Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Ktgrok

another PSA/Update on dog food and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I don't know that I agree...most prey animals (if we are going with the theory that dogs should eat like wild animals) are pretty lean. Venison or bison vs commercial feed lot beef, for example. Plus, too much fat from animals fed corn leads to an imbalance of omega 3 and 6 fatty acids. 

The optimal levels of fat for active dogs has been very well established in the veterinary literature. Most raw feeders supplement with fish oil or feed oily ocean fish (never raw salmon/trout from the PNW).

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

The optimal levels of fat for active dogs has been very well established in the veterinary literature. Most raw feeders supplement with fish oil or feed oily ocean fish (never raw salmon/trout from the PNW).

Bill

 

Or at least not fresh PNW fish.  Freezing supposedly kills the worms... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

Or at least not fresh PNW fish.  Freezing supposedly kills the worms... 

There is some debate about how cold and how long PNW salmon/trout need to be frozen to kill the deadly pathogens. I've read reports that home freezers may not get cold enough.

I would not risk it myself. Salmon poising is deadly if not treated immediately.

Bill 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

The optimal levels of fat for active dogs has been very well established in the veterinary literature. Most raw feeders supplement with fish oil or feed oily ocean fish (never raw salmon/trout from the PNW).

Bill

I'll look it up, I'm going by the books/info I've read on raw feeding from vet sources and others. most say to actually limit the amount of fatty meat to keep omega 6 fatty acids in check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the posts, but I brought this topic up on this board back in August.  I have two standard poodles, and a golden retriever/standard poodle mix.  I fed Orijen Large Breed Puppy food to all my dogs as puppies, followed by Acana foods until Champion moved the plant to the US, then I fed Orijen Original.  All our dogs tested low for taurine back in August.  Our doodle is believed to have TD-DCM.  (It won't be verified until he shows improvement on the new diet.)  One poodle was borderline, the other has a normal pro-BNP (under 400).  All three dogs were put on taurine and l-caritine, and their diet was changed.  

When this issue first came to light with golden retrievers it was believed to be caused by decreased taurine levels.  Many pet food companies responded by adding taurine to foods.  Dogs continued to be diagnosed with normal taurine levels. Now the majority of dogs diagnosed at Tufts have normal taurine levels.  Taurine was believed to be the canary in the coal mine.  The exact mechanism of action is still being studied. The FDA and Tufts released ingredients they encourage people to avoid including peas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and all legumes while research is ongoing.  Unless there is a medical need for it they are suggesting dogs avoid grain-free foods with those ingredients.  

Cardiologists researching the issue put out the recommendation that dogs be changed to a diet that meets the WSAVA guidelines, which is a word wide group of small animal veterinarians. They are not seeing cases on those foods, and those foods are being shown to reverse the condition in dogs being treated as part of a comprehensive treatment approach. Those guidelines include nutritionists formulating foods, owning manufacturing companies, performing clinical feeding trials, performing peer reviewed research, and a number of  things already mentioned in the link further up on this thread.  Late last year a number of veterinarians took the time to contact and ask all the WSAVA questions of companies manufacturing foods.  Based on their comments the only foods that meet all of the guidelines are the big four. There are other companies that are making changes to eventually meet those requirements, and companies that are just getting really smooth with their responses. Our cardiologist office says they diagnose a number of dogs a day with condition, so I think we will see more as research continues.  

My basic understanding is that grain-free in and of itself wasn't an issue for years, but in an attempt to formulate more economically for a larger profit many grain-free companies began increasing the amount of pea and legume products that they use (one can read about the excess of these crops coming in from Canada to meet this need).  This allowed for an overall higher protein level and a more "human" sounding ingredient list. The problem came in when companies began using these ingredients based on a formula, without the knowledge to do so, without researching their impacts on nutritional profiles, and without feeding trials. I encourage everyone to keep an eye on the emerging research and I hope that it will have a positive impact on what we expect from dog food companies in the future.

Edited by melmichigan
spelling
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'll look it up, I'm going by the books/info I've read on raw feeding from vet sources and others. most say to actually limit the amount of fatty meat to keep omega 6 fatty acids in check. 

 

Fish oil is more omega 3, and so too I think is grass fed animal meat if there’s a source for that— in PNW, there almost certainly would be.

I’ve used salmon oil with positive benefits as to itch and allergic issues for my dog—but with contaminant, spoilage etc issues I don’t know what is safe in that regard now either .   I got a bottle that seemed rancid which turned me off it.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen things that say that all kibble is processed by dog digestion as if it’s carbohydrate.  Is that true, and if so, what does it mean? and what are the ramifications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

I have, after this thread, gotten some different dog foods on an immediate basis.  But I also ordered tripe.  I’ve always had a gut feeling it might help my dog enormously, but couldn’t find a local source.  ...

Our Walmart carries tripe.  Your local butcher may be able to get it for you if you request it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pen said:

I have seen things that say that all kibble is processed by dog digestion as if it’s carbohydrate.  Is that true, and if so, what does it mean? and what are the ramifications?

I honestly have no idea what that statement even means. The body breaks things down into their components, the starch is digested as starch, protein as protein, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI if you are looking for green, unwashed tripe do to the hype about the digestive enzymes, they are not really of any use to the dog. Wrong kinds, and broken down by the stomach, etc. It's hype, not science. Count tripe as muscle meat, that is what it is. No special properties. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

FYI if you are looking for green, unwashed tripe do to the hype about the digestive enzymes, they are not really of any use to the dog. Wrong kinds, and broken down by the stomach, etc. It's hype, not science. Count tripe as muscle meat, that is what it is. No special properties. 

 

That it can be directly helpful with allergy may be hype.  Or maybe has some truth.  But if it’s as tasty to dogs as reputed to be, it may be high value enough that I could stuff a Kong  or some such with it and get him to focus on the tripe filled toy and to stop chewing his feet long enough to break the itch -chew cycle 

He’s not generally food motivated enough to care about a chew toy over his feet itching.  

And things like Bitter Yuck don’t discourage him in the least 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I'll look it up, I'm going by the books/info I've read on raw feeding from vet sources and others. most say to actually limit the amount of fatty meat to keep omega 6 fatty acids in check. 

Limiting fat is a very poor idea with raw feeding. Better to balance Omegas 3s with fish oil or oily fish. Fat is the optimal fuel for canines.

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, umsami said:

Our Walmart carries tripe.  Your local butcher may be able to get it for you if you request it.

What raw feeders use is called “green tripe.” Green tripe is unprocessed, unbleached, and uncleaned. 

Butchers and markets can’t sell green tripe, as it isn’t considered human grade. Green tripe smells like cow dung (which makes sense). Dogs love it.

GT is hyped for providing digestive enzymes. I’m skeptical. It does have a very balanced calcium to phosphorus ration.

Bleached human grade tripe is generally avoided by raw feeders.

Bill

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Limiting fat is a very poor idea with raw feeding. Better to balance Omegas 3s with fish oil or oily fish. Fat is the optimal fuel for canines.

Bill

 

This seems to be debatable. Others who specialize in raw diets suggest leaner meats and added oils, rather than fatty meat sources. https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/balancing-fats-for-a-healthier-dog/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

This seems to be debatable. Others who specialize in raw diets suggest leaner meats and added oils, rather than fatty meat sources. https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/balancing-fats-for-a-healthier-dog/

Dogs Naturally is often a font of bad information. Balancing fats is a fine practice, but limiting meats to lean cuts is extremely wrong-headed. About 30% of a PMR raw fed dogs diet should be fat (about 50-60% of calories).

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

What raw feeders use is called “green tripe.” Green tripe is unprocessed, unbleached, and uncleaned. 

Butchers and markets can’t sell green tripe, as it isn’t considered human grade. Green tripe smells like cow dung (which makes sense). Dogs love it.

GT is hyped for providing digestive enzymes. I’m skeptical. It does have a very balanced calcium to phosphorus ration.

Bleached human grade tripe is generally avoided by raw feeders.

Bill

 

Ah thanks.  Tripe is one of those foods that is considered a treat (along with kidneys, liver,  brains) in my husband's culture.  I've only seen the bleached supermarket kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, umsami said:

Ah thanks.  Tripe is one of those foods that is considered a treat (along with kidneys, liver,  brains) in my husband's culture.  I've only seen the bleached supermarket kind.

Yeah, I happen to love tripe. I’m alone in my family. But when wife and son travel I make big batches of tripe and share with a friendly neighbor who is a tripe lover.

Raw fed dogs would have too much competition with humans for kidney, brain, tripe, and liver in your husbands country. Those are treasured bits.

Bill

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just at our local well run pet store with nutritionist and vet on staff . Was absolutely shocked when they showed me that I am paying $2 a day for dog food with the Nutrisource Adult vs $10 a day if I switched to NW Naturals frozen. No way I can afford that.   They showed me that the kibble I am feeding my dogs does not have peas/legumes.  Nutrisource has both a grain and a grain free line. I am doing the kind with grains. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
2
7 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Was just at our local well run pet store with nutritionist and vet on staff . Was absolutely shocked when they showed me that I am paying $2 a day for dog food with the Nutrisource Adult vs $10 a day if I switched to NW Naturals frozen. No way I can afford that.   They showed me that the kibble I am feeding my dogs does not have peas/legumes.  Nutrisource has both a grain and a grain free line. I am doing the kind with grains. 

For the sake of comparison, I'm able to feed my 60 lb high-energy Vizsla on $2 a day. Granted, I shop well and have some great sources for inexpensive cuts, but this is all fresh meat, chicken, eggs, fish, etc. No grains, legumes, or starches of any kind. 

It is not necessary to spend $10 a day to feed a dog a balanced PMR style raw diet.

Bill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Was just at our local well run pet store with nutritionist and vet on staff . Was absolutely shocked when they showed me that I am paying $2 a day for dog food with the Nutrisource Adult vs $10 a day if I switched to NW Naturals frozen. No way I can afford that.   They showed me that the kibble I am feeding my dogs does not have peas/legumes.  Nutrisource has both a grain and a grain free line. I am doing the kind with grains. 

 

NE naturals is hugely  expensive.   I didn’t even consider them despite their being a semi local company. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Was just at our local well run pet store with nutritionist and vet on staff . Was absolutely shocked when they showed me that I am paying $2 a day for dog food with the Nutrisource Adult vs $10 a day if I switched to NW Naturals frozen. No way I can afford that.   They showed me that the kibble I am feeding my dogs does not have peas/legumes.  Nutrisource has both a grain and a grain free line. I am doing the kind with grains. 

 

—-Please don’t quote...—-

I’ll delete soon as I think this is sort of too revealing of location and vet for us...

our vet who favors raw feeding recommended this:  xxxx. Deleted xxx. 

 which is a human food butcher shop that has product for dogs too.  You might have something like that somewhere in your area too.   You can see the sort of prices...

Main Range around 69 cents / pound for chicken necks/backs (and a closer place to us will do same on chicken)  to $3 per package (usually 2 lb?) for their frozen mixed red meat packs . 

This thread has led me to get some tripe and I’ll probably get some more of other types of raw food again too    Then in fall order a quarter or half steer which dog can have tough and organ parts from.  

 

—Please don’t quote.  —

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

—-Please don’t quote...—-

I’ll delete soon as I think this is sort of too revealing of location and vet for us...

our vet who favors raw feeding recommended this:  xxxx. Deleted xxx. 

 which is a human food butcher shop that has product for dogs too.  You might have something like that somewhere in your area too.   You can see the sort of prices...

Main Range around 69 cents / pound for chicken necks/backs (and a closer place to us will do same on chicken)  to $3 per package (usually 2 lb?) for their frozen mixed red meat packs . 

This thread has led me to get some tripe and I’ll probably get some more of other types of raw food again too    Then in fall order a quarter or half steer which dog can have tough and organ parts from.  

 

—Please don’t quote.  —

wow, that's amazing. Most places here sell chicken necks/backs at close to $2 a pound! Only thing i can find near that price is bags of chicken leg quarters for about 70 cents a pound, but they are VERY heavy on skin/fat and too high in bone content so need to be balanced out with muscle meat, which again is $2 a pound or higher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

wow, that's amazing. Most places here sell chicken necks/backs at close to $2 a pound! Only thing i can find near that price is bags of chicken leg quarters for about 70 cents a pound, but they are VERY heavy on skin/fat and too high in bone content so need to be balanced out with muscle meat, which again is $2 a pound or higher. 

 

The 69 cents per pound is for bag of 40 pounds.  If just a pound is bought it is closer to $2 here too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

The 69 cents per pound is for bag of 40 pounds.  If just a pound is bought it is closer to $2 here too.  

ah..yeah I don't have room for that, even if I could find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question for those of you who feed your dogs raw:

What about e. coli, salmonella, parasites?  I read previously, when thinking about going raw, that modern domesticated dogs have lost the ability to maintain the beneficial gut flora needed to counteract e. coli, etc.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't currently raw feed. I have in the past and I know many people who do. I only recall knowing of two dogs who developed issues, and now I can't remember whether it was e-coli or salmonella that they had. I do remember that one of them was very seriously ill. But I tend to think it's much more a problem with the individual dog's immune system than it is with raw feeding in general. For me the concern about those things would be more for the humans in the household than for the dog(s).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Bill, do you have any links on the “how to”s of your feeding method?

Jean, my feeding method is to follow the PRM (Prey Model Raw) guidelines. I do so not because of any "ideological" attachments, but because they meet the critical mineral balances (especially the 1.2 : 1 ratio of calcium to phosphorus).

PMR calls for feeding 80% "meat," 10% edible bone, and 10% organs (with half being liver and the other half being kidney or other so-called "secreting" organs.

"Meat" includes flesh, connective tissues, fat, etc.

I mostly rely on bone-in chicken for edible bone, as it presents almost no risk to teeth. I'm risk averse when it comes to hard so-called "recreational bones."

One does need to learn the approximate percentage of bone in commonly served items and then to balance the other portions against that, aiming for about 10%. I try to target 10% daily, but one can be over/under on a daily basis as long as one shoot for balance over time. But being near 10% daily keeps stools perfect and doesn't upset the GI tract with no bone or bone-heavy meals.

I serve 10% organs daily, alternating between a "liver" day and an "other" day. This keeps these vitamin/mineral powerhouses in constant supply and avoids the laxative effects of huge liver meals.

I aim for as much diversity as I can while watching the costs. I can get chicken parts like legs, thighs and quarters very cheaply here. Beef is the most expensive item, but taurine-rich beef heart is well priced (as are beef liver and beef kidney). Fatty pork cuts like shoulder, leg, butt, and cushion are very cheap here. With the pork, I generally de-bone and save the bones for my stockpot.

The way I deal with the food is to cut up fresh food and then pack "portions" into ziplocks. Generally either Snack-sized or Sandwich sized bags. Then the "portions" are placed in a larger zip lock (by type) and frozen).

When I feed I just assemble the meals from the pre-packed "portions." So, commonly a small (10%) portion of daily organ, a "portion" of chicken, a portion of pork, and a portion of something else (beef/oily fish/eggs/etc).

I generally serve frozen. It slows down the eating process a little (raw fed dogs develop ridiculously strong jaw and neck muscles) and I feel it helps clean teeth. Frozen also reduces the chances of cross contamination with human food from de-thawing in the fridge.

These are the basics. If you have further questions Jean please feel free to ask. My method is more of a "balance daily" vs "balance over time" approach than many PMR feeders. But my experience in helping many people is that both very bone-heavy meals and boneless meals can cause GI distress, so I avoid them. I'm also more cautious than average with bones. I'd be a dead man if our beautiful Vizsla cracked a tooth on a hard bone, so I avoid them. With mainly bone-in chicken as a bone source, his teeth have remained sparkling white and clear of tartar.

There is a little time and (for some) a yuck-factor in cutting up meat, poultry, organs, and fish. I like cooking and food prep isn't an issue for me. I've gotten very efficient at prepping a week's worth of food.

With you being in the PNW, I'll repeat the warning not to feed raw local salmon or trout due to fatal-salmon poisoning. If you have free salmon to feed to the dog, cook it first. Freezing may kill the pathogens that cause salmon poisoning, but I would not risk it.

Balancing the diet takes a little getting used to at the beginning, but it gets easy. I think of balance as if the parts are like Cuisenaire rods. It becomes very easy to eyeball the percentages.

Bill

 

 

 

 

Edited by Spy Car
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

wow, that's amazing. Most places here sell chicken necks/backs at close to $2 a pound! Only thing i can find near that price is bags of chicken leg quarters for about 70 cents a pound, but they are VERY heavy on skin/fat and too high in bone content so need to be balanced out with muscle meat, which again is $2 a pound or higher. 

Backs and necks are not very good options for raw feeding IMO because they have way too much bone to meat. The economy of chicken pieces like quarters (legs and thighs) is much higher than necks and backs, which both require a lot of "meat" to balance the bone. Chicken "meat" from bone-in chicken is cheap relative to any other source (generally speaking).

I save backs for my stockpot. Way too boney. Inferior as a source to quarters. Skin and fat ARE GOOD THINGS, I'm not sure how you became convinced otherwise. Fat should be the primary fuel for dogs. They metabolize fat brilliantly. Fat is not something to avoid.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TarynB said:

Serious question for those of you who feed your dogs raw:

What about e. coli, salmonella, parasites?  I read previously, when thinking about going raw, that modern domesticated dogs have lost the ability to maintain the beneficial gut flora needed to counteract e. coli, etc.

Thoughts?

A few dogs have gotten sick, but that's true of dogs eating kibble as well. Kibble has several times been found to have e-coli or salmonella, as has cantaloupe for that matter, lol. The bigger issue is the germs effecting the humans in the house. Raw is not advised in a house with immune suppressed people for that reason. The dog can and will have chicken "juice" on their muzzle, for instance, and then come rub their face on your arm/hand/face, lick you, etc. And although the stomach acid and biology of dogs kills most bad organisms it doesn't work that way for people, so people can get sick. When I feed raw I feed in the dog's crates and then wipe down the crate with a disinfectant afterwards. I wash the bowls in hot soapy water if they got raw in a bowl rather than a big leg just on the floor of the crate. The good news is that salmonella doesn't live long on hard surfaces. But it WAS a hassle, and I did worry about the toddler getting sick. Some feed outside for this reason, but we hang out outside, and I don't want decaying chicken bits all over my yard/patio! Especially since one of my dogs tends to bury things he really likes for "later" and then forget about them. Or he's purposely aging, them, not sure. 

5 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Backs and necks are not very good options for raw feeding IMO because they have way too much bone to meat. The economy of chicken pieces like quarters (legs and thighs) is much higher than necks and backs, which both require a lot of "meat" to balance the bone. Chicken "meat" from bone-in chicken is cheap relative to any other source (generally speaking).

I save backs for my stockpot. Way too boney. Inferior as a source to quarters. Skin and fat ARE GOOD THINGS, I'm not sure how you became convinced otherwise. Fat should be the primary fuel for dogs. They metabolize fat brilliantly. Fat is not something to avoid.

Bill

I have a senior dog with a history of pancreatitis, so he gets lower fat, and the other has some reflux issues and a sensitive stomach both of which seem to be effected by too much fat. Also, the books I read on the subject, from Becker and Steve Brown both emphasized not overdoing fat, as wild canids eat lean meats. Either way, I trim some of the skin/fat, particularly for the senior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TarynB said:

Serious question for those of you who feed your dogs raw:

What about e. coli, salmonella, parasites?  I read previously, when thinking about going raw, that modern domesticated dogs have lost the ability to maintain the beneficial gut flora needed to counteract e. coli, etc.

Thoughts?

I think the idea that domestic dogs have lost the ability to eat raw meat is fallacious. Let's not forget that a kibble based diet only hit the market after WWII when food manufacturers figured out that they could make a convenience food using the same machinery they used to make breakfast cereals for the human market.

Anecdotally, my dog has eaten a raw diet for 5 years (since puppyhood) with nothing but hugely positive results. No illness. Vibrant health. Further, I've never heard of a PMR fed dog getting sick due to food poising type issues.

There are some risky parasites in wild food, like swine, bear, and PNW salmon and trout. I would not feed these raw.

Remember, dog foods are recalled with frequency due to contagion with salmonella, etc. Humans are at the most risk. Raw feeding requires the same precautions for people as they take preparing raw meat for human meals.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it should be said that there are MULTIPLE theories of feeding raw.

BARF is from a vet, Dr. Billinghurst, who emphasizes add ins such as yogurt, veggies, etc in addition to meat and bones

PMR is the prey model raw that Bill speaks of, and even there it appears there are variations considering he is a believer in high fat and others promote leaner meat. Some say add nothing to the diet, some say to balance the fatty acids by using either fish oil, flax oil, or even canola or corn oil depending on what meats you are feeding. (The book The Ancestral Diet is I think where that is explored). 

And then in either camp there is a spectrum running from the very complex recipes that must be balanced to the iota, with lots of vitamins/supplements added such as vitamin D, zinc, etc to the impossibly simple - the biggest person in that camp is Dr. Tom Lonsdale who wrote "the book Raw Meaty Bones and has a website of the same name. He basically says that although variety is nice, the biggest thing is to stop feeding kibble and feed raw meat and bones, and he doesn't care how you do it. He claims (and I have spoken to him personally about this) that he's seen dogs do great for a decade plus eating almost nothing but chicken backs and some table scraps - a far cry from the strict proportions advocated by PMR. 

And then there are the cooked diets, but beware of any old person putting up a recipe that is NOT balanced at all. Many are suitable as a treat, not a full meal, and most have almost zero calcium in them. If nothing else, if feeding say a chicken and rice diet you MUST add calcium. you can get the powdered kind cheaply, and there are directions out there as to how much to add per pound of food. Or there is a company called Balance It that makes a mix to add to a recipe they supply. Or a few others that do the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
3
6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Also, it should be said that there are MULTIPLE theories of feeding raw.

BARF is from a vet, Dr. Billinghurst, who emphasizes add ins such as yogurt, veggies, etc in addition to meat and bones

PMR is the prey model raw that Bill speaks of, and even there it appears there are variations considering he is a believer in high fat and others promote leaner meat. Some say add nothing to the diet, some say to balance the fatty acids by using either fish oil, flax oil, or even canola or corn oil depending on what meats you are feeding. (The book The Ancestral Diet is I think where that is explored). 

And then in either camp there is a spectrum running from the very complex recipes that must be balanced to the iota, with lots of vitamins/supplements added such as vitamin D, zinc, etc to the impossibly simple - the biggest person in that camp is Dr. Tom Lonsdale who wrote "the book Raw Meaty Bones and has a website of the same name. He basically says that although variety is nice, the biggest thing is to stop feeding kibble and feed raw meat and bones, and he doesn't care how you do it. He claims (and I have spoken to him personally about this) that he's seen dogs do great for a decade plus eating almost nothing but chicken backs and some table scraps - a far cry from the strict proportions advocated by PMR. 

And then there are the cooked diets, but beware of any old person putting up a recipe that is NOT balanced at all. Many are suitable as a treat, not a full meal, and most have almost zero calcium in them. If nothing else, if feeding say a chicken and rice diet you MUST add calcium. you can get the powdered kind cheaply, and there are directions out there as to how much to add per pound of food. Or there is a company called Balance It that makes a mix to add to a recipe they supply. Or a few others that do the same. 

Yes. BARF is an outdated (but pioneering) form of "raw" feeding that involved feeding way to much bone (grossly in excess of the critical 1.2: 1 Calcium to Phosphorus ratios) which is a serious reason on its own to avoid BARF.

BARF also advocates for feeding extravagant amounts of vegetables and carbohydrates, which are not essential to a canine diet and which undermine vitality. And for adding all sorts of unnecessary supplements (when organ meat is preferable).

Lastly, BARF recommends grinding all the food (including the bone) which robs raw feeding of much of its positive dental benefits.

The method is very labor intensive, unnecessarily complicated, requires very expensive meat grinders (which are not warranted or designed to grind bone), and the net impact is to have meals that are far less nutrition than a PMR style diet.

Adding carbs breaks a dog's fat metabolism mechanism and move them to carb burning, which undermines their vitality, rots their teeth, and encourages obesity.

So between the cost to health, the cost of grinders, and the inconvenience of BARF, it is a method that has been largely abandoned.

Too many people fell for the notion that canines should be fed like people. 

No one feeding PMR promotes feeding low-fat. The target is 50-60% of calories from fat (which is about 30% of dietary fat my mass). Balancing fats is great. Feeding Beef, chicken, pork, and oily fish (not PNW salmonoids) does a great job balancing fat types. I often feed eggs cooked in coconut oil to provide medium chain fatty acids.

Tom Lonsdale's notion that dogs can do fine eating nothing but chicken backs and scraps runs counter to every piece of veterinary science and borders on being criminally wrong advice.

Any home-prepped diet needs to be designed to maintain a CA : P ratio of near 1.2 : 1. This is the least controversial issue in all of canine nutritional science.

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

 

Lastly, BARF recommends grinding all the food (including the bone) which robs raw feeding of much of its positive dental benefits.

The method is very labor intensive, unnecessarily complicated, requires very expensive meat grinders (which are not warranted or designed to grind bone), and the net impact is to have meals that are far less nutrition than a PMR style diet.

No one feeding PMR promotes feeding low-fat. The target is 50-60% of calories from fat (which is about 30% of dietary fat my mass). Balancing fats is great. Feeding Beef, chicken, pork, and oily fish (not PNW salmonoids) does a great job balancing fat types. I often feed eggs cooked in coconut oil to provide medium chain fatty acids.

Tom Lonsdale's notion that dogs can do fine eating nothing but chicken backs and scraps runs counter to every piece of veterinary science and borders on being criminally wrong advice.

BARF does not say you need to grind the bones. Grinders are available that are rated for chicken bones, but not harder bones. (I have one, as one of my dogs has some neck/jaw issues). 

And I didn't say low fat, but not high fat. Dr. Becker (veterinarian) and Steve Brown both advocate lean meats. I'm not making that up 🙂

And for the record for others reading, Tom Lonsdale IS a veterinarian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spy Car ~ how many pounds food per day Per dog mass is considered right amount ?  (Moderately active, fairly lean, unneutered 6.5yodog, 65lbs.  —  lean like a correct part Dalmatian /field line Lab is lean, not Vizsla Greyhound type lean). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trainer who first introduced me to raw used the pretty much all chicken parts plus supplements method.  He’s raised several generations of working dogs that way and they seem to be doing well.  My dog seems to have chicken allergy, however, so that’s not doable for us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pen said:

@Spy Car ~ how many pounds food per day Per dog mass is considered right amount ?  (Moderately active, fairly lean, unneutered 6.5yodog, 65lbs.  —  lean like a correct part Dalmatian /field line Lab is lean, not Vizsla Greyhound type lean). 

In your case, I'd start with a target of 1.5 lbs if feeding PMR and adjust from there by using the methods mentioned above (palpating ribs to judge the degree of fat layer and looking from above for evidence of a "tuck" (waist). Typically PMR dogs get 2-3% of body weight, with larger dogs generally toward the lower side and smaller dogs toward the higher side.

1.5 lbs is about 2% of your dog's body weight. It is always best to feed "by condition" rather than a preconceived formula. For those who are unaware, dogs transitioned to PRM generally drop body fat while adding muscle, so they will look "lean" to people accustomed to our cultures norm of very obese dogs. Running lean and muscular is very good for canine health. If hip bones start to protrude the dog is underweight. I like a like rib showing in dogs like Dalmatians, Boxers, and Vizslas, but a lot of rib is obviously underweight.

The best standard of measure is feeling the fat layer. You can set a standard for how much of a fat layer you desire and adjust the mass of food accordingly.

Bill

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
43 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

BARF does not say you need to grind the bones. Grinders are available that are rated for chicken bones, but not harder bones. (I have one, as one of my dogs has some neck/jaw issues). 

And I didn't say low fat, but not high fat. Dr. Becker (veterinarian) and Steve Brown both advocate lean meats. I'm not making that up 🙂

And for the record for others reading, Tom Lonsdale IS a veterinarian. 

I'm very familiar with Dr Karen Becker who comes to us from the "Mercola House of Woo." I take her advice with a bolder of salt. Even when I agree with her conclusions.

I'm also aware that Tom Lonsdale is a veterinarian, but I believe that a veterinarian who ignores the universally accepted need to balance calcium and phosphorus should lose his veterinary license. The advice is quite mad IMO. Nothing in canine veterinary nutrition is less controversial that this.

There is a lot of "woo" and pseudoscience available on the web and Dr Becker, Dr Lonsdale, Dr Billingham, and Dogs Naturally, unfortunately--in my estimation--sometimes perpetuate some dangerous nonsense.

As to BARF, proponents grind the softest bones (the ones that would otherwise advantage dog's dental benefits if chewed and which are the least risky to teeth) while providing very hard so-called "recreational bones" (aka rec. bones, aka wreck bones) whole, which pose a high degree of risk for fracturing teeth. Not a smart practice IMO.

Fat at 30% of a meal (50-60% of calories) isn't "high fat" but properly balanced fat in an otherwise healthy dog.

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I'm very familiar with Dr Karen Becker who comes to us from the "Mercola House of Woo." I take her advice with a bolder of salt. Even when I agree with her conclusions.

I'm also aware that Tom Lonsdale is a veterinarian, but I believe that a veterinarian who ignores the universally accepted need to balance calcium and phosphorus should lose his veterinary license. The advice is quite mad IMO. Nothing in canine veterinary nutrition is less controversial that this.

There is a lot of "woo" and pseudoscience available on the web and Dr Becker, Dr Lonsdale, Dr Billingham, and Dogs Naturally, unfortunately--in my estimation--sometimes perpetuate some dangerous nonsense.

As to BARF, proponents grind the softest bones (the ones that would otherwise advantage dog's dental benefits if chewed and which are the least risky to teeth) while providing very hard so-called "recreational bones" (aka rec. bones, aka wreck bones) whole, which pose a high degree of risk for fracturing teeth. Not a smart practice IMO.

Fat at 30% of a meal (50-60% of calories) isn't "high fat" but properly balanced fat in an otherwise healthy dog.

Bill

 

 

I get that you disagree with them, but that doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong. Saying you believe that is different than presenting as accepted fact. There are various opinions, from various experts. 

And I read Billinghurst way back in the day, and never did I take away that you were supposed to grind bones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Pen said:

The trainer who first introduced me to raw used the pretty much all chicken parts plus supplements method.  He’s raised several generations of working dogs that way and they seem to be doing well.  My dog seems to have chicken allergy, however, so that’s not doable for us.  

Chicken allergies make it a bit harder to feed PMR economically and conveniently (given the low cost and ubiquity of chicken). On the other hand, there are other animal sources for edible bone and in the worst case there is calcium supplementation. I'd also investigate any issues with Dalmations as I'm aware they have some special nutritional needs (watching purine levels) and that's not an area where I have any expertise.

Bill 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to take before raw experiment and after photos.  Side view, top view, front view, worst allergy feet chew fur loss  

 view.  I decided a bit of slim down would be fine, not too much.  Biggest change will be if allergy problem can be remedie

 

Just now, Spy Car said:

Chicken allergies make it a bit harder to feed PMR economically and conveniently (given the low cost and ubiquity of chicken). On the other hand, there are other animal sources for edible bone and in the worst case there is calcium supplementation. I'd also investigate any issues with Dalmations as I'm aware they have some special nutritional needs (watching purine levels) and that's not an area where I have any expertise.

Bill 

 

 

I’m planning to try an elimination diet for a few days, then see if he seems okay with turkey.  

He’s part black Lab which is supposed to protect him from worst of Dalmatian problems such as kidney stone tendency—but he’s supposed to go lower than suggested on high purine organ meats, just in case—said his vet who favors raw feeding.  Plus to have plenty of water encouraged such as with bone broth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ktgrok said:

I get that you disagree with them, but that doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong. Saying you believe that is different than presenting as accepted fact. There are various opinions, from various experts. 

And I read Billinghurst way back in the day, and never did I take away that you were supposed to grind bones. 

Every veterinary authority on earth calls for carefully balancing CA and P in the diet. I have no problem saying Lonsdale is wrong because his advice flies in the face of the universal consensus of the experts in animal nutrition.

If you chose to heed the advice of the supplement-pushing Becker/Mercola website that's up to you. I put them into the category of money-making practitioners of pseudoscience.

Every BARF source I've ever seen advocates grinding bones and doing in a ratio that supplies at least twice the proper calcium-phosphorus ratio. Plus BARF undermines fat-metabolism by feeding dogs unnatural, unnecessary, and nonessential carbohydrates. It defeats the prime rational of feeding "raw" which is to get carbs out of the diet. BARF mimics a kibble diet in terms of the calorie profile, which is not a good thing despite the higher quality sources.

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pen said:

I decided to take before raw experiment and after photos.  Side view, top view, front view, worst allergy feet chew fur loss  

 view.  I decided a bit of slim down would be fine, not too much.  Biggest change will be if allergy problem can be remedie

 

 

I’m planning to try an elimination diet for a few days, then see if he seems okay with turkey.  

He’s part black Lab which is supposed to protect him from worst of Dalmatian problems such as kidney stone tendency—but he’s supposed to go lower than suggested on high purine organ meats, just in case—said his vet who favors raw feeding.  Plus to have plenty of water encouraged such as with bone broth.  

If you need to cut back on organs, I would work with the vet to use a vitamin/mineral supplement to compensate. 

If you purchase fatty pork cuts, like shoulder, you will have plenty of bones to make broth after trimming the meat.

I have read cautions about feeding too much turkey neck, as they evidently contain the thyroid and thyroid hormones. Not an expert here. Just a heads up.

Do not be surprised if you see a change in body type. PMR fed dogs are almost always "leaner" looking than kibble fed dogs. You may get "comments" at first while your dog works on muscling up. He will muscle up (especially being intact). Don't be surprised if you second-guess yourself on the amount of food. Part of the transition will be for you to realize what a fit dog should look like vs what we are used to seeing.

Despite being a proponent of full fat, I would caution you to limit the amount of fat in the very beginning to ease the transition. Many metabolic changes need to occur as a dog moves from carb burning to fat metabolism. There are changes from increased mitochondria in the cells to a shift in the digestive enzymes released by the pancreas. These all move in a positive direction, but too much fat too soon after a kibble diet can cause problems. So build up the fats over two weeks or so.

It is great you have a vet you can work with. 

Bill  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

My slim Rottie doesn't look like other slim dogs.  So much more bulk there even though there is no fat at all!  She's a beefy shoulder girl - all muscle. 

Sounds like my Vizsla. Lean. Shows a little rib. Has a tuck. But the muscles are stacked.

I had to endure some "comments" in late puppyhood before he bulked up muscle-wise. Now people generally comment on how he looks like a "supermodel."

it is a different look.

Bill

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

Every veterinary authority on earth calls for carefully balancing CA and P in the diet. I have no problem saying Lonsdale is wrong because his advice flies in the face of the universal consensus of the experts in animal nutrition.

If you chose to heed the advice of the supplement-pushing Becker/Mercola website that's up to you. I put them into the category of money-making practitioners of pseudoscience.

Every BARF source I've ever seen advocates grinding bones and doing in a ratio that supplies at least twice the proper calcium-phosphorus ratio. Plus BARF undermines fat-metabolism by feeding dogs unnatural, unnecessary, and nonessential carbohydrates. It defeats the prime rational of feeding "raw" which is to get carbs out of the diet. BARF mimics a kibble diet in terms of the calorie profile, which is not a good thing despite the higher quality sources.

Bill

 

He admits the ratio is wrong, but claims that it is better for a dog to have a mostly bony diet on raw than a kibble diet, if that is what local resources and economics limit the choices to. Given he's seen generations of dogs doing this, he must have some idea of what works in real life versus textbook. He doesn't claim it is ideal, he says it is doable. Which makes sense given the kinds of things dogs have lived off of over the centuries. 

I don't subscribe to Mercola anything, but I'm now sure how someone like Steve Brown, who breaks down the science in his book to show what nutrients are lacking in raw diets, what fatty acids should be added, etc, has anything to do with Mercola. I also am not sure how you have the authority to flat out call multiple veterinarians, researches, etc all wrong with no admission that there are varying opinions on this. 

As for BARF, that was started by billinghurst and he doesn't advise grinding the bones unless you have some special need (dog with dental pain, whatever). Billinghurst/BARF is how I first heard of raw bones! Heck, the original acronym BARF stood for Bones and Raw Food. Then they changed it to biologically appropriate raw food, but they still feed bones. AS for the added carbs, the only reason I see for them are added cheap calories for those who have economic constraints, which is a LOT of people. And to add weight to a hard keeper. 

If you have other experts you would like to cite, that break down the science, look to the nutritional guidelines and match that to raw diets, etc I'm sure they'd be appreciated. But I've listed three different veterinarians now (Billinghurst, Lonsdale, Becker) who between them pretty much created the meaty bones/raw food movement as we know it, as well as a book that breaks down the nutrient requirements of dogs and compares them to wolves and then compares all that to both traditional prey as well as modern/available meat sources and shows what is needed and where things are lacking, and you've knocked all of them as not knowing what they are talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
4
37 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

He admits the ratio is wrong, but claims that it is better for a dog to have a mostly bony diet on raw than a kibble diet, if that is what local resources and economics limit the choices to. Given he's seen generations of dogs doing this, he must have some idea of what works in real life versus textbook. He doesn't claim it is ideal, he says it is doable. Which makes sense given the kinds of things dogs have lived off of over the centuries. 

I don't subscribe to Mercola anything, but I'm now sure how someone like Steve Brown, who breaks down the science in his book to show what nutrients are lacking in raw diets, what fatty acids should be added, etc, has anything to do with Mercola. I also am not sure how you have the authority to flat out call multiple veterinarians, researches, etc all wrong with no admission that there are varying opinions on this. 

As for BARF, that was started by billinghurst and he doesn't advise grinding the bones unless you have some special need (dog with dental pain, whatever). Billinghurst/BARF is how I first heard of raw bones! Heck, the original acronym BARF stood for Bones and Raw Food. Then they changed it to biologically appropriate raw food, but they still feed bones. AS for the added carbs, the only reason I see for them are added cheap calories for those who have economic constraints, which is a LOT of people. And to add weight to a hard keeper. 

If you have other experts you would like to cite, that break down the science, look to the nutritional guidelines and match that to raw diets, etc I'm sure they'd be appreciated. But I've listed three different veterinarians now (Billinghurst, Lonsdale, Becker) who between them pretty much created the meaty bones/raw food movement as we know it, as well as a book that breaks down the nutrient requirements of dogs and compares them to wolves and then compares all that to both traditional prey as well as modern/available meat sources and shows what is needed and where things are lacking, and you've knocked all of them as not knowing what they are talking about. 

I will certainly knock Lonsdale for giving credence to the idea that woefully ignoring CA:P ratios is something that is "doable." That is very dangerous advice. As much as I prefer feeding a balanced raw diet to dogs and dislike kibble, I'd suggest kibble over a grossly imbalanced diet of chicken backs and table scraps. 

Billinghurst deserves credit as a pioneer, but his ideas have been supplanted with ones that are more sound nutritionally. 

Becker is part of the Mercola supplement pushing "World of Woo." Hard to take her seriously.

Adding carbs is a central part of the BARF diet. It is not a means of economizing but represents a failed understanding of canine nutrition. Raw feeding has moved on.

I have no issues with trying to balance the lipid profile fed to dogs. Seems like a good idea.

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I will certainly knock Lonsdale for giving credence to the idea that woefully ignoring CA:P ratios is something that is "doable." That is very dangerous advice. As much as I prefer feeding a balanced raw diet to dogs and dislike kibble, I'd suggest kibble over a grossly imbalanced diet of chicken backs and table scraps. 

Billinghurst deserves credit as a pioneer, but his ideas have been supplanted with ones that are more sound nutritionally. 

Becker is part of the Mercola supplement pushing "World of Woo." Hard to take her seriously.

Adding carbs is a central part of the BARF diet. It is not a means of economizing but represents a failed understanding of canine nutrition. Raw feeding has moved on.

I have no issues with trying to balance the lipid profile fed to dogs. Seems like a good idea.

Bill

 

 

Again, you wouldn't advise it, he does. He's a vet who sees scores of dogs, multiple generations of dogs. No offense, but if he says it is doable and has seen the evidence that convinces him it is, I'm not sure why I'd believe Bill the guy on the homeschool forum over the veterinarian, you know? That said, even he says it isn't optimal and I don't feed that way. But it's interesting to note and I won't dismiss it out of hand. 

So if you don't follow Billinghurst, Becker, Lonsdale, Brown, etc, where ARE you getting your information? Not trying to give you a hard time asking what you are basing your very vehement statements on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Again, you wouldn't advise it, he does. He's a vet who sees scores of dogs, multiple generations of dogs. No offense, but if he says it is doable and has seen the evidence that convinces him it is, I'm not sure why I'd believe Bill the guy on the homeschool forum over the veterinarian, you know? That said, even he says it isn't optimal and I don't feed that way. But it's interesting to note and I won't dismiss it out of hand. 

So if you don't follow Billinghurst, Becker, Lonsdale, Brown, etc, where ARE you getting your information? Not trying to give you a hard time asking what you are basing your very vehement statements on. 

And *if* he does tell people that balancing calcium and phosphorus ratios is immaterial, he should lose his license to practice. It is an utterly irresponsible idea to put out there. Raw feeding is great *if* done responsibly, but not if one is reckless and negligent.

Every authority on canine nutrition from the National Academy of Sciences to the Merck Veterinary Manual endorses the importance of a diet meeting the proper CA : P ratio.

I'm astounded that you'd try to dispute the most settled aspect of canine nutrition. It is mind-boggling to me.

Bill

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...