# >>>))) the first rule of animal husbandry (((<<<



## TheLittleBlackBook (Feb 26, 2010)

Taking care of an animal is a HUGE responsitbility, and feeding any animal *what is best for it to eat* is _not_ a matter of your "convenience"; it is a matter of _your obligation_.

When we keep any animal---that animal is helpless---totally at our mercy for its food, its water, its shelter. It doesn't matter if you are feeding a bird, a cat, a dog, a snake, a lizard, or a horse ... THE FIRST RULE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY APPLIES:

And that is simply this: *all animals have biologically-evolved to eat something specific, and so that "something" is what you should feed them*. The amount of variance in any animal's diet "you" provide should be precisely-mirrored to the amount of variance _they themselves_ would select in their own preferred environment. For example, if an animal might eat a chicken, a goat, or a rabbit ... then feeding them any of these things would be appropriate. However, if an animal (for example) only eats grass, then grass is pretty much all you should feed that animal. 

That said, 99.99% of the human population FAIL THEIR OWN DOGS by feeding them "dry, kibbled dogfood" (which is made of corns, wheats, sorghums, and glutens) ... all of which has NO PLACE in a *carnivore's* diet. And even with these so-called "grain-free" diets, these gimmick-foods are still dehydrated and devalued to the point *they pale in nutritional value* compared to the raw, wholesome ingredients they once started out as.

There is no telling how many people have owned dogs that suffer through perpetual "food allergies, thyroid conditions, premature lymphomas," etc., etc., and these people will all go back-and-forth to their vets (spending hundreds, if not _thousands_ of dollars in the process), cluelessly scratching their heads and wondering WHY their dogs are falling apart?

What never seems to dawn on these people is the fact that *they themselves* are causing their own dogs' misery by feeding them *an inappropriate diet*. Biologically-speaking, *dogs* *are supposed to eat RAW, WHOLE ANIMALS* ... not bone-dry, nutritionally-devoid, brown pellets (usually composed of over 50% plant matter). Sure, dogs are somewhat omnivorous and are thus able to "make due" with lesser food items, if survival requires it. But raw, whole animals is what they thrive on. _That is what they prefer_; _that is what they need_.

To digress a bit (yet to drive this point home), this truth even applies with reptile-keepers. The fact is many people enjoy keeping exotic snakes for a hobby. And there are many such people who likewise doom their own animals by improper feeding protocols. To show how critical *what an animal eats* can be, some snakes are very specialized in their diets. For example, a Southern Hognose Snake is biologically-designed by nature *to eat TOADS*--and that's it.

Well, for years, Southern Hognose Snakes weren't very popular as pets precisely because they refused to eat anything but toads (which are not "convenient" for most people to feed). That is all Southern Hognose Snakes ever eat in nature is toads, so most people didn't even bother trying to keep them in captivity, again because most people don't have a limitless supply of anurians (toads).

Well, one genius figured out a way around this dilemma by "scenting" pre-killed rodents with toads. This man caught a wild toad, and he kept it for the sole purpose of "scenting" pre-killed rodents (which are more convenient to get) with the smell of a wild toad. Then, because these dead mice "smelled like" toads, his Southern Hognose Snakes started eating them. Sounds great!!! So everybody started getting Southern Hognoses and feeding them "scented" mice ... Brilliant idea!!!

_Or at least it seemed so for a while_ ...

Well, even though the Southern Hognose Snakes were getting "tricked" into eating some other kind of food than that which they were *biologically-designed* to eat ... and even though the snakes were in fact getting "whole animal protein" ... over time all of these captive snakes started dying off after awhile. For the longest time this man (and his followers) stupidly scratched their collective heads ... *until it dawned on them that what they were feeding these snakes was killing them*. Subsequent medical research and post-mortem necropsies were done, and sure enough, because these snakes *were so specialized to eat toads*--_and ONLY toads_--FEEDING THEM MICE WAS SLOWLY KILLING THEM. These poor snakes could not process the fur they were being "tricked" to eat, and they would get impacted in some cases. In others _just the differing nature of the protein sources_ was enough to cause the snakes eventual liver failure.

Anyway ... back to dogs ...

I am sure the intelligent people are recognizing a BASIC PRINCIPLE here: *what you feed your animals MATTERS in the long run*. Your "convenience" is not the issue; _optimal nutrition for the species_ is the issue.

Therefore, in closing, the FIRST RULE of animal husbandry is this: if you do NOT have either the time, the supply, or THE WILL to feed an animal what it is truly biologically-designed to eat, then you should NOT be keeping said animal in captivity.

As the age-old saying goes, _"You can never break the rules, you can only break *yourself* (or, in this case, your dogs) against the rules."_

I hope this post turns the light on for some ...

Jack


.


----------



## Cpulley1 (Mar 14, 2011)

Exactly! Finally a man who knows evolution, biochemistry, and health science! 

For that matter *I'M A MAN!* For years my beautiful wife has had what she calls dinner on the table when I get home and it's absolutely *DISGRACEFUL! *I evolved from some omnivore ancestor who wandered the wilderness eating all sorts of raw rodent life, fresh fruits picked from trees, and stream water with just enough yeast and bacteria to keep my immune system healthy against their cousins.

Generations later, a more recent ancestor worked in packs to bring down larger prey. Then some idiot had to invent fire and salt to keep those animals from spoiling before they were consumed. Screw that! I want my dinner to walk by the table so I can cut off what I like!

*Can you believe it! My wife serves me hot dogs, boxed pastas and breads, canned vegetables* that some idiot developed a whole processing system to preserve for years. *She even serves me doritos, potato chips, cheese pufs etc!* Crap, processed and pushed through an extruder into a vat of oil. Now I know my ape-like grand pappy didn't know what a vat of oil was!

*Why can that woman go hunt down a buffalo or something while I'm at work. What does she really have to do all day?

*For those who like to complain about processed meats in dog food.... it's dog food! It's about the most processed crap imaginable. Whether they start with processed meats or not, it all amounts to the same thing. So long as my dog *enjoys *what she eats, and the food provides enough vitamins ,proteins, fats, and minerals, her health is not endangered. For our childhood dog, I always bought a mid grade food and added an egg and a multivitamin. This gave it more protein and vitamins than top shelf dog foods.

For complaints against carbohydrates, *you're right*! Dogs do use protein degradation as a primary source of calories, but they can also use fats. Look up Fatty acid degradation, glcolysis, The Citric Acid Cycle, and Oxidative Phosphorylation. Long story short, in order to oxidize fat calories, fats are first degraded to intermediates that are shard with carbohydrate pathways. They evolved as carnivores, but are capable of digesting carbohydrates. In dog food, many of those get excreted. 

*It is most important that your dog gets adequate vitamin and caloric intake*. Dogs on processed dog foods adjust to their diets and are not sickened by them. Dogs have been domesticated for more than 10,000 years, and have been on dog food for 150 years. Millions of dollars are devoted to research each year by these companies to produce better dog foods. Sure, bottom shelf brands have a ways to go, but that's why the more expensive and nutritious options are available!

For more information on the degradation of foods to produce energy, read Biochemistryby Stryer. It's an excellent resource. Any edition will do, we've known about these pathways in countless organisms for 75 years.


----------



## Sunstreaked (Oct 26, 2010)

opcorn:


----------



## Girth (Jan 27, 2011)

I think I'll sit next to Sunstreak.


----------



## MrsMiaW (Sep 25, 2010)

Hey Sunstreaked, can you pass the popcorn?


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

I find that popcorn smiley extremely rude.


----------



## Sunstreaked (Oct 26, 2010)

Josie/Zeus said:


> I find that popcorn smiley extremely rude.



I always took it to mean that I can't contribute in a meaningful way, but I sure do want to see how this pans out.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

[/url][/IMG]


----------



## MrsMiaW (Sep 25, 2010)

Sunstreaked said:


> I always took it to mean that I can't contribute in a meaningful way, but I sure do want to see how this pans out.


Me too.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)




----------



## MrsMiaW (Sep 25, 2010)

lin said:


>


lol!!!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

So, is the moral to the story, don't feed our GSD's wild toad scented pre-killed rodents fed Southern Hognose Snakes? 

Or don't let Cpulley1's wife feed any of us?


----------



## KendraLovey (Jan 17, 2011)

hahahaha.....I think this was a one post debate I like.


----------



## Cpulley1 (Mar 14, 2011)

Lol Loved it Jax08


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

I guess the moral of the story is we should set all our dogs free and let them prey on other animals since that is how nature would have it. After all, ANY intervention on feeding would go against nature as we would be interfering with nature's design. Animal husbandry is nothing more than a created definition by man. Animal husbandry in its purest form comes from Mother Earth and not human intervention.

So let them all be free and eat of the flesh of the fields from which they should conquer - go Yorkies Go!!!!!


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Girth said:


> I think I'll sit next to Sunstreak.


Me too! :wild:


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> I guess the moral of the story is we should set all our dogs free and let them prey on other animals since that is how nature would have it. After all, ANY intervention on feeding would go against nature as we would be interfering with nature's design. Animal husbandry is nothing more than a created definition by man. Animal husbandry in its purest form comes from Mother Earth and not human intervention.
> 
> So let them all be free and eat of the flesh of the fields from which they should conquer - go Yorkies Go!!!!!


 
:rofl::rofl: That was great! lol


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

bunchoberrys said:


> :rofl::rofl: That was great! lol


Yeah - I guess we pet parents must be doing something right - after all - the lifespan of dogs have increased due to better health care and prevention along with better nutrition. Darn science and medicine for going against nature!!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Good Karma, pass the Jello Shots. 

It is pretty thick in here. The worst part is I read through that entire sermon and wasted a good three minutes of my life.


----------



## lanaw13 (Jan 8, 2011)

There's Jello Shots?!


----------



## Sunstreaked (Oct 26, 2010)

selzer said:


> Good Karma, pass the Jello Shots.
> 
> It is pretty thick in here. The worst part is I read through that entire sermon and wasted a good three minutes of my life.




Who needs popcorn when there's jello shots?

I'll be in that loonnnggg line. 


:wild:


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Hey how did I miss the Jello shots???? I want some!


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

selzer said:


> Good Karma, pass the Jello Shots.
> 
> It is pretty thick in here. The worst part is I read through that entire sermon and wasted a good three minutes of my life.


:crazy::crazy: That was supposed to be sushi since the popcorn dude was offensive. But Jello shots sounds better if anyone can find one of those smilies...


----------



## yuricamp (Mar 13, 2011)

*Convenience*

I'ts hard to ignore the convenience brought to us by using kibble, however, it is hard to mnimize how obese people are becomng because of this culture of convenience. I have stopped to ponder if the substitute is indeed better than the real thing from a health perspective. An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. We need to quit feeding crap to our pets and kiddos.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sushi???

Ick, acckkk! haaack tuey!!!!

Even an internet sushi experience is disgusting. 

Here, and I thought you were passing out the jello shots. You have to admit that getting a mouthful of raw fish when you are thinking of a sweet, cold, alcoholic something is just wrong. 

And going from exhortations of feeding dogs barf, to standing in line for jello shots -- I think that we got this thread going in just the direction it should be in.


----------



## MrsMiaW (Sep 25, 2010)

selzer said:


> And going from exhortations of feeding dogs barf, to standing in line for jello shots -- I think that we got this thread going in just the direction it should be in.


I'll second that!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

yuricamp said:


> I'ts hard to ignore the convenience brought to us by using kibble, however, it is hard to mnimize how obese people are becomng because of this culture of convenience. I have stopped to ponder if the substitute is indeed better than the real thing from a health perspective. An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. We need to quit feeding crap to our pets and kiddos.


I would agree with you maybe, but I am fat and I cook from scratch. Chef Boy Ardee and Mary Kitchen and Stouffers, and even McDonalds and KFC, cannot make people who eat too much food skinny, however organic, fat free, and otherwise grusome they make their foods to get there. Nor can they make people who have a good metabolism, eat in moderation, and exercise fat. And all my cooking with fresh vegetables, meat, potatoes, flour, etc, will not make me skinny if I do not perform the hardest exersize of all -- push the chair back away from the table. 

I personally think it is safer to feed a dog kibble, than to feed a dog raw IF you are not going to go the whole nine yards, research it, and figure out the best varieties for your dog. Not everyone who owns dogs would make good nutritionists, and that does not mean they should not own dogs.


----------



## Glacier (Feb 25, 2009)

yuricamp said:


> I'ts hard to ignore the convenience brought to us by using kibble, however, it is hard to mnimize how obese people are becomng because of this culture of convenience. I have stopped to ponder if the substitute is indeed better than the real thing from a health perspective. An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. We need to quit feeding crap to our pets and kiddos.


Actually I'm finding the problem with most American diets is portion control. You can be eating the healthiest of foods, but if you're eating 2 1/2 times the proper portion, then you're gonna get fat.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Glacier said:


> Actually I'm finding the problem with most American diets is portion control. You can be eating the healthiest of foods, but if you're eating 2 1/2 times the proper portion, then you're gonna get fat.


Oh you mean like watching someone at lunch eat 3 sugar free jello pudding snacks????


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

vat said:


> Oh you mean like watching someone at lunch eat 3 sugar free jello pudding snacks????


:rofl: or eating an entire box of Snackwells...............


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I saw that this thread had 2 pages of replies and was getting ready to come in here and say "please don't feed the trolls," but instead I'll have some jell-o shots! Jessy should be along here in a moment with her brownies.


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

Sunstreaked said:


> I always took it to mean that I can't contribute in a meaningful way, but I sure do want to see how this pans out.


No worries here,  it's just that everytime I see it, the thread goes bad. Instead of us learning something new, well.... never mind.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Josie/Zeus I do not think violating board rules usually helps to keep threads on track.


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

Maybe I shouldn't have used that word. It's not like the thread is still on track.

Carry on.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Yea, pssst.... pseudo swearing is against the rules! There's been a lot lately so theres a crackdown.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Josie/Zeus said:


> Maybe I shouldn't have used that word. It's not like the thread is still on track.
> 
> Carry on.


That's because the OP is a Pitt Bull guy who's been thrown off all the Pitt forums and so he comes on here periodically to peddle his books. So far he hasn't done anything to violate the rules enough to be banned, but nobody takes him seriously.


----------



## lanaw13 (Jan 8, 2011)

Emoore said:


> I saw that this thread had 2 pages of replies and was getting ready to come in here and say "please don't feed the trolls," but instead I'll have some jell-o shots! Jessy should be along here in a moment with her brownies.


I made liver brownies for the pups training treats tonight!!! Anyone?


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Lin said:


> Yea, pssst.... pseudo swearing is against the rules! There's been a lot lately so theres a crackdown.


LOL, that's right!! And I hit the notify button for that! Bawawaha!


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

The first rule of animal husbandry. . .You do NOT talk about animal husbandry!


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

Emoore said:


> The first rule of animal husbandry. . .You do NOT talk about animal husbandry!


::rofl:


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Didn't bother to read 4 pages of this, but let me at least refute your Western Hognose theory being I kept and bred them for well over 10 years and fed them...you really for this...mice unscented!! The Hognose is a smaller bodied snake and would in no way ever eat an adult or even weanling mouse- as a matter of fact due to their small size a staple of large pinkies or fuzzies is the norm and yes they absolutely digest the fur and pass it- I got the poo to prove it

As to your liver comments I believe you were trying to discuss fatty liver disease in reptiles which is not from the actual food staple they are getting but the amounts in which they are fed pertaining to frequency. Every species obviously has a different metabolic rate at which it digests food. Snakes tend to have slower metabolisms because they only roam to thermoregulate and eat- thats pretty much it unless it is breeding season,lol So they are for the most part lazy animals who don't burn fat and calories fast. However, in the wild where food isn't just handed to them they still get a ton more exercise than they ever would in captivity leading to obesity in captivity. To further complicate the issue captivity has imposed on obesity people also feed their snakes too often. For instance my boas only eat once a month thru the spring and summer, and are brumated each winter where they go off feed. My corns and kings are fed every 14 days and again are brumated in the colder months.

The issues you have noted in Hognoses are seen across many species of reptile due to overfeeding and lack of exercise- not the food source itself 

As for kibble millions of people have been feeding kibble for the last 50 years and raise healthy happy dogs who grow into old age with few health problems. I agree raw is a better source of nutrients just as it is in us humans with fewer additives, dyes, chemicals, and other disgusting ingredients that allow it to keep in a sealed bag for years without rotting. However, raw is not for everyone!


----------



## GSD_Xander (Nov 27, 2010)

Emoore said:


> The first rule of animal husbandry. . .You do NOT talk about animal husbandry!


:rofl: 

I seriously almost spit my water all over my laptop with that!!!


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

All I could think of is Kibble = Soilet Green. 
Most of that post sounded like it came from one of those "Your killing your dog" by feeding sites. I feel terrible but I do love my dogs. Some day I would like to feed raw. Maybe when I have only 1 dog.


----------



## Girth (Jan 27, 2011)

Never thought about snakes getting fat.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Thanks Zoey's Mom, very interesting!!


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook (Feb 26, 2010)

GSD_Xander said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I seriously almost spit my water all over my laptop with that!!!


 
Sorry, I haven't been been back here till now, but (although kinda funny  ), the truth is animal husbandry is the practice of *breeding and raising livestock* 

So don't choke while you're laughing :wild:



.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook (Feb 26, 2010)

selzer said:


> Good Karma, pass the Jello Shots.
> It is pretty thick in here. The worst part is I read through that entire sermon and wasted a good three minutes of my life.


 
Kinda reminds me of the saying, _"Never try to teach a pig to sing ... it wastes your time and annoys the pig ... "_



_._


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook (Feb 26, 2010)

yuricamp said:


> I'ts hard to ignore the convenience brought to us by using kibble, however, it is hard to mnimize how obese people are becomng because of this culture of convenience. I have stopped to ponder if the substitute is indeed better than the real thing from a health perspective. An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. We need to quit feeding crap to our pets and kiddos.


 
Good post.

We have become slaves to "convenience" rather than ardent followers of what is correct and proper ... almost invariably to our detriment (and/or to the detriment of those who depend on us).

Jack


.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook (Feb 26, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> Didn't bother to read 4 pages of this, but let me at least refute your Western Hognose theory being I kept and bred them for well over 10 years and fed them...you really for this...mice unscented!! The Hognose is a smaller bodied snake and would in no way ever eat an adult or even weanling mouse- as a matter of fact due to their small size a staple of large pinkies or fuzzies is the norm and yes they absolutely digest the fur and pass it- I got the poo to prove it


 
Excuse me, but you need to learn how to read more thoroughly. I said *Southern* Hognose, not Western. They are two distinct species. The Western Hognose is a larger snake with a more varied diet. The Southern Hognose is a smaller snake with a _much more specific_ diet. This is why Western Hognoses (like what you have) are kept everywhere by fanciers ... they eat mice too ... whilst the Southern Hognose is NOT often kept because they refuse anything but toads.

In fact, the foremost authority (and pioneer) in the captive experimentation of propagating Southern Hognose Snakes (Bill Griswold) watched them ALL fail to produce offspring by the second year and die premature deaths ... *because of* their being "tricked" and switched to mice.

Therefore, your experience with Western Hognose Snakes is irrelevant to what I said and, once again, a little slower and more thourough reading on your part would have helped immensely 






Zoeys mom said:


> As to your liver comments I believe you were trying to discuss fatty liver disease in reptiles which is not from the actual food staple they are getting but the amounts in which they are fed pertaining to frequency. Every species obviously has a different metabolic rate at which it digests food. Snakes tend to have slower metabolisms because they only roam to thermoregulate and eat- thats pretty much it unless it is breeding season,lol So they are for the most part lazy animals who don't burn fat and calories fast. However, in the wild where food isn't just handed to them they still get a ton more exercise than they ever would in captivity leading to obesity in captivity. To further complicate the issue captivity has imposed on obesity people also feed their snakes too often. For instance my boas only eat once a month thru the spring and summer, and are brumated each winter where they go off feed. My corns and kings are fed every 14 days and again are brumated in the colder months.


This is all basically true, and I agree with you for the most part. However, it is not true within the context of my original post. The biological fact is *Southern* Hognose Snakes are not biologically-equipped to digest and process rodents.

The transfer application here is *dogs are NOT biologically-equipped to eat corns, wheats, rice, sorghums, and glutens* (which are in most "kibbled" dog foods). Nor are they designed to process kibbles at all.

The reason why I posted what I did is that, everywhere you have dogs, you have people crying and moaning about their "dog health problems," which are almost invariably-related to the kibble they're feeding them. Itchy problems, skin problems, thyroid problems, etc. are ALL pandemic amongst kibble-feeders ... and it never seems to dawn on them that the whole reason WHY their dogs are struggling with these various forms of breakdown is BECAUSE they're feeding their dogs something they were not designed to process in the first place.






Zoeys mom said:


> The issues you have noted in Hognoses are seen across many species of reptile due to overfeeding and lack of exercise- not the food source itself


What you said is true generally-speaking. However, and again, it discounts nothing I said about the Southern Hognose in particular.






Zoeys mom said:


> As for kibble millions of people have been feeding kibble for the last 50 years and raise healthy happy dogs who grow into old age with few health problems. I agree raw is a better source of nutrients just as it is in us humans with fewer additives, dyes, chemicals, and other disgusting ingredients that allow it to keep in a sealed bag for years without rotting. However, raw is not for everyone!


That is such a blanket statement it just reeks of lazy thinking.

The FACT of the matter is *entire brands of kibble have been publicly-recalled for failing to keep dogs alive*. Multiple brands of dogfood have been publicly-recalled over aflatoxin and other food poisonings.

Not to mention the fact that, over sustained periods of time, ANY brand of kibble poisons a certain percentage of dogs, who simply _cannot tolerate_ eating dried, nutritionally-devalued food items.

Again, the parallel to humans eating junkfood can be applied. I could make the same inane, blanket statement that "eating McDonalds has been going on for 50 years" ... AS IF eating McDonalds for one's lifetime would be "as good" as eating fresh wholesome foods. It is simply preposterous. That "some" people can eat McDonald's for 20 years and "look okay" doesn't mean that they are in OPTIMAL health and condition. That "some" parents feed their kids McDonald's as a ritual does NOT mean they are taking as good a care of their children as those parents who *care enough* to take the time and make their kids the best and most wholesome meals they can. It is the parents who actually take the time to do their best who are the best parents, NOT the lazy one's who always buy junkfood for their kids. And this same truth applies to dog owners.

That some prople "get away" with feeding kibble does NOT make what they're doing "best practice." Nor does it change the fact that many people (or, more precisely, their dogs) do NOT "get away" with it ... and ultimately the dogs suffer.

Thus the moral of the story is the basic premise of *feed your animal what it is biologically supposed to eat*: which, in the case of dogs, is *raw flesh, organ meats, fats, and bones*.

Jack


.


----------



## Girth (Jan 27, 2011)

Copy,

You prefer raw.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> Again, the parallel to humans eating junkfood can be applied. I could make the same inane, blanket statement that "eating McDonalds has been going on for 50 years" ... AS IF eating McDonalds for one's lifetime would be "as good" as eating fresh wholesome foods. It is simply preposterous. That "some" people can eat McDonald's for 20 years and "look okay" doesn't mean that they are in OPTIMAL health and condition. That "some" parents feed their kids McDonald's as a ritual does NOT mean they are taking as good a care of their children as those parents who *care enough* to take the time and make their kids the best and most wholesome meals they can. It is the parents who actually take the time to do their best who are the best parents, NOT the lazy one's who always buy junkfood for their kids. And this same truth applies to dog owners.


I really like the McDonalds analogy. Its one I use myself a lot. Especially when people defend foods like Ol Roy by "but my dog likes it!" Kids love candy bars and McDonalds, should they live off them?

But here is how I see it. Its not black and white, there are levels. There's the McDonalds foods, and the just add water foods, the frozen microwave dinners, etc. Within the frozen microwave dinners we have things like "kids cuisine" "hungryman" and then healthy choice, smartones, etc. I agree with you that if you can't feed what an animal needs then you shouldn't have the animal. But its rarely as black and white as the western hognose snake. Now I will vehemently argue on the "nutrition" of those logs of "snake food"*

Not everyone can feed raw, or homecooked food. And I think thats ok. Not everyone can cook a full course meal every night for their family, and I think thats ok. As long as the best possible choices are made (healthy choice frozen meals or steamers instead of McDonalds maybe) and the pet is healthy its ok. Now I know not every pet is healthy, and you're right if there are problems such as itching etc food needs to be looked at. I went raw due to problems my pets were having, and it saved the life of one cat as well as greatly improving the life of another. Again my point is its not black and white, its not Ol Roy or raw there is a healthy middle. And its much healthier to be feeding a quality kibble, than an incorrectly balanced raw or home diet. 

*I wanted to add something about whats "natural" but not have it detract from what I was saying. Many argue that live feeding of snakes is most natural... But its not whats best for the food OR the snake. I've seen horrible injuries of snakes from their food that they weren't quick enough to catch. I've owned a lot of rats as pets, and obviously I don't think its humane for them either in their last moments. Frozen is the best option. Would you risk your dogs life so they can chase down that cow and eat it themselves?


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

See, this is what I like to read. Point-counterpoint. More people will learn from this rather than say being rude to the Op's, I'm not just talking about this thread in particular. Let's not waste the opportunity to educate others. I've been a member here for a very long time, I've seen members come and go, I hate seeing the negativity ALL THE TIME. It's exhausting to read.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

I think it comes down to definitions. The OP has a definition for junk food and mine differs from his. So if we don't agree up front the definitions we can't get to an agreement on the right food for the dog. I don't think we ever will and the OP is right in his own mind as am I. There is no black and white on the issue. To make generalized statements about health, but looking at my own history of dog rearing I can see some very happy, healthy dogs in my lifetime and some that have lived beyond the "average" span for the breed. I must have done something right when my Lobo was fed Pedigree most of his life! It certainly didn't cause him to die early. And he was full of life, energy and enjoyed playing. Not sure what other views of health I can provide. It seems outwards signs of health ARE EVIDENCE that raw is working, but outward signs of health ARE NOT EVIDENCE if fed kibble. That is not logical to me.

McDonald's for example is generalized as junk. However, has anyone eaten there lately? I've been eating their fruit and oatmeal - very healthy. They also have very healthy salads if you use the right dressing. They also offer grilled menu items as well. So generalizing McDonald's as junk food and then comparing that to dog food is a bit far fetched these days. A person can eat very healthy at McDonald's and do just fine by making better choices.

The science behind dog food to me is more important as well as how my dogs does on what I feed him. If a dog does well and the nutrition is sound, then I don't consider a kibble junk food. Back to my original point, if you really want to go back to nature then hunting is the only option and that doesn't happen very often I don't think with domesticated animals. Yorkies for sure not!

What is most important in my view is the dog is fed, taken care of and loved. If you can do more than that - then have at it. But I don't think you can do more. Enjoy your furry friend. He is your friend, family member and companion. Enjoy him or her while they are alive. And when they pass, remember the good times they brought to your life.


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

I just had a thought -

From a human perspective, we know that nutritional deficiencies have a multigenerational impact. Could it be said that poor nutrition (for the sake of argument, let's say a dog eating Ol' Roy her entire life) may not have the immediate consequence of an unhealthy dog, but might contribute to an overall decline of the health of future offspring of that dog (assuming of course, the dog was bred)?

If that is the case, then we really can't argue that if a dog likes it and "does well" on it, it's okay to feed.

Caveat: I have no idea if I fully support this argument or not -- haven't fully thought it out. But it occurred to me and I thought it was worth exploring.


----------



## valb (Sep 2, 2004)

yuricamp said:


> I'ts hard to ignore the convenience brought to us by using kibble, however, it is hard to mnimize how obese people are becomng because of this culture of convenience. I have stopped to ponder if the substitute is indeed better than the real thing from a health perspective. An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. We need to quit feeding crap to our pets and kiddos.


The pets and kiddos may indeed need to quit eating crap, I agree,
but it really isn't carbs (alone) making anyone pudgy.

It's gone many ways over the years, and come back to "a calorie
is a calorie is a calorie" and we should remember that. Feed GOOD
healthy calories? Sure. But consider the Tour De France guys.
Between 5-8000 calorie a day diets, carb loading and everything
else, and they have body fat percentages in the single digits
and not a diabetic in the bunch!

Like (I think it was!) Selzer said... push yourself away from the
table, whether it's laden with Big Macs or Broccoli!


----------



## ChancetheGSD (Dec 19, 2007)

rjvamp said:


> Not sure what other views of health I can provide. It seems outwards signs of health ARE EVIDENCE that raw is working, but outward signs of health ARE NOT EVIDENCE if fed kibble. That is not logical to me.



:thumbup: When my dogs start "falling apart" (And at 4 and 13 years old, I've yet to see it) and getting poor blood work back every year THEN I'll reconsider what I'm doing. However, since RAW would require daily shopping (Since I do NOT live alone and can't just randomly bring a huge freezer into the house to buy bulk) I choose to feed kibble as a main diet source. My dogs DO get fed table scraps, fat trimmings, raw bones, ect to -supplement- with the kibble but their main makeup of diet comes from kibble.

I think the OP needs to realize we also have 2 different breeds. MOST German Shepherds will NOT be built like a Pit/Bully muscle wise. This is GENETICS. A good majority of bullies can be built with little exercise. (I've kept them all my life, this is something I can speak of from -experience-) We actually have to WORK our dogs regardless of food because they do NOT have the genetic makeup to turn them into body builders naturally.

And to the OP...Here is my kibble fed, fat, non-muscled, lacking energy, broken/useless 4 year old dog. 











Obviously, he gets no fuel from the kibble since he can "only" run 6-10 miles a day beside my bike. Plus the time he plays with Zoey at home, going to the dog park, swimming, hiking, walks, playing fetch/frisbee, doing agility and obedience and playing with all his neighborhood canine friends. And surprise! No medical problems! :shocked:

Oh and can't forget my "run down" 13 year old!










This was her at 11 but she's in actually a BETTER condition now. I don't have new pictures because she's kept in a long coat normally (Therefore you can only judge by physically touching her), she was being used for grooming training that day so she got shaved. She still walks 1-3 miles several days a week with me, goes to the dog park, goes swimming, plays tug with Chance and chases him around and no real medical problems to complain of. Her new vet thought there was a typo on the paperwork because he didn't believe she was over 2-3 years old based on her soft coat, clear eyes, clean ears, barely discolored teeth (which I do owe to bones) and her physical shape. Nope, it's correct. Had her since she was 5 weeks old and she's always been kibble fed. I'd say I'm doing something right with THAT type of compliment from a -professional-.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

DeeMcB said:


> I just had a thought -
> 
> From a human perspective, we know that nutritional deficiencies have a multigenerational impact. Could it be said that poor nutrition (for the sake of argument, let's say a dog eating Ol' Roy her entire life) may not have the immediate consequence of an unhealthy dog, but might contribute to an overall decline of the health of future offspring of that dog (assuming of course, the dog was bred)?
> 
> ...


Interesting, but please explain how nutritional deficiencies have a multigenerational impact in people. I imagine you saying this occurs through learned eating habits, right?


----------



## ChancetheGSD (Dec 19, 2007)

I guess it would also be helpful to mention my dogs do NOT eat anything like Ol' Roy, Kibbles N Bits, Purina, ect. They eat HEALTHY foods that don't contain things like corn, soy, sorghum, wheat, ect that the OP is talking about. Though I still don't believe that ALL kibbles are awful and create useless/fat dogs like the OP does. I believe people create fat and useless dogs. My dogs get plenty of exercise as mentioned and eat proper amounts of calories. This is why I -do- have healthy, active, lean and muscular dogs. Has nothing to do with food. You can fatten a dog up plenty on RAW but a fat dog is a fat dog is a fat dog and regardless of what you feed, being at an unhealthy weight isn't good for them. I'd rather see a lean dog fed Purina than a fat one fed RAW. I can guarantee you that Purina dog will live a longer and healthier life than the fat one on RAW.


----------



## GSDAlphaMom (Jul 20, 2010)

_'An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. '_

I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years (not vegan, I do dairy/eggs) an while I do eat veggies my main stay is carbs and alot of them. I have never been overweight in my life and people think I am a good 10 years younger than my actual age. I would venture to say I am in the top percentile of healthly americans.

Does eating meat = healthy? Ahhh NO! Does eating carbs = unhealthly, another no.
Of course what we eat contributes to our health or lack there of but to state that carbs are what is making kids pudgy, hogwash. Not to mention you can eat about anything you want if you get enough exercise.


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

ChancetheGSD said:


> You can fatten a dog up plenty on RAW but a fat dog is a fat dog is a fat dog and regardless of what you feed, being at an unhealthy weight isn't good for them. I'd rather see a lean dog fed Purina than a fat one fed RAW. I can guarantee you that Purina dog will live a longer and healthier life than the fat one on RAW.


This is so true, Zeus was fed raw when he hit 120 lbs. at one time. We had to work very hard to get the weight off.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I get what you're saying and as a vegetarian as well I can't stand it when people say you can't eat healthy without meat... Because you can. It just may be harder, if you have to go outside the box to find novel protein sources you weren't eating previously. 

But you really can't compare dogs and humans that way... Because they're carnivores, and we're omnivores. Can dogs thrive off a vegetarian diet? **** no. Unfortunately many live off them due to people who place their own moral beliefs on their pets, but they aren't thriving and its not healthy. That would be like if I got a snake and fed it the ground up logs of snake food because I refused to feed rats. Its not right, and the pet takes the punishment. But there's a big difference between feeding a carnivore an herbivore diet, and feeding a carnivore an omnivore diet... And then even more so with obligate carnivores such as cats.


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

Kris10 said:


> Interesting, but please explain how nutritional deficiencies have a multigenerational impact in people. I imagine you saying this occurs through learned eating habits, right?


Nope, not behavioral stuff. There are several studies that show an impact on offspring from mom's nutrition. Also a couple studies looking at whether/how impacts continue to further generations and whether it's only DURING pregnancy that it matters or if pre-pregnancy nutrition matters as well.

Couple of studies pop to mind:

1) Malnutrition and under nutrition in pregnant women can cause low birth weight and other poor birth outcomes that are associated with later developmental deficits. (CDC, CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects - Human Developmental Effects)

2) Folic acid deficiency during pregnancy can cause neural tube defects. (New England Journal of Medicine; Nicholas J. Wald, D.Sc., F.R.C.P.
N Engl J Med 2004; 350:101-103)

3) There was a study where they fed pregnant rats junk food and a control group appropriately and the offspring showed an inability to metabolize certain nutrients later in life (you'll have to look this one up).

So again, since it's true for HUMANS that poor nutrition has a longer term impact than we may immediately see, might it also be true for dogs?


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

ChancetheGSD said:


> :thumbup: When my dogs start "falling apart" (And at 4 and 13 years old, I've yet to see it) and getting poor blood work back every year THEN I'll reconsider what I'm doing. However, since RAW would require daily shopping (Since I do NOT live alone and can't just randomly bring a huge freezer into the house to buy bulk) I choose to feed kibble as a main diet source. My dogs DO get fed table scraps, fat trimmings, raw bones, ect to -supplement- with the kibble but their main makeup of diet comes from kibble.
> 
> I think the OP needs to realize we also have 2 different breeds. MOST German Shepherds will NOT be built like a Pit/Bully muscle wise. This is GENETICS. A good majority of bullies can be built with little exercise. (I've kept them all my life, this is something I can speak of from -experience-) We actually have to WORK our dogs regardless of food because they do NOT have the genetic makeup to turn them into body builders naturally.
> 
> ...


Your pups are adorable!!!!!


----------



## yuricamp (Mar 13, 2011)

GSDAlphaMom said:


> _'An excess of carbs feed to our children make them all pudgy as well. '_
> 
> I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years (not vegan, I do dairy/eggs) an while I do eat veggies my main stay is carbs and alot of them. I have never been overweight in my life and people think I am a good 10 years younger than my actual age. I would venture to say I am in the top percentile of healthly americans.
> 
> ...


Careful...I stated in my orignal post that an *excess* of carbs is what is making them obese today. As people we see it all the time when we go out to eat. They supplement your meal with starches to fill you up instead of providing good portions of lean meat and veggies. I am no dietician, however I do strongly believe that protein is a requirement that we need from external sources and carbs can be derived from breaking down other essential food requirements. I am just advocating greater awareness of what we feed to our pets. We should avoid anything that is unhealthy for them. It seems like there are lots of kibble brands out there that are the human comparison of fast food joints, and we should not *poison* our pets with them, just as we don't feed our children fast foods 24/7!


----------



## yuricamp (Mar 13, 2011)

*Oh man!*



valb said:


> The pets and kiddos may indeed need to quit eating crap, I agree,
> but it really isn't carbs (alone) making anyone pudgy.
> 
> It's gone many ways over the years, and come back to "a calorie
> ...


While I agree that carbs alone are not making us fat...I must emphatically disagree that *...a calorie is a calorie is a calorie...*
The body processes protein, carbs and fats in different ways and there is a cost on the body for metabolising each. While I don't feel that this is the best forum for going into great detail on the matter I strongly encourage all to do some research on the matter.


----------



## yuricamp (Mar 13, 2011)

*Animal Stewardship*

I like to look at well-being as a linear construct where on one extreme you are sick, in the middle you are healthy, and at the other extreme you have fit. Our mostly carnivore pets maybe healthy on a diet of fake foods suplemented with fillers to increase profit margins, but my question is, with adequate exercise and a diet that they have been evolved to eat for thousands of years get them closer to the fit end of the spectrum as opposed to just being healthy? (I also like to think you have to pass through healthy to get to sick when you're a fit being !)

*Sic-----------Healthy--------------Fit *


*FIT is the goal!*


----------



## GSDAlphaMom (Jul 20, 2010)

Oops, I did miss the 'excess' in the statement, however, most would argue my carbs are very much in excess and no weight issues here. 

Lin - not sure if you were referring to my post or not, if so to clarify I was speaking strictly on the human side.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

yuricamp said:


> I like to look at well-being as a linear construct where on one extreme you are sick, in the middle you are healthy, and at the other extreme you have fit. Our mostly carnivore pets maybe healthy on a diet of fake foods suplemented with fillers to increase profit margins, but my question is, with adequate exercise and a diet that they have been evolved to eat for thousands of years get them closer to the fit end of the spectrum as opposed to just being healthy? (I also like to think you have to pass through healthy to get to sick when you're a fit being !)
> 
> *Sic-----------Healthy--------------Fit *
> 
> ...


You can be fit and unhealthy....see athletes that use performance enhancers....not healthy but they look fit and act that way! So I guess Fit can be deceiving - I'd rather go for a clean bill of health. That way you know you are doing the right things.

My dogs don't plan on running marathons or being sled dogs for that matter...so their level of fitness is going to be different. I do believe my German Shepherds have great stamina when it comes to walks, to running and jumping for their balls. So they are at the right fitness level for what they do.

But I still can't put Fit in front of Health. Just my opinion as I believe those are two different scales.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

DeeMcB said:


> Nope, not behavioral stuff. There are several studies that show an impact on offspring from mom's nutrition. Also a couple studies looking at whether/how impacts continue to further generations and whether it's only DURING pregnancy that it matters or if pre-pregnancy nutrition matters as well.
> 
> Couple of studies pop to mind:
> 
> ...


I thought what you were saying was the nutritional deficiencies in parents lead to nutritional deficiencies in their offspring. (ex: parents obesity due to poor diet causing children to be obese, etc) Of COURSE the mom's diet can affect the health of the offspring, but not necessarily predispose them to having nutritional deficiencies themselves... The examples you give tell different things (#3 would be relevant in this case, but not #1 and #2) 
Does that make sense?


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

Kris10 said:


> I thought what you were saying was the nutritional deficiencies in parents lead to nutritional deficiencies in their offspring.


No, that's not what I was saying (or trying to say). Let me try again.

Nutritional deficiencies can impact the health not only of the "here & now" animal (human/canine?), but also their progeny..potentially for generations to come. So is it reasonable to say that even if a dog is "doing well" on Ol' Roy, the poor nutrition of that dog could ultimately have a negative impact on the health/temperament of the breed?


----------

