# Food Allergies?



## cassadee7

Are food allergies genetic? All, or just some? If a pup from a breeding has allergies what are the odds of another pup from the same breeding having allergies also?


----------



## Andaka

IMHO, food allergies ( and most other allergies as well) are genentic.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

I wish they would update this, but here is a good site to look at different things and mode of inheritance: Canine Inherited Disorders Database - Introduction You can look at the skin, heart, etc. or by breed - and can see the differences in breeds in terms of number of inherited disorders that are common.


----------



## cassadee7

Thanks Jean. I will read over that info.

My main problem right now is finding people with a dog from so-and-so breeding from such-and-such breeder who has XYZ problems. Or finding the sire or dam has had problems. And then I don't know if I should still consider a pup from said breeding, if I have a bigger chance of a pup with health issues, and even more important to me, do I want to buy from a breeder who continues to BREED said dog who has XYZ problems or has progeny with said problems.

I know pups are going to pop up with health issues in any lines or breeder, but knowing when to rule out a sire, dam, breeding or breeder is hard.


----------



## onyx'girl

I would look at breeders past litters and see if you can get in touch with owners to ask these type questions. That was one big question for me when I was looking for a pup as I already have a dog with environmental allergies. Many people don't think to ask this. 
But it also depends on the sire/dam matches made as well. And what the breeder feeds is very important. Some people don't think about that either...


----------



## JKlatsky

I think it's tricky. 

Argos as a puppy had pyoderma, which they thought was food allergy related. I think you see a lot of people jump to food allergies. In retrospect I think it had more to do with an immature immune system and over vaccination. (My bad.) Neither his parents or his siblings have shown anything comparable to what he went through. 

I've also heard of people who say that mange is genetic and I don't think I believe that either.

What might be genetic is a less than stellar immune system.


----------



## Doc

JKlatsky said:


> I think it's tricky.
> 
> Argos as a puppy had pyoderma, which they thought was food allergy related. I think you see a lot of people jump to food allergies. In retrospect I think it had more to do with an immature immune system and over vaccination. (My bad.) Neither his parents or his siblings have shown anything comparable to what he went through.
> 
> I've also heard of people who say that mange is genetic and I don't think I believe that either.
> 
> What might be genetic is a less than stellar immune system.


I think your comments on the immune system is very important - something that often overlooked. A pup's immune system is influence way before birth. If breeders are not concerned with building immune systems before birth, the pups are in trouble.

I think the key to healthy immune systems in pups starts with the health of the sire and dam but perhaps more important is the initial "building" of the immune system during gestation. The first hours and days after birth is also critical for a pup IMO. A pup is under stress during the birthing process and under stress from living in a new environment. All this stress plays havoc on the development of their immune system. During this time it is critical to supply the dam and pups with immune building food, vitamins and minerals IMO. Some breeders supply the dam with additional vitamins and minerals during this time; some breeders supply the pups with additional vitamins and minerals hours after being born.


----------



## RubyTuesday

IMO, just about any characteristic, whether mental, physical or emotional, is to some extent heritable. It can be direct, ie get the gene(s) & you get (or carry) that characteristic. It can be polygenetic where more than one gene is involved in expression of a particular trait. It can be indirect. For example, cleft palate & club foot in humans, are more commonly seen where the mothers are of short stature, possibly due to intra-uterine crowding. A genetic pre-disposition might be mediated by hormonal, nutritional or other environmental factors. However, heritability remains a factor in all of these scenarios.

Good breeders strive mightily to produce sound, healthy, long lived dogs. Any that don't, will never be good breeders. Healthy, sound, long lived bitches of good background should be bred to healthy sound, long lived dogs of good background. Nothing can guarantee that only healthy, sound long lived pups will be produced, but it certainly helps to stack the deck.

While it's worthwhile to look at the role vaccinations, diet, supplements & exercise contribute to health & longevity, beware those breeders who neglect, or decline to discuss, genetics & the particulars of their lines. For me personally, it's a HUGE red flag when myriad excuses are proffered for breeding stock which all too commonly expires at 6, 7, 8 or 9. Or breeders that proudly, lovingly point to breeding stock that died young for any reason but an accident. 

Unfortunately, all too many 'good breeder' algorithms focus on just about everything but what's actually produced & how well that matches with what the pup seeker needs/wants.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

cassadee7 said:


> Are food allergies genetic? All, or just some? If a pup from a breeding has allergies what are the odds of another pup from the same breeding having allergies also?


Breeders contributing to the White Shepherd Genetics project list food allergies so my guess is yes some allergies are genetic, or at least there's a higher probability of a pup having them if sire and dam have them too.

These are all whites but here's a sample of how the database works and how the breeders put the information in the database. 
These are the B listings - so if you have a dog from one of these breeders or are considering buying one you can see what genetic issues might be running through the line. (Listings can also be searched by ailment etc.)

Sorted by dogs name B

I don't know if the GSDCA has anything similar or if it's even possible given the number of GSD's registered each year...but it would be nice to see breeders be more upfront with genetic issues even on an individual level.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Andaka said:


> IMHO, food allergies ( and most other allergies as well) are genentic.


 
Most "food allergies" are actually the result of human stupidity.

People will feed their dogs "dry kibble" (which dogs are *not* designed to eat, in the first place), and to make things worse the main ingredients of the owner's chosen dry kibbled feed brand will be _corns_, _wheats_, _glutens_, _rice_, etc. (food items dogs are *not* designed to process either) ... and then the owners will scatch their heads and wonder "why" their dogs are itching/scratching/falling apart.

The reasons most dogs fall apart from "food allergies" is because they are being fed the bone-dry remnants of food items they were never designed to eat in the first place.

Rare as hen's teeth is a dog that gets "food allergies" to a proper, meat-based, raw diet ...

Jack




.


----------



## Xeph

Many people feed grain/gluten free kibble diets these days, which helps a lot. Not all dogs do well on raw. Just like not all dogs do well on kibble.

And not all allergies are food related (clearly). I do think that allergies come down to genetics.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Xeph said:


> Many people feed grain/gluten free kibble diets these days, which helps a lot. Not all dogs do well on raw. Just like not all dogs do well on kibble.


 
Every animal on the face of this earth is biologically-designed to eat raw food. NO animal, in its natural state, eats cooked food.






Xeph said:


> And not all allergies are food related (clearly). I do think that allergies come down to genetics.


Not all _allergies_ are food-related, but all *food* allergies are food-related, by definition.

And the number 1 cause of allergic reaction to food is feeding an inappropriate food item, and the number 2 cause of allergic reaction to food is cooking food items down to being a bone-dry hunk of kibble (and thereby removing most of the original, nutritional value of that food item).

Jack




.


----------



## Xeph

Dogs are not an animal I would consider being in a "natural state" at all. They're domesticated. There is nothing natural about them, as they were, through breeding, created by humans (and humans are also animals...and we it cooked food).

You're welcome to my dog that I tried Raw with (after a ton of research with a ton of guidance) that proceeds to throw it all up and has explosive diarrhea (which does not happen to him on the correct kibble)


----------



## Rerun

I think a lot of people jump to the assumption that something is food allergies when in reality its environmental.


----------



## Rerun

You can't take a domestic dog and say it should be able to survive as a "wild dog" (wolf) does.

Not all dogs can eat raw successfully, and certainly many have allergies and various disorders. In the wild, wolves with problems die. They are wiped out of the gene pool because they can't survive. Dogs like my Akira with EPI wouldn't survive. You have to make concessions for some dogs, you can't just assume that because a wolf eats a BARF diet tha the average pet dog should be able to as well. Many can, but not all.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

It is true that dogs are domesticated by man. It is false to say that therefore they should be fed man-made feed.

Many wild animals can be domesticated, either plucked right from the wild as young or with but a few generations of working with their young. NO animal can be plucked from the wild as a "carnivore" ... and turned into an _herbivore_ in a mere generation (nor in a hundred generations).

Any dog (a carnivore) that breaks down when fed something it was not biologically-designed to eat (plant matter) is not suffering from a "genetic disorder" ... it is suffering from a stupidity disorder in the human being who owns it. Feeding any carnivore meat in "dry, kibbled form" (which totally removes all of the life-giving moisture, enzymes, and micro-flora) is likewise a problem with _human beings_, not with the dogs that fail to get enough nutrients/moisture from these over-processed feeds.

No animal on earth will do its best fed a diet it was not supposed to eat.

No animal on earth can derive as much nutrition from a food source that has had most of its moisture and nutrients taken from it through processing.

These principles are pretty basic and really can't be debated.

Perceptive animal owners tailor these principles to the benefit of their dogs; foolish owners violate these principles to the detriment of their dogs.

Good luck.



.


----------



## Xeph

> foolish owners violate these principles to the detriment of their dogs.


It would be more foolish for me to feed my dog something "biologically appropriate" that made him horrendously sick!

Which is why I feed my dog kibble to keep him out of the vet's office due to dehydration from massive butt cannon explosions.

Principles are principles, but they are not hard and fast rules. The same diet does not work for every dog, much as you would like it to.

I'll keep with my kibble fed healthy dog ^_^


----------



## LisaT

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> And the number 1 cause of allergic reaction to food is feeding an inappropriate food item, and the number 2 cause of allergic reaction to food is cooking food items down to being a bone-dry hunk of kibble (and thereby removing most of the original, nutritional value of that food item)..


I would say that feeding a food that they are allergic to is feeding an inappropriate food item 

Do you have anything to back up your second statement?


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Xeph said:


> It would be more foolish for me to feed my dog something "biologically appropriate" that made him horrendously sick!
> Which is why I feed my dog kibble to keep him out of the vet's office due to dehydration from massive butt cannon explosions.
> Principles are principles, but they are not hard and fast rules. The same diet does not work for every dog, much as you would like it to.
> I'll keep with my kibble fed healthy dog ^_^


 
I don't know enough of the details surrounding what "raw diet" you fed your dog, so I'm afraid I can't comment.

.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

LisaT said:


> I would say that feeding a food that they are allergic to is feeding an inappropriate food item


Exactly. And corns, wheats, glutens, soys, etc. are food items to which a dog is highly-likely to be allergic ... as dogs were never designed to eat these foods.






LisaT said:


> Do you have anything to back up your second statement?


Does it need backing up?

If you take a potato and turn it into a French fry, have you increased its nutient value or decreased it? If you take a fresh piece of meat and cook it down to a little brown pellet, have you increased its nutrient value or decreased it? How about its moisture content?

Our world is about 70% water. Your dog is about 70% water. Raw meat is about 70% water. (Is anyone noticing a pattern here, an equilibrium?)

It is precisely because flesh is 70% water that dogs who eat raw regularly are able to go long periods of time w/o drinking water ... _they already have it in their meal_.

When a dog gets 1 lb (16 oz) of raw meat, he actually gets *11.2 oz of water* and only 4.8 oz of solid mass. By contrast, when a dog gets fed dry kibble, at only about 10% moisture, he becomes dehydrated. A dog that eats 1 lb of kibble is eating 14.4 oz of solid mass and _only 1.6 oz of water_.

In other words, a dog fed dry kibble gets 3x as much solid mass to process as a raw-fed dog and only 1/10th the amount of water to process that much mass. This is why dogs that eat kibble drink 10x as much water from their water bowls as dogs who get fed raw. (Anyone who has ever fed raw will tell you their dogs hardly drink water compared to when they were fed kibble.)

Add to that the fact that much of the nutritional value is cooked-out of the kibble (along with the natural enzymes), and it's pretty clear why feeding raw is preferable to feeding kibble.

Jack


----------



## Xeph

> Exactly. And corns, wheats, glutens, soys, etc. are food items to which a dog is highly-likely to be allergic ... as dogs were never designed to eat these foods.


And you're assuming that everybody that feeds kibble feeds one including the above mentioned allergens. The food I feed my dogs has no grains.


----------



## GSDAlphaMom

TheLittleBlackBook - did you use to be on here as sable123? You've got the exact same demeanor.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Xeph said:


> And you're assuming that everybody that feeds kibble feeds one including the above mentioned allergens. The food I feed my dogs has no grains.


Grains are only one part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is the lack of moisture and nutritional degradation that occurs in the kibbling process.

The little dry, brown pellets you feed your dogs are simply bankrupt of the life-giving moisture, the enzymes (and much of the vitamins/minerals) that they once had ... when those ingredients were *fresh* and *raw*.

The kibbling process is itself the problem. This process is _made worse_ for dogs when the ingredients were inappropriate to begin with (corns, wheats, etc.) ... but even the best ingredients are degraded from their original moist, nutritious form when they come out little dry pellets.

There really is nothing to debate. It is what it is.

Dog kibble is made to enhance _human convenience_; it certainly doesn't enhance canine nutrition.

Good luck.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

GSDAlphaMom said:


> TheLittleBlackBook - did you use to be on here as sable123? You've got the exact same demeanor.


No ma'am. I have just joined here recently.

I don't have the exact same "anything" as anybody but me 

.


----------



## Chris Wild

So add some water to the kibble and moisture problem is solved. Vitamin/mineral issue is solved by the manufacturers adding those back in.

Many people here feed raw, myself included. Yes, I do believe it is the most ideal method of feeding. But it still does not work for every single dog. 

And yes, raw fed dogs can develop food allergies too. Seen it happen. It's not all caused by that evil kibble.

To treat people like cruel, idiotic dog owners because they choose to feed a high quality kibble, especially ones who have tried raw and found it didn't work for a specific dog, is just plain out of line.


----------



## Xeph

> The little dry, brown pellets you feed your dogs are simply bankrupt of the life-giving moisture, the enzymes (and much of the vitamins/minerals) that they once had ... when those ingredients were *fresh* and *raw*.


If they were bankrupt, my dog would clearly be, you know, dead. Manufacturing processes have started adding those enzymes and minerals back into the high end kibbles. If I needed to, I could supplement (they're all over the market). I will not deny they could not have the same nutrients as FRESH and RAW, but NEITHER thing does my dog any good if he vomits and craps out everything he just ate!

As much as you would like to think you're right and making sense, I'll take the proof of my live, vibrant 6 year old as opposed to the lethargic, sickly, sewage spewer he was when we tried raw.

And don't get me wrong...he LOVED the raw meals! But they didn't love him x.x I have to be equally careful feeding him RMBs because it can result in bad, bad, bad, BAD times for the household.

As for life giving moisture, I have this AWESOME thing called a water bucket! It's fantastic! I fill it with fresh water, set it down, and my dogs drink at will!

As much as you seem to want them to be, dogs are not wild creatures, and they needn't traverse over miles and miles and miles of terrain to find a source of water. They get off the couch or pick themselves up off the floor and walk 20 feet (probably less) stick their head in the bucket, and consume aforementioned life giving moisture.


----------



## Rerun

Xeph said:


> As for life giving moisture, I have this AWESOME thing called a water bucket! It's fantastic! I fill it with fresh water, set it down, and my dogs drink at will!


My dogs are sprawled out on the floor...they appear to be sleeping, but maybe they are actually lethargic because they don't eat raw and they are dehydrated?? :help: Where do you get this..what do you call it...."wa-t-er buc-ket...." contraption? How does it work? Do you have to train the dogs to use it?

Thanks


----------



## Xeph

I get the "Bukkets" at the same place I buy the kitty litter! Wally World! And amazingly, just like training a cat to use a litter box, you really only have to show them where it is!

They seem to have this strange instinct to stick their heads in it and take a lap or two when they're a bit thirsty!

Strange, right?!

Also, Rerun, thank you for having an amazing sense of humor xD


----------



## Rerun

Xeph said:


> I get the "Bukkets" at the same place I buy the kitty litter! Wally World! And amazingly, just like training a cat to use a litter box, you really only have to show them where it is!
> 
> They seem to have this strange instinct to stick their heads in it and take a lap or two when they're a bit thirsty!
> 
> Strange, right?!
> 
> Also, Rerun, thank you for having an amazing sense of humor xD


Anytime. Thanks for the advice, I will pick one up immediately. Hopefully it helps the lethargy.


----------



## Xeph

In the event that you can't find a bukket at Wally World, you can always try to locate a Walrus.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

I think some of you ladies are missing the point.

Dumping water in kibble doesn't make that kibble as nutritious as it was _before the extrusion process_ turned it into kibble. It only gives you wet, nutritionally-devalued kibble. Even in the best kibbles, the ingredients would have been better for the dogs *served raw *than in their kibbled form.

Again, kibble is nothing but "fast food for dogs." All fast foods are devalued remnants of what was once good food. Try the following as an experiment to see my point:

Dump a pile of your favorite kibble on the ground outside ... then place its _raw food equivalents_ next to it in another pile. What you will notice is that ALL of the ants, flies, bugs, etc. will immediately go straight to the raw food. You will also notice that the raw food will quickly begin to stink and decompose. In short, the raw food will disappear quite rapidly. By contrast, you will notice that the pile of kibble will _stay_ a pile of kibble for a month ... two months ... maybe getting mold on it, if it rains ... but it will pretty much be unchanged. This is called *bioavailability*. Raw food is simply more available to be broken-down and utilized than is kibble.

Thus, in precisely the same fashion when placed in the stomach of a dog, raw food is likewise more nutritious, more able to be broken down, and more completely able to be utilitized by the dog ... than are the little brown pellets we call kibble. And hence raw food is better and more nutritious for your dogs than kibble. Even the best kibble pales in value nutritionally _as_ kibble compared to how it started off in its natural state.

Just because a dog is "alive and moving" when fed kibble does NOT mean it is being fed optimally anymore than a child fed McDonald's meals every day is being fed optimally. I can truthfully promise you that *top performance dogs* (racing greyhounds, sled dogs, etc.) are not fed kibble, but instead are fed raw meats and fats, etc., _precisely because_ no kibbles (regardless of how expensive) can possibly qualify as "optimal nutrition" for a dog, precisely because in being turned into kibble the ingredients have been devalued. Denial of the facts isn't rebuttal it is only denial.

Here is another example that will help to illustrate the importance of feeding raw:

A cow's baby (calf) sustains its life completely by its mama's natural raw milk. Yet if that cow's milk is taken and pasteurized (heated) and then given to the calf ... the calf can no longer survive on that milk. In killing the bacteria in the milk, through pasteurization, the beneficial micro-flora in the natural milk is likewise destroyed to the extent that the calf can no longer subsist on the milk. _Well, what do you think happens to the micro-flora of the ingredients when they are turned into bone-dry kibble?_

The end result of even the best ingredients, when turned into "kibble," is that the food is de-valued. There is simply no way around this fact. If some of you have had bad experiences feeding raw then I would say you weren't feeding a proper raw diet. Unless a dog is defective in some major way, or unless the raw diet is poorly-chosen, a dog should *thrive* being fed raw when compared to being fed kibble. And their stools should be smaller and harder, and nearly odor-free, not runny.

Well, that's it for now. I hope what I have written makes sense.

Thanks for reading,

Jack


----------



## Chris Wild

No, but dumping the water on it solves the dehydration problem that you claimed was happening to kibble fed dogs.

Jack, a lot of what you're saying about quality of nutrition and bioavailability is true, but you're really preaching to the chior. If you spent more time on this forum getting to know it's members and the common trends of beliefs rather than trying to shove your opinions down everyone's throat you'd realize that most members would agree with you for the most part on this topic. Most members of this forum are familiar with raw feeding and have no problem with it and many follow it with their own dogs. I can't think of anyone offhand who is "anti" raw.

But that does not change the fact that some dogs do NOT do well on raw. Doesn't matter if it *should* be best for all dogs based on science and opinion, the fact is that reality doesn't work that way. Not all dogs do well on it, and not everyone can feed it even if they support it. It also does not change the fact that your insinuation that if all dogs were fed raw there would be no allergies and allergies are the fault of kibble diets is also incorrect.


----------



## Xeph

Exactly what Chris said. I think the Raw diet is great, and has great value....but the value of the diet is worthless if the dog being fed cannot tolerate it.

I have not missed your point. I just highly disagree that it is THE DIET for EVERY dog.


----------



## LisaT

cassadee7 said:


> Are food allergies genetic? All, or just some? If a pup from a breeding has allergies what are the odds of another pup from the same breeding having allergies also?


Allergies can also created during the weaning process - how and when various foods are introduced. Strombeck has a discussion about this in his book.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Chris Wild said:


> No, but dumping the water on it solves the dehydration problem that you claimed was happening to kibble fed dogs.


Actually, it doesn't. Feeding kibble every day _creates_ a dehydration problem every day. The dog then spends the entire day, drinking 10x as much as it would if fed raw, only to have to repeat the process again on the next feeding. So, really, what has "solved" the problem of perpetual dehydration in an owner who repeatedly creates it with each new day?

In fact, what intelligent person wants to create a dehydration problem for their dog every day ... when he or she can create a dehydration *solution* for their dog instead, by feeding raw, and thus putting their dog at a hydration equilibrium with each feeding, rather than a deficit?






Chris Wild said:


> Jack, a lot of what you're saying about quality of nutrition and bioavailability is true, but you're really preaching to the chior. If you spent more time on this forum getting to know it's members and the common trends of beliefs rather than trying to shove your opinions down everyone's throat you'd realize that most members would agree with you for the most part on this topic. Most members of this forum are familiar with raw feeding and have no problem with it and many follow it with their own dogs. I can't think of anyone offhand who is "anti" raw.


*Everything* I have said abount nutrition and bioavailablity is true. Not only does dumping water in a food bowl _not_ "solve" the dehydration problem, at all, it likewise doesn't solve the lost enzymes and devalued nutrition problem.

I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throats, Chris, I am just fielding and correcting many false statements and assumptions that some people have made, including yourself.






Chris Wild said:


> But that does not change the fact that some dogs do NOT do well on raw. Doesn't matter if it *should* be best for all dogs based on science and opinion, the fact is that reality doesn't work that way. Not all dogs do well on it,


I have fed hundreds of dogs raw, for a good many years, and have never seen a single specimen not do well on raw. I have heard other people claim this, however, but what I have usually found is that when any given dog didn't do well on raw, the dog in fact was being fed a substandard raw diet (e.g., "hamburger"). On the rare cases where the dog itself proved to be the problem (or so I was told), and was genetically unfit in some manner, then as a breeder trying to create superior animals I wouldn't want a dog like that. And, again, I have yet to see such a dog myself.

Still, even conceding the existence of such aberrant dogs, to my way of thinking (as with a pointer that can't point or a greyhound that can't run fast) any carnivore _that can't eat meat_ is just a defective animal. Why even discuss such an anomoly? The subject is *proper* nutrition for normal dogs, not how to handle an occasional defective freak. I mean, let's face it, any dog that can't eat meat is a defective animal, and the saying _"The exception doesn't disprove the rule"_ comes to mind.

Over 999 out of every 1,000 dogs are going to thrive when fed a *proper* raw diet, so getting a proper raw diet straight in one's feeding protocol is what needs to be discussed if we're going to keep our eye on the ball here.






Chris Wild said:


> and not everyone can feed it even if they support it.


Anyone _can_ feed raw ... it's simply a matter of _will_ they do it. Thus it boils down to a matter of will: does an owner _care enough_ to make the extra effort?






Chris Wild said:


> It also does not change the fact that your insinuation that if all dogs were fed raw there would be no allergies and allergies are the fault of kibble diets is also incorrect.


That is not "my insinuation," Chris, it is nothing but your own invention.

Please show me where I said "if all dogs were fed raw, there would be no allergies." Go on, Chris, show me where I said this. Inventing things I never said is not engaging in an intelligent discussion, it is merely creating a strawman to knock down (I guess to make yourself feel like you "contributed something"). Unfortunately, though, you haven't--and thus it is _your own_ insinuation which is incorrect.

What I actually said is that _most_ allergies and skin problems have their origin in an improper diet. That's what I said and insinuated. And most of them do. Not all, Chris, but most. And the reason for this is most people feed an improper diet--and most people do.

It is my view that any dog which suffers an immune breakdown when being fed something it was not designed to eat in the first place does *not* have a "genetic defect"; it has a defective owner. I am not trying to be harsh, I am simply stating a fact.

Watching people feed their dogs corns, wheats, glutens, etc. ... and/or feed their dogs food items that are nutritionally-devalued and totally lacking in life-giving water (which means kibbles) ... and then watching these people "wonder why" their dogs start breaking down after awhile ... is probably *the* most pandemic perpetual folly I have seen repeat itself time-and-again in the quarter-century I have been involved in raising dogs. So please forgive me if I get a little impatient on the subject.

What I am trying to communicate is there _really are_ principles of good nutrition, and it is our job as owners to learn them.

Good luck


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Xeph said:


> If they were bankrupt, my dog would clearly be, you know, dead.


Not so.

Go to any Dollar General market and you will watch people buy nutritionally-devalued white breads, bologna, etc. and feed this junk to their children. Neither these people nor their children "die" being fed this over-processed garbage ... at least not right away ... but they sure aren't as healthy and well-fed as they _could_ be ... IF they educated themselves on proper nutrition and IF they cared enough to make smarter food selection choices.

The truth is, nobody who's really educated on nutrition, and who really cares about themselves and their children, would buy or use this kind of junk food for their family.






Xeph said:


> Manufacturing processes have started adding those enzymes and minerals back into the high end kibbles. If I needed to, I could supplement (they're all over the market).


Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. It's just an afterthought effort to try to replace what we all know was lost, almost like monkeys trying to repair a Swiss watch that they broke. It is simply better, and less expensive, just to feed raw in the first place.






Xeph said:


> I will not deny they could not have the same nutrients as FRESH and RAW, but NEITHER thing does my dog any good if he vomits and craps out everything he just ate!


You will not deny?

In other words, *you admit* the truth of what I have been saying all along ... that key nutritional items are forever lost in the kibbling process ... but that you simply own a defective animal. It would have been less complicated had you just said this in the first place.

I am not sure what you're dog's problem is, nor what raw items that you tried feeding it, but essentially (if your dog does have some kind of genetic issue where it can't eat meat) this does not change the truth value of anything I have said as it applies to 99.99% of the canine population.

Good luck to your dog.


.


----------



## Xeph

That's right! My dog is defective because he can't eat raw *ROFLMAO* I'll still keep him anyway. My dog doesn't need luck. He's perfectly healthy ^_^

My dog's "genetic issue" is that he's a domesticated animal that comes from a line of other kibble fed animals 

He can eat meat...but not in large quantities and for every meal. And I'm ok with that. BTW he's eaten turkey, chicken, and beef (as well as the organs, and no not all the same meats at once). I'm totally ok with him not being able to consume raw, and he really couldn't give a crap xD

Thanks for "educating" me on my "defective dog"


----------



## LisaT

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> ....Over 999 out of every 1,000 dogs are going to thrive when fed a *proper* raw diet...


I think those statistics might be too high. The dogs here haven't been able to handle raw, and I know my friend's dogs can't tolerate raw. 

If the digestive chi is weak, raw is not a good option. We have changed dogs, and in this process, many cannot tolerate raw foods.




> What I actually said is that _most_ allergies and skin problems have their origin in an improper diet. That's what I said and insinuated.


Yet another gross generatlization. Vaccination place a much bigger role than you are giving it.


----------



## LisaT

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> I have fed hundreds of dogs raw, for a good many years, and have never seen a single specimen not do well on raw. I have heard other people claim this, however, but what I have usually found is that when any given dog didn't do well on raw, the dog in fact was being fed a substandard raw diet (e.g., "hamburger"). On the rare cases where the dog itself proved to be the problem (or so I was told), and was genetically unfit in some manner, then as a breeder trying to create superior animals I wouldn't want a dog like that. And, again, I have yet to see such a dog myself.


I would argue then that you probably weren't paying close enough attention.


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

LisaT said:


> I would argue then that you probably weren't paying close enough attention.


You can argue just to argue if you want, Lisa, but I pay attention to more important details than you with your limited knowledge are even aware of.

Look, I wish you and your doggie well. I really do.

But any carnivore that cannot tolerate meat is a defective animal ... same as any pointer who won't point is a defective animal.

The difference between a pet owner and a breeder of performance excellence is *standards*.

I personally wouldn't feed a retriever that wouldn't retrieve ... a pointer who wouldn't point ... a greyhound that wouldn't run ... or a carnivore that couldn't eat meat. As a spokesman for performance excellence, I don't have time to waste trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

But I also understand that (on a _personal_ level) any "defective animal" can be a loving friend, and can grow on you emotionally. There is nothing wrong with loving an animal unconditionally. There is nothing wrong with going the extra mile for an unfortunate dog who doesn't make the grade. They have feelings too and they can make great pets.

You just have to realize that, though defective dogs may be sweet and loving as individuals, they are NOT the dogs that should be used to *perpetuate performance excellence* within their breed type.

Jack



.


----------



## Lesley1905

I actually remember seeing some other post or thread where Jackie (Xeph) was stating how she was trying to make the raw diet work for her dog and it just wouldn't. I don't blame you Jackie, if it kept making my dog sick as well, I would stop it. I think it shows that you pay attention to your dog and you do the best you can with what you got!


----------



## TheLittleBlackBook

Lesley1905 said:


> I actually remember seeing some other post or thread where Jackie (Xeph) was stating how she was trying to make the raw diet work for her dog and it just wouldn't. I don't blame you Jackie, if it kept making my dog sick as well, I would stop it. I think it shows that you pay attention to your dog and you do the best you can with what you got!


 
Yet she still hasn't answered the direct question (posted twice previously) as to *what exactly* she was feeding her dog.

"Feeding raw" really means nothing.

What is it that you were feeding needs to be answered ...

Jack



.


----------



## Catu

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> I personally wouldn't feed a retriever that wouldn't retrieve ... a pointer who wouldn't point ... a greyhound that wouldn't run ... or a carnivore that couldn't eat meat. As a spokesman for performance excellence, I don't have time to waste trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
> 
> But I also understand that (on a _personal_ level) any "defective animal" can be a loving friend, and can grow on you emotionally. There is nothing wrong with loving an animal unconditionally. There is nothing wrong with going the extra mile for an unfortunate dog who doesn't make the grade. They have feelings too and they can make great pets.
> 
> You just have to realize that, though defective dogs may be sweet and loving as individuals, they are NOT the dogs that should be used to *perpetuate performance excellence* within their breed type.
> 
> Jack.


Jack, this time, you make perfect sense to me.


----------



## LisaT

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> I personally wouldn't feed a retriever that wouldn't retrieve ... a pointer who wouldn't point ... a greyhound that wouldn't run ... or a carnivore that couldn't eat meat. As a spokesman for performance excellence, I don't have time to waste trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..


This makes no sense...

You will not feed such a dog? What do you do with this dog? Force it to eat a diet that suits your dogma, or kill it?


----------



## Mrs.K

> Originally Posted by *cassadee7*
> _Are food allergies genetic? All, or just some? If a pup from a breeding has allergies what are the odds of another pup from the same breeding having allergies also?_


Well, according to the vet my boy is allergic to beef, chicken, pork and lamb. 

I'v tested every food I could find and to be honest, I belive it's the brands of food and the quality of food that causes allergy problems. 

I can feed him high quality food that contains any beef, chicken, pork and lamb without him having any problems. I can feed him raw chicken, pork and beef without him having any problems at all so I am kind of wondering how they diagnosed him with an allergy at all. 

However, if I feed him dog chow or hills, give him one week and he shows signs of allergy. Since he does perfectly well on raw food and high quality food I believe it's not the dog. It's the food itself that makes our dogs sick. 

So I wouldn't say that it's the dogs, or the breeding but rather the pet food industry that makes our dogs sick to gain more profit!

If a dog has true allergies, how comes he can eat raw chicken and beef without showing any signs of allergy at all?

As for dogs having real allergies and breeding. I am not sure if that is passed on, it wouldn't surprise me if it did...


----------



## Smithie86

From a human perspective, some allergies start from the get go. Som develop later in life, even on a food that you have ingested for years and numerous times before.

Genetic.


----------



## Catu

It is not the allergie to a given food what is passed through genetics (or only to a tiny extent not worth considering). What is genetic is the tendency to be allergic in general. What triggers later the alergic reaction in any moment of life is ambiental.


----------



## Catu

LisaT said:


> This makes no sense...
> 
> You will not feed such a dog? What do you do with this dog? Force it to eat a diet that suits your dogma, or kill it?


From a breeders perspective... put it in a pet home. It is not that the dog doesn't eat anymore, it's that you are not the one feeding it anymore.


----------



## Mrs.K

Might be true. However, how comes, and that is my question, that he can eat raw chicken, beef and pork without any problems at all but if I feed him Hills, he's got allergic reactions. 

If a dog is truly allergic he couldn't eat the raw food either or any kind of brand at all that contains any chicken, lamb, pork or beef. 

So in my dogs case I believe that it is indeed the food and not his genes.


----------



## Mrs.K

Catu said:


> From a breeders perspective... put it in a pet home. It is not that the dog doesn't eat anymore, it's that you are not the one feeding it anymore.


Very true. And it's pretty much what everybody is saying on here anyway. Only use good and worthy dogs for breeding.


----------



## Smithie86

Something in the Hills that is triggering it. Your vet mis-diagnosed.

My father is an allergist.....


----------



## Smithie86

Any updates?


----------



## LisaT

Catu said:


> From a breeders perspective... put it in a pet home. It is not that the dog doesn't eat anymore, it's that you are not the one feeding it anymore.


That's certainly a reasonable answer, but I would like to see LBB's answer to the question, since he is the one that made the original statement.


----------



## LisaT

Mrs.K said:


> Might be true. However, how comes, and that is my question, that he can eat raw chicken, beef and pork without any problems at all but if I feed him Hills, he's got allergic reactions.
> 
> If a dog is truly allergic he couldn't eat the raw food either or any kind of brand at all that contains any chicken, lamb, pork or beef.


That's no brainer. It's because kibbles are much more complicated than feeding "real food". Quality and purity of ingredients, unidentified ingredients, processing. 

It is not true that if they are allergic to raw, they are allergic to cooked, or vica versa. Allergenic proteins may not be stable and may change under cooking.




> So in my dogs case I believe that it is indeed the food and not his genes.


Too simplistic. They may be allergic to the food, but it could very well be the genes that predisposed him to the food. There are some that believe all food allergies are genetic. There are some that believe that the genetics may be dormant (bad wording), and vaccinations are the trigger.


----------



## Anja1Blue

I just caught up with this post and feel a little exhausted after reading it - I must not be eating enough fresh food! While what LBB has to say (and as a breeder of Pit Bulls that might explain his rather pugnacious sounding tone LOL) resounds with me - as I feed raw - I can also relate to others who simply can't, for whatever reason, go that route. I fed kibble for many years because I was in a job which required a lot of traveling, and DH ran his own business. Neither one of us had the time or inclination to be putting meals together for our dogs. I also believe that there ARE dogs which don't do well on a raw diet, whether physiological or because the owner isn't "doing it right" - whatever. It also isn't a cheap method of feeding, though buying in bulk helps. While I am inclined to agree that raw - or at least fresh, you can supplement kibble with fresh items - is the way to go, I don't condemn people who find it more convenient (or are seeing good results) with feeding their dogs an EXCELLENT dry food. Ol'Roy? No way - but you know what I mean. Each to his own......
____________________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge


----------



## Chicagocanine

TheLittleBlackBook said:


> People will feed their dogs "dry kibble" (which dogs are *not* designed to eat, in the first place), and to make things worse the main ingredients of the owner's chosen dry kibbled feed brand will be _corns_, _wheats_, _glutens_, _rice_, etc. (food items dogs are *not* designed to process either) ... and then the owners will scatch their heads and wonder "why" their dogs are itching/scratching/falling apart.


Bianca was fed raw as a puppy and any kibble she was fed later was high-quality, no corn/wheat etc... Yet she has food allergies. She's allergic to chicken (raw or cooked) and seems to be sensitive to turkey to a lesser extent.
I also have a cat who has been on high quality foods and no grains from the start (I've had him from 3 weeks old) and he has severe food allergies.


----------

