Eagle Pack vs Other Less Expensive Brands

[MonsterDad]

Eagle Pack foods are not as cheap as some but certainly very reasonable.

Any feed back on them?

All the corn has been removed and they don't have corn gluten either.

[Spy Car]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

[MonsterDad]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

You are looking at the calculation for the Large Breed Formula. The Eagle Pack Power would be around 30% by calories which is about right for sporting dogs.

[ezzy333]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

All dog food is formulated to be good for the dogs and the differences though small are usually determined by their marketing strategy. I have never found a dog food with fillers and doubt if I ever will as it makes about as much sense as a gas station selling water for gas. Very few people ever come back. And just a word of warning, Dog Food Advisor is written by a dentist who likes to write evidently, as it has little validity beyond what the guy likes or some one pays him to include. I have no personal experience with Eagle Pack other than it is way to expensive for what you get.

[MonsterDad]

$0.90lb is not expensive these days, its not feed store cheap but not outrageous.

How do you know its overpriced if you have never used it?

[Spy Car]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

All dog food is formulated to be good for the dogs and the differences though small are usually determined by their marketing strategy. I have never found a dog food with fillers and doubt if I ever will as it makes about as much sense as a gas station selling water for gas. Very few people ever come back. And just a word of warning, Dog Food Advisor is written by a dentist who likes to write evidently, as it has little validity beyond what the guy likes or some one pays him to include. I have no personal experience with Eagle Pack other than it is way to expensive for what you get.

Dog food is formulated to make money for the companies that are part of this billion dollar a year industry. The food is almost always loaded with cheap fillers that are not there "for the health of the dog," but because grains and other starches are cheaper than meat. Carbohydrates are not a natural part of a carnivore's diet. Corn, wheat, rice, barley, and their derivatives are "fillers." Non-animal ingredients, like peas or flaxseeds, are used to improve protein and essential fat profiles "on paper," but non-animal sources are not as bioavailabe as animal proteins and animal fats.

I know you are defensive about your former industry, but the games played by dog food companies to hide the amount of carbs in kibble is reprehensible. And when people are informed of what kibble manufacturers are legally allowed to put in dog food, things like condemned meats that are regected by USDA inspectors, downed and diseased animals and they like, so long as they are "rendered" might give people pause about what they are purchasing.

"Water for gas" is about what you're getting when you sell/purchase food that's 30-50% carbohydrate and feed it to a carnivore.

As to the Dog Food Advisor website, I wish they didn't give kibbles such a free-pass, but the man behind it has a degree in biochemistry and unless you have evidence for what you're saying you're slandering a website that doen't receive money from the industry. Bad form Ezzy.

Bill

[Spy Car]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

You are looking at the calculation for the Large Breed Formula. The Eagle Pack Power would be around 30% by calories which is about right for sporting dogs.

Yes, I was looking at the Large Breed Formula (the only one listed on their website). The "Power" formula has more relative protein and fat, and fewer cabs. Still, 30-35% carbohydrate (which is not atypical of kibble) is a lot of carbohydrate for a member of the canine species. It is not biologically appropriate.

Bill

[MonsterDad]

According to the Dog Food Advisor website the Eagle Pack kibble is 51% carbohydrates. That puts it in the same territory as bottom of the barrel kibbles like Ol' Roy and Purina Dog Chow in that regard.

All kibbles have too many starches and fillers, but 51% is over-the-top IMO.

Bill

You are looking at the calculation for the Large Breed Formula. The Eagle Pack Power would be around 30% by calories which is about right for sporting dogs.

Yes, I was looking at the Large Breed Formula (the only one listed on their website). The "Power" formula has more relative protein and fat, and fewer cabs. Still, 30-35% carbohydrate (which is not atypical of kibble) is a lot of carbohydrate for a member of the canine species. It is not biologically appropriate.

Bill

Actually it is. Dogs are not wolves. I suggest you read the latest genetic science that illustrates the divergent evolutionary path dogs took from wolves just about the time humans starting cooking food.

It is obvious that dogs ate quite a bit of grain and grain products left in the garbage piles of human settlements as they evolved.

Genetically, dogs are quite different than wolves.

Did I bust your scientific bubble?

[Spy Car]

Sorry but you are incorrect. Dogs and Wolves are the same species, Canis lupus. Wolves and Dogs can freely interbreed and produce fertile off-spring. The essential physiology is the same.

Dogs (and Wolves) do not have molars to grind grain or plants (the way all omnivores do). Their jaws can not move side to side to "grind" food, the way that all omnivores can. Their teeth developed to cut through meat and bone. Their digestive track is very short, and very acidic, making it optimized to break down animal based nutrients, and pointedly inferior to break down plant based foods. It is entirely different than the long digestive tract in omnivores like humans.

Dogs do not have the enzyme amylase in their salavia (like omnivores do) to aid in the predigestion of plant based foods though chewing and enzymatic action.

There is one recent study that show that the sub-species of canines we call "dogs" have, relative to canines we call "wolves," have a tendency to have some genetic inheritance that somewhat improves their ability to survive eating starches instead of their natural diets of meats, bones, and organs. The study also shows that these genetic advantages are very unevenly distributed in the sub-species Canis lupus familiaris.

So let's understand what this means and what It doesn't mean. Dogs that couldn't survive eating the scraps that it's omnivore hosts let behind we're more likely to parish before reproducing than those who could survive eating a species inappropriate diet. Through he pressures of domestication some of those genetic traits were concentrated slightly. But the "dog" has not been transformed into an omnivore. It is just a little better at eating foods that are not appropriate to its species than wolves are.

This does not mean that starch is an optimal diet for dogs. Thinking that is a very wrong conclusion to draw. People "survive" on Happy Meals (sort of), but pay a price with their health. Same with dogs. The industry gleefully spins the false notion that starches are appropriate (even heathful) elements of a dog's diet, but it ain't so. No way it should be 30% or 50% of a canine diet, just because they can "survive it." These things are in the food for one reason, because they are inexpensive relative to animal based foods that comprise a natural canine diet.

Bill

[ezzy333]

Sorry but you are incorrect. Dogs and Wolves are the same species, Canis lupus. Wolves and Dogs can freely interbreed and produce fertile off-spring. The essential physiology is the same.

Dogs (and Wolves) do not have molars to grind grain or plants (the way all omnivores do). Their jaws can not move side to side to "grind" food, the way that all omnivores can. Their teeth developed to cut through meat and bone. Their digestive track is very short, and very acidic, making it optimized to break down animal based nutrients, and pointedly inferior to break down plant based foods. It is entirely different than the long digestive tract in omnivores like humans.

Dogs do not have the enzyme amylase in their salavia (like omnivores do) to aid in the predigestion of plant based foods though chewing and enzymatic action.

There is one recent study that show that the sub-species of canines we call "dogs" have, relative to canines we call "wolves," have a tendency to have some genetic inheritance that somewhat improves their ability to survive eating starches instead of their natural diets of meats, bones, and organs. The study also shows that these genetic advantages are very unevenly distributed in the sub-species Canis lupus familiaris.

So let's understand what this means and what It doesn't mean. Dogs that couldn't survive eating the scraps that it's omnivore hosts let behind we're more likely to parish before reproducing than those who could survive eating a species inappropriate diet. Through he pressures of domestication some of those genetic traits were concentrated slightly. But the "dog" has not been transformed into an omnivore. It is just a little better at eating foods that are not appropriate to its species than wolves are.

This does not mean that starch is an optimal diet for dogs. Thinking that is a very wrong conclusion to draw. People "survive" on Happy Meals (sort of), but pay a price with their health. Same with dogs. The industry gleefully spins the false notion that starches are appropriate (even heathful) elements of a dog's diet, but it ain't so. No way it should be 30% or 50% of a canine diet, just because they can "survive it." These things are in the food for one reason, because they are inexpensive relative to animal based foods that comprise a natural canine diet.

Bill

Oh my, I wonder if the universities and nutritionist they produce would be interested in finding that all of their work and studies are completely wrong. I can notify our Research Center but all of the other misinformed will be a problem, especially those people feeding fillers to their trial dogs and their sled dogs.

[Spy Car]

Sorry but you are incorrect. Dogs and Wolves are the same species, Canis lupus. Wolves and Dogs can freely interbreed and produce fertile off-spring. The essential physiology is the same.

Dogs (and Wolves) do not have molars to grind grain or plants (the way all omnivores do). Their jaws can not move side to side to "grind" food, the way that all omnivores can. Their teeth developed to cut through meat and bone. Their digestive track is very short, and very acidic, making it optimized to break down animal based nutrients, and pointedly inferior to break down plant based foods. It is entirely different than the long digestive tract in omnivores like humans.

Dogs do not have the enzyme amylase in their salavia (like omnivores do) to aid in the predigestion of plant based foods though chewing and enzymatic action.

There is one recent study that show that the sub-species of canines we call "dogs" have, relative to canines we call "wolves," have a tendency to have some genetic inheritance that somewhat improves their ability to survive eating starches instead of their natural diets of meats, bones, and organs. The study also shows that these genetic advantages are very unevenly distributed in the sub-species Canis lupus familiaris.

So let's understand what this means and what It doesn't mean. Dogs that couldn't survive eating the scraps that it's omnivore hosts let behind we're more likely to parish before reproducing than those who could survive eating a species inappropriate diet. Through he pressures of domestication some of those genetic traits were concentrated slightly. But the "dog" has not been transformed into an omnivore. It is just a little better at eating foods that are not appropriate to its species than wolves are.

This does not mean that starch is an optimal diet for dogs. Thinking that is a very wrong conclusion to draw. People "survive" on Happy Meals (sort of), but pay a price with their health. Same with dogs. The industry gleefully spins the false notion that starches are appropriate (even heathful) elements of a dog's diet, but it ain't so. No way it should be 30% or 50% of a canine diet, just because they can "survive it." These things are in the food for one reason, because they are inexpensive relative to animal based foods that comprise a natural canine diet.

Bill

Oh my, I wonder if the universities and nutritionist they produce would be interested in finding that all of their work and studies are completely wrong. I can notify our Research Center but all of the other misinformed will be a problem, especially those people feeding fillers to their trial dogs and their sled dogs.

Don't make me laugh Ezzy. People in your industry know feeding dogs grains (and playing games with ingredient lists to drive those grains down the ingredient list by splitting them up) is a good way to maximize profits. Starches are cheap fillers. Rendered meat (that can come legally from condemned sources) ain't so good either. It is about about maximizing the health or nutritional needs of canines.

Tobacco companies used to have lots of "research" that cigarettes were good for people.

Bill

[ezzy333]

Spy Dog, I am not going to get in an argument with you. You know little of what you speak but are not wanting to learn. My participation would be useless to you and 99% of the others on here know what they are doing and have taken part in many discussions just like this on this forum over the years. So good luck and enjoy but please stop rehashing a topic we are all familiar with and have heard a thousand times but it is still wrong as is being proven every day right before our eyes.

[MonsterDad]

Spy Dog, this university, Uppsala University, is one that would certainly deny your admittance. Please read some real science and not the bag of Orijen. It is obvious you are reading it.

http://www.nature.com/news/dog-s-dinner ... on-1.12280
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... -13-01-31/

All of the points you bring up were either read on another forum for crazy people or on a website of one the grain free food companies.

Spy Dog, something very simple for you to read:

"Robert Wayne, a geneticist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is also studying ancient dog genomes, says that starch metabolism could have been an important adaptation for dogs. However, he thinks that such traits probably developed after behavioural changes that emerged when humans first took dogs in, back when most of our forebears still hunted large game.

Nevertheless, the study adds to evidence that dogs should not eat the same food as wolves, says Wayne, who points out that dog food is rich in carbohydrates and low in protein compared with plain meat. “Every day I get an email from a dog owner who asks, should they feed their dog like a wolf," says Wayne. "I think this paper answers that question: no.”

[Spy Car]

Spy Dog, I am not going to get in an argument with you. You know little of what you speak but are not wanting to learn. My participation would be useless to you and 99% of the others on here know what they are doing and have taken part in many discussions just like this on this forum over the years. So good luck and enjoy but please stop rehashing a topic we are all familiar with and have heard a thousand times but it is still wrong as is being proven every day right before our eyes.

Instead of using logic Ezzy, you resort to cheap tactics like corrupting my screen name? You are supposed to be a Moderator on this forum, instead you are the member most in need of being moderated.

Have you ever seen a dog raised on a natural food (and by that I don't mean kibble)? The difference in condition, coat, and teeth is not hard to spot.

You are the one who could learn something. You think cheap fillers are not cheap fillers. That is incorrect.

Because dogs have managed to survive on trash heaps does not mean a diet of trash is optimal for their health.

How about posting a picture of your dog's teeth Ezzy? Do you dare to do that????

Bill

[Spy Car]

Spy Dog, this university, Uppsala University, is one that would certainly deny your admittance. Please read some real science and not the bag of Orijen. It is obvious you are reading it.

http://www.nature.com/news/dog-s-dinner ... on-1.12280
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... -13-01-31/

All of the points you bring up were either read on another forum for crazy people or on a website of one the grain free food companies.

Spy Dog, something very simple for you to read:

"Robert Wayne, a geneticist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is also studying ancient dog genomes, says that starch metabolism could have been an important adaptation for dogs. However, he thinks that such traits probably developed after behavioural changes that emerged when humans first took dogs in, back when most of our forebears still hunted large game.

Nevertheless, the study adds to evidence that dogs should not eat the same food as wolves, says Wayne, who points out that dog food is rich in carbohydrates and low in protein compared with plain meat. “Every day I get an email from a dog owner who asks, should they feed their dog like a wolf," says Wayne. "I think this paper answers that question: no.”

Same tactics as Ezzy? Never heard of Uppsala University. Was accepted into UC Berkeley and managed to graduate with high honors.

Dogs are somewhat better at surviving on starches than wolves (who are very ill suited to carbs). Being somewhat better to survive on a species inappropriate diet is an advantage for survival, but that does not means starches are an optimal diet. They can live on trash, but it does not mean that trash is good for them.

The basic physiology of the canine species (wolves and dogs) remains the same. Teeth shaped by evolution for meat eating. A short digestive tract designed for meat eating. No amylase (the enzyme that catalyses the hydrolysis of starch into sugars) present in the saliva, which remains the case with modern dogs. Plant foods are a poor nutrition source for canines. Dogs have a slightly higher ability to derive nutrition from plants than wolves do, but it is not what their systems are optimized to eat. Dogs thrive on meat, bone and organs. Real food.

Perhaps you've never seen a dog raised on a biologically appropriate diet. The difference is very easy to see.

Bill

[shags]

A nice big glass of Kool-Aid, anyone? :roll:

[SCT]

Raymond and Lorna Coppinger's "Dogs; A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution" is the best "description" of how dogs originated from wolves and is an excellent read even if you don't buy into their theory's. But, their premiss is that "village dogs" are likely the first domesticated canines and survived by eating scraps left by omnivorous humans. The ones that did well in these situations evolved, and from there were more widely used to help the humans in their daily tasks. Dogs are not wolves, even though they can produce young together, and when you compare them the way the Coppinger's do, you can find some very distinct behavioral differences. This argument will go on to eternity, but there's no doubt canines do quite well with certain carbs mixed in with meat, fat, and bones. I feed high quality food (Nutrisource) and I'd put any one of them against any dog that only gets RAW. And also wager on which one has the most stamina in any given test! I also feed chicken or turkey necks occasionally for teeth cleaning, as well as raw hamburger for a treat now and then.

[setterpoint]

im not sure about this whole thing of dogs should not have grain in food. my dogs will stop sometimes and eat grass I don't feed them grass but they sure seem to like it. I haven't seen any dog food bags that say fescue and I don't feed junk ether but I cant afford 2 dollars a pound

[ezzy333]

Hey, sorry about the corrupt name. I was in a hurry as I had to meet some people that were going to a pigeon auction and an awards banquet. Thanks for letting me know so I can be sure not to repeat that mistake. And While I am on here I will answer your request to see my dogs teeth. I do not have a picture but I can tell you he is 11 years old and has the whitest nicest teeth you could ever hope for. The vet even commented on them when I had him in for his rabies shot. And for your information that has little to do with what he eats. My 8 year old female had stained brown teeth since a very young age and both dogs have always had the same food. I have found in some tests that feeding the kibble dry does help most dogs, however, the big difference is the acidity level in their system. I remember my dentist telling me that from years ago with people and we have found it affects dogs too. You know most on here have heard this before but our farm dogs had no idea they couldn't digest carbs and they would lay in the alley of the corn crib and eat the corn off of the cob practically everyday. But that was years ago so they maybe didn't know back then but our britts of today still go out in the field in our backyard and carry ears they find into our yard and lay out there and eat them plus I had to put a fence around the raspberries so they would leave them for us to eat.

Thanks again to calling my attention to how I corrupted your handle. Sorry it bothered you and I will try to not let it happen again.

Ezzy

[luvthemud]

I have read quite a bit and spoken to a few nutritionists about canines and grains/carbs.....I personally don't think there is an "either this or that" answer. When I was a RAW feeder I certainly liked to believe that dogs didn't need/want plant based matter....but then I shot some coyotes and their stomach and intestinal contents threw a wrench in that. Now I simply don't care lol!

Ford vs Chevy
Pepsi vs coke
Raw vs kibble
Grain free vs grain inclusive

[Spy Car]

Hey, sorry about the corrupt name. I was in a hurry as I had to meet some people that were going to a pigeon auction and an awards banquet. Thanks for letting me know so I can be sure not to repeat that mistake. And While I am on here I will answer your request to see my dogs teeth. I do not have a picture but I can tell you he is 11 years old and has the whitest nicest teeth you could ever hope for. The vet even commented on them when I had him in for his rabies shot. And for your information that has little to do with what he eats. My 8 year old female had stained brown teeth since a very young age and both dogs have always had the same food. I have found in some tests that feeding the kibble dry does help most dogs, however, the big difference is the acidity level in their system. I remember my dentist telling me that from years ago with people and we have found it affects dogs too. You know most on here have heard this before but our farm dogs had no idea they couldn't digest carbs and they would lay in the alley of the corn crib and eat the corn off of the cob practically everyday. But that was years ago so they maybe didn't know back then but our britts of today still go out in the field in our backyard and carry ears they find into our yard and lay out there and eat them plus I had to put a fence around the raspberries so they would leave them for us to eat.

Thanks again to calling my attention to how I corrupted your handle. Sorry it bothered you and I will try to not let it happen again.

Ezzy

Do you notice that the corn comes out pretty much the same way it goes in?

Dogs don't have flat teeth (mortars) that can grind the cell walls of corn, nor jaws that move side to side and allow them to grind, nor enzymes in their saliava to digest the corn, nor a digestive tract capable of breaking it down, so it comes out as waste.

They might have some fun chewing (since dogs love to chew) but that doen't mean corn is a source of dense nutrition for dogs.

If you say the screen name mangling was just a mistake of haste, I accept that. Thanks. Sorry if I misjudged your intentions.

Bill

[MonsterDad]

Spy Dog, Bill,

Teeth are a very poor indicator, as many physical traits of animals don't really evolve that much unless that trait puts that group of animals at a severe survival disadvantage. You probably have never seen a wolf's teeth, even compared to a domestic dog of the same size. A wolf's set of teeth is much larger and much stronger, so clearly really big, strong teeth is not key for a dog's survival.

Since a dog has the ability to swallow almost anything, having a set of teeth that appear to be for tearing and crushing does not put the animal at a survival disadvantage if the only food available was plant based. Dogs just crush it a little and then swallow.

Many herbivores do have really specialized teeth for grinding, but if you think about why, it makes sense. They eat massive amounts of cellulose-based foods and could not possibly process the bulk without reducing it and starting the digestion in the mouth. This is not the case for dogs.

Have you ever seen a Panda's teeth? Pandas are "carnivores" as well but are essentially vegetarians. Black Bears are "carnivores" too as you know but would probably eat a camper's box of cereal and donuts over meat. Black Bears eat very little meat and do virtually no hunting, unless you count looking for termites and ant colonies hunting.

Both Pandas and Black Bears have pretty impressive teeth for tearing meat but are not meat eaters.

I think you just read this stuff on the bag of the more expensive dog foods. Animal protein is a better source than vegetable protein not because of digestion but because amino acids are complete in meat sources and in higher concentrations.

As for amylase in the saliva, that too is a marketing point of some pet food companies. It means nothing because dogs usually swallow things so the amylase production is not needed in the mouth.

The corn argument is also very silly. Yes if a whole kernel is eaten, yes it will come out whole, so what. It appears based on the genetic studies that dogs were presented with ground and cooked grains and evolved around that, just like people. Once the pericarp of corn is broken through grinding and then it is cooked, corn, like other grains is very digestible.

The corn argument you made is something an 8th grader would make, or the marketing staff of Orijen,

[slistoe]

It is funny how these folks that are misinformed/ignorant of reality are always so adamant that they know the truth and the brainwashed masses living and breathing in the real world are wrong.

[Sharon]

Exactly. Thumbs up on the self control Ezzy. Not sure I would have been as pleasant.

[ezzy333]

Sharon,

Some times it is hard and I don't do well as I am sure you have noticed. But I think if you look at Bill's posts, you will note he tends to think everyone is out to screw everyone else. And though it is pretty much inconceivable to me, for people looking for the worse would be quick to see that and think it was intentional. Something I have noticed all of my life, is you find what you are looking for. That's why two people can go through the same experience and have exactly opposite opinions when they are through. I do think Spy Car truly believes what he is saying but the sad thing is he isn't yet receptive to the idea of learning or even discussing any other option than what is in his mind. I have often wished that the few that show up on the forum could go back in time and spend the time with me working at the research facilities with the nutritionist, vets, and people involved in taking what is needed and asked for by people like you all and doing the work to solve the problems and keeping all types of domesticated animals well fed and healthy while trying to do it at a cost effective level where we all can afford it. Years ago I actually thought I could help do that but am beginning to realize many aren't open to that kind of help so about all you can do is let them learn on their own but also try to keep them from passing mis-information on to new people who are really wanting to learn.

[Mountaineer]

Must be Spring...another dog food, kibble, Dog Food advisor, et al thread.
Dog feed appears to be best for plumping up the agendas.

[luvthemud]

FWIW: Dog food advisor did give this food 4 stars. Don't want to make this drag on anymore then it needs to, but if someone reads the entire thread, they could assume that it got a low rating.

[Spy Car]

Sharon,

Some times it is hard and I don't do well as I am sure you have noticed. But I think if you look at Bill's posts, you will note he tends to think everyone is out to screw everyone else. And though it is pretty much inconceivable to me, for people looking for the worse would be quick to see that and think it was intentional. Something I have noticed all of my life, is you find what you are looking for. That's why two people can go through the same experience and have exactly opposite opinions when they are through. I do think Spy Car truly believes what he is saying but the sad thing is he isn't yet receptive to the idea of learning or even discussing any other option than what is in his mind. I have often wished that the few that show up on the forum could go back in time and spend the time with me working at the research facilities with the nutritionist, vets, and people involved in taking what is needed and asked for by people like you all and doing the work to solve the problems and keeping all types of domesticated animals well fed and healthy while trying to do it at a cost effective level where we all can afford it. Years ago I actually thought I could help do that but am beginning to realize many aren't open to that kind of help so about all you can do is let them learn on their own but also try to keep them from passing mis-information on to new people who are really wanting to learn.

Ezzy, you are the person who slandered the owner of the Dog Advisor Forum, accusing him (with no evidence you've produced) of taking money for good reviews. Pot-kettle-black my man.

You also use nothing but ridicule and condensation anytime a person disagrees with your opinion.

You are the one who could learn something. If you opened your eyes and mind, and observed the condition of canine athletes fed natural foods vs kibble, you'd know how wrong you are. Your industry aims to make money selling "cost effective" food, McDonalds say the same thing. Feeding dogs cereal makes the food inexpensive (in the short run) but it isn't optimal for their heath. You know that is true.

Why do people pay more for a so-called premium kibble than for Purina Dog Chow or Ol' Roy? Because they have less cereal and more meat. Those so-called premium kibble are still way shy of an optimum diet.

Too bad for you that you have a closed mind.

Bill

[ezzy333]

Dog Food Advisor is written by a dentist who likes to write evidently, as it has little validity beyond what the guy likes or some one pays him to include.

Again I see you find what you are looking for. Read again and I said he either writes what he wants or what someone else wants, and I admit I have no idea which is true. I have never paid any attention to his column since I read it the first time someone brought it up and saw how far off base he was and then it came out what his qualification are and it pretty much confirmed what I said. Since that time you have done a good job on me, but will admit it hasn't hurt my feelings because you wouldn't make those remarks if you really knew what goes on here behind the scenes and if you knew what you are talking about as far as labels and quality of ingredients and the finished product. You are even misinformed, take that back, I think you have never been informed about quality, quantity, or price of the different ingredients or even what they provide to the formula of a feed. And I know for a fact you do not know what the formula is of any dog food. Bill, you write like you are an intelligent person, so would you explain how this all meat diet would help the health of our dogs when they are now living twice as long as they would in the wild and are much more productive for a much longer time than they were? And when I answer your questions you don't acknowledge it but keep right on with the same tone you started with? I answered you about my dogs teeth, I don't think I told you that the corn the dogs eat does not pass through them whole and you don't see it in the stool unless you are feeding whole high moisture corn, like our sweet corn, then you will see the exterior layer come through but if you inspect I you would see it is basically hollow as the starch, sugar, protein, and fat has been digested We have peo[le who don't like to feed corn when the dogs are not active because it will put too much weight on them unless you cut the volume of feed way back. That is why personally I insist on having corn as one of the first three ingredients and really like it to be second, right behind a chicken by-product meal or something very close to it any time our dogs are active. It is just impossible to keep weight on them with out it when they are working everyday. I'll quit for now, and please don't come back with more personal garbage since it adds nothing to the conversation and puts you in a bad light with most of the other people. Of course there are a few that will agree with you no matter what you post, but they are few and far between as most have the same experience with their dogs as I have, and many on here have been doing this for many many years with many many dogs.

[slistoe]

Ezzy, you are the person who slandered the owner of the Dog Advisor Forum, accusing him (with no evidence you've produced) of taking money for good reviews. Pot-kettle-black my man.

You also use nothing but ridicule and condensation anytime a person disagrees with your opinion.

You are the one who could learn something. If you opened your eyes and mind, and observed the condition of canine athletes fed natural foods vs kibble, you'd know how wrong you are. Your industry aims to make money selling "cost effective" food, McDonalds say the same thing. Feeding dogs cereal makes the food inexpensive (in the short run) but it isn't optimal for their heath. You know that is true.

Why do people pay more for a so-called premium kibble than for Purina Dog Chow or Ol' Roy? Because they have less cereal and more meat. Those so-called premium kibble are still way shy of an optimum diet.

Too bad for you that you have a closed mind.

Bill

Ok, put up your numbers. What have your dogs won in the performance arena against poor kibble fed dogs?

There are lots of folks out there with dogs on the circuit trying to win that really wouldn't bat an eye at a few hundred dollars more for dog food if it meant they had an advantage to win - the simple fact of the matter is that if the dog food doesn't have corn and by-products the dogs probably aren't going to condition very well, nor will they hold up for the long run. And that is paws on the ground experience for you - not someones half baked theory about what a dog "should" eat.

[Spy Car]

Dog Food Advisor is written by a dentist who likes to write evidently, as it has little validity beyond what the guy likes or some one pays him to include.

Again I see you find what you are looking for. Read again and I said he either writes what he wants or what someone else wants, and I admit I have no idea which is true. I have never paid any attention to his column since I read it the first time someone brought it up and saw how far off base he was and then it came out what his qualification are and it pretty much confirmed what I said. Since that time you have done a good job on me, but will admit it hasn't hurt my feelings because you wouldn't make those remarks if you really knew what goes on here behind the scenes and if you knew what you are talking about as far as labels and quality of ingredients and the finished product. You are even misinformed, take that back, I think you have never been informed about quality, quantity, or price of the different ingredients or even what they provide to the formula of a feed. And I know for a fact you do not know what the formula is of any dog food. Bill, you write like you are an intelligent person, so would you explain how this all meat diet would help the health of our dogs when they are now living twice as long as they would in the wild and are much more productive for a much longer time than they were? And when I answer your questions you don't acknowledge it but keep right on with the same tone you started with? I answered you about my dogs teeth, I don't think I told you that the corn the dogs eat does not pass through them whole and you don't see it in the stool unless you are feeding whole high moisture corn, like our sweet corn, then you will see the exterior layer come through but if you inspect I you would see it is basically hollow as the starch, sugar, protein, and fat has been digested We have peo[le who don't like to feed corn when the dogs are not active because it will put too much weight on them unless you cut the volume of feed way back. That is why personally I insist on having corn as one of the first three ingredients and really like it to be second, right behind a chicken by-product meal or something very close to it any time our dogs are active. It is just impossible to keep weight on them with out it when they are working everyday. I'll quit for now, and please don't come back with more personal garbage since it adds nothing to the conversation and puts you in a bad light with most of the other people. Of course there are a few that will agree with you no matter what you post, but they are few and far between as most have the same experience with their dogs as I have, and many on here have been doing this for many many years with many many dogs.

If I don't know the formula of a dog food Ezzy (which to some degree is true) it is because dog food corporations don't print the formulas on the bags (or publish it anywhere else). All we get is a list of ingredients, which they manipulate by splitting grains and other carbs to make them seem to be lower in total by driving them down the ingredient list. You know that is industry practice.

You know that ingredients that are rejected at USDA plants can legally be sent to rendering plants. Downer animals, contaminated parts. You don't deny this fact of the industry, do you?

I consider being told I'm ignorant to be "personal garbage." Please practice what you preach.

Have you ever know a hunting dog (or other competitive canine athlete) raised on a natural raw diet Ezzy? I doubt it. If you had I think you'd see the difference an optimal diet makes. it is pretty obvious to see with ones own eyes.

Bill

[ezzy333]

Bill, yes I have seen many dogs fed strictly meat diets, raw diets, and about every other diet and have seen the benefits and problems that arise with each. The latest one was a Lew that was being fed cooked chicken as its diet and a friend of mine lived next door and would bring the dog hunting at least one day a week and it was sad to see how this well bred dog performed, It got so bad that the daughter of the couple finally took the dog away and took it to their place and put it on a good diet along with the dogs they already had. Probably saved the dogs life as it was not getting and of the fat, carbs or vitamins it needed and the digestive system was even messed up. The dog had absolutely no stamina and had to lay down and rest every few minutes at the worst point.

You are right, no one prints their formulas since there would be no way to keep others from duplicating their feed. And as far as your comment about splitting the vegetable ingredients up, the companies do not make that decision since there are very strict rules that apply to all labeling including things like the order of ingredients, size of the print, area on the tag where things are listed, and so on, even including the name of the feed.

Sorry once again if my ignorant comment hurt your feelings but you might notice I didn't call you ignorant, but rather I called the fact you didn't know something ignorant. Am I wrong or just politically incorrect to think ignorant of a fact is the same as not knowing a fact? Maybe I am wrong and instead of saying ignorant I should have said your ignorance of the fact. Yeah that sounds better. You commented about ingredients rejected at USDA plants can be sent to rendering plants confuses me as I am not aware of USDA having any plants. I am not even sure what USDA has to do with ingredients that are used. USDA is involved in human food but has little to do with animal feed. FDA and state weight and measures are the regulatory agencies we had to deal with. If you can cleanup your question so it is clearer what you are asking I will be glad to answer. And one last comment, I am thinking you are asking if an optimal diet would show by how a dog looks that it is a better diet, not necessarily. First we would have to decide what an optimal diet is, how much you are feeding, etc, and then do test to see if a dog looks is a true test of healthier or not. That's why we have vets and doctors since none of us can tell how healthy we are by looking in a mirror, dogs included.

[slistoe]

Have you ever know a hunting dog (or other competitive canine athlete) raised on a natural raw diet Ezzy? I doubt it. If you had I think you'd see the difference an optimal diet makes. it is pretty obvious to see with ones own eyes.

Bill

Surely you must have the name of at least one dog on the major field trial circuit (competitive hunting canine) you can give us for verification.
If a natural raw diet had given my dogs any advantage at all they would still be on one - fact of the matter is they aren't.

You have been given straight up facts from many sources - if you choose to persist in your adamant faith in half baked psuedo-science you can make that choice, but no one will be able to give you the benefit of saying you are ignorant any longer - they will need a new term to describe you.

[Spy Car]

Bill, yes I have seen many dogs fed strictly meat diets, raw diets, and about every other diet and have seen the benefits and problems that arise with each. The latest one was a Lew that was being fed cooked chicken as its diet and a friend of mine lived next door and would bring the dog hunting at least one day a week and it was sad to see how this well bred dog performed, It got so bad that the daughter of the couple finally took the dog away and took it to their place and put it on a good diet along with the dogs they already had. Probably saved the dogs life as it was not getting and of the fat, carbs or vitamins it needed and the digestive system was even messed up. The dog had absolutely no stamina and had to lay down and rest every few minutes at the worst point.

You are right, no one prints their formulas since there would be no way to keep others from duplicating their feed. And as far as your comment about splitting the vegetable ingredients up, the companies do not make that decision since there are very strict rules that apply to all labeling including things like the order of ingredients, size of the print, area on the tag where things are listed, and so on, even including the name of the feed.

Sorry once again if my ignorant comment hurt your feelings but you might notice I didn't call you ignorant, but rather I called the fact you didn't know something ignorant. Am I wrong or just politically incorrect to think ignorant of a fact is the same as not knowing a fact? Maybe I am wrong and instead of saying ignorant I should have said your ignorance of the fact. Yeah that sounds better. You commented about ingredients rejected at USDA plants can be sent to rendering plants confuses me as I am not aware of USDA having any plants. I am not even sure what USDA has to do with ingredients that are used. USDA is involved in human food but has little to do with animal feed. FDA and state weight and measures are the regulatory agencies we had to deal with. If you can cleanup your question so it is clearer what you are asking I will be glad to answer. And one last comment, I am thinking you are asking if an optimal diet would show by how a dog looks that it is a better diet, not necessarily. First we would have to decide what an optimal diet is, how much you are feeding, etc, and then do test to see if a dog looks is a true test of healthier or not. That's why we have vets and doctors since none of us can tell how healthy we are by looking in a mirror, dogs included.

Cooked chicken is not part of a raw food prey-model diet. this comment makes me realize how grossly uninformed you are. You say others are ignorant, but turn around and prove you don't now the first thing about raw feeding.

What you say about grain splitting is not true or misleading. Yes there are rules about the order of ingredients. So companies "grain split," which is making sure they keep just under the percentage of the ingredients that are deemed "quality parts" (such as meat meals) higher in the ingredient order by using two, three or four grains or two variations of the same grain) so the "meat" ingredient comes "first."

If, just to give an example meal meal was 15%, rice was 14%, and corn was 13% "the very strict rules that apply" would show "meal meal, rice, and corn in that order. No where would a consumer be told that of these three ingredients they were getting 27% grain and 15% meat meal. The big dog food companies legally exploit the labeling laws, which designed to work in their interests (and not in the interests of consumers). They don't want the formulas printed because they are concerned other in the industry will learn their "secrets," that is a laugh, it is because when the public learns what they are really being sold they begin to question it.

I don't see how you could manage to misconstrue my comments about ingredients that have been condemned for human consumption by USDA inspectors being used in dog food. You know that contaminated parts from slaughterhouses (that are rejected by USDA inspectors) and downed and diseased animals that are rejected for human use by USDA inspectors, are routinely sent to rendering plants, The rendered product can be (and is) used regularly in dog food. If won't claim otherwise, will you Ezzy?

An optimal diet includes meat, organs, bone, connective issue, fish or fish oil (especially if the meat is not grass fed) from a variety of animal species.

You are incorrect about not being able to see if a dog fed such a diet is healthier or not. The comment makes me understand you've never seen dog fed an optimal diet. It is sad you pounce on an alternative you know nothing about.

Dogs fed a natural raw diet have energy galore, lean muscle mass, bright white teeth, clear eyes, shiny coats, and are more vigorous. It is strikingly evident.

Bill

[slistoe]

Still waiting for your list of barn burners being fed raw. Maybe some greyhounds on the race track if you don't know any performance hunting dogs.

[Spy Car]

Have you ever know a hunting dog (or other competitive canine athlete) raised on a natural raw diet Ezzy? I doubt it. If you had I think you'd see the difference an optimal diet makes. it is pretty obvious to see with ones own eyes.

Bill

Surely you must have the name of at least one dog on the major field trial circuit (competitive hunting canine) you can give us for verification.
If a natural raw diet had given my dogs any advantage at all they would still be on one - fact of the matter is they aren't.

You have been given straight up facts from many sources - if you choose to persist in your adamant faith in half baked psuedo-science you can make that choice, but no one will be able to give you the benefit of saying you are ignorant any longer - they will need a new term to describe you.

Psuedo-science? The idea that dog's performance is best when they eat food that 40 million years of evolution shaped as their natural diet (as opposed to using the model of scavenging off a human trash pile) is psuedo-science? Is it psuedo-science to suggest human athletes perform better on a diet of fresh, balanced, natural food than they do on junk food? Use your head man.

Here is an article for you from the nations newspaper of record and canine athletes on diet. It might clear up a few things for you. In it leading expert in the field of canine sports nutrition Dr. Joseph Wakshlag, a professor of clinical nutrition and sports medicine at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine in Ithaca, explains (among other things):

Humans and dogs fuel exercise very differently. When we run, we start out burning mostly glycogen, which is stored carbohydrates. Dogs don’t, partly because they have more mitochondria in their muscles than we do. Dogs burn fat as their primary endurance fuel, and carbohydrates are not very important for them.

You can listen to people on this forum suggesting one give a dog sugar (maltodextrin) for "energy," but canines get energy from fat.

Fat is the fuel for performance dogs....

But don’t share your Gatorade. Dogs don’t need carbohydrates or electrolytes, and the only study I know of that tested sports drinks in dogs found that the main outcome was gastrointestinal distress.

Not sugar, not sport bars, not cereal. One can accept science, or stick with the species inappropriate kibble formulations of the dog food industry. There is a better alternative.

In the article Dr. Wakshlag says this about a raw diet:

The raw-food diets available at pet stores are fine, if expensive. I do not recommend that people create their own raw-food diets at home. It’s difficult to include all of the necessary nutrients, and there can be food-borne illnesses.

He has some valid points. Pre-made diets are expensive. And an uniformed person could create an unbalanced diet very easily. However there is a plethora of good information for conscientious people who are willing to do their homework on how to balanced an nutritionally rich diet for dogs. It can be done economically. Anytime a person handles raw meats or poultry it is important to observe food-safty precautions, that's true for family meals or dog food meals.

Bill

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/2 ... eeds/?_r=0

[slistoe]

Psuedo-science? The idea that dog's performance is best when they eat food that 40 million years of evolution shaped as their natural diet (as opposed to using the model of scavenging off a human trash pile) is psuedo-science? Is it psuedo-science to suggest human athletes perform better on a diet of fresh, balanced, natural food than they do on junk food? Use your head man.
Making ridiculous and irrelevant analogies as the only support for your position is pseudo-science.
Here is an article for you from the nations newspaper of record and canine athletes on diet. It might clear up a few things for you. In it leading expert in the field of canine sports nutrition Dr. Joseph Wakshlag, a professor of clinical nutrition and sports medicine at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine in Ithaca, explains (among other things):

Humans and dogs fuel exercise very differently. When we run, we start out burning mostly glycogen, which is stored carbohydrates. Dogs don’t, partly because they have more mitochondria in their muscles than we do. Dogs burn fat as their primary endurance fuel, and carbohydrates are not very important for them.
Which is why I don't feed my dog what I eat, but rather a diet that has been formulated by nutrition experts specifically for canine performance, not human performance
You can listen to people on this forum suggesting one give a dog sugar (maltodextrin) for "energy," but canines get energy from fat.

Fat is the fuel for performance dogs....
An oversimplification of the process - but yes, dogs can use fat for fuel. What does that have to do with your "eagle power pack is bad" rant?
But don’t share your Gatorade. Dogs don’t need carbohydrates or electrolytes, and the only study I know of that tested sports drinks in dogs found that the main outcome was gastrointestinal distress.

Not sugar, not sport bars, not cereal. One can accept science, or stick with the species inappropriate kibble formulations of the dog food industry. There is a better alternative.
Or you can stick with a proven formulation of commercial pet food designed to give a proper balance of nutrition to your dog that is appropriate to their activity level and nutritional needs
In the article Dr. Wakshlag says this about a raw diet:

The raw-food diets available at pet stores are fine, if expensive. I do not recommend that people create their own raw-food diets at home. It’s difficult to include all of the necessary nutrients, and there can be food-borne illnesses.

He has some valid points. Pre-made diets are expensive. And an uniformed person could create an unbalanced diet very easily. However there is a plethora of good information for conscientious people who are willing to do their homework on how to balanced an nutritionally rich diet for dogs. It can be done economically. Anytime a person handles raw meats or poultry it is important to observe food-safty precautions, that's true for family meals or dog food meals.

Bill

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/2 ... eeds/?_r=0

Still waiting for list of barn burners - pro trainers on the competition circuits depend on winning to make their livliehood. If they don't present a reasonable prospect of winning they don't stay in business long. Time and cost to feed raw would be a minor consideration if it actually made their dogs win more often - it would be standard practice in the industry. Why do none of them feed raw??
Even one dog that is getting it done on a raw diet would be a start.

[Spy Car]

Here is a link to an article on a scientific study on the effects of diet on performance in Field Trial dogs by the study's authors Martin Coffman D.V.M. & Eric Altom Ph.D.

In the study they compared high-carbohydrate kibble diets with low-carbohydrate higher fat and protein kibble diets in Field Trial performance. This study did not involve raw foods, but directly focused on the issue of carbohydrates in a sporing dog diet:

http://www.theretrievernews.com/Library ... rialPerfor

Key points:

The differences in hunting performance were remarkable. Dogs fed the performance diet did maintain their body weight and overall condition better than the dogs on the standard diet.

Dogs fed the performance food also demonstrated superior hunting ability, compared with the dogs fed the maintenance food.

In addition, this study documented that dogs fed the higher fat levels performed better even on hot and humid days!

As shown in this study, improved nutrition can actually result in better hunting performance. This could be due to higher-quality ingredients, the higher fat level, improved digestibility, or other nutritional factors.

Stamina and energy become the key factors. In this study, higher-quality nutrition resulted in finding more birds, an accomplishment we all appreciate regardless of breed or sport.

So, how does this research pertain to the field trial retriever? Optimal nutrition has common consequences in all canine athletes. From sled dogs to racing Greyhounds to field trial retrievers, dogs can benefit from nutritional research. One example is research on the value of protein2. Dogs in intense training were fed foods with protein levels varying from 16% to 40%. Dogs fed the lower-protein foods (16% and 24%) had injuries during training and all of the dogs on the 16%-protein food were removed from training due to injuries. Dogs fed 32% and 40% protein had no injuries during the training process. An important goal of canine nutritionists is to provide the performance dog with a food that supplies sufficient calories from other sources to allow minimal protein usage for caloric needs. This spares the protein for tissue repair, hormone production, and the other crucial functions of protein.
The best source of these calories is fat. Either carbohydrates or fat usually provides most of the energy in dog food. It has been known for many years that high-carbohydrate foods can cause stiff gait in endurance dogs.3 Further research documented the value of fat as an energy source.2 The VO2 Max* of highly conditioned dogs was recorded. Subsequently, the VO2 Max of ordinary dogs on low-fat diets was compared to their VO2 Max on high-fat diets. The levels of VO2 Max for the ordinary dogs placed on a high-fat diet equalled that of the highly conditioned dogs. These findings suggest that diet may play a critical role in endurance, and specifically that feeding high levels of dietary fat may increase VO2 Max and the maximal rate of fat use for energy. For the field trial retriever and other field dogs, this could result in better endurance and greater performance in competitive events.

Not only does the level of fat effect performance, but the source of the fat is also important. Fat is composed of different types of fatty acids which are characterized by their chemical structure. Terms like omega-6 and omega-3 are used by chemists and nutritionists to identify two important types of fatty acids. During inflammatory processes, these fatty acids produce “eicosanoids” [eye-ko-san-oid]. The eicosanoids from omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids result in markedly different levels of inflammatory response in body tissues. For example, the eicosanoids produced from omega-6 fatty acids can be more inflammatory and immunosuppressive than those produced by omega-3 fatty acids. Research conducted by Iams Company scientists has documented the value of a specific range of ratios of these fatty acids in the diet.4 For optimal conditions, a ratio of between 5:1 and 10:1 (omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids) is recommended.

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.



When discussing science, fact-based studies that rely on data, the scientific method, and blind studies are the gold standard.

Bill

[slistoe]

So, you have a study on proper kibble nutrition for performance athletes - based on actual research. What does that have to do with your "eagle power pack is bad" rant? Or is it your considered opinion that if more fat is good then all fat is awesome?

No one ever suggested that performance dogs will not benefit from a diet formulated to their specific nutritional needs.

I would never suggest that it is not possible to formulate a diet at home that is optimal for performance dogs nutritional needs. But why would you bother? Simply saying "raw" or "prey-based" or "biologically appropriate" will not do it. Those are pie-in-the-sky terms that have no basis in reality. Reality is that performance dogs do very well on kibble diets that are designed for them based on decades of scientific research.

[Spy Car]

So, you have a study on proper kibble nutrition for performance athletes - based on actual research. What does that have to do with your "eagle power pack is bad" rant? Or is it your considered opinion that if more fat is good then all fat is awesome?

No one ever suggested that performance dogs will not benefit from a diet formulated to their specific nutritional needs.

I would never suggest that it is not possible to formulate a diet at home that is optimal for performance dogs nutritional needs. But why would you bother? Simply saying "raw" or "prey-based" or "biologically appropriate" will not do it. Those are pie-in-the-sky terms that have no basis in reality. Reality is that performance dogs do very well on kibble diets that are designed for them based on decades of scientific research.

It wasn't a "rant." The original post did not include which Eagle Pack food was under discussion. The "regular" Eagle Pack kibble clocks in at 51% carbohydrate, that puts in in the same category as Purina Dog Chow and Ol' Roy. Monster Dad then posted he was thinking about "Power" formula, with higher fats and protein. I don't doubt this is a "better" formula that the standard one. A higher percentage of quality meats, healthful fats, and protein in a nutritional balance with organs, connective tissue, and bone will always be superior to feeding dogs cereals. With less cereal in the "Power" formula it would almost (by definition) be a better food than the standard (assuming all other nutrients are provided and balanced).

Carbohydrates are in dog food to provide cheap fillers. Not because they are an optimal source of energy. High quality fats are the optimal energy source for canine athletes. That is show by repeated studies, and even the dog food industry documents doesn't disagree with the science of that proposition.

Bill

[Mountaineer]

Spring also brings out the ramps...I love ramps and scambled eggs.
Not sure if they are good for dogs tho.....maybe DFA can do a test.

[Spy Car]

I would never suggest that it is not possible to formulate a diet at home that is optimal for performance dogs nutritional needs. But why would you bother? Simply saying "raw" or "prey-based" or "biologically appropriate" will not do it. Those are pie-in-the-sky terms that have no basis in reality. Reality is that performance dogs do very well on kibble diets that are designed for them based on decades of scientific research.

I missed this last part, why would I bother?

Because with a reasonable expenditure of effort I'm able to source fresh or fresh/frozen high quality ingredients in their natural state. Real meat that is recognizable as such, as opposed to "meat meals" that can contain mystery ingredients, and legally come from contaminated/condemned animal sources. Fresh/frozen meat is not rendered into an unrecognizable powder that is so devoid of appeal to dogs that it need to be spayed with fats and so-called "animal digest" to make it palatable to dogs.

When I select the ingredients I know what's in the diet. No one can say that of kibble. Most of the ingredients I use are human grade. Somethings like green tripe and lung, etc. can not be purchased for human consumption in the USA, which makes sense with green tripe, but not with lung. But none of it comes from condemned animals. Not true of kibble.

Well sourced it is possible to get items like beef hearts and organs, chicken, turkey, duck, lamb trim and organs, goat trim and organ, elk, bison, deer, pork, and oily fish at reasonable prices. I enjoy seeing my dog eat food he clearly loves. And the vibrant good heath and condition shows. I find it really easy now to spot dogs that are raw fed. They look different. I've had raw feeders (that I don't know) come up to me to ask it I feed raw. It is obvious. People never fail to comment on my dogs condition. People can reject ideas that ought to be obvious, we—for example—would not feed our children "Kiddy Chow," and are at least intellectually aware that Happy Meals are not sound nutrition for children— but scoff at the idea real food is optimal for dogs. How does that make sense?

Bill

[luvthemud]

Spring also brings out the ramps...I love ramps and scambled eggs.
Not sure if they are good for dogs tho.....maybe DFA can do a test.

What is a ramp?

I have a friend with a blue tick. Single guy, lives on his own. The dog is now almost 3 years old and has never eaten actual dog food aside from when it was on puppy food until 6 months of age. The dog is on a complete human diet. He literally feeds the dog the same thing he eats. Pizza, burgers, steaks, sandwhiches, spaghetti, you name it. I am curious how the dog will fare as it gets older.

[Mountaineer]

Spring also brings out the ramps...I love ramps and scambled eggs.
Not sure if they are good for dogs tho.....maybe DFA can do a test.

What is a ramp?

A Spring green...kinda, sorta an onion/garlic/leek wannabe....Ramson is the old name I know.
Traditionally paired with fresh-caught brook trout.

They say one can smell the Richwood, WV festival miles away...which might be a slight exaggeration.

http://www.richwooders.com Search: Festivals


Warning: The above note re Ramps has precious little to do with a RAW diet or non-kibble rant or agenda.

[luvthemud]

Spring also brings out the ramps...I love ramps and scambled eggs.
Not sure if they are good for dogs tho.....maybe DFA can do a test.

What is a ramp?

A Spring green...kinda, sorta an onion/garlic/leek wannabe....Ramson is the old name I know.
Traditionally paired with fresh-caught brook trout.

They say one can smell the Richwood, WV festival miles away...which might be a slight exaggeration.

http://www.richwooders.com Search: Festivals

Gotcha. Thanks.

[ezzy333]

Spy Car, The research you quoted is what I think we all have read and agree with. Thanks for posting it again for those who haven't seen it. And it really shoots holes in your posts that none of us know what we are talking about, It appears you are looking for any thing you can lay your hands on to prove a whole bunch of people are idiots and that isn't too hard to do with some of us. Go back and look at the opening statement of my last post.

Bill, yes I have seen many dogs fed strictly meat diets, raw diets, and about every other diet and have seen the benefits and problems that arise with each

I decided to save you the trouble of finding it. Read it carefully and then tell us why you belittle me when you said because the example I quoted of an all meat diet showed I knew nothing about feeding raw? This is just an example of what you seem to be concentrating on. Like when I was in a hurry and wrote your handle, Spy Car, as Spy Dog on a gundog forum you jumped on it as an insult that caused considerable distress and again it was just an error on my part of posting wrong but was received by you as a major insult? Maybe because again it is what you are looking for? Why after I posted you were ignorant of the facts did you post I was calling everybody ignorant. You spend more time trying hard to lower our credibility than you do raising yours. I have tried to answer every question you have asked promptly and you have refused to answer any questions. Does that sound strange? The subject was quality of dog food and not the intelligence level of the people asking the questions. I bring this up simply to point out where your mind set seems to be and not because it has upset anyone, but there just has to be a better way to live.

I did say I would answer your question about the rendering of meat products if you would clarify what you wanted to know. So here it is, yes I am sure there could be product sent to a rendering plant from a human food processing plant. Lets hope so at least. Rendering has been an important part of keeping the environment cleaner as well as helping to prevent the spread of disease. As far back as I can remember, most larger animals that died on the farm or ranch were picked up and used by the rendering companies. Back in the day when we still had lots of animals on most of the farms in the mid-west the companies all had several trucks that were on the road everyday. The rendering process, or actually cooking is how they separate the fat, meat and bone and also kill any bacteria and whatever that allows it to used as an excellent protein and mineral source and also a fat supplier for many different usages. I think without looking if I would feed it to my dogs and the answer is of course I would, Ant animal that loves cat and horse poop, will et most any old rotten carcass it can find will probably make out real well with a rendered product that has to go through test to insure it is safe for animals to eat and provides many nutritional values to a feed. You got to remember rendered products are just a step away from hot dogs and sausages, and we think those are great human foods. We still pickup road killed deer that are not completely mangled and save what we can for our own use as well as help out the food pantries and feed the rest to dogs and cats.

I am sure this will not make much difference but at least like Slistoe said, no one will be able to say you are ignorant of the facts. And truthfully one difference that is evident, no one really cares what you feed since we know your dog will probably do OK, while you think and have said we are hurting our pets as well as the field champions and performance dogs because we are mistreating them nutritionally and yet you post research that says we are doing good.

Ezzy

[Spy Car]

Spy Car, The research you quoted is what I think we all have read and agree with. Thanks for posting it again for those who haven't seen it. And it really shoots holes in your posts that none of us know what we are talking about, It appears you are looking for any thing you can lay your hands on to prove a whole bunch of people are idiots and that isn't too hard to do with some of us.

Why does every posting of yours come laden with sarcasm, false attribution of motives, and insults. You are a Moderator on this forum. You set a very bad example. You say you don't want personal comments (which would please me), but then feel free to unleash them yourself. Please don't act with hypocrisy.

Go back and look at the opening statement of my last post.

Bill, yes I have seen many dogs fed strictly meat diets, raw diets, and about every other diet and have seen the benefits and problems that arise with each

I decided to save you the trouble of finding it. Read it carefully and then tell us why you belittle me when you said because the example I quoted of an all meat diet showed I knew nothing about feeding raw? This is just an example of what you seem to be concentrating on.

Then I'd love to hear about the advantages you've seen in a balanced Prey Model Raw type feeding program, as opposed to hearing about a guy who feeds his dog cooked chicken (which is not germane to the conversation).

Like when I was in a hurry and wrote your handle as Spy Car as Spy Dog on a gundog forum you jumped on it as an insult that caused considerable distress and again it was just an error on my part of posting wrong but was received by you as a major insult?

Another false assumption Ezzy. You sure like to make them. I'm hardly "distressed" and expressed that I was sorry if I misjudged your intent. Unfortunately your manner of discourse is not one that sticks to the facts in an objective fashion, but instead resorts to personal attack. I guess you have immunity as a Moderator, but it is a bad example to set.

Why after I posted you were ignorant of the facts did you post I was calling everybody ignorant.

Huh? In the first place what "facts" do you believe I'm ignorant of Ezzy, and on what what basis do you arrive at that reasoning?

You spend more time trying hard to lower are credibility than you do raising yours.

Not at all Ezzy. I'd love it if the personal attacks would stop, and people would discus the merits of ideas.

I have tried to answer every question you have asked promptly and you have refused to answer any questions.

What question do you have that is relevant to the conversation have you asked haven't I answered Ezzy? I've also troubled myself to post links to actual scientific studies, or articles based on such, to show high carbohydrate diets are inferior for dogs. and especially performance based canine athletes.

You have not answered by questions Ezzy. For example, I asked if dog food companies could legally use ingredients that are condemned for human consumption, including contaminated items and diseased and downer animals, if said ingredients are sent off to a rendering facility? You didn't answer, until now. But the real question was dodged in your answer.

The subject was quality of dog food and not the intelligent level of the people asking the questions. I bring this up simply to point out where your mind set seems to be and not because it has upset anyone, but there just has to be a better way to live.

I have not questioned anyones intelligence Ezzy. This is an invention on your part.

I did say I would answer your question about the rendering of meat products if you would clarify what you wanted to know. So here it is, yes I am sure there could be product sent to a rendering plant from a human food processing plant.

Products that were rejected by the human processing plant because they were contaminated and unfit for human consumption. And/or involved diseased and dying animals, right? Please verify this is true as an expert in industry practices. OK?

Rendering has been an important part of keeping the environment cleaner as well as helping to prevent the spread of disease. As far back as I can remember, most larger animals that died on the farm or ranch were picked up and used by the rendering companies. Back in the day when we still had lots of animals on most of the farms in the mid-west the companies all had several trucks that were on the road everyday. The rendering process, or actually cooking is how they separate the fat, meat and bone and also kill any bacteria and whatever that allows it to used as an excellent protein and mineral source and also a fat supplier for many different usages.

Rendering sterilizes contaminated food, with you there. Not with you that it is an "excellent" protein source. Who would choose rendered meal (from potentially diseased animals or contaminated slaughterhouse waste) over whole fresh (or frozen) sources? No one. The former is used because it is inexpensive, not because it is high-quality.

I think without looking if I would feed it to my dogs and the answer is of course I would, Ant animal that loves cat and horse poop, will et most any old rotten carcass it can find will probably make out real well with a rendered product that has to go through test to insure it is safe for animals to eat and provides many nutritional values to a feed. You got to remember rendered products are just a step away from hot dogs and sausages, and we think those are great human foods. We still pickup road killed deer that are not completely mangled and save what we can for our own use as well as help out the food pantries and feed the rest to dogs and cats

Would you feed your family the meat of an animal that died of disease? Fresh road killed deer is pretty awesome food for a dog.

I am sure this will not make much difference but at least like Slistoe said, no one will be able to say you are ignorant of the facts. And truthfully one difference that is evident, no one really cares what you feed since we know your dog will probably do OK, while you think and have said we are hurting our pets as well as the field champions and performance dogs because we are mistreating them nutritionally and yet you post research that says we are doing good.

Ezzy

I post research by leading experts in canine nutrition based on scientific studies that shows a high carbohydrate diet is not optimal for dogs, especially canine athletes. You tell people that corn should be a top ingredient in dog food. And you call me ignorant.

Bill

[ezzy333]

I post research by leading experts in canine nutrition based on scientific studies that shows a high carbohydrate diet is not optimal for dogs, especially canine athletes. You tell people that corn should be a top ingredient in dog food. And you call me ignorant.

I don't have time or the inclination to spend time writing just so you can copy it so I am through. besides you finally got something right

[Spy Car]

So you won't confirm that it is completely legal for contaminated meat and diseased animals that are rejected by inspectors in slaughterhouse to be sent to rendering facilities to be used in dog food, and that this is common and standard practice?

Excellent.

Bill

[Sharon]

I just read all 43 of your posts Sir. They are all argumentative and edgy - " let's fight " . Forums aren't for everyone.