# Why Are People So Gullible about Dog Food?



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

I am by no means an expert on GSD's. I just have one with me until February that was a basket case before his diet was changed and he received some proper training.

I am amazed how many people get suckered by the new comers to the pet food market and the amount of misinformation about ingredients and nutrient levels.

Help me out with this.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

I refuse to feed my dog a corn based food.

I feed him TOTW and I rotate all 4 formulas and he loves it and we have never had any problems whatsoever. I am sure that he loves having variety between the 4 flavors and not just having the same thing everyday.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

If people can read labels and do research they wouldn't be so gullible.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

It's all marketing. Same reason people will spend almost 2 grand on a special Mac computer for a 16 year old kid that is just tinkering around on Facebook and Twitter.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

Liesje said:


> It's all marketing. Same reason people will spend almost 2 grand on a special Mac computer for a 16 year old kid that is just tinkering around on Facebook and Twitter.


I agree. 

Ok, I saw the first bit of misinformation about corn. I am not aware of a quality food that is corn-based. There is no mid-priced food or higher that is corn-based. Why is white potato better than corn assuming the meat content is acceptable? Why is rice better than corn?

Corn is only 6-8% protein, so it is impossible for it to be corn-based if the food is 26% or more total protein.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Raw and cooked foods have been around a whole heck of a lot longer than any kibble company, and are far from "new comers".

If you actually care to learn, pick up Stephanitz's book, read what these people were REALLY feeding their dogs back in the day.

It wasn't heavily processed kibbles with all kinds of preservatives and dyes and synthetic vitamin supplements, I can tell you that much for sure.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

atravis said:


> Raw and cooked foods have been around a whole heck of a lot longer than any kibble company, and are far from "new comers".
> 
> If you actually care to learn, pick up Stephanitz's book, read what these people were REALLY feeding their dogs back in the day.
> 
> It wasn't heavily processed kibbles with all kinds of preservatives and dyes and synthetic vitamin supplements, I can tell you that much for sure.


What quality mid-priced foods have preservatives and dyes? The vitamin supplements you speak of have done nothing but improve dog health. In my field, performance has done nothing but increase along with the quality of food. I can afford to feed anything I want but I have seen no positive difference in health or appearance in raw fed dogs. Quite the contrary actually. The only difference is that raw fed dogs might have slightly better teeth but I have seen raw fed dogs with really bad teeth as well.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

sable123 said:


> What quality mid-priced foods have preservatives and dyes? The vitamin supplements you speak of have done nothing but improve dog health.


Uh, lots of them? Chef Michael's and Beneful immediately come to mind. 

You don't think all that synthetic BS like Menadione is harming our dogs?

Why are YOU so gullible should be the real question here.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

:lurking:


opcorn:


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

sable123 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Ok, I saw the first bit of misinformation about corn. I am not aware of a quality food that is corn-based. There is no mid-priced food or higher that is corn-based. Why is white potato better than corn assuming the meat content is acceptable? Why is rice better than corn?
> 
> Corn is only 6-8% protein, so it is impossible for it to be corn-based if the food is 26% or more total protein.


My dogs eat a food with rice. For me it's more about the individual dogs. I've seen too many that are allergic to corn, soy, wheat, etc. and just do not do well on it. Also I look at who makes the food, where does it actually COME from. My GSDs all do best on "limited ingredient" diets with one protein and one carb. Right now they eat a lamb and rice. I will not even entertain feeding a kibble that contains corn, wheat, soy, gluten, or "by-product meal", nor a food that is "based" (assuming this is the highest content) on a grain/carb of any type. I'm OK with some rice, oatmeal, sweet potato....it really depends on how/where the food is made, what the Kcals and guaranteed analysis looks like, etc.

What tickles me is that I know people who pay MORE than I do for crappier food (based on ingredients, Kcals and guaranteed analysis). I don't expect every pet owner to be a nutrition expert but why pay more for LESS?!?


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

Liesje said:


> My dogs eat a food with rice. For me it's more about the individual dogs. I've seen too many that are allergic to corn, soy, wheat, etc. and just do not do well on it. Also I look at who makes the food, where does it actually COME from. My GSDs all do best on "limited ingredient" diets with one protein and one carb. Right now they eat a lamb and rice. I will not even entertain feeding a kibble that contains corn, wheat, soy, gluten, or "by-product meal", nor a food that is "based" (assuming this is the highest content) on a grain/carb of any type. I'm OK with some rice, oatmeal, sweet potato....it really depends on how/where the food is made, what the Kcals and guaranteed analysis looks like, etc.
> 
> What tickles me is that I know people who pay MORE than I do for crappier food (based on ingredients, Kcals and guaranteed analysis). I don't expect every pet owner to be a nutrition expert but why pay more for LESS?!?


Corn and rice have been show to be equal as far as allergies go, both very low. Wheat & soy are substandard ingredients in dog food but they are not common ingredients except at the very low end.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Well my dogs are not allergic to rice, so why would I feed them corn? None of the LID foods have corn...


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

Liesje said:


> Well my dogs are not allergic to rice, so why would I feed them corn? None of the LID foods have corn...


If your dog doesn't have confirmed allergies why would you spend more money on an LID. 

A mix of grains is probably best rice/corn etc. Corn has fatty acids the others don't and it is better than many grains when it comes to heat generation and especially insulin stability.

Corn also has more anti-cancer compounds than broccoli. 4 times the amount.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Come on sable, admit it.... we all know you love to feed your dogs orijen! Admit it!


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

What I don't understand is why YOU'RE so gullible on the benefits of corn?

I mean--hello--talk about uneccsary amounts of sugar?! Have you ever heard of high fructose corn syrup? Most of the viatmins in corn are lost when processed...and it's virtually undigestable when unprocessed. So what's the point of it?

Out of wheat, rice, and corn corn has the lowest protein and calcium levels.

In all your posts you seem to rant about people being idiots because "corn is better than wheat." Yet I have yet to see anyone recommending wheat in dog food??

Is corn the worst thing you could feed your dog? No. But there is no point.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

sable123 said:


> If your dog doesn't have confirmed allergies why would you spend more money on an LID.


Uh, LID diets aren't more expensive as a whole, sorry. And why feed it when you don't have a confirmed allergy? That's an assinine statement. Dog's poops are better. Dog's coat is better. Dog's itchies are better. Really the list can go on and on.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Sable123, this is an old debate and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. In this case the pudding usually isn't so great. Those of us who have had gsds for 20+ years have learned the hard way about dog food ingredients and dog food manufacturing processes. We figured out there was a problem because our dogs got really sick. 

Corn might look good in studies (and I'd check and see who is funding those studies) but in actuality it's very hard to digest so dogs (and humans) really don't get the benefits from all those great things that are supposedly in there. It certainly can help put weight on but that's not the kind of weight I want on my athletic dog! In reality, corn is a very cheap filler and that's why it's overused in dog food (and people food). 

If you're interested in marketing and corn products and the corn industry check out the excellent documentary, "King Corn." There are also some great books out there to read on the subject of food and the food industry in general, as well as some good ones on the dog food industry.


----------



## Lesley1905 (Aug 25, 2010)

McDonalds vs a well rounded meal? I personally would take the well rounded meal for myself and my dogs! That's how I look at it


----------



## GSD Fan (Sep 20, 2010)

I have this book, it was published in the 1970's so you can easily argue that it's outdated.

In the book, it talks about a raw diet for dogs and in it the author mentions that dogs aren't meat only eaters. When wolves eat deer and rabbits, they eat everything, including what's in the stomach. Deer and rabbits eat grass and plants. 

The point I would like to make is, I'm open to dogs eating plants and having plants in their food. I agree with the author.

Now, another thing the author talked about was dogs are not cows. I just can't remember what the author said about feeding dogs like cows. 

It also doesn't help that Purina has good commercials and you hardly see an Orijen, Wellness, or Innova commercial. Blue Buffalo, yes.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

sable123 said:


> In my field, performance has done nothing but increase along with the quality of food.


What is your field? Do you work for a dog food company?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that the crappier foods that had corn in them that people have tried and had bad luck with, also had ingredients like meat and bone meal, animal fat, molassis, and other things that might appeal to the human eye, but have no place in the dogs. 

So I think corn has actually gotten a bad rap. 

If you have a problem with your food and you look at the first few ingredients and corn is one of them, shazaam! it is that evil corn. 

And it may be. 

Companies using meat and bone meal, and animal fat, are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to purchasing corn too. Diamond had all those dogs die from aflotoxin, which comes from moldy corn/grain. 

It _is_ all marketing though. Foods say organic, but there is no real standards to say what organic actually MEANS in dog food. They say human-grade ingredients. Hmmm, that doesn't really exist either. But it SOUNDS good to us suckers out there that love our dogs. 

I feed my dogs food that has one major grain source and that is cornmeal. It is low in protein, LOW in sugar, and the manufacturer does not split it up in fragments, like corn meal, corn flour, corn dust, corn gluten meal, whole grain corn, molassis. 

I had my group on Canidae which was a five star food with no corn or wheat in it. They changed the formula and my dogs got sick. some of my dogs really never recovered, but I kept on feeding it to them, thinking that it must be good, it has five stars. The first ingredient is chicken meal, then there is turkey meal, etc. They have to be listed in weight order.

CM 10%, TM 10%, Brown rice 10%, White rice, 10%, Rice Bran 10%, Rice flour 10%, Oatmeal 10%, Millet 10%, Peas 10% -- we do NOT KNOW the percentages, but just because they are in order, does not mean that the meat in the front is more than the crap lined up behind it. 

My food starts with cornmeal, and then chicken meal. It has other meat sources it has other ingredients. It costs 50 dollars delivered for a 35 pound bag. 

The thing is, that on the five star food my dogs became severely underweight and had multiple bouts of colitis. Since switching about 15 months ago, coats are good, no itchies, no colitis attacks, and my girls have gained weight and kept it on. Whit went from 53 pounds to 60 pounds, weighed yesterday. She is lean, and could still use about two pounds, but I am not arguing. Tori went from 56 to 63.5 pounds as of the day before yesterday. She is trim, and at the low end of her ideal weight range according the vet. 

What is more, is that two subcatious cysts that were there last year, one on her side and one on her tail are now GONE. I did nothing to make them be gone. The change in food may have contributed. The vet was very pleased with her coat. 

All three litter mates came away from their exams in great shape. Better than the five star food. The food without corn in it. 

Ingredient lists give you only part of the story. They cannot tell you the quality of the ingredients and they really do not tell you quantity either. 

Go with what works for you and your dogs. And try not to let the marketing get in the way. Don't do what I did and trust that it must be something else because the dog food review and whole dog journal five Canidae a green flag. 

I told the lady at kumpi, that I did not care if the food had bi products in it or corn in it or whatever in it, if it put the weight on my girls and made them feel better, than I was going with it. I went the high route. I tried grain free too. 

I also have ten of my own dogs on the food and my parents' dog on the food. All of them eat it and are thriving on it. None are allergic to it, or are failing to thrive on it. 

And the two puppies, Beansy and Dolly, they were raised on it and are at a great weight, full of energy, and they look good. I do have a hot spot on Beansy, but I am not sure of the cause of it. It seems like I have been pretty fortunate there too though with as many dogs as I have that this is my first experience.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> I can afford to feed anything I want but I have seen no positive difference in health or appearance in raw fed dogs.


Let me first point out that I do not currently raw feed because the amount of different ingredients I can get where I live are somewhat limited and a raw diet is all about variety. 

However, I did raw feed in the past and I can honestly say that if you have seen "no positive difference" in the health or appearance of raw fed dogs, then the raw fed dogs you have met are either being fed wrong (the raw diet does require a lot of research and commitment to do properly) or you have not met a lot of raw fed dogs.

I did feed my German Shepherd raw when I lived in Virginia and had access to a greater variety of ingredients. Not only did she have nicer teeth on raw, she was much less itchy and did not lose all her ear fur during the winter like she did on kibble. Her skin and coat improved, her poops were smaller and more solid. She put on a couple of pounds because she actually enjoyed her food. In terms of her health and appearance, there was a clear, tangible difference between being fed kibble and being fed raw.

Lauri and the Gang on this forum have a website on raw feeding, the Raw Dog Ranch - We are currently upgrading the Raw Dog Ranch website - which is currently undergoing renovations. If memory serves, she has/had a dog suffering from epilepsy who stopped suffering from seizures all together once the dog was placed on a balanced raw diet. I would call that a positive difference.

Those are just two examples but the raw feeding section on this board is full of information from people who switched to a raw diet and whose dogs are not just doing okay on it but thriving.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I had a dog who spent 7 days at a university vet hospital in an attempt to find out the reason for his inappetance and basic failure to thrive. After I took him into my home, I tried many foods in an attempt to improve him. I cooked his meals also. He was the dog who forced me into the world of raw feeding. 

We never knew what the problem was. Nothing showed up after a great deal of testing. Once he got on the raw diet, he became a different dog. His appetite was enormous. He so flourished that he was unrecongizable to those who knew him before.

I was not an advocate of raw then. I didn't want to feed it particularly. But, that dog was one where seeing was certainly believing. Dogs I have fed raw subsequently, did improve in body condition and energy. But, not so dramatic as the first dog.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

There are vets and chiropractors that recommend even partial raw and no corn or wheat for working dogs, due to negative impact to inflammation.

And bloat studies support a higher protein/low carb diet, as well as RAW in preventing Bloat.

Abbyk9 is correct. Many people do not feed the correct way on RAW, but state they are feeding RAW.

Even on partial, there is a huge difference we see in coat, muscle tone, teeth, stools, etc. And we work our dogs, clean there kennels. etc. So we know.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

while i only feed raw on a part time basis, i have to say virtually every dog ive ever met eating a properly balanced raw diet were the picture of vibrant health.

the dirty truth is that the entities that have the money to spend on "research" have no interest in spending money to prove properly executed raw diets are the most appropriate means of feeding dogs. that would never serve their purposes.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I have nothing against raw (even raw diets that contain no grains or veggies). I currently feed a kibble because I'm not paying a thing for dog food and can't do that with raw (I "trade" a service for dog supplies). If anything, my dogs are healthier than the raw fed dogs I know because many people I know that switched did it FOR health reasons. Dog had diarrhea, dog was itching, dog is super picky, dog too skinny, dog too fat, dog has allergies, etc, etc, etc. None of my dogs have allergies, digestive problems, or even any real sensitivities. They have clean ears and eyes, they don't smell, they are extremely fit and athletic, and they have healthy, strong, shiny coats. I've never taken a dog to the vet for something major other than something that was a human accident (ie, we've gone to the vet when the dog got hold of a human prescription, but have never had cancers or other illnesses that needed diagnosis and treatment). Also when my dogs are getting the right amount of food their poops are small and hard and they turn white and disintegrate on their own within a day which I'm told is like a "raw poop". Right now I don't use any medications, supplements, or toppers other than some fish oil you pump on the dogs' food that I got a few weeks ago (given to me by a friend). I have a 7 year old dog that's never had a dental and was told there's no reason she needs one. We have some old bones lying around (that a raw feeder gives me) and some other chews for teeth. All my dogs love to chew so I don't need to coax them into chewing to keep their teeth clean (they will chew a Kong or Nylabone, doesn't have to be a raw bone). I've seen some before/after pics of raw switches and honestly didn't really notice a difference in the dogs' appearances other than maybe being leaner on raw (probably being overfed kibble, or fed a low quality kibble to begin with). Many of the raw fed dogs I know look worse than mine but like I said, most switched to raw because of a health concern.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lies, what are you feeding?


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

We started feeding RAW after talking to Lisa C, seeing her dogs at trials, reading extensively, etc.

No issue with anything here. No disgestive, allergies, issue etc, Just wanted to get better results naturally, rather than major supplementation.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> Lies, what are you feeding?


I have been feeding the Annamaet kibbles since they came in brown paper bags, generally Ultra. I have several on the new GF's and they seem excellent. No one can tell me that they can put together a food as good as that walking around the grocery store picking up things on sale. Time tested, proven throughout the world on sled dogs, tested on his own kennel first and made by a true expert. 

I have seen my fair share of raw fed dogs and while it can be done properly it isn't generally. Even if it is, there is nothing I have seen in 30 years and 20 breedings to suggest it is better. I think people get so caught up in that they can't be objective.

I always weened on to Pro Pac because of the value and quality and that it was easy to get and afford.

Anyway Ho Ho Ho


----------



## adamdude04 (Apr 15, 2010)

Who are y'all to judge??

Lol

Okay, so I should feed my pup premium food that I cook and have to grocery shop for..

Unless you're a total health nut, think about that fast food you ate last night, or the soda you're drinking now before you judge on kibble for pets..

Granted, I care about my pets. But if I survive off fast food, soda, cupcakes, and such.. Why can't my pup have kibble??

Granted.. Some kibble better than others.. Like the $1 chinese restaurant vs panda express...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Thanks, that is interesting, I have never heard of the stuff, doesn't make it bad though.

Let me rephrase my question, Liesje, what are you feeding?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The fast food crap has to at least meet some criteria to be able to be sold to people to eat. 

Dog food has very little restrictions or guidlines on cooking, storage, ingredients, etc. 

My dog has NEVER gotten sick off of a mcdonald's hamburger, but she has off of a five star premium kibble. 

i have on occasion given my girls raw chicken. I might skip one meal in thirteen and give them a pound of chicken with bone instead. But I do not raw feed as a rule as I have not done the research to do it right. And I do not think it should be necessary.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I feed raw, and am very happy with the coat, skin and muscle tone of my dogs. One of my dogs has environmental allergies and I think the raw diet along with the supplements she gets helps her more than if she was on a good kibble. She still has chronic ear issues however.
I just don't like all the additives that most all kibble has, along with preservatives.
I know that grocery store meat has its share of additives and I don't feed organic but do the best I can do for my pack.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Sue, I currently use California Natural "limited ingredient" diets. One carb, one protein, not all the crappy additives and junk. Fair price. I also used Fromm recently b/c Pan was on that and all the dogs liked and did well on that but the poops were more like "kibble poops".

Before Cal Nat I used Canidae and Nature's Variety Prairie.

I don't use any supplements or toppers other than fish oil (pumped on, not pills). However we do give some table scraps or old/stale food that is not spoiled. I thawed more chicken breast than I needed and doled out raw chicken. A few weeks ago I ran out of dog food so I gave them some stale cereal, extra canned green beans, and some leftover meat. So I guess they do get a bit of variety but I'm not sitting here counting pills and weighing out meat and bones. I figure it all balances out in the end!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have used the prairie. And I think everyone in the universe knows about my canidae experience. haven't tried california naturals, Did they get eaten up by some bigger company recently, part of the EVO, Innova thing? Or am I wrong about that?

I have heard good stuff about Fromm, but have not tried it.

Will give my lot chicken if I run out of dog food. Dog food came in today, which is great because I had enough to last until Tuesday, and with the holiday, well, you never know. Anyhow, I have about seven 35 pound bags now, and that will last about 21 days.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes they did get bought out by my source is a distributor and stays in the know (she is even more particular about dog food than I), she will not sell it and I will not buy it if they make ANY changes to the formula or how it is produced. I like the Cal Nat and the Fromm because it is made here in the US, we have better knowledge about what goes into it and the process that happens in the factory. If they do change anything I'll be switching to Fromm or Wysong (produced in the US).


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> Thanks, that is interesting, I have never heard of the stuff, doesn't make it bad though.
> 
> Let me rephrase my question, Liesje, what are you feeding?


Annamaet? It was originally developed out of the Beagle endurance studies at University of Penn Vet School by Robert Downey and Dr. David Kronfeld. Downey who is a champion sled dog racer and Chairman of ISDRA actually started selling it in the 1980's. Ultra, which has been updated several times since, probably was the first 30/20 style performance kibble. Ironically, it is easier to buy in Alaska and Norway than in some parts of Pennsylvania, where the company is based. It is made by the same co-packer that makes Canine Caviar, Ohio Pet Foods. First class plant.

Many competitive dog owners know the performance supplements because they are best of breed. Impact is often used by rescue organizations and is a popular post-op food because it is so rich.

Several vet's near me use the allergy formula Option because it actually works. Catfish is the primary protein.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> The fast food crap has to at least meet some criteria to be able to be sold to people to eat.
> 
> Dog food has very little restrictions or guidlines on cooking, storage, ingredients, etc.
> 
> ...


That is not true if you buy a food made in an EU Certified plant. There are very strict restrictions for that certification. Some states like California have pet food handling rules that are similar to human food.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

sable123 said:


> That is not true if you buy a food made in an EU Certified plant. There are very strict restrictions for that certification. .


 
true. Orijen, as an example, is EU certified and is the only kibble ive use where i didnt notice some subtle differences from feeding straight raw (correctly) for 6 months.


----------



## eddie1976E (Nov 7, 2010)

roxy84 said:


> true. Orijen, as an example, is EU certified and is the only kibble ive use where i didnt notice some subtle differences from feeding straight raw (correctly) for 6 months.


Roxy, that is good to know. I have always wanted to feed raw, but there is alot of work involved in that, and I don't feel like I would stick with it. I switched to orijen and she is doing great on it so far. I think since orijen is made in Canada and their version of the FDA has more strict rules/control over dog food manufacturers, it is a better/healthier food.


----------



## cassadee7 (Nov 26, 2009)

I am enjoying the information on this thread, but it has been kind of frustrating for me (and others) to try and figure out the old "which foods are best" question. No one can agree.

I do wish there was a list somewhere of foods that don't have any preservatives/junk/stuff people want to avoid like "meal" and "by products" maybe corn... 

I have read the websites that rate dog foods but short of scouring bags for ingredients I am trying to avoid, I still don't have what I'd like, which is a list of "good quality foods" to choose from. I guess that's because people have different opinions about what is "good quality."

So far I get that Orijen is a great, grain free food, and that Wellness is good (all varieties? or just the grain free? I dunno). Lots of people on here recommend the Kirkland brand kibble and the 4Health as well as TOTW, but I am not sure how any of these stack up against each other in reality. Guess it is time for me to keep doing my research


----------



## schroedes (Sep 10, 2010)

orijen has been great for my 6 mo old as well. his fur is like a fur coat and and he loves the taste of their new 80/20 formula. after all the research and going from BB to wellness and finally settling on orijen i am very happy with it. it is worth the extra 10-15 bucks. i believe in variety just like any animal should have so i give otto orijen plus some premium can food here and there as well as boiled eggs, apples, cranraisens, steak,chicken etc. and he is thriving on it. i think it all has to do with variety and low carbs, just log at their digestive track, they arent physiologically built to digest corn etc. dogs will eat anything and its a shame to walk around and see so many fat dogs as well as people and its proof positive of what our industrial diet has done to us and now our pets.


----------



## schroedes (Sep 10, 2010)

i just think if you take the responsibility of owning a dog you should do what you can to feed them as good as possible. i weight train often and watch my diet to build muscle, and the best way to do that is eating quality protien such as eggs steak etc, fruits and veggies, and low carbs, not preservatives,synthetic vitamins, grains, or sugars. the same should apply to a dog.


----------



## schroedes (Sep 10, 2010)

if sable wants to feed her dog corn ingredients,great, let her. but i highly doubt you would ever see any wild dogs ravaging a corn field and it has no benefit to them. just like eating their own poop, it has no benefit but you dont need to let them do it.


----------



## phgsd (Jun 6, 2004)

This was just posted on a raw feeding list I'm on...
Effect of dietary protein on calpastatin in canine skeletal muscle -- Helman et al. 81 (9): 2199 -- Journal of Animal Science

"Dogs fed a higher percentage of total protein derived from corn gluten meal were less able to maintain muscle than those fed similar diets containing chicken protein."

According to this study, meat vs. vegetable protein made a difference in muscle mass. Many who switch to raw say their dogs look more muscular and fitter, and there is data to back it up (even though the data came from Iams...yuck!).


----------



## adamdude04 (Apr 15, 2010)

schroedes said:


> i just think if you take the responsibility of owning a dog you should do what you can to feed them as good as possible. i weight train often and watch my diet to build muscle, and the best way to do that is eating quality protien such as eggs steak etc, fruits and veggies, and low carbs, not preservatives,synthetic vitamins, grains, or sugars. the same should apply to a dog.


..I see.


----------



## schroedes (Sep 10, 2010)

phgsd said:


> This was just posted on a raw feeding list I'm on...
> Effect of dietary protein on calpastatin in canine skeletal muscle -- Helman et al. 81 (9): 2199 -- Journal of Animal Science
> 
> "Dogs fed a higher percentage of total protein derived from corn gluten meal were less able to maintain muscle than those fed similar diets containing chicken protein."
> ...


 exactly, alot of people think all protien is created equal. its not, you have to base it on the digestibility and how much of the amino acids in it your body can actually metabolize. when you go by that whey protien, which is derived from milk, and whole eggs blow away the competition. but lean fish, chicken, beef and other red meats do very well also. vegetable protiens rate quite low on the scale compared to these. so why give your dog corn etc when there are much better sources.


----------



## schroedes (Sep 10, 2010)

seems to me that sable just likes starting debates. no offense, but just because you wana feed your dogs a corn diet or whatever doesnt mean you need to try to convince the rest of us to do so


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

cassadee7 said:


> I am enjoying the information on this thread, but it has been kind of frustrating for me (and others) to try and figure out the old "which foods are best" question. No one can agree.
> 
> I do wish there was a list somewhere of foods that don't have any preservatives/junk/stuff people want to avoid like "meal" and "by products" maybe corn...
> 
> ...


You're right, it's all subjective. I can only tell you how *I* shop for dog food. These are my criteria, in order (so it has to pass the first one to move on down the line):

1. NO corn, wheat, soy, gluten, or by-product meal.
2. The carb source must not be the first ingredient listed, it must be a meat.
3. Must be a brand/company that has a good reputation as far as their manufacturing/production (whatever the right word is) of the food, like a company that is US-based and manufactures IN the US.
4. Must be an "all life stages" type diet as I feel they are more balanced and I have dogs of various ages but all eat the same. I do not like using "puppy" formulas.
5. Limited ingredient diets are preferred (one carb, one protein source per formula)
6. Minimal additives and preservatives. I realize as a kibble it probably cannot be 100% additive free but there are lines/formulas known to contain a lot less than most.

Now whether I continue using a food that has made the cut above depends on....

1. Poop - dogs must have small, firm, formed stools, not runny poop or diarrhea, not excess poop or really stinky nasty poop.
2. Amount - the dogs don't need to consume huge amounts to be healthy and feel "full". On the kibble I currently use my adults eat 2-2.5 cups a day and maintain healthy weight (the younger dogs/puppies eat more until they mature and taper off). Considering it's a better quality food for less price than some of the Science Diet and Eukanuba formulas and my dogs are only eating 2 cups a day, that's a financial plus for me.
3. Palatable - the dogs LIKE it and want to eat it, they eat their meals right away (don't leave food out) and will track for kibble or take it as training treats if nothing else is available.


----------



## cassadee7 (Nov 26, 2009)

Liesje said:


> You're right, it's all subjective. I can only tell you how *I* shop for dog food. These are my criteria, in order (so it has to pass the first one to move on down the line):
> 
> 1. NO corn, wheat, soy, gluten, or by-product meal.
> 2. The carb source must not be the first ingredient listed, it must be a meat.
> ...


Thank you Lies, your thought process is very helpful!


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Here is a good, comprehensive article on carbohydrates and dog food: Carbs Contribute the Bulk of Your Dog's Kibble (Even Many Grain-Free Foods) - Whole Dog Journal Article


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Corn and corn meal are not corn gluten meal. 

Corn gluten meal is injected in lower quality foods like Nutro and Royal Canine and many others, because it adheres the kibble, but it also boosts the protein levels of the food, so it appears that it will be a good food for your dog. But in fact it is junk. 

Yes I stay away from corn gluten meal and rice protein concentrate. 

The cornmeal in the food I use have very little protein. Somthing like 93% or the protein in the food I use is from animal sources. 

So I agree and disaggree. where the protein comes from matters. Corn and cornmeal are not necessarily bad.


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

BowWowMeow said:


> Here is a good, comprehensive article on carbohydrates and dog food: Carbs Contribute the Bulk of Your Dog's Kibble (Even Many Grain-Free Foods) - Whole Dog Journal Article


Very good article. Thank you. And this is an interesting thread. The common idea is that we all want to do what is the very best for our individual dogs. We may have different ideas, but we monitor our dogs, and make changes when it is needed. I've gotten on the low charb kick myself. Cues eats Core reduced fat, and Ruger eats Core Ocean. Both are in great condition. The fact that we are so concerned with the diets of our fur kids speaks volumes of the members of this forum. I have unfoutunately become the resident "dog expert" at work. It is unbelievable how uneducated the general public is regarding training and feeding their house (yard) pets. Spend an hour researching your dogs needs on the internet, instead of wasting it on facebook, right. Most people either buy the cheapest food availble for their beloved pet or they are sucked into the ads on TV for the crappiest food for their beloved pet ( who is usually wandering the neighborhood). As far as dog food goes, there is no black and white. When I was a kid, we had a GSD with food allergies. He had severe HD as a 6 month old. He ate nothing but Alpo beef and Special K cereal on vet recommedations ( 1960s). He lived a good life until he was 15. Tons of dogs do great on Dog Chow. But then, tons of people in other parts of the world do OK on eating bugs. Bottom line is that be it raw, low carb or moderate carb, none of OUR dogs are suffering. Try to help those that don't have the passion for their dogs that we do.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

selzer said:


> Corn and corn meal are not corn gluten meal.
> 
> Corn gluten meal is injected in lower quality foods like Nutro and Royal Canine and many others, because it adheres the kibble, but it also boosts the protein levels of the food, so it appears that it will be a good food for your dog. But in fact it is junk.
> 
> ...


Yep Corn Gluten Meal, Wheat Gluten Meal (any Gluten) - protein booster (cheaper than meat)

But also don't forget Potato Proteins, Pea Proteins - all new things found in some of the newer brands or Limited Ingredient Diets or grain free diets to boost protein levels. Again - cheaper than meat.

Some grains like Sorghum do offer a good level of protein too. Corn or Cornmeal is a lower level of protein when used in conjunction with primarily animal based proteins. So the formula as a whole would need to be taken in consideration.

I remember Iams once had on their website that about 80% of the protein came from chicken or egg - so the rest must have come from the grains or fishmeal?

Dog food - so much fun! LOL


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

BowWowMeow said:


> Here is a good, comprehensive article on carbohydrates and dog food: Carbs Contribute the Bulk of Your Dog's Kibble (Even Many Grain-Free Foods) - Whole Dog Journal Article


Very interesting article and a non-biased approach to carbs in dog food - thanks for sharing!


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

selzer said:


> I had my group on Canidae which was a five star food with no corn or wheat in it. They changed the formula and my dogs got sick. some of my dogs really never recovered, but I kept on feeding it to them, thinking that it must be good, it has five stars. The first ingredient is chicken meal, then there is turkey meal, etc. They have to be listed in weight order.
> 
> CM 10%, TM 10%, Brown rice 10%, White rice, 10%, Rice Bran 10%, Rice flour 10%, Oatmeal 10%, Millet 10%, Peas 10% -- we do NOT KNOW the percentages, but just because they are in order, does not mean that the meat in the front is more than the crap lined up behind it.
> 
> My food starts with cornmeal, and then chicken meal. It has other meat sources it has other ingredients. It costs 50 dollars delivered for a 35 pound bag.



I agree the weighted order - fun game to play!

I did notice that in the Kumpi it used to be Corn Meal, Meat & Bone Meal, Chicken Meal, Chicken Fat. So using % you might think there is more chicken meal and meat and bone meal over corn meal?

Yes?

Yet, when they stopped using meat and bone meal and added more chicken meal, somehow chicken meal was still after corn meal. So I wonder, was there more cornmeal than those two meat sources combined in the first formulation of Kumpi? 

*Here were the ingredients back then*

Corn Meal, Meat & Bone Meal, Chicken Meal, Chicken Fat 

*and today*

Corn Meal, Chicken Meal, Chicken Fat

Don't get me wrong - it is working for you so not slamming it. Just the whole ingredient game (since we don't know the % of any maker's food) is really just a guessing game to me. *Corn Meal is always first here so even when Meat & Bone Meal was taken out, the added Chicken Meal didn't over take it as the heaviest ingredient before cooking.* So again, does that mean that the Corn Meal was also heavier than both meat sources originally and thus "more" in the food? And does heavier really mean you get better ingredients? I don't know. As long as the nutrient profile looks good and works for you.

And here is what Kumpi does have as a profile if you wanted to compare to other brands

http://www.kumpi.com/nutrients_adult.pdf


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> I agree the weighted order - fun game to play!
> 
> I did notice that in the Kumpi it used to be Corn Meal, Meat & Bone Meal, Chicken Meal, Chicken Fat. So using % you might think there is more chicken meal and meat and bone meal over corn meal?
> 
> ...


Kumpi has 6 sources of meat protein. Separately, these meat sources are lighter than cornmeal, which is a heavy ingredient. The cornmeal used is not like the Quaker cornmeal you use to make cornbread. It is simply the whole grain ground very fine. Corn has 6-8% protein while the meat meals and the others about 65%-70% protein.

This is moderate protein food so it doesn't surprise me to see Corn Meal where it is on the list.

People seem happy when meat (with the water is number 1) but did you realize that if that meat was 30% of the total weight it would only contribute 3% of the total protein? Useless expense.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

Interesting discussion. 

Havoc's derm vet who treats his allergies told me recent studies do not indicate that corn is any more likely to cause allergy problems than any other ingredient in dog food.

Now I don't feed corn and I don't plan too but I found that interesting news. 

That does not mean that corn is great for dogs, it is still hard to digest and does not seem to have really great benefits but that is different than allergies.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Here is a study on fecal scores of rice, sorghum and corn 

The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods ? J. Nutr.

"The rice diet caused a higher mean fecal score compared to that of the sorghum and corn diets, indicating that the feces of the dogs in the rice group were looser.....

The fecal starch digestibility was not different among treatment groups (P > 0.05), with each diet having 100% fecal starch digestibility (Table 2). This indicates that the extrusion process used in the manufacture of the diets gelatinized the starch in the sorghum and corn diets and made it readily digestible (3). The fecal protein and gross energy digestibility coefficients were different for each treatment group (P < 0.01). The fecal protein and gross energy digestibility coefficients were highest with the rice diet, followed by the sorghum and corn diets, suggesting that the rice diet was the most digestible (1). The higher gross energy digestibility of the rice diet resulted in the increased digestible energy content of the rice diet compared to that of the corn and sorghum diets (P < 0.001). The fat digestibility of the rice diet was also greater than that of the corn and sorghum diets (P < 0.01) (Table 2).

The nutrient digestibilities of the corn and sorghum diets were lower compared with that of the rice diet. However, the nutrient digestibilities of each diet were above the average digestibility values for commercial dog foods (6). The fecal score results did not reflect the nutrient digestibilities, with the corn and sorghum diets causing firmer feces, although the dogs on each diet all had ideal fecal quality. Because fecal quality is one of the most important factors by which dog owners judge the quality of a dog food, and the nutrient digestibility results were above the accepted industry standard, extruded sorghum and corn are good alternatives to rice as the primary cereal grain in dog foods."


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

Kayos and Havoc said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> Havoc's derm vet who treats his allergies told me recent studies do not indicate that corn is any more likely to cause allergy problems than any other ingredient in dog food.
> 
> ...


Corn is about as likely to cause an allergy as white rice, both of which are far lower than beef, eggs, chicken, wheat & soy. Far lower meaning almost never.

Corn is not hard to digest. Corn is no harder to digest than rice. Both have to be cooked though. Corn has enormous benefits for dogs compared to other starches. Slow burn, stable insulin response, more cancer fighting compounds than broccoli (Cornell Study), fat for skin & coat and fiber. 

I don't know where the hard to digest myth comes from. It is far from the truth. Maybe people think ground corn is just added to the food without being gelatinized like when you make Polenta.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

sable123 said:


> People seem happy when meat (with the water is number .


i would say most of the people on this board wont consider a food with only a named meat first and no named meat meal before any non meat ingredients. i would agree the general pet food shopping public would assume that type of labelling looks good.

the exception seems to be LID's like Natural balance. unfortunately, i think the choices for LID's are rather poor.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

roxy84 said:


> i would say most of the people on this board wont consider a food with only a named meat first and no named meat meal before any non meat ingredients. i would agree the general pet food shopping public would assume that type of labelling looks good.
> 
> the exception seems to be LID's like Natural balance. unfortunately, i think the choices for LID's are rather poor.


That is true, but people get suckered into spending a lot more on foods with meat first. It is totally a waste of money. In the end, after processing, that meat you just spent good money on is just meal anyway.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> Here is a study on fecal scores of rice, sorghum and corn
> 
> The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods ? J. Nutr.
> 
> ...


Proof of what I said.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

sable123 said:


> Corn is about as likely to cause an allergy as white rice....


umm, that's actually not true. Due to the use of GMO corn, particularly in feed animals, it increases the odds of a corn allergy. 

Corn, as we eat it today, is not a greater cancer fighter than broccoli - the entire food has to be taken into context. It might have a high amount of one good thing in it, but as a whole, looking at the fatty acid content, and yes, the sugar/starch content, broccoli is a super food, corn is not. Your arguments are examples where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

LisaT said:


> umm, that's actually not true. Due to the use of GMO corn, particularly in feed animals, it increases the odds of a corn allergy.
> 
> Corn, as we eat it today, is not a greater cancer fighter than broccoli - the entire food has to be taken into context. It might have a high amount of one good thing in it, but as a whole, looking at the fatty acid content, and yes, the sugar/starch content, broccoli is a super food, corn is not. Your arguments are examples where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.


*You are 110% incorrect. *


"Research reported at the 2004 American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR)
International Conference on Food, Nutrition and Cancer, by Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.
D., and his colleagues at Cornell University shows that whole grains, such as corn,
contain many powerful phytonutrients whose activity has gone unrecognized
because common research methods have overlooked them. Dr. Liu’s team
measured the antioxidant activity of various foods, assigning each a rating based
on a formula. Broccoli measured 80, Spinach 81, Apples 98, Bananas 65, but Corn
topped them all measuring a whopping 181"

As for GMO varieties, it does not matter. The research at Penn & Cornell confirmed that corn is no more likely to cause an allergic reaction than rice. Animal proteins cause allergies, not grains with the exception of wheat gluten.


By the way, any food with corn from an EU Certified facility is not allowed to use GMO corn.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

LisaT said:


> umm, that's actually not true. Due to the use of GMO corn, particularly in feed animals, it increases the odds of a corn allergy.
> 
> Corn, as we eat it today, is not a greater cancer fighter than broccoli - the entire food has to be taken into context. It might have a high amount of one good thing in it, but as a whole, looking at the fatty acid content, and yes, the sugar/starch content, broccoli is a super food, corn is not. Your arguments are examples where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.


How many dogs do you have? How many litters have you whelped?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

What does how many dogs you own/how many litters you've whelped have to do with nutritional information? How is that relevant? You can only be an expert if you own 50 dogs and have whelped litters?

And how does an EU certified manufacturing facility have relevance in the U.S.? Are most animal food facilities certified for the EU?

And, exactly what is your experience in animal food manufacturing? You've mentioned before that you have xx many years experience. It would be nice to know in what capacity you've worked. 

How do you access the Cornell/Penn studies that you reference? Are these studies ones that you have come across in your career? How does the average person access these studies?


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Mmm... Pro Pac. Beet pulp and corn. Some high quality food there.
[/sarcasm]

Yes, a dog can survive off all manner of crap.

But I don't want my dog to survive, I want it to thrive.
I know people who smoke cigarettes their entire lives, and don't get cancer. Does that change the fact that smoking causes cancer? Why no, no it doesn't.

Just because you've fed dogs on sub-par food doesn't make it an optimal nutritional choice.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

And since we're citing studies, the Purdue bloat studies have indicated that "fat", when appearing in the first four ingredients in processed dry kibbles, is associated a 170% increased risk of bloat.

Guess what brand of food lists fat as it's third ingredient?


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

sable123 said:


> *You are 110% incorrect. *
> 
> 
> "Research reported at the 2004 American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR)
> ...


These are studies of corn as an ingredient in HUMAN food.
You know, omnivorous humans, as opposed to carnivorous canines?

Garlic is also associated with reduced cancer risk in humans.

It is toxic to dogs, however.


----------



## golfbum (Jan 11, 2010)

I am one of those people that is gulliable I guess. 

However I do agree with Sable123 on a couple things.....

First if dogs are carnivores why are the grainfree dry food formulas so much better then some foods that have high meat content and grains? Why are binders like pot, tapi, or even peas so much better then rice or corn? 

I also find it strange that there is a new post daily about dogs that are doing terrible on top end grain free foods. I myself have only fed my two dogs the best of kibbles and they have struggled from the start. One is skinny and has an average coat while the other has had soft stool from the start. The skinny dog has also struggled with soft stool and a desire not to eat. This is while feeding different formulas of Orejin and Acana dog food. Our female did horrible on Acana, Natures Variety (better not good) and is currently on TOTW and for the first time is doing pretty good. Our little boy has been on Acana and has done horrible for the month and half we have had him, we are moving him to the lamb formula of TOTW currently. I find it odd that probably a small percentage of dog owers feed a top end kibble and of those people there are almost as many complaints about issues as there are stories of dogs doing terrific.

I feel RAW is in a league of its own and probably the very best thing we could do for our pets, but it is hard to get correct and when I tried it my dog suffered from me messing up. I also did a ton of research and seeked help. If there are any tutors available hit me up!!!:help:


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Because wild canids are observed eating things like potatoes, apples, berries, and other non-grain vegetable matter.

Wild canids do not consume grain.

Corn, for example, is native to Mexico and South America. Rice and soy are from Asia. Wheat is from the Middle East. Our dogs are descendants of wolves native to North America and Europe. They do not naturally consume grain as part of their diet, and are not biologically designed to do so.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Wow. Dogs in the wild EAT grain eaters. They do not live where grain eaters are not. So they are getting grains once removed anyhow. Yeah, they EAT stomach contents too, yucky grains and all.

Domestic dogs have been eating humans left overs for thousands of years. Somehow they lived. Amazing!

I LOVE CORN

YES I DO

CORN IN FOOD

MADE SOLID POO

CORN GAVE WEIGHT

AND GLOSS ON COAT

NEVER ON CORN

DID MY DOGS BLOAT

CORN MAYBE CHEAP

FILLERS AND BITS

BUT IT GOT RID OF

THE NASTY LITTLE CYSTS.

I too hear all the time about dogs not doing good on this or that premium or even grain free food. I have a group of dogs doing excellently NOW on my food that has cornmeal -- not GMO, but whatever.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Really?
What grain eater does a wild canid consume?

I'd love to hear what animal in North America evolved eating a food type not present on this continent prior to colonization.

Or do you mean grass and forb eaters?
Grass/forb eaters who, interestingly are almost universally, cud chewers [to include rabbits], and digest the plant matter they consume two or more times.

Grass/forb eaters, the stomach and intestinal contents of which, wild canids have been repeatedly observed shaking to empty of plant matter prior to consumption.

My kid can live on McDonalds. It doesn't mean it's a wise choice to feed him a diet comprised of nothing but Big Macs and Fries.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

selzer said:


> Wow. Dogs in the wild EAT grain eaters. They do not live where grain eaters are not. So they are getting grains once removed anyhow. Yeah, they EAT stomach contents too, yucky grains and all.
> 
> .


generally, no they do not want the stomach contents of their prey. the leading expert on wolves states they almost alway shake the stomach contents loose before eating the stomach itself.

in fact, my senior dog killed and ate a rabbit last week and one of the few things left in the snow were obviously stomach contents.


....you didnt really just make the argument that eating the meat of grain/plant eating prey makes a canine desirous or in need of grain/plant matter?


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

He can't possibly have done so, since wolves don't eat any large animals that consume grains.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Gullible? Me? You bet.
I'm on the Orijen bandwagon and happy with the results.
I could be wrong but, hey, she's only a dog.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

first thing my dogs eat when they catch a small mammal is the head. Are there grains in the brain?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have seen dogs eat grass, which I guess you can call a grain. They will eat bread, ech wheat! They will eat dear guts -- yes, my associate at work said his lab came home and barfed the entire contents of a dear gutting in his living room. 

They WILL eat elk. Google it. There is a hillarious story about dogs in elk. 

Dogs are opportunists. They eat what they can get a hold of and have been surviving on such for centuries. Dog food started in the 1950s I think. And yeah it was Dog Food, not holistic grain free chicken based meal for underweight moderate activity senior dogs. 

Marketing, Marketeers! And the dog loving community are a bunch of lemmings walking right off the cliff after every new thing that sounds like their little darling will get the best of the best. 

And people spend a LOT of time and money and work to do their canine partners right. 

Lemmings. 

Dog food is a racket. 

I wonder how many of the superstar companies are lining the pockets of somebody at the dog food reveiw type sites. 

What is telling is that Canidae is listed as five stars, and they say even AFTER the formula change and MANY complaints, they STILL feel it is a five star food. Horse poo in my opinion. Somebody got paid.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

selzer said:


> What is telling is that Canidae is listed as five stars, and they say even AFTER the formula change and MANY complaints, they STILL feel it is a five star food. Horse poo in my opinion. Somebody got paid.



Though I completely agree with you about the canidae dropping in quality after the formula change (I was a canidae feeder up until their formula changed), I think they base their rating on the ingredients and not based on certain dogs having bad reactions to the new formula.

I'm assuming you're talking about dog food analysis with your above statement. That website has a pretty generic way of giving their stars. Basically, if it's grain free, it will probably get 6 stars. If it's a supermarket brand or one of the bigger brands, it won't get any higher than 3 stars. Everything else, assuming there aren't any byproducts or "controversial" ingredients (corn), it will probably get a 4 or 5 star rating depending on how much meat the ingredient list has.

Take canidae for example, it has 3 meat meals before anything else, no byproducts, and no corn on their ingredient list. That pretty much guarantees their 5 star rating no matter how many dogs that had bad reactions (mine included) to that new formula. 

Websites like dogfoodanalysis.com are good references to start with for people who are just starting to research dog foods, but definitely should not be the absolute end all to deciding the right kibble. It's best to understand the ingredients on the side of the bag and go from there. Do your research on the companies selling the food and see what best agrees and works for the dogs eating the food. Knowledge is definitely power when it foods to the dog food business.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Elk and deer are grass, not grain, consuming ungulates.

Ever notice how grass makes a dog PUKE?

A dog will eat antifreeze willingly, as well as feces. Do you really want to base your understanding of canine nutrition on what they WILL eat? As for me, I'll base it on what they SHOULD eat.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Grass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Grasses, or more technically graminoids, are monocotyledonous, usually herbaceous plants with narrow leaves growing from the base. They include the "true grasses", of the Poaceae (or Gramineae) family, as well as the sedges (Cyperaceae) and the rushes (Juncaceae). *The true grasses include cereals, bamboo and the grasses of lawns (turf) and grassland*."


Cereal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*Cereals, grains, or cereal grains are grasses (members of the monocot families Poaceae or Gramineae)[1]* cultivated for the edible components of their fruit seeds (botanically, a type of fruit called a caryopsis): the endosperm, germ, and bran. Cereal grains are grown in greater quantities and provide more food energy worldwide than any other type of crop; they are therefore staple crops."


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Interesting conversation. While I have fed all kinds of food, the two kinds that give my dogs the BEST formed poo is RAW and / or a food with Grains (i.e. Corn in it - like the Kumpi or Eukanuba or Iams). Now just RAW means the poo turns white real quick and well, nothing to really clean up. Otherwise there is a clean up duty.

I would think that if a dog is happy and healthy (and you can tell that by skin, coat, eyes, poo, energy levels and breath) then whatever you are feeding must be doing the trick whether with grains or without. There will always be a debate on what is better than x, y or z and each side will have evidence to the contrary. But whatever you are doing that is working is probably right for you and your UNIQUE dog. The formula if a commercial kibble should be looked at as a whole. RAW you want to make sure you feed the right mix of muscle meats, raw meaty bones and organs (plus other things you might want to add). Of if you do home cooking you probably have figured out what works best. And whatever is decided and it works then that is the BEST for your UNIQUE dog.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

you get an owner whose dogs do well on a largely corn based food and you are going to get some very generalized criticism about more meat based kibbles.

i cant worry about that too much,

IMO, canidae vastly improved their product line by adding a more meat based line with their grain free products.

David Mech is considered one of the worlds leading wolf biologiosts and wrote the 2003 book _Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, where he states "Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall."_

it was not surprisingly conclusedthat_ "the packs that thrived ate primarily meat and virtually little else, only foraging for anything else in the absense of prey."_


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Are you really going to argue semantics?

While you're doing all that research, why don't you research whether elk, deer, moose, etc, evolved eating corn, rice and wheat?


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Who is arguing semantics....i just posted the definitions and they are what they are. I'm just assuming you were meaning my post with the definitions...if not forgive me for assuming.

I own a dog not an elk, deer or moose so it doesn't matter to me what they really eat since I'm only responsible for feeding my dogs.

It is interesting that you can get deer corn in the store to put out for deers during the winter to attract them.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2083812_use-deer-corn.html


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

roxy84 said:


> David Mech is considered one of the worlds leading wolf biologiosts and wrote the 2003 book _Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, where he states "Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall."_


If that's the case...WHY AM I FEEDING THAT HORRIBLE SMELLING TRIPE!!???


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

Jax08 said:


> If that's the case...WHY AM I FEEDING THAT HORRIBLE SMELLING TRIPE!!???


it is more about the digestive juices and enzymes in addition to the stomach lining itself that has the value rather than whatever is actually in the stomach. it is too much trouble generally for those who procure it to try to separate out the actual stomach contents.....unfortunately those partially digested contents are largely responsible for the wonderful carnival of odors that we all love so much.

_In an analysis of a sample of green tripe by a Woodson-Tenant Lab in Atlanta, Georgia, it was discovered that the calcium/phosphorous ratio is 1:1, the overall pH is on the acidic side which is better for digestion, protein is 15.1, fat 11.7 and it contained the essential fatty acids, Linoleic and Linolenic, in their recommended proportions. Also discovered, was the presence of Lactic Acid Bacteria. Lactic Acid Bacteria, also known as Lactobacillus Acidophilus, is the good intestinal bacteria_


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Thanks Derek! I usually give her a couple spoonfuls every night.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> Who is arguing semantics....i just posted the definitions and they are what they are. I'm just assuming you were meaning my post with the definitions...if not forgive me for assuming.
> 
> I own a dog not an elk, deer or moose so it doesn't matter to me what they really eat since I'm only responsible for feeding my dogs.
> 
> ...


YOU, are arguing semantics. You're attempting to say that elk/deer/moose eat grain, by making a semantic argument that grains are a subtype of grass, completely bypassing the fact that the types of grasses and forbs naturally consumed by those animals, are NOT grains.

It's relevant in that, neither wild canids, nor the prey wild canids consume, evolved to eat grain. When we refer to grain in the context of dog food, I think we can universally agree, we mean corn, rice and wheat, foods that North American ungulates do not naturally consume. 

Yes, you can buy corn in a store to feed to deer. Notice how it doesn't naturally grow in their native environment? Corn isn't even native to North America. Their biology evolved in an environment completely devoid of what we refer to as grains. 

Do some research into what happens when you feed a bovines, for example, a grain-based diet rather than a grass-based one. When you feed an animal a diet it did not evolve to eat, you compromise it's health.

Yes, I'm sure many animals do just fine on a biologically inappropriate diet, but that does not change the fundamental fact that it is NOT a biologically appropriate diet. Many humans do fine on diets comprised entirely of junk food- that doesn't make it a healthy dietary choice, or the ideal choice for optimal health.

If *you* are comfortable feeding your pets, yourself, your kids, whomever, a diet that is not biologically appropriate to them, that's your prerogative. That doesn't make it a biologically appropriate diet, it makes it what *you* are willing to feed. I'm not telling anyone what to feed- I'm stating simple scientific fact- these animals do not consume these foods in their natural state. Human intervention has caused them to consume unnatural foods, and that has health repercussions.

The argument you're making is akin to saying, why give infants formula? Why not feed them straight cows milk?
Why? Because they aren't baby cows.


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> YOU, are arguing semantics. You're attempting to say that elk/deer/moose eat grain, by making a semantic argument that grains are a subtype of grass, completely bypassing the fact that the types of grasses and forbs naturally consumed by those animals, are NOT grains.
> 
> It's relevant in that, neither wild canids, nor the prey wild canids consume, evolved to eat grain. When we refer to grain in the context of dog food, I think we can universally agree, we mean corn, rice and wheat, foods that North American ungulates do not naturally consume.
> 
> ...



Let me end this with a story. I was at Westminster 3 years ago to see a friend compete. He has a NAVHDA VC dog and just won Best of Breed at this very important show. Spectacular Dual Champion dog. Excellent sire as well.

There are people at that show just like you. Walking around the bench trying to tell champion breeders and handlers how to feed their dogs.

A guy came up to us and told my friend (after seeing a bag of food under the table) how irresponsible he was for using that kibble and why corn is so bad.

My friend was polite but told him to go jump in a lake.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

SchDDR - Was that you annoying everyone at Westminster? :rofl:


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Hey Sable, how about actually rebutting a point, rather than resort to ad hominem logical fallacies?

Jax, hardly. If you want to feed corn, feed corn. Doesn't hurt me one bit.
It also doesn't change biology.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't know, SchDDR is making a lot more sense than Sable123.

Just my opinion, of course, based on the intelligence and factual references found in each of the arguments so far.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

SchDDR said:


> Jax, hardly. If you want to feed corn, feed corn. Doesn't hurt me one bit.
> It also doesn't change biology.


Sorry. I was just kidding with you. Didn't think you would take it seriously. :blush: Personally, I feed RAW to all my animals, complete with spreadsheets so I'm not missing anything. Except my horse but I feed him an appropriate diet that consists of hay with minimal grains.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> YOU, are arguing semantics. You're attempting to say that elk/deer/moose eat grain, by making a semantic argument that grains are a subtype of grass, completely bypassing the fact that the types of grasses and forbs naturally consumed by those animals, are NOT grains.
> 
> It's relevant in that, neither wild canids, nor the prey wild canids consume, evolved to eat grain. When we refer to grain in the context of dog food, I think we can universally agree, we mean corn, rice and wheat, foods that North American ungulates do not naturally consume.
> 
> ...


I'm comfortable feeding what works best for my dogs. Human intervention has also created pets which are no longer living in their natural biological state. So if you would prefer, like PETA, that no person should own an animal since it isn't a natural thing - then please set your dogs free in the wild. I'll keep mine at home with me and feed what agrees with them most. Your_ opinion_ isn't what is best for my dogs. Mine is.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Feeding corn to deer:

Feeding corn to deer could be death sentence | Farm and Dairy - The Auction Guide and Rural Marketplace


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> Feeding corn to deer:
> 
> Feeding corn to deer could be death sentence | Farm and Dairy - The Auction Guide and Rural Marketplace


Very interesting. I had not heard that before. Thank you for the link.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> I'm comfortable feeding what works best for my dogs. Human intervention has also created pets which are no longer living in their natural biological state. So if you would prefer, like PETA, that no person should own an animal since it isn't a natural thing - then please set your dogs free in the wild. I'll keep mine at home with me and feed what agrees with them most. Your_ opinion_ isn't what is best for my dogs. Mine is.


It's not an opinion, it's biological fact. Your calling it an opinion doesn't make it so. Why not provide some supporting evidence for your arguments, rather than attribute motives to me that are not mine, and attack me as a person [logical fallacies much?]
We didn't breed animals with different digestive processes. 

Your straw man argument doesn't work- I'm not advocating that dogs are wild animals. I'm stating a simple scientific fact- dogs are not biologically designed to consume corn.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> It's not an opinion, it's biological fact. Your calling it an opinion doesn't make it so. Why not provide some supporting evidence for your arguments, rather than attribute motives to me that are not mine, and attack me as a person [logical fallacies much?]
> We didn't breed animals with different digestive processes.
> 
> Your straw man argument doesn't work- I'm not advocating that dogs are wild animals. I'm stating a simple scientific fact- dogs are not biologically designed to consume corn.


But they can and you refuse to look at the science!

The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods ? J. Nutr.

"Rice is commonly used in premium Australian dog foods because of its highly digestible and hypoallergenic nature (1). Sorghum and corn are grains available in Australia that are considerably less expensive than rice. Sorghum and corn are known to contain starch that is less digestible in the intestinal tract because of a strong starch–protein matrix (2); *however, the extrusion process involved in the manufacture of dog food is likely to gelatinize the starch and make it more digestible* (3). The purpose of this study was to evaluate fecal nutrient digestibility of diets containing rice, sorghum and corn, and to determine the effect these diets had on fecal quality through evaluation of fecal score."

"The nutrient digestibilities of the corn and sorghum diets were lower compared with that of the rice diet. *However, the nutrient digestibilities of each diet were above the average digestibility values for commercial dog foods* (6)."


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

That study was funded by UNCLE BEN'S RICE COMPANY. C'mon, seriously?
It doesn't take a genius to see conflict of interest there.

Furthermore, they aren't comparing grain-based diets to non-grain based diets.
They're comparing rice to other grains, and deciding that rice is a superior grain to the others.



> Eighteen mixed-breed dogs aged between 1 and 6 y were divided into three balanced groups and fed extruded dry dog foods containing either rice, sorghum or corn.


That's the scientific equivalent of saying that drinking water is a good cancer treatment because when water and gasoline were compared in a trial, the cancer patients who drank water had better health outcomes than the cancer patients who drank gasoline.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> It's not an opinion, it's biological fact. Your calling it an opinion doesn't make it so. Why not provide some supporting evidence for your arguments, rather than attribute motives to me that are not mine, and attack me as a person [logical fallacies much?]
> We didn't breed animals with different digestive processes.
> 
> Your straw man argument doesn't work- I'm not advocating that dogs are wild animals. I'm stating a simple scientific fact- dogs are not biologically designed to consume corn.


You are saying my dogs can't digest corn - yet they can and science is on my side....see my prior post about kibble and the extrusion process.

So again - your opinion. At least I can back my statement up with scientific facts!


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> That study was funded by UNCLE BEN'S RICE COMPANY. C'mon, seriously?
> It doesn't take a genius to see conflict of interest there.
> 
> Furthermore, they aren't comparing grain-based diets to non-grain based diets.
> They're comparing rice to other grains, and deciding that rice is a superior grain to the others.


So the dogs fecal scores adjust to whoever pays? yeah right. Sounds like someone is stretching!


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Actually, no.
The outcome was that while rice was a superior grain in terms of digestibility, the fecal scores were lower, and thus rice was less desirable.

At no point in the study did they compare grain based diets to non-grain based diets. They compared different grains to another- making that study worthless as any sort of evidence that a grain based diet is more appropriate than a non-grain based one.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> That's the scientific equivalent of saying that drinking water is a good cancer treatment because when water and gasoline were compared in a trial, the cancer patients who drank water had better health outcomes than the cancer patients who drank gasoline.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> You are saying my dogs can't digest corn - yet they can and science is on my side....see my prior post about kibble and the extrusion process.
> 
> So again - your opinion. At least I can back my statement up with scientific facts!


Your dog can digest fiberglass.
That doesn't make it a wise choice.

My kid can digest a Big Mac, it doesn't make it the best thing to base a diet on.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> Actually, no.
> The outcome was that while rice was a superior grain in terms of digestibility, the fecal scores were lower, and thus rice was less desirable.
> 
> At no point in the study did they compare grain based diets to non-grain based diets. They compared different grains to another- making that study worthless as any sort of evidence that a grain based diet is more appropriate than a non-grain based one.


The title tells you the purpose of the study

*The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods*


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> Your dog can digest fiberglass.
> That doesn't make it a wise choice.
> 
> My kid can digest a Big Mac, it doesn't make it the best thing to base a diet on.


I feed my dogs, you feed yours. I based my decisions on what I believe to be best and you can too. We don't agree and that is fine with me. I still have science to back me up about digestibility. I also had a 14 year 45 day old German Shepherd Malamute mix that grew up on that horrible kibble with corn and grains in it. And guess what? He LIVED beyond the expected lifespan of both a German Shepherd and a Malamute should. So I must have done something right. Cause by your thinking if he can't digest corn then he would have died a long time ago. But thankfully science says he could and HE DID!


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Can you actually show me where I said a canid cannot digest corn?
Because if I actually posted that, I need to retract it.

To the best of my knowledge, the only thing I've said is that they did not evolve to consume grains, which is scientifically demonstrable, and that due to the lack of grains in their diet during evolution, the most natural diet to the canid is one that is devoid of grain.

Feed whatever you want- where have I said you, or anyone else, should do otherwise?


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

rjvamp said:


> The title tells you the purpose of the study
> 
> *The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods*


Correct. The title is not, "Determining Whether Grains are Biologically Appropriate Food Stuffs for Canids", nor is it "The use of Grains as Alternatives to Raw Meats".

The only thing they did was compare the digestibility of three types of grain to one another. And the outcome was that grain was superior in digestibility to both corn and sorghum, but that the fecal scores were lower.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

SchDDR said:


> Can you actually show me where I said a canid cannot digest corn?
> Because if I actually posted that, I need to retract it.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the only thing I've said is that they did not evolve to consume grains, which is scientifically demonstrable, and that due to the lack of grains in their diet during evolution, the most natural diet to the canid is one that is devoid of grain.
> ...


I looked back and no you didn't so I apologize...I assumed it based on what you were saying about biology.

My own view is while the digestive track of a dog is the same as a wolf, they can and do digest many different types of food. What works best for one dog may not work for another. To state that someone is feeding something biologically inappropriate when biologically they can digest it, then that is what gets under my skin. Because if they can biologically digest the food, then it is biologically appropriate for that situation. 

I've been a grain hater at times too due to the same arguments of biology. My dogs get a mix of raw and kibble. Most of the time it is raw they get because I can actually feed raw for less than the kibble and canned and they do just fine on it. I did find that kibble with a high amount of potatoes did cause my dogs to be more "excitable", yet when fed a lower insulin responding food with grains or just raw that doesn't happen or mixed that doesn't happen either.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Ah. In that case, we're just meaning different things when we say biologically appropriate.

I'm referring to the diet that is natural in terms of evolution, to canids.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Ah okay


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Shake hands?


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Yes
Virtual Shake


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Forgot to add, the only reason I added the kibble back was I got sick and it was just easier to feed at that time. They love the RAW by the way. But I still have a bag of kibble so it will get fed until gone....but now I'm feeling much better and back to making the food.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

I feel ya on that one.
Oh do I ever. After my spouse died, I broke down and fed Orijen for a long while. I just didn't have the time to deal with feeding raw.

When I travel, I often switch back to kibble, or dehydrated raw, to make life a little easier for the folks at the boarding facility.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Just wondering how many people pay as much attention to what they eat, compared to what their dogs eat? 

This occured to me because I really do care what my dogs eat and want them to be as healthy as possible, so this thread has been interesting. I wanted to thank everyone for their opinions etc. But I couldn't do that a few minutes ago because my hands were all sticky from eating a chocolate glazed donut...and then I spilled Cafe Mocha on the keyboard.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Sorry to hear about your spouse.

Yeah travel or illness makes it easy to revert to kibble. I tried to pretend kibble didn't exist but I got sick and was happy it was around! I've done the Frozen NV but it was getting pretty expensive to maintain plus I didn't feel like leaving the house!

I'm going to get one of the hamburger patty makers so I can press 8 oz portions of my own mix and do a better job at pre-making the food so I won't have to worry in the future. Unless of course the electricity goes out and / or the freezer dies and it isn't winter and I can't put the food outside!

I like the freeze dried patties - those are very convenient too.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Just wondering how many people pay as much attention to what they eat, compared to what their dogs eat?
> 
> This occured to me because I really do care what my dogs eat and want them to be as healthy as possible, so this thread has been interesting. I wanted to thank everyone for their opinions etc. But I couldn't do that a few minutes ago because my hands were all sticky from eating a chocolate glazed donut...and then I spilled Cafe Mocha on the keyboard.


:rofl:


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

lolololol

I've heard it argued by more than one dog owner, that they feed their dogs better than they feed themselves, because as they see it, they have a conscious choice. The dogs are at our mercy when it comes to what they eat.

That said, my partner and I made a conscious choice to improve our diets after I realized my son was developing a taste for junk food.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Just wondering how many people pay as much attention to what they eat, compared to what their dogs eat?
> 
> This occured to me because I really do care what my dogs eat and want them to be as healthy as possible, so this thread has been interesting. I wanted to thank everyone for their opinions etc. But I couldn't do that a few minutes ago because my hands were all sticky from eating a chocolate glazed donut...and then I spilled Cafe Mocha on the keyboard.


 
Very true! There are many things I won't eat because I don't like the taste or the texture, but rarely do I think that I shouldn't eat it because it isn't good for me. Every year I think I should put in a garden ..... but that is about as far as it goes for me.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

I used to be the opposite: I was raised eating healthy food, shopping locally as much as possible, etc. but we fed our cat grocery store brand foods (which was all that was available at the time). When I adopted my first dog (23 years ago) I was still ignorant about food for animals. It wasn't until she and my cat both were clearly not doing well on the grocery store brands that I started doing research, reading books, talking to other people, learning how to read labels, etc. 

I switched my dog to homemade food and my cat to grain free food and I was blown away by the changes I saw in their coats, overall health, etc. I do believe that every dog is different though: my own dogs and foster dogs did great on some foods while others did terrible on the same foods. Rafi only does well on raw but when she was older Chama did not do well on raw or kibble and I had to make her a cooked diet tailored to her needs. So it's a constant learning process and it's important to keep in mind that what works for one dog does not necessarily work for another.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

"It's important to keep in mind that what works for one dog does not necessarily work for another."

Just thought that deserved to be said again. Well put, Ruth.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I weighed Milla and Ninja today. Last year on December ninth, after switching them off of Canidae (five star food with all that meat and no corn), last year the girls weighed 46 and 56 pounds respectively. 

Today they weigh 56 and 59 pounds respectively. 

While Ninja only gained three pounds, she had already gained six from September to December, and she is now within her ideal weight range.

Milla has gained ten. She had a terrible time, getting from 43 to 46 pounds, and then she hovered at 50 pounds. I am extatic that she is now 56 pounds. Her ideal weight range would be 58 to 62 pounds, so we are still a few pounds shy of that, but she LOOKS great. 

Corn IS my friend. I am talking a group of dogs, some of them not related to others had that problem with Canidae. These are dogs that were fed the dog food out of the bad Nutro lots. A few of them had more trouble than others, and took longer to get back to where they should be. I fed Canidae religiously, and was convinced that my dog food choice was NOT the problem. I have proved now that it was THE problem. It was not the fact that it had grains -- brown rice, white rice, rice flour, rice bran, millet, barley, and peas, and if you add them all up, they probably were higher in the grain category than the meat category. But whatever. The problem was the food. The food I am feeding now with the evil cornmeal is doing a very nice job of getting my dogs back on track and maintaining them properly.

When you feed a dog grain free or raw food to be biologically appropriate, do you leave it out and feed it to them in varying stages of decay? Do you scarf up road kill because dogs will. Do you feed them a couple of huge hunks today and then not feed them for two or three days, feast and famine? 

I mean where do you draw the line about feeding dogs the way they would eat in the wild. 

In the wild a dog might have to hunt all day long, do you think we should feed them the same performance levels of protein sources if their main past time is lying in front of a fire?

In the wild, their own body temperature will often have to keep them warm, they might dig down in the snow to use it to keep them warm or sleep in a den -- that takes calories. Do you feed your indoor, pampered pooches, the same calorie- protein content of dogs in the wild. 

We want to feed our dogs what will best suit them to live healthy lives. Dogs in the wild do not generally live nearly as long. I am not sold on a dog food company telling me that people food/ scraps will not be as good for my dog as their food. But I am not willing to go back to a "prey model" to feed my domestic dogs, that live a life of domesticity and have been for many hundred years.


----------



## MrsWoodcock (Oct 21, 2010)

Heagler870 said:


> If people can read labels and do research they wouldn't be so gullible.


IF. Alot of people hate to do the research


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

selzer said:


> We want to feed our dogs what will best suit them to live healthy lives. Dogs in the wild do not generally live nearly as long..


of course not. that isnt a diet based argument, though (as far as what they are eating). they dont live as long due primarily to an absence of veterinary care and preventative medicine, as well as other issues that dont affect domestic dogs.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Good_Karma said:


> "It's important to keep in mind that what works for one dog does not necessarily work for another."
> 
> Just thought that deserved to be said again. Well put, Ruth.


Okay I third that again


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

selzer said:


> I weighed Milla and Ninja today. Last year on December ninth, after switching them off of Canidae (five star food with all that meat and no corn), last year the girls weighed 46 and 56 pounds respectively.
> 
> Today they weigh 56 and 59 pounds respectively.
> 
> ...



And I'm the one that recommended it  I'm so glad to see their weight doing better! Of course you have some other good stuff in the food too and not just corn. It might be the first ingredient (well it is) but there is other stuff that helps out a lot.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I know. And thanks for the recommendation. I got a nutro ad on my e-mail yesterday about how people food is not good for dogs. I let them have it with both barrels. 

I think this topic makes me so hot because I bought into the marketing hook line and sinker. I think I may have damaged some of them. Canidae burns me up. I called them a couple of times during my ordeal, and they certainly were not helpful at all, except that one person said that Shepherds and Great Danes seemed to not take the formula change as well as other breeds, so it wasn't just me and my dogs. 

And it is **** when you are feeding your dogs more, and poo becomes liquid, bloody, and dog loses weight. Feed them less, and they lose weight. And you are trying to maintain a balance where they are not LOSING weight, and any change will make them lose wieght FASTER. 

Now, I am not worried about them. I take them in to be weighed on occasion. 

I truly believe that I got a bad run of ten 44 pound bags of Canidae, where sawdust was substituted for chicken meal, and my whole lot lost 5-6 pounds in a little more than a month. Their being at the low end of their ideal weight, my regulars were downright gaunt. The three that never really did good on Canidae at all were scarey.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

sawdust? that is nasty!

And don't get me started on Nutro either ..... I know some people like it but my dogs stopped eating it JUST IN TIME! Then the recalls (I fed them the wet and dry - Lobo did not do good on the dry).


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

selzer said:


> When you feed a dog grain free or raw food to be biologically appropriate, do you leave it out and feed it to them in varying stages of decay? Do you scarf up road kill because dogs will. Do you feed them a couple of huge hunks today and then not feed them for two or three days, feast and famine?
> 
> Am I expected to address these as though they are actually reasonable, rational questions?
> 
> ...



When you remove hunting by humans as a cause of death, every study conducted over the past 30 years has shown injury to be the leading cause of death for wild wolves- either sustained through hunting prey, or more often, through territorial fights.

The life expectancy of wild canids is only related to what they consume, in that they can be injured obtaining it, and thus killed.

Wild canids in captivity and fed a diet designed to mimic what they would eat in the wild, live up to four times longer than their wild counterparts, despite eating an identical diet.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Despite eating an identical diet? I am sure zoos are throwing a deer carcus in there and letting the dog work on it for a week, and if on the last two days nothing is left, well that's that?

Sorry, dogs in captivity are eating food every single day. It may mimic what a wild canid gets on a good day. But my guess is that there are days when wild canids are driven to refuse heaps by hunger, and will go days without food at times. That has to do something to their life expectancy.

This is comparing apples to oranges though. Our dogs are removed from the wild and have been for nearly as long as men have populated the earth. Why would we want to go back to feeding dogs what we THINK they would be eating, what is native to this area. My dogs ARE NOT native to this area. They are native to Germany/Europe. So what is native to Europe. Whatever. 

Many feeding studies have been made and people have been feeding dogs grains and dogs used to live much longer grain fed dogs with fewer problems, prior to all this grain free stuff.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

Myths About Raw: Does the diet of wolves shorten their <---- interesting article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-07-13-oldest-dog_x.htm <---- oldest dog

and a video by Dr. Tom Lonsdale from Australia

http://doggybytes.ca/dr-tom-lonsdale-feeding-modified-house-wolf/4804/ <---- corrected link


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

selzer said:


> Despite eating an identical diet? I am sure zoos are throwing a deer carcus in there and letting the dog work on it for a week, and if on the last two days nothing is left, well that's that?
> 
> Sorry, dogs in captivity are eating food every single day. It may mimic what a wild canid gets on a good day. But my guess is that there are days when wild canids are driven to refuse heaps by hunger, and will go days without food at times. That has to do something to their life expectancy.
> 
> ...



Actually, no. Go hang out at a wolf sanctuary. They don't feed every day, and yes, they do in fact leave the food with the wolves until it is consumed, however long that happens to take.
I live not far from here, have witnessed many feedings, and have spoken extensively with the biologists who work for the organization:
Wolf Haven International | Animal Care FAQs

"Here at Wolf Haven we maintain our animals on a bi-weekly feeding schedule."

What is native to Europe? The European Wolf has the same diet as the North American Wolf. The food that their prey eats, are also essentially identical- grass and forbs.
Not corn, rice or wheat.
As stated earlier, corn is native to South America, rice to Asia, and wheat to the Middle East.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

selzer said:


> This is comparing apples to oranges though. Our dogs are removed from the wild and have been for nearly as long as men have populated the earth. Why would we want to go back to feeding dogs what we THINK they would be eating, what is native to this area. My dogs ARE NOT native to this area. They are native to Germany/Europe. So what is native to Europe. Whatever. .


this sounds like an argument that evolution has had time to change the digestive system and physiological structure of domestic dogs vs wolves.

that simply has not happened.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

But even within dog breeds, there are differences in the digestive system aren't there? The digestive system of bloat prone bleeds compared to those who are not? Just asking.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

No, it's a size difference, primarily. Larger dogs are prone, smaller dogs are not. It has to do with the shape of the dog, and the abdominal cavity, and not the basic digestion or nutritional needs of the dog.

Those changes in *shape* don't alter dietary needs any more than being tall or short changes a humans. Different amounts? Yes. Different food sources? No.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Well the deer around here, in Northeastern Ohio eat corn, and lots of it. They are always in the cornfields. We have downright corn-fed deer. Wonder what that does to their life expectancy -- that is if Farmer Joe does not get to them with a shotgun first.

Anyhow, I didn't realize the American Indians brought corn to the United States from South America. I mean I knew corn was there but whatever. I knew the Indians had corn fields here. And we then had corn fields. And deer have been getting into our corn for as long as there have been corn. 

Since I come from NE Ohio, then I should probably not eat ocean fish. Since it is not native to my home. I know it is supposed to be good for you an all, but in my natural state, I would never come across ocean fish. So, I better not eat it. I better not eat rice either because that pretty much comes from across the pond. Wait, I come from across the pond. Yeah, but not near any rice or ocean fish.

Whatever.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Did you miss the article I posted, quoting a wildlife biologist talking about corn being fatal to deer?

Corn isn't native to North America- deer didn't evolve to eat it, and there are severe health consequences when they do.

Human beings did evolve eating fish. I'm not sure why you think they didn't.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I would imagine the same theory that horses fed grain have a higher chance of colic than horses fed their natural diet of grasses. Grain is a heavy concentrated food. As is corn with deer. And kibble with dogs. It's not the first time I've heard off corn in high amounts killing deer. I believe the article I read theorized that the deer could not process the corn so even though their bellies were full, they literally starved to death.

I'm not expert on kibble vs RAW. I feed RAW but I'm still learning. All I can say is some of these arguments have no logic to them at all.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Reposting:
Feeding corn to deer could be death sentence | Farm and Dairy - The Auction Guide and Rural Marketplace



> The problem is that deer digestion is a finely tuned physiological process. Just the right combination of microorganisms, enzymes, and pH enable deer to digest a normal winter diet of woody vegetation. When offered a sudden supply of corn, a deer’s digestive system doesn’t have time to adjust to a high carbohydrate diet. The result can be acute acidosis followed by death within 72 hours.
> At the time of death these individuals can appear normal and well fed. It’s just that they cannot digest the corn. Within six hours, corn alters the environment in the rumen. It turns the rumen acidic and destroys the microbes needed for normal digestion.
> Not all deer die immediately from acidosis. Its effects vary with the age and health of the individual. Some may simply slow down, get clumsy, and become easy prey to speeding traffic and hungry coyotes.





> Crum understands that people mean well, but, “I see too many deer on my necropsy table with bellies full of corn.”


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The deer do not get fed corn, the go into the cornfields and STEAL it, all by their little lonesomes. 

I guess they have not read your article about how nasty it is.

And people feed it to them in high population areas. I think that this should be illegal. But they do it.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

I know. Animals aren't very good at understanding that we've disrupted their ecosystem and introduced non-native plants that they shouldn't eat. They didn't evolve the ability to discriminate between safe and unsafe plants, because prior to the introduction of non-native plants, they'd evolved the ability to eat what was available. 

The plants that were toxic to them had long since developed defense mechanisms such as bitter taste, or thorns, to deter consumption. Corn and other grains, not being native to areas with grazing animals, did not evolve those mechanisms, and thus, deer have no warning that the food is dangerous to them.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

While they go into the cornfields and steal it, it is NOT their main source of food nor is it their natural form of food. I, too, live and have grown up in farm country. Grass is. How many deer have you seen coming out of a corn field vs coming out of a hay field?

And how they get the corn is not the point of the article. It's the end result of them eating the corn, or overeating it.


----------



## amaris (Jan 6, 2011)

Dog Food Reviews - Main Index - Powered by ReviewPost


Just thought i'd share a website i found while googling the best dog foods to feed...i'm going dog crazy, don't even have my shepherd yet but i'm already looking at things to feed him with *sigh*


----------



## sable123 (Jul 11, 2010)

amaris said:


> Dog Food Reviews - Main Index - Powered by ReviewPost
> 
> 
> Just thought i'd share a website i found while googling the best dog foods to feed...i'm going dog crazy, don't even have my shepherd yet but i'm already looking at things to feed him with *sigh*


That website is the worst of all of them. The information is factually incorrect.

The only one that is any good is DogFoodAdvisor. Even though he is a dentist he has some scientific background.


----------



## amaris (Jan 6, 2011)

Sable, i apologize but i wouldn't want a dentist without a science background, it's almost a pre-requisite to have a Bsc to enter a dentistry school in north america and it's also needed as an A level subject to enter any british system based dentistry school as far as i know of...

also, thanks for letting me know tht site was faulty, it just seems like most of the recommended foods matched brands recommended by forum members like TOTW, Orijen etc.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

SchDDR said:


> Really?
> What grain eater does a wild canid consume?
> 
> I'd love to hear what animal in North America evolved eating a food type not present on this continent prior to colonization.
> ...


Well I know I am late to this conversation but Deer actually do eat corn esp in farm country like where I live (Your article about feeding corn to deer being a death sentence is misleading, they mean when there is no food at all and people are putting out feeders and suddenly stopping the feeding) Deer eat downed corn all winter long.
Another animal that eats corn and thrives on it would be the wild turkey, corn actually raises their core temp in the winter helping them to stay alive, they also thrive on chufa, a grass that produces a nut like seed.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Quote:
The problem is that deer digestion is a finely tuned physiological process. Just the right combination of microorganisms, enzymes, and pH enable deer to digest a normal winter diet of woody vegetation. *When offered a sudden supply of corn*, a deer’s digestive system doesn’t have time to adjust to a high carbohydrate diet. The result can be acute acidosis followed by death within 72 hours. 
At the time of death these individuals can appear normal and well fed. It’s just that they cannot digest the corn. Within six hours, corn alters the environment in the rumen. It turns the rumen acidic and destroys the microbes needed for normal digestion. 
Not all deer die immediately from acidosis. Its effects vary with the age and health of the individual. Some may simply slow down, get clumsy, and become easy prey to speeding traffic and hungry coyotes

*When offered a sudden supply of corn *is the sentence I am talking about, deer that are in farm country eat corn all year long. This is about people who feel bad for the deer and start to feed corn when no corn has been around in their area.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

roxy84 said:


> generally, no they do not want the stomach contents of their prey. the leading expert on wolves states they almost alway shake the stomach contents loose before eating the stomach itself.
> 
> in fact, my senior dog killed and ate a rabbit last week and one of the few things left in the snow were obviously stomach contents.
> 
> ...


I can't comment on wolves, Mech did a study on wolves that was posted on here a while ago, but when it comes to coyotes they most certanly do eat the stomach contents.
When I was younger I did a study on coyotes with the PA Game Comm headed by DR Gary Alt, through video and still photos, you can clearly see the dogs opening up the belly and eating the stomach contents, lining, organs and working towards the anus and saving the meat and bone for last. The leading biologist feel they did this because it was faster for the dogs to get as much nutrients and fill as opposed to eating the meat and bone first.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Back to OP. I am gullible because I want to believe that I am feeding my dog well, so I read all the reviews I can find. RAW is not an option, nor is canned. We have pretty much stayed with Orijen after a short period of Wellness LBP. All with excellent results.


----------

