Hunting Dog Training & More    

Popular Searches: Garmin Astro | Dog Collars | Tri-Tronics | SPORTdog

Raw Feeding

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby SCT » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:02 pm

Meller wrote:
SCT wrote:Most people believe that non-grain craze is because of hype, but what has been found is that it's the high glycemic grains like corn that cause the spike in sugars along with the lows. I use a brand of kibble that's produced in Europe that is for the most part non-grain food. But even better, most of their foods protein, like 90%-96% of the protein is from meat. I was turned onto it by a reproduction vet tech who raises cumberlands that have a very low fertility rate. After using it she found her dogs fertility boosted dramatically. Quality nutrition is key for good fertility, along with hunting endurance.

What is the name of this feed? And how can one go about getting it.


The company name is Farmina. I feed the n&d chicken and pumpkin. It’s a bit over $2 per lb., but my dogs eat small portions in the off season (even during the season) because it’s very rich.
User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:09 pm

Spy Car wrote:I don't want my dog to become "de-tuned" at any point during the year.
Bill

So your dog runs hundreds of miles a week all year long?
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:33 am

slistoe wrote:
Spy Car wrote:I don't want my dog to become "de-tuned" at any point during the year.
Bill

So your dog runs hundreds of miles a week all year long?


We stay pretty busy and I see no reason to de-tune him by feeding carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are not essential in a dog's diet and negatively affect teeth, coat, condition, and stamina.

At least we've established that to maximize endurance in dogs, one should feed high-fat/protein rations and minimize carbs, right?

Bill
Last edited by Spy Car on Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby ezzy333 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:09 am

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:
Spy Car wrote:I don't want my dog to become "de-tuned" at any point during the year.
Bill

So your dog runs hundreds of miles a week all year long?


We stay pretty busy and I see no reason to de-tune him by feeding carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are not essential in a dog's diet on negatively affect teeth, coat, condition, and stamina.

At least we've established that to maximize endurance in dogs, one should feed high-fat/protein rations and minimize carbs, right?

Bill

What you feed varies greatly depending on the environment you are in and the different activities you are trying to optimize. That's why we see the differences in nutrition that is required. A problem though is the difference in the results are so minor you often don't see them with the naked eye with the result we become so narrow minded we think there is only one method that is always the best.
User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 16601
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Steve007 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:24 pm

ezzy333 wrote: What you feed varies greatly depending on the environment you are in and the different activities you are trying to optimize. That's why we see the differences in nutrition that is required. A problem though is the difference in the results are so minor you often don't see them with the naked eye with the result we become so narrow minded we think there is only one method that is always the best.



Your attempt to be conciliatory is admirable. But the fact remains that ol' Spy Car is tediously redundant, unwilling to admit that he's wrong and very boring.
Steve007
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:43 pm

ezzy333 wrote: What you feed varies greatly depending on the environment you are in and the different activities you are trying to optimize. That's why we see the differences in nutrition that is required. A problem though is the difference in the results are so minor you often don't see them with the naked eye with the result we become so narrow minded we think there is only one method that is always the best.


In every form of canine activity where dogs have been tested--that includes working bird-dogs, beagles, bomb-dogs, military and police canines, racing greyhounds, sedentary "couch potato type" dogs, and sled dogs--in each and every instance dogs fed high fat/protein rations have outperformed dogs eating high carb rations. Every time.

So please point to any study that suggests otherwise before making such statements.

The results of such studies show anything but "minor" differences.

What's narrow-minded is to ignore the mountains of evidence in the veterinary literature because they go against your predictions.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:00 pm

Spy Car wrote:Dogs have zero nutritional requirements to consume carbohydrates. They are in dog foods to lower costs (only).

There is, in fact, no essential need for carbohydrates in a canine diet. Zero. All carbs do is cut costs and cut stamina.
Bill

So, from way back in Dec.

Since then you have gone around in circles repeating nothing new to anyone, and absolutely nothing to back up your ludicrous claim.
Mushers and Greyhound racers alike include carbs in their balanced diets - at different levels to account for the difference metabolic requirements of their dogs based on genetics and activity.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:33 pm

slistoe wrote:So, from way back in Dec.

Since then you have gone around in circles repeating nothing new to anyone, and absolutely nothing to back up your ludicrous claim.
Mushers and Greyhound racers alike include carbs in their balanced diets - at different levels to account for the difference metabolic requirements of their dogs based on genetics and activity.


Nothing to back up "my claims????"

The National Research Council---the world recognized authority on dog nutrition, upon whose recommendations AAFCO (among others) relies==says that dogs have no essential need for carbohydrates.

Mushers and Greyhound racers feed much higher levels of fat than 30/20 type kibble formulas to maximize speed and endurance.

No canine in any sport or activity has ever shown an increase in stamina or performance by increasing its calories from carbohydrates.

You seem determined to miss the obvious.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:33 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:So, from way back in Dec.

Since then you have gone around in circles repeating nothing new to anyone, and absolutely nothing to back up your ludicrous claim.
Mushers and Greyhound racers alike include carbs in their balanced diets - at different levels to account for the difference metabolic requirements of their dogs based on genetics and activity.


Nothing to back up "my claims????"


You seem determined to miss the obvious.

Bill

No, you ignore the obvious.
And yes, you have provided absolutely nothing to back up the ridiculous claim that zero carbs is an ideal situation.

50-60% calories from fat works for conditioned sled dogs running in ultra-marathon races in extreme climate conditions - it is not ideal for every breed of dog, in every type of condition, in every exercise regimen and every environment that exists. In fact, it is so unusual that it has garnered considerable interest in the research community to try and understand it.

From "Feeding the Racing Greyhound for Performance"
A good quality dry food can be combined with a meat base to provide the energy intake in the optimum ratios between carbohydrate (CHO), protein and fat.
GREYHOUND BALANCED DIET
Energy Content provided by a ratio of:-
Carbohydrate 40-42%
Crude Protein 22-24%
Fat 30-33%


What has actually been found to limit performance in racing Greyhounds is an excess of protein, which does not seem to be a problem with the endurance sled dogs.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:04 pm

slistoe wrote:No, you ignore the obvious.
And yes, you have provided absolutely nothing to back up the ridiculous claim that zero carbs is an ideal situation.

50-60% calories from fat works for conditioned sled dogs running in ultra-marathon races in extreme climate conditions - it is not ideal for every breed of dog, in every type of condition, in every exercise regimen and every environment that exists. In fact, it is so unusual that it has garnered considerable interest in the research community to try and understand it.

From "Feeding the Racing Greyhound for Performance"
A good quality dry food can be combined with a meat base to provide the energy intake in the optimum ratios between carbohydrate (CHO), protein and fat.
GREYHOUND BALANCED DIET
Energy Content provided by a ratio of:-
Carbohydrate 40-42%
Crude Protein 22-24%
Fat 30-33%


What has actually been found to limit performance in racing Greyhounds is an excess of protein, which does not seem to be a problem with the endurance sled dogs.


Nope. Just like with sled-dogs, every breed that's been tested performs its functions better and has more stamina when fed high-fat rations vs high-carbohydrate ones. This has bee demonstrated time and again is veterinary studies.

There is zero controversy among experts on dog nutrition that stamina in dogs is dependant on fat metabolism. Even Purina acknowledges this truth.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:10 pm

Here is an abstract of a study published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research:

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/1 ... 00.61.1566

It says:

Racing Greyhounds ran faster when fed a diet containing higher fat and protein and lower carbohydrate contents.

The mean racing speed was significantly faster when dogs were fed the HFP diet than when they were fed the LFP diet.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:47 pm

That might be a good article - they want $30 to read it. The abstract has no context of the actual formulations of the diet - was the HFP diet a zero carb diet to support your silly hypothesis? I have never questioned the fact that dogs metabolize fats differently and when conditioned to a diet of it will use it more efficiently than other energy sources - but what is optimal for different dogs under different conditions varies and you refuse to accept that - just as you keep asserting that zero carbs is optimal.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:54 pm

Well, I remembered another article I was reading and went back to look it up and sure enough it references the study you posted - so we do have some numbers.

One brief report suggests that greyhounds run faster when fed a moderate fat (31% of energy) diet compared with a very high fat (75% of energy) diet (Toll et al. 1992). One abstract suggests that greyhounds run faster when fed a high fat (38% of energy) diet compared with a moderate fat (28% of energy) diet (Hill et al. 1996). These two studies together suggest that optimum performance may be achieved in greyhounds by feeding a moderately high fat diet.


So, still no go on the zero carbs mantra. And it further supports that Greyhounds and Sled Dogs differ in their nutritional requirements for optimum performance in respective venues. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:51 pm

No study, ever, with ANY BREED, doing any function of work, has ever shown an advantage in performance in their work or in their stamina when fed higher-carb vs lower carb rations.

Instead, there is massive evidence across all breeds that feeding more fat relative to carbs boosts endurance and performance.

This is manifest in the veterinary literature and beyond dispute among those who are experts in canine nutrition.

As stated earlier, about 50-60% of calories from fat is considered optimal.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:03 pm

Spy Car wrote:As stated earlier, about 50-60% of calories from fat is considered optimal.

Bill

:roll: Except in racing Greyhounds.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:19 pm

slistoe wrote:
Spy Car wrote:As stated earlier, about 50-60% of calories from fat is considered optimal.

Bill

:roll: Except in racing Greyhounds.


No. By feeding 75% they overshot the optimal range in Toll by a good deal :roll:

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:30 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:
Spy Car wrote:As stated earlier, about 50-60% of calories from fat is considered optimal.

Bill

:roll: Except in racing Greyhounds.


No. By feeding 75% they overshot the optimal range in Toll by a good deal :roll:

Bill

If you are going to go for zero carbs you will need to overshoot the optimal fat - or the optimal protein.
Greyhounds, however, ran more slowly when fed increased dietary protein (36 vs. 24% of energy) (Hill et al. 1998).
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:34 pm

Beagles ran for 20 miles (140 min) when fed high fat (53–67% of energy) diets but became exhausted after only 15 miles (100 min) when fed a moderate fat (29% of energy) diet (Downey et al. 1980)

A high fat/high protein diet containing no carbohydrate resulted in better performance and less evidence of exertional rhabdomyolysis when fed to sled dogs (Kronfeld 1973).

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:39 pm

slistoe wrote:If you are going to go for zero carbs you will need to overshoot the optimal fat - or the optimal protein.
Greyhounds, however, ran more slowly when fed increased dietary protein (36 vs. 24% of energy) (Hill et al. 1998).


Your conclusion isn't supported by the study since they didn't test a no-carbohydrate diet, with calories coming from only fat and protein.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:00 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:If you are going to go for zero carbs you will need to overshoot the optimal fat - or the optimal protein.
Greyhounds, however, ran more slowly when fed increased dietary protein (36 vs. 24% of energy) (Hill et al. 1998).


Your conclusion isn't supported by the study since they didn't test a no-carbohydrate diet, with calories coming from only fat and protein.

Bill

:lol: Look who is talking about unsupported conclusions...
My conclusion was that you would need to exceed either your 60% calories from fat or the studied 24% calories from protein if you want to achieve zero carbs. You have 16% to make up from somewhere. Which study did you think I was looking to for support? I thought it was simple math.
Or are you saying that Greyhounds would tolerate a 40% protein energy if only they removed the carbs - that it really wasn't the extra protein that presented trouble in the Hill study, but rather the presence of the carbs made it look like the protein was creating a problem for the Greyhounds and the poor folks who wrote up the paper from the results were duped?
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:23 pm

slistoe wrote: :lol: Look who is talking about unsupported conclusions...
My conclusion was that you would need to exceed either your 60% calories from fat or the studied 24% calories from protein if you want to achieve zero carbs. You have 16% to make up from somewhere. Which study did you think I was looking to for support? I thought it was simple math.
Or are you saying that Greyhounds would tolerate a 40% protein energy if only they removed the carbs - that it really wasn't the extra protein that presented trouble in the Hill study, but rather the presence of the carbs made it look like the protein was creating a problem for the Greyhounds and the poor folks who wrote up the paper from the results were duped?




They didn't test a 60/40 calories from fat/protein ration. The authors weren't "duped" :roll: , they just didn't try a no-carb ration.

Lots of dogs perform spectacularly well on a 60/40 fuel supply.

Of all dog activities that seem like they might support carb-burning, one would imagine Greyhounds might be it--given they only need to run for 30 seconds, so the "crash and burn" typical of carb-loading in dogs shouldn't be that huge a problem--yet the literature shows they do better with a high-fat diet. Going to 75% of calories is taking a good thing to such an extreme that it becomes counterproductive.

No study shows that increasing carbohydrates improve performance in any activity with any breed.

Gundogs need sustained energy, which is provided my fat-metabolism and not by performance diminishing carbohydrate-metabolism.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:41 am

Spy Car wrote:


They didn't test a 60/40 calories from fat/protein ration. The authors weren't "duped" :roll: , they just didn't try a no-carb ration.

Lots of dogs perform spectacularly well on a 60/40 fuel supply.
Too bad the greyhound racers haven't caught on to this yet. There must be a race track near you somewhere - there is money to be made for you here. Just sitting there waiting for you to grab it.

Spy Car wrote:Of all dog activities that seem like they might support carb-burning, one would imagine Greyhounds might be it--given they only need to run for 30 seconds, so the "crash and burn" typical of carb-loading in dogs shouldn't be that huge a problem--yet the literature shows they do better with a high-fat diet. Going to 75% of calories is taking a good thing to such an extreme that it becomes counterproductive.

No study shows that increasing carbohydrates improve performance in any activity with any breed.

High fat for Greyhounds is 35% according to the studies.
Greyhounds appear to require a moderately high fat and moderate protein diet with a good supply of carbohydrates (Table 1).


Spy Car wrote:Gundogs need sustained energy, which is provided my fat-metabolism and not by performance diminishing carbohydrate-metabolism.

Bill

What gundogs need varies by the type of muscle fibers predominant in the dog, the type and duration of exercise etc. What works optimally for one dog may have to be varied some for the next - a whole bunch of dogs and tremendous number of miles on the ground while trying to optimize performance of them taught me that. But in general feeding a quality 30/20 feed works very well for the majority of bird dogs and the conditions under which they are worked in my experience - Fat 42%, Protein 27% and Carbs 31%. I did a little math on the "tweaked" formula I used when conditioning for competition and it seems I was feeding those dogs 54% fat, 26% protein and 22% carbs. Tweaking any more than that did not give any perceivable increase in performance where I was expecting my dogs to be able to "sprint for the birds" for 2 hours straight, 2 times a day for 3 or 4 days in a row in 65 to 75 degree weather during hunting season and to finish as strong as my competitors at the end of the half hour trial which is an "all out race for the birds".
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:53 am

slistoe wrote:What gundogs need varies by the type of muscle fibers predominant in the dog, the type and duration of exercise etc. What works optimally for one dog may have to be varied some for the next - a whole bunch of dogs and tremendous number of miles on the ground while trying to optimize performance of them taught me that. But in general feeding a quality 30/20 feed works very well for the majority of bird dogs and the conditions under which they are worked in my experience - Fat 42%, Protein 27% and Carbs 31%. I did a little math on the "tweaked" formula I used when conditioning for competition and it seems I was feeding those dogs 54% fat, 26% protein and 22% carbs. Tweaking any more than that did not give any perceivable increase in performance where I was expecting my dogs to be able to "sprint for the birds" for 2 hours straight, 2 times a day for 3 or 4 days in a row in 65 to 75 degree weather during hunting season and to finish as strong as my competitors at the end of the half hour trial which is an "all out race for the birds".


Dogs with both a predominance of fast twitch muscles and a predominance of slow twitch muscles have proven to perform best on higher fat lower carb diets.

You proved it to yourself--and have again made my point--when you "tweaked" your formula to get above 50% of calories from fat and saw improved stamina. Case closed on this point.

Should you ever cut out carbs (and the inferior plant-based proteins, rendered "meat," and the low-quality fats that are the basis of kibble diets) entirely you'd see a similar rise in energy and stamina along with dramatic positive changes in a dog's condition. There is no comparison between a 30/20 kibble and a balanced raw diet. Its not subtle.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:21 am

Spy Car wrote:You proved it to yourself--and have again made my point--when you "tweaked" your formula to get above 50% of calories from fat and saw improved stamina. Case closed on this point.

Should you ever cut out carbs (and the inferior plant-based proteins, rendered "meat," and the low-quality fats that are the basis of kibble diets) entirely you'd see a similar rise in energy and stamina along with dramatic positive changes in a dog's condition. There is no comparison between a 30/20 kibble and a balanced raw diet. Its not subtle.

Bill

I did not prove your point - nothing has proven your point that zero carbs is better. I also proved to myself that increasing fat content further at the expense of carbs gave no material gain in performance in the dogs I was running and it had a negative effect on other aspects.
I have fed a "raw" diet in the past - mixed it up by the ton (literally). Not going back there again - wasn't anything to be gained by it that couldn't be accomplished easier and cheaper with quality kibble. Which is one of the main reasons I will never buy into your "magic pill" theory of raw. Been there, done that. (But I will add the disclaimer that although the feed I was mixing was formulated to be fed to obligate carnivores, it was not a zero carb diet - history has proven that the animals simply will not perform as well on a fixed diet of straight meat/fat alone. And I GUARANTEE you that if there were an advantage to feeding meat only to these obligate carnivores the commercial producers would be doing it.)

The whole concept that adding some extra fat to the diet of a working dog will help with endurance etc. is nothing new to those who have been around for awhile. I would have to say the practice goes back some 40 years at least based on where I garnered the knowledge from. Those same old pros seemed to know something about the olfactory research that is just coming about as well - but for now that secret is actually a secret :wink:
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:43 am

Spy Car wrote:There is no comparison between a 30/20 kibble and a balanced raw diet. Its not subtle.

Bill

I will give you that since the companies have all folded to this "feel good" campaign about feeding and adjusted their formulations that it is difficult to get a 30/20 ration that will give top performance without some tweaking. When all the companies were making their rations with corn and poultry by-products life was great. I fed Eukanuba and Eagle all the time and Pro-Plan just didn't seem to cut it quite the same. I put that down to the fact it was rice based and not corn. I dropped Eukanuba when I noticed a performance change in the dogs. The company denied any change to their formula, but they did relent and admit they had been making changes. Eagle was more expensive but I went to it, then found Kasco. But all the companies have either changed their formula to get rid of corn and by-product, or they have gone out of business. I found a feed that was new to the market and the company had hired a feed specialist that had worked for Iams/Eukanuba. Their food bag read like and the food performed like the Eukanuba of old. But they have also since succumbed to the mass marketing machine and their food formulations have all the glitz and glam of the current fads to the detriment of working dogs. I tried all the new offerings - Acana, Orijen, Blue Buffalo, etc. and they all fell well short. About the time I was out of the competition scene was the same time that a "flurry" of specialized startups came on the market for the "mushing" community - a result of all the mainstream companies succumbing to the mass hysteria marketing campaigns and feed that simply didn't cut it anymore.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:46 am

slistoe wrote:I did not prove your point - nothing has proven your point that zero carbs is better. I also proved to myself that increasing fat content further at the expense of carbs gave no material gain in performance in the dogs I was running and it had a negative effect on other aspects.
I have fed a "raw" diet in the past - mixed it up by the ton (literally). Not going back there again - wasn't anything to be gained by it that couldn't be accomplished easier and cheaper with quality kibble. Which is one of the main reasons I will never buy into your "magic pill" theory of raw. Been there, done that. (But I will add the disclaimer that although the feed I was mixing was formulated to be fed to obligate carnivores, it was not a zero carb diet - history has proven that the animals simply will not perform as well on a fixed diet of straight meat/fat alone. And I GUARANTEE you that if there were an advantage to feeding meat only to these obligate carnivores the commercial producers would be doing it.)

The whole concept that adding some extra fat to the diet of a working dog will help with endurance etc. is nothing new to those who have been around for awhile. I would have to say the practice goes back some 40 years at least based on where I garnered the knowledge from. Those same old pros seemed to know something about the olfactory research that is just coming about as well - but for now that secret is actually a secret :wink:


A balanced PMR style diet is not based on "meat and fat alone." Feeding "meat and fat alone" would be an imbalanced diet and isn't what PMR raw feeders do. A little self-education on your part might help you avoid these lapses.

You proved to yourself that increasing fat over a 30/20 kibble formula increased performance--it is there in your own words in a previous post--and that is consistent with studies across a wide variety of canine athletes from sprinters to mushers to couch potatoes to gun dogs. All improved performance by decreasing carbs and increasing fats, just as your gun dog did.

As you say, "adding some extra fat to the diet of a working dog will help with endurance etc. is nothing new to those who have been around for awhile." That's true. Not a "magic pill," but a proven fact established both by an understanding of dog's metabolic physiology (and backed by scientific testing) and by the knowledge and experience of smart old hands in the field.

It is also clear that reducing the dental plaque, tartar and periodontal disease that comes directly from overfeeding carbs (sugars that do a number on teeth) improves the scenting ability of gundogs. You know this and I know this. The secret is out for those who are listening.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:51 am

Spy Car wrote:
It is also clear that reducing the dental plaque, tartar and periodontal disease that comes directly from overfeeding carbs (sugars that do a number on teeth) improves the scenting ability of gundogs. You know this and I know this. The secret is out for those who are listening.

Bill

Yeah, you tried that one before as well. Not buying it.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:54 am

slistoe wrote:I will give you that since the companies have all folded to this "feel good" campaign about feeding and adjusted their formulations that it is difficult to get a 30/20 ration that will give top performance without some tweaking. When all the companies were making their rations with corn and poultry by-products life was great. I fed Eukanuba and Eagle all the time and Pro-Plan just didn't seem to cut it quite the same. I put that down to the fact it was rice based and not corn. I dropped Eukanuba when I noticed a performance change in the dogs. The company denied any change to their formula, but they did relent and admit they had been making changes. Eagle was more expensive but I went to it, then found Kasco. But all the companies have either changed their formula to get rid of corn and by-product, or they have gone out of business. I found a feed that was new to the market and the company had hired a feed specialist that had worked for Iams/Eukanuba. Their food bag read like and the food performed like the Eukanuba of old. But they have also since succumbed to the mass marketing machine and their food formulations have all the glitz and glam of the current fads to the detriment of working dogs. I tried all the new offerings - Acana, Orijen, Blue Buffalo, etc. and they all fell well short. About the time I was out of the competition scene was the same time that a "flurry" of specialized startups came on the market for the "mushing" community - a result of all the mainstream companies succumbing to the mass hysteria marketing campaigns and feed that simply didn't cut it anymore.


It does seem that there is a lot of re-engineering of kibble formulas based on marketing decisions (like capitalizing on the grain-free fad or the aversion to by-products (many of which are very beneficial) instead of optimizing health.

Of course, that's my problem with the whole industry. What's in the bag is determined by marketing decisions and figuring out how to use the cheapest possible ingredients (often waste products) to maximize profits rather than optimizing health and performance.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:56 am

slistoe wrote:Yeah, you tried that one before as well. Not buying it.


I'm confused. Did you not just say that old hands know the "secret" that higher fat diets improve scenting abilities in gun dogs?

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:04 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:I did not prove your point - nothing has proven your point that zero carbs is better. I also proved to myself that increasing fat content further at the expense of carbs gave no material gain in performance in the dogs I was running and it had a negative effect on other aspects.
I have fed a "raw" diet in the past - mixed it up by the ton (literally). Not going back there again - wasn't anything to be gained by it that couldn't be accomplished easier and cheaper with quality kibble. Which is one of the main reasons I will never buy into your "magic pill" theory of raw. Been there, done that. (But I will add the disclaimer that although the feed I was mixing was formulated to be fed to obligate carnivores, it was not a zero carb diet - history has proven that the animals simply will not perform as well on a fixed diet of straight meat/fat alone. And I GUARANTEE you that if there were an advantage to feeding meat only to these obligate carnivores the commercial producers would be doing it.)

The whole concept that adding some extra fat to the diet of a working dog will help with endurance etc. is nothing new to those who have been around for awhile. I would have to say the practice goes back some 40 years at least based on where I garnered the knowledge from. Those same old pros seemed to know something about the olfactory research that is just coming about as well - but for now that secret is actually a secret :wink:


A balanced PMR style diet is not based on "meat and fat alone." Feeding "meat and fat alone" would be an imbalanced diet and isn't what PMR raw feeders do. A little self-education on your part might help you avoid these lapses.

You proved to yourself that increasing fat over a 30/20 kibble formula increased performance--it is there in your own words in a previous post--and that is consistent with studies across a wide variety of canine athletes from sprinters to mushers to couch potatoes to gun dogs. All improved performance by decreasing carbs and increasing fats, just as your gun dog did.

As you say, "adding some extra fat to the diet of a working dog will help with endurance etc. is nothing new to those who have been around for awhile." That's true. Not a "magic pill," but a proven fact established both by an understanding of dog's metabolic physiology (and backed by scientific testing) and by the knowledge and experience of smart old hands in the field.

It is also clear that reducing the dental plaque, tartar and periodontal disease that comes directly from overfeeding carbs (sugars that do a number on teeth) improves the scenting ability of gundogs. You know this and I know this. The secret is out for those who are listening.

Bill

Still waiting for you to actually come up with some new knowledge for us here regarding your zero carbs assertion - it is a ludicrous and unfounded extrapolation from the base knowledge that has always existed. You have made the assertion and ever since have just talked around in circles like the known elements of nutrition that have existed for ages are some new revelation and support your kooky ideas claiming over and over "proof" where none exists.
Pushing fat levels to 50% of calories works for extremely hard working sporting dogs, but is certainly not required for the majority of working hunting dogs out there - they simply are not working that hard. And even your vaunted mushers know enough not to feed the extra fat when it is not required. As for your whole PMR deal - feed that way if you feel like it. Nothing wrong with it if done with knowledge and care. But the exact same results are easily obtainable with a kibble base diet and a little lard.
Last edited by slistoe on Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:04 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:Yeah, you tried that one before as well. Not buying it.


I'm confused. Did you not just say that old hands know the "secret" that higher fat diets improve scenting abilities in gun dogs?

Bill

Nothing to do with plaque.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:08 pm

Spy Car wrote:Of course, that's my problem with the whole industry. What's in the bag is determined by marketing decisions and figuring out how to use the cheapest possible ingredients (often waste products) to maximize profits rather than optimizing health and performance.

Bill

No industry can operate at a loss. When "DogFoodAdvisor" is the bible to the masses how are the companies supposed to optimize health and performance?
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:38 pm

slistoe wrote:Still waiting for you to actually come up with some new knowledge for us here regarding your zero carbs assertion - it is a ludicrous and unfounded extrapolation from the base knowledge that has always existed. You have made the assertion and ever since have just talked around in circles like the known elements of nutrition that have existed for ages are some new revelation and support your kooky ideas claiming over and over "proof" where none exists.
Pushing fat levels to 50% of calories works for extremely hard working sporting dogs, but is certainly not required for the majority of working hunting dogs out there - they simply are not working that hard. And even your vaunted mushers know enough not to feed the extra fat when it is not required. As for your whole PMR deal - feed that way if you feel like it. Nothing wrong with it if done with knowledge and care. But the exact same results are easily obtainable with a kibble base diet and a little lard.


The insults are not necessary.

You say you raised performance when you supplemented a 30/20 ration with additional fat. Let's agree increasing calories from fat relative to carbohydrates will result in increased performance and also agree that that comports with the widely known and well-established veterinary literature and the practices of old hands. OK?

That sort of understanding would be a huge advance from what many folks around here subscribe to as good canine nutrition.

We can agree to disagree on the benefits and/or detriments of feeding carbohydrates to dogs. I'm fine with that.

If you think lard plus kibble is equal to balanced meat, fat, edible bones, and organs as nutritional sources, let's accept we are not going to have a meeting of the minds. But calling feeding real food "kooky" just reflects poorly on you.

Bill




edited by Sharon
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:58 pm

Spy Car wrote:
slistoe wrote:Still waiting for you to actually come up with some new knowledge for us here regarding your zero carbs assertion - it is a ludicrous and unfounded extrapolation from the base knowledge that has always existed. You have made the assertion and ever since have just talked around in circles like the known elements of nutrition that have existed for ages are some new revelation and support your kooky ideas claiming over and over "proof" where none exists.
Pushing fat levels to 50% of calories works for extremely hard working sporting dogs, but is certainly not required for the majority of working hunting dogs out there - they simply are not working that hard. And even your vaunted mushers know enough not to feed the extra fat when it is not required. As for your whole PMR deal - feed that way if you feel like it. Nothing wrong with it if done with knowledge and care. But the exact same results are easily obtainable with a kibble base diet and a little lard.


The insults are not necessary.

You say you raised performance when you supplemented a 30/20 ration with additional fat. Let's agree increasing calories from fat relative to carbohydrates will result in increased performance and also agree that that comports with the widely known and well-established veterinary literature and the practices of old hands. OK?

That sort of understanding would be a huge advance from what many folks around here subscribe to as good canine nutrition.

We can agree to disagree on the benefits and/or detriments of feeding carbohydrates to dogs. I'm fine with that.

If you think lard plus kibble is equal to balanced meat, fat, edible bones, and organs as nutritional sources, let's accept we are not going to have a meeting of the minds. But calling feeding real food "kooky" just reflects poorly on you.

Bill

Hey, make up whatever offense you would like to, but saying that a carb free diet is better than anything else for increased performance in all dogs under all circumstances is just plain kooky. It is an unfounded, ludicrous extrapolation of the available data. (Well, it actually flies in the face of some published data.)
Claiming that every single kibble fed dog has periodontal disease to the extent if affects their scenting ability is just plain kooky. It is an unfounded, ludicrous extrapolation of the available data.
If pointing out the obvious is insulting to you, sorry.
I made no such comment towards your choice to mix together your own feed ration rather than buy it from the store - you grabbed something and applied it where it didn't belong. Responsible, rational adults can quite easily make a proper ration for their dogs. Sifting through the maze of mis and dis information out there however can be quite the challenge for many while trying to figure out what constitutes a proper and balanced diet for their dog.
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:55 pm

slistoe wrote:Hey, make up whatever offense you would like to, but saying that a carb free diet is better than anything else for increased performance in all dogs under all circumstances is just plain kooky. It is an unfounded, ludicrous extrapolation of the available data. (Well, it actually flies in the face of some published data.)
Claiming that every single kibble fed dog has periodontal disease to the extent if affects their scenting ability is just plain kooky. It is an unfounded, ludicrous extrapolation of the available data.
If pointing out the obvious is insulting to you, sorry.
I made no such comment towards your choice to mix together your own feed ration rather than buy it from the store - you grabbed something and applied it where it didn't belong. Responsible, rational adults can quite easily make a proper ration for their dogs. Sifting through the maze of mis and dis information out there however can be quite the challenge for many while trying to figure out what constitutes a proper and balanced diet for their dog.


60% of kibble-fed dogs have periodontal disease. I'd suspect most of the rest are well on their way. Eating a cereal-based diet is heck on dog's teeth. In contrast, raw fed dogs have clean white teeth and fresh breath. If you think that's "kooky," we will have to disagree.

Dog have zero essential need for carbohydrates. None. No activity every studied has shown an advantage to feeding carbohydrates vs optimal levels of animal fat & protein, while dozens and dozens have shown increased carbs cut performance.

You yourself admitted that you supplemented 30/20 with fat to enhance endurance.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby slistoe » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:21 pm

Spy Car wrote:
Dog have zero essential need for carbohydrates. None. No activity every studied has shown an advantage to feeding carbohydrates vs optimal levels of animal fat & protein, while dozens and dozens have shown increased carbs cut performance.

You yourself admitted that you supplemented 30/20 with fat to enhance endurance.

Bill

Optimal levels of fat, protein and carbohydrate is a far cry removed from zero carbs for all dogs in all circumstances. Who is arguing with you that there are optimum levels of nutrition balance for dogs? NO ONE.

And when I said that I also said that further increasing the fat levels at the expense of carbs gave no noticeable improvement - but brought other issues.

How do you reconcile the fact that there are obligate carnivores who are measurably healthier when fed a proper mix of carbs in their diet as opposed to meat, fat, bone, organs and tripe alone?
slistoe
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:35 pm

slistoe wrote:Optimal levels of fat, protein and carbohydrate is a far cry removed from zero carbs for all dogs in all circumstances. Who is arguing with you that there are optimum levels of nutrition balance for dogs? NO ONE.

And when I said that I also said that further increasing the fat levels at the expense of carbs gave no noticeable improvement - but brought other issues.

How do you reconcile the fact that there are obligate carnivores who are measurably healthier when fed a proper mix of carbs in their diet as opposed to meat, fat, bone, organs and tripe alone?


I have zero experience feeding mink and foxes, but with dogs it is a total falsehood in my experience that feeding carbohydrates is of any benefit. And the detriments of feeding carbs are clear in the relatively poor condition of coat, bad teeth, bad breath, and reduced endurance. Not to mention the increase in smelly poop.

Dogs have zero essential need for carbohydrates in their diet.

No thanks.

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby ezzy333 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:48 pm

Spy Car wrote:
I have zero experience feeding mink and foxes, but with dogs it is a total falsehood in my experience that feeding carbohydrates is of any benefit. And the detriments of feeding carbs are clear in the relatively poor condition of coat, bad teeth, bad breath, and reduced endurance. Not to mention the increase in smelly poop.

Dogs have zero essential need for carbohydrates in their diet.

No thanks.

Bill


And here in lies the problem , zero to limited experience, which to most of us means a time of listening and learning from those that do and not the time to be the teacher and tell your students they are not very smart. I still have a problem we should allow the inmates to run the prison. But then, I am one of the stupid ones.

Ezzy
User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 16601
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby Spy Car » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:41 pm

ezzy333 wrote:And here in lies the problem , zero to limited experience, which to most of us means a time of listening and learning from those that do and not the time to be the teacher and tell your students they are not very smart. I still have a problem we should allow the inmates to run the prison. But then, I am one of the stupid ones.

Ezzy


Reading comprehension issues Ezzy? Plenty of experience raising dogs. None raising mink or foxes.

Who am I to argue with your assertion that you are one of the stupid ones?

Bill
User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw Feeding

Postby ezzy333 » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:03 am

Spy Car wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:And here in lies the problem , zero to limited experience, which to most of us means a time of listening and learning from those that do and not the time to be the teacher and tell your students they are not very smart. I still have a problem we should allow the inmates to run the prison. But then, I am one of the stupid ones.

Ezzy


Reading comprehension issues Ezzy? Plenty of experience raising dogs. None raising mink or foxes.

Who am I to argue with your assertion that you are one of the stupid ones?

Bill
There has never been an answer to the many questions about dog experience so I thought it must limited. My apologies.

Ezzy
User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 16601
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Previous

Return to Health and Nutrition

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GB and 0 guests

| Pedigrees

THIS POST : Raw Feeding brought to you by Gun Dog Supply: Dog Training Collars & Hunting Dog Supplies

Click here to tweet this post

  • NOT logged in
  • Raw Feeding
  • ./viewtopic.php?f=88&t=52654&start=150&sid=569696454282392ce9832c3076c428d4