Dog Food Chat banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all,

First, I'm new here and have read a lot of threads over the last few days. I have two puppies, a Shepard mix (9 months old) and a Daschund/Cocker mix (10 months old). One is a rescue and one is a shelter pup and I love 'em both.

I've been experimenting with food and have run into some obstacles. I started with Innova Puppy dry and both dogs had bad gas and diarrhea no matter how much or little I fed them. Yes, I transitioned them slowly from their previous food to a new food. Nothing against Innova, on paper it's great food and I know a lot of dogs respond well to it. Mine didn't, in particular my Shepard mix.

When the Innova didn't work out, I started adding some Beneful puppy to their food (just because I wasn't sure what the next move should be so I bought a little as interim food) and the more they ate, the less gas and loose stool problem I saw. But I knew that wasn't a permanent solution.

So now I have them on Wellness Super 5 Mix "Just for Puppy". It's okay. They don't LOVE it, they like it and the gas is gone but the occasional loose stools make an appearance.

I also feed them gently boiled, unseasoned beef and chicken meat from time to time and some treats (Innova or Vitality biscuits mostly). I've done this since day 1 with them so that has been constant. But I'm still seeing loose stools now and then, and diarrhea from time to time, especially in the Shepard mix.

Now here's where it gets weird. At separate times, both dogs have contracted giardia, most likely from our wonderful local dog park. Both times, my vet put the afflicted dog on Metronidazole and gave me some Hill's Prescription Diet i/d canned dog food (6 cans) and told me to feed that to the afflicted dog as it was "easy to digest".

Okay, this was before I read about Science Diet and clearly understood the poor regard most dog people hold for Hill's products. All I know is that both times, I gave most of the food to the sick dog and a little to the other just to keep it from feeling left out and from raiding the sick dog's food bowl. So they were both getting some at both times during these giardia infestations.

Amazingly, I've never seen my dogs so energetic and playful and with such perfect, soft (but not runny) stools. The first time I thought it was a fluke. But the most recent time, I saw the same thing in both dogs as long as they were eating this food.

Everyone says Science Diet is crap, and I've read that Prescription Diet isn't much different than their "over the counter" Science Diet version, but the dogs love it and seem like they have a new level of vitality on it. When I stop feeding it to them, they kind of slow down and the intermittent diarrhea returns.

I don't want to hear from the raw food proponents. That is not for me at this point. I am interested in hearing from people who have very objective reasons for liking or not liking Hill's dog food, and their reasons why. I want to feed my dogs high quality food but at the same time, I can't argue with the results I see in them when they eat this Hill's stuff. I'm not sure what to do here. Any insight is appreciated.

BTW, both dogs are giardia free now and eating the dry Wellness puppy food daily. They are much better on this than the Innova, but not as energetic and playful as when they were both eating the Hill's stuff. I'm baffled.

Thanks.

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
I am interested in hearing from people who have very objective reasons for liking or not liking Hill's dog food, and their reasons why. I want to feed my dogs high quality food but at the same time, I can't argue with the results I see in them when they eat this Hill's stuff. I'm not sure what to do here. Any insight is appreciated.
Thats easy. Just look at the ingredients. With many of the Hill's products, corn is the first ingredient. Corn is an indigestable filler that is inappropriate food for a carnivore. They all also contain powdered cellulose which is a fancy name for sawdust. They also contain dried beet pulp which is used to artificially keep stools solid and contains sugar for energy. Many of their foods also contain preservatives that are known to cause cancer.

To feed your dog a high quality food, at least as high a quality as you can get with kibble, you need to feed a food that has a high meat content and no grains. The more meat, the better. Meat is what dogs are designed to digest.

If your dogs have soft stools on Innova and not on Hill's, its more than likely because of the beet pulp in Hill's which is masking a symptom of a possible underlying digestive problem. There is nothing that is particularly easy to digest in Hill's products. Quite the opposite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
keep trying different foods, I reccomend emailing different companies for samples, my dog prefers grain free foods taste wise over regular, his favorite right now is Acana provincial and he loves Orijen, but little too calorie dense.

I've never used wellness myself, except for the Core line, which he seems to like, but not as much as orijen/acana.

If you dogs prefer canned to kibble, mix in a tablespoon with dry food, wellness canned is a pretty good line of food, I also like innova evo.

email taste of the wild for samples, theyre pretty generous when it comes to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
I would reccomend Panacur if your dogs get giardia again. It is a much better product than the Metron antibiotic.

I feed one of dogs Pedigree for most of her life. She wouldn't eat the "better" quality dog food. She lived to be over 13 years old.

In my experience, some dogs will not eat what we think is the best kibble for them. Through trial and error, you'll find something they like. I would try sample packs to see what they gravitate towards. I know Natural Balance has samples and is a good kibble. There are others but when I was searching, my dogs liked the Natural Balance - they also liked the Orijen but my money tree defoliated!

Good luck!

I have transitioned to raw now and have not had any issues. Should you ever consider that, talk to RFD. Hehe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for all the replies. I guess I should have included the ingredient list for the particular food my vet provided because while it has ground whole-grain corn, it is definitely NOT the first ingredient on the list. Discounting the water that is listed first, corn is 4th on the list. Not that I want to feed my dogs corn. The premium dry foods I have chosen for them are corn-free which was intentional on my part.

Prescription Diet i/d® Canine
For the Nutritional Management of Dogs with Gastrointestinal Disorders

Ingredients

Water, Egg Product, Turkey, Rice, Ground Whole Grain Corn, Pork Liver, Soy Fiber, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Iodized Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Taurine, Thiamine Mononitrate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Riboflavin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Sodium Selenite, Folic Acid.

I don't see any "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp" although I have no idea what "Egg Product" is but I'm disappointed to see salt so high on the list. But at the end of the day, this ingredient list doesn't look as sinister as some of the Hill's foes I've encountered would want you to think.

I took a look at the ingredients for a comparable Science Diet canned food and, again, while corn is there, it is 4th on the list if you discount the water. And again, I see no "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp". Frankly, "Meat By-Products" are a deal-breaker for me in dog food but overall this doesn't look as bad as I thought it would be from just reading some of the SD hate-mail I've seen.

Science Diet Adult Advanced Fitness Savory Chicken Entrée

Ingredients

Water, Chicken, Liver, Cracked Pearled Barley, Ground Whole Grain Corn, Meat By-Products, Soybean Meal, Dried Whey, Chicken Liver Flavor, Soybean Oil, Calcium Carbonate, Iron Oxide, Choline Chloride, Iodized Salt, Vitamin E Supplement, Magnesium Oxide, Potassium Chloride, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite.

Let me state now that I don't work for Hill's or have anything to do with them or any pet food company other than being a consumer and I'm not waving the Hill's flag here. I'm just curious as to why my dogs seem to react so positively to feeding on this stuff, and why SD has such a bad rap when, clearly, the ingredients in these foods is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff on the shelf at your local WalMart.

Everything is going to change for the dogs since they are going to pass the one-year mark soon which is when I'll start looking into a good adult dry food. I've given them samples of both Artemis Fresh Mix and Dogswell Vitality Chicken & Oats which they both liked but both REALLY preferred the Artemis so I may transition them to that in a few months and see what happens.

But for now, while they are still pups, I need to figure out the best food for them, and for the sake of simplicity for me, one they both like and can tolerate well. Unosmom's suggestion of a little wet mixed into the dry might be a good idea. I'll go over to my local premium pet food place today and see what they have in Wellness canned food.

Thanks all!

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Thanks for all the replies. I guess I should have included the ingredient list for the particular food my vet provided because while it has ground whole-grain corn, it is definitely NOT the first ingredient on the list.
OK, I didn't notice you were talking about canned food. I was describing SD kibble. Water will be the first ingredient in any canned food because canned food is about 70% water. ANY dog food with corn anywhere on this list is bad. There is nothing good about corn in a dog food.

I don't see any "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp" although I have no idea what "Egg Product" is but I'm disappointed to see salt so high on the list.
Again cellulose and beet pulp will be in the kibbles. I have looked for years for a good understandable explanation of what egg product is but have never been able to find it anywhere other than dog food company promotional material and I just don't trust that source.

Frankly, "Meat By-Products" are a deal-breaker for me in dog food but overall this doesn't look as bad as I thought it would be from just reading some of the SD hate-mail I've seen.
The greatest majority of people by far feed kibble and rarely if ever feed canned. Look at the ingredient list on SD kibble. Most people never ever read canned food info. Meat by-products aren't as bad as a lot of people think. There is good protein in them. It's mainly and esthetic thing.


I'm just curious as to why my dogs seem to react so positively to feeding on this stuff, and why SD has such a bad rap when, clearly, the ingredients in these foods is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff on the shelf at your local WalMart.
Again you are looking at canned which almost no one feeds anymore except maybe as a supplement to kibble meals. The SD kibbles are terrible. The only place you can find worse stuff is in Walmart.

But for now, while they are still pups, I need to figure out the best food for them, and for the sake of simplicity for me, one they both like and can tolerate well.
One thing you haven't figured out yet is that there is no disernable difference between puppy food and adult food and senior food. These are marketing gimmicks to make you think the food was formulated specially for your dog. Many people never feed puppy food or senior foods. If you look at ingredients lists, they will have the same ingredients with maybe two ingredients switched in order. Again, I'm talking about kibble.

Good luck in your quest. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
OK, I didn't notice you were talking about canned food. I was describing SD kibble. Water will be the first ingredient in any canned food because canned food is about 70% water. ANY dog food with corn anywhere on this list is bad. There is nothing good about corn in a dog food.

Again cellulose and beet pulp will be in the kibbles. I have looked for years for a good understandable explanation of what egg product is but have never been able to find it anywhere other than dog food company promotional material and I just don't trust that source.
Well I did clearly state that I was referring to Prescription Diet canned food in the first post. To clarify, I normally feed them dry kibble but my vet provided canned Prescription Diet i/d each time one of them contracted giardia.

The greatest majority of people by far feed kibble and rarely if ever feed canned. Look at the ingredient list on SD kibble. Most people never ever read canned food info. Meat by-products aren't as bad as a lot of people think. There is good protein in them. It's mainly and esthetic thing.

Again you are looking at canned which almost no one feeds anymore except maybe as a supplement to kibble meals. The SD kibbles are terrible. The only place you can find worse stuff is in Walmart.
I had no intention of feeding them canned food in the beginning either but I questioned this decision after seeing how well they reacted to this Hill's canned stuff. My beef (forgive the pun) with the term "meat by-products" is that it is an ambiguous term. Of course, some by-products like organ meat are fine for dogs and a great source of protein. But the term is non-specific and could cover a broad range of pure crap that you would never feed your dog if given the choice.

One thing you haven't figured out yet is that there is no disernable difference between puppy food and adult food and senior food. These are marketing gimmicks to make you think the food was formulated specially for your dog.
Uh, well that's not entirely true. For one, if you have a small puppy, the smaller sized kibble in puppy food is easier for them to eat. Aside from that though, while I was researching dry food options for my pups I noticed right away that most high quality puppy food is slightly higher in protein and calories compared to the same manufacturer's adult version of the food. It may be a subtle difference but there is often some difference. Maybe in the supermarket brands it's all a marketing gimmick but I do believe that the premium food manufacturers try to provide a product for puppies that is better suited to their rapid development. Just my opinion based on what I've read from many sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Well I did clearly state that I was referring to Prescription Diet canned food in the first post. To clarify, I normally feed them dry kibble but my vet provided canned Prescription Diet i/d each time one of them contracted giardia.
Yes you did and I missed that part.

My beef (forgive the pun) with the term "meat by-products" is that it is an ambiguous term. Of course, some by-products like organ meat are fine for dogs and a great source of protein. But the term is non-specific and could cover a broad range of pure crap that you would never feed your dog if given the choice.
There is a definate definition as to what by-products are and yes, esthetically they can be very gross but nutritionally, not all that bad. "meat by-products" is something you want to avoid but if it's a named source such as "chicken by-products" don't worry about it. "chicken by-products include any part of the chicken that is not eaten by humans with the exception of feathers. It includes head, eyeballs, brain, intestines, feet, and undeveloped eggs. All these gross parts are pretty nutritious. There are many who argue that named source by-products are preferable to the meat from the same source.

Uh, well that's not entirely true. For one, if you have a small puppy, the smaller sized kibble in puppy food is easier for them to eat.
Yes, what I said is true. If you understand how a dog eats you will see that.

Aside from that though, while I was researching dry food options for my pups I noticed right away that most high quality puppy food is slightly higher in protein and calories compared to the same manufacturer's adult version of the food.
The slightly different levels of protein and calories is a marketing gimmick. Small enough differences not to make any real difference. The proof is in the ingredients list. Study the ingredients list carefully in a regular adult food of a specific brand then look at the puppy food from the same brand. The ingredients will be identical with the exception of 2 items will be reversed in the order ... sometime 2 sets of 2 ingredients will be switched in order. These ingredients will always be right next to each other. In other words maybe the 5th and 6th ingredients will be switched. There will be no other differences.

It may be a subtle difference but there is often some difference.
Just enough difference to be able to label them as different stuff and to convince you that this food was specially designed for your dog.

Maybe in the supermarket brands it's all a marketing gimmick but I do believe that the premium food manufacturers try to provide a product for puppies that is better suited to their rapid development.
Again, thats what they tell you. Thats what they want you to believe. It's a marketing gimmick.

There is no breed that develops faster than my breed, The Great Dane. Dane puppies are around 2lbs at birth and will often reach 100 lbs at 9 months. All knowledgable Dane owners never feed their pups puppy food. They almost always feed them adult food from the time they are weened. Raw feeders feed pups the same diet as adults.

Just my opinion based on what I've read from many sources.
You need to do more reading from different sources. Sounds like you have been reading the dog food manufacturers web sites. Expand your research horizons. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The slightly different levels of protein and calories is a marketing gimmick. Small enough differences not to make any real difference. The proof is in the ingredients list. Study the ingredients list carefully in a regular adult food of a specific brand then look at the puppy food from the same brand. The ingredients will be identical with the exception of 2 items will be reversed in the order ... sometime 2 sets of 2 ingredients will be switched in order. These ingredients will always be right next to each other. In other words maybe the 5th and 6th ingredients will be switched. There will be no other differences.

Just enough difference to be able to label them as different stuff and to convince you that this food was specially designed for your dog.
Why would they bother? All a dog food manufacturer has to do to label a product differently is change the size of the kibble. They don't HAVE to change the caloric or protein content to call it "puppy food". If they change the order (i.e. quantity) of certain ingredients in order to increase the calories and/or protein per ounce of food, that doesn't sound as nefarious as a simple gimmick when they don't even need to bother just to be able to call the product puppy food.

You need to do more reading from different sources. Sounds like you have been reading the dog food manufacturers web sites. Expand your research horizons.
The only thing I read on dog food manufacturer sites and product labels are ingredient lists. I don't read sales copy. All the other information I've read has either been anecdotal experiences people have shared (which is somewhat useless until you see enough of a particular topic to establish a trend) and information about canine nutrition from so-called experts who are not selling dog food. You have to admit that the study and research in this field compared to humans is in its infancy. Hell, most of the medical establishment still doesn't understand human nutrition and its affect on the metabolic system very well so why would the so-called experts know all there is to know about dog nutrition?

Anyway, I appreciate your constructive feedback RFD but really, is there ANY manufactured dog food you think is worth a darned or do you despise them all because you have a raw agenda? Not trying to pick a fight here, it just seems like there is no manufactured dog food on earth that you would recommend so unless I become a disciple of raw, I'll never get any useful information from you. If there is a manufactured wet or dry dog food out there that you think is good quality and beneficial to dogs, I'd love to hear what it is. :wink:

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Why would they bother? All a dog food manufacturer has to do to label a product differently is change the size of the kibble.
As I said, they do it to make you think that the food you are buying is designed specifically for your dog. If you have a puppy, then you assume that puppy food is designed specifically for puppies. Changing ingredients around will automatically change some of the nutritional information. Also, study the ingredients closely. For example protein levels and fat levels are measured as a minimum. They can be more ... a lot more ... and the label still be truthful.

You have to admit that the study and research in this field compared to humans is in its infancy.
It's nonexistent.

Anyway, I appreciate your constructive feedback RFD but really, is there ANY manufactured dog food you think is worth a darned or do you despise them all because you have a raw agenda?
No there is no manufactured (processed) dog food I would recommend over whole raw food, just as there is no processed human food that any nutritionist would recommend over whole food. Whole food is just automatically more nutritious because processing destroys A LOT of nutrients.

Not trying to pick a fight here, it just seems like there is no manufactured dog food on earth that you would recommend so unless I become a disciple of raw, I'll never get any useful information from you.
You're right and you're wrong. There is no manufactured food I would recommend over whole raw food. There are manufactured foods that I think are better, healthier, and more nutritious than others. The average raw feeder knows MUCH more about nutrition and the ingredients in manufactured dog food than the average kibble feeder because we generally have studied them much longer and much closer and understand the marketing stradegies of the pet food industry.

If there is a manufactured wet or dry dog food out there that you think is good quality and beneficial to dogs, I'd love to hear what it is.
If I were forced to feed my dogs kibble, it would be either EVO or Orijen because of the high meat content (protein & fat) and the lack of grains and the very small amount of carbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
RFD,

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points but I thank you for your candor. The funny thing is that your signature quote, "Unnatural diets predispose animals to unnatural outcomes" applies as much to human animals as it does to dogs yet how many people do you know who have entirely natural diets?

For me, this decision of what to feed my dogs is going to be a compromise between nutrition and convenience, not unlike the meals I prepare for myself and my family every day. I try to lean towards optimum nutrition but not if it takes time I don't have to find the perfect food and prepare a 100% natural meal.

I haven't had dogs for quite a few years. The last time I did, there were no "designer" dog foods and few people knew anything about pet nutrition. But I've never lost a dog to anything but old age and every one lived to be at least 16 years old. So while I want to educate myself on the latest and greatest choices in high quality food options for my current dogs, I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over a decision to find a compromise between nutrition and convenience. But I can appreciate your position and desire to share your knowledge and I will probably incorporate some of your practices in my dog's "diet of compromise".

I very much appreciate your insight. Thanks.

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
... yet how many people do you know who have entirely natural diets?
How many do you know that have entirely natural outcomes? Heart attacks, strokes, and cancer are not natural outcomes.

But I've never lost a dog to anything but old age and every one lived to be at least 16 years old. So while I want to educate myself on the latest and greatest choices in high quality food options for my current dogs,
Research indicates that dogs fed a non-commercial diet live an average of 30 months longer than dogs fed commercial diets. So your dogs would have lived even longer if you had only known.

I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over a decision to find a compromise between nutrition and convenience. But I can appreciate your position and desire to share your knowledge and I will probably incorporate some of your practices in my dog's "diet of compromise".
Cool ... i'm sure we'll chat again. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
How many do you know that have entirely natural outcomes? Heart attacks, strokes, and cancer are not natural outcomes.
What? Heart attacks and stroke can be perfectly natural causes of death (outcomes)! Everybody has to die from something. If a healthy 98 year-old man dies and it is determined that "his heart stopped beating", that is categorized as a natural heart attack. There is nothing unnatural about it. Same with strokes. Granted, many people die from heart attacks and stroke that is exacerbated by coronary blockage and other health issues that may be related to diet but to just say heart attacks and stroke are not natural outcomes is an inaccurate generalization.

Research indicates that dogs fed a non-commercial diet live an average of 30 months longer than dogs fed commercial diets. So your dogs would have lived even longer if you had only known.
You're broad-brushing again and your comments are driven by the fact that you clearly don't like commercial dog food. What research and on what kind of food was it conducted? I believe feeding crap food to a dog can shorten its life span but how can you paint such a broad picture using such a specific number (30 months) when there is clearly a difference in the nutrition of junk commercial dog food and quality commercial dog food?

Sorry, I don't buy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
What? Heart attacks and stroke can be perfectly natural causes of death (outcomes)! Everybody has to die from something.

I guess it was a little too broad of a generalazation. I don't consider a healthy heart stopping beating as the same as a heart attack caused by circulatory problems or heart muscle problems. I don't think a stroke will just happen without some physical problem causing it.

You're broad-brushing again and your comments are driven by the fact that you clearly don't like commercial dog food. What research and on what kind of food was it conducted?
You are right. I don't like commercial dog food. It is killing our dogs.

This was proven by 2 Dutch vets who did a 5 year study on dogs who died from non-accidental causes. If I remember correctly their names were Dr. Lippert and Dr. Sappy. They researched what diet the dogs were fed and classified them as either commercial dog food or any other food which would include everything from raw diets, to home cooked food, to table scraps. The dogs feed "home made food" lived an average of 32 months longer than dogs feed commercial kibble or canned dog food. This study took place between 1998 and 2003. There were over 500 dogs in the study.

I believe feeding crap food to a dog can shorten its life span but how can you paint such a broad picture using such a specific number (30 months) when there is clearly a difference in the nutrition of junk commercial dog food and quality commercial dog food?

Sorry, I don't buy it.
You divide them up into 2 classes ... dogs fed commercial food and dogs fed "home made" food. I honestly don't believe there is a whole heck of a lot of difference between the best and worst of kibbles. The ingredients are so highly processed by the time they go into the bag that the ingredients don't make much of a difference. THey are all pretty worthless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
You are right. I don't like commercial dog food. It is killing our dogs.

This was proven by 2 Dutch vets who did a 5 year study on dogs who died from non-accidental causes. If I remember correctly their names were Dr. Lippert and Dr. Sappy. They researched what diet the dogs were fed and classified them as either commercial dog food or any other food which would include everything from raw diets, to home cooked food, to table scraps. The dogs feed "home made food" lived an average of 32 months longer than dogs feed commercial kibble or canned dog food. This study took place between 1998 and 2003. There were over 500 dogs in the study.
Well, I must be an idiot. I read this study with a critical eye and disregarded it as crap science. This study flies in the face of everything this dog food forum is here for because it lumps all commercial dog food into the same category which, it seems, is exactly why all of us are here trying to educate ourselves on the differences between bad dog food and good dog food. The study was conducted by Lippert and Sapy in Belgium between 1998 and 2002. It has only three categories of food, "home made food", "canned industrial food", and a mix of both of these.

I don't know what people in Belgium feed their dogs, especially back in the 5 years starting in 1998. For all we know, it was the kind of food that all of us here are trying to learn to avoid. The study says NOTHING about the TYPE or QUALITY of this "canned industrial food" the animals in the study ate so what use is that for all of us here? I mean, even here in the States, the masses feed their dogs crap like Alpo. So if these 522 dogs in the study represented typical people who buy mass-market dog food, what on earth does that have to do with the smaller segment of the marketplace made up of the kind of people who read this forum, who don't buy mass-market crap food and carefully choose high quality nutrition options for their pets?

Furthermore, it had nothing stated in it about raw food. Only "home made food", meaning "based on similar food as the family". Of course, we all know these days that there are a lot of things we people eat that are totally unsuitable for dogs. So again, how relevant are the generalizations this study was based on? How relevant is it to dog owners today in North America with the choices for quality manufactured food with human-grade ingredients? It isn't. It's crap science.

You divide them up into 2 classes ... dogs fed commercial food and dogs fed "home made" food. I honestly don't believe there is a whole heck of a lot of difference between the best and worst of kibbles. The ingredients are so highly processed by the time they go into the bag that the ingredients don't make much of a difference. THey are all pretty worthless.
Well, there you go then. Why do you even bother reading this forum? Why are you a moderator of this forum when every product discussed here is "worthless" (your word, not mine) to you? This forum is about "Dry and Canned Dog Food". You have your own raw food forum, why do you have to dis every kind of commercial food that anyone talks about here? Useless information, as I stated before, unless I'm interested in a raw program, which I'm not.

I'm not over in your raw forum telling you that you have it all wrong. I respect your beliefs and I don't necessarily think you are wrong or that raw isn't good, even though I DO think you have based your decisions on a bunch of anecdotal information and bad science. I just don't have the time for raw so I'm here, in THIS forum to learn about possible commercial dog food options. So far I've spent a lot of time here reading a lot of generalizations and anecdotal information that is of little use to me if I have no intention of going raw. Only that this is crap and that is crap and everything that isn't raw is crap. Sorry, but these kinds of comments are a complete waste of time in a "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
Well then, be smart and go with the best, or the best other than a raw diet! haha :biggrin:Go with Orijen dry kibble, stay away from feeding Hill's it's crap and that's all I'll say on that subject. If you want to know how different and how processed dry kibble is? My bull terrier couldn't eat any kibble with beef in it, after switching to a raw diet, his favorite meal is beef anything. That's how much the crap is processed!:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Let's see - 40 pounds of chicken backs; 30 pounds of tom turkey necks; 40 pounds of chicken leg quarters ... and I'll be by next week to to get some spare ribs ...

No wonder the cashier looked at me funny when I asked her over for supper!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Wow. I feel like a Christian who just got off the plane in Salt Lake City. Or one of those hapless chaps who posts a Windows question in a computer forum dominated by Apple fans. No useful information. Nothing based on facts. Plenty of contradictions. Just repeated attempts to "spread the word" and convert me to raw.

I guess I've exposed this "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum for what it is. A platform that the raw Kool-Aid drinkers use to convert the "unenlightened". All I came here to find out is that even though I know Hill's has a bad reputation, why do both of my dogs do so well on the food? I discovered this by accident and I'm just trying to understand because at the end of the day, it's results that we are all after.

But all I've gotten back are platitudes, generalizations, and anecdotal information about commercial food that had nothing to do with my original question. If you don't know, it's okay. Just exercise a little restraint and pass on replying to the question.

But I see that isn't possible here because of the folks on this site who do use commercial food, they probably have no idea why I get the results I did on the "crap" food and everyone else thinks I need to be "enlightened" with the raw agenda even though in my very first post I stated that raw wasn't an option for me at this time.

It's too bad because while I came here for information, I really like to participate and provide reciprocal information in forums that I find useful. While all this "discussion" (or indoctrination or whatever you want to call it) was going on, I stumbled on a really nice, high quality, canned dog food to use as a topper for my premium kibble. It is loaded with meat, no by-products, no corn or wheat, and is only $1.09 per 22 ounce can. But now that I've smoked all the BARF zealots and the real purpose of this site, I'm not going to waste my time here sharing this information because I know it will just get labeled as being crap like all the other crap manufactured food. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Woof, woof.

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Jayjay, there is plenty of information on these kibble forums for us kibble users. I understand what you mean about RFD and his passion for raw. He truly feels that raw is the only way and does care for the well-being of dogs in general so he pushes for his own beliefs. Either way, of course you do not need to take his advice and you can disregard all his "raw or nothing" comments if you wish. He does give really good, relevant to the topic advice now and then so he definitely is an asset to our forums. Just a bit pushy and close-minded to other views.

raw feeders...most of the kibble users know that raw may be the best...its just not feasible to a lot of us. the regular members all know that you all feel raw is best, so being a broken record about kibble is bad and raw is good is kind of pointless. we know. please try and stick with the topic as much as possible without finding a way to turn it into a raw pitch.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top