Food For Thought

Food is just part of a larger package.  Yep, genetics plays a major role in health and lifespan.  However, I doubt you'd find a human doctor that would tell a patient that had cancer in her family that she should just eat/drink/smoke whatever because she was going to get cancer anyway.  No, you do your best to help the body deal with the genetic hand it was played.  I don't see why that is such a hard concept to grasp.  

I agree with this, IMO you should try to control the things you can.  You CAN control what goes in their mouth even if you can't control the predisposition for cancer, epilepsy, etc......  Just like smoking, even if you are at a higher genetic risk for lung cancer, if you stay away from cigarettes you will probably be just fine. 

Except for when so many around you are smoking.  I had my last cigarette on June 30, 1999---believe it or not for the sake of my goldens, not myself--and my husband has never stopped.  he does smoke outside, tho, not in the house.  Older son and wife both smoke and when I am there, they both smoke.  And it seems like I hvae to go thru clouds of smoke to get into stores, resturants, etc.  But I think it is the smoke, etc coming from the refinereis, from Oxy-Chem, from Dupont, from Sherwin that is doing more damage to my dogs and me than the cigarette smoke.

sandra_slayton

Except for when so many around you are smoking.  I had my last cigarette on June 30, 1999---believe it or not for the sake of my goldens, not myself--and my husband has never stopped.  he does smoke outside, tho, not in the house.  Older son and wife both smoke and when I am there, they both smoke.  And it seems like I hvae to go thru clouds of smoke to get into stores, resturants, etc.  But I think it is the smoke, etc coming from the refinereis, from Oxy-Chem, from Dupont, from Sherwin that is doing more damage to my dogs and me than the cigarette smoke.

ETA: General rant - not directed at anyone in particular.

Excuses, excuses. Environment and circumstance do not make it okay to just give up and say you’re screwed anyway so why bother. Genetics, exercise and nutrition can help you and your dogs to be in good health despite those things, instead of poor health because of them.

yup. You may be lucky and get a dog who will "do well" for 18 years no matter what you feed the dog or how you exercise the dog; but when you bring the pup home you don't know. And by the time you find out, it will be too late to change anything. It's a package deal: start with good genetics, add socialization, training, good nutrition, exercise, mental stimulation, a good home environment, a dash of luck, and you get good lifelong health. Leave out any single ingredient and you may be in trouble. Stress, for example, causes many health problems, and is often ignored in animals cause they can't talk.

Stess is bad for any creature, humans, dogs, cat, wild animals, etc.  and can bring all kinds of problems.  I think most folks know that. 

I do have a question.  My dogs look great, get great physicals and test results, have plenty of energy, but I keep getting told they can't be as healthy as I think they are and that I won't know til they die that they were not as healthy as I thought because of what I feed them.   Okay, you think your dogs look great, get great physicals and test, have lots of energy, etc, but they are as healthy as you think because of what you feed.  How do you kow that"  If you can't tell til a dog dies, how do you know your dogs are so much healtheir than mine if they aren't dead yet?  And how can you tell even then/  I have never been able to figure this out if you can't tell you dog isn't healthy until he dies at 15 years of age, how do you know your dogs are so healthy?l

JMO... you don't know that. I don't know that, none of us know that. But... by stacking the deck in our favor as much as possible, we can greatly increase our odds of having a "healthy" (relatively speaking) dog.

 Just say,i have 2 dogs that i feed completely different foods to. One dog gets something like ol roy and a few table scraps here or there.The other dog gets top of the line dry food,some raw meat and bones and lots of healthy extra's.The law of health averages would dictate the 2nd dog would be healthier inside and out,even if they both "look" the same.

You cant feed on a second grade system and expect first grade health...You are what you eat. And if you never try a superior way of feeding you will never know if your dogs are the healthiest they can be.If your dog drops dead at 15 of cancer and you have fed nothing but kibble n bits for it's entire life,then the odd's are good that poor feeding didnt help that dogs cause at all.However if that same dog died at the same age of the same disease but you fed him the absolute best species appropriate diet for it's entire life then you know you did everything possible to give that dog the best chance,and there would be no room for second guessing yourself,which can not be said for the first case in point.

If you give them the very best from the very beginning,there's little room for the "if only's"... If God forbid one of my dogs ever get's cancer,i couldnt handle the guilt of knowing i could have done/fed something better.

I think the bottom line is you're putting them behind the eight ball from day 1 if you're feeding some of the crapola foods available today. 

    I think we have to give some credit to Pedigree for the longevity of these dogs. If only one of them had lived an exceptionally long life then we can say it was probably genetics, but all three; I don't think so.  If Sandra had posted that these dogs were being fed Canidae or Innova, then we would have given the food at least part of the credit. Why not do the same for Pedigree? 

    Jessie has been on another much maligned food,Nutro Natural Choice Large Breed Puppy, for several weeks and is doing great. I've been having problems with her weight for a while in spite of the fact that we walk an hour or more daily and I keep a careful eye on her treats and cut her calories back. I wanted to try one of the higher protein, low fat foods made by Royal Canin or Pro Plan designed for weight loss but couldn't because of her food allergies. The Nutro puppy is 27% protein and 13% fat so I decided to try it and she is losing about a pound every two weeks. In addition, her coat shines like a newly waxed car; it's the best way I can describe it. People who knew her before have noticed the difference. She's always had a shiny coat and my vet has commented on how nice it was, but it's even shinier on this food and her energy level is great. It's the only thing I've changed; she still gets some home cooked food every day and flax seed oil and fish oil, but I've been doing that for years. I plan on using this food in my rotation even though it's not a holistic food.

My KayCee is on nutro Senior as i can not longer purina Senior .  I tried several places and could Purian everything else, just not senior.  She likes the nutro and been on it 2 weeks.

I get getting told that you don't know til your dog dies if the food it was on was keeping it alive and healthy, and for the life of me i can't see how you will know that when a dog dies.  Maybe it lives to 14 eating Timber Wolf, but how do you know it wouldn't have lived to 16 eating pedigree?  I have been asked that same question, how do i know my dogs wouldn't have lived longer if they had been on something other than purina?  Maybe they would have, maybe they would not.  I just know that barring distemper many years ago, poison, etc, they all lived to and past life expectancy, hunted to the end.

 I have come to the conclusion that any vets or nutritionlist that work for Hills, purina, Iams, etc, don't know do diddly about nutrition.  They just sit around twiddling their thumbs and drawing big pay.  But people like Morgana and others  KNOW all there is to know   At least that is the opinion of several here. 

 expensive high end foods don't guarantee anything and many were in the recalls (diamond, natural balance, nutro, foster and smith, blue buff, science diet and years back, go natural)  it's frustrating

Science Diet isn't really high end. And while most of those are quality foods, I wouldn't consider them expensive, atleast not compared to more high quality food. (That wasn't a rip at those brands, I happen to be a fan of both Natural Balance and Blue Buffalo). You're right, though, feeding high end food doesn't guarantee anything health wise.

 
It certainly does help, though.

sandra_slayton

 I have come to the conclusion that any vets or nutritionlist that work for Hills, purina, Iams, etc, don't know do diddly about nutrition.  They just sit around twiddling their thumbs and drawing big pay.  But people like Morgana and others  KNOW all there is to know   At least that is the opinion of several here. 

Not to go too off-topic, but my impression is that people are criticizing the Big Companies more for designing their research around "What's the cheapest food we can make and still get away with it?" than around exactly what's best for the dog. I don't think anyone's suggesting the vets and nutritionists are just "twiddling their thumbs," just that the focus of the work might not necessarily be what's in the best interest of the pets and their owners.

Whether that's true or not, who knows. If any of these dog food companies weren't making a profit they wouldn't be in business anymore, which is why IMHO it's good to get opinions and information from those outside the pet food industry. It's up to us to educate ourselves as best we can and pick the lesser of the many, many available evils (including expensive homecooking recipes!).

  Not to go too off-topic, but my impression is that people are criticizing the Big Companies more for designing their research around "What's the cheapest food we can make and still get away with it?" than around exactly what's best for the dog. I don't think anyone's suggesting the vets and nutritionists are just "twiddling their thumbs," just that the focus of the work might not necessarily be what's in the best interest of the pets and their owners.Whether that's true or not, who knows. If any of these dog food companies weren't making a profit they wouldn't be in business anymore, which is why IMHO it's good to get opinions and information from those outside the pet food industry. It's up to us to educate ourselves as best we can and pick the lesser of the many, many available evils (including expensive homecooking recipes!).

   Good points. By the way, I just went to Pedigree's website and checked out the ingredients they use in their products; yeck! Still, I think the food deserves some credit for how long the GSD and Lab lived.
 

My KayCee is on nutro Senior as i can not longer purina Senior .  I tried several places and could Purian everything else, just not senior.  She likes the nutro and been on it 2 weeks.

    Sandra, It's a shame you can't find the Purina One Senior anymore; it has more protein than the Nutro Senior. IMO the amount of protein in Nutro Senior is too low, but I know you add extra meat to their food. I'm not one that feeds the super high ( 30% or more) protein foods but research by Eukanuba and Royal Canin shows that senior dogs need more protein than younger dogs. Maybe you could talk to the vet about feeding her the Purina One and adding a joint supplement.