Human(ish) Grade Dog Food

RawFedDogs

When a person is light on facts they must resort to personal attacks to help prop up their view.  As with most discussions I get involved in, I have given many scientific facts which go completely ignored because they don't agree with your beliefs

A fine example of an ironic statement.

You have not established your qualifications. Stating that you are an expert is not evidence of your expertise. Degrees earned, courses of study, papers written, papers used as reference materials, research completed and results. We ignore your facts that we disagree with because there is no reason given to accept them. I've had dogs, fed dogs, buried dogs for a lot of years. I cheerfully admit that I am not an expert on dogs. I am on my dog, but I don't know your dog at all. This forum has occasionally handed me my head on a platter (done with love, I know), and I know that many here are much more knowledgable in a wide array of topics than I, but one piece of advice that is most common is "see an expert" or "call the vet". Actually all you appear to be doing is reporting on what works for your dogs. While that is of interest, it is not science. There is no proof, and I don't let strangers tell me how to do anything with my dog. I am willing to learn, but you need some lessons in teaching

This is how I would present a fact:

An article by Brennen McKenzie, a veterinarian who has been chair of the Practitioner Committee for the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association. discusses the value of a raw diet for dogs, and refutes several myths :

"The average life expectancy of wolves in the wild is considerably lower than that of captive wolves, and disease, parasitism, and malnutrition are important factors in the mortality of wild populations.7-9 Captive wolves live longest and are healthiest when fed — guess what? — commercial dog food! This is the recommendation of the leading specialists in captive wolf husbandry and medicine, and it is largely the result of evidence that the previous practice of feeding raw meat based diets to captive wolves led to poorer quality nutrition and health than the current practices".

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-meat-and-bone-diets-for-dogs-its-enough-to-make-you-barf/

This presents a sample of the statement , allows you to review the whole statement,( which does actually refute much of what you state is science or fact), and permits you to attempt to find contradictory proof. Note that I did not use a study paid for by the dog food industry. I would not accept research from the raw food industry without some confirmation.

I have no problem with anyone feeding raw, but I don't believe it gives you the right to the moral high ground. For some dogs, it is the way to go. For others, processed is just fine. One size does not fit all.

Sorry, I don't have alot of time this afternoon, but I will try to answer the posts already here.  If more come in, they will have to wait until another time for my answers.

Liesje

Well since you seem to know me and "most people" so well, I almost shouldn't bother responding, but FWIW I measure health based on:

• weight

 Hehe, judging by your answers, I would say that you are into breeding and showing "show dogs" in conformation.

Weight is not a good measure of a dog's health.  Body build IS a good measure.  A well muscled can often weigh more than a fat dog as muscles weigh more than fat. So I would say that body build is the best measure of the two.

Liesje

coat and skin - shiny coat, strong and lush top coat, correct coat for the breed, smell, not too dry and not too oily, no hotspots

Most kibbles have ingredients that are there for the sole purpose of creating a shiny coat.  A dog could have a lot of allergies but on the day you are looking at him, he may have no hot spots.  The other things you list are great ways to judge a dog's health but the greatest majority of dog owners don't have a clue what those are supposed to look like.

Liesje

teeth/mouth - teeth that do not need dental intervention or cleaning, lack of horrid breath

I agree with all those and add to it by saying healthy dogs fed a proper died NEVER need any of those things.  You can have a very unhealthy dogs who pass this test if they get their teeth brushed regularly and have regular "dentals".

Liesje

eyes and ears - clean, clear, lack of discharge and/or smell

Again, yes, those would indicate a healthy dogs IF the owner doesn't constantly have to clean eyes and ears.  An unhealthy dog can be made to appear healthy but cleaning eyes and ears frequently.

Liesje

I x-ray hips and elbows at 7 months and certify hips and elbows at 24 months and also check the spine

I disagree with this one.  You can have a very healthy dog who happens to have this genetic problem.  This is show dog stuff (BTW:  IMO show dog breeders are the ones who caused this problem among several other genetic problems and despite how they claim to be trying to stop it, continue to cause it.)

Liesje

Dodds Thyroid 5 panel

Jean Dodds thyroid panel can determine the function of a dog's thyroid panel but not say anything about the dog's overall health.  This is more show dog stuff.

Liesje

DM clear/normal - though this is genetic so diet would not matter but if a dog came back carrier or at risk I would certainly adjust the diet with that in mind

DM is kinda like the thyroid panel.  It merely points out one of a thousand different things and is no indication of the dog's overall health.  I am curious about one thing you said that I have no clue about.  You said you would adjust diet a known dog's diet.  How would you ajust it?  What does he need more of or less of or what needs to be eliminated?

Liesje

feet - pads of the feet are strong and healthy

I'm not sure how much of that has to do with overall health.  Another question.  If you had a dog with bad pads, how would you correct it?

Liesje

stool - small amount, firm, not horribly smelly, breaks down quickly 

Believe it or not, we agree!! :)

Liesje

overall energy and activity level - dog is agile, able to do work such as AD test (12 mile run), 8 hour days of flyball etc

I agree that energy and activity level is a critical indicator of a dog's health but I think there are millions upon millions of healthy dogs that can't run 12 miles or chase a flyball for 8 hours in a day.  I really don't know why anyone would ask that of a dog.  I admit that an unhealthy dog would have a VERY difficult time accomplishing those things.

Liesje

dog only goes to the vet for 3 year rabies vaccines and other things I can't/won't do at home (blood test for heartworm annually, collection for AI, x-rays, etc)

This is another good indicator of a dog's health.  Mine only goes for heartworm checks once a year.  He doesn't even see the vet for that.  No x-rays unless I have an indication that one is called for.

If you feed a commercial kibble, you have seen ads for it, you just don't realize it.  You have seen ingredients lists and nutrient profiles as well as other words and pictures on the package.  All of those things are presented in a way to convince you this is THE kibble for your dog. Even the names of the kibbles are often meant to influence your decision to buy that particular brand.  "Wellness", "Taste of the Wild", "Canine Caviar"(sp), "Natural Balance".  I'm sure you can think of many others.

kpwlee

Since you couldn't be bothered to read what you wrote. They were not fed kibble, they ate raw. 

If you will bother to go back and read, I prefaced that comment with "If I remember correctly, you stated ... bla bla bla"  I have answered A LOT of POSTS the last few days.  I promise I have read them all at least twice.  I read each one once when I was reading and I re-read each one as I was answering it.

kpwlee

You are also assuming that we are all little sheep feeding Beneful because we are too ignorant to learn anything about canine nutrition and we watch TV to determine what we should buy and eat. Again that's arrogance.

Two things.  One is you are confusing "ignorant" with " sutpid"  BTW:  I haven't used either of those words, until now, in any of my posts.  For your own knowledge, "Ignorant" means one learned something.  "Stupid" means they CAN'T learn it.  Yes, by far the greatest majority of dog owners are ignorant about the different kibbles, what is in them, where those ingredients came from, how the kibble is manufactured and the tricks the marketing departments go to to make you think kibble is something other than what it really is.  You use that same old worn out trick people often use on me when they can't win on the facts.  They throw up smoke and mirrors.  That is, I make a blanket statement about people in general and they get all in a wad and jump up and down and holler, "that doesn't pertain to me!!!!!!"  I'm never say it does.  I think most people have the good sense to recognize that when I make a blanket statement, I don't mean every individual in the world.  If you want to discuss facts, I'll be glad to you but I'm no longer responding to personal attacks like this that have nothing to do with the discussion.  You can't disprove my facts so you just say you don't like me and to be honest, I really don't care.

kpwlee

You also assume I don't know the meaning of arrogant........... which is fairly arrogant

You severely underestimate the knowledge held by everyone that has posted in this discussion.

 Hmmm once again that seems to fall under the domain of arrogance.

If you would stop assuming people were idiots and that they should just listen to you because you know everything, you would likely have a much more receptive audience. Yes lots of kibble is really poor quality and yes pets and people are horribly overweight and out of shape.

BUT no one on this thread is feeding Old Roy nor have obese pets. Know who you are speaking to and show some respect

Lets see .... nope, facts in those sentences or questioning the facts I have already made so I will ignore those.  Have a great day! :)

sharismom

And I have a problem with people who cannot spell correctly when they are trying to impress us with irrefutable knowledge, but I digress. Back to fallacies vs. your facts (which you still have not cited sources for).

You know? When I was writing that word, I thought it didn't look right but I was running out of time so I didn't spend any more time on it.  The misspelling didn't change the point that I was making.

I have asked more than once on here exactly which of my facts they have a problem with but no one seems to want to get into a discussion about any of them.  People only wants to complain about them with no basis for complaint.  I'm not writing these posts as a disertation.  If you want more information you will have to specifically state what you have a problem with.

Jewlieee

Birds do not have lateral moving jaws or teeth for that matter and many of them are considered omnivores while some are herbivores and some are carnivores.

GREAT!!! WONDERFUL!!  A good question.  Birds are not like other animals.  They have their own internal systems which are different than all other animals.  You are 100% correct in what you say in the above sentence.  Birds, though, don't even have a stomach.  They have a crop and a gizzard which takes care of the digestion.  Birds are quite different than mammals.

Jewlieee

Because you copied something from Wikipedia does not make it scientific fact. Nor does stating it over and over again.

I honestly didn't copy those facts from anywhere.  I put them in a post in a discussion group several years ago.  I can't remember the discussion group or exactly when it was.  After I finished it, I thought, "This is good.  I bet I can use it again sometime."  I then cut and pasted it into a text file i keep that has many many other facts in it that I can paste into posts without having to re-write it over and over.  If someone else wrote any of thes facts, I say so in the post, but I take credit for the 8 facts that make a dog a carnivore.  In the last few years, no one has ever been able to show any of these to be incorrect.

Jewlieee

The other issue I have with you judgemental arrogant know it all attitude is that many of those people you are complaining about buying food at Walmart may not be able to afford much else. ...  Get off your high horse and go supply some low income family with food for their pets. that would go a heck of a lot further than spending 11 yrs arguing with people over the internet

This is more of the non fact based parts I said I wouldn't comment on but yes, I don't think anyone who can't afford to feed and supply vet care to a dog should have one.  You don't know what I've supplied to low income families so don't go there.

shamrockmommy

They both broke teeth on chicken thighs. I have shelves of books on raw diets, cooked diets, you name it. My second attempt after fixing their teeth the first time resulted in them chipping their other carnassial on wings lol!

If you have TWO dogs who broke their teeth on chicken thighs, get them to the vet first thing tomorrow morning.  They have very serious health problems and nutrition deficiencies.  Chicken thigh bones are MUCH MUCH softer than a healthy dog's teeth.  I really don't think they did.  I think when you noticed them broken you thought back and saw that the last thing YOU SAW them eat was chicken thighs.  Chicken wings have even smaller and lighter bones than thighs.  It just didn't happen the way you are claiming.

Oh GREAT!!!!!  Finally, another post that at least has some logical thinking behind it.  I really like posts like this.  Thank you Doug for writing it.

DougB

Actually all you appear to be doing is reporting on what works for your dogs.

Actually, I write about what works for my dogs and at least 100 other raw fed dogs I am personsally aquainted with.  There is not all that much difference from one dog to the next once you get away from the kibble world.  You see, in the kibble world there are always A LOT of people moving from one kibble to another trying to find one "that works" for their dog.  The problem is that they are dealing with artificial food.  They are dealing with a man made product that is trying to improve on nature and failing miserably.  In the real world what works for one dog will work for any other dog in the world.  The few exceptions to this would be dogs with problems with one organ or another (very rare in the raw fed world).

DougB

An article by Brennen McKenzie, a veterinarian who has been chair of the Practitioner Committee for the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association. discusses the value of a raw diet for dogs, and refutes several myths :

Great, very impressive credentials ... however ... If he has never fed his own personal dog a prey model raw diet, he is only working from theory and not real world experience.  I would wager he has never fed his dog raw at all.

DougB

"The average life expectancy of wolves in the wild is considerably lower than that of captive wolves, and disease, parasitism, and malnutrition are important factors in the mortality of wild populations.

He is partially right, but mostly wrong.  Captive wolves do live longer than wild wolves.  The biggest killer of wild wolves is bullets.  Captive wolves don't have that problem.  Another problem wild wolves have is that they are eating food that can kill them by goring or trampling them to death.  Captive wolves don't have that problem.  If a wild wolf is kicked by his "food" in the mouth and breakes his jaw, he is a dead wolf in just a few days.  If a wild wolf breakes his leg by chasing his food, he is a dead wolf in just a few days.  Captive wolves just don't have these problems.  If a wild wolf does get a disease, he can't go to the vet to get the latest meds.  I don't think parasites are a huge problem to wild wolves.  Most parasites live in the intestine of prey animals.  Wolves don't eat intestines.  The only time malnutrition is a problem for a wild wolf is if their prey goes away.  I don't think this guy knows a lot about wild wolves nor their habits.

DougB

Captive wolves live longest and are healthiest when fed — guess what? — commercial dog food! This is the recommendation of the leading specialists in captive wolf husbandry and medicine, and it is largely the result of evidence that the previous practice of feeding raw meat based diets to captive wolves led to poorer quality nutrition and health than the current practices".

I just don't think that is a true statement.  Almost all of the wolf refuges I know of feed a raw diet.  Sometimes when they run out of raw meat, they have to resort to kibble but they try to avoid that as much as possible.

Dogs/wolves have eaten a Prey Model Raw diet for millions of years and have thrived on it.  If that were not the case then they would be extince by now.  Kibble has been popular for around 50 years or a little less.  No one asks these kibble companies to provide any scientific proof that their product is even close to as healthy as the raw diet?  Kibble is the new kid on the block and no one asks for proof.  Why not?  Raw has 1,000,000 years of proof but people still don't believe it.  How do you think dogs survived before kibble came along?  Who out there really believes that highly processed food with a lot of known bad chemicals in them is superior to a diet of whole raw food? Do you believe humans just eat nothing more than Total cereal and water? Then why feed it to our dogs?

DougB

This presents a sample of the statement , allows you to review the whole statement,( which does actually refute much of what you state is science or fact), and permits you to attempt to find contradictory proof. Note that I did not use a study paid for by the dog food industry. I would not accept research from the raw food industry without some confirmation.

Ok, remember, you brought up this article.  I did not find anything that contradicts any of the facts I have presented.  I did find this little part that I found interesting ... "Taxonomically and phylogenetically, dogs are carnivores and their ancestors ate live prey and carrion, so they must be designed for a diet as close as reasonably possible to that for which they were designed by evolution." 

There were other similar stataments in the article.  Sorry but I can't turn off the italics.  Anyway ... good post.  I liked it and the article.  If you think some of my facts are inaccurate, I wish you will tell me which ones they are.

Ahhhhh .... Another one.  No facts but a lot of name calling.

Well thanks for that. One is dead already from heart failure, the other is fine so far with normal bloodwork.  

I'm not feeding the troll any longer. 

Do you have the data set up in tables? Observations are not science unless quantified. What is your basis for saying raw is superior-how is it superior, how did you measure this? Anecdotes are not science, as interesting as they might be. Little things like Start date, comparisons of dogs fed kibble with dogs fed raw, weights at different times, blood values at different times, illnesses, vet evaluations over time. Data, facts. Set up for evaluation. Controls other variables

"Great, very impressive credentials ... however ... If he has never fed his own personal dog a prey model raw diet, he is only working from theory and not real world experience.  I would wager he has never fed his dog raw at all."

However-he can evaluate the research data of others. He may have fed his dog raw. We don’t know. Specious statement

"He is partially right, but mostly wrong.  Captive wolves do live longer than wild wolves.  The biggest killer of wild wolves is bullets.  Captive wolves don't have that"

He compares the lifespan of wolves in captivity fed kibble vs those fed raw. Variables are controlled. To call it false, you should have a study (your own or other) that proves your point.

"Taxonomically and phylogenetically, dogs are carnivores and their ancestors ate live prey and carrion, so they must be designed for a diet as close as reasonably possible to that for which they were designed by evolution." 

Dogs have continued to evolve, some natural, lots by design. http://www.dogguide.net/evolution-of-dogs.php

It appears from this article that the dietary changes between feral dog and domestic dog are very important:

"More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome. As a result, that gene was 28-fold more active in dogs, the researchers found. More copies means more protein, and test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch, the chief nutrient in agricultural grains such as wheat and rice. The number of copies of this gene also varies in people: Those eating high carbohydrate diets -- such as the Japanese and European Americans -- have more copies than people with starch-poor diets, such as the Mbuti in Africa. "We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed," Axelsson says"

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/01/dog-domestication-tied-to-starch.html

You made the initial statements regarding the superiority of raw over kibble. The burden of proof is on you. I will accept that it is "as good as" and "for some dogs it is superior", but that is not what you have stated.

As an aside, deer are not the pure food you present them to be. They graze on farm products fed fertilizers and covered with pesticides. They steal treated food from feed bunkers, they lick enhanced salt blocks and road salt, they drink water that has pesticides, run off fertilizer, and antibiotics. They breathe car exhaust and probably inhale brake shoe dust. They carry diseases that are cross-species transferable. Feeding an animal with a 6 to 8 year life span a food that will kill it after 10 years is fine. But if the animal has a normal 15 year life span, and the food kills it in 10....

DougB

Do you have the data set up in tables? Observations are not science unless quantified. What is your basis for saying raw is superior-how is it superior, how did you measure this? Anecdotes are not science, as interesting as they might be. Little things like Start date, comparisons of dogs fed kibble with dogs fed raw, weights at different times, blood values at different times, illnesses, vet evaluations over time. Data, facts. Set up for evaluation. Controls other variables

We do what all scientists do (not claiming to be a scientist).  We observe our dogs then do something different (feed raw) and observe the changes.  The changes are often striking.  We see chnages in teeth & gums, breath, coat, body build, energy level, lack of old medical problems, lack of allergy symptoms, far less needed visits to the vet and just a general overall better behaved dog.  Have one person do that and it's not a big deal.  Have 12,000+ people do that and it probably means a little more, huh?  All the 12,000 dogs have a different start date and are observed over anytime frame between a few months to as many as 20 years with the same results.  Weight means little in this research ... body build is MUCH more important because a muscular dog of proper build can weigh more that an overweight dog with a lot of fat.  Muscle weighs more than fat. Believe it or not blood values don't change.  Blood values are of no value in determing quality of diet.  You can prove that by comparing blood values of dogs eating the lowest quality dog food to the dogs eating the highest quality dog food.  Blood values don't indicate quality of diet. Any raw feeder will tell you he takes his dogs to the vet far less than they did when feeding kibble.  Vets, often ones who do not "believe" in feeding a raw diet will admit that raw fed dogs are very healthy.  I have had several vets tell me that personally.

DougB

However-he can evaluate the research data of others. He may have fed his dog raw. We don’t know. Specious statement

He could evaluate the research data better if he had actual real world experience.  If he actually had real world experience he could easily recognize the falacy of many of his statements.

DougB

He compares the lifespan of wolves in captivity fed kibble vs those fed raw. Variables are controlled. To call it false, you should have a study (your own or other) that proves your point.

Yes, I read that wrong the first time.  I thought he was comparing lifespan of wild wolves with captive wolves fed kibble.  Sorry.  However, this particular paragraph in this article makes a huge mistake.  For subjects they are using Mained Wolves.  Mained Wolves live in South America and are regardless of their common name, are not really wolves at all.  They are much more closely related to foxes and are an anomoly similar to Pandas.  About 50% of their diet in the wild is made up of veggies, mostly sugar cane and fruit.  I can see where it is possible for a kibble fed wolf to live longer than an wild Mained Wolf who is eating a lot of sugar.  However it means nothing to our discussion.

DougB

"More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome. As a result, that gene was 28-fold more active in dogs, the researchers found. More copies means more protein, and test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch, the chief nutrient in agricultural grains such as wheat and rice. The number of copies of this gene also varies in people: Those eating high carbohydrate diets -- such as the Japanese and European Americans -- have more copies than people with starch-poor diets, such as the Mbuti in Africa. "We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed," Axelsson says"

So dogs have the ability to produce more amylase that wolves.  That's great but what these people who are DNA experts and not canine experts obviously don't know is that neither wolves nor dogs have the flat teeth and lateral lower jaw movement that is ABSOLUTELY necessary to crush the cellulose covering of every plant cell.  The cellulose must be crushed in order to get to the starch in order to digest it.  They also don't take into consideration the dogs short gut which doesn't allow sufficient time for this starch to sit in the gut in order to ferment.  It's much more complicated than just having amylase present in the body in order to digest starches.  The paragraph above also states, probably accurately, "test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch,"  "Should be" is far from "are".

DougB

You made the initial statements regarding the superiority of raw over kibble. The burden of proof is on you. I will accept that it is "as good as" and "for some dogs it is superior", but that is not what you have stated.

Lets clarify that when talking of a raw diet, I am speaking of a Prey Model Raw diet which is made up of raw meat, bones, and organs only.  Many raw diets include fruits, veggies, berries, nuts, etc and I am not speaking of those bit yes, I will very confidently make thes statement that the prey model raw diet is superior to any kibble made.  There is no nutritionist in the world that doesn't work for a dog food company who will tell you that a highly processed food is anywhere nearly as nutritious or healthy than a whole natural food.  Thats a fact that any nutritionist will back up.  Otherwise, humans would be healtheir and live longer eating nothing but Total cereal and water.

DougB

As an aside, deer are not the pure food you present them to be. They graze on farm products fed fertilizers and covered with pesticides. They steal treated food from feed bunkers, they lick enhanced salt blocks and road salt, they drink water that has pesticides, run off fertilizer, and antibiotics. They breathe car exhaust and probably inhale brake shoe dust. They carry diseases that are cross-species transferable. Feeding an animal with a 6 to 8 year life span a food that will kill it after 10 years is fine. But if the animal has a normal 15 year life span, and the food kills it in 10....

Yes, what you say is the truth.  When I think about wild deer, I think about deer way out in the wilderness many miles from any human contact but after thinking about it more, I can see that a large number of the deer you talk about are probably the ones killed by hunters.  I was always picturing in my mind, wolves chasing deer in far northern Canada and Alaska.  As for diseases, EHD is the main dangerous deer disease and it's not transferable to dogs/wolves.

I'm out of time for today and won't have a lot of time tomorrow. It will probably be Wednesday before I get back here.