Does anybody rotate formulas to avoid protein intolerance?

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:53 pm

Neil wrote: Your point of profit is correct, but Purina has every reason to keep the quality of ProPlan high.

Saying Purina has every reason to "keep" the quality of ProPlan high presupposes the quality of Pro Plan was ever high, when it is not the case.

If you all care to argue brewers rice, wheat and corn are superior nutritionally to meat, bones, and organs, have at it. It ain't so, but whatever.

And saying most dogs on the owned by people on the forum don't enjoy longevity, when most of those dogs are fed kibble, and a great number are fed Pro Plan, pretty much undermines you case. A dog living to 17 is impressive. With there are smokers who live to 90 too. No one is claiming that's a good habit, or that cancer and heart disease are "test tube" problems not "real world" ones.

Pato's question will never be answered, because corn is not the nutritional equivalent of meat. The carbs in Pro Plan are grossly excessive for animals that have no essential requirements for carbohydrates in their diets, and do much better burning fat as their fuel source.

Bill

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:01 pm

Please define better?

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:10 pm

Once again we have someone asking for proof of an established protocol but at the same time offers many opinions that have never been proved. Some where along the line people need to realize that there is no perfect ingredient as all any of them do is add to what the other ingredients provide. Ingredient provide the necessary nutrients that a well balanced feed needs. We do the best and most efficient job when we use a variety of sources and one is no better than the next, just different.

Ezzy

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:06 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Once again we have someone asking for proof of an established protocol but at the same time offers many opinions that have never been proved. Some where along the line people need to realize that there is no perfect ingredient as all any of them do is add to what the other ingredients provide. Ingredient provide the necessary nutrients that a well balanced feed needs. We do the best and most efficient job when we use a variety of sources and one is no better than the next, just different.

Ezzy

You guys are the ones claiming there is massive spending on food science by pet food companies. If they had proof that corn were superior to meat, organs, and bones in dogs's diet they'd be singing that from the hills instead of misleading customers about how much cereal in in the dog food.

Bill

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:14 pm

Neil wrote:Please define better?

Meat, bones, organs, and fish. Stuff like that. From diverse species (not just chicken).

Few (if any) carbohydrates which are not an essential part of a canine diet.

Dog's best fuel is fat, not carbs.

Bill

Post by **Sharon** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:19 pm

Not sure what you are saying.
I feed pro Plan Focus; first ingredient is chicken.[/quote Sharon)

Sigh. dogfoodadvisor has a very hard time with "fresh" chicken (as opposed to chicken meal) because after it is processed its weight will move it lower on the ingredient list. When the next ingredients listed are brewer's rice, corn gluten and poultry by products (and OMG animal fat) the assumption is that 1) Purina is deliberately misleading about "chicken being the first ingredient" and that 2) the food is a rip-off because of the gluten and by products. (BTW, the explanation for why Purina uses "poultry" and "animal" by-products and fat is very simple. Almost always they will be chicken if the first ingredient is chicken but since Purina sells millions of bags of food and the FDA is strict about changing the label if the formula changes, they leave themselves some wiggle room to substitute ingredients from other animals if chicken products are in short supply. This is very different from the suggestion that "animal" is used as a descriptor because the fat is rendered from roadkill and euthanized pets.)

Anyway, just to make things more confusing, AAFCO regulations allow ingredients to be listed either pre-processing or post-processing. DFA (and some of our friends here) *assume* that Purina's chicken is pre-processing rather than "as fed." The company is under no obligation to explain which method they use and obviously "chicken," plain and simple, sounds best to anyone reading the label.

Forgive me if this has been cited in one of the 10,000 threads on this subject (and go back to my original post please; it wasn't really about Pro Plan. It was about rotating foods. I only semi-intended to kick the hornet's nest.) but Vickie Lamb, who I assume many of you know from the retriever world, was so tired of the wet weight chicken canard she called Purina and Eukanuba to ask them.

. . . I checked with two companies, . . . Purina and Eukanuba, and both adjust in cooking for wet-weight loss so that the ingredient emerges as number one after cooking. THE FACT THAT THE WEBSITE {DFA} DOESN'T STATE THAT SOME COMPANIES WILL ADJUST FOR THIS IS IN THE END MISLEADING IN THE WAY THEY HAVE WORDED WHAT THEY WROTE. If people don't read really closely they will jump to the wrong conclusion about all companies.

While she was at it Vickie threw in another ringing endorsement for Pro Plan:

As far as my own dogs and my own choices, after my own considerable research (not just by the book) I've chosen Pro Plan for quite a number of reasons and I'm very happy with that decision and my dogs over the years on PP have shown the same by good health and condition from puppyhood into twilight years and ability and desire to perform in those years as well in various hunting/sporting breeds.

I guess if you live in a world where you make up your own facts Vickie could be delusional and Purina could be lying through their teeth. But I don't think so.

retrievertraining.net forum thread - Pro Plan smoe plan - Page 9 - http://is.gd/9KdG0W[/quote]
..................

Very informative. Thanks.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:34 pm

Spy Car wrote:
Neil wrote:Please define better?
Meat, bones, organs, and fish. Stuff like that. From diverse species (not just chicken).

Few (if any) carbohydrates which are not an essential part of a canine diet.

Dog's best fuel is fat, not carbs.

Bill

Bill,

My point is I do not know how my dogs can do better on any food. They are pretty much over achievers when you consider their trainer/handler - me.

So please tell me how you think Azul could have won more, hunted harder, or live longer? The 90 year old smoker does not work, he hasn't just lived, he has been a performance athlete.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:42 pm

Neil wrote:
Spy Car wrote:
Neil wrote:Please define better?
Meat, bones, organs, and fish. Stuff like that. From diverse species (not just chicken).

Few (if any) carbohydrates which are not an essential part of a canine diet.

Dog's best fuel is fat, not carbs.

Bill
Bill,

My point is I do not know how my dogs can do better on any food. They are pretty much over achievers when you consider their trainer/handler - me.

So please tell me how you think Azul could have won more, hunted harder, or live longer? The 90 year old smoker does not work, he hasn't just lived, he has been a performance athlete.

Again, this is a silly argument.

Usian Bolt won 3 gold medals and set world records in Beijing while eating 1,000 chicken nuggets in 10 days. Clearly, despite that spectacular performance and the repeat in 2012, he has decide to improve his diet because he thinks his performance can improve.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:52 pm

I think you are right about it being a silly argument and since you are the one arguing maybe you should just quit and get back on subject.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:54 pm

Sharon wrote:Not sure what you are saying.
I feed pro Plan Focus; first ingredient is chicken.[/quote Sharon)

Sigh. dogfoodadvisor has a very hard time with "fresh" chicken (as opposed to chicken meal) because after it is processed its weight will move it lower on the ingredient list. When the next ingredients listed are brewer's rice, corn gluten and poultry by products (and OMG animal fat) the assumption is that 1) Purina is deliberately misleading about "chicken being the first ingredient" and that 2) the food is a rip-off because of the gluten and by products. (BTW, the explanation for why Purina uses "poultry" and "animal" by-products and fat is very simple. Almost always they will be chicken if the first ingredient is chicken but since Purina sells millions of bags of food and the FDA is strict about changing the label if the formula changes, they leave themselves some wiggle room to substitute ingredients from other animals if chicken products are in short supply. This is very different from the suggestion that "animal" is used as a descriptor because the fat is rendered from roadkill and euthanized pets.)

Anyway, just to make things more confusing, AAFCO regulations allow ingredients to be listed either pre-processing or post-processing. DFA (and some of our friends here) *assume* that Purina's chicken is pre-processing rather than "as fed." The company is under no obligation to explain which method they use and obviously "chicken," plain and simple, sounds best to anyone reading the label.

Forgive me if this has been cited in one of the 10,000 threads on this subject (and go back to my original post please; it wasn't really about Pro Plan. It was about rotating foods. I only semi-intended to kick the hornet's nest.) but Vickie Lamb, who I assume many of you know from the retriever world, was so tired of the wet weight chicken canard she called Purina and Eukanuba to ask them.

. . . I checked with two companies, . . . Purina and Eukanuba, and both adjust in cooking for wet-weight loss so that the ingredient emerges as number one after cooking. THE FACT THAT THE WEBSITE {DFA} DOESN'T STATE THAT SOME COMPANIES WILL ADJUST FOR THIS IS IN THE END MISLEADING IN THE WAY THEY HAVE WORDED WHAT THEY WROTE. If people don't read really closely they will jump to the wrong conclusion about all companies.

While she was at it Vickie threw in another ringing endorsement for Pro Plan:

As far as my own dogs and my own choices, after my own considerable research (not just by the book) I've chosen Pro Plan for quite a number of reasons and I'm very happy with that decision and my dogs over the years on PP have shown the same by good health and condition from puppyhood into twilight years and ability and desire to perform in those years as well in various hunting/sporting breeds.

I guess if you live in a world where you make up your own facts Vickie could be delusional and Purina could be lying through their teeth. But I don't think so.

retrievertraining.net forum thread - Pro Plan smoe plan - Page 9 - http://is.gd/9KdG0W

..................

Very informative. Thanks.[/quote]

She is naive and wants to believe Purina because those retriever people are stupid over Purina because they toss a couple of bags of food at them.

The "value" food formulas are adjusted every run, with an eye to commodity prices, to maximize profit within the weight restrictions and sourcing placed by the ingredients list.

That is reality.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:04 am

How can it be silly? I want a dog food to allow my dogs to perform at their full potential while enjoying good health and longevity. What the heck else are we talking about? I keep an average of 9 dogs, all on ProPlan.

channeledbymodem · Post by **channeledbymodem** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:43 am

Neil wrote:I keep an average of 9 dogs, all on ProPlan.

Quite an endorsement

Wonderful your dogs have lived so long.

Do you feed the same formula to all of the dogs?

Do you ever change formulas?

Do you ever add anything to the Pro Plan?

Thanks.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:46 am

Neil wrote:
Bill,

My point is I do not know how my dogs can do better on any food. They are pretty much over achievers when you consider their trainer/handler - me.

So please tell me how you think Azul could have won more, hunted harder, or live longer? The 90 year old smoker does not work, he hasn't just lived, he has been a performance athlete.

Neil,

It sounds like you're being unduly modest. With those victories, I'm sure your dogs have a highly competent trainer.

I doubt many would argue that the biggest factors in success in competitions are great genetics paired with good training and conditioning.

No one turns a poorly bred (or poorly trained) dog into a champion by feeding it really well.

That said, I'm seeing the differences in condition that a natural diet make happen. I've had many gundogs (and great ones) who were kibble-fed. They were athletes. But after having a different experience with the current dog, I wish I could turn back time.

Congratulations on the wins, and on the longevity. Keeping a beloved dog around a long time is very rewarding.

Bill

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:47 am

Sorry double post

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:28 am

[quote="channeledbymodem"][quote="Neil"]I keep an average of 9 dogs, all on ProPlan.[/quote]

Quite an endorsement

Wonderful your dogs have lived so long.

Do you feed the same formula to all of the dogs?

Do you ever change formulas?

Do you ever add anything to the Pro Plan?

Thanks.[/quote]

I feed ProPlan Lamb and Rice to all dogs, including pups year round, in the winter and when exercising hard I add a tablespoon to 2 tablespoons of used canola oil. Canola oil only because that is what the wife cooks with for me. Old fashion lard would do as well for a dog. Just bumping the fat up a bit.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:46 am

I have done the same thing for years. they get Diamond High Energy and I add oil. Used to be Canola but I did find an oil that is 50 some % Linseed so I bought a gallon. Dogs and pigeons get a little added especially in the winter or when working hard. Going on faith though since I don't really see much if any difference. The dogs like it though and wait for me to dribble some on their feed. We have found Linseed Oil shows op in the coat though We couldn't see where it helped in any other way. Don't think there is a winning animal in the show ring that doesn't get Linseed added to their diet. Just hard to justify for any other reason though as it is more expensive than most other oils.

channeledbymodem · Post by **channeledbymodem** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:56 am

Neil wrote:I feed ProPlan Lamb and Rice to all dogs, including pups year round, in the winter and when exercising hard I add a tablespoon to 2 tablespoons of used canola oil. Canola oil only because that is what the wife cooks with for me. Old fashion lard would do as well for a dog. Just bumping the fat up a bit.

Thank you. Any particular reason you feed the lamb rather than chicken? Also which lamb formula? When they introduced the Sport/Focus/Savor lines I'll bet they changed whatever lamb formula you used previously.

I started this thread without any intention of debating the merits of Pro Plan. I'd already decided to feed it. But I was considering switching every few months between chicken, salmon and lamb. Ezzy advised against this and I'm gathering you and your dogs are content to eat the lamb formula indefinitely.

channeledbymodem · Post by **channeledbymodem** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:06 am

ezzy333 wrote:Used to be Canola but I did find an oil that is 50 some % Linseed so I bought a gallon. We have found Linseed Oil shows op in the coat though We couldn't see where it helped in any other way. Don't think there is a winning animal in the show ring that doesn't get Linseed added to their diet. Just hard to justify for any other reason though as it is more expensive than most other oils.

Linseed oil has a lot of Omega 3 fatty acids vs. the Omega 6s which are plentiful in corn oil and most commercial feeds. That's a good thing. What you bought may also include flaxseed oil, which is also good for Omega 3. It's probably much less expensive than fish oil, which a lot of people with fewer dogs use. Fish oil is probably more bioavailable than flax/linseed but what the heck, it's $$. Also fish oil is not shelf stable; it needs to be refrigerated. I guess whatever you bought keeps at room temperature.

Anyway there is a raging debate going on in the nutrition world about whether Omega 3s are all they're hyped to be. Improved coats are just one of the many wonderful things they're supposed to be good for. Among the latest benefits touted for dogs is mitigation of cognitive disorder syndrome (doggy alzheimer's). I've given fish oil off and on for years but never felt the need to run out and replace it when it ran out.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:49 am

Instead of feeding flax seed oil or fish oil, try feeding whole (raw) fresh/frozen oily cold-water fish like mackerel, sardines, herring, or anchovies, and be prepared for very positive results.

Bill

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:53 am

I was not happy when Purina switched to Savor Shredded, but Bob West told me it would be fine. I couldn't tell a difference, some dogs will eat the tender morsels first. Stool, coat, eyes, and performance remained the same. I do not always welcome change.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:54 am

I was not happy when Purina switched to Savor Shredded, but Bob West told me it would be fine. I couldn't tell a difference, some dogs will eat the tender morsels first. Stool, coat, eyes, and performance remained the same. I do not always welcome change.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:17 pm

Spy Car wrote:Instead of feeding flax seed oil or fish oil, try feeding whole (raw) fresh/frozen oily cold-water fish like mackerel, sardines, herring, or anchovies, and be prepared for very positive results.

Bill

Don't confuse them. I've been getting 5lb frozen blocks of raw sardines, from the ethnic supermarket, for under $3. I don't know where or how much you're paying for yours but just a fyi.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:28 pm

Linseed Oil is Flax seed oil. You are right. it is more stable and cheaper than fish oil. Fish Oil has about used up its benefit though since they are finding mercury in it. At present I would advise to just forget the fish oil since there are better things to feed. It is interesting how we seem to go completely overboard every time something new comes into play and then after a few years it tends to revert back to what good nutrition has been for years in the past. I still think that the natural ingredients that have been available and used for years provide a good diet that fulfills the dogs and also our needs. Everything in moderation is not a bad rule to live by. It is nice that we have some newer processes for those ingredients that make it more efficient to include the right amount of nutrition tp our dogs without having to overfeed just to get the ones that are short supply in the products available.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:30 pm

We have been adding sardines for bird dogs for 50 years, the mushers have been adding salmon since the 1800's. Nothing new. Only problem is hitting the right amount with any supplement, lot of guess work and trial and error.

channeledbymodem · Post by **channeledbymodem** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:40 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Linseed Oil is Flax seed oil.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd never used it so I didn't know. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:41 pm

channeledbymodem wrote:
Neil wrote:I feed ProPlan Lamb and Rice to all dogs, including pups year round, in the winter and when exercising hard I add a tablespoon to 2 tablespoons of used canola oil. Canola oil only because that is what the wife cooks with for me. Old fashion lard would do as well for a dog. Just bumping the fat up a bit.
Thank you. Any particular reason you feed the lamb rather than chicken? Also which lamb formula? When they introduced the Sport/Focus/Savor lines I'll bet they changed whatever lamb formula you used previously.

I started this thread without any intention of debating the merits of Pro Plan. I'd already decided to feed it. But I was considering switching every few months between chicken, salmon and lamb. Ezzy advised against this and I'm gathering you and your dogs are content to eat the lamb formula indefinitely.

Here is a better question....

When all Neil and Ezzy do on these forums is extol the virtues of Purina's commitment to the science of dog performance, why isn't Neil feeding what Purina deems, after spending millions in science, to be it's performance 30/20 food?

Why is he feeding a 26/16 food, that isnt even their sport or performance food, and adding fat?

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:38 pm

In the USA the term linseed oil is generally used for non-food-grade versions that are extracted with solvents (like boiled linseed oil) where "flax seed oil" is the term generally used for used food grade oil. There are exceptions to the rule, and linseeds and flax seeds are two names for the same thing.

Flax seed oil is not as nutritious as fish oil due to lower levels of vital EPA and DHA. Eating raw oily fish* is better yet.

Bill

*exceptions include raw PNW salmon and trout which carry parasite risks.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:43 pm

pato y codoniz wrote:
Spy Car wrote:Instead of feeding flax seed oil or fish oil, try feeding whole (raw) fresh/frozen oily cold-water fish like mackerel, sardines, herring, or anchovies, and be prepared for very positive results.

Bill

Don't confuse them. I've been getting 5lb frozen blocks of raw sardines, from the ethnic supermarket, for under $3. I don't know where or how much you're paying for yours but just a fyi.

I'm generally paying about $1 a pound for nice fish. You're doing even better.

Bill

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:47 pm

And here I thought Purina made about 118 formulas so the customer could select what they liked best.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:03 pm

Neil wrote:And here I thought Purina made about 118 formulas so the customer could select what they liked best.

If after all those millions that Purina has invested in studying dog performance that has led them to create Pro Plan Performance 30/20 formula, why would anyone in their right mind chose a different formulation for maximum canine performance?

Either you believe in their science or you don't...

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:07 pm

pato y codoniz wrote:
channeledbymodem wrote:
Neil wrote:I feed ProPlan Lamb and Rice to all dogs, including pups year round, in the winter and when exercising hard I add a tablespoon to 2 tablespoons of used canola oil. Canola oil only because that is what the wife cooks with for me. Old fashion lard would do as well for a dog. Just bumping the fat up a bit.
Thank you. Any particular reason you feed the lamb rather than chicken? Also which lamb formula? When they introduced the Sport/Focus/Savor lines I'll bet they changed whatever lamb formula you used previously.

I started this thread without any intention of debating the merits of Pro Plan. I'd already decided to feed it. But I was considering switching every few months between chicken, salmon and lamb. Ezzy advised against this and I'm gathering you and your dogs are content to eat the lamb formula indefinitely.
Here is a better question....

When all Neil and Ezzy do on these forums is extol the virtues of Purina's commitment to the science of dog performance, why isn't Neil feeding what Purina deems, after spending millions in science, to be it's performance 30/20 food?

Why is he feeding a 26/16 food, that isnt even their sport or performance food, and adding fat?

Let me ask what is the difference if you feed a 26/16 or a 30/20? One feed is not better than the other. What you should be concerned about is how much protein and fat are you delivering to the dog.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:21 pm

pato y codoniz wrote:
Neil wrote:And here I thought Purina made about 118 formulas so the customer could select what they liked best.

If after all those millions that Purina has invested in studying dog performance that has led them to create Pro Plan Performance 30/20 formula, why would anyone in their right mind chose a different formulation for maximum canine performance?

Either you believe in their science or you don't...

Other than the Lord, I don't believe in anything or anyone 100%.

The 30 - 20 is a fine food, my Brittanies did better on Lamb and Rice as far as stool. Not too hard, not too soft, just right.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:29 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
Let me ask what is the difference if you feed a 26/16 or a 30/20? One feed is not better than the other. What you should be concerned about is how much protein and fat are you delivering to the dog.

Speaking for myself. I'd be concerned (in the negative sense) about how many calories in any ration were coming from non-essential carbohydrates. This on top of concerns about incomplete amino acids from corn making up a primary protein source. Not to mention the questionable quality of sources of fats. When fat and protein levels are down, it follows that carb levels (which manufactors do not disclose on the bags) go up. That is not a positive.

Bill

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:49 pm

Spy Car wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
Let me ask what is the difference if you feed a 26/16 or a 30/20? One feed is not better than the other. What you should be concerned about is how much protein and fat are you delivering to the dog.
Speaking for myself. I'd be concerned (in the negative sense) about how many calories in any ration were coming from non-essential carbohydrates. This on top of concerns about incomplete amino acids from corn making up a primary protein source. Not to mention the questionable quality of sources of fats. When fat and protein levels are down, it follows that carb levels (which manufactors do not disclose on the bags) go up. That is not a positive.

Bill

There is no essential carb since the dog doesn't care where they come from, just an essential amount so that it gets enough to do the job is what we want. Same with the amino acids. There are essential amounts of certain ones but there again the dog doesn't much care where they come from as long as make sure there is enough of each. And though we have ranked fats by how much and what type each is the dog isn't near as fussy about them. For anyone that thinks a dog should only get what it ate in the wild feeding fish or fish oil undoes all of that science. So again it comes back to the fact that the specialty type formulas that some just insist on just doesn't hold water. What we are really being told is that some people want or like to feed something different and since the dog doesn't care and probably didn't even get to vote everyone is feeding a food there dog is doing well on and most all of the chatter is just expressing your opinion and trying to convince people that they should do the same thing as they do or they just don't care about the well being of their dog. I doubt if much will change till you get the dogs to tell everyone what they want.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:21 pm

ezzy333 wrote:[
There is no essential carb since the dog doesn't care where they come from, just an essential amount so that it gets enough to do the job is what we want. Same with the amino acids. There are essential amounts of certain ones but there again the dog doesn't much care where they come from as long as make sure there is enough of each. And though we have ranked fats by how much and what type each is the dog isn't near as fussy about them. For anyone that thinks a dog should only get what it ate in the wild feeding fish or fish oil undoes all of that science. So again it comes back to the fact that the specialty type formulas that some just insist on just doesn't hold water. What we are really being told is that some people want or like to feed something different and since the dog doesn't care and probably didn't even get to vote everyone is feeding a food there dog is doing well on and most all of the chatter is just expressing your opinion and trying to convince people that they should do the same thing as they do or they just don't care about the well being of their dog. I doubt if much will change till you get the dogs to tell everyone what they want.

Ezzy, you are confusing yourself. Carbohydrates are NOT essential to a canine diet in any degree. This is not the term "essential" being used as when discussing essential and non-essential amino acids, as in those that can not be synthesized by the animal vs those that can be.

Dogs have no nutritional need for carbohydrates in their diets. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is in dog food because it is dirt cheap relative to the animal products canines assimilate best.

You've lost me with the talking dogs, but not the first time.

Bill

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:24 pm

BTW Ezzy, canids eat fish in the wild. For modern domesticated dogs eating fish is especially vital as EPA and DHA levels in conventionally grown beef is much lower than these Omega 3 oils in bovines (and other ruminants) than they are in with cattle who eat the diet they were shaped by nature to consume: namely, grass.

The same food scientists that have convinced dog owners to feed their canines grains have also formulated grain-based diets for ruminants. Neither are biologically appropriate for the respective species. Conventional beef has poor Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios, and this impacts both human and canine health. Feeding oil rich fish is a smart move.

Bill

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:32 pm

Spy Car wrote:BTW Ezzy, canids eat fish in the wild. For modern domesticated dogs eating fish is especially vital as EPA and DHA levels in conventionally grown beef is much lower than these Omega 3 oils in bovines (and other ruminants) that they are in with cattle who eat the diet they were shaped by nature to consume: namely, grass.

The same food scientists that have convinced dog owners to feed their canines grains have also formulated grain-based diets for ruminants. Neither are biologically appropriate for the respective species. Conventional beef has poor Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios, and this impacts both human and canine health. Feeding oil rich fish is a smart move.

Bill

I always enjoy and feel honored to have you explain the facts. I know all of the other members on here feel the same way. It is amazing how everyone jumped on the band wagon to solve all of the problems they are having.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:29 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
Spy Car wrote:BTW Ezzy, canids eat fish in the wild. For modern domesticated dogs eating fish is especially vital as EPA and DHA levels in conventionally grown beef is much lower than these Omega 3 oils in bovines (and other ruminants) that they are in with cattle who eat the diet they were shaped by nature to consume: namely, grass.

The same food scientists that have convinced dog owners to feed their canines grains have also formulated grain-based diets for ruminants. Neither are biologically appropriate for the respective species. Conventional beef has poor Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios, and this impacts both human and canine health. Feeding oil rich fish is a smart move.

Bill
I always enjoy and feel honored to have you explain the facts. I know all of the other members on here feel the same way. It is amazing how everyone jumped on the band wagon to solve all of the problems they are having.

And I am in turn unfailingly amazed with the example you set as a moderator of this forum.

Bill

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:11 am

ezzy333 wrote:
Spy Car wrote:BTW Ezzy, canids eat fish in the wild. For modern domesticated dogs eating fish is especially vital as EPA and DHA levels in conventionally grown beef is much lower than these Omega 3 oils in bovines (and other ruminants) that they are in with cattle who eat the diet they were shaped by nature to consume: namely, grass.

The same food scientists that have convinced dog owners to feed their canines grains have also formulated grain-based diets for ruminants. Neither are biologically appropriate for the respective species. Conventional beef has poor Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios, and this impacts both human and canine health. Feeding oil rich fish is a smart move.

Bill
I always enjoy and feel honored to have you explain the facts. I know all of the other members on here feel the same way. It is amazing how everyone jumped on the band wagon to solve all of the problems they are having.

Hey I'm just waiting for you to honor us with an explanation of why cgm is a better ingredient, than the various animal based protein concentrates, and how the amino acid imbalance is addressed.

shags · Post by **shags** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:02 am

what's the protein/fat/ carb ratio for troll food?

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:34 am

Spy Car wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
Spy Car wrote:BTW Ezzy, canids eat fish in the wild. For modern domesticated dogs eating fish is especially vital as EPA and DHA levels in conventionally grown beef is much lower than these Omega 3 oils in bovines (and other ruminants) that they are in with cattle who eat the diet they were shaped by nature to consume: namely, grass.

The same food scientists that have convinced dog owners to feed their canines grains have also formulated grain-based diets for ruminants. Neither are biologically appropriate for the respective species. Conventional beef has poor Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios, and this impacts both human and canine health. Feeding oil rich fish is a smart move.

Bill
I always enjoy and feel honored to have you explain the facts. I know all of the other members on here feel the same way. It is amazing how everyone jumped on the band wagon to solve all of the problems they are having.
And I am in turn unfailingly amazed with the example you set as a moderator of this forum.

Bill

Thank you. There are some who think the Moderator should never post, some who think it is OK to post as long as they never state an opinion, and some who think it is OK as long as the Moderator agrees with them. And then there are those who don't think much but just like to find fault with everything the Moderator says just because he/she is a moderator. But one thing is common in all of them and they refuse to learn or change their mind no matter what anyone else as experienced. Certainly glad neither you or Pato show any of those qualities and further more you are the only one that has posted how amazed you are with the Moderator. Again thank you.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:11 am

ezzy333 wrote: Thank you. There are some who think the Moderator should never post, some who think it is OK to post as long as they never state an opinion, and some who think it is OK as long as the Moderator agrees with them. And then there are those who don't think much but just like to find fault with everything the Moderator says just because he/she is a moderator. But one thing is common in all of them and they refuse to learn or change their mind no matter what anyone else as experienced. Certainly glad neither you or Pato show any of those qualities and further more you are the only one that has posted how amazed you are with the Moderator. Again thank you.

I think it's better to have Moderators who post on forums. And have no problem with Moderators expressing their ideas. I do think Moderators tend to set a tone for discourse and serve as examples of the sorts of behaviors that set the culture of a forum.

When Moderators are civil, forums tend toward civility. When Moderators are sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and otherwise badly behaved, the forum suffers. This forum is no exception.

I may have my faults, but being open to new idea and new information is not among them. I once assumed feeding kibble was the reasonable choice, but I learned there were more optimal alternatives and I changed my mind about how I was going to proceed.

Going another way has produced results beyond my expectations. That's my experience, and you (and anyone else) can choose to keep your mind closed to the experience of others and refuse to learn (as you ironically accuse others doing). But I think you'd be wise to consider who here has the mind that's open and who has the mind that's closed?

Bill

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:25 am

I think Ezzy performs his thankless job well, and we often disagree.

Bill,

Can you quantify these results beyond your expectations? Or is it in the eyes of the beholder? I have seen many dogs demonstrate higher energy and endurance with no change other than maturity.

shags · Post by **shags** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:07 am

Bill,
It's great that you found something that works for you and your dogs. The problem with these feed threads comes when posters expelain what works for them, but then they add on '...and your way is inferior to mine.' And that's exactly how your posts, and Patos' come across. I find it arrogant to challenge people who have experience, success, and are happy with the results they get, with words that belittle all that. Frankly, most people are not concerned with the minutiae of biochemistry...they just want happy healthy dogs. And if they achieve that with kibble, who is anyone to tell them they are wrong?
To post alternatives to commercial feeds opens up options to folks who might be interested. But maybe consider leaving it alone when people say 'no thanks'.

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:32 am

When Moderators are civil, forums tend toward civility. When Moderators are sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and otherwise badly behaved, the forum suffers. This forum is no exception.

I'll take that as a real compliment as this forum has the reputation of being a mild mannered clean forum that kids as well as adults can read and learn from. Proof of the pudding, we are the largest and still fastest growing forum of this kind with the most active members. However, I don't think it is due to the Moderator but more what the owners want and asked us to keep an eye on it to make sure we stayed within our boundaries. Over ten years and still fulfilling our objectives is a record to be proud of. And we all have taken part in it and deserve the credit, not just the Mods.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:34 am

I would just like to know where to get the frozen sardines from as I might replace the raw chicken necks with them!

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:05 pm

Spy Car wrote:I think it's better to have Moderators who post on forums. And have no problem with Moderators expressing their ideas. I do think Moderators tend to set a tone for discourse and serve as examples of the sorts of behaviors that set the culture of a forum.

When Moderators are civil, forums tend toward civility. When Moderators are sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and otherwise badly behaved, the forum suffers. This forum is no exception.
I'll take that as a real compliment as this forum has the reputation of being a mild mannered clean forum that kids as well as adults can read and learn from. Proof of the pudding, we are the largest and still fastest growing forum of this kind with the most active members. However, I don't think it is due to the Moderator but more what the owners want and asked us to keep an eye on it to make sure we stayed within our boundaries. Over ten years and still fulfilling our objectives is a record to be proud of. And we all have taken part in it and deserve the credit, not just the Mods.

I may have my faults, but being open to new idea and new information is not among them. I once assumed feeding kibble was the reasonable choice, but I learned there were more optimal alternatives and I changed my mind about how I was going to proceed.
Bill, I know I have and I know several others have also told you that is not the way your posts sound and not the way your continued posting of the same opinions as fact come across.
Going another way has produced results beyond my expectations. That's my experience, and you (and anyone else) can choose to keep your mind closed to the experience of others and refuse to learn (as you ironically accuse others doing). But I think you'd be wise to consider who here has the mind that's open and who has the mind that's closed?
Again, let me explain that many of us have fed pretty much the way you are, and though I think most will say it is good for the dogs, we also have the experience of feeding hundreds of dogs, trialed and taken part in other physical activities with our dogs, and a few of us have actually been involved with feed test and research facilities that have resulted in some amazing facts and the feeds that fulfill the needs of our dogs better than they have ever been fulfilled in the past. These are the things that have led to most of us following the results that have been proven through reliable testing and working closely with the train nutritionist that sit in their offices in practically evey reliable company in the business. Back when I was involved we spent a lot of time at our research center, Purina's which was a major player and several university centers that did so many research projects and feeding test that have proven quite well what it takes to provide the individual nutrients that make up the total diet of our dogs as well as most other animals on the planet. And still the few refuse to even consider the proven facts.
If you like what you are doing again I will tell you to keep doing it but at the same time STOP trying to tell the 99% that what they are doing it wrong because you don't think it is natural to the dog. Given your idea of right and wrong I would suggest that you start eating all raw and only what you can catch or raise and see how you make out with your better diet.

Bill

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:38 pm

shags wrote:what's the protein/fat/ carb ratio for troll food?

It varies daily but it doesn't have a dramatic lysine deficiency and methionine surplus that, one of many issues it cauaes, requires greater vitamin and mineral supplementation.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:46 pm

Neil wrote:I think Ezzy performs his thankless job well, and we often disagree.

I don't have a problem with him because, while he is opinionated, he doesn't directly censor differing opinions.

However, every time I get into a food thread discussion, I get private messages for others that pretty clearly feel indirectly censored because they're intimidated about arguing with an outspoken mod.

Post by **Sharon** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:01 pm

pato y codoniz wrote:
Neil wrote:I think Ezzy performs his thankless job well, and we often disagree.
I don't have a problem with him because, while he is opinionated, he doesn't directly censor differing opinions.

However, every time I get into a food thread discussion, I get private messages from others that pretty clearly feel indirectly censored because they're intimidated about arguing with an outspoken mod.

..................
Must be able to count those people on one hand. You've only been here 4 months. if you are getting private messages complaining about Ezzy , that says something about you.
Based on all the posts I've read over the years, members have no problem going toe to toe with Ezzy, while the rest of us learned lots from the discussion. You have to be "outspoken" to be a Mod here. Not many could do the job . Hats off to Ezzy.