# Where is the proof



## ZAYDA (Apr 22, 2010)

After all my research I believe that non grain kibble is a better food choice and I believe that raw feeding is probably the better choice but where is the proof.

We are very fortunate to have one of the best dedicated vets imaginable. He goes above and beyond what anyone could expect from their vet but how can I get him to proven facts from reputable persons that feeding raw and or grain free is better. He does not discount that organic or grain free is better he just hasn't seen any proof. He is very open minded and is willing to read results but they need to be from a vet or a nutritionist with a PHD. in that field. 

When he tells me stories from his 28 years of experience of dogs eating raw and coming to him over and over again with decaying teeth or puppies with kidney issues caused from to much protein, and yes he is an advocate of Science Diet but only because it has proven to work for him . 
He has raised 15 year old Dalmataon on SD along with several other dogs of his that lived 13 &14 years. I could go on with all the examples where he put other dogs on SC and it helped but what I really want to say is here on this site many of us answer peoples questions by what worked for us so how can you argue with a quality vet with 28 years of dealing with everything. 

Don't say that vet's dont go to school for nutrition or don't know about nutrition because where this guy went to school they had to take all sorts of biology, and nutrition classes.He knows very much about nutrition but I have no ammunition from persons he will believe to change his mind.

He also states that SD was not ever a food that was recalled and maybe corn and grains might not be that good for our dogs but again where is the proof. I found this site and educated myself for my dogs and I feel the need to also see the facts so please help me in my quest. 

I tried to inform you about my situation but in a nutshell help me to convey to my vet that either raw or grain free is better for our dogs with research from reputable people.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

The better approach would be to ask him to provide scientific evidence that grain is superior to raw or grain-free.

When he points out that no large studies have been done *comparing* grain-based, raw, and grain free, he's made your point for you.

Grain is in pet food because it gives companies a way to make profit off of what previously would have been waste from the human food industry- not because anything has ever demonstrated it to be superior to a raw diet.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

It's very difficult to get people to ignore their own experiences, no matter what kind of evidence you present. Why is it so important to you to change his mind?


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I am sure someone will have an answer for you but my question is. Why do you feel such a strong need to prove to your vet about grain free and raw? Is that what you want to feed your dog and he is against it? If that is the case you do what you think is right for your dog.

I have talked to a couple of vets that said Science Diet CD was not as good for kidney dogs as it was for cats. I had a pup with kidney issues, I joined a yahoo support group and you would not find many there that would feed the CD.

I also would question the kidney issues he saw in puppies due to to much protein. How does he know that was the cause? It is more likely that it was genetic or a birth defect since that is the number 1 reason for JRD! And yes no doubt you can raise a dog on any food and they may live a good long life. Look at some of the food people eat, they live but are not as healthy as they could be.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> The better approach would be to ask him to provide scientific evidence that grain is superior to raw or grain-free.
> 
> When he points out that no large studies have been done *comparing* grain-based, raw, and grain free, he's made your point for you.
> 
> Grain is in pet food because it gives companies a way to make profit off of what previously would have been waste from the human food industry- not because anything has ever demonstrated it to be superior to a raw diet.


That is wrong on two fronts. 1) Some starch has to be in kibble or else it cannot be manufactured. 25% minimum. 2) Whole, human-grade grains are in any pet food I would consider as a quality food. The notion that the grains used are "feed quality" is simply not true. The cost of human grade oats, barley, rice & corn is considerably higher than the cost of potato.

My own experience with grain-free foods has been positive but only with the new Annamaet GF's. This food is a new entry and is actually made in a way where starch converstion is enhanced. So far on some heavily trained young dogs, they have great energy and have not lost weight. Thumbs up.

On others the results were just horrible. Weight loss within a few days.

The most nutritious of the grains is without a doubt whole grain corn, brown rice is good too. Millet is very good for feeding the hard keeper, like corn.

When corn and the other grains are cooked properly, they pretty much are inhaled by the dog's digestive system. When they are not it is poop city.

There is no proof that either raw or GF's are better and I doubt you will ever see a study on it. I would love to see it done.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Starch needn't be derived from grains.

Have you any studies demonstrating grain-based food's superiority to non-grain and/or raw diets?


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> Starch needn't be derived from grains.
> 
> Have you any studies demonstrating grain-based food's superiority to non-grain and/or raw diets?


Starch can come from a variety of plant sources like tapioca & potato but frankly grains are more nutritious, especially when they are whole grains. They are easier on insulin as well.

I really don't know why people are so impressed by potato for a dog over ground whole grain rice and ground whole grain corn. Both rice and corn do not cause allergies despite what is circulated on the internet. 

As for GF's vs foods with whole grains, the superiority in foods with some grains is seen very clearly in hunting & sled dogs. You will not find a sled dog food without grain.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

So no studies then.


----------



## Dejavu (Nov 11, 2010)

vat said:


> I also would question the kidney issues he saw in puppies due to to much protein. How does he know that was the cause? It is more likely that it was genetic or a birth defect since that is the number 1 reason for JRD!


I just have to add that was the problem my own puppy had. Not her food, but congenital kidney issues. 
Her grain-free food might have actually made it not show til it did. My vet said it could have shown up at 8-9 months, not at almost 15 like it did. I will never know though, I can only speculate.

vat, can I ask what is JRD?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

sable123 said:


> Starch can come from a variety of plant sources like tapioca & potato but frankly grains are more nutritious, especially when they are whole grains. They are easier on insulin as well.
> 
> I really don't know why people are so impressed by potato for a dog over ground whole grain rice and ground whole grain corn. Both rice and corn do not cause allergies despite what is circulated on the internet.
> 
> As for GF's vs foods with whole grains, the superiority in foods with some grains is seen very clearly in hunting & sled dogs. You will not find a sled dog food without grain.


Are you seriously arguing that rice is more nutritious than a potato? Brown rice provides marginally more protein than a potato, but potatoes provide vastly superior amounts of Vitamin C and Iron.


----------



## ZAYDA (Apr 22, 2010)

Thank you for your input and to answer your question as to why I want to change his mind. I don't want to change his mind I want to know for a fact that I am doing the best for my dog. I believe everyone on this form is looking to do the best for their pets and so many people feel that raw a or grain free is best and I understand it is our choice but where is the proof that makes everyone feed this way. Sure I would like very much to have my vet on board. He is very open minded as I said and he agrees their is no scientific proof either way to what is best for our dogs so he can only go off of his 28 years experience. Knowing I am doing the right thing for my pet is why I have asked this question. thanks again

The kidney issue came up yesterday when my daughter took her lab to get spayed and her blood work back back with a high number which I can't remember what it was but it should be between something like 8-12 and hers was 30 which he felt was due to the high protien level in her food. Now perhaps there is an underlying issue but you have to start somewhere I suppose and the protein was what he felt was the problem.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Dejavu said:


> I just have to add that was the problem my own puppy had. Not her food, but congenital kidney issues.
> Her grain-free food might have actually made it not show til it did. My vet said it could have shown up at 8-9 months, not at almost 15 like it did. I will never know though, I can only speculate.
> 
> vat, can I ask what is JRD?


Juvenile renal disease. We found it in our pup at 8 months only because he was going to get neutered and they did blood work. His kidneys were to small and never fully developed. I switched him to raw after that and he had remarkable energy, I think it bought him time but there was nothing we could do for him. We had to put him down at 14 months. I wish I knew then what I know now, I would never have allowed my vet to give him his shots, how the heck was he supposed to process that??? And then the heartworm meds? It was only weeks after both that he developed severe problems and we had to let him go.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

ZAYDA said:


> Thank you for your input and to answer your question as to why I want to change his mind. I don't want to change his mind I want to know for a fact that I am doing the best for my dog. I believe everyone on this form is looking to do the best for their pets and so many people feel that raw a or grain free is best and I understand it is our choice but where is the proof that makes everyone feed this way. Sure I would like very much to have my vet on board. He is very open minded as I said and he agrees their is no scientific proof either way to what is best for our dogs so he can only go off of his 28 years experience. Knowing I am doing the right thing for my pet is why I have asked this question. thanks again


This is just IMO.......Lets say your feeding a good grain free kibble and he is doing great, great energy, great coat etc etc, then that is all you need and I bet your vet will say the same thing. I am currently getting my dog OFF of Orijen, is it a great food, ABSOLUTELY, does it work for my dog.....not at all and I need to change to another kibble.
There ARE studies on dogs eating grains and I would need to dig up my old biology books and notes to quote them but the bottom line is, a dog can eat grains and live a very long life. They can also eat a vegitarian diet (no meat at all) and live a long life, they won't thrive but they will live.

We all want the best for our dogs and will feed the best we can but I also think we can get carried away sometime (meaning our dogs will eat a totally raw diet but our cabinets are filled with oreo's, chips and a hole bunch of other crap that us and our children are eating)


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

There are studies on dogs eating grains, yes.
But are there controlled studies comparing a grain-based diet and a raw one?


----------



## Dejavu (Nov 11, 2010)

vat said:


> Juvenile renal disease. We found it in our pup at 8 months only because he was going to get neutered and they did blood work. His kidneys were to small and never fully developed. I switched him to raw after that and he had remarkable energy, I think it bought him time but there was nothing we could do for him. We had to put him down at 14 months. I wish I knew then what I know now, I would never have allowed my vet to give him his shots, how the heck was he supposed to process that??? And then the heartworm meds? It was only weeks after both that he developed severe problems and we had to let him go.


I'm so very sorry to hear that. Hugs for you. 

When mine got spayed at 8 months too they only made a basic bloodwork so they didn't see it. I wish I had known sooner, but I can't turn back time.

I want to think the grain-free/raw food did buy them some time. Even if it wasn't enough, it was something. I'm grateful for every single moment with her, no matter how short it was.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Denali Girl....Mind your own business. How did you get in my house to look in my cabinets anyway? Oreos and chips are big on our food pyramid. (Don't even get me started on chocolate.)


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

If I may post something that Chris Wild said that I agree with a lot.......

*Is it the food? Or the dog?* 
Maybe better in the weekly discussion topics section, but I'll post here for now.

For some reason I've been having lots of thoughts on diet and dogs doing well on X and not on Y lately. It seems there are always threads on the board of people looking for help because they've tried foods A, B, C, D, E, F.... with their dog and the dog continues to have problems. Now there is a current thread with people singing the praises of a food that, at least based on the ingredients, would be considered mediocre at best, saying that something in the special formula makes it wonderful, their dogs who always had problems on everything else are doing fine on this food because of the magical ingredients, and making statements about how highly lauded Brand X with the great ingredients is the true crap food because their dogs didn't do well on it.

Thinking back over the 20+ dogs I've shared my life with (mostly GSDs but a few other breeds and mutts mixed in) I can say I've never, ever encountered these sorts of problems. Sure the dogs did better on some than others, but I can't recall any food that caused major issues. 

Growing up, we fed the crap grocery store brands. Dog Chow, Come and Get It, Gravy Train, Kibbles and Bits, Bench and Field, etc... Later we moved on to what at the time were the better foods like Diamond, Nutro, Iams, Eukanuba and such that today would be considered mid-range. This was before the age of the super premium dog foods. They didn't exist, or if they did no one knew about them because the local feed stores didn't carry them and Al Gore hadn't yet invented the internet.

Thanks to the 'net and getting heavily involved in the dog world in my adult life we learned about better stuff and used that. Chicken Soup, Canidae, Wellness, Innova, Solid Gold. Then came about the grain free movement and it was TOTW, Core, EVO, Orijen, Instinct.... Finally we switched to raw and will be sticking with that. 

I can't really say if the $60 a bag grain free fed dogs really did better than those $10 a bag grocery store fed dogs from decades ago because frankly I can't recall well enough that far back to compare. And those dogs all those years ago were just pets, not competition dogs. But I do know we've never had so much as a single dog do badly on any food. No horrible coats, chronic diarrhea, or any of the other problems we hear about so often. In my experience, doing "better" on one food meant slightly smaller and firmer poops, or an even softer and more glossy coat, not huge variants. And in the last few years that I do remember, and was really conscious to watch for any changes, there's been no major change in energy level or overall health from one food to the next. Overall coat and poop and all other common measures used to determine if a dog is doing well on a food has been fine and any variance very minor, no matter what they were eating. 

We've also never done the slow, gradual switch when changing foods. Just switched cold turkey. In the last few years of kibble feeding before going to raw we switched formula and sometimes brand most every bag. And with the number of dogs we have that means most every week. Might be Core fish this week, TOTW prairie the next, EVO the next, etc... And of course on raw, it's something different most every meal. Never had a single issue of digestive upset occur over food switching either.

Now my mother's GSD on the other hand has been one who has had problem after problem with digestive upset and dull brittle coat on most every food my mom has tried over the years. She would tend to feed whatever we were feeding at the time and our dogs did fine and her's didn't, so she'd switch to something else. She's finally moved to raw too and for the first time ever her almost 12yo dog has a nice coat and consistently normal poop. Prior to that there was always some problem or another. And clearly when feeding the same thing and ours are doing fine and her's isn't, it isn't the food. I suppose it's possible there is some other environmental factor different between her place and ours, but really I think it's the dog. Especially since this is a dog who has had various allergy symptoms on and off for years as well, so clearly doesn't have a fully correctly functioning immune system.

This really has me wondering if all these problems we hear about and some people experience are really with the foods themselves. And the more I think about it, the more I seriously doubt that is the case and the 5 or 10 or 15 foods are really bad and the problem is with all those foods. Especially when the common denominator there is the dogs themselves, and not all dogs, but just some dogs. Often closely related dogs. 

We see other indications of increased health, and particularly auto-immune problems, in GSDs than existed in years past. And while I do think there are other non-health related factors that tend to skew perspective and can make it appear today's GSDs are less healthy than they really are, I also think there is a legitimate downturn with regards to health that has occurred in the past few decades and that all these food problems speak more to a deterioration in the overall health of the dogs, sometimes entire bloodlines of dogs, that than they do to the foods themselves. The statements to the effect that no one food will work for all dogs and not all dogs will do great on the same food are of course very legitimate. But I think to the degree this sort of thing seems to be happening there is something else going on, and that by blaming the foods or using those statements as excuses we (breeders especially) might be missing some very important signs of things going awry.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> There are studies on dogs eating grains, yes.
> But are there controlled studies comparing a grain-based diet and a raw one?


 
That I don't know Mam? I don't remember one?


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Sir. 

My point being merely that no one can really prove that their diet is best, based on studies. While we can cite studies showing that a certain diet works, there haven't been any conducted that compare them to each other.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> There are studies on dogs eating grains, yes.
> But are there controlled studies comparing a grain-based diet and a raw one?


 
OK I read that too fast and posted.....to me, a raw diet would be the most logical answer due to the dogs digestive makeup. But they can live (not thrive) by eating a veg. diet or by eating grains.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> Sir.
> 
> My point being merely that no one can really prove that their diet is best, based on studies. While we can cite studies showing that a certain diet works, there haven't been any conducted that compare them to each other.


 
I was trying to be nice saying Mam but whem you wrote Sir it makes me feel old so we need to stop that lol, I'll continue tonight I need to get one to dance class.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

lol


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

I'm an information junkie and researched quite a bit in making my feeding decision. When Ezra first came home, it was ToTW. Shortly thereafter, we moved to raw. In the absence of studies that compared grain, no-grain kibble and raw fed dogs' health & wellbeing, I looked to the evidence I *could* find. The evidence that contributed to my decision was that of a dog's digestive tract (including teeth) and wolf eating habits in the wild. I mimic mother nature as closely as possible as I figure canids themselves have given us sufficient data on what they need to thrive.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Just a little FYI to remember and keep in mind....
The domestic dog and wild canines..do not have the same digestive tracks.
Years of domestication, inoculations, cross breeding & plain ole' genetics...have changed them immensely.
*Just the general parasites that inhabit the wild canines, can & will cause immense digestive & health issues in the domestic dog, besides many other factors.*
I believe that the dog food industry has learned to promote their foods to best fit the general public and dog owners.
I have no problem with the RAW or BARF diets...nor do I have a problem with any diet that people "choose" to feed.....to each their own....feed what your dogs do well on.
JMO
Robin


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

One thing to keep in mind about Chris's post is that several years ago(80's and below) the dog food was more meat based(horse?) and didn't have huge amount of the cellulose, corn, other fillers, but it was present.
My dog growing up in the 60-70's lived to be almost 18, a springer/collie mix and she was fed rival canned and probably gravy train, along with table foods. She wasn't spayed young either, and did have one litter of pups. 
I think the dogs have evolved to be more sensitive to environment more than food allergies and that is scary-or maybe it is the owners diligence on vetting compared to many years ago.
When I worked in the pet industry the big name food was SD and Iams...many people still think these are the best. Or that the packaging on the grocery store brands will keep their pets happy, because they are so colorful!
I will still feed a meat-based raw diet over any commercially prepared kibble to my dogs, as long as I can afford it.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Jane...I don't disagree with you....actually, I almost always agree.
I also add meat to my dogs diet..(although I don't feed a RAW diet), because it's not convenient for me.
My comment is based on owner's thoughts that domestic dogs and wild canines "eat" & "digest" the same....and they *do not*.
Robin


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Oh, Robin, I was posting from the page earlier! I agree with you too. We cannot compare them whatsoever! 
I only started feeding raw because of Onyx's Pano, then her allergies, so I tried to learn about the ingredients she was eating and NOT eating! My dogs are thriving on it, but they would probably do the same on a good kibble. Wonder how many wild canines get pano or have allergies...probably none!
I completely agree with Chris's post too, just adding a thought.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

paulag1955 said:


> Are you seriously arguing that rice is more nutritious than a potato? Brown rice provides marginally more protein than a potato, but potatoes provide vastly superior amounts of Vitamin C and Iron.


Yes because rice and corn are "burned" in a more stable fashion than potato. Corn has far higher levels of phyto chemicals than either rice or potato, even higher than broccoli. Rice & corn also have fatty acids and high levels of trace minerals as well. So maybe there is more vitamin C & iron but rice and corn, perhaps with some oats is a much better, more complete package. Vitamin C - ascorbic acid - in potatoes is also not stable when exposed to heat, so really how much value is there.

Potato in my opinion really deserves the monicker "filler". It makes good kibble because it is nice and sticky.


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

Physiologically speaking, it is my opinion that dogs are designed to eat mainly meat. I base that opinion on the mouth & teeth construction. I don't buy that their digestive tracts evolved in to something different through domestication but their mouths & teeth didn't keep up. I'm certainly not saying that dogs can't be healthy and eat grains, fruits & veggies, nor am I trying to convince anyone of what is best for their dogs. Simply that based on the biological and anatomical research I could find when making my feeding decision, dogs are physically structured to eat a meat-based diet.

I am - of course - open to data that I might have missed. I'm interested to see any data you have that show the differences between wild and domesticated canine digestive tracts and specifically how the domesticated dog's digestive tract has evolved to prefer/accomodate something other than a meat-based diet.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

sable123 said:


> Yes because rice and corn are "burned" in a more stable fashion than potato.


What do you mean by "burned?" And please, just rice. I'm well aware of the nutritional value of corn.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

When I got this GSD, I emailed a variety of top breeders (by championships) and the most popular foods were Eukanuba, Pro Plan & Avoderm. Ironically the latter two would never be in my kennel.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Many of those breeders who compete are sponsered by the big name food companies. My Aunt bred champion chow chows and swore by pedigree! I'd never feed that either!! She has since changed her mind on proper diet....


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I think the wild canines don't have the sensitivities that the domestic dogs do...because they eat a variety of different proteins and textures. Not the same round hard cruchie every day in and day out. They adjust out of survival mode, and who know really if or how they suffer? 
There is a poster on here who doesn't feed a balance of meat/bone/organ daily(rawfed) and the dog is now suffering from perianal fistulas. Could it be because the dog is trying to express hard bone one day and then a soft stool the next three? 
There aren't enough studies done(that I'm aware of) on wild ones to even know how their health really is.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

paulag1955 said:


> What do you mean by "burned?" And please, just rice. I'm well aware of the nutritional value of corn.


Burned is how we describe how a food is metabolized and also whether a certain food generates heat in the process. Both rice and corn are considered "neutral" with respect to thermogenic properties. Whole grain corn and brown rice are considered to have a "slow burn" meaning they are metabolized in linear fashion thus keeping insulin spikes low. Now potato if its baked is not bad, but that is not how potato is made in pet food. Potato is generally not considered a good carb for keeping insulin stable.

Endurance is far better with rice and corn, corn is the winner though. Oats are ok but generate a lot of heat.

Again you will never see a specialized working dog diet without rice, corn, barley or oats. Millet never.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

This is just my thought. Years ago agreed dog food had more meat in it. Then they decided to add more fillers thus making food more filler than meat. You have to wonder if it has affected the genetics and that is why some are more sensitive than others. If a breeder has always fed a quality diet do they have dogs without these problems? I know 2 people that have purchased 4 dogs from the same breeder. The breeder feeds Pro plan and each dog has allergies. Makes me wonder.

I believe it is no different than children now seem to have more allergies and asthema than years ago. And why is that? I truly believe it is all the chemicals they have sprayed on our food for years. Could these same chemicals affect our pets when we feed them grains? Why not?

I ready a study years ago that they did on several children. They tested their blood and found pesticides. It turned out these came from the apples the children ate, scary!!!


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

sable123 said:


> Burned is how we describe how a food is metabolized and also whether a certain food generates heat in the process. Both rice and corn are considered "neutral" with respect to thermogenic properties. Whole grain corn and brown rice are considered to have a "slow burn" meaning they are metabolized in linear fashion thus keeping insulin spikes low. Now potato if its baked is not bad, but that is not how potato is made in pet food. Potato is generally not considered a good carb for keeping insulin stable.
> 
> Endurance is far better with rice and corn, corn is the winner though. Oats are ok but generate a lot of heat.
> 
> Again you will never see a specialized working dog diet without rice, corn, barley or oats. Millet never.


Burned, duh! You should have said metabolized, lol! I understand about that, but you did say more nutritious...which is not the same as how the food is metabolized.

That being said, corn is highly allergenic for humans. Since my dog seems to be prone to auto-immune diseases, I won't take a chance on feeding her corn.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

vat said:


> This is just my thought. Years ago agreed dog food had more meat in it. Then they decided to add more fillers thus making food more filler than meat. You have to wonder if it has affected the genetics and that is why some are more sensitive than others. If a breeder has always fed a quality diet do they have dogs without these problems? I know 2 people that have purchased 4 dogs from the same breeder. The breeder feeds Pro plan and each dog has allergies. Makes me wonder.
> 
> I believe it is no different than children now seem to have more allergies and asthema than years ago. And why is that? I truly believe it is all the chemicals they have sprayed on our food for years. Could these same chemicals affect our pets when we feed them grains? Why not?
> 
> I ready a study years ago that they did on several children. They tested their blood and found pesticides. It turned out these came from the apples the children ate, scary!!!


The horse meat that was used in canned dog food years ago was used primarily to get rid of diseased and old horses. These animals were loaded with drugs and drug residuals that were not then or now permitted to be eaten by humans. It was the easiest way to get rid of horses. I wouldn't look back at those days with any fondness. Also the first kibbles, the best of them, were far worse than the worst kibbles available today. They had very low meat content and the grains used were literally rotting.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

paulag1955 said:


> Burned, duh! You should have said metabolized, lol! I understand about that, but you did say more nutritious...which is not the same as how the food is metabolized.
> 
> That being said, corn is highly allergenic for humans. Since my dog seems to be prone to auto-immune diseases, I won't take a chance on feeding her corn.


I said both nutritious and efficient. By the way, every study on food allergies concluded that corn was no more allergenic than rice. Don't believe what people tell you about corn.

I would feed your dog a catfish based food with corn or not.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

sable123 said:


> The horse meat that was used in canned dog food years ago was used primarily to get rid of diseased and old horses. These animals were loaded with drugs and drug residuals that were not then or now permitted to be eaten by humans. It was the easiest way to get rid of horses. I wouldn't look back at those days with any fondness. Also the first kibbles, the best of them, were far worse than the worst kibbles available today. They had very low meat content and the grains used were literally rotting.


That is a blanket statement....many people use to bring their horses to rendering before HSUS got involved and hardly any of those were diseased or over drugged. I would think age was usually the reason most often, maybe illness. I'm sure quality control was not great back then and that is probably the reason we have so many health issues today...but dogs were long lived for the most part. And I bet many of them were intact or not speutered at 6 months.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

sable123 said:


> I said both nutritious and efficient. By the way, every study on food allergies concluded that corn was no more allergenic than rice. Don't believe what people tell you about corn.
> 
> I would feed your dog a catfish based food with corn or not.


Why catfish? What food would that be?


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> That is a blanket statement....many people use to bring their horses to rendering before HSUS got involved and hardly any of those were diseased or over drugged. I would think age was usually the reason most often, maybe illness. I'm sure quality control was not great back then and that is probably the reason we have so many health issues today...but dogs were long lived for the most part. And I bet many of them were intact or not speutered at 6 months.


Most of the commonly used drugs on horses even today cannot be used on animals intended for meat. Early neutering has caused many problems.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Intended for human consumption.
AAFCO doesn't restrict what pet food destined animals can be medicated with.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

onyx'girl said:


> I think the wild canines don't have the sensitivities that the domestic dogs do...because they eat a variety of different proteins and textures. Not the same round hard cruchie every day in and day out. They adjust out of survival mode, and who know really if or how they suffer?
> There is a poster on here who doesn't feed a balance of meat/bone/organ daily(rawfed) and the dog is now suffering from perianal fistulas. Could it be because the dog is trying to express hard bone one day and then a soft stool the next three?
> There aren't enough studies done(that I'm aware of) on wild ones to even know how their health really is.


Thank you, that would be me. And no, I highly doubt it.

He does not struggle to express anything- his poops have always been consistent and firm but not rock solid on my feeding schedule. Yes I have flubbed up a time or two, but that did not cause his fistulas.

GSDs have been suffering through this disease for decades, eating every kind of diet imaginable, including all kinds of kibbles.

Lets not point fingers.


----------



## DeeMcB (Nov 28, 2010)

A fistula isn't a tear and doesn't occur in the way you describe. GSD's get anal fistulas more commonly than other dogs regardless of diet. I hope no one here reads that comment and attributes this condition to raw feeding.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

so you outed yourself....how can you be certain that the diet isn't playing a role? 
I'm not pointing fingers, just speculating. Because as of now this thread is all about that. I hope Mulder is finding relief, I don't want any dog to suffer. So what is the reason for fistulas? I thought dogs do better on raw if they are sufferers of perianal fistula's....


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Who knows?

I've talked to people... yes the PF group, but many other people as well. We are all just looking for answers, and as far as I know, there are none.

Saying that diet is the sole cause of his fistulas does not make sense. I can understand if its allergy related, but its not. He's never had food allergies, and still does not.

I talked to a person who's dog was going through this **** back in the 80s. She fed kibble. She knew many other people with GSDs also going through this, also on kibble. 

Perhaps there is no "one" cause. But I could just as easily point my finger at all the raw-fed GSDs who DO feed on a daily schedule and still have PFs.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Is he doing better recently? I feel for you....don't think I'm "judging or whatever" I hate that this is happening for Mulder.
I'm not saying the diet is the cause, but the way the diet is fed. I just think too many bones and not a balance of the others is hard on the tract all the way thru. Especially if it is varied with MM/OM then back to RMB.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

He's not doing any worse, thankfully. Thank you for asking.


His bone content comes from whole prey- which is balanced in and of itself. When he gets bone, get gets it via whole rabbit, or sometimes just rabbit heads mixed with other MM.

He is not getting one huge meal of bone. I see many people doing this- feeding things like just chicken backs (aprx. 30% bone) for a meal. THAT, IMO, is far too much bone for one meal, and is far more suspect than the 15% bone of my rabbits.


----------



## lcht2 (Jan 8, 2008)

well, this is where i go back to remember when my dad had his two large breed mutts kenneled outside almost all of there lives, fed them the ''cheap" grocery store dog food and only did vaccinations when they were puppies and they lived to be 13 years old....


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

For the sake of argument, is it possible that dogs seem to have more problems nowadays because they are exposed to so many toxins and cleaners and such inside the home. Or maybe a lack of fresh air and sunshine that outdoor dogs used to have an abundance of?

Maybe they lived longer with crappier food because they were not bambarded with fabreeze and having their bedding laundered all the time, and all the cleaners and such? Maybe we have more problems because of that too?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Selzer, I'm sure you've heard there's conjecture that part of the rise in childhood asthma and allergies might be attributable to parents providing "too clean" an environment; thus not properly triggering the immune system. That would jive with overlaundering the dog's bedding and maybe even overbathing (to which I plead guilty).


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

This below probably should not have been posted in its entirety, but a link to the original post given....



Denali Girl said:


> If I may post something that Chris Wild said that I agree with a lot.......
> 
> *Is it the food? Or the dog?*
> Maybe better in the weekly discussion topics section, but I'll post here for now.
> ...


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

selzer said:


> For the sake of argument, is it possible that dogs seem to have more problems nowadays because they are exposed to so many toxins and cleaners and such inside the home. Or maybe a lack of fresh air and sunshine that outdoor dogs used to have an abundance of?
> 
> Maybe they lived longer with crappier food because they were not bambarded with fabreeze and having their bedding laundered all the time, and all the cleaners and such? Maybe we have more problems because of that too?


I personally believe that vaccinations play a larger role than we give credit for....

I also believe that the dogs are canaries in the coal mine regarding our food sources...


----------



## Animage (Dec 5, 2010)

LisaT ... you crack me up ... shouldnt have been posted but isntead a link given and yet you repost it in your quote ... so now its posted twice.... just finding that humerous at 1:40 in the morning


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Glad to keep you entertained...


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

LisaT said:


> I personally believe that vaccinations play a larger role than we give credit for....
> 
> I also believe that the dogs are canaries in the coal mine regarding our food sources...


And maybe poor breeding practices.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

robinhuerta said:


> Just a little FYI to remember and keep in mind....
> The domestic dog and wild canines..do not have the same digestive tracks.


ive never seen credible evidence of this. if you have any, i would be hasppy to read it.


_Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation)._


_Fourteen thousand years of selective breeding may have changed the outer appearance and some of the behaviors of our canine companions, but on the inside they have remained virtually unchanged. On the evolutionary scale, this amount of time does not allow for any drastic changes in the physiology and anatomy of a species._


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

wild canines are not eating a processed kibble day in and day out so their digestive systems are different because they can handle the wild animals that domestics would have an issue with. Not that they are structurally made different, just adjust to the diet they eat.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

onyx'girl said:


> wild canines are not eating a processed kibble day in and day out so their digestive systems are different because they can handle the wild animals that domestics would have an issue with. Not that they are structurally made different, just adjust to the diet they eat.


I'm not sure the point you are making. The stuff they eat has no bearing on the structure of their digestive system. My car has a gas tank, fuel lines, throttle body, intake manifold, compression cylinders, and exhaust tubing- yet if I choose to (stupidly) I could put water, fuel, gatorade, or milk in the tank. What you put into the system has no bearing on the structural makeup of the system as a whole. I believe that was the point roxy84 (and ultimately David Mech [GREAT book, btw- I own it]) were making.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I'm aware of that. Derek pointed out they are not different as far as the physical. But they do digest differently as far as sensitivities and allergies relate. That was the point I was making...along with what Robin was writing.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

onyx'girl said:


> I'm aware of that. Derek pointed out they are not different as far as the physical. But they do digest differently as far as sensitivities and allergies relate. That was the point I was making...along with what Robin was writing.


Gotchya. Thanks


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

Wolves really don't have any problem adjusting to a kibble diet. In fact, many zoos use kibble as a base diet, and the stuff that is sold for wolves is really crap IMO. It is fairly low protein and very heavy in low grade grain. I think a unit of Cargill makes it.

Look at this junk:

Porcine By- Products, Poultry Meal, Fish Meal, Dried Bakery Products, Crushed Roasted Peanuts, Dried Eggs, Dried Kelp, Phosphoric Acid, Citric Acid, Propylene Glycol, Animal Fat, Iodized Salt, Brewers Dried Yeast, Soybean Oil, Limestone, Dicalcium Phosphate, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Red Color 40, Potassium Sorbate, Riboflavin, Vitamin E Supplement, Thiamine, D-Activated Animal Sterol (D-3), Vitamin A Supplement, Choline Chloride, Pyridoxine, Vitamin B-12, Vitamin C Supplement, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite(Vitamin K), Niacin, D-Pantothenic Acid, Manganese Sulfate, Magnesium Oxide, Zinc Oxide, Ethylene Diamine Dihydroidide, Potassium Iodide, Folic Acid, Water, Iron Carbonate, Copper Oxide, Sodium Selenite, Sulfur, Biotin, Natural and Artificial Flavors.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

onyx'girl said:


> I'm aware of that. Derek pointed out they are not different as far as the physical. But they do digest differently as far as sensitivities and allergies relate. That was the point I was making...along with what Robin was writing.


i would just add that because we (people in general) have forced kibble on our dogs, we have affected their sytems in regards to immunities and to which enzymes in their digestive system are at working levels. these are not permanent evolutionary changes. canines still have the enzymes necessary to handle the diet for which their physiology is designed (raw meat), they just arent at working levels because of what we are feeding them.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make...the dogs adjust according to what they are fed, so the system/tract of a wild dog vs a domestic is different!


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Exactly Jane!
Our domestic dogs cannot "tolerate" the same feeding regimen that the wild canines do.
Wild canines (on fresh kill) eat the organ meats first, including the stomach & intestines of their prey first (which consist of pre-digestive grains etc..)...then they eat the muscle & cartilage parts of their prey. They also will eat grass, berries, fish & scavenger off of decomposing carcase.
If our domestic dogs had to eat in the same manner...many would not be able to tolerate the diet, without exhibiting some form of digestive issue or upset.
Wild canines do not have "probiotics" or extra vitamins & oils placed in their foods.
They have the proper gastric juices, enzymes and parasites to help digest almost anything the eat.
They also do not suffer from bloat, allergies, SIBO, IBS and other domestic canine immune disorders.
*Believe what you may in regards to our "domestic" dog vs the wild canines...but through our domestication and human intervention...they are not equal in how they digest and process foods....and how they thrive.*
There's enough proof...just reading through the many threads of allergies, food intolerance, special diets and so on...
Robin


----------



## ZAYDA (Apr 22, 2010)

Robin is it then true or false that our domestic pets have the gastric juices to help keep their teeth clean and break down food. This has been something I found in question.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

All dogs "should" have proper gastric juices.....however, many do not.
Many can process certain types of cartilage & bone..(to an extent)....this is why we often see problems with stool matter, vomiting etc...
Many cannot process fish bones...go figure. Chicken bones can get lodged, stuck and splinter...resulting in horrible intestinal problems.
*Yes...a nutritious RAW, balanced diet is probably most beneficial...but we must "balance" it so they CAN process their diet properly...._they require human intervention._*
I have noticed that most dogs that are fed a RAW diet...do have some of the cleanest teeth and healthy looking gums.
...again...this is just an observation...each person is entitled to their own opinion...
Robin


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

robinhuerta said:


> Exactly Jane!
> Our domestic dogs cannot "tolerate" the same feeding regimen that the wild canines do.
> Wild canines (on fresh kill) eat the organ meats first, including the stomach & intestines of their prey first (which consist of pre-digestive grains etc..)...then they eat the muscle & cartilage parts of their prey. They also will eat grass, berries, fish & scavenger off of decomposing carcase.
> If our domestic dogs had to eat in the same manner...many would not be able to tolerate the diet, without exhibiting some form of digestive issue or upset.


this would be true initially, but domestic dogs still have the physiology and enzymes required to handle this diet. it would simply take some time for them to adjust. any digestive sensitivities would generally be overcome with time on such a diet. the applicable enzymes would be brought up to a working level.

of course, most owners are never going to be willing to put their dogs through the adjustment period required for this to occur.

in many parts of the world there are dogs that originally came from a domesticated litter that become part of wild packs. they do not need human intervention to survive. their shorter life spans are due to the same factors that affect the lifespans of wolves vs domestic dogs not in the wild


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

German Shepherds, as a breed, have a tendency to produce less digestive enzymes. Not all of them would exhibit this, but many do. 

All of the German Shepherds I have had have been able to process and utilize a raw diet very well. My worst "keepers" who had difficulty with dog foods flourished on raw. It didn't seem to br a diet they had extra difficulty dealing with, in fact, it was the opposite for them. I was able to stop supplementing them with the digestive enzymes once on raw.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Raw meat does have some digestive enzymes...that is one of the reasons the teeth are cleaner, not because of crunching bones. Chicken w/ bones is slimey, not coarse so the only thing that will "clean" the teeth is in fact the enzymes raw meat has, which will break down the gunk build up on teeth. My 12 yr old mix breed was transferred to raw after a bad kibble diet. Her teeth(and breath)showed noticable improvement within a month.
I feed green tripe daily because of the benefits it has 
A Place for Paws - Columbiana, Ohio - Tripe - The Other White Meat


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

In the parts of the world where domesticated dogs become "wild" in packs ie (living, breeding, and surviving as such)..is a different scenario that what is being debated.
I've lived several months in Mexico (Mexico City & the poorer areas surrounding the big cities)...dogs (in general) were not kept & maintained as many of our dogs are.
The farm dogs lived outdoors, ranged freely and ate everything they had the opportunity to eat....they were in general a far cry from "house pets".
Their grandparents & parents all lived this way....so "genetically" their "systems" & life style allowed them to survive. Many of these "poor region" dogs never had a vaccine, nor were they ever given any medications for ailments. Bottom line...if they couldn't adapt...they just died. Fact being...many do. They die from disease and parasites, besides any accidental fate they may meet. It was not uncommon to find a dogs body laying in the field with no apparent injury. 
But the dogs that lived as "household pets" in the big cities....were not treated as such.
And they could not "survive" the rural farm life that the interbred, mixed feral dogs did.
In this country...we "pamper" our dogs (as a rule)..generation after generation.
Semi wild dogs living off the land in poorer regions or different cultures is like comparing apples to oranges. These dogs have lived this way for generations...so they are better equipped (naturally) to survive or they die. The strong survive....the weak perish.
Wolves die in the wild predominately because of injury, starvation, predation from other wolves, poisoning or by the hands of humans....very rarely do they die from " internal health related causes".
*There was several great documentaries on Wolves just a few months ago on NGW.*
They covered Wolves in Yellowstone, Canada, Italy and the European Wolf....feral dogs & hybrids were discussed also.
..again I will comment...feed what your dogs do best on...
Robin


----------



## ZAYDA (Apr 22, 2010)

robinhuerta said:


> In the parts of the world where domesticated dogs become "wild" in packs ie (living, breeding, and surviving as such)..is a different scenario that what is being debated.
> I've lived several months in Mexico (Mexico City & the poorer areas surrounding the big cities)...dogs (in general) were not kept & maintained as many of our dogs are.
> The farm dogs lived outdoors, ranged freely and ate everything they had the opportunity to eat....they were in general a far cry from "house pets".
> Their grandparents & parents all lived this way....so "genetically" their "systems" & life style allowed them to survive. Many of these "poor region" dogs never had a vaccine, nor were they ever given any medications for ailments. Bottom line...if they couldn't adapt...they just died. Fact being...many do. They die from disease and parasites, besides any accidental fate they may meet. It was not uncommon to find a dogs body laying in the field with no apparent injury.
> ...


Feeding what our dogs do best on is putting all the pressure on ourselves to chose our dogs fate in a way. I understand if you feed your dog "A" and you see a problem then you have to try food "B" but what I think many people hope to learn is what are actually the best choices out there because maybe we don't want or feel that we are capable to make the largest most important decision for our pet.

Choosing a kibble that works for my dog because her poop looks nice , she has energy,she likes it, and her coat looks great doesn't mean crap to me. I need to know that her insides are getting what they need and they are not getting to much of a good thing. Another words I want to know when I ask all of you what are the best food choices out there I am going to get answers from people that I may not have the knowledge or the ability to understand until it is explained to me. 

So I totally get it.... I am not going to feed my dog a food that makes him itch or poop cow pies but I think there is more to it than that. All these food choices and we "I" have to chose what is one of the best kibble to feed my babies. Well this is why I asked where is the proof because I think many of us need direction when it comes to feeding our dogs.


----------



## lrodptl (Nov 12, 2009)

I have no idea how my past 5 dogs lived so long and healthy on Alpo and Purina,must have been pure dumb luck.


----------



## Chinaski (Jan 19, 2011)

There is no proof. I just about went nuts trying to find proof and found absolutely no proof at all. You can really end up stressed out when trying to do too much of a good thing when it comes to feeding your dog. There seems to be millions of self professed experts on the subject so the best thing I found is to experiment with all kinds of foods and stay away from anything that causes negative symptoms in your dog.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

The proof is in your dog.

If you think the dog is healther on a grain free or RAW diet, there you go.

Each dog is different and does better on different foods.

Although I tend to feel that people who say how great their dog does on Purina, Ol Roy or Alpo that they must be blind and have no smell to not notice the listless eyes, dry coat, dog smell everywhere, horrible shedding, dandruff, or smelly ears. I've heard that argument a million times before. Probably 80-90% of the time it's quite obvious they do feed that based on any number of things on the above list. They just have a different opinion than me as to what "healthy" means.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

LisaT & DenaliGirl, thanks for copying & sharing that post. I think Chris has absolutely nailed it. I'm especially impressed to see this from a breeder. 

IMO, the biggest change affecting canine health & well being in the last 40-50 yrs is poor breeding. I'm convinced BYB have done less damage than the show breeders whose passion for winning in the ring & achieving a very consistent (& often extreme) 'look' takes precedence over heath, temperament & longevity. Is this all show breeders? No, but it is far, far too many & includes some of the biggest winners & most admired kennels.

It's sad that any dog suffers due to fashion demand & human vanity. It's ridiculous that a working breed, & at one time the ultimate working breed, should suffer from so many health & temperament disorders.

Dogs bred for health, function & longevity are still predominately living long, healthy, happy & productive lives. Unfortunately, in some breeds or lines wonky genetics are so prevalent, that even conscientious breeders struggle mightily to breed sound, healthy dogs.

I've fed middling kibble, high quality kibble & raw. Much like Chris, my dogs have thrived on all of 'em. Genetically sound dogs do better on crappo foods than genetically compromised dogs do on even the very best foods IMO.


----------



## lrodptl (Nov 12, 2009)

GSDElsa said:


> The proof is in your dog.
> 
> If you think the dog is healther on a grain free or RAW diet, there you go.
> 
> ...


Yup,deaf,dumb and blind and for the first time I have a dog that's been fed grainfree for 8 months and I notice no difference with this dog or any of my others. NONE! All happy and healthy,smell good,look good,shed a little,bark a little,run a lot.


----------

