Gun Dog Forum

Just a curiosity question....How many people pay attention to Kcal per cup of food for performance/trial dogs....I always read the great dog food discussions(arguments), but I rarely see this mentioned...My wife, who is a long time vet tech said that they pay a lot more attention to this then other things when looking at foods for clients etc....It seems to be implied in some stuff that I have read that the higher KCAL/cup the less the dog should need from a energy standpoint...???
Just don't see this mentioned a lot and wondered if anybody looks at it?? And no I am not looking at any particular food, just curious in general if people pay attention to this number, and why or why not...

I consider that , but in the end I go by how my dogs look when deciding how much food they are going to get. Wish I could be as disciplined about myself.

I pay attention to it when deciding what food to feed the dogs.

It doesn't really have a lot of meaning since it is based on how dense a particular feed is and not on weight. If you take any feed you want to use and grind it back into a meal then the calories per cup are going to go way up since you will get more in the cup. I never look at it as the only measure I believe is what I see and that is the condition of your dog.

Most dogs love the bigger expanded type feeds but the calories per cup is way down. Look at the size of a 50 or 40 lb. bag and the smaller the bag the more calories per cup will usually be the result since their is less air space in the bag.

Ezzy

Food is sold by the pound, and most owners feed by the cup. Dog food companies love it like that. Kcal/cup is rather meaningless. Kcal/lb may be useful as a starting point but a slight advantage on paper means nothing till it goes through YOUR dog.

The whole point of putting Kcal/c on the bag is to allow the owner to judge the available energy OUT OF THE BAG, not mixed, topped or ground up. Dr. Chris Zink, DVM, PhD, did an excellent chart of caloric needs in Dog Health and Nutrition for Dummies. I'd top her high end by 25% for a hunting/trial dog to stay in condition during season.

orbirdhunter, It's a great question. Yes. kcal/cup should be considered. Yes, kibble shape, size, and surface area are all things related to kcals. But I feel overall Energy Density of the kibble is the starting point to determine both Metabolizable Energy(ME) and Digestible Energy(DE). Just do a search for "Atwater Factor" and play around with the formula and see what you come up with as it relates to dogs and dog feed. But I agree, each dog is very different so don't get caught up in the science too much! Just as guidelines. No replacing keeping a close eye on them daily and adjusting accordingly.

The biggest kibble I have fed my dogs also had the biggest forty pound bag. Kcal per cup was around the same as the food I feed now which is smaller both in size with the kibble and forty pound bag.

To me, Kcals per cup ME at 400 or above correlates to 30/20....

millerms06, a 30/20 back of bag GA does not include the amount of carb's in the formula with % to dry matter and overall caloric density they contribute. Bag GA's show just, Protein, Fat, Fiber, and Ash. It's a stretch to correlate between a GA and Kcal/per cup without knowing the "rest of the story"!

northUpland wrote: It's a stretch to correlate between a GA and Kcal/per cup without knowing the "rest of the story"!

It's a stretch to assume I didn't....when EVERYTHING is close between the three I compared, that my dogs have done well on, I am entitled to create whatever correlation I want. The differentiation is so minuscule...it's basically splitting hairs.

You are more than welcome to compare information between a 30/20 brand with another 30/20 brand and see for yourself.

"And now you know the rest...of the story."

millerms06, Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Besides like Protein & Fat percentages, there are other factors & ingredients that boost kcal content cup vs. cup. Just a few examples-
30/20 Pro Pac High Perf: 572 Kcal/cup
30/20 Eukanuba High Perf: 384 Kcal/cup
24/20 SportMix(Black Bag): 552Kcal/cup
24/20 Loyall High Perf: 379Kcal/cup

http://www.northupland.blogspot.com/p/p ... abase.html

I was really caught up in the kcal/cup for awhile because I could not add weight on my dog - he looked like I was starving him no matter how much I fed him. I tried a couple of the high priced consumer foods (Blue, Acana, Orijen to name a couple) that all had over 400kcal per cup and none would add weight to him and all were 30/20. I switched to Loyall's 30/20 (which is only around 380kcal/cup) and he immediately started putting on weight. He looks great now and has endless amounts of energy. The take home note here - don't get caught up on calories. My guy couldn't gain any weight on high calorie, grain free foods but looks like a million bucks on Loyall.

CDN_Cocker. I agree with where you coming from and in my own opinion, after witnessing firsthand feed trial results, most quick twitch, high output gun dog types do not react well on grain free diets! Those brands/formulas I referenced are all grain inclusive and not expensive market priced per pound. I was using them only as a reference to compare like protien/fat percentages vs. Kcal per cup. I did not intend to start an argument here with anybody. If you, as an owner, are satisfied with your dog(s) current performance...at the end of the day...that's all that really matters!

northUpland wrote:CDN_Cocker. I agree with where you coming from and in my own opinion, after witnessing firsthand feed trial results, most quick twitch, high output gun dog types do not react well on grain free diets!

Why do you think this is?

northUpland wrote:millerms06, Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.

Don't worry Mark, no feathers ruffled at all. Glad you added your "database" page onto your blog. Didn't notice it when I looked over your blog, before I posted my initial comment on this thread.


I did notice this on your blog when it popped up after I clicked on your link January 3rd that I thought was relevant to the initial question of this this thread. The question on your blog had to do with a three year old water spaniel who trains and hunts:

"I have a soon to be three year old American Water Spaniel that is currently being fed XXX dog food and prior to that WWW. He currently gets no more than 1 3/4 cups per day at about 400 calories per cup. However, my dog lacks energy when out hunting and while training. I have had his blood work tested and everything is perfect, therefore my vet and I agreed it could be food related. He has no aversions to grains or proteins either. I therefore concluded that the food simply lacks enough calories or is too low in protein. Am I right in my conclusion? I would also be interested in your thoughts on a specific brand of food. It seems as if there is a huge push away from corn, wheat, soy, glutens, etc. However it also seems that the majority of trialers, breeders, and professionals feed XXX and WWW alike, and foods that include those ingredients."

This was your response:

"The field trail world is sort of like NASCAR where everyone, by regulation, must run Goodyear tires and Shell gas. Trialers tend to breed, raise, train, and run their dogs with the same NASCAR mentatily. By no means makes them bad foods.In fact, They are good foods but far from great. Unfortunately, sponsorship may pay their bills to play man games with gun dogs! Personally, I would tell you to check out Dr. Tim's Momentum Formula. His food is like Perelli tires and Nitrous Oxide gas when it comes to fuel for canine athletes. It is HIGHLY digestible, aka food burns hotter and brighter in your dogs coal stove(stomach). At 588kcal per cup of Dr. Tim's Momentum you will feed the same as you are and have and your spaniel digesting more completely and his field energy will surely increase!"

Seems pretty biased from a site wanting to promote unbiased information? But aside from that why wouldn't you suggest to first feed the dog more of the food already used? The breed standard for an adult water spaniel is 45-68 pounds depending on sex. He was feeding his dog only 700 calories a day of a brand that most field trialers use. You suggest to switch feed that would have 1029 calories a day at the same amount given. I know we are talking calories only, but from a nutritional standpoint, the person asking the question was under feeding his working canine wouldn't you agree?

millerms06, I can see where some may take my opinions as biased thinking. That is always such a hard line to follow sometimes when writing personal advice, putting my real name on it, and making it public for others to scrutinize. Actually, the database has been on there for a couple years and the blog has been running for over 5 years now and is in much need of some new additions! I need to find more time. If you would like to help, send your suggestions to me pm. Thanks!
To answer your question- I personally believe feeding more is not the first option. But yes, you're right, he could have just feed more of the same. I believe this gentleman could feed his spaniel close to the same ration size and see improvement by upping the caloric density while also increasing the Protein and Fat percentages by +5% from his current feed(while still spending about the same amount monthly) That was the part of the conversation I should not have edited out! I use the regular baseline formula for energy requirements. ME = K +W(0.67) to determine. His spaniels weight(W is 20kg), activity constant(K value of 160) plus variables taken into account such current environment factors, physicality, age etc. I determined his spaniel should be getting somewhere in the ball park of 1,200 +/- kcal/day.
Those were my reasons.

CDN_Cocker,
To answer your question...Because our gun dogs dogs need carbo's! In a nut shell, Carbo's break down into glucose used by our dogs for short burst energy like quick acceleration, sharp directional changes, jumping, etc, etc, and for keeping the nervous system(blood glucose level) operating evenly. Carbs also can be a great source of fiber for long term digestive health. The higher the digestibility of carbo ingredients the better.

That is my feeling as well. I am a fitness addict and powerlift so nutrition is something that greatly interests me. I manipulate my own proteins, fats and carbs regularly so have always been curious as to how much our dogs needs for the different macronutrients differ from our's.

northUpland wrote: To answer your question- I personally believe feeding more is not the first option. But yes, you're right, he could have just feed more of the same.

Then we kind of believe the same thing because my comment regarding "feeding more" meant to feed first what is recommended on the bag. An idea you had suggested via your recommendation to him if he were to switch feed. The reasoning to follow the bag first would have educated anyone that is a first time dog owner to follow the guidelines of any bag and adjust accordingly. Hope this clarifies as to what my problem was with opting to suggest "energy dense" feed...

By the way I pay .70 a pound (after tax) on dog food that is on your list, and I still have to throw my dog on a treadmill after a two hour hunt. I know of a couple of judges that can tell you what they think of my hunting pace too.

northUpland wrote:millerms06, Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Besides like Protein & Fat percentages, there are other factors & ingredients that boost kcal content cup vs. cup. Just a few examples-
30/20 Pro Pac High Perf: 572 Kcal/cup
30/20 Eukanuba High Perf: 384 Kcal/cup
24/20 SportMix(Black Bag): 552Kcal/cup
24/20 Loyall High Perf: 379Kcal/cup

http://www.northupland.blogspot.com/p/p ... abase.html

I think Pro Pac and Sport Mix put Gross Calories on the bag, which is not allowed anymore. They are both from the same company.

The easy way to view calories by cups is that more small round kibble fit in the cup and the bigger and more irregular the kibble, less fit in.

Monsterdad, No, they do not list Gross Cals. They list Kcals ME/cup. Yes, they are both made by Midwestern.

northUpland wrote:Monsterdad, No, they do not list Gross Cals. They list Kcals ME/cup. Yes, they are both made by Midwestern.

I looked at the website and it does not say ME. It is not mathmatically possible for Pro Pac 30/20 to have 49% more calories per cup than Euk 30/20 even if the weight of the cup is slight different, unless it is Gross Calories.

The calculation used is a very standard calculation of so many calories per gram of each protein, fat and carbs.

MonsterDad wrote:

northUpland wrote:Monsterdad, No, they do not list Gross Cals. They list Kcals ME/cup. Yes, they are both made by Midwestern.

I looked at the website and it does not say ME. It is not mathmatically possible for Pro Pac 30/20 to have 49% more calories per cup than Euk 30/20 even if the weight of the cup is slight different, unless it is Gross Calories.

The calculation used is a very standard calculation of so many calories per gram of each protein, fat and carbs.

But the weight of the cups can be grossly different, not just slightly, which is why Kcal/cup is rather meaningless when you buy the food by the pound.
Now had you said it is mathematically impossible for one 30/20 food to have a significantly different gross Kcal/lb than another 30/20 you would be quite correct.

MonsterDad, I just got off the phone with John, the nutritionist from Midwestern, who knows his own formula's pretty well. He did confirm both the Pro Pac High Performance and the SportMix Black Bag we are discussing above, are, as advertised, Kcals ME/cup. NOT Gross as you suggested.

slistoe, nail on the head.

orbirdhunter, I owe you an apology. You started a thread with a great question and it spun out of control due to my own and others egos getting in the way. I hope you picked up a bit to help formulate your own opinion. I apologize again.

northUpland wrote:MonsterDad, I just got off the phone with John, the nutritionist from Midwestern, who knows his own formula's pretty well. He did confirm both the Pro Pac High Performance and the SportMix Black Bag we are discussing above, are, as advertised, Kcals ME/cup. NOT Gross as you suggested.

slistoe, nail on the head.

orbirdhunter, I owe you an apology. You started a thread with a great question and it spun out of control due to my own and others egos getting in the way. I hope you picked up a bit to help formulate your own opinion. I apologize again.

It is bullcrap what they told you. Pro Pac weighs 4 ounces per cup just like 99.99% of the foods on the market. There is no way in heck one 30/20 food can have 49% more calories than another. Weight per cup is not that much different. There is no way a 30/20 food can have 5,020 cals/kg. No way in heck. That is about 400 cals more per kg than Dr. Tim's Momentum and Extreme Athlete which both have 25% fat.

There is another food made by the same company called Earthborn. On that website the following is written:

"Calories were previously listed as 'gross calories' per kilogram and per cup. Gross calories represent the total calories found in any food. We are now listing metabolizable energy (M.E.) calories, which is required by AAFCO. Metabolizable calories represent what is nutritionally available to the dog for good performance and health."

I can pretty much guaranty they didn't update the Pro Pac website. Slistoe, there can be differences in the weight of a cup but they are close enough to generalize, which is what I did.

Again, there is no way Pro Pac at 4 ounces of weight per cup can be 572 calories ME, not a chance in heck. Dr. Tim's Pursuit has the same weight per cup and 450 cals per cup. Another example that Pro Pac is just wrong.

I will bet you a bottle of scotch they didn't update the Pro Pac website like they did Earthborn.

I fed a bag or two of Dr. Tims feed that he sent me to try. It is a good food but did nothing the Diamond they were eating before didn't do. One of the dogs actually lost a little weight but not enough to be significant. It sure didn't show any advantage over the "cheap" feed I was using.
I think you better rethink the Cals printed on the bag because they had to be the M.E. cals like the bag stated or they would have been shut down.

Ezzy

MonsterDad wrote: Slistoe, there can be differences in the weight of a cup but they are close enough to generalize, which is what I did.

89 grams/cup to 127 gram/cup is darn near exactly the same thing, isn't it. Generalize away with enough righteous indignation and some fool somewhere may actually believe it.

I did a little math for you:
Pro Pac - 4.73 cal/gram
Dr. Tims Momentum - 4.62 cal/gram
Euk Perf - 3.98 cal/gram
PP Perf - 4.41 cal/gram
PP Adult - 4.37 cal/gram
Pedigree - 3.71 cal/gram
Orijen - 3.98 cal/gram

This is based on the published ME, which may be real (if the company determined it from feeding trials), or they may be generalized by the use of the Atwater formula to predict the ME of a food (The modified Atwater equation, ME (kcal/kg) = (3.5 × CP) + (8.5 × EE) + (3.5 × NFE), is currently used in the pet food industry to predict the ME content of dry extruded dog foods (AAFCO, 2004; NRC, 1985)) and may not have any real value in telling what the useable calorie content of the food really is for a dog. I know from feeding my own dogs through the years that even though PP Perf and PP Adult show almost the same cal/gram that many more grams of the adult were needed to fuel a working dog and that although the Euk Perf. shows a significant amount less of cal/gram than PP Perf I could get the same results from less grams of Euk than PP. As well, the Euk and Orijen appear to be nearly identical but there was no way I could get the results from the dogs with Orijen as with Euk regardless of how much I fed them.

slistoe wrote:

MonsterDad wrote: Slistoe, there can be differences in the weight of a cup but they are close enough to generalize, which is what I did.

89 grams/cup to 127 gram/cup is darn near exactly the same thing, isn't it. Generalize away with enough righteous indignation and some fool somewhere may actually believe it.

I did a little math for you:
Pro Pac - 4.73 cal/gram
Dr. Tims Momentum - 4.62 cal/gram
Euk Perf - 3.98 cal/gram
PP Perf - 4.41 cal/gram
PP Adult - 4.37 cal/gram
Pedigree - 3.71 cal/gram
Orijen - 3.98 cal/gram

This is based on the published ME, which may be real (if the company determined it from feeding trials), or they may be generalized by the use of the Atwater formula to predict the ME of a food (The modified Atwater equation, ME (kcal/kg) = (3.5 × CP) + (8.5 × EE) + (3.5 × NFE), is currently used in the pet food industry to predict the ME content of dry extruded dog foods (AAFCO, 2004; NRC, 1985)) and may not have any real value in telling what the useable calorie content of the food really is for a dog. I know from feeding my own dogs through the years that even though PP Perf and PP Adult show almost the same cal/gram that many more grams of the adult were needed to fuel a working dog and that although the Euk Perf. shows a significant amount less of cal/gram than PP Perf I could get the same results from less grams of Euk than PP. As well, the Euk and Orijen appear to be nearly identical but there was no way I could get the results from the dogs with Orijen as with Euk regardless of how much I fed them.

Your calculations are completely wrong because you are assuming the Pro Pac calories are on the same basis and presented as ME. And they are not. You don't understand the calculation, I am sorry. It is simple math. Protein and Carbs get treated the same but fat is calculated at a higher contribution per gram.
30/20 foods are too much alike for the ME Calories/KG to vary much. It is impossible.

http://petfood.aafco.org/caloriecontent.aspx

Here is another example, Nutro High Endurance, "Metabolizable energy 3988 kcal/kg". Please all knowing, tell me why Pro Pac 30/20 has 28% more calories per KG.
Here is another example, Diamond 30/20, "ME Calories: 3,982 kcal/kg". Same question as above.

The answer is Midwestern Pet foods never changed the website for Pro Pac but did for its other line of foods, Earthborn.

The calories per cup for Pro Pac HP are GROSS CALORIES, period. It says right on the website that one cup of Pro Pac weighs 4 ounces or 113 grams. 572 ME calories is completely impossible.

slistoe, Thanks for breaking down the formulas into grams. Nice stuff. That Pro Pac/Sportmix kibble is TINY so I can see that being feasible .

northUpland wrote:slistoe, Thanks for breaking down the formulas into grams. Nice stuff. That Pro Pac/Sportmix kibble is TINY so I can see that being visible.

You are wrong and he is wrong. Pro Pac has another food with 15% fat Pro Pac Adult Chunk. Normal run of the mill food. The website says a cup weighs 4 ounces or 113 grams. They list the calories per cup at "535 kilocalories per cup"

This would equate to 4700 cals/kg.

Please find another 15% fat food that has 18% more calories than the typical performance food with 20% fat.

This shows again Pro Pac presents the calories on a Gross Basis.

Monsterdad, Call them up. Present your case. Get some hard data from Midwestern on paper. Included their entire formula when calculating. If I need to eat crow, I will gladly. I know what their nutritionist told me man to man so that is what I am going on. Get after it dude. Have fun!

Never seen someone get so worked up over calories in a dog food before lol :roll:

I've been feeding Pro Pac, Earthborn, and now Sportmix for a long while.

I have my reasons and have presented them on this forum over the last couple years.

Now feeding Sportmix black bag. Works great for my dogs now that my setter seems to have outgrown his poultry sensitivity.

Regardless of the Calories, Midwestern uses quality ingredients that work well. $26 for 50lb bags you can't beat it.

With that said, I do notice that my dogs eat more than I would have thought considering the calorie count of the Midwestern foods.

Reason for even buying Midwestern was the quality of ingredients, and the calorie count. The calorie count doesn't seem to be holding up, but I am ok with feeding a bit more for a good quality food at a good price.

For what it is worth, the last two foods that I have fed for an extended period of time were Pro Pac 30/20 and Euk Perf 30/20.


On the same volume (cups) of feed, I felt that the Euk 30/20 kept weight on the dogs a little better than the Pro Pac 30/20, although it was pretty close. I know this is not consistent with the published kcal/cup for both of these foods, but this is what I experienced.

Euk 30/20 has large, unique shape kibbles. For this reason, I know (did not verify) that it weights less per cup that the Pro Pac 30/20. Euk still kept weight on better when feeding the same number of cups, despite the 572 vs. 384 kcal/cup claims by the manufacturers.

My dogs also had more waste with the Pro Pac 30/20 than they did with the Euk 30/20.


Pro Pac is a great food for the money, although I found Euk to be a better food and more digestible, which is what one might expect give the difference in price (trust me, I was hoping to find Pro Pac to be a silver bullet based on the "paper" analysis). I used to get Euk breeder bags at a very reasonable price, but they have been jacking these up pretty good the past year. I may end up going back to Pro Pac because of the great value for the price.

I glad I feed my dog raw, it seems time consuming going over all those ingredients and measurements. I thought feeding kibble was supposed to be quick and easy?

B_H your a brokin record!! :roll:

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:B_H your a brokin record!! :roll:

I'm a broken record? You guys compare your kibble ingredients day in and day out, and someone always has a problem with one brand or another. But not me, it's always the same and always just right!

Bounty_Hunter wrote:

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:B_H your a brokin record!! :roll:

I'm a broken record? You guys compare your kibble ingredients day in and day out, and someone always has a problem with one brand or another. But not me, it's always the same and always just right!

If that is true, would you give us the formula and the amount of protein, fat, carbs, and minerals you feed each day. I and most people agree raw feeding is fine if you are set up to do it right, but I have never heard of an individual who is capable of owning the equipment that it takes to do it right. But I will grant you that it isn't necessary to do it right as far as keeping a dog alive. It does become more important when you are extending your dogs activity if it is to perform at it's peak. And that is where the rub is, we just can't get that top performance out of a dog being fed a raw diet that has no guaranteed level of any ingredient or element the dog needs.

You might also note it isn't you guys who are reading the labels or having problems with a feed. It is just a few that have basically the same problem you are, thinking they can find a feed that will out perform the hundreds of good feeds that are available on the market today. I have fed dogs for well over fifty years and have yet to find a feed that doesn't work pretty well. There are some I like better than others but the end result is pretty much the same, and I am yet to find a dog that has a problem with any of them, though I am sure there has to be a few. The biggest problem we have with the average dog today is they are being fed to well and the owners don't understand what is happening.

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote:I have fed dogs for well over fifty years and have yet to find a feed that doesn't work pretty well.

Have you tried Orijen?

slistoe wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:I have fed dogs for well over fifty years and have yet to find a feed that doesn't work pretty well.

Have you tried Orijen?

Orijen costs $75 - $100 bag for 28lb and is one of the worst foods I have ever tried. The dogs drank constantly and lost weight very quickly.

ezzy333 wrote:

Bounty_Hunter wrote:

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:B_H your a brokin record!! :roll:

I'm a broken record? You guys compare your kibble ingredients day in and day out, and someone always has a problem with one brand or another. But not me, it's always the same and always just right!

If that is true, would you give us the formula and the amount of protein, fat, carbs, and minerals you feed each day. I and most people agree raw feeding is fine if you are set up to do it right, but I have never heard of an individual who is capable of owning the equipment that it takes to do it right. But I will grant you that it isn't necessary to do it right as far as keeping a dog alive. It does become more important when you are extending your dogs activity if it is to perform at it's peak. And that is where the rub is, we just can't get that top performance out of a dog being fed a raw diet that has no guaranteed level of any ingredient or element the dog needs.

You might also note it isn't you guys who are reading the labels or having problems with a feed. It is just a few that have basically the same problem you are, thinking they can find a feed that will out perform the hundreds of good feeds that are available on the market today. I have fed dogs for well over fifty years and have yet to find a feed that doesn't work pretty well. There are some I like better than others but the end result is pretty much the same, and I am yet to find a dog that has a problem with any of them, though I am sure there has to be a few. The biggest problem we have with the average dog today is they are being fed to well and the owners don't understand what is happening.

Ezzy

Well the answer to the first part of your question is easy, Because I feed raw, nature already provides all the important fats, protein, and essential nutrients to keep my pooch in top notch condition and paying attention to specific nutrients or being critical when it comes to specific nutrients is just not necessary. You see Ezzy all of his closest relatives survive and thrive on the foods I feed him and his wild relatives are always in top notch condition because they have to be. Now on a side note I can't prove that my dog is stronger or has more energy then a kibble fed dog because I don't enter him in any trials because he is strictly my hunting dog and family pet and that's all I want from him, but as for energy and endurance he will stay out all day and run hard for hours and never show any signs of fatigue. I will admit that I do believe dry dog foods are getting better and the industry has improved over the past few years but a good raw feed will always trump any kibble diet (IMO).

MonsterDad wrote:

slistoe wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:I have fed dogs for well over fifty years and have yet to find a feed that doesn't work pretty well.

Have you tried Orijen?

Orijen costs $75 - $100 bag for 28lb and is one of the worst foods I have ever tried. The dogs drank constantly and lost weight very quickly.

This was my experience as well. Terrible food. The hipsters love it though :roll:

There are a lot of the high priced specialty marketed feeds I haven't tried pretty much because their whole reason for existence is to satisfy a customer and not a dogs needs. Really no reason to waste your money on them when you can buy so many other good feeds at a reasonable cost(debatable).

Well the answer to the first part of your question is easy, Because I feed raw, nature already provides all the important fats, protein, and essential nutrients to keep my pooch in top notch condition and paying attention to specific nutrients or being critical when it comes to specific nutrients is just not necessary.

Stop and think about this because none of it makes any sense. If those really are what makes you so sure raw is better then we need to go back a lot further in Nutrition 101 than we have time to do here.

Happy hunting,

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote: Stop and think about this because none of it makes any sense. If those really are what makes you so sure raw is better then we need to go back a lot further in Nutrition 101 than we have time to do here.Happy hunting,Ezzy

There's really nothing to think about and it makes perfect sense. Who sets the standards for proper nutrition for a dog? And what are those standards? I thought we already established a long time ago that only mother nature knows what diet is correct for our closest relative of the grey wolf, and no one has found a copy of that recipe yet. So if what I feed is wrong, then so is what you feed. I had my dog to the vet about 2 months ago and while there the vet said my dog looked very healthy and was all muscle and had nice fur too. I asked her if her clinic could do a nutritional blood test. She said that's not something they generally do unless the dog looks like he is undernourished or is not eating well. I chose not to push the issue. This was a big clinic with an emergency animal hospital attached to it. My original vet retired and I wanted to get my dogs paw looked at. I will not be going back there but why do you think they were not big on doing that blood work?

B_H just bump the needle & go to the next song we are tired of hearing the SOSong over & over again.Feed what you like who cares but quit preaching to the rest of us that don't agree with you.
Why don't you ask how to break your dog to point & hold birds until you flush them instead of him flushing them up.You & Walkos are the only ones on this forum that are,were ,stuck on replay.
Why can't you get it?

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:B_H just bump the needle & go to the next song we are tired of hearing the SOSong over & over again.Feed what you like who cares but quit preaching to the rest of us that don't agree with you.
Why don't you ask how to break your dog to point & hold birds until you flush them instead of him flushing them up.You & Walkos are the only ones on this forum that are,were ,stuck on replay.
Why can't you get it?

What's wrong with letting my dog flush up the birds if its what I command him to do? I read that other hunters do the same with their pointing dogs especially in thick cover. The only real problem I am working on is getting him to slow down and hunt a little closer to me. He is only 3 and doing pretty good finding and pointing birds so far.

All I'm trying to say is move on to something besides you preaching to us about feeding raw.We don't care & tired of hearing it over & over,can't you understand that?

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:All I'm trying to say is move on to something besides you preaching to us about feeding raw.We don't care & tired of hearing it over & over,can't you understand that?

Bounty Hunter, take what is said here to heart. Our function is to advise but it is up to you to do what you want. Same goes for everyone. You have stated your opinion over and over while not taking part in any other topic we can learn about. It is time to end it and move on to something relevant to other members.

Ezzy

If anyone has something new to offer about k/cals then PM and I will open this back up.. For now it is locked.