Trying to pick a "good" dog food, any help?

Very well put.[]

Well, DaVet, that's the other facet of the faith. A number of people consider dogs to be carnivores because they have carnassials in front of their pre-molars. This, in spite of actual observed evidence that canids, wild and domestic, do eat lant matter of some sort. In spite of the scientific classification of a dog as an omnivore in the order Carnivora. FWIW, these classifications were arrived at by people educated in their field. A number of people take the work of Robert K. Wayne of UCLA in the 90s who states that dogs are descended from the gray wolf and the species nomenclature has been changed to reflect that, as far as the American Society of Mammalogists and the Smithsonian Institute are concerned. The dog is no longer canis familiaris but is canis lupus familiaris. He's gone as far as to say that your dog, regardless of size or look is a domesticated wolf. My dog, at times, resembles a timberwolf. But a Yorkshire Terrier brings a different image to mind. Wayne's team found a difference of at least 26 genetic indicators between wolf and dog and no one here has been able to decipher which genetic indicators are different and what they control even though we have a member who has claimed expertise in genetics, before.
 
There are some immediate differences between a dog and a gray wolf. The coronoid process in the skull. The shape and size of the mandibular hinge are different. So is the size and thickness of the zygomatic arch. So is the size and thickness of the massiter muscle group. Also, wolves have a stomach that can hold twenty pounds of food and are able to hold a bone in place until it is wrapped in fur or hide. Dogs do not.

One thing Mudpuppy had pointed out very well in another thread is that corn, or any grain, though it may be expensive to grow, is a cheaper ingredient than meat. So, a grain-first food may be cheaper to produce. I think dogs are omnivores though their food should have a meat meal as the first ingredient.
 

NO dogs are not equipted(sic) to digest veg material,it must be mushed or cooked for them first before they gain any nutritional value.

In which part did he say he did not understand this concept?  And may I ask what university you attended to find this information since you sound so sure of yourself ...you are coming across a bit cocky with not much to back your claims other than heresay and "internet reading"

One thing Mudpuppy had pointed out very well in another thread is that corn, or any grain, though it may be expensive to grow, is a cheaper ingredient than meat. So, a grain-first food may be cheaper to produce. I think dogs are omnivores though their food should have a meat meal as the first ingredient.

 
 It's probable that more than half the dogs in this country are fed food based on corn ( Pedigree, Purina, Science Diet) and because they can digest cooked grains and the food is nutritionally balanced they do fairly well. I became seriously interested in nutrition because Jessie was having numerous skin infections and other problems because of her allergies and I was looking for ways to strengthen her immune system; at the time she was eating a grain based food. I read books by three holistic vets and one thing they all stressed was dogs need a diet based on meat for optimal health. I also searched endlessly online and of course that is the prevailing opinion I found there too. I  honestly don't know or have an opinion about whether or not raw, homecooked, or kibble is best but it is my opinion that whatever is fed has to be carefully balanced and meat should be the first ingredient. I learned about "splitting" where companies use corn or rice in several different forms; gluten, flour, and bran; the reason I chose a holistic brand was because it didn't use splitting to incorporate grain in most of the food. By the way, Jessie's veterinary dermatologist, who teaches future vets at a university, likes the holistic brands. I think it was dvet that brought up the point that wild canids eat the stomach contents of their prey and in doing so obtain the benefit of plant material, however it is unlikely that wild bison or caribou eat corn or rice; more likely their stomach will contain prairie grass and other plants that grow wild so that may not be a good argument for including grain in a dog's diet but probably is a reason to include some plant material in their food.

Okay, now that's just mean

 
Honestly, I agree and almost wrote that last night, but decided maybe I was just tired and looking at this the wrong way.   Now that I slept all night, I still agree, and wonder if matters if English or Japanese is his first language. 

NO dogs are not equipted(sic) to digest veg material,it must be mushed or cooked for them first before they gain any nutritional value

I shall disagree with you because of something I saw with my own eyes, so to speak. I was watching a show called "Global Wolf." People around the world are trying to protect and observe wolf populations around the world. It was on Animal Planet or Discovery. Anyway, right there, on a worldwide broadcast, was a grey wolf eating a berry or something off of a bush. No cooking, which makes plant matter more digestible, no fermenting in an ungulate's gut, which makes it more digestible. Straight off of the bush. And this is a 120 lb grey wolf, not a dog, which is the result of 100,000 years of eating whatever man cares to give him, meat or grain or plant. There that wolf was, mashing plant matter with his carnassials and pre-molars. Why the very idea! What does he think he is, an omnivore?

ORIGINAL: ron2


I shall disagree with you because of something I saw with my own eyes, so to speak. I was watching a show called "Global Wolf." People around the world are trying to protect and observe wolf populations around the world. It was on Animal Planet or Discovery. Anyway, right there, on a worldwide broadcast, was a grey wolf eating a berry or something off of a bush. No cooking, which makes plant matter more digestible, no fermenting in an ungulate's gut, which makes it more digestible. Straight off of the bush. And this is a 120 lb grey wolf, not a dog, which is the result of 100,000 years of eating whatever man cares to give him, meat or grain or plant. There that wolf was, mashing plant matter with his carnassials and pre-molars. Why the very idea! What does he think he is, an omnivore?

 
But there's no proof that the wolf actually digested and absorbed nutrients from those berries. Dogs also eat grass, but then they usually purge it. I tend to believe that dogs DON'T digest raw veggies very well, because everytime I've seen a dog fed carrots, there are distinguishable carrot pieces that come out the other end. Just like humans and corn. [] My understanding is that dogs have a very short digestive system and vegetable matter (in a whole form) takes too long to digest. Isn't that why cows have 4 stomachs?

But there's no proof that the wolf actually digested and absorbed nutrients from those berries

 
And you have no proof that the wolf did not digest and absorb the nutrients. You would still refute what is plainly documented right there in full color video. That, to me, is a strong faith that can make you doubt what can plainly be seen. And not just on that show, but documented for decades from various wild canid researchers. For example, the Maned Wolf of South America. During the summer, at least half of its diet is plant matter. One plant it likes so much in particular that the plant was named for it. Fruta Lobo, Wolf's Fruit. And there's no documented case that the Maned Wolf disgorged what it ate from the plant, nor could it survive the summer on a 50 percent plant diet by throwing it up and not absorbing it.
 
And, when a wolf eats, even by accident, the stomach contents of the kill, they do not throw it back up, except to feed the pups. And the stomach contents may only be partially digested if they ate recently.
 
Maybe you have a source of documented evidence. Simply suggesting that the wolf may not have absorbed the nutrients of the plant does not constitute proof that it did not absorb or get benefit from it. To have a doubt is one thing but to reject documented science because it doesn't fit into a particular paradigm goes against how I learned about science. Then, again, I'm old-fashioned. I don't mash science to fit my view, I adjust my view based on science. I, like others here, maybe such as yourself, thought a dog was a carnivore. Kennelkeeper educated me and provide the impetus to further educate myself. So, I adjusted my view based on documented science.
 
I'm not castigating you or haranguing. But I would ask if you had any actual evidence to refute what I could see, as well as what has been observed by researchers crouching in a field and following canids for weeks?
 

  I don't think a wolf would eat a berry unless it derived some benefit because it seems a wolve's instincts would tell it what is useful to eat.

Exactly my point. Dogs do not eat for the same reason that humans do. They eat on instinct. They don't choose strawberry parfait over chocolate pudding because the parfait looks better. If the past experience of wolves has found that sometimes eating plant matter will do or get them by or seems to add to their health in addition to the kills they make, could that not be a part of their survival? Functionally, it does. At one time, there were two types of canids. Carnivorous and omnivorous. The carnivore ate only deer type creatures. When those deer evolved into faster running mutations, the carnivorous canid couldn't keep up. So, it followed the slow deer into extinction. The omnivorous canid could get nutrients from sources other than meat. Nature's trial and error. A mutation made one canid more able to absorb from plants and that canid lived long enought produce another generation of omnivorous canids, ad infinitum.

And may I ask what university you attended to find this information since you sound so sure of yourself

I wouldnt think one would have to attend university to know dogs can not digest raw veggies [8|] Do you know something i dont?? Are you now saying than dogs can infact digest raw veg in it's whole raw state and that it doesnt need to be cooked or pulverised?
To be honest i'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Honestly,i agree and almost wrote that last night,but decided maybe i was just tired and loking at this the wrong way.

See jojo,what i told you in that pm about the bandwagon is true,isnt it!

I suppose i should explain my asking dvet about his first language.Considering vets are highly academic people who in my opinion are smarter than the avergae bear,you would assume they could spell simple words,unless ofcourse english was not their first language,then it would be totally understandable.But for an english speaking born 'vet' i think it worrying. Wouldnt anyone think the same??

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

ORIGINAL: ron2


I shall disagree with you because of something I saw with my own eyes, so to speak. I was watching a show called "Global Wolf." People around the world are trying to protect and observe wolf populations around the world. It was on Animal Planet or Discovery. Anyway, right there, on a worldwide broadcast, was a grey wolf eating a berry or something off of a bush. No cooking, which makes plant matter more digestible, no fermenting in an ungulate's gut, which makes it more digestible. Straight off of the bush. And this is a 120 lb grey wolf, not a dog, which is the result of 100,000 years of eating whatever man cares to give him, meat or grain or plant. There that wolf was, mashing plant matter with his carnassials and pre-molars. Why the very idea! What does he think he is, an omnivore?

But there's no proof that the wolf actually digested and absorbed nutrients from those berries. Dogs also eat grass, but then they usually purge it. I tend to believe that dogs DON'T digest raw veggies very well, because everytime I've seen a dog fed carrots, there are distinguishable carrot pieces that come out the other end. Just like humans and corn. [] My understanding is that dogs have a very short digestive system and vegetable matter (in a whole form) takes too long to digest. Isn't that why cows have 4 stomachs?

 
Ahem.  If you care to pick apart the corn in stool, you will notice the only undigested part is the outer skin of the corn. The inner contents will be digested. It's true that *some of the corn is not digested, but all of the inner parts ARE.
 

I suppose i should explain my asking dvet about his first language.Considering vets are highly academic people who in my opinion are smarter than the avergae bear,you would assume they could spell simple words,unless ofcourse english was not their first language,then it would be totally understandable.But for an english speaking born 'vet' i think it worrying. Wouldnt anyone think the same??

LOL ummm No, considering I only speak English and have trouble spelling certain words.  FTR, it is "equipped."

See jojo,what i told you in that pm about the bandwagon is true,isnt it!
 
Oh God!!!!!