Food For Thought

cc431

k_dawg

No thank youuuuuuuuuuu

 

Yea, good thing then they're not marketing to you!   When have you ever heard of it or seen it in a store?  Many here probably never heard of it until they heard about it from me.  Clearly, they don't market to the general pop..

 

I first saw their full page ads in a major dog magazine..... 

Besides, what does their marketing or lack of marketing have anything to do with the fact that their ingredients are poor for dog food? No one on dog.com with any nutrition sense would buy food that has chicken by-product meal as the first ingredient, unless they were using as their 5% organ meat.

From what I have seen first hand the opposite is true. 

That reminds me of something that is a little OT but relates to what you just said. Someome I met a few years ago mentioned he had a dog. So of course I'm interested and I start asking questions, one of which was what food is he on. It was something awful, some walmart type food. So of course I go on my rant about how horrible those foods are and your dog might not live past 8, etc. His response is, oh yeah? my dog is 11. So then I didn't really know what to say, until I saw the dog. And my god. He could BARELY walk, he was missing most of his hair, was horribly matted to the point that I couldn't even tell what was matt and what was skin in some places. His skin was disgusting and flaky, the dog couldn't see well, he smelled really bad, his poops were really smelly, what little hair he had left was really dry and coarse. I just gawked at him and stuttered out "um... your dog just completely proved me point about dog food." Anyhoo, he did change foods but I don't know how the dog is doing because we haven't been talking.

So the point with that whole story was that you are very right, a lot of people think their dog is fine when they are really in bad condition due to poor food.

k_dawg, yes exactly sometimes the owers are the last to see how unhealthy their dogs are :)

We see it all the time at the grooming shop. Dogs that to us look horrible and unhealthy but the owners are raving about how their vets tell them how well the dog is doing "considering" the dogs age.  Yup, and the vet is probably making a lot of money selling this owner drugs to keep it alive as well.  That to me is sad as well how Vets will put our customer's dogs on drugs and suppress problems instead of addressing diet, unless it's one of their prescrip foods. 

One great example I have is a breeder friend of mine, actually she is the breeder of our Newf's Cassie & Tori.  Her Newf's have always lived to be about 8 upwards to 11 years of age which is consided very normal for a Newf actually 11 for her lines is considered past the expected lifespan of a Newf.  Her last Newf Wally (who was top Newf in Canada one year) was 11 before she finally put him down.  His kidneys were shot, he had liver disease and many other health problems.  Cancer in his toe that was caught in time and amputated.  Anyway, if you saw him you would have thought he looked pretty darn good for an old dog.  But, he was so pumped full of medication that he was unaware of the pain he was in.  Once his med's wore off he was an old dog again. He was just put down a while ago.  This breeder has stated that she has tried "everything" including raw, the best kibbles etc and nothing has worked as well for her as Eukanuba.  The truth is, she promotes Eukanuba big time now as they support her when she puts on a National speciality and organizes dog shows.  They provide tents, prizes everything.  I see her dogs off show season and they do not look very good at all.  They have sores, ears are dirty, they have to get dentals done, the breeder has tons of secrets of how to make her dogs look great before going into the ring (don't most breeders lol).  I always thought to mysel how could she do this to her dogs and promote this food when she has seen first hand how well our dogs are doing.  But for many breeders and vets the bottom line is what can this dog food company do for me. 

Meanwhile here is Cassie who was so unhealthy when she lived with the breeder and ate Eukanuba.  But, the health problems Cassie had were considered normal.  We experimented with food and herbs and we have made her into a healthy dog.  After seeing first hand how food can improve the health of our Canine companions I really like to share with other people so they can see the same results with their dogs.  I truly love dogs and like to see them living well and healthy.  I have also experienced how food greatly improved my own health as well over the years.  I used to eat "alright" but was always kinda sick, couldn't deal with stress very well etc.  Once I started eating healthy and mainly organic I noticed a huge improvement in my own health and well being.  Over the decades I have learned so much and I feel the difference and I see the difference every day.  Especially with many of our customers dogs, amazing how much they improved with good quality food. 

For me seeing is believing.  What I see with my own eyes is proof for me that quality foods and raw can make a huge improvement in a dogs health.  I can go on as many dog forums and hear people state that their dogs are doing just fine and are vital and healthy eating poor quality foods and kibble day in and day out.  But, that is just talk.  I don't "know" these dogs, I've never patted them and felt their coats etc.  So, basically I only believe what I see and not just what a person that I don't even know tells everyone on a forum.  Another thing I don't understand is why a person who loves animals would basically tell people and sway them to buy lower quality foods.  That just baffles me to no end.  Especially when that person is feeding their dogs a good percentage of home prepared.  For me I just can't understand what a person has to prove by putting down quality foods and promoting poor quality.  

Okay, I have read over and over of dogs on "high end food' having problems.  "High end food is the all and all of dog health.  if it makes a dog have the runs or makes them sick, etc, it is NOT a good food for them.  I grew up on a farm where i had fresh fresh eggs every day, fresh veggies during summer, and canned or frozen with no additives in the winter.  I had fresh killed chicken most Sunday, frozen beef and hog we slaughtered, quail, duck dove, , etc that we killed, spring water with nothing added to drink, whole fresh milk daily.  You could not ask for a better diet than we had.  yet I got rheumatic fever at age 10, developed a heart murmur from that, developed rheumatoid arthritis by the time I was 40. I had measles, mumps twice, stretp throat and tonsilitis a number of times.  All the best diet in the world didn't prevent these things from happening.  And all the best dog food in the world will not prevent all dogs from getting cancer or having itches or IBS or thyroid problems, etc.

 I have feed Purina for 51 years and I know a good looking dog when i see one.  My golden retrievers sleep in the bed with me and i would not have a dirty, smelly, oily matted dog in my bed, much less two of them. I have posted pictures of my dogs--even past ones--and gotten many comments on how beautiful their coats are.  They have lived long, happy, healthy active lives.  I do not tell people to use purina, nor do i tell them to use Timberwolf or whatever.  I say use what works for you dog.

 I hate to say it but some here give the impression that only the feeders of high end food know when a dog looks good, when a dog is healthy, etc.  I think that rather insutls about 90% of the population.  I also find it ironic that some do not believe it when others on lower grade food say how great their dogs are doing, but expect us to believe it when they say how great their dogs are doing.  That is a two way street.

I've heard of a lot of dogs on low quality kibble that do well. I've actually even seen two or three of them that did look well. I've also seen a lot of dogs on low quality kibble that don't look so good. As well, I've seen a few dogs on good quality kibble that didn't look so good. The food isn't everything. However, common sense tells us that feeding better quality food is more healthy than feeding low quality food.

I don't tell strangers or acquaintances what to feed their dogs, but I sure as heck talk to my friends when I've found out they're feeding foods such as Purina. It's not that I don't believe that they can tell when their dog looks healthy, it's that I believe they should be feeding their dog something better. On these message boards, I'll tell you what I think about Purina, but I'm not going to actually say, "hey, you better switch your food."

 

sandra_slayton

I also find it ironic that some do not believe it when others on lower grade food say how great their dogs are doing, but expect us to believe it when they say how great their dogs are doing.  That is a two way street.

 

While that attitude certainly is condescending, this comes back to common sense. The fact is, it's easier to believe that a dog being fed quality food is healthier than a dog being fed low quality food. Even though, I'm sure, many times there will be dogs being fed low quality food that are still healthy.

Chungwa

I've heard of a lot of dogs on low quality kibble that do well. I've actually even seen two or three of them that did look well. I've also seen a lot of dogs on low quality kibble that don't look so good. As well, I've seen a few dogs on good quality kibble that didn't look so good. The food isn't everything. However, common sense tells us that feeding better quality food is more healthy than feeding low quality food..............The fact is, it's easier to believe that a dog being fed quality food is healthier than a dog being fed low quality food. Even though, I'm sure, many times there will be dogs being fed low quality food that are still healthy.

I've been lurking on this thread since it's inception, and find it to be an interesting discussion. The portion of the post that I've quoted above, along with several other posts raise a fundamental question in my mind. How is it that we define a food as being "better"? I'm not asking here what ingredients make a food "better" or "low quality". I've read tons of stuff from lots of sources about what ingredients are supposedly bad, and which ones are supposedly good. What I'm asking is what evidence these judgements of quality are based upon. I think this comes full circle back to the original post about the long lived dogs that were being fed "low quality" food. If the dogs are living long healthy lives on a food, then what makes it "low quality?" The typical response is that well, the dogs would have been even healthier and more long lived if they'd been fed a "better" food. And how do we know that? Because the food is "better"? And how do we know it's "better"? Because the dogs would have been healthier if they had been fed that food. This is clearly circular reasoning. Is there evidence outside the circle that supports the notion of what constitutes "better"?

Actually, I've commented a couple of times that I haven't seen any studies that support better quality food means better quality health in dogs.

As for what is better... That's been debated, but generally there are a number of types/brands that are considered higher quality while others are lower quality. As you said, it has to with ingredients. I'm always a little confused by people who question the idea that some foods are better than others based on ingredients. I mean, would anyone argue that eating a variety of foods at McDonald's be as healthy as eating a variety of home cooked meals? I'm not trying to make a directly connection between dogs and people here, but obviously better quality food is going to be "better."

Or are you questioning whether or not the ingredients that are usually considered better to truly be "better?" If that's the case, well, like I said, I haven't seen any studies done based on complete diets. But there is a lot of scientific research about how specific foods and chemicals react with animals. That isn't anything new and, generally speaking, isn't really contested. Take, for example, soy in dog food. It doesn't take much research on the Internet to find legitimate information about why you probably don't want a whole heck of a lot of soy in dog food. I certainly wish there were more studies on the food, though. I know P&G's Iams does some studies, but they're hardly a reliable source.

Again, though, the food isn't everything. I'm a big believer in feeding quality food, but I wont say that feeding my brand of choice will ensure your dog will live longer than if you feed it Ol' Roy.

Chungwa

....Or are you questioning whether or not the ingredients that are usually considered better to truly be "better?"...

Yeah, that's my question. I actually feed my dogs a kibble that most people here would rate as being among the best kibbles, recognizing that there are those who think the expression quality kibble is an oxymoron. So, I'm not trying to defend feeding Old Roy. But really, I don't have any evidence that my dogs are any healthier now than they were when I fed them Purina or Science Diet. I switched to a "better" kibble, because it makes ME feel good to think I'm feeding the best. But my dogs didn't stink or have greasy matted coats before, and they don't now. I brushed their teeth regularly before, and scaled them occasionally, and I do the same now that I'm feeding them "better" food. I had one dog that had various autoimmune problems including inflammatory bowel disease, and experimented with various foods for him, including homecooked, and raw. His problems became noticeably worse, as in life-threatening, with these "better" diets, and I finally, in one last desperate attempt before having him put down, switched him to a diet with a very high grain and fiber content that included peanut hulls as one of the first ingredients. He improved dramatically literally overnight, and never had another episode of bloody diarrhea. So, which was the "better" food? I would argue that the quality of food should be judged by how well dogs do on it, not by our preconceived notions of how well we think they might do. Again, to bring this back to the original post, it seems pretty presumptuous (and I'm not directing this at any one individual, but mean it as a general statement) to declare that healthy long lived dogs would be even healthier and longer lived if they were fed the food we THINK is better. I think it should work the other way around - we should decide whether a food is high quality based on how dogs who are fed that food actually thrive or fail to thrive, not on our preconceived notions of what ingredients are "good" or "bad".

 

I know most people don't care about this perspective, but one main thing I look for in kibble is if the meat it came from is free-range or grass-fed. This is entirely for ethical reasons, although I believe they have tested the differences between factory "farmed" meat and free-range meat, and the free range is, for lack of a better term, better for you. It has more of the thigns in it that you need, and less fat, etc. It's just naturally healthier. Sorry for not having better examples, but I believe it's pretty much a fact that REAL free-range meat is healthier. So that is one thing I think makes a food "better."

Another thing is, I have seen a lot of dogs that appear healthy while on a food like pedigree, and just from what I learned I don't feel that that is a "good" food to feed. The dog could have all kinds of terrible problems developing, or on the inside where you can't see it, etc. So I prefer to start off on a food I feel is better just because I feel it's better. Just like for myself, I feed myself lots of good for you veggies, not mostly potatoes and carrots but leafy green veggies, different colored foods, berries, only lean grass-fed meat and only occasionally, few carbs, etc. Some people feel fine eating nothing but fast food, but most people would agree that is not a good route to go. I have a lot of problems that I don't really feel are related to nutrition, and I'd never start eating foods that I understand to be less health (e.g. fast food) just to see if that would help. Just like I'd start my dog off on a food that many people believe to be better instead of starting off on the "fast-food" of the dog world and only switch him if he's having visible problems, if that makes sense.

Another thing I look for in a food now is grain-free. Some people feel this is juts a marketing scam because all kibbles have some form of starch in them. well it recently came to my attention that many incontinent dogs do better on grain-free, and so since I have an incontinent dog, that is now one of the things that makes me consider a food better for my dog.

Most people probably just go by what research has suggested and by common sense: more meat = better, no artifical preservatives, etc.

k_dawg

I know most people don't care about this perspective, but one main thing I look for in kibble is if the meat it came from is free-range or grass-fed.

 

 

This seems very reasonable to me! 

Cally01

I know a lady who feeds all her Newfoundland dogs raw and they live to be 19 years of age which is long past the lifespan of a giant breed.  Plus, her dogs are healthy up until the end. 

WOW.That is nothing short of amazing!!!

buster the show dog

So, which was the "better" food? I would argue that the quality of food should be judged by how well dogs do on it, not by our preconceived notions of how well we think they might do. Again, to bring this back to the original post, it seems pretty presumptuous (and I'm not directing this at any one individual, but mean it as a general statement) to declare that healthy long lived dogs would be even healthier and longer lived if they were fed the food we THINK is better. I think it should work the other way around - we should decide whether a food is high quality based on how dogs who are fed that food actually thrive or fail to thrive, not on our preconceived notions of what ingredients are "good" or "bad".

 

To an extent.  A dog's health is subjective without testing by a vet and nutritionist. What isn't subjective is ingredient quality. Muscle meat is always going to have more nutrition to it than byproducts do, and will always be a better source of protein than corn gluten meal, rice protein concentrate, or soybean meal. Oatmeal, whole grain rice, and corn will always be better carb sources than rice hulls, wheat mill run, and brewers rice.

Now that isn't to say that all dogs will do well on every variety of natural/holistic food.  My dog can't eat Nature's Variety Prairie Beef or Eagle Pack Natural without getting sick.  That doesn't make those foods bad, they just don't agree with my dog.

 
After being in the business for the past year and a half, I can instantly tell when a dog is on a poor quality food.  Unfortunately with dog food, people are brand loyal to the extent of insanity for no real reason.  Sometimes I wonder if they go to the store and think to themselves, "I need food, but it can only be made by Kellogg's.  If it's by any company other than Kellogg's, it's not good."

 I have fed Pedigree for over forty years, bred and owned over 100 champions, and fed it to client dogs, with no ill effects...

Some of my dogs do not like it, I feed Pedigree, Evo, California Natural, Eukanuba and Natural Choice dry, with Pedigree canned mixed in, oh and Red Barn, varied diet:-)

But the ones that love Pedigree do great on it, I have a fourteen year old that has only ever eaten Pedigree, from weaning to now...she is full of energy, looks great and as far as I am concerned will continue to feed it as long as the dogs look good on it.

I used to live in Europe and found the pedigree over here just the same when I moved to the US...

I think whatever works for your dog, just like people each dog is an individual when it comes to feeding, I have tried Biljac and most of my dogs hated it...although it works great for a friend of mine.