Blackwatch feed program

I choose not to be institutionalized into profit driven large company way of thinking.  I say no to string beans...I say no to yucca...no to cranberries...no beet pulp...no potatoes...no roots...no carrots...etc., give me the meat and the fat, and the by-Products, and bring on the fish and poultry, fish fat, LARD, etc. I say no to gluten protein and yes for animal source proteins.  Is it wrong for me to think like that?  I want to feed my dog better than 'industry' standards, that is my science.

I don't think there is anything wrong with your choice! Because its your right to make that choice and feed your dog anything you want to.  And its your right to express your choice...but you sound like you are stating facts that are against the medical and scientic studies. Don't think people are going to agree with that.
When I feed my dog natural bone and meat,,,,she DOES have diarrhea,,,each time and for almost a week most always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cc431

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.

 
This makes no sense, yes lets follow the money trail. If indeed these companies sponsered these studies, why would they spend millions of dollars to tell you that your dog does not need enzymes or an additional product, which they could then sell to you. They don't say our studies support that you need to go out and buy Purina or Iam's enzymes. The latest major Purina study, indicated that the best thing you could do for the overall health of your dog is feed 25% less food, no conspiracy there.  So if you really follow the money, it is going into the pockets of the companies that are selling the supplements, and they should be the ones questioned.
 
Here is what some ACVN's say about it:
 








Question

I have read on another website that sells a raw organic meat diet that cooked food lacks digestive enzymes that raw food provides. How could this be true ????

Answer

It depends which "enzymes" – yes food does contain enzymes but not ones needed by the pet.
Cook food does not need to contain the enzymes necessary for digestion. The animal has all the enzymes needed to digest food sufficiently to obtain the needed nutrients.
A basic review of physiology is needed. The dog pancreas has been reported to contain 70x the enzymes needed to digest a meal of protein and fat. There is disaccharidase activity in the small intestine to digest grains.
In only one medical condition, is enzymes addition needed – Pancreatic Enzyme Insufficiency (PEI), which is easily documented by a TLI blood test. The medical condition is one of the easiest to diagnosis and treat, and in these cases, more than 90% of pancreas has to be destroyed before clinical signs of increased appetite, poor stool quality and weight loss are seen. The reserve capacity of pancreas, liver and small bowel to digest food is tremendous!
Given the normal dog digests over 90% of it#%92s food (except high fiber diets) – what more could you want? Why is there a need for more enzymes (unless you had a product to sell)? Some fecal production is necessary – 100% digestion is not healthy on a long-term basis.
True foods do contain enzymes – BUT these are not the ones needed by the pet to digest its meal. Enzymes work at very specific temp, pH, osmolarity, substrates and concentrations. A plant enzyme would have great difficulty operating properly within the mammalian small bowel – a totally foreign environment for which it was designed. And why would a food contain the enzymes to digest itself? No evolutionary advantage there.

Supplements and diets for sale are said to contain so-called “digestive enzymes lacking in the dog”, if you look closely, those enzymes are ones needed to digest plant material such as cellulases and ligin. Even if the digestion did take place in the small bowel, the pet is incapable of utilizing the end products of this exogenous digestion - the difference between an alpha vs. beta glucose linkage for example.
So what#%92s the point of adding 'enzymes' to your pet's diet - nothing more than moving $$$ from your wallet into theirs.

 



Question

I have read that dogs can't digest starch. This is obviously not true, but haven't been able to find information about salivary amylase in dogs. Do they never have salivary amylase, always have it, or have varying amounts of it depending on the amount of starch in their diets?

Answer

Dogs do not have salivary alpha-amylase and hence cannot begin starch digestion in the mouth. This is not an inducible enzyme, so eating more starch does not initiate production of this enzyme in the mouth.
The pancreas secretes enzymes somewhat proportionally to the concentration of the stimulus in the gastric chyme, and reportedly secretes many (x 70) times more than is needed to digest the meal. I would think a dog on a high starch diet (60%) would secrete more starch digesting enzymes (and there are several types other than amylase) than a dog eating a 20% starch diet depending on the form of the glucose units. However, there are many different carbohydrates digesting enzymes buried in the brush border of the entire intestinal mucosa as well, which also must be taken into account. The non-fiber carbohydrate sources (NFE) on average are 80-90% digested by the normal dog.
Starch has two types of linkages (alpha 1,4 and alpha 1,6 bonds) between the glucose and mammals secrete enzymes sufficient to break both types. Mammals can also break the glucose alpha-links in the form of glycogen (stored in the liver and muscle of prey). Cellulose is nothing more than glucose molecules hooked together by beta-links and no mammal can digest that link. This is why fiber in not digested by mammals and is used as a non-digestible fraction of the diet. Normal dogs should have fiber in their diet.
So basically, adding enzymes to the food for a normal dog is unnecessary for digestion, a waste of money for pet owners, and nothing more than modern day selling of “cure-all” snake oil.

ORIGINAL: abbysdad


This makes no sense, yes lets follow the money trail. If indeed these companies sponsered these studies, why would they spend millions of dollars to tell you that your dog does not need enzymes or an additional product, which they could then sell to you. They don't say our studies support that you need to go out and buy Purina or Iam's enzymes. The latest major Purina study, indicated that the best thing you could do for the overall health of your dog is feed 25% less food, no conspiracy there.  So if you really follow the money, it is going into the pockets of the companies that are selling the supplements, and they should be the ones questioned.

 
Well it all depends on how you look at it.  It is cheaper for Purina to not have to worry about adding enzymes to their food.  Also, Purina has no interest in the business of selling supplements and vitamins.  They want you to believe that the foods they sell on the supermarket shelves are 100% complete, and it is in their best interest to dispel the claims of other brands that enzymes are beneficial.
 
The study that Purina did showing that feeding less food will increase your dog's lifespan, is a great study indeed.  However, it is naive to think that Purina put in all the $$ and effort into that study out of the goodness of their hearts.  These types of studies give the company credibility, get people thinking about Purina and allow a new opportunity to advertise.  That is not to say that good things cannot come out of these studies.  But let's not be foolish and naive.  AT the end of the day, these are money making corporate entities that are in existence for the purpose of making a profit.  Same as the human pharmaceutical industry.  Purina or Iams is not going to conduct a study that is most likely going to reduce profits and affect the pockets of the shareholders.  Purina, Procter and Gamble and Colgate Palmolive are publicy owned companies.  That is why it is our individual responsiblity to educate ourselves utlizing various sources of information, and the concludions from the scientific studies that are for the most part funded by the pet food companies are only as informative as the study is designed to be .

The study that Purina did showing that feeding less food will increase your dog's lifespan, is a great study indeed.  However, it is naive to think that Purina put in all the $$ and effort into that study out of the goodness of their hearts.  These types of studies give the company credibility, get people thinking about Purina and allow a new opportunity to advertise. 

 
But there is nothing wrong with that,,,it doesn't matter why they did it,,,its the end results that matter.
 

ORIGINAL: dyan

But there is nothing wrong with that,,,it doesn't matter why they did it,,,its the end results that matter.

 
Yes, and I stated that twice in my post
 

The study that Purina did showing that feeding less food will increase your dog's lifespan, is a great study indeed.

 

That is not to say that good things cannot come out of these studies.

 
I've been quoting the results of this study to my mother in law to make her realize that keeping a dog overweight is not healthy.  She wonders why her beagle died at age 12 from diabetes and pancreatitis.
 
My point was that the study results are only as useful as the study is designed to be.  For example, if you compare two ingredients in a study, and one comes out better than the other, that doesn't mean that there aren't much better ingredients out there.  Or, if you do a 6 month study on the effect of some particular substance or food, it only tells you the effect during that 6 months, not 8 years later.  If you feed a variety of kibbles, and the kibble with the highest fiber content produces the best result, that does not mean that high fiber is desirable if feeding raw, homecooked or canned, or that dog's systems are designed to require fiber.  You see what I mean?  True scientific method involves using all possible variables if a big, sweeping generalization is to be made.  Of course that is not something realistcally attainable, so those carrying out and/or funding the study use the variables that apply to them.

AT the end of the day, these are money making corporate entities that are in existence for the purpose of making a profit

I completely agree, however Purina, Iams and Science Diet are not the only ones in business to make many, so are the holistic companies, let's not forget Solid Gold, marketed numerous fradulent supplements including one that could cure cancer to desperate pet owners, until the FDA convicted them of fraud and threw there owner in prison, yet they are held in high esteem and can walk on water, and  a company like Hill's, which spends millions in annual research and has foods that are clinically proven to help suffering animals with liver disease, heart disease, and cancer is despised. Why because one uses bison and blueberries and the other uses chicken by-products and corn and somehow we can all magically tell that the bison and blueberries are more nutritional, without knowing anything about the quality or origin of the ingredients or how they are stored, handled, balanced, tested, transported or manufactured. 

a company like Hill's, which spends millions in annual research and has foods that are clinically proven to help suffering animals with liver disease, heart disease, and cancer is despised.

Some of us are quite convinced that the poor-quality diets produced by companies such as Hills' are major factors in making these animals ill in the first place. 
 
I would also like to see what they feed the control groups in these studies-- if you feed a garbage food to the control group, well hey, strangely enough the prescription diet "works".  

Some of us are quite convinced that the poor-quality diets produced by companies such as Hills' are major factors in making these animals ill in the first place. 

I would also like to see what they feed the control groups in these studies-- if you feed a garbage food to the control group, well hey, strangely enough the prescription diet "works".  

 
As much as I would stay away from Hills,,, as much as I hate the ingredient list. I have to say that working at a place where people are buying the prescription diets... they say after trying one food after another that the prescription food has been the only thing that worked.   Can't deny those facts!

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

a company like Hill's, which spends millions in annual research and has foods that are clinically proven to help suffering animals with liver disease, heart disease, and cancer is despised.

Some of us are quite convinced that the poor-quality diets produced by companies such as Hills' are major factors in making these animals ill in the first place. 

I would also like to see what they feed the control groups in these studies-- if you feed a garbage food to the control group, well hey, strangely enough the prescription diet "works".  

Its a scientific study... They feed the SAME food, except for the alterations that make the ingredients different. Therefore, if the study is looking at the difference between j/d and regular food, they would have used the same exact formula but without the additional fatty acids and glucosamine. You can't compare apples to oranges in a scientific study...

I'm always tempted to try a whole bunch of different supplements because I love my dogs and want them to live in perfect health until one day before I die.
 
But....some supplements are good for some dogs and a waste of money for others. Some work against each other and some are just plain junk. My dogs also begin to dislike their food if there are too many things added.
 
For me it has been well worth the money to consult with a holistic vet for each dog about diet and supplements. I feel much more confident that they are getting what is beneficial to them and I'm not wasting money on things they don't need.

Some of us are quite convinced that the poor-quality diets produced by companies such as Hills' are major factors in making these animals ill in the first place.

Ok so let's trust the companies whose products  have been scientifically proven not to work instead of the companies whose products have been scientificaly proven to work. (sissy still owns the company)

A three-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, ending on July 12, 1990, brought to a close 12 years of FDA actions to put a halt to the fraud. In his summary statement, presiding Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. said that Sissy Harrington-McGill, president and owner of Solid Gold Health Products for Pets, doing business as Solid Gold Holistic Animal-Equine Nutrition Center, had never really intended to comply with the terms of the injunction, but instead had continued to market her products over the last two years with the same prohibited therapeutic claims and product names.
Harrington-McGill had claimed her products--sold under such names as "Solid Gold Energy Plus," "Solid Gold Concept-A-Mare," "Solid Gold Yucca/Anise Combination," and "Solid Gold Herbal Wormer"--could cure or treat animal diseases such as cancer, arthritis, cataracts, hip dysplasia, immunological and vascular disorders, parasitic infestations, conception problems, nervous tension, and muscle cramps. She claimed that one of her products, "Solid Gold Herbal Extension," could cure feline leukemia, a disease that strikes 1 million cats each year. (There is no cure for feline leukemia. An approved vaccine to prevent the disease is available.) Most of her products consisted of herbal mixtures, vitamin or mineral supplements, and unapproved food additives that have not been shown to be effective in treating animal diseases.

[linkhttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9246902.html]http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9246902.html[/link]

This isn't anything but personal experience, and really doesn't belong here.   But, I'll say it anyway.
 
In my mind, Solid Gold is at the bottom of the heap with O'roy.  I *suspect* there are unlisted items in their food and supplements.  Whether it be food, or supplements, my guys do bad on it.  OK, so you say, there is something in the food that doesn't agree with your dogs.  Fine.   So, why is it that a single source item - dried lamb lung -will cause problems with my guys, but someone else's dried lamb lungs don't?   I *suspect* they put chemical preservatives on it.   Yep, this is all suspisicion on my part.   My point is that I don't think SG belongs in the top tier of dog foods. I've tried food, supplements, treats at various times over a three year period, all with bad results.  I won't be trying anything else of theirs again.  And if what the last poster said is true - that she claims to cure cancer, then that makes me feel all the more likely there are unlisted ingredients / preservatives in the foods.  Anyone making a claim to cure cancer or leukemia is out after moola, and that's about it.   And someone making those types of claims, in my opinion, is not ethical and will not be ethical in their production of food and supplement products.  Again, just my opinion.

Pet food labeling laws will vary by State.  If you're prohibited from making medical claims that would be the law, regardless of whether they claim is valid or invalid. 
 
When the Federal government got in the business of regulating dog food, they had no experience to draw upon.  They never regulated dog food in the past.  So they put together a team to regulate and set the minimum standards of nutrition, and to do this they called upon some leading veterinarians in the country.  Problem was (and still is) those in control then never made the connections between meat-based diets (diets of the past) being vital in proper nutrition for a dog#%92s peak health.  No connections between benefits of red meat.  They went along with the industry standards of feeds between produced at the time using that as a guide to set the standards.  This is unacceptable.  The minimum standards are too low.  Like him or not, hate the company philosophy, they are still in your corner fighting for your dogs health.  Not only will they go after what they feel 'nonsense' coming from the WDJ, they have also attempted in the past to pressure the Fed Gov't to raise the level of minimum standards for pets.  This would cost everybody money in the industry.  It is what the company feels must be done for dogs and cats across the country.  It should be done (raise minimum standards) to promote self-sufficiency, not breakdown.  It has not been done and minimum standards remain weak.

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

Its a scientific study... They feed the SAME food, except for the alterations that make the ingredients different. Therefore, if the study is looking at the difference between j/d and regular food, they would have used the same exact formula but without the additional fatty acids and glucosamine. You can't compare apples to oranges in a scientific study...

 
And that's all that the studies on the prescription diets conclude, is that it "works" to treat whatever ailment it is that the food is being used for.  Prescpription foods aren't designed for maximum, long term, whole body nutrition. If they were, then why wouldn't Hill's regular Science Diet maintenance diets have the same ingredients? 

ORIGINAL: Stacita

I'm always tempted to try a whole bunch of different supplements because I love my dogs and want them to live in perfect health until one day before I die.

But....some supplements are good for some dogs and a waste of money for others. Some work against each other and some are just plain junk. My dogs also begin to dislike their food if there are too many things added.

For me it has been well worth the money to consult with a holistic vet for each dog about diet and supplements. I feel much more confident that they are getting what is beneficial to them and I'm not wasting money on things they don't need.

 
I can see the value in giving digestive supplements to kibble, because in the end, regardless of what kibble you are feeding, a dog's digestive system isn't meant to digest dried pellets.  And some of the better quality foods do not have ingredients in them to artificially firm the stools, so maybe the digestive supplements help.