Dog Nutrition Thread

Locked
User avatar
Angus
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: SC Pennsylvania

Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Angus » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:32 am

I am starting to feel that we should have a thread simply dedicated to k9 nutrition studies, articles, and other information. This would not be a thread for discussion or debate, just a thread to post and article or study. Whether they be for kibble, raw, holistic, or whatever. A small database of up to date studies and articles from all sides in one place. I believe this would allow many new people and others researching dog food to be able to make their own informed decision. Then they could start a thread to ask other questions if needed. Maybe even a small article from Ezzy that contains his knowledge would be nice as well. Then once we get a nice collection of links, I could put them all together into an organized thread that could be "Pinned" to the top of this page. Add to it over time when more or better info becomes available.


So anyway, please just use this thread to post your links to articles and studies. Please do not use this thread to discuss dog food, nutrition, or the articles. I really want this to become something educational to help people. I'll then collect the links and put them neatly into a new thread under their proper categories.

I'll start.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/raw ... -you-barf/

http://vet.osu.edu/vmc/myths-and-miscon ... -pet-foods

Maurice
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: piedmont sc.

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Maurice » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:40 am

I can't add to the science that goes into dog food today. I think we worry to much JMHO though. I have been feeding a kennel full of bird dogs for 35 years. Years ago if you where feeding Joy Special Meal or Purina Hi Pro you were feeding top on the line food at that time, both foods would be considered junk now by most people. The dogs did great on the foods. Over the years I have fed about all the major brands from Ole Roy all the way up to Eukanuba, it all worked. I feed a good mid range type food now because I choose not to believe the more you spend the better it is. Good dog food can be bought in the south for 30 dollars or less for 50 lbs.

Mo

nanney1
Rank: Champion
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:42 am

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by nanney1 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:31 am

Just because an article has citations, it is not necessarily a scholarly endeavor. That first article, I don't know. Seems like you can grab and find on the web to bring together an article if you want to. And the replies at the bottom aren't exactly peer reviewed. It's just random people citing their opinions. I'm o.k. with meta analysis in research, but this was more of confounding philosophies article. Decent read though.

As for the OSU article, it looks like something they cut and pasted off of another website. Did someone as OSU write that? Looks like someone let a grad assistant find some definitions from any multitude of places on the Web and stick it on their site.

I do like the idea of this though, so I'll contribute rather than be a naysayer.

Here's an article that might be of interest if you feed a canine diet that includes barley:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/c ... 0.full.pdf

User avatar
Angus
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: SC Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Angus » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:22 am

nanney1 wrote:Just because an article has citations, it is not necessarily a scholarly endeavor. That first article, I don't know. Seems like you can grab and find on the web to bring together an article if you want to. And the replies at the bottom aren't exactly peer reviewed. It's just random people citing their opinions. I'm o.k. with meta analysis in research, but this was more of confounding philosophies article. Decent read though.

As for the OSU article, it looks like something they cut and pasted off of another website. Did someone as OSU write that? Looks like someone let a grad assistant find some definitions from any multitude of places on the Web and stick it on their site.

I do like the idea of this though, so I'll contribute rather than be a naysayer.

Here's an article that might be of interest if you feed a canine diet that includes barley:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/c ... 0.full.pdf

Thank you for the feedback. This is the kinda stuff that i'm looking for.

As far as what I posted, they are good sources that I would consider and "Article" certainly not a peer reviewed scientific study; though written by a respected veterinarian. I believe that articles such as those would help someone in making an informed opinion. That's the goal; just not sure how to go about it. Links from others like you will go a long way in helping this along.

I agree that most of us over think this issue. I know I did, but it also intrigued me. I wanted to know more about the whole subject as a whole, and found that many scientific studies were few and far between from all sides. So I am hoping that we can get some good articles, opinions, and science all in one spot.

User avatar
topher40
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2306
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by topher40 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:38 am

I agree with Maurice. If more people would do the same then less of these threads would get locked! :)
Chris E. Kroll
CEK Kennels
http://www.cekkennels.com
785-288-0461


Governments govern best when governments governs least


-Thomas Paine

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:05 am

I'm another one for Maurice's advice.The food I feed now is $24 & $26 for 50lb & my dogs look & perform the same as they did when I was feeding Loyal over a yr ago.I refuse to pay almost double that
just to get the same results. :wink: I pretty much think all these DF threads are mumbo/jumbo no matter which side it comes from.Feed your dogs what ever makes you feel good & happy most dogs will do fine.
There is no dog food company out there producing foods that is going to kill dogs or harm dogs purposely,that don't even make sense let alone would it be good business.Raw feeders are doing what they think is best for their dogs
I have NO PROBLEM with that until they profess it is superior to kibble & will make their dogs out perform kibble fed dogs & they will become immortal,that's all BS.
Last edited by Vonzeppelinkennels on Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nanney1
Rank: Champion
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:42 am

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by nanney1 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:16 pm


MonsterDad
Rank: 4X Champion
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by MonsterDad » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:08 pm

How about this one where the President of AAFCO admits on the news that dead dogs and cats could be in pet food. He calls them "fluffy".

http://www.examiner.com/article/horror- ... dog-s-food

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:22 pm

Humans consume both dogs & cats they are delicasies in some countries!! :lol: Oh & I'm pretty sure their DEAD!

Here's a little story for you I had an old country friend that passed away a couple yrs ago.He told us one night standing around the campfire,He said you know if you skin a cat & cut their feet off you can't tell the difference
between a cat & a rabbit.Then he said I use to kill all the stray cats I could,skin them & sell them to people as rabbits,they never knew the difference & there wasn't many stray cats running around these parts!! :D

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:19 pm

Here's an interesting one I found.

Myth: DOGS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WOLVES/HAVE BEEN CHANGED TOO MUCH, AND THEREFORE CANNOT HANDLE A RAW DIET .

This is MOSTLY false. The only truth found in this statement is that humans have changed dogs. BUT, we have only changed their external appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology. The claim that dogs cannot handle a raw diet because they are so domesticated is only true in that we have been feeding them commercial diets for so long that a dog's system is not running up to par. The result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones). This does NOT mean, however, that the dog does not "have" those enzymes. Those enzymes are present, and once the dog is taken off the grain-based, plant matter-filled food those enzymes quickly return to the proper working level that allows for optimal digestion of raw meaty bones.

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).


"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."


Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring—even little dogs like Westies and Chihuahuas are capable of this! This is a dramatic indication that dogs and wolves are very closely related and are compatible in terms of genetics (incompatible animals do not produce viable, fertile offspring, such as donkeys and horses. Their offspring—the mule—is a sterile animal.). The genes for different coat colors, lengths, conformations, and structural differences are present in the wolf population to a certain degree (otherwise wolves would not have been able to give rise to the different dogs we have today. In order for a phenotypic change to occur, there has to be a genetic basis off which to work. If the genes are not there, then the phenotypic change is not going to "magically" occur), but are selected against by nature because they are not advantageous to wolf survival. Humans are the ones that manipulated the breedings to "create" smaller dogs and dogs of varying colors, shapes, and sizes.

Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting a similar range of behaviors like those seen in wolves. Phenotypic differences like size, ears, etc. will often return to a more "wolf-like" state as the animals outcross and breed freely (for example, Chihuahuas will increase in size if left to breed without specific human selection for size); breed characteristics have been specifically selected according to human whim, and in order to retain those characteristics like dogs must be continually bred to like dogs until the genes for those characteristics are sufficiently 'fixed' within that population of dogs (which is how we came upon the different dog breeds today). One can rightfully question what dogs would end up looking like if they just bred for generations without human interference. Would they gradually look more and more like their ancestral predecessors?

Lastly, dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?" www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.). The next myth will discuss a dog's "changed needs" to cooked food more fully.

What about the argument that dogs may have weaker digestive enzymes than wolves? Some argue that dogs may not be as efficient as wolves in digesting raw meat and bones. This argument has been recognized by wolf researchers (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.) but is generally not considered in their dog model studies. Why? From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by nature to be completely sufficient?

Let us forget the wolf-dog relations for a moment. Let us just look at the dog itself and listen to what its body can tell us about its diet. The dog has the anatomy and physiology of a predatory carnivore, of a hunter designed to subsist on other animals. It has the skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and C-shaped mandibular fossa that prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is necessary for eating plant matter). The jaw muscles are designed for crushing grips and powerful bites, with a jaw that hinges open widely to help gulp chunks of meat and bone. The teeth of the dog are pointed and specialized for ripping, tearing, shearing, and crushing meat and bone. Their saliva lacks amylase, the enzyme responsible for beginning carbohydrate breakdown; instead, they have lysozyme in their saliva, an enzyme that destroys pathogenic bacteria. They have highly elastic stomachs designed to stretch to capacity with ingested meat and bone, complete with incredibly powerful and acidic stomach acid (pH of 1). Their intestines are short and smooth, designed to push meat through quickly so that it does not sit and putrefy in the gut. Their external anatomy also shows development as a hunter. They have eyes situated in the front of their skulls rather than to the side like an herbivore. The body (prior to man-made manipulation of things like size and angulation) is built for chasing down prey, and its senses are acutely developed to help locate prey. By all accounts, this is an animal designed to eat other animals.

Dogs still are carnivores. They still need meat, bones, and organs. They still cannot utilize vegetables as efficiently as meat. Their nutritional needs have not changed much over their years of domestication. Do they need supplemental enzymes, then? The small amount of stool coming out the other end of a raw fed dog clearly indicates that there is no need for extra enzymes (medical conditions requiring extra enzymes not included here). The best, most highly digestible diet for our domesticated carnivores is a prey model diet based on a variety of raw meaty bones and whole carcasses.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by shags » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:55 am

Unless you post the origin of the article, it means nothing and is not credible. Was it written by a PH.D at UCDavis, or some blue-haired pet parent who feeds her pomeranian off a fork? :roll:

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:35 am

shags wrote:Unless you post the origin of the article, it means nothing and is not credible. Was it written by a PH.D at UCDavis, or some blue-haired pet parent who feeds her pomeranian off a fork? :roll:
Why? Do you doubt the information and research that was done by research scientists or information that the Smithsonian Institution endorsed? Are all the people at Florida International University liars and idiots?

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:54 am

So much for UC Davis!


For Dogs & Cats

Essential news for cats, dogs and pet owners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



« Prepare For The Ultimate Noogie

Talk Back To ABC News About Pet Nutrition »


Veterinary Professor Speaks Candidly On UC Davis, AAFCO, Etc.


Dr. Donald Strombeck VDM

Dr. Donald R. Strombeck, author of Home-Prepared Dog and Cat Diets : The Healthful Alternative, was interviewed in the latest issue of Bark Magazine. His comments and insights into University of California, Davis reveals that even at that very well-respected organization, some are willing to put pet food industry priorities before scientific data.

Why is this important? Dr. Strombeck is Professor Emeritus of School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis. He is also an honorary member of the College of Veterinary Internal Medicine and has been widely published. His numerous awards include the Ralston Purina Award for research excellence in small animal diseases. He is also a frequent critic of the pet food industry’s practices.

Dr. Strombeck criticizes AAFCO and state agriculture departments and says the industry won’t change its ways unless a crisis like the dog and cat food recalls occur — not a proactive step in protecting our pets. And also shares some amazing insights into pet food. We’ve provided some highlights from the interview.



Highlights from Bark Magazine interview with Dr. Strombeck:

Bark Magazine: How have you seen the pet food industry change during that time? What kinds
of impacts has it had on the teaching of nutrition at vet schools?

Dr. Donald R. Strombeck, DVM, PhD: It has become a gigantic, multi-billion dollar industry.The industry learned to advertise and describe their products as being the “best,”at least according to
them. But they have tried to control the education of veterinarians on pet nutrition. They send a lot of literature and books to veterinarians who teach. One of the dogmas they have promoted, and that
many veterinarians have bought into, is that you should only feed commercial pet foods because they are balanced and provide everything an animal needs. And that you shouldn’t feed any human food
or add any table scraps to it. So, if you go to most veterinarians,that is what they are going to tell you.

B: Are there any changes that the federal government can make to improve the process and to ensure the quality of the ingredients? What about the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) — aren’t they the ones responsible for overseeing this?

DS: AAFCO is a mutual admiration society representing the pet food industry. They are from the industry. They say that they can police themselves and don’t need any government interference. And that’s the way it operates. There haven’t been any changes there,and so the only thing that will cause them to change the way they do things is if they lose a lot of money, like from a scare like this.

B: Or perhaps if the public becomes more aware of their power; its members all seem to come from state agriculture departments.

DS: The members are in the back pocket of the pet food industry.

B: Even some of the kibble in this recall was contaminated.

DS: Did you read the information in my book about kibble being contaminated with bacteria? Veterinarians know this. I got money to research this, and gave it to Jim Cullor, a good researcher; I asked him to do a study to determine the numbers and kinds of bacteria that could be cultured from kibble. And he did it, but I don’t know if it was ever published. [Editor’s note: We are checking on this.]
The guy who was in charge of public programs at Davis was adamantly opposed to having this published, because he wanted to protect the industry. Also, I remember when the pet food industry
would say on the bag of puppy food, “moisten this food”and put it down for them. But bacteria multiply rapidly on moistened dry food. You know that puppies, a lot of times, eat a little bite and wander off, then come back to it, so the food could be there all day long. It is a good way for them to get diarrhea.

There’s a lot more interesting information in this article. You can find where you can pick a up a copy of Bark magazine from their site.

(Thanks Janice)

(Image courtesy of Bark Magazine)

This entry was posted on Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm and is filed under Cats, Pet Food Recalls & Safety, Dogs, National Dog, Cat & Pet Info, Products & Services for Cats & Dogs, Veterinary/Medical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Veterinary Professor Speaks Candidly On UC Davis, AAFCO, Etc.”
Rose says:
July 9th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I hope this interview encourages other veterinary professionals to talk openly about the pet food industry and it makes veteniarinans and vetenary medical schools re-evaluate the pet food industry to FORCE an emphasis on quality rather than good marketing for pet foods.

The industry is not changing on it’s own, self-policeing has not worked. It’s time for professionals and consumers to force this change. The way to make it start to happen is by educating consumers and professionals.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity for a non-profit non-industry run pet food orginization to start. Examples from other industries would be UL testing and Consumer Reports.

We are in critical need of a independent research orginization for the pet food and products industry. This would have to include ongoing testing that are supported by membership subscriptions: not from the pet food industry.

Anyone out there have connections, scientists, marketing and large donor base to get this started?

Katie says:
July 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I read this article in Bark magazine, it was very good. Dr Strombeck has done a good job telling it like it is. No wonder U Calif Davis was concerned - lose all those grants… There needs to be independent research done on nutrition - the minute PFI and AAFCO get involved they want their interests covered to the detriment of our pets. Can only hope that with the pet food crisis that more vet nutritionists not under the the funding of pet food companies, will

User avatar
Angus
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: SC Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Angus » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:10 am

If you would provide the links I could include them. without the links they will not be included. Having the source of the info allows someone to expand their own research and vet the source of the info. All of which helps make an informed opinion.

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:20 am

Fair enough.

User avatar
Del Lolo
Rank: Champion
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Del Lolo » Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:38 am

walkos5 wrote:BUT, we have only changed their external appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology.
I have to disagree. While it's true that "dogs are almost" genetically identical to wolves, we all have to admit that not only have humans changed canines, so has mother nature. Genes, chromosomes, DNA etc are not 'carved in stone', but are plastic and can and do change.
Here is a link to a scientific article that shows how much digestive enzymes (particularly amylase) have changed in order to handle a diet that's high in starch (grains are high in starch).

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... riculture/

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:03 am

You guys can post all the internet links you want from whom ever you want the fact of the matter is the end result.The end result is your dogs condition,performace,on what he is eating & the kibble fed dogs out number the raw fed dogs
many times over now show me the facts of how the raw fed dogs live longer are healthier,& outperform the kibble fed dogs.You have NONE!
Does any of the people writing these articles even own 1 single dogs let alone 50 or more over 40 or 50 yrs.Does any of then have 30 or 40 dogs in there kennel at one time or do they all own pretend dogs like WALKOS?
Post up your articles take up the server space & waste every ones time because it is what it is,when it's all said & done every one here is going to continue doing what they do now!!

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:05 pm

Del Lolo wrote:I have to disagree. While it's true that "dogs are almost" genetically identical to wolves, we all have to admit that not only have humans changed canines, so has mother nature. Genes, chromosomes, DNA etc are not 'carved in stone', but are plastic and can and do change.Here is a link to a scientific article that shows how much digestive enzymes (particularly amylase) have changed in order to handle a diet that's high in starch (grains are high in starch).http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... riculture/
Some may disagree with you because it depends on what the dogs current diet was that may effect the research. I don't totally disagree with you on this research and do feed vegetables to my dog too, but not a lot. Its not so much the corn or other carbs that bother me about commercial dog food but the poor overall ingredients, unknown meat sources, preservatives and processing of it.

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/re ... rich-diet/

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:20 pm

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:You guys can post all the internet links you want from whom ever you want the fact of the matter is the end result.The end result is your dogs condition,performace,on what he is eating & the kibble fed dogs out number the raw fed dogs
many times over now show me the facts of how the raw fed dogs live longer are healthier,& outperform the kibble fed dogs.You have NONE!
Does any of the people writing these articles even own 1 single dogs let alone 50 or more over 40 or 50 yrs.Does any of then have 30 or 40 dogs in there kennel at one time or do they all own pretend dogs like WALKOS?
Post up your articles take up the server space & waste every ones time because it is what it is,when it's all said & done every one here is going to continue doing what they do now!!
Since when is learning things a waste of time? Not all of the old ways were always the best ways. Didn't you ever do anything a certain way for a long time before learning a better way to do it? Stick around and maybe even you may learn something. But unless you drop the attitude it will be difficult. Oh, and that's just my opinion based on experience in dealing with you!

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:04 pm

I have an Attitude ? :roll: :lol:

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:40 am

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I have an Attitude ? :roll: :lol:
Yes, a negative one at least towards the acceptance of science and what it tells us about k9 nutrition.

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by slistoe » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:43 am

walkos5 wrote:
Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:I have an Attitude ? :roll: :lol:
Yes, a negative one at least towards the acceptance of science and what it tells us about k9 nutrition.
So you posted two opinion columns. Where is the science?

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:37 am

I would like you to be more specific? Was there something you disagreed with in either article?

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by slistoe » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:40 am

walkos5 wrote:I would like you to be more specific? Was there something you disagreed with in either article?
I disagreed with you saying you have some science when you don't. All you have is opinion.

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:10 am

slistoe wrote:I disagreed with you saying you have some science when you don't. All you have is opinion.
Sorry, but unless you can tell me what you disagree with in the two articles I really cant help you? When people qualified to present research and findings based on science and experience and there is no evidence to dispute their findings then we must except this as science and truthful. When the Smithsonian Institute excepts the science and research that places a dog in the same species as the grey wolf with a DNA of 99.8% same, that's good enough for me. I'll give you one more chance, what did you disagree with in either article?

User avatar
Angus
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: SC Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Angus » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:28 am

I respectfully ask that you guys take it to PM or another thread. I would really like to keep this thread clean and open for it's intended purpose. 8)

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:51 am

Angus wrote:I respectfully ask that you guys take it to PM or another thread. I would really like to keep this thread clean and open for it's intended purpose. 8)
That's getting tough Angus as it seems that every thread is getting locked out because some on here seem to dislike the truth about dog nutrition and what science and research prove. But it is your thread so I will respect your wish.

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:54 am

Angus I have tried taking it to PM's they won't even read them let alone respond.All of this is BS taking up space on the server that the majority of the members here are SICK of!!
I would think you could see that by now whether you know it or not members are complaining about it.Maybe you 2 or 3 that find it so important to each other should go to PMs.

User avatar
Del Lolo
Rank: Champion
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Del Lolo » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:06 am

walkos5 wrote:
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family).
"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."
mDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is ONLY passed down through the females in the species.
It only changes 0.02 per million years. Such is NOT the case with nuclear DNA.
mDNA is not the DNA that is the major controller of what goes on inside the nucleus of cells.
Our mDNA is very similar to that of Guinea Pigs (or any other mammal).
mDNA goes virtually unchanged even after millions of years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6196.short

.
Last edited by Del Lolo on Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:19 am

Carry on I'll stay out of this garbage from now on!! The members that are sick of it all should speak up & let the admin know.

Bye!

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:46 pm

Del Lolo wrote:
walkos5 wrote:
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family).
"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."
mDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is ONLY passed down through the females in the species.
It only changes 0.02 per million years. Such is NOT the case with nuclear DNA.
mDNA is not the DNA that is the major controller of what goes on inside the nucleus of cells.
Our mDNA is very similar to that of Guinea Pigs (or any other mammal).
mDNA goes virtually unchanged even after millions of years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6196.short

.
I am no expert on DNA so I wont challenge what you believe to be a larger gap between the two species. But do you believe that the diet the dogs were fed could have effected the test results, because that does sound logical and the vet in my second article seems to believe that it the case or that it leaves room for doubt that there is so much more ability for the digestion and usefulness of starches with dogs.

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:11 pm

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:Carry on I'll stay out of this garbage from now on!! The members that are sick of it all should speak up & let the admin know.

Bye!
No one is asking you to stay out of these discussions. Provide us with you argument on what you feed with science behind you. I heard a good point of view by a blogger put this way. Humans eat lots of processed foods and live to an old age sometimes but are processed foods really the best diet for humans. No, and many older people do live longer, because doctors help us to and not because we are eating good food. So what if a dog can live to 13 or even 15 on kibble, does that mean it is the best diet for them. I don't believe so, so cant we allow science to be heard so we can all be informed enough to decide what would be best and then to each his own?

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by slistoe » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:51 pm

walkos5 wrote: No one is asking you to stay out of these discussions. Provide us with you argument on what you feed with science behind you. I heard a good point of view by a blogger put this way. Humans eat lots of processed foods and live to an old age sometimes but are processed foods really the best diet for humans. No, and many older people do live longer, because doctors help us to and not because we are eating good food. So what if a dog can live to 13 or even 15 on kibble, does that mean it is the best diet for them. I don't believe so, so cant we allow science to be heard so we can all be informed enough to decide what would be best and then to each his own?
So science says dogs and wolves are very closely related. Science says that humans and chimps are very closely related. Does that mean that people MUST eat like a chimp (I believe science says they are the older species). Science tells us that wolves in the wild live a lot less than dogs in captivity - how do you draw the conclusion that eating like a wolf will increase the lifespan of a dog?
Show me some actual science that indicates what you profess to be true. It is all opinion based on a philosophical approach to feeling good about what you are doing. Nothing you have provided is actual science.

User avatar
kninebirddog
GDF Premier Member!
Posts: 7846
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Coolidge AZ

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by kninebirddog » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:12 pm

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:Carry on I'll stay out of this garbage from now on!! The members that are sick of it all should speak up & let the admin know.

Bye!

I get enough "Oh Brother here comes another Dog food marking post PM's" :roll:
I think this sums this post and similar posts like it up
Image
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"When I hear somebody talk about a horse or cow being stupid, I figure its a sure sign that the animal has outfoxed them." Tom Dorrance
If you feel like you are banging your head against the wall, try using the door.

User avatar
Angus
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: SC Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by Angus » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:27 pm

kninebirddog wrote:
Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:Carry on I'll stay out of this garbage from now on!! The members that are sick of it all should speak up & let the admin know.

Bye!

I get enough "Oh Brother here comes another Dog food marking post PM's" :roll:
I think this sums this post and similar posts like it up
Image

Why is that?

DO you not want a centralized thread of info for new comers and others to read, or do you want more dog food threads for people to complain about and PM you?

I'm sorry for trying to do something good for the Site and other readers. So I give up. Keep answering the same questions over an over instead of having a "Pinned" thread full of info for them to read and make their own decision.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by ezzy333 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:41 pm

walkos5 wrote:
Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:Carry on I'll stay out of this garbage from now on!! The members that are sick of it all should speak up & let the admin know.

Bye!
No one is asking you to stay out of these discussions. Provide us with you argument on what you feed with science behind you. I heard a good point of view by a blogger put this way. Humans eat lots of processed foods and live to an old age sometimes but are processed foods really the best diet for humans. No, and many older people do live longer, because doctors help us to and not because we are eating good food. So what if a dog can live to 13 or even 15 on kibble, does that mean it is the best diet for them. I don't believe so, so cant we allow science to be heard so we can all be informed enough to decide what would be best and then to each his own?
I think the problem stems from the fact that you won't accept the science that goes into nutrition unless it agrees with your position. There is evidence all around you that feeding dogs a dry kibble works for the dog as well as for all of us. When the evidence that kibble works your comeback is that isn't proof it is the best diet. And you are right but then again if you are going to think that way then be consistent and realize you can't find any evidence that raw is better or even as good.

In other words it is you that just can't accept that meat that has been dried is as good as fresh, or that a well balanced diet is as good as your haphazard feeding of raw. And you are paranoid about any thing that passes through a manufacturing plant, even though those plants are better regulated than your home. You comment on the quality of the ingredients that are used and seem to have no idea how they are regulated either but think anyone can sell anything they want and call it whatever. I so wish when I find someone like you that I could put you in one of those plants for a few weeks and let you see just how the whole system works. But I know that will never happen.

You commented about the threads that have been locked and because of that no one will ever learn the truth about feeding a dog. I think that is an exaggeration as it appears there is only one of you left that has no understanding. Someday it might happen that you will want to know bad enough that you will be able to read and listen to reason but till then you are wasting a lot of time for yourself and the few people on here that are reading all of this. You are not unique as I have seen many like you but I also have found that a lot of them as they mature will allow the light to shine and can begin to accept the word of the thousands instead of idolizing the one or two that want to think otherwise.

Just in case you have forgotten, we all believe you should feed how ever you like and we ask that you feel that way also. I think we pointed out some of the problems you will encounter and I hope when you do you will be able to adjust enough to solve those without doing damage to your dog. I am also going to suggest that you stop posting till you have something new to add and not just keep repeating what we have all heard many many times already. There are other topics on the board that people are asking for help in or are just having a conversation with the other members without telling each other what they are doing wrong.

Good luck or goodbye depending what you decide,

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
millerms06
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by millerms06 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:06 pm

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote: I pretty much think all these DF threads are mumbo/jumbo no matter which side it comes from.
There is no dog food company out there producing foods that is going to kill dogs or harm dogs purposely.

I agree with the above. Taking the time and researching who funded the documents posted so far that are considered "viable sources" you would draw the same conclusions. I will post two more that are closely related in terms of contributors in research funding:

Energy Expenditure and Water Turnover in Hunting Dogs: A Pilot Study

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/7/2 ... f_ipsecsha

Effect of Exercise on Nutrient Digestibility in Trained Hunting Dogs Fed a Fixed Amount of Food

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/7/2066S.full


One company is at the end of the academically approved sources posted thus far: MARS Petcare. Obviously, and I cannot stress this enough, everyone works with everyone else, and are not in the business of fighting because each produce and sell more kibble than any other food source.

User avatar
millerms06
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by millerms06 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:22 pm

I should also point out that the whole first post from Walkos is in reference to an older website owned by Kim Miles. Kim Miles is the director and editor of the Florida Lupine Association. This individual is also a breeder of wolf dogs. Put two and two together, and the conclusion is the information is nothing more than an elaborate means to advocate a breed.

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by slistoe » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:06 pm

millerms06 wrote:I should also point out that the whole first post from Walkos is in reference to an older website owned by Kim Miles. Kim Miles is the director and editor of the Florida Lupine Association. This individual is also a breeder of wolf dogs. Put two and two together, and the conclusion is the information is nothing more than an elaborate means to advocate a breed.
How can you speak that way about his "science"?

walkos5
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by walkos5 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:02 pm

slistoe wrote:How can you speak that way about his "science"?



Well now look what that sneaky pet food industry did again. I think I will stick with science and feed my dog like a wolf. No offence but I'll take the advice from the guy with 26 years of professional experience and Phd ....(Edited the uncalled for statement out)


http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/he ... -diet.aspx

User avatar
millerms06
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by millerms06 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:26 pm

walkos5 wrote: I think I will stick with science and feed my dog like a wolf.
Just out of curiosity, what do you honestly feed your dog? You make all of these posts, but you never mention what you specifically use as feed. Looking for the rationed amounts of each ingredient, and the size of the dog. Please be honest...

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by slistoe » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:42 pm

Ok, just to help you understand something. You have a website with a unabashed agenda. You have a PhD with an agenda. They publish an "interview" to say that the "science" (which was published in a well respected, peer reviewed, scientific journal) is biased. The only science in this article is the study they are trying to discount to further their agenda. Did you buy anything from them, or have they failed?

User avatar
millerms06
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by millerms06 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:08 am

Ok, this is what walkos5 posted in September in regards to my request:

"I don't measure my dogs food out but I do feed a variety of meats to him, with chicken being the biggest part of his diet, and I always include bones skin and muscle with any meats I feed him. I also include beef or chicken liver once or twice a week. Raw eggs are also part of his diet along with a small amount of fruit and veggies. I don't feel the need to measure out any of his food because adding a variety of foods to his diet allows him to get the nutrients he needs over time."

I wish you would have been more like what Ezzy mentioned a couple hours prior to your older post:

"Just to equal what the big bad feed company does we are needing a good scale calibrated in pounds, ounces, and grams, a good mixer to incorporate the exact amount of each ingredient into a homogenous product that will deliver a product that is the same today as tomorrow, with the ultimate nutrition for the dogs needs everyday or we are just kidding ourselves when we think our home made product is better for our dogs than the feed we buy over the counter."

If you want to know one of the biggest reasons there is disagreement with you, it is due to your argument being equivocal. Any of the researchers you utilize for your side of the argument would tell you your actions provide a disservice to what they advocate. This is why ANYONE has the right to call your statements "opinion" rather than "science." I compare your argument to one that argues for a particular dog food brand with saying "because it's better" and leaves it at that.

I challenge anyone who is for a raw diet to actually be "scientific": gather, measure, analyze, utilize, then discuss. Articles do not mean much if they are not comparing nutritional figures between a competitive kibble. Also, run your dog against another like dog who is fed a compared kibble. I would suggest the braced dog have a field trial title in front of their names. I am sure there are a few on here that are in your area that fulfill such requests when you develop an unequivocal raw food.

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by birddogger » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:13 am

Well now look what that sneaky pet food industry did again. I think I will stick with science and feed my dog like a wolf. No offence but I'll take the advice from the guy with 26 years of professional experience and Phd after his name(Edited the uncalled for statement out)
I think this statement should be proof enough that this guy is nothing but a touble maker with no interest in contributing anything to the forum other than promoting a bogus agenda and calling people names.

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
kninebirddog
GDF Premier Member!
Posts: 7846
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Coolidge AZ

Re: Dog Nutrition Thread

Post by kninebirddog » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:03 am

And we wonder why these posts get locked ...one person has received a 2 week time out hopefully they might get a clue as to why, once Name calling has begun it is because there is nothing of intelligence to offer the conversation or post:roll:

The End
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"When I hear somebody talk about a horse or cow being stupid, I figure its a sure sign that the animal has outfoxed them." Tom Dorrance
If you feel like you are banging your head against the wall, try using the door.

Locked