutely nothing, because the rules only apply to certain parts of the feed animal's lifespan. And giving my animals fresh, unprocessed meats is far better than anything else that is available on the market today. I am not about to pay the out of this world prices to pay for meats delivered to this country from Europe. I can't afford that, so I do what I think is best and I have yet to be convinced that what I do is not best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
If you know who produces your proteins, you know if they're "organic" and eat a proper diet to be healthy proteins.

I wouldn't feed anyone commercial grade meat (I've cooked meat for people even if I don't eat).

The whole "why do raw feeders even reply on kibble threads" was the point. I've read it before that people are made to feel bad - even if unintentional - when someone they don't know online lectures them about how much better one way is or another.

And regardless of what a poster 'hears' from responders, it comes across as rude and "I know better". What if someone told you that your kids were unhealthy when you were feeding them what you thought was right? I mean, it's the same thing.

My dog didn't eat for 4 days. She snubbed the chicken quarters I went to almost every store to look for. We did what was suggested (and what I know to do when a dog won't eat). Take it away. Put it back. If your kid didn't eat for 4 days, what would YOU do? You'd feed it what it wanted, right? No, wait, people here would probably just not feed their kids until they ate what was given to them? PACK LEADER FOR THE WIN! Same with religion - you won't get me to covert to your religion by making me feel bad about the one I current have.

I don't believe in packs, I believe in families. Our dogs have been bred for tens of thousands of years and do not act like wolves. They aren't wolves. If I had 10 dogs, it might be different and maybe she'd eat the chicken quarter if there was a threat that her food would be eaten by another dog (I'm not getting another dog just to find out). And yes, we tried a bunch more times to give her hunks of animal.

My post was simply a culmination of what I've read here. People come legitimately looking for information, and many of them leave frustrated and made to feel bad. Kibble feeders don't hang around the raw forum and tell you you're hurting your dog, so why do others do the opposite? I don't get what that accomplishes other than making some people feel better for feeding their dog something.

and I don't care if Primal isn't as good as what you're dog's eating. My dog is happy and healthy. I'm not breeding her (which I'd be happy to flame people for doing, but reserve my opinions), so it's not like her stock needs to be preserved. She's happy and a bit healthier. That's what matters.

but whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
If you know who produces your proteins, you know if they're "organic" and eat a proper diet to be healthy proteins.
PROVE to me that organic meat in the US is better than other commercial meat. The whole "organic" movement is a HUGE industry in the US but unfortunately the "rules" aren't strict enough to really provide better food


I wouldn't feed anyone commercial grade meat (I've cooked meat for people even if I don't eat).
Good for you. I would and chose to feed commercial grade meat to my beautiful girlfriend, our FAMILY of 4 dogs and a cat, anyone that comes over to my house to eat. I'm very comfortable with that choice.


The whole "why do raw feeders even reply on kibble threads" was the point.
You need to go back and read what posts were made then. You have a chip on your shoulder with the raw feeders on here so you're not reading clearly. They posted because they had something to contribute to the discussion regardless of their food of choice.

My dog didn't eat for 4 days. If your kid didn't eat for 4 days, what would YOU do? You'd feed it what it wanted, right?
Nope, I'd figure out another protein source we had that would be eaten. We tried to get all 4 of our girls to eat fish. 2 of them went 4-5 days without eating but still refused to eat fish. We decided that fish wasn't a protein source they wanted and moved on. No big deal. They don't get offered fish now. They still eat chicken, pork, beef, elk, antelope, deer, etc... lots of other options

No, wait, people here would probably just not feed their kids until they ate what was given to them?
Yes and no... after a certain amount of time I'd move on to another protein source.

PACK LEADER FOR THE WIN! Same with religion - you won't get me to covert to your religion by making me feel bad about the one I current have.
You don't have to call it being the pack leader. Nobody tried to convert you by making you feel bad.

I don't believe in packs, I believe in families.
We do too. Our dogs are our kids BUT we still establish leadership. Call it being the "pack leader" or being the "adult/parent". Regardless of how you chose to label it your dogs need you to be the dominant one in the house.


My post was simply a culmination of what I've read here. People come legitimately looking for information, and many of them leave frustrated and made to feel bad.
I don't know what posts you're reading. I see LOTS of good information shared about kibble without a raw agenda ever being pushed.

Kibble feeders don't hang around the raw forum and tell you you're hurting your dog,
They're welcome to IF they can give me something concrete to consider. There's nothing to back up "raw hurts your dogs" and PLENTY to back up "raw is the best thing for your dogs". I'm open to discussion so any time a kibble feeder wants to discuss why kibble is great, I say bring it! Bring me some evidence. Bring me some studies (not backed by industry science)


and I don't care if Primal isn't as good as what you're dog's eating.
Nobody is judging you for feeding Primal. Good for you if that's the kibble you want to feed and you feel you dog is doing well on it.


I know of another forum you'd be a perfect fit on... Maybe you should sign up at Dog Forums and Pet Forum - Dog Breeds and Pet News They tend to have more of the attitude you're after...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I had 6 raw-fed cats get very sick feeding raw and lost one kitten. The 2 non-raw fed did not get sick. Coincidence? The meat did not appear rancid or "bad." We believe it was a contamination of some sort on the meat leading to some mean diarrhea in the cats. The kitten died of dehydration, despite being on IV.

That is why I don't feed raw and never will again. No one should be told that they are doing their dogs harm by not feeding them a diet with real risks that some people are not comfortable with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
I had 6 raw-fed cats get very sick feeding raw and lost one kitten. The 2 non-raw fed did not get sick. Coincidence? The meat did not appear rancid or "bad." We believe it was a contamination of some sort on the meat leading to some mean diarrhea in the cats. The kitten died of dehydration, despite being on IV.
Did you take the meat in for testing to figure out what happened? If not then you really can't place the blame on a raw diet.

If one of my dogs or cat had died and I suspected it was something I'd fed them you'd be damn sure I'd have everything tested to find out the REAL cause... :confused:

What about all of the risks associated with feeding a processed food pill? What about the billions of $$ the vet industry makes every year off of preventable "diseases" caused by the food that people feed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
I am glad that your dog is doing well. But she would have the same, if not better results, on a PMR diet.
See, this is something I don't understand. My dog gets kibble in the mornings and homecooked in the evenings. I really don't get how raw can enhance his quality of life. So many people have asked me to switch, WHY? He's got a beautiful soft coat, great bright white eyes, strong white teeth (thanks to the antlers I give him), and is full of energy and acts like a big clown. He's had bloodwork done and he's perfectly normal. I just don't see how he can be healthier on a PMR diet. I too have yet to be convinced...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Many relatively new raw feeders and most all vets when they find out the animal is on a raw diet, will quickly blame the diet for any health problem no matter how unrelated to diet it is. It never fails. I have seen it time and time again. The diet is almost never the cause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
See, this is something I don't understand. My dog gets kibble in the mornings and homecooked in the evenings. I really don't get how raw can enhance his quality of life. So many people have asked me to switch, WHY? He's got a beautiful soft coat, great bright white eyes, strong white teeth (thanks to the antlers I give him), and is full of energy and acts like a big clown. He's had bloodwork done and he's perfectly normal. I just don't see how he can be healthier on a PMR diet. I too have yet to be convinced...
He is still young and full of life. Younger dogs that are outwardly healthy like Aspen are not going to show a big difference in body condition and energy. The long term effects of a raw diet are where it works best. When he gets older, he will age differently depending on his diet. He might be one of the wonder dogs that lives a long healthy life no matter what he eats. But there is no way to know that until the time comes. So to me, the PMR diet is mostly for preventative measures because it provides the right nutrition for dogs to live on to the fullest extent possible IMO. I am in no way saying what you feed Aspen is bad, not at all. But just saying that you may not see the results of how raw works until later in life.

Both of my dogs were young and outwardly healthy when I switched them. The only difference I see in them now, is that they don't have that "dog" smell to them anymore and their teeth are sparkly clean. They both still have smooth, soft and shiney coats just like they did when they were puppies. But I know that I will see the benefits down the road a lot more than I am seeing them now.

Dogs that show a huge improvement after the switch are allergy prone dogs, diabetic dogs, IBS dogs, older dogs, etc. They are the ones that you will see their hair growing back, or their teeth nice and clean or their diabetes disappear or become filled with life again.

So the benefits of the switch are obvious in some cases and not obvious in others.

But you need to feed whatever makes you comfortable.

I had 6 raw-fed cats get very sick feeding raw and lost one kitten. The 2 non-raw fed did not get sick. Coincidence? The meat did not appear rancid or "bad." We believe it was a contamination of some sort on the meat leading to some mean diarrhea in the cats. The kitten died of dehydration, despite being on IV.

That is why I don't feed raw and never will again. No one should be told that they are doing their dogs harm by not feeding them a diet with real risks that some people are not comfortable with.
No one is telling you that what you feed is horrible. Just expressing opinions on what is best. We "raw feeders" ask you to put information in about why you think kibble is great and appropriate, and we do the same.

I was just looking to continue the conversation that we were having in the last thread, but moved it here just in case it got to the "raw" train.

I was hoping that you would have more to put in about the pet food industry and how they are trying to produce foods that closely emulate what dogs should have.

The whole "why do raw feeders even reply on kibble threads" was the point. I've read it before that people are made to feel bad - even if unintentional - when someone they don't know online lectures them about how much better one way is or another.
So...are we just not allowed to post up in the kibble forum? Even if we are not pushing raw? That doesn't seem fair at all. Kibble feeders post in the raw forum too?

And I really am sorry that this thread was such a threat to others. That is definitely not my intent. Just looking for a good debate, but oh well. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
I read the whole "3 month old weimaraner" thread on the Dry and Canned Dog Food forum and I didn't come away from it thinking anyone was pushing PMR over kibble. Admittedly, I have seen examples of raw feeding indoctrination crop up on the kibble forum before, and have been assaulted by it myself in the past, but I fail to see any raw agenda in this particular thread.

All I see is the mention of PMR as an example of a baseline "natural" diet model to compare the nutritional values of with commercial dog food. Nobody said, "you need to feed raw". Only that if you want to compare the nutritional content and value of commercial dog food to something, it should be compared to what canines have evolved to eat in the wild. Not to what people eat, or horses eat, or unicorns eat (that one cracked me up Linsey! :biggrin:).

The nutritional value of raw meat, bones, and organs is the model to which all other DOG foods should be compared, whether you believe in raw feeding, choose to feed raw, or not. The closer your commercial pet food is NUTRITIONALLY to PRM, the better it is for your dog. I don't think any of the raw feeders would disagree with that even though they would PREFER to see you feed raw. Even RFD admitted once when I pushed him for an answer that if he were forced to feed his dogs kibble, it would be either EVO or Orijen because of the high meat content (protein & fat), the lack of grains, and the very small amount of carbs. In other words, even though he wouldn't feed commercial food to his dogs, he recognized that there is a difference between commercial dog foods and that these two closest mimic the dog's natural diet. That's good advice for someone who doesn't want to feed raw.

Just because raw isn't for everyone doesn't mean it isn't the most nutritionally appropriate diet for a dog when the dog's health is the ONLY factor. That's not to say that there aren't healthy kibble-fed dogs, or that kibble fed dogs don't live long lives. I'm sure there are good, healthy kibble diets. Still, the NUTRITIONAL MODEL that all canine diets should be compared to is PRM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
And I really am sorry that this thread was such a threat to others. That is definitely not my intent. Just looking for a good debate, but oh well. :rolleyes:
I in no way see this thread as a threat. I love a good debate...!! :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Many relatively new raw feeders and most all vets when they find out the animal is on a raw diet, will quickly blame the diet for any health problem no matter how unrelated to diet it is. It never fails. I have seen it time and time again. The diet is almost never the cause.
Odd, my vet did the opposite when she called with my dog's latest blood test. She said "raw food can do wonders for a dog, so I'm happy this is the case and you should stick with it assuming the results are the same in another 4 months". She told me to be sure to properly clean up after my dog poops b/c it ca carry more salmonella than kibble eater poop (obviously not a problem since we seem to be one of the few owners that picks up after our dog here).

I've yet to receive push back from a vet, instead the opposite. I'm sure others are different, but I've been surprised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
PROVE to me that organic meat in the US is better than other commercial meat. The whole "organic" movement is a HUGE industry in the US but unfortunately the "rules" aren't strict enough to really provide better food.
After reading the omnivores dilemma, I will never feed someone I love meat from the supermarket that doesn't clearly label what farm it's from or what it's fed. Even though I live a city, I go to farmers markets for all the meat I feed visitors (which is rare, as most people I know don't consume it for a variety of reasons). The impact your decision to eat commercial meat has on the animals, your health, and the environment is considerable - heck, to the farming industry that might as well not exist in this country anymore. If you're OK eating an unhealthy Tyson's chicken (one that can't stand up it's got such big breasts, so it lies in its own crap for days until it's killed), then hey - good. The increase in eColi and other potentially lethal bacteria in such meat and the produce that grows where said meat is farmed is scary. Would you want your dog to lie in its own crap for days? If no, what makes your animal more deserving of a decent life than the meat you stuff into your face?

The organic label costs more, but there are plenty of farmers and other food producers that practice organic farming without the USDA label (and thus the cost).

It's not fun being lectured on your families diet, is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
After reading the omnivores dilemma, I will never feed someone I love meat from the supermarket that doesn't clearly label what farm it's from or what it's fed. Even though I live a city, I go to farmers markets for all the meat I feed visitors (which is rare, as most people I know don't consume it for a variety of reasons). The impact your decision to eat commercial meat has on the animals, your health, and the environment is considerable - heck, to the farming industry that might as well not exist in this country anymore. If you're OK eating an unhealthy Tyson's chicken (one that can't stand up it's got such big breasts, so it lies in its own crap for days until it's killed), then hey - good. The increase in eColi and other potentially lethal bacteria in such meat and the produce that grows where said meat is farmed is scary. Would you want your dog to lie in its own crap for days? If no, what makes your animal more deserving of a decent life than the meat you stuff into your face?

The organic label costs more, but there are plenty of farmers and other food producers that practice organic farming without the USDA label (and thus the cost).

It's not fun being lectured on your families diet, is it?
LOL, if that's what you call a lecture you'd better keep trying.... :wink: I have pretty thick skin so if you want to offend me you'd better bring more :tongue:

Do I want the meat I eat to come from abused animals? NO

Does buying organic guarantee that the meat I'm eating comes from non-abused animals? NO

Until there are stricter guidelines on the "organic" label, you're simply buying into marketing... The idea behind "organic" is great but in the US it's greatly mismanaged


It's funny you want to throw around the "lecture" word. I went back and read the posts you're so hurt about and I don't see WHY you've got a chip on your shoulder because of them. People offered advice that you didn't want to hear, that's it. Nobody lectured you or said you were a bad person for the choices you've made...


Here's some "food" for thought

The very worst thing about organic farming requires the use of a word that doomsaying environmentalists have practically trademarked: It's not sustainable. Few activities are as wasteful as organic farming. Its yields are about half of what conventional farmers expect at harvest time. Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his agricultural innovations, has said, "You couldn't feed more than 4 billion people" on an all-organic diet.
If organic-food consumers think they're making a political statement when they eat, they're correct: They're declaring themselves to be not only friends of population control, but also enemies of environmental conservation. About half the world's land area that isn't covered with ice or sand is devoted to food production. Modern farming techniques have enabled this limited supply to produce increasing quantities of food. Yields have fattened so much in the last few decades that people refer to this phenomenon as the "Green Revolution," a term that has nothing to do with enviro-greenies and everything to do with improvements in breeding, fertilization, and irrigation. Yet even greater challenges lie ahead, because demographers predict that world population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. "The key is to produce more food," says Alex Avery of CGFI. "Growing more per acre leaves more land for nature." The alternative is to chop down rainforests so that we may dine on organic soybeans.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2334-busting-the-myth-of-organic-food
A study by the Center for Global Food Issues found that although organic foods make up about 1 percent of America's diet, they also account for about 8 percent of confirmed E. coli cases.
Organic food products also suffer from more than eight times as many recalls as conventional ones. Some of this problem would go away if organic farmers used synthetic sprays -- but this, too, is off limits. Conventional wisdom says that we should avoid food that's been drenched in herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. Half a century ago, there was some truth in this: Sprays were primitive and left behind chemical deposits that often survived all the way to the dinner table. Today's sprays, however, are largely biodegradable. They do their job in the field and quickly break down into harmless molecules.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2334-busting-the-myth-of-organic-food
What's more, advances in biotechnology have reduced the need to spray. About one-third of America's corn crop is now genetically modified. This corn includes a special gene that produces a natural toxin that's safe for every living creature to eat except caterpillars with alkaline guts, such as the European corn borer, a moth larva that can ravage whole harvests. This kind of biotech innovation has helped farmers reduce their reliance on pesticides by about 50 million pounds per year.

Organic farmers, of course, don't benefit from any of this. But they do have some recourse against the bugs, weeds, and fungi that can devastate a crop: They spray their plants with "natural" pesticides. These are less effective than synthetic ones and they're certainly no safer. In rat tests, rotenone -- an insecticide extracted from the roots of tropical plants -- has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The Environmental Protection Agency has described pyrethrum, another natural bug killer, as a human carcinogen. Everything is lethal in massive quantities, of course, and it takes huge doses of pyrethrum to pose a health hazard. Still, the typical organic farmer has to douse his crops with it as many as seven times to have the same effect as one or two applications of a synthetic compound based on the same ingredients. Then there's one of the natural fungicides preferred by organic coffee growers in Guatemala: fermented urine. Think about that the next time you're tempted to order the "special brew" at your local organic java hut.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2334-busting-the-myth-of-organic-food
As food companies scramble to find enough organically grown ingredients, they are inevitably forsaking the pastoral ethos that has defined the organic lifestyle. For some companies, it means keeping thousands of organic cows on industrial-scale feedlots. For others, the scarcity of organic ingredients means looking as far afield as China, Sierra Leone, and Brazil -- places where standards may be hard to enforce, workers' wages and living conditions are a worry, and, say critics, increased farmland sometimes comes at a cost to the environment.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
After reading the omnivores dilemma, I will never feed someone I love meat from the supermarket that doesn't clearly label what farm it's from or what it's fed. Even though I live a city, I go to farmers markets for all the meat I feed visitors (which is rare, as most people I know don't consume it for a variety of reasons). The impact your decision to eat commercial meat has on the animals, your health, and the environment is considerable - heck, to the farming industry that might as well not exist in this country anymore. If you're OK eating an unhealthy Tyson's chicken (one that can't stand up it's got such big breasts, so it lies in its own crap for days until it's killed), then hey - good. The increase in eColi and other potentially lethal bacteria in such meat and the produce that grows where said meat is farmed is scary. Would you want your dog to lie in its own crap for days? If no, what makes your animal more deserving of a decent life than the meat you stuff into your face?

The organic label costs more, but there are plenty of farmers and other food producers that practice organic farming without the USDA label (and thus the cost).

It's not fun being lectured on your families diet, is it?
Its not being lectured. You are telling us your opinion...not a set rule that everyone has to follow. It is your opinion to be vegetarian and to buy meats only from the farmers market. Telling people your opinion is not lecturing us on feeding habits. This is what a debate is all about.

Where can we find a organic/free range locally grown meat farmer that can supply us with at least 100 pounds of all varieties of meat for the same cost as mass produced meat?

My guess is that there is none that can compete with the prices of our meat distributor.

I just cannot afford to pay for organic meats right now. So I do what I think is the next best thing. I am happily feeding my dogs mass produced meat for a cheap price. If I didn't do this I would be feeding them low grade kibble, which is packed full of the same mass produced meat...but just processed and degraded even more.

If I could feed organic meats bought from local farmers...you bet your bottom dollar I would. But I just can't. I can't even afford to feed myself organic meats (I do on occasion)...so I do the next best thing. And no...the option of vegetarianism is out for me.

Plus there are just too many people in this country to feed to not use mass production of things. It sucks, really sucks...but that is the way it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
And no...the option of vegetarianism is out for me.
maybe you just haven't tried enough variety. Maybe someone should drop a plate of tofu in front of you, and if you don't eat it, you go without food until you finally give in.

I mean, don't be so picky. It's just food, and in the wild you'd eat what's in front of you, even tree bark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Odd, my vet did the opposite when she called with my dog's latest blood test. She said "raw food can do wonders for a dog, so I'm happy this is the case and you should stick with it assuming the results are the same in another 4 months". She told me to be sure to properly clean up after my dog poops b/c it ca carry more salmonella than kibble eater poop (obviously not a problem since we seem to be one of the few owners that picks up after our dog here).

I've yet to receive push back from a vet, instead the opposite. I'm sure others are different, but I've been surprised.
Heck, my vet feeds and recommend purina dog chow
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top