Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Ktgrok

another PSA/Update on dog food and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

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

 

 

 

 

He's not saying it is immaterial, he's saying it is less of a problem than kibble. He is basing this on seeing actual dogs eating actual food over generations. He does NOT say it is ideal. He does promote a balance between meaty bones and muscle meat and organs. But he says that if you can't do that, then do what you can, rather than kibble. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying he's one of the voices out there, and has just as much credence to his point of view as a vet seeing actual results over the lifespan of multiple dogs as say, a person on a homeschool forum  who has a sample set of one dog. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a link to a Lonsdale pdf:  

 

http://www.rawmeatybones.com/diet/exp-diet-guide.pdf

 

Obviously, not being in Australia, kangaroo isn’t going to be something that I can find for my dog.  But I am not seeing a major issue—nor even, aside from it not giving exact percentage amounts of meat to bone to organ, what is so extremely  different as from the pmr type feeding system...

?????

Share this post


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

Here’s a link to a Lonsdale pdf:  

 

http://www.rawmeatybones.com/diet/exp-diet-guide.pdf

 

Obviously, not being in Australia, kangaroo isn’t going to be something that I can find for my dog.  But I am not seeing a major issue—nor even, aside from it not giving exact percentage amounts of meat to bone to organ, what is so extremely  different as from the pmr type feeding system...

?????

Lonsdale advises way too much bone.

PMR feeders would never serve the carcass of a chicken or turkey that had been stripped of all the meat. This is a good way to impact a dog's digestive system (at worst) and cause severe constipation (at best).

He also calls for feeding human table scraps (including carbohydrates) and for feeding fruit and vegetables.

He is off his rocker as far as I'm concerned. Dangerously bad advice. 

Bill

 

 

 

Share this post


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

He's not saying it is immaterial, he's saying it is less of a problem than kibble. He is basing this on seeing actual dogs eating actual food over generations. He does NOT say it is ideal. He does promote a balance between meaty bones and muscle meat and organs. But he says that if you can't do that, then do what you can, rather than kibble. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying he's one of the voices out there, and has just as much credence to his point of view as a vet seeing actual results over the lifespan of multiple dogs as say, a person on a homeschool forum  who has a sample set of one dog. 

He has no authority when his "advise" contradicts the universal consensus of experts in canine nutrition. Massively overfeeding bone creates a serious imbalance of calcium in the diet which is very risky for canine health. You should know better than this. Really.

Bill

Share this post


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

He has no authority when his "advise" contradicts the universal consensus of experts in canine nutrition. Massively overfeeding bone creates a serious imbalance of calcium in the diet which is very risky for canine health. You should know better than this. Really.

Bill

There is no "consensus of experts" when it comes to raw feeding is my entire point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is no "consensus of experts" when it comes to raw feeding is my entire point. 

Not on raw feeding, but on canine nutrition, there are recognized world authorities including the Nation Research Council. They develop the guidelines for canine nutritional requirements. Lonsdale's "advice" doesn't conform to widely accepted nutritional science. Not close.

It is dangerously bad advice.

Bill

 

Share this post


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

Not on raw feeding, but on canine nutrition, there are recognized world authorities including the Nation Research Council. They develop the guidelines for canine nutritional requirements. Lonsdale's "advice" doesn't conform to widely accepted nutritional science. Not close.

It is dangerously bad advice.

Bill

 

There are many who say that PMR doesn't meet the NRC's guidelines either, for that matter. And they have the numbers to prove it. Missing nutrients usually include zinc, D, E, etc. 

Which again, is my point. Everyone is doing it their own way, and at this point there is no proof that any one way is right. 

I'm not saying Lonsdale is right. I'm saying that there half a dozen different ways to do a raw diet, and despite you saying your way is right, there are experts that disagree with your way and with each other. It's still the wild west with regards to raw diets. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There are many who say that PMR doesn't meet the NRC's guidelines either, for that matter. And they have the numbers to prove it. Missing nutrients usually include zinc, D, E, etc. 

Which again, is my point. Everyone is doing it their own way, and at this point there is no proof that any one way is right. 

I'm not saying Lonsdale is right. I'm saying that there half a dozen different ways to do a raw diet, and despite you saying your way is right, there are experts that disagree with your way and with each other. It's still the wild west with regards to raw diets. 

Wrong. PMR feeding meets all the nutritional requirements of the NRC and (most germane to this conversation) meets the 1.2 : 1 CA to P ratio.

There clearly are ways to meet the recommended ratios of minerals and see hat sort of diets fail in that regard. Your contention is absolutely false. The vitamins and minerals (and fat, protein, etc.) for all common animal products are listed on the USDA website. It is very easy to validate the nutritional content of a raw diet from the component parts.

Lonsdale's "advice" is so far out of conformance with known veterinary science that it falls into the category of dangerously bad practice. I'd hate to see a dog's health damaged from an owner following his lunacy. PMR feeders should seek to meet NRC standards, which is pretty easy if one follows the 80/10/10 model and feeds a diversity of proteins.

Bill 

 

 

Share this post


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

Wrong. PMR feeding meets all the nutritional requirements of the NRC and (most germane to this conversation) meets the 1.2 : 1 CA to P ratio.

 

 

Proof? 

I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm not seeing any evidence it does, either. 

personally, i think dogs eating a varied diet are probably able to do well on a WIDE variety of foods and feeding styles. They were scavengers after all. But I don't see proof of what you are saying. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Proof? 

I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm not seeing any evidence it does, either. 

personally, i think dogs eating a varied diet are probably able to do well on a WIDE variety of foods and feeding styles. They were scavengers after all. But I don't see proof of what you are saying. 

As I said, one can look up all the constituent parts of typical PMR meals on the USDA website and aggregate the number of vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, bone, etc in typical meals.

I did my due diligence rather than relying on gurus of woo.

My aim is to meet the very highest standards by the established authorities in canine nutrition and not those of a guy that says eating dangerous amounts of bone and willy-nilly table scraps is a valid approach to feeding a dog. I'd pray for a dog whose owner fed him/her on de-boned carcasses. That dog would be in distress. It is one of the most dangerous approaches imaginable. Kibble would be safer and I'm no fan of feeding kibble. Lonsdale's advice is quite mad.

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread, I am getting more and more confused.  Our trainer recommended a food I did not see anyone mention , it is mail order only.  Flintriver.com.   Takes you to the site, although it is now known as Pinto Canyon.   I would add a direct link but two- finger typing on an old iPad and don't know how to cut and paste a link.  Anyway,  Gigi the Lab is happy and healthy on it.  The cat tries to snitch some when she can, too.  Could anyone look at the site and comment on the Pinto Canyon dog food re the CDC heart problem ya'all are writing about?

 

pardon any typos 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spy Car said:

As I said, one can look up all the constituent parts of typical PMR meals on the USDA website and aggregate the number of vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, bone, etc in typical meals.

I did my due diligence rather than relying on gurus of woo.

My aim is to meet the very highest standards by the established authorities in canine nutrition and not those of a guy that says eating dangerous amounts of bone and willy-nilly table scraps is a valid approach to feeding a dog. I'd pray for a dog whose owner fed him/her on de-boned carcasses. That dog would be in distress. It is one of the most dangerous approaches imaginable. Kibble would be safer and I'm no fan of feeding kibble. Lonsdale's advice is quite mad.

Bill

 

 

Yes, and I've seen charts comparing a typical PMR meal and the NRC recommendations and the PMR meals are lacking in zinc, D, and E. 

I've also seen studies done on commercial raw diets showing them lacking in many minerals. 

As for the dogs being in distress, Lonsdale sees them regularly in his vet clinic and doesn't find that to be the case, so again we have "bill  who has never seen a dog fed that way says one thing" and 'vet who sees dogs on a routine basis says another thing". Now, there are other vets who agree with you that bone can cause impaction, etc but what is interesting is those veterinarians recommend not feeding raw at all due to the risk of impaction from bone. 

Again, there are very few studies on the nutritional adequacy and composition of raw diets. The ones I have seen say a strict PMR diet without supplements is lacking compared to NRC guidelines.  This article mentions that a bit. http://vetnutrition.tufts.edu/2016/01/raw-diets-a-healthy-choice-or-a-raw-deal/

There is no scientific consensus on raw - that is my whole point. I've mentioned the three veterinarians that are the most influential on raw feeding and their books and pointed out that they all disagree with each other. And then you disagree with all of them. I'm not saying any of them is right, I'm pointing out to people that despite your assurances that your way is the right way, there is no current consensus and a lack of research. 

*as an aside, for anyone looking, I found a study that a raw manufacturer claimed to show their raw diets were wonderful. Except once you drill down you find that their diets didn't meet the guidelines on many nutrients - but they added a note that said basically, "this doesn't meet the guidelines but the manufacturer says it is nutritionally adequate so it's fine". Um, what??? What was the purpose of analyzing the food if you were going to ignore any problems? Weirdest thing I ever saw, and had to drill down several pages to find that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JFSinIL2.0 said:

Reading this thread, I am getting more and more confused.  Our trainer recommended a food I did not see anyone mention , it is mail order only.  Flintriver.com.   Takes you to the site, although it is now known as Pinto Canyon.   I would add a direct link but two- finger typing on an old iPad and don't know how to cut and paste a link.  Anyway,  Gigi the Lab is happy and healthy on it.  The cat tries to snitch some when she can, too.  Could anyone look at the site and comment on the Pinto Canyon dog food re the CDC heart problem ya'all are writing about?

 

pardon any typos 

Ok, so here is the breakdown.

-does not meet WSAVA guidelines (only the big few companies do) because it doesn't do feeding trials and doesn't have a veterinary nutritionist on staff from what I can see. 

-They DO analyze/test the food after manufacturing, which the companies implicated so far did NOT do. So that's a good thing. 

-They say they developed the recipes in conjunction with a nutritionist. They don't give details on the expertise of that person. "nutritionist" can just mean a person with a bachelors degree in some nutrition or animal related field. If you want, I'll email them and as for the credentials of that person. ideally a PhD in animal nutrition or a veterinary nutritionist is what WSAVA recommends. 

-the regular formulas (not the grain free) do not have the suspect ingredients. They use rice, barley, and oatmeal rather than peas/lentils/etc so that is a very good thing. Rice, barley, and oats have a much longer track record. There were issues with lamb and rice foods back in the 1990s (I think that' when) being low in taurine but by now that should have been addressed. 

-They use low temperature cooking methods (same as Bil-Jac) which prevents damage of the amino acids. There is some speculation (by veterinarians studying the issue, not random internet speculation) that high temperatures damaging the amino acids that are precursors to taurine may be part of the problem. 

Now, my main concern would be that rather than being a tried and true recipe they recently(ish) revamped it when they took over from Flint River. So newer recipe means less track record. That said, they do test it (including for taurine and precursors) so not a huge issue probably. I do think it's a shame they don't use byproducts, organ meat is good for dogs and not having it means having to use more synthetic vitamins/minerals, but whatever. That's my personal gripe about the trend in dog foods not a safety issue. 

Share this post


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

Yes, and I've seen charts comparing a typical PMR meal and the NRC recommendations and the PMR meals are lacking in zinc, D, and E. 

I've also seen studies done on commercial raw diets showing them lacking in many minerals. 

As for the dogs being in distress, Lonsdale sees them regularly in his vet clinic and doesn't find that to be the case, so again we have "bill  who has never seen a dog fed that way says one thing" and 'vet who sees dogs on a routine basis says another thing". Now, there are other vets who agree with you that bone can cause impaction, etc but what is interesting is those veterinarians recommend not feeding raw at all due to the risk of impaction from bone. 

Again, there are very few studies on the nutritional adequacy and composition of raw diets. The ones I have seen say a strict PMR diet without supplements is lacking compared to NRC guidelines.  This article mentions that a bit. http://vetnutrition.tufts.edu/2016/01/raw-diets-a-healthy-choice-or-a-raw-deal/

There is no scientific consensus on raw - that is my whole point. I've mentioned the three veterinarians that are the most influential on raw feeding and their books and pointed out that they all disagree with each other. And then you disagree with all of them. I'm not saying any of them is right, I'm pointing out to people that despite your assurances that your way is the right way, there is no current consensus and a lack of research. 

*as an aside, for anyone looking, I found a study that a raw manufacturer claimed to show their raw diets were wonderful. Except once you drill down you find that their diets didn't meet the guidelines on many nutrients - but they added a note that said basically, "this doesn't meet the guidelines but the manufacturer says it is nutritionally adequate so it's fine". Um, what??? What was the purpose of analyzing the food if you were going to ignore any problems? Weirdest thing I ever saw, and had to drill down several pages to find that. 

As I said, and the insults are becoming tiresome, I cross-checked multiple sample meals using the USDA nutritional database website and the recommendations of the NRC and found the PMR meals I was serving met all the nutritional requirement of the world's leading authority on dog nutrition.

If you want to rely on "gurus" who are widely seen as loons, go ahead. I, instead, have done my due diligence and use the same nutritional basis points as traditional veterinarians and research centers. There is a consensus on targets for vitamins and mineral balances and your suggestions that these don't exist is patently false.

I'd pity any dog that was fed on poultry carcasses that were stripped on all their meat. Such a dog would be in for a world of hurt. A vet that advocates for such feeding styles is entering into animal abuse. It is unconscionable. Ten percent bone does not cause impactions. Eighty percent bone is a virtual guarantee. 

I do not understand what your purpose is here. You keep saying you "don't necessarily agree" with purveyors of "woo" but you keep coming back with more. What gives? Those who raw feed or home cook are obligated IMO to make sure the meals they serve will not cause foreseeable harm to their pets. Massively overfeeding calcium in the form of bone is a guarantee to cause serious health repercussions. It is totally irresponsible.

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

As I said, and the insults are becoming tiresome, I cross-checked multiple sample meals using the USDA nutritional database website and the recommendations of the NRC and found the PMR meals I was serving met all the nutritional requirement of the world's leading authority on dog nutrition.

I do not understand what your purpose is here. You keep saying you "don't necessarily agree" with purveyors of "woo" but you keep coming back with more. What gives? Those who raw feed or home cook are obligated IMO to make sure the meals they serve will not cause foreseeable harm to their pets. Massively overfeeding calcium in the form of bone is a guarantee to cause serious health repercussions. It is totally irresponsible.

Bill

 

I don't think I've insulted you? I called you "Bill, guy on an internet forum" which you are 🙂  I'm "Katie, woman on an internet forum". Although, to be fair, I do have a degree in veterinary technology and 20 years experience working in veterinary hospitals as well. So that's something, but still. No one should take my claims as science. They shouldn't take your claims as truth either. Or those of random bloggers who are all over the place now with their own versions of raw diets. Even the supposed gurus disagree with each other. And the commercial raw diets have been found lacking in vital nutrients and often contaminated with bacteria. 

So people need to be cautious and realize there is very little accepted science on this. 

You calculating what you feed and comparing it on your own I missed, I thought you meant "PMR diets in general meet the requirements just go look" which is not accurate according to several veterinarians and veterinary nutritionists. Now, you having checked the  particular menu for your dogs, I can't argue with. Most people will not do that. 

I really am NOT saying Lonsdale is right. I'm saying he has as much actual experience with dogs eating raw as probably anyone on the planet at this point, and he recommends something totally different than many other feeders, and yet isn't seeing health issues. Maybe he's lying. Maybe dogs are more adaptable than we think. Maybe chicken carcasses look different in his part of the world. I don't know. But the very fact that multiple  veterinarians offer such different advice is a caution to anyone reading to be careful and not accept any one expert's advice as gospel. 

I'm not saying one SHOULD feed like Lonsdale. I'm saying that the experts disagree, so be cautious, you can't just rely on one source and figure they are right. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10
5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I don't think I've insulted you? I called you "Bill, guy on an internet forum" which you are 🙂  I'm "Katie, woman on an internet forum". Although, to be fair, I do have a degree in veterinary technology and 20 years experience working in veterinary hospitals as well. So that's something, but still. No one should take my claims as science. They shouldn't take your claims as truth either. Or those of random bloggers who are all over the place now with their own versions of raw diets. Even the supposed gurus disagree with each other. And the commercial raw diets have been found lacking in vital nutrients and often contaminated with bacteria. 

So people need to be cautious and realize there is very little accepted science on this. 

You calculating what you feed and comparing it on your own I missed, I thought you meant "PMR diets in general meet the requirements just go look" which is not accurate according to several veterinarians and veterinary nutritionists. Now, you having checked the  particular menu for your dogs, I can't argue with. Most people will not do that. 

I really am NOT saying Lonsdale is right. I'm saying he has as much actual experience with dogs eating raw as probably anyone on the planet at this point, and he recommends something totally different than many other feeders, and yet isn't seeing health issues. Maybe he's lying. Maybe dogs are more adaptable than we think. Maybe chicken carcasses look different in his part of the world. I don't know. But the very fact that multiple  veterinarians offer such different advice is a caution to anyone reading to be careful and not accept any one expert's advice as gospel. 

I'm not saying one SHOULD feed like Lonsdale. I'm saying that the experts disagree, so be cautious, you can't just rely on one source and figure they are right. 

People should accept the findings of the National Research Council since they are the recognized world's leading authority on canine nutrition. You keep playing the same annoying game of pretending that the established nutritional guidelines are a matter of "my opinion." That's false.

The least controversial issue in canine nutrition is meeting the calcium to phosphorus ratios in dog food. Even Old Roy formulations get this basic component correct. Attempting to cast doubt on know issues is perplexing to me.

You keep saying "I really am NOT saying Lonsdale is right" when he is completely out of step with nutritional recommendations from the experts. Lonsdale is regarded as a loon in raw feeding circles. His ideas are very dangerous. I hope no one follows his advice to feed dogs on carcasses stripped of all their meat as the results would potentially be catastrophic. People like Lonsdale are why many smart vets are skeptical of raw feeding. It can be done wrong, and following Lonsdale who be both wrong and dangerous.

I'm fairly certain chicken carcasses don't look substantially different when stripped of their flesh whether one is in Australia, the United State, or anywhere else in the world. Feeding that much bone would cause server gastric distress risking impaction that could require emergency surgery. It is an insane approach. 

Raw feeding is awesome if done responsibly. Lonsdale's approach is grossly irresponsible. It does not conform to any accepted principles of canine nutrition by authorities in the field.

The fact that in the internet age that there are proponents of woo who try to proclaim themselves as "gurus" and have products to sell (books, supplements, and dog food) like Becker/Mercola, Lonsdale, and Brown, should make people skeptical. Very skeptical.

Bill

 

Share this post


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

People should accept the findings of the National Research Council since they are the recognized world's leading authority on canine nutrition. You keep playing the same annoying game of pretending that the established nutritional guidelines are a matter of "my opinion." That's false.

 

 

The fact that in the internet age that there are proponents of woo who try to proclaim themselves as "gurus" and have products to sell (books, supplements, and dog food) like Becker/Mercola, Lonsdale, and Brown, should make people skeptical. Very skeptical.

 

 

1. I have not said that the NRC isn't an authority. I've questioned wether raw diets, including PMR diets, meet those requirements. Multiple commercial raw preparations as well as home prepared diets have been shown NOT to meet the NRC guidelines. I am saying that short of proof, someone saying a particular diet meets the NRC guidelines should be met with skepticism. 

2. I've yet to see you mention an expert of your own, who shows how to properly formulate a raw diet that does meet the NRC guidelines. The diets put forth by Becker and Brown do, and have the analysis to show the levels of minerals, fats, etc. You call them "woo" but given that they have the breakdown of fatty acids, Zinc, vitamin D, vitamin E, etc and most PMR promoters do not, I'm not sure that they are not the safest source of raw diet info out there at this time. 

Share this post


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

1. I have not said that the NRC isn't an authority. I've questioned wether raw diets, including PMR diets, meet those requirements. Multiple commercial raw preparations as well as home prepared diets have been shown NOT to meet the NRC guidelines. I am saying that short of proof, someone saying a particular diet meets the NRC guidelines should be met with skepticism. 

2. I've yet to see you mention an expert of your own, who shows how to properly formulate a raw diet that does meet the NRC guidelines. The diets put forth by Becker and Brown do, and have the analysis to show the levels of minerals, fats, etc. You call them "woo" but given that they have the breakdown of fatty acids, Zinc, vitamin D, vitamin E, etc and most PMR promoters do not, I'm not sure that they are not the safest source of raw diet info out there at this time. 

 

1. I ran my own numbers as I do not feed a commercial diet. All known nutrients check out with the NRC requirements.

2. I do not follow "gurus." I have read the publications of the NRC which have established that dogs have no essential need for carbohydrates, read as many germane veterinary studies as I could get my hands on (many dozens) with a focus on fat metabolism vs carbohydrate metabolism (which show the advantages of the former), and have endeavored to feed a balanced and diverse diet that targets the best understandings we have of canine nutrition.

Becker/Mercola is an untrustworthy source IMO. I have read her articles and watched her videos while maintaining skepticism about a source that promotes supplements and pseudoscience. I'm less familiar with Brown, but he too is enmeshed with Mercola and he has his own products to sell. Brown's chief "contribution" seems to be that raw feeders should balance the fat profiles found in chicken with that found in ruminants. I can't argue with that, as it is something that I've gone all along.

Any "guru" who tells people to feed dogs stripped chicken carcasses is dangerous. That is the worst "advice" I've ever seen and would be catastrophic for the dog of anyone following this terrible advice.

Bill

 

 

Share this post


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

Just wondering here- putting nutrition questions aside, do you think that feeding raw in a home that also has prey animals (rabbits) might put them at risk?  

What do you mean? That eating meat would change the nature of dogs into stone cold pet killers? No.

The risk to a rabbit would be the same from a dog fed kibble. Some dogs (and breeds) have a strong prey drive. We have a small bird in our home and a bird dog. The Vizsla would love to grab this bird. It is his nature. That has nothing to do with the raw feeding. It is a risky situation that we meet with training and vigilance when the bird is out. 

To your question, PRM feeding does not alter the nature of dogs nor inspire blood lust. A rabbit may (or may not) be safe around a dog depending on its prey drive and its training. But not because of its food.

Bill

Share this post


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

What do you mean? That eating meat would change the nature of dogs into stone cold pet killers? No.

The risk to a rabbit would be the same from a dog fed kibble. Some dogs (and breeds) have a strong prey drive. We have a small bird in our home and a bird dog. The Vizsla would love to grab this bird. It is his nature. That has nothing to do with the raw feeding. It is a risky situation that we meet with training and vigilance when the bird is out. 

To your question, PRM feeding does not alter the nature of dogs nor inspire blood lust. A rabbit may (or may not) be safe around a dog depending on its prey drive and its training. But not because of its food.

Bill

I wasn’t worried about changing their natura. Just wondering if a dog normally fed kibble would see more of a correlation with rabbit as food if fed raw because there is less of a difference between raw meat and meat hopping down the hall. But I guess not. 

Share this post


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

I wasn’t worried about changing their natura. Just wondering if a dog normally fed kibble would see more of a correlation with rabbit as food if fed raw because there is less of a difference between raw meat and meat hopping down the hall. But I guess not. 

Personally I might not feed that dog raw rabbit, just in case 🙂

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I wasn’t worried about changing their natura. Just wondering if a dog normally fed kibble would see more of a correlation with rabbit as food if fed raw because there is less of a difference between raw meat and meat hopping down the hall. But I guess not. 

Jean, I think it is one of those concerns that don't really check out. I think a rabbit could be at risk from a raw fed dog due to the dog's prey drive. I'd be concerned with my own dog and a rabbit (as I am with a bird). But I don't believe there is any correlation between the prey drive and a raw vs kibble diet.

Bill

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

1. I ran my own numbers as I do not feed a commercial diet. All known nutrients check out with the NRC requirements.

2. I do not follow "gurus." I have read the publications of the NRC which have established that dogs have no essential need for carbohydrates, read as many germane veterinary studies as I could get my hands on (many dozens) with a focus on fat metabolism vs carbohydrate metabolism (which show the advantages of the former), and have endeavored to feed a balanced and diverse diet that targets the best understandings we have of canine nutrition.

Becker/Mercola is an untrustworthy source IMO. I have read her articles and watched her videos while maintaining skepticism about a source that promotes supplements and pseudoscience. I'm less familiar with Brown, but he too is enmeshed with Mercola and he has his own products to sell. Brown's chief "contribution" seems to be that raw feeders should balance the fat profiles found in chicken with that found in ruminants. I can't argue with that, as it is something that I've gone all along.

Any "guru" who tells people to feed dogs stripped chicken carcasses is dangerous. That is the worst "advice" I've ever seen and would be catastrophic for the dog of anyone following this terrible advice.

Bill

 

 

Ok, getting rid of the adhominem attacks against every single veterinarian who has written a book about this, it seems what you are saying is that people should run the nutrition themselves, like you did? If so, can you share how you did that, as I'm having trouble finding the nutrients on the USDA website for say, a chicken thigh including the bone, versus just the meat. It's not an easy thing to navigate. Which is why people turn to those who have run the numbers and chart them out for help, like Becker and Brown, etc.

Edited by Ktgrok

Share this post


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

Personally I might not feed that dog raw rabbit, just in case 🙂

I fed my dog chicken while we still had chickens. He never killed one despite being a high-energy bird dog.

Bill

Share this post


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

Jean, I think it is one of those concerns that don't really check out. I think a rabbit could be at risk from a raw fed dog due to the dog's prey drive. I'd be concerned with my own dog and a rabbit (as I am with a bird). But I don't believe there is any correlation between the prey drive and a raw vs kibble diet.

Bill

My Rottie is a herder. She has a flock of rabbits and is very diligent in making sure that they behave. But of course we were very careful with initial introductions and training. It is a big reason why we looked for a puppy instead of an older dog. 

Share this post


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

Ok, getting rid of the adhominem attacks against every single veterinarian who has written a book about this, it seems what you are saying is that people should run the nutrition themselves, like you did? If so, can you share how you did that, as I'm having trouble finding the nutrients on the USDA website for say, a chicken thigh including the bone, versus just the meat. It's not an easy thing to navigate. Which is why people turn to those who have run the numbers and chart them out for help, like Becker and Brown, etc.

People can do as they will. I do not expect that most people will sit with lookup tables and analyze meals. I wanted to confirm that I was making a good decision especially given how great a departure raw feeding is from the common practice in our society. So I felt compelled to do my due diligence. 

I don't understand your problems with the USDA website. It is very complete. It has all sorts of options including bone-in and boneless chicken pieces (for example). It is a great resource once you get the hang of it. 

I'm not one to put my trust in outfits like Mercola that have their own profit motives in selling supplements (etc) especially given their long history promoting pseudoscience in the human side of their business. The bad track record makes me very skeptical of this source, yet I've still watched Becker's videos with what I deem an appropriate level of skepticism.

The good news is that a PMR 80/10/10 model that includes diversified protein sources meets or exceeds all the nutritional requirements dogs need (with a caveat that the Omega 3 fats may need supplementation or the inclusion of oily raw fish due to conventional ranching practices). The elimination of carbohydrates is a boon to the health and vitality of dogs. 

Bill

 

 

 

Share this post


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

My Rottie is a herder. She has a flock of rabbits and is very diligent in making sure that they behave. But of course we were very careful with initial introductions and training. It is a big reason why we looked for a puppy instead of an older dog. 

One can see the eyes in my Vizsla's head spinning as his training and his strong natural instincts do battle in his mind. it takes everything he's got to hold back.

A Rottie herding rabbits must be a pretty amusing spectacle.

Bill

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

People can do as they will. I do not expect that most people will sit with lookup tables and analyze meals. I wanted to confirm that I was making a good decision especially given how great a departure raw feeding is from the common practice in our society. So I felt compelled to do my due diligence. 

I don't understand your problems with the USDA website. It is very complete. It has all sorts of options including bone-in and boneless chicken pieces (for example). It is a great resource once you get the hang of it. 

I'm not one to put my trust in outfits like Mercola that have their own profit motives in selling supplements (etc) especially given their long history promoting pseudoscience in the human side of their business. The bad track record makes me very skeptical of this source, yet I've still watched Becker's videos with what I deem an appropriate level of skepticism.

The good news is that a PMR 80/10/10 model that includes diversified protein sources meets or exceeds all the nutritional requirements dogs need (with a caveat that the Omega 3 fats may need supplementation or the inclusion of oily raw fish due to conventional ranching practices). The elimination of carbohydrates is a boon to the health and vitality of dogs. 

Bill

 

 

 

So wait. They shouldn't believe any of the veterinarians who have books or websites about feeding raw. They shouldn't trust the dog food companies. And you don't expect them to look it up and calculate the meals. Just trust that some guy on the internet told them that 80/10/10 is nutritionally adequate. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? 

If i look up say, calories for bone in chicken thigh in any nutritional calculator it gives me info with the idea that I'm eating the chicken meat, not actually consuming the bone too. Are the USDA tables different in that regard from all other sources for human nutrition? And raw or cooked?  If so, how can I tell? Seriously asking. (I have spent a lot of my life looking up nutritional information for myself, and never has it assumed I would actually eat the bone...at least I hope not as I may have been shorting myself calories, lol)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So wait. They shouldn't believe any of the veterinarians who have books or websites about feeding raw. They shouldn't trust the dog food companies. And you don't expect them to look it up and calculate the meals. Just trust that some guy on the internet told them that 80/10/10 is nutritionally adequate. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? 

If i look up say, calories for bone in chicken thigh in any nutritional calculator it gives me info with the idea that I'm eating the chicken meat, not actually consuming the bone too. Are the USDA tables different in that regard from all other sources for human nutrition? And raw or cooked?  If so, how can I tell? Seriously asking. (I have spent a lot of my life looking up nutritional information for myself, and never has it assumed I would actually eat the bone...at least I hope not as I may have been shorting myself calories, lol)

 

I would take information and authors linked with the Mercola "House of Woo" with serious skepticism, given the promotion of pseudoscience that this source is widely famous for, to the point where they are generally regarded with ridicule. If such sources do not present you would credulity issues, we have different judgments.

In any case, my course is to test any diet that I control to conform as closely to the standards of the NRC and other authorities. I'm not looking to "internet gurus" who have credibility issues. 

The database has all the things you ask about. Raw, cooked, de-boned, skin on, skin off. 

I'm pretty sure than bone-in chicken counts calories from chicken bones (which would be scant in any case). It will list the bone percentages.

Bill

 

Edited by Spy Car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a picture of actual bunny wrangling but here is a gratuitous picture of when Juliet was still a puppy and one of the bunnies.  She's actually leashed in this picture because it was still in the training phase.  The bunny obviously doesn't see her as a threat.

MeFA5Vx.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So wait. They shouldn't believe any of the veterinarians who have books or websites about feeding raw. They shouldn't trust the dog food companies. And you don't expect them to look it up and calculate the meals. Just trust that some guy on the internet told them that 80/10/10 is nutritionally adequate. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? 

If i look up say, calories for bone in chicken thigh in any nutritional calculator it gives me info with the idea that I'm eating the chicken meat, not actually consuming the bone too. Are the USDA tables different in that regard from all other sources for human nutrition? And raw or cooked?  If so, how can I tell? Seriously asking. (I have spent a lot of my life looking up nutritional information for myself, and never has it assumed I would actually eat the bone...at least I hope not as I may have been shorting myself calories, lol)

 

On deeper reading:

I do, generally speaking, accept the idea that dog food producers balance their formulas to meet such things as calcium-phosphorus mineral ratios. They do so because they understand this is a crucial issue. So when people like Lonsdale act as recklessly and dangerously as he does, I'd tell people to feed Old Roy before listening to this guy. And I'm a guy who thinks raw feeding was one of the best decisions I've made in decades. I truly believe that a balanced and diverse PRM style diet is the optimal way to feed dogs. No doubt about it. But stripped chicken carcasses and table scraps? Never.

I'm not asking anyone to trust me. I didn't trust anyone myself. I did a lot of work. I think it is a great idea to dig into the literature and the nutritional data and to make an informed decision. 100%. I do realize not everyone is as prone to spend their time in such as fashion, so I can only report my conclusions of others to consider for themselves. I did a lot of work. And read countless research papers. A lot of math.

Aside from some trace amounts of juice in the interior of bones, I do not think there are many calories. I assume the UDSA counts the calories of the meat and skin. 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't have a picture of actual bunny wrangling but here is a gratuitous picture of when Juliet was still a puppy and one of the bunnies.  She's actually leashed in this picture because it was still in the training phase.  The bunny obviously doesn't see her as a threat.

MeFA5Vx.jpg

Cute!

 

Bill

Share this post


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

 

Aside from some trace amounts of juice in the interior of bones, I do not think there are many calories. I assume the UDSA counts the calories of the meat and skin. 

Bill

 

 

Right, but if they are not counting the calories of the bone in the calculations, are they counting the minerals? I think they are but I see how one could get confused trying to figure it all out. That was my point. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Right, but if they are not counting the calories of the bone in the calculations, are they counting the minerals? I think they are but I see how one could get confused trying to figure it all out. That was my point. 

Yes, the website includes the minerals for the bone in bone-in pieces. They also have boneless data points for the same pieces (sans bone).

I can not be sure of not counting the calories of the bone in the bone-in pieces. I'm guessing. I can't imagine the calorie count for bone would be anything but scant in any case.

Bill

Share this post


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

My Rottie is a herder. She has a flock of rabbits and is very diligent in making sure that they behave. But of course we were very careful with initial introductions and training. It is a big reason why we looked for a puppy instead of an older dog. 

 

I suggest if you ever feed raw rabbit, don’t call the food by same words as live animals, and don’t let the dog see the transition from live animal to food.    

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JFSinIL2.0 said:

Reading this thread, I am getting more and more confused.  Our trainer recommended a food I did not see anyone mention , it is mail order only.  Flintriver.com.   Takes you to the site, although it is now known as Pinto Canyon.   I would add a direct link but two- finger typing on an old iPad and don't know how to cut and paste a link.  Anyway,  Gigi the Lab is happy and healthy on it.  The cat tries to snitch some when she can, too.  Could anyone look at the site and comment on the Pinto Canyon dog food re the CDC heart problem ya'all are writing about?

 

pardon any typos 

I'm going to guess that it counts as a boutique food (mentioned as not recommended) because it's mail order only.  

They say that they've never had a recall and post their test results online.  I see nothing about following ACVN guidelines or whatever.  (Which they very well may.)  They also say that they're a small company--which once again, means they're not doing feeding trials and are unlikely to have a nutritionist on staff.  

Having said all that, it may be perfectly fine.  I'd probably stick to one of the formulas that contain rice, though vs. the GF one.

Edited by umsami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Lonsdale advises way too much bone.

 

It doesn’t seem clear to me how much he advises.  You seem to be picturing poultry skeletons with all meat removed .  

I am picturing a combo of the bonier parts of poultry (but probably more like kd the bags of backs and necks and feet readily available in my area) plus “bones and raw meat”  like these  roo-tails: 

https://images.app.goo.gl/qPAJy4CJNbYLhQueA

https://goo.gl/images/Xn9MKo

Edited by Pen

Share this post


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

 

It doesn’t seem clear to me how much he advises.  You seem to be picturing poultry skeletons with all meat removed .  

I am picturing a combo of the bonier parts of poultry (but probably more like kd the bags of backs and necks and feet readily available in my area) plus “bones and raw meat”  like these  roo-tails: 

https://images.app.goo.gl/qPAJy4CJNbYLhQueA

https://goo.gl/images/Xn9MKo

 

That's because the PDF you linked to says: "Chicken and turkey carcasses, after the meat has been removed for human consumption, are suitable for dogs and cats." 

This is simply not so. Backs are not much better. Far too boney. It would take a great deal of meat to balance a small bit of chicken back.

Overfeeding bone is dangerous to canine health.

Bill

 

Share this post


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

 

That's because the PDF you linked to says: "Chicken and turkey carcasses, after the meat has been removed for human consumption, are suitable for dogs and cats." 

This is simply not so. Backs are not much better. Far too boney. It would take a great deal of meat to balance a small bit of chicken back.

Overfeeding bone is dangerous to canine health.

Bill

 

 

It said that as one item on a list of multiple items.  Another item on the list was kangaroo.  Also sheep and goat. Also fish heads and whole fish. It didn’t suggest feeding a single item exclusively.  

 

I don’t know about in Australia, but at one point there was a problem with people feeding just raw hamburger or other easy to get meat, to the detriment of calcium.   I thought raw soft bone got pushed to make up for the no calcium tendency.  

Edited by Pen

Share this post


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

 

It said that as one item on a list of multiple items.  Another item on the list was kangaroo.  Also sheep and goat. Also fish heads and whole fish. It didn’t suggest feeding a single item exclusively.  

To balance chicken or turkey carcasses one would need to feed a lot of meat off the bone. Lonsdale explicitly says NOT to feed a lot of meat off the bone right after he recommends de-boned carcasses. It is lunacy. I don't know anyone in the raw feeding community who takes this guy seriously, except as a threat to sound feeding practices. He offers the worst imaginable "advice." Dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible.

Don't do it.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly a related explanation?

“... avoid large whole bones for at least the first month, to allow your dogs’ digestive system the chance to adjust to the raw diet. Raw meaty bones you could feed quite early on would be chicken carcasses. These are fantastic 1st bones, consisting of the ribcage and/or the back of the chicken, because they are mostly cartilage and meat – chickens are generally killed quite young for meat so a lot of their bones are quite cartilaginous and so softer than most...” 

Share this post


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

Possibly a related explanation?

“... avoid large whole bones for at least the first month, to allow your dogs’ digestive system the chance to adjust to the raw diet. Raw meaty bones you could feed quite early on would be chicken carcasses. These are fantastic 1st bones, consisting of the ribcage and/or the back of the chicken, because they are mostly cartilage and meat – chickens are generally killed quite young for meat so a lot of their bones are quite cartilaginous and so softer than most...” 

It still does not address the huge imbalance of meat vs bone in stripped chicken carcasses. For perspective, the small amount of soft bone in meat-on bone-in chicken breasts is 20% bone on average. That is twice the amount needed for a balanced diet. It would take a huge amount of meat to balance a chicken or turkey carcass. Plus it is better practice to serve bones with meat on them as opposed to striped bones or a stripped carcass.

A carcass is great to make soup. Not to feed dogs.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have so far survived a first green tripe meal.  At least so far, tired from eating it and with full tummy, no scratching or foot chewing... 

I plan to offer commercial food tomorrow...and let it be a fast day if Dog doesn’t want it.  Raw food the next day.  (Partly weather related decisions). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pen said:

We have so far survived a first green tripe meal.  At least so far, tired from eating it and with full tummy, no scratching or foot chewing... 

I plan to offer commercial food tomorrow...and let it be a fast day if Dog doesn’t want it.  Raw food the next day.  (Partly weather related decisions). 

A small note on green tripe and balancing calcium/phosphorus when feeding PMR. Because green tripe has a 1 : 1 ratio of CA/P it is almost neutral (given the 1.2 : 1 target). Therefore it should barely count towards a "meat" portion when you are balancing for bone.

GT is popular in part due to being nearly on target for these minerals by itself. But it will not serve to balance high-calcium bone-in chicken the way phosphorus rich "meat" would ordinarily do. Not a huge issue, just one of the fine points of PMR feeling.

Did your dog love the green tripe? Mine will always do for it firs when I serve it.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Did your dog love the green tripe? Mine will always do for it firs when I serve it.

Bill

 

Not immediately. Not as much as I expected.  Liked the smell-but wasn’t sure about it as food.   But then when done he wanted more.  

Because of his chicken problem there won’t be chicken bones to balance. Not anytime soon at least.

 I’m concerned that the total amount of calcium and phosphorus in green tripe isn’t enough even though balance is fairly okay.  Thinking he may need hamburger with calcium powder, or some other meat (I have some pork, I think) and calcium powder or lamb neck (though that too might be high thyroid).  I also have oxtail I was going to use for people vegetable beef soup stock, but maybe will give it to him—it’s mostly bone and fat.

Today is very rainy and I may offer him  freeze dried raw (supposedly properly balanced) indoors.  My guess is that after eating  2lb chub gt yesterday he will fast today if I offer freeze dried.   Then tomorrow is supposed to be sunny and will be better to go eat gt, maybe other things, outside.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Bil-Jac won't work for the allergy dog.  She started itching and chewing her feet.  But it has chicken and we haven't given her lots of chicken since switching her when she lost her hair (she does fine with eggs and some occasional chicken that we have leftover).  Neither dog really seem to love Bil-Jac, anyway.  She walked away from it but would go back and eat slowly, he took a few minutes to start, but with a bit of something he likes mixed in, will at least eat it.

So I guess I will keep looking, feeding her raw while doing so.

Edited by myblessings4
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, myblessings4 said:

Well, Bil-Jac won't work for the allergy dog.  She started itching and chewing her feet.  But it has chicken and we haven't given her lots of chicken since switching her when she lost her hair (she does fine with eggs and some occasional chicken that we have leftover).  Neither dog really seem to love Bil-Jac, anyway.  She walked away from it but would go back and eat slowly, he took a few minutes to start, but with a bit of something he likes mixed in, will at least eat it.

So I guess I will keep looking, feeding her raw while doing so.

 

As another person with an allergy dog, I’m wondering what raw foods you’re using?

 

 

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...