Dog food article
Re: Dog food article
Thanks volraider, that article cleared up the distinctions among petfood label ingredients. I was never sure exactly what tissues were included in meat meal and poultry meal; now I know.
Re: Dog food article
Kind of sounded like it was sponsored by the USDA or a mass market pet food company.
My personal experience, once I got my dog off of food with grains in it, she doesnt have as strong of an odor, stopped itching and biting at herself, her waste decreased by half and there was a remarkable change in her coat.
My personal experience, once I got my dog off of food with grains in it, she doesnt have as strong of an odor, stopped itching and biting at herself, her waste decreased by half and there was a remarkable change in her coat.
Re: Dog food article
KsHusker you should look at the links to the other articles before you knee jerk the conspiracy theory. I know it is easier for you but it is very counterproductive to actual knowledge.
Some good info on there.
Some good info on there.
Re: Dog food article
KsHusker wrote:Kind of sounded like it was sponsored by the USDA or a mass market pet food company.
My personal experience, once I got my dog off of food with grains in it, she doesnt have as strong of an odor, stopped itching and biting at herself, her waste decreased by half and there was a remarkable change in her coat.
Sounds like you made a good decision changing feeds. I am amazed that you noted so much change and also the things that did change. I do know all of those came from simply dropping corn out of the ration. A dogs odor is often caused by dirty ears which we normally associate with yeast. I have heard of dogs having less ear problems when someone stopped using corn but could never duplicate it in any feed test do naturally have to question the validity of it. The itching and biting are normally signs of a food allergy and we know that corn is one of the last ingredients that a dog would be allergic to. Food allergies that have been found, almost all are caused by a protein source such as a type of meat and occasionally by a type of vegetable protein such as peanuts or things of that type. I am not sure if there is even a figure assigned to it as it is so rare that it pretty much ignored as even a possibility. But some where along the line it has happened so we have to accept it could be a cause no matter how seldom it happens.
It doesn't surprise me the stool decreased though as meat has a much higher percent of water than grain and is quite dense in some elements so it can and probably will result in a lesser amount of stool. The down side thouh is you will need to increase the amount of feed to maintain the condition of the dog when it is being worked hard so in the long run the amount of stool may end up as a non-issue. In my own experience it normally is a non issue to begin with as there is little difference in my clean-up procedures. I still have to clean the runs at least once per day and I have not had to change the size of any of the clean-up tools, plus I decide what and how much to feed by the condition of the dog and not the volume of the waste.
The change in the coat is always a good sign but it will take at least a couple of months to see a change caused by a feed change. It is pretty often closely connected to the amount and type of fat being fed and not the grain or protein being used.
Again glad you found something that you like. I think we all feel a lot better when we see our dogs really bloom both in looks as well as performance. A very large percentage of people have found a good quality dog food that includes a quality meat product on top of the ingredient list and a goodly amount of whole ground yellow corn up there too as the best and usually the cheapest way to provide our dogs with the fuel to perform at there very best. But we do live in America and up till now at least we were ablw to pick what ever made us the happiest and lets make sure that right continues for many years to come.
Ezzy
Re: Dog food article
My dog constantly get into the cracked corn I feed the steers. I can "see" it lol they all are doing very well I may add.In reality, corn provides a nutritious, affordable source of carbohydrate for energy, essential amino and fatty acids for healthy skin, coat and immune system function, and a variety of other nutrients. These nutrients are released during the manufacturing process, and are easily absorbed and utilized when included in complete diets.
Re: Dog food article
slistoe wrote:KsHusker you should look at the links to the other articles before you knee jerk the conspiracy theory. I know it is easier for you but it is very counterproductive to actual knowledge.
Some good info on there.
Not making a knee jerk reaction, the link sounded as if it had a slant to me, simply making an observation.
I just dont buy the fact that the foods made by the mass market companies are really the best or safest thing to feed your animals, Im also of the ilk that our human supply has plenty of toxins in it as well. I guess what I switched too is made by a large company (Taste of the Wild) but after reading all of the reviews online and my first hand experience Im sold on using it until I get set up to just make my own food.
Avoiding them completely is probably pretty hard to do if you live in a westernized civilization and of course economics, time etc all come into your food decisions.
Anyways, with all the chemicals, GMO plants etc, I dont think any of us can come up with any exact right or wrong answer, I can only come up with a hypothesis from my own experiences and using some common sense when looking at the big picture.
Ive mentioned this on another forum but Ive thought a good study to be conducted on if mass market foods cause as many problems as a lot of us think they do is to possibly study the quality of life, rates of disease/allergens and overall health of dogs that are fed a pure raw/natural diet. A good place to do this would be in Canada/remote parts of Alaska where people really dont have access to stuff you "buy" in the store and are living a subsistence life style to feed their animals.
My hypothesis is the ones on the natural diet very likely have a lower instance of problems/cancers etc. Never seen a study to confirm such, nor do I have the expertise, time or money to convince someone to undertake such a thing but believe it may tell someone a lot of info. But the consipiracy theorist in me believes that such a study would be squashed by Purina, some other company or a trade group.
- Vonzeppelinkennels
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: Amelia,Ohio
Re: Dog food article
I guess Purina is the root to all EVIL!! :roll:
Re: Dog food article
If I am not mistaken the descriptions on this Website are off the USDA site/dog food labeling. What they didnt mention is that ingredients on dog food labels are listed "before" they are processed. So, if meat is listed as the first ingredient and what 50% moisture (?) after processing the "meat" is no longer the main ingredient!KsHusker wrote:Kind of sounded like it was sponsored by the USDA or a mass market pet food company.
My personal experience, once I got my dog off of food with grains in it, she doesnt have as strong of an odor, stopped itching and biting at herself, her waste decreased by half and there was a remarkable change in her coat.
Glad your dog is doing well on the grain free food...I also feed the same the same although my dogs have no skin issues. I also have less waste in my back yard and with four dogs that is a wonderful thing. Did I also mention I feed the pack 50% less food then when I was feeding a formula with grains in it? That also is a wonderful thing!
Re: Dog food article
No vendetta against Purina, just really the first major name brand that comes to mind when I think of dog food besides Ol'Roy. Really you can insert whatever Brand you want in there. Most are probably part of a larger conglomerate anyways. So I guess Purina's and Ol'Roys marketing departments succeeded in providing me a lasting brand recognition.Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I guess Purina is the root to all EVIL!! :roll:
- birddogger
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
- Location: Bunker Hill, IL.
Re: Dog food article
And around and around we go. :roll: And the only way to stop it, is to quit responding, which is so hard to do and I am as guilty as anybody but I am still trying.
Charlie
Charlie
Re: Dog food article
I have lived and worked in that place. When you are on a subsistence lifestyle the dogs don't get the meat. They ate fish guts for the most part - or whatever else the people did not want to eat. The dogs were thin and mangy. 8 years was an old dog - old dogs were shot. Unhealthy dogs were shot. Anything that couldn't pull it's weight was shot. It was quite easy to tell who was better off financially and could afford dog kibble from the one local store - their dogs looked much healthier. Not sure how you would get any longevity/disease data from such a population.KsHusker wrote: A good place to do this would be in Canada/remote parts of Alaska where people really dont have access to stuff you "buy" in the store and are living a subsistence life style to feed their animals.
My hypothesis is the ones on the natural diet very likely have a lower instance of problems/cancers etc.
Re: Dog food article
I just do not understand the ;line of thinking I keep hearing. Dog food companies decide to go into business and then decide to make the poorest feed possible and expect to stay in business. It sure points out to me that we have a lot of people who have no business sense at all and have never had any experience with people who do have small businesses.
Like Charlie, I find it so hard to just let all of the misinformation go uncorrected or to not try to impart some knowledge to the people who post. But I am also learning that most people will not listen to you once they have their minds made up. You can tell them, actually show them why their theories are flawed but usually to no avail.
Anyway, after all the time I worked and studied in the industry I thought I could help but it just doesn't seem to work with the ones that are completely off the reservation. So maybe it is just best to sit back and let everyone have their say while the rest of us go about our business of training and working our dogs that are healthy and happy eating the food we all give them.
Ezzy
Like Charlie, I find it so hard to just let all of the misinformation go uncorrected or to not try to impart some knowledge to the people who post. But I am also learning that most people will not listen to you once they have their minds made up. You can tell them, actually show them why their theories are flawed but usually to no avail.
Anyway, after all the time I worked and studied in the industry I thought I could help but it just doesn't seem to work with the ones that are completely off the reservation. So maybe it is just best to sit back and let everyone have their say while the rest of us go about our business of training and working our dogs that are healthy and happy eating the food we all give them.
Ezzy
Re: Dog food article
I posted that link previously in the appropriate forum because I thought it would be helpful. There are so many misconceptions out there about food. 2 have cropped up in this thread alone.
One misconception being that because there is water content in meat that once it is cooked it will no longer be the top ingredient. Simply put, you can't tell that from the ingredient list on the side of the bag. Even with the water cooked out meat could still be the bulk of the food. Because while listing order is by weight, there is no way to tell what that starting weight is. So you have to look to the GA as well as the other ingredients (or call/write and ask) to get an idea of how much animal protein is in a given food.
The second being that simply being grain free allows a person to feed less. It's the amount of calories in a measure that determines how much is fed. Several of the highest calorie foods on the market are grain inclusive (I feed one of them) and you will feed less of them because they are high calorie. It's the calories not the exclusion of grains.
Another misconception that is rarely addressed is that grain free=more meat/animal protein. This is actually not the case with most grain free feeds. Especially since potatoes are the new faddist bugaboo and more grain free foods are turning to peas and other legumes to provide the starch necessary to bind a kibble. Dr Tim's, Inukshuk, Red Paw, Diamond, Victor, Native, Annamaet (as examples) - all have grain inclusive performance kibbles which are higher in % of protein from animal sources than Orijen (just one example) - and then there is the myth about high protein % to begin with. Most of it is just being pee'd out once a certain threshold has been crossed anyway!
But Ezzy is right. Some people don't want to hear what animal nutritionists have to say, preferring the mythology that has cropped up around kibbles to market ridiculously high priced feeds. The animal sciences department at OSU is not made up of corporate stooges, but that is what the marketing folks for boutique foods would have people believing.
For me it boils down to this, there is a reason experienced dog sport/hunt folks feed what they choose to feed. Results.
One misconception being that because there is water content in meat that once it is cooked it will no longer be the top ingredient. Simply put, you can't tell that from the ingredient list on the side of the bag. Even with the water cooked out meat could still be the bulk of the food. Because while listing order is by weight, there is no way to tell what that starting weight is. So you have to look to the GA as well as the other ingredients (or call/write and ask) to get an idea of how much animal protein is in a given food.
The second being that simply being grain free allows a person to feed less. It's the amount of calories in a measure that determines how much is fed. Several of the highest calorie foods on the market are grain inclusive (I feed one of them) and you will feed less of them because they are high calorie. It's the calories not the exclusion of grains.
Another misconception that is rarely addressed is that grain free=more meat/animal protein. This is actually not the case with most grain free feeds. Especially since potatoes are the new faddist bugaboo and more grain free foods are turning to peas and other legumes to provide the starch necessary to bind a kibble. Dr Tim's, Inukshuk, Red Paw, Diamond, Victor, Native, Annamaet (as examples) - all have grain inclusive performance kibbles which are higher in % of protein from animal sources than Orijen (just one example) - and then there is the myth about high protein % to begin with. Most of it is just being pee'd out once a certain threshold has been crossed anyway!
But Ezzy is right. Some people don't want to hear what animal nutritionists have to say, preferring the mythology that has cropped up around kibbles to market ridiculously high priced feeds. The animal sciences department at OSU is not made up of corporate stooges, but that is what the marketing folks for boutique foods would have people believing.
For me it boils down to this, there is a reason experienced dog sport/hunt folks feed what they choose to feed. Results.
Re: Dog food article
Good post with several facts a lot of people just don't understand.
Ezzy
Ezzy
Re: Dog food article
Susie,Susie wrote:If I am not mistaken the descriptions on this Website are off the USDA site/dog food labeling. What they didnt mention is that ingredients on dog food labels are listed "before" they are processed. So, if meat is listed as the first ingredient and what 50% moisture (?) after processing the "meat" is no longer the main ingredient! Glad your dog is doing well on the grain free food...I also feed the same the same although my dogs have no skin issues. I also have less waste in my back yard and with four dogs that is a wonderful thing. Did I also mention I feed the pack 50% less food then when I was feeding a formula with grains in it? That also is a wonderful thing!
I feed a mostly raw diet and I believe they also forgot to mention the fact that there is a destruction of important enzymes and minerals destroyed in the rendering process to make those meat meals.
They also fail to mention the fact that there is a quality issue at hand in that fresh foods provide a better source of vitamins and protein, by the way they are absorbed and used in the body. I couldn't agree more about less mess too. Also no guarantee pets wont get sick from processed pet food, I think that has been proven many times over again.
Re: Dog food article
No, its just not as good as what I feed, haven't you had enough yet?Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I guess Purina is the root to all EVIL!! :roll:
Re: Dog food article
Can you please tell me where the facts are in this article because all I have read are statements on whats not proven from the more natural food choices? Its like we are reliving the nightmare of, "Do any of you feed raw".ezzy333 wrote:Good post with several facts a lot of people just don't understand.
Ezzy
- ACooper
- GDF Premier Member!
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Sometimes I'm in Oklahoma
Dog food article
Prove it....walkos5 wrote:No, its just not as good as what I feed, haven't you had enough yet?Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I guess Purina is the root to all EVIL!! :roll:
Re: Dog food article
Do me a favor, call any professional nutritionist from your area and ask what would be a healthier choice for you, a handful of fresh spinach, carrots ,and broccoli, with your dinner or a dinner void of them but with some store bought vitamins to make up the difference? Let me know the answer you get? Thanks.ACooper wrote:Prove it....
- ACooper
- GDF Premier Member!
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Sometimes I'm in Oklahoma
Re: Dog food article
Why would I need to call someone? I am not making statements that I cannot back up, stop trying to out lazy everyone and prove your hypothesis.walkos5 wrote:Do me a favor, call any professional nutritionist from your area and ask what would be a healthier choice for you, a handful of fresh spinach, carrots ,and broccoli, with your dinner or a dinner void of them but with some store bought vitamins to make up the difference? Let me know the answer you get? Thanks.ACooper wrote:Prove it....
Re: Dog food article
Why don't you call up your nutritionist and as him if you would be better off eating those carrots raw or cooked?walkos5 wrote:Do me a favor, call any professional nutritionist from your area and ask what would be a healthier choice for you, a handful of fresh spinach, carrots ,and broccoli, with your dinner or a dinner void of them but with some store bought vitamins to make up the difference? Let me know the answer you get? Thanks.ACooper wrote:Prove it....
You are a fool who doesn't know he doesn't know and is unwilling to learn, happy to parrot someone else's agenda.
Re: Dog food article
How about because every bit of scientific information that is fact, but short of a dog food study that I supply is no good to any kibble feeder. There seems to be a denial of fact unless the dog food industry provides it...ACooper wrote:Why would I need to call someone? I am not making statements that I cannot back up, stop trying to out lazy everyone and prove your hypothesis.
Re: Dog food article
You haven't provided even one scientific fact of any relevance to any point you have tried to make yet. And yet you think you have??? Foolish boy.walkos5 wrote:How about because every bit of scientific information that is fact, but short of a dog food study that I supply is no good to any kibble feeder. There seems to be a denial of fact unless the dog food industry provides it...ACooper wrote:Why would I need to call someone? I am not making statements that I cannot back up, stop trying to out lazy everyone and prove your hypothesis.
Re: Dog food article
Actually there is little difference either way with carrots but fresh pulped with skin on is the healthiest, and a blender would do that just fine. Careful, because I sense the build up of that anger coming back in you..slistoe wrote:Why don't you call up your nutritionist and as him if you would be better off eating those carrots raw or cooked?You are a fool who doesn't know he doesn't know and is unwilling to learn, happy to parrot someone else's agenda.
Re: Dog food article
Hey, feed what ya want to feded, them dogs will eat out of a garbage can if you let em if the dogs are doing well, then so be it. I feed raw meat to my cats every once in awhile, the dogs get scraps from butchering. But they still go for the cracked corn too let the media and comercials make your decisions for you if that is how you are...people are paid big bucks to make you belive in their products....
-
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Central DE
Re: Dog food article
slistoe wrote:You haven't provided even one scientific fact of any relevance to any point you have tried to make yet. And yet you think you have??? Foolish boy.walkos5 wrote:How about because every bit of scientific information that is fact, but short of a dog food study that I supply is no good to any kibble feeder. There seems to be a denial of fact unless the dog food industry provides it...ACooper wrote:Why would I need to call someone? I am not making statements that I cannot back up, stop trying to out lazy everyone and prove your hypothesis.
That is kinda the funny thing. Dog food comparison studies, such as those conducted by the major food manufacturers and university researchers ARE pretty much the ONLY scientifically valid evidence out there.
I have nothing against the company, but I see NOTHING from companies like Taste of the Wild or Blue Buffalo that remotely resembles a feeding comparison study. All I see is advertising hype.
Consider this if you will:
If those "Natural" or "Organic" or "Real meat is the first ingredient" or "no corn" dogfoods were indeed SO superior... I should think they would take some of that MASSIVE television advertising budget and commission a side by side feeding study at a major university veterinary or ag school.
They have not, to my knowledge. But they do keep up the advertising drumbeat.
Purina does conduct studies, Iams does, Hills does.... Blue Buffalo...not so much. Maybe there is a reason. Just think about it.
RayG
- Cajun Casey
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 4243
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:59 pm
- Location: Tulsa, OK
Re: Dog food article
Where's the Dog Food Police when you need them?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Dog food article
Now that's one of the points I've been trying to get across to these kibble feeders FOREVER so thank you for commenting on it. Pretty pictures and ingredient labels don't mean a thing, and are there to ensure us its worth the money we are spending. Follow the big money and it always leads to lies and half truths, feed what nature guarantees and you cant go wrong.markj wrote:Hey, feed what ya want to feded, them dogs will eat out of a garbage can if you let em if the dogs are doing well, then so be it. I feed raw meat to my cats every once in awhile, the dogs get scraps from butchering. But they still go for the cracked corn too let the media and comercials make your decisions for you if that is how you are...people are paid big bucks to make you belive in their products....
- Vonzeppelinkennels
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: Amelia,Ohio
Re: Dog food article
Walkos you ask me haven't I had enough? You need to look in the mirror & ask yourself that question,can't you get it in your head that you & your pretend 50lb muscle bound BRITT are out numbered probably 100 to one by
people with REAL dogs that have owned dogs for yrs know the kind of results our kibble fed dogs show & prove.You have nothing to show until your make believe dog is dead,Oh I forgot he will out live you because of his raw diet so
you still won't be able to tell about it! :roll: You are a TRUE JOKE & BSer.There's that offensive abbreviation again,shame on me!
people with REAL dogs that have owned dogs for yrs know the kind of results our kibble fed dogs show & prove.You have nothing to show until your make believe dog is dead,Oh I forgot he will out live you because of his raw diet so
you still won't be able to tell about it! :roll: You are a TRUE JOKE & BSer.There's that offensive abbreviation again,shame on me!
Last edited by Vonzeppelinkennels on Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Dog food article
Well when people cant pull facts out of hard core science provided by scientific research that's been proven before computers were ever invented, that makes it quite difficult.slistoe wrote:You haven't provided even one scientific fact of any relevance to any point you have tried to make yet. And yet you think you have??? Foolish boy.
Raw meat provides a higher quality of protein, vitamins and minerals then cooked or processed meat.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are the best source for important protein, vitamins and minerals that cant be matched by over the counter vitamins especially the ones produced in China.
Your always missing my point. I feed dog food, and some of the same ingredients that might be in what you feed but mine just isn't processed and lacks all those preservatives that yours has.
Re: Dog food article
So don't list any scientific evidence. How about just a source for your info? Just post some sources for your info. Let us make our own decision based on our reading of your sources instead of you telling all of us how stupid we are. Plain ol'e opinion does not help anyone make an informed decision for themselves.
2 very good pieces worth reading. Are they complete scientific studies? No, but certainly cite many sources from teh scientific community. Surely there are some Raw blogs like this.
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2013/01/repeat ... ot-wolves/
There are no "Feeling" involved in this one.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/raw ... -you-barf/
Now you can pick them apart and show me why and where he is wrong by backing up your reasoning with your sources. That's how a discussion works and helps others who may be reading this.
2 very good pieces worth reading. Are they complete scientific studies? No, but certainly cite many sources from teh scientific community. Surely there are some Raw blogs like this.
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2013/01/repeat ... ot-wolves/
There are no "Feeling" involved in this one.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/raw ... -you-barf/
Now you can pick them apart and show me why and where he is wrong by backing up your reasoning with your sources. That's how a discussion works and helps others who may be reading this.
Re: Dog food article
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Res ... 047113.htmAngus wrote:So don't list any scientific evidence. How about just a source for your info? Just post some sources for your info.
- ACooper
- GDF Premier Member!
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Sometimes I'm in Oklahoma
Re: Dog food article
walkos5 wrote:Well when people cant pull facts out of hard core science provided by scientific research that's been proven before computers were ever invented, that makes it quite difficult.slistoe wrote:You haven't provided even one scientific fact of any relevance to any point you have tried to make yet. And yet you think you have??? Foolish boy.
Raw meat provides a higher quality of protein, vitamins and minerals then cooked or processed meat.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are the best source for important protein, vitamins and minerals that cant be matched by over the counter vitamins especially the ones produced in China.
Your always missing my point. I feed dog food, and some of the same ingredients that might be in what you feed but mine just isn't processed and lacks all those preservatives that yours has.
Seriously why can't you let it go, how many times does it have to be said that no one has a problem with what you feed, people like you are the reason most of us hate liberals, you have to try to tell everyone else what is best for them.
Now go get your dog and whoa break him so he'll stop busting birds.
Re: Dog food article
I've tried some of the 5 and 6-star (from the dog food analysis website) grain free dog food including Canidae and TOTW for both my lab and english setter. My favorite of those types of feed was Canidae. However once Canidae changed their formula it didn't work well for my lab. After two or three more large bags to make sure it just wasn't a bad bag I was forced to change. I started to try other types of food that had grains and corn including Pro Plan Performance and Lloyall which I won in dog trials with my setter. Turns out both dogs performed better on this type of dog food. In fact my setter's performance was markedly improved. She was faster and had better stamina with foods with grains like corn over the grain free types of food. At this point when I look at dog food I look for food with grains, especially corn because that is the food my dogs perform best with. Last year I tried Red Paw 32K with my setter based on a recommendation and I've got to say it was great. I am currently feeding ProPlan Performance since that is the food we got from one of her trials, but will probably go back to Red Paw when the bags are gone.
Re: Dog food article
that's a good one!Susie wrote:http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Res ... 047113.htmAngus wrote:So don't list any scientific evidence. How about just a source for your info? Just post some sources for your info.
Though my post was directed more at Walkos.
- Vonzeppelinkennels
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: Amelia,Ohio
Re: Dog food article
They just can't get it in their heads that the TOP performing dogs in the country eat KIBBLE!! & it's fed by the top winning pros in the country none of which I'm aware of feed raw though I don't know every single one.
This is a fact not a I think or I guess some of you that feed RAW need to to go out & whip some butt then we might take you more serious.After all your dogs are so much better off it should be relatively easy. :roll:
Go for it!!
This is a fact not a I think or I guess some of you that feed RAW need to to go out & whip some butt then we might take you more serious.After all your dogs are so much better off it should be relatively easy. :roll:
Go for it!!
Re: Dog food article
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/ ... 8.abstract
And with that... I''m out. You can lead a horse to water.... blah blah blah
And with that... I''m out. You can lead a horse to water.... blah blah blah
-
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Central DE
Re: Dog food article
Nobody is missing your point. I assure you of that. That sir, is not the problem here.walkos5 wrote:Well when people cant pull facts out of hard core science provided by scientific research that's been proven before computers were ever invented, that makes it quite difficult.slistoe wrote:You haven't provided even one scientific fact of any relevance to any point you have tried to make yet. And yet you think you have??? Foolish boy.
Raw meat provides a higher quality of protein, vitamins and minerals then cooked or processed meat.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are the best source for important protein, vitamins and minerals that cant be matched by over the counter vitamins especially the ones produced in China.
Your always missing my point. I feed dog food, and some of the same ingredients that might be in what you feed but mine just isn't processed and lacks all those preservatives that yours has.
It is the fact that YOU are ignoring and dismissing logical, factual evidence presented by others and insisting that your personal observations, on an extremely small sample base(1 dog...or was it 2) which incidentally appear to be somewhat biased, are more valid than the volumes of science conducted by responsible scientists, that is the real problem.
You are free to do whatever you wish with your own dogs. But if you are going to propagate nutrition misinformation, expect to be called on it.
The weight of science strongly suggests that BARF diets are nutritionally INFERIOR to commercially prepared diets.
The weight of science strongly suggests that commercially prepared diets are nutritionally complete, safe and wholesome.
There is no evidence that the preservatives used in commercial dogfood preparations are less healthy than a fresh preparation with no preservatives.
There is NO documented evidence that "natural" or "Organic" dogfood preparations are in any way superior to those that are not natural or organic.
The risks associated(eg toxins produced "naturally" by the process of spoilage) with feeding a preparation without preservatives has not been established.
There are two sides to the argument. Science and government approval is on the side of the commercially prepared foods.
I ask once nmore...Where is the study from Blue Buffalo showing equivalence or superiority to other commercial preprations.
THERE AIN'T ONE!
RayG
Re: Dog food article
You have made this point on many occasions - I certainly haven't missed it. And I will tell you straight up - it is pure, unadulterated bullshit. And I am not angry, just pointing out your foolishness for your own benefit.walkos5 wrote:No, its just not as good as what I feed, haven't you had enough yet?Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I guess Purina is the root to all EVIL!! :roll:
Re: Dog food article
You may want to rethink this one as well. I don't know where you come up with your opinions, but they aren't supported by the scientific research.walkos5 wrote:Actually there is little difference either way with carrots but fresh pulped with skin on is the healthiest, and a blender would do that just fine. Careful, because I sense the build up of that anger coming back in you..slistoe wrote:Why don't you call up your nutritionist and as him if you would be better off eating those carrots raw or cooked?You are a fool who doesn't know he doesn't know and is unwilling to learn, happy to parrot someone else's agenda.
Re: Dog food article
That's too bad because we have some really nice dogs. At least our dogs like us.ACooper wrote: ...most of us hate liberals, you have to try to tell everyone else what is best for them.
- ACooper
- GDF Premier Member!
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Sometimes I'm in Oklahoma
Re: Dog food article
Grange wrote:That's too bad because we have some really nice dogs. At least our dogs like us.ACooper wrote: ...most of us hate liberals, you have to try to tell everyone else what is best for them.
LOL. Maybe I should have clarified by saying liberal ideology....
Re: Dog food article
So are you telling me that cooking meat to temps, high enough to kill any bacteria doesn't destroy enzymes along with B vitamins and other nutrients? And how about the fats, are cooked fats better then raw fats? Do raw foods have more free radicals or less ? Why do commercial dog food manufactures feel the need to add all those cheap Chinese vitamins, because I have never ever bought a single vitamin source for my dog. He gets all he needs from his fresh meat and other fresh ingredients I feed. The only bullshit on this forum comes from the stubborn kibble supporters that believe that overcooked mystery meat sources loaded with preservatives and cheap vitamins that sits in bags for who knows how long in warehouses or on store shelves can be better then fresh meats and vegetables and other natural foods.slistoe wrote:You have made this point on many occasions - I certainly haven't missed it. And I will tell you straight up - it is pure, unadulterated bullshit. And I am not angry, just pointing out your foolishness for your own benefit.
Re: Dog food article
No. Too little information and mice are not dogs.Labs4Me wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/ ... 8.abstract
And with that... I''m out. You can lead a horse to water.... blah blah blah
Re: Dog food article
You are the only one bandying about the term better. The only thing I have said is that a good quality kibble is certainly not worse - saying your claim to better is false is not to say that the kibble is definitively better - but you cannot fathom such a thing, can you.
As for your questions - the answers are pointless because you are not interested in the real facts.
As for your questions - the answers are pointless because you are not interested in the real facts.
Re: Dog food article
walkos5 wrote:No. Too little information and mice are not dogs.Labs4Me wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/ ... 8.abstract
And with that... I''m out. You can lead a horse to water.... blah blah blah
You are absolutely clueless where research is concerned. :roll:
Anything which doesn't confirm your bias you dismiss.
Your pretty little fantasies are no substitute for the countless hours of real research done by educated and qualified individuals in the field of animal nutrition.
And you have yet to offer even the faintest whisper of proof for your pretty little fantasies.
Re: Dog food article
Well all I can say to this is there is a list of scientists and veterinary professionals from all over the US that will disagree with you and I named at least a dozen in a previous post 3 weeks ago. The only thing I can say at this point is, why all the pet food recalls and sickened pets of the past several years?RayGubernat wrote:Nobody is missing your point. I assure you of that. That sir, is not the problem here.It is the fact that YOU are ignoring and dismissing logical, factual evidence presented by others and insisting that your personal observations, on an extremely small sample base(1 dog...or was it 2) which incidentally appear to be somewhat biased, are more valid than the volumes of science conducted by responsible scientists, that is the real problem. You are free to do whatever you wish with your own dogs. But if you are going to propagate nutrition misinformation, expect to be called on it. The weight of science strongly suggests that BARF diets are nutritionally INFERIOR to commercially prepared diets.The weight of science strongly suggests that commercially prepared diets are nutritionally complete, safe and wholesome.There is no evidence that the preservatives used in commercial dogfood preparations are less healthy than a fresh preparation with no preservatives.There is NO documented evidence that "natural" or "Organic" dogfood preparations are in any way superior to those that are not natural or organic.The risks associated(eg toxins produced "naturally" by the process of spoilage) with feeding a preparation without preservatives has not been established.There are two sides to the argument. Science and government approval is on the side of the commercially prepared foods.I ask once nmore...Where is the study from Blue Buffalo showing equivalence or superiority to other commercial preprations. THERE AIN'T ONE!RayG
- ACooper
- GDF Premier Member!
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Sometimes I'm in Oklahoma
Re: Dog food article
Delusional and in denial. Did you work your dog on anything besides dinner today?walkos5 wrote:
Well all I can say to this is there is a list of scientists and veterinary professionals from all over the US that will disagree with you and I named at least a dozen in a previous post 3 weeks ago. The only thing I can say at this point is, why all the pet food recalls and sickened pets of the past several years?
Re: Dog food article
I never said that, I toofeed a kibble type product, PMI Nutrition. But my dogs loveraw cracked corn too. Every dog will eat raw meat, that doesnt mean its the best thing for them tho.feed what nature guarantees and you cant go wrong.
I fed some left over mashed potatoes to my inside dog, she ate it all up fast, but is that the best thing for her to eat every day? heck no.
I did say,if the dog is doing well on the feed you feed them then so be it. Now dont go putting words in my mouth I didnt say or imply, that just isnt nice at all.