Blackwatch feed program

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67   Do I think raw foods are more easily digested by dogs, yes... do "enzymes" from the meat have anything to do with it... I really don't think so.

 
Yes, they do from what I understand, but not in the regards that you or Santino have portrayed.  He is more on target than you
because there are holistic and alternative approaches (yes, in regards to gastric digestion) other than the "industry" perspective.
 
You had mentioned when food enters into the stomach it enters into an acidic environment.  This is not completely true because the digestion enzymes have not yet been released to break down the food.  Yes, the food enters into an acid environment, but not in full digestive mode.  Released enzymes are triggered.  These are the enzymes with power that can easily kill off dangerous
bacteria such as e-coli and salmonella.  These are the enzymes which Brookcove spoke of in an earlier thread will wear away at penny or another coin.  These enzymes are indeed released when triggered by none other than dietary protein.  Initially released "inactive" (pepsin being one) helps protect the dog from actually eating away at itself.   What the "industry" will try to prance around is the studies showing Gluten source proteins are slow to trigger the release of certain enzymes as opposed to Animal source proteins.  The industry will also attempt to blame every meat source ingredient under the sun as being an allergen
when improper digestion due to high carb high fiber diets actually the real devil.  Fiber can carry surround or carry away necessary nutrients needed to help trigger the process.  It is the hormones released (gastrin, most critical) that triggers the gastric phase.  Gastrin, is what triggers the enzymes to begin breakdown phase, it is what triggers cells in the stomach to produce hydrochloric acid.  Diets weak in protein; too high in Gluten to weak in Animal based combined with the high fiber content can reek havoc on the digestion process resulting in the improper break down of foods.  And, when that becomes the norm now your dog is more likely to develop immune deficiency problems, hence more likely to become the allergy prone dog.
 
Concerning whether or not meat is more likely to be an allergen than grain can be easily construed as "industry propaganda".
Justification of cheap ingredients in dog food (grain, veg, plant, fruit) is part of the plan of the industry because it boils down to profit margin.  These are rarely scapegoats when it comes to allergens; it's better to blame chicken, beef, turkey, fish, lamb, and buffalo, whatever.  You constantly read people (supposedly told by a Vet or nutritionist) my dog can't have this that and the other thing, probably all convinced without a single test!  I'm waiting for someone to come along and say my Vet or nutritionist said I should avoid, soy, yucca, wheat, barley, cranberry dust, kelp, string beans, tomato pomace, beet pulp, etc.

ORIGINAL: cc431

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67   Do I think raw foods are more easily digested by dogs, yes... do "enzymes" from the meat have anything to do with it... I really don't think so.

  These are rarely scapegoats when it comes to allergens; it's better to blame chicken, beef, turkey, fish, lamb, and buffalo, whatever.  You constantly read people (supposedly told by a Vet or nutritionist) my dog can't have this that and the other thing, probably all convinced without a single test!

Read pubmed lately??? There are half a dozen good research articles that all say meats are more likely to cause allergies than grains.

My dog is food allergic, to BEEF... proven through a 4 month diet trial and negative intradermal skin testing.

Now really... tell me where I'm supposed to believe that corn or beet pulp are the reasons dogs have allergies when I have all this conflicting information??

ORIGINAL: cc431

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67   Do I think raw foods are more easily digested by dogs, yes... do "enzymes" from the meat have anything to do with it... I really don't think so.

 

What the "industry" will try to prance around is the studies showing Gluten source proteins are slow to trigger the release of certain enzymes as opposed to Animal source proteins.

How is the "industry" to blame for all these scientific findings when the majority of the information we know about how the digestive system works was done to learn about people, and not dogs (even though much of the research was done on dogs)?? The "industry" played little to no role in the majority of that early research on how and where digestive enzymes are released.

And even so, it does not change the fact that gastrin and pepsin are NOT found in raw meats....

Does any of this relate to the original topic?
 
Let's please self moderate here.

Glenda, I think the OP was about the efficacy of a program that recommends a good food plus supplementals additives, including digestive aids like enzymes and probiotics? I'm going ahead on that idea, assuming your caution was referring to the discussion of the clinic in Ohio, rather than the OT stuff on enzymes.

Charlie, I'm not a biochemist, research biologist, or DVM, but I'm fairly sure the penny was corroded by plain old acid, not enzymes. Not incredibly relevant to the topic, but I didn't want people to think I believe that stomach enzymes can digest metal.

There are tons of enzymes in the rumen and other two stomach chambers which precede the true stomach of a ruminant, but no acid until the true stomach. Sometimes cattle pick up bits of metal as they graze and these items can't pass the rest of the way and do the animal harm in various ways. The treatment is to lob a great big smooth magnet down their throats, where it will catch the item and keep going, or even just settle harmlessly to the "bottom" of the chamber where the item resides currently.

Stomach acid, probiotics, and enzymes all have different functions in the gi. Acid is like the sledgehammer - it smashes stuff up to expose the building blocks of what we consume. Enzymes go in and have specific purposes - I'm kind of at a loss here for a good analogy - but what they do is a really unique - and important - thing in nature. They are chains of molecules which are stuctured so that they are reactive with one particular thing. In the gi the enzymes bond with lipids, carbs, etc at various stages to take them from whole food to something the body can use, and then transport them safely where they are needed.

I could get really specific and boring at this point, but I'll spare y'all. What I'm trying to say in short, is that the enzymes that may be in animal tissue, other than in the gi, aren't the same ones that bond with macronutrients in the gi. I do believe whole foods are more easily digested than processed ones, but I don't accept the enzyme thing.

Howsomever. I also believe raw meat is ideal for many dogs - but this notion is based much more on anecdotal evidence than anything. The only thing vaguely scientific I can point to that has contributed to my belief is the fact that ruminants do best on whole foods that are actually less easy to digest. In other words, a diet of processed concentrated feed requires the addition of antibiotics and coccidistats to keep the animal alive long enough to slaughter. Changing that to whole grains, crushed so they can add minerals and protein sources, is a big improvement.

Best of all is a ruminant allowed to grow naturally on a diet of grass and some whole grains - these animals have the strongest systems and are able to withstand attack from not only stomach ailments, but viruses, parasites, and respiratory ailments. They also have the most resistance to metabolic disorders. Some research seems to indicate that although broken feeds are the "easiest" to digest, that ease of digestion is actually counterproductive to ideal health. There seems to be some role for the challenge of species-appropriate, fresh foods in gi health. Something like processesed concentrated feeds offer the wrong kind of challenge.

I know, dogs aren't sheep. But I see possible parallels that would explain why raw meat can be more desireable for a carnivore, without introducing magic enzyme content.

I've had vets recommend the enzyme for dogs that were emerging from a bout of pancreatitis or even severe gastroenteritis, and it does work like a charm, but once I stop them, I've never noticed a difference in a healthy dog between "on" and "off". I'm the same way about probiotics. I don't offer them all the time. I feed yogurt for different reason, not the probiotics necesarily. If I have a dog I think needs it, I have some high-powered stuff that's for use in livestock, that's guaranteed to deliver the goods.

Do I think raw foods are more easily digested by dogs, yes... do "enzymes" from the meat have anything to do with it... I really don't think so.

 
there are no digestive enzymes in raw muscle meat. Maybe in tripe or organ meats.
I think highly processed cooked meats are more readily digested than raw meat. Finely ground raw meat is more readily digested than big chunks of it. Raw may be more nutritious though because the cooking and processing destroys certain nutrients.  But, come on, most dogs have no problems digesting food. You think those fat dogs you see waddling around aren't digesting their food?
 
I can't see the point of feeding probiotics daily. They are living organisms that colonize the gut. One or two doses are sufficient to re-colonize the gut after something like antibiotic treatment.
 
 

I can't see the point of feeding probiotics daily. They are living organisms that colonize the gut. One or two doses are sufficient to re-colonize the gut after something like antibiotic treatment.

 
I personally feel that probiotics help them digest their food better...and help the body absorb nutrients. I also feel that while many feel that raw meat might have more nutrients than cooked,,,it also might have more bad bacterial..such as E-coli, Salmonella and Clostridium....and the probiotics add good bacterial to help fight that bad,,,just as they do after antibiotics.  And seriously...I can't see a teaspoon of yogurt helping that.

ORIGINAL: brookcove  Charlie, I'm not a biochemist, research biologist, or DVM, but I'm fairly sure the penny was corroded by plain old acid, not enzymes. Not incredibly relevant to the topic, but I didn't want people to think I believe that stomach enzymes can digest metal.

 
Hormones trigger enzymes to start acid production; there is a relationship.  Suppose the coin was stuck in there a week (I forget the details of that particular post).  We can assume food has gone in during that week which has triggered the hormones (dietary protein in the food), which in turns triggers the enzymes to start 'digestive' acid production.  I realize what you are saying and what you're talking about in my post (it sounded funky).  We're talking about very strong acid that will literally eat flesh off bone, and breakdown bone as well I'm sure.

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

Now really... tell me where I'm supposed to believe that corn or beet pulp are the reasons dogs have allergies when I have all this conflicting information??

 
In all honesty I think the 'corn' allergen theory is a myth.  Saying a dog is allergic to corn is on the same parallel as a dog is allergic to outside air.  A quick convenient scapegoat, blame the corn.  Beet pulp on the other hand...well...yea there could easily be a connection there.  Why?  As I described prior, fiber (especially expansionist fiber; up to 250%) can crowd out nutrients, surround, block, impeded, etc., nutrients important for triggering the digestive process, starting with the hormone gastrin.  When the digestive process is not as efficient as it should be (resulting from poorly constructed high carb/fiber diets),
your dog is now more susceptible to problems.  When a dog is being deprived of nutrients, this can start a chain reaction of problems.  Poor digestion, poor absorption of nutrients translates into a weaker dog with a weakened immune system and yes, more allergy prone.

As I described prior, fiber (especially expansionist fiber; up to 250%) can crowd out nutrients, surround, block, impeded, etc., nutrients important for triggering the digestive process, starting with the hormone gastrin. 

 
While you can be technical about statistics and all (and I sure can not be)...on the other hand...without fiber in the diet, you can not have regular bowel function which could cause even more problems that could lead to allergies...right?  Nutrients can not be absorbed if you are not eliminating properly.

ORIGINAL: dyan   While you can be technical about statistics and all (and I sure can not be)...on the other hand...without fiber in the diet, you can not have regular bowel function which could cause even more problems that could lead to allergies...right?  Nutrients can not be absorbed if you are not eliminating properly.

 
Fiber...wow.   Well, yes it can all tie in here one way or another I guess 'cause Blackwatch feeding program contains fiber I assume?
 
I guess it's a good thing the Great Dane Lady has added a supplement page...just look at some of those foods!  All kidding aside, I don't think fiber is a good thing for dogs. 
 
Fiber is added to commercial kibbles for a purpose, not to benefit the dog but rather the manufacturer.  Here's why:  Non-species appropriate ingredients (carnivore) are not digested well.  The dogs body being carnivore attempts to rush any improper ingredients through the system quickly.  Note, regardless of how powerful the stomach acids, strong enough to fight off otherwise deadly bacterias, they're are not breaking down celluose (raw vegetable).  The sting bean comes out the other end looking like a string bean.  Look at all the non-species appropriate ingredients found in dog food today!   Meat, Fat, Blood, and Bone is the staple diet of carnivores.  So what is the manufacturer to do?  All these ingredients found in dog food today is going to lead to constant diarrhea.  Nobody would buy the products.  It would be a complete disaster for the company.  The solution is fiber.  Fiber (and lots of it; don't be fooled by innocent % numbers listed) is the only way to prevent what would otherwise lead to unstoppable diarrhea being the ingredients are so poor in todays dog food.  The truth of the matter is, the dogs body is perfectly capable of proper stool formation when fed a properly structured diet and there is no need for added fiber in the diet.  You can feed a dog a high meat, high fat, low carb, extremely low fiber diet and the stools will be text book.
The high fiber kibble diet creates a firmer dryer stool and now traveling slower than it normally would through the system.  They say it also helps express the anal glands.  Nonsense, and if anything probably creating the anal gland problems to begin with.  
 
Nutrient absorption is all but done by then, but yet there is some.  The fiber is also surrounding any nutrients in the stool preventing any benefits obtained through absorption in the colon.  Again however, digestion has already been all but completed by this stage done prior (stomach into small intestine).  Any benefit lost from the fiber impeding transfer of nutrients in the final stages is probably not a big deal anyway at this point.  More than normal amounts of water being drawn from the intestine through absorption could be an issue in regards to too much fiber in the stool. 
 
Beet pulp is a common ingredient for dog food.  I have read through The Great Danes Lady literature and have noted her 
criticism on what could only be the research of Robert Abady.   Beet pulp is one of those expansion fiber that expands plenty.
By some this is considered a potentially dangerous ingredient.   Too much and expansion and bloat...maybe some connection?
Who knows, but I'm not taking that chance.  I would rather avoid the beet pulp.  I fed a food with beet pulp for over 10 years, never had a problem except my Cocker Spaniel hips were shot in about 8 years.  He made it until about 10 before I made the tough call.  I've been off the beet pulp now about 6 years.  I'm not blaming beet pulp on the shot hips, but rather an overall poor diet in general, not knowing what I do now, and just grabbing the cheapest stuff at 7-11 or Cumberland Farms.  I'm doing a lot better these days when it comes to my dogs diet.  The Vet doesn't like guys like me I think.  I go in to buy one lg. dog tube of Frontline every now and then just to make an appearance and treat the crew (4) off the one tube.  Outside of that they don't see me much. 

ORIGINAL: cc431


I guess it's a good thing the Great Dane Lady has added a supplement page...just look at some of those foods!  All kidding aside, I don't think fiber is a good thing for dogs.

You're kidding right?? If not, I think you need to spend some time reading some clinical information instead of crazy wacko websites who think they know what they're talking about and don't have a clue. The idea that fiber is BAD for dogs is incredible to me. There are DOZENS of fiber responsive diseases... that alone should be reason enough to think its important.

The snide comments and snarkiness need to stop and they need to stop now.  This is the second warning on this thread.  Don't make me shut it down.

Fiber...wow.   Well, yes it can all tie in here one way or another I guess 'cause Blackwatch feeding program contains fiber I assume?

I guess it's a good thing the Great Dane Lady has added a supplement page...just look at some of those foods!  All kidding aside, I don't think fiber is a good thing for dogs. 

 
Unless I was misunderstanding your post.... I was just talking about Beet Pulp which you mentioned in your post about corn/fiber. Beet Pulp is there for fiber...at least in the better foods.  Since we need fiber I think its important to know that beet pulp is not a bad thing at all. I feed Eagle Pack food and its an important ingredient in EP.

healthy dogs simply don't need fiber; their guts do not work at all like human guts. The only reason they have to add "beet pulp" to dog foods is all that grain and filler they put in the foods would result in chronic diarrhea unless they put something in there to artificially firm up the stool. I have dogs on zero-fiber diets and they don't fart all the time (a miracle with Danes) and have lovely hard small stools. Which don't look anything like the "fake fiber firm" stools of grain-fed dogs.
 
I don't like eaglepack ingredients or food profiles and have trouble understanding why it's considered to be a super premium food. The company has great quality control, but there isn't a single one of their foods I would ever consider feeding.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

healthy dogs simply don't need fiber; their guts do not work at all like human guts. The only reason they have to add "beet pulp" to dog foods is all that grain and filler they put in the foods would result in chronic diarrhea unless they put something in there to artificially firm up the stool. I have dogs on zero-fiber diets and they don't fart all the time (a miracle with Danes) and have lovely hard small stools. Which don't look anything like the "fake fiber firm" stools of grain-fed dogs. ...

 
Thank you Mudpuppy; guess I'm not the only one reading the 'wacko' material.  Glenda, I don't mind some snootiness coming from some folks, everyone has their opinion and it shows some spunk.  I am certainly not offended or upset with anyone comments or differing opinion.
 
When I hear things like clinical reports, pub-meds, etc., first thing I think of is 'follow the money'.  Who's putting up the cash?  Where is the grant money coming from?  The reports will always be favorable to Mr Iams or Mr. Purina so long as they're bankrolling the studies.   I'll put more faith in the independent studies and research as opposed to skewed analysis to meet ones agenda or criteria.