[Curbside Prophet]

I thought this was a good pamphlet on a dog's general, nutritional needs. It might even help some of you evaluate the diet you feed.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...tion_final.pdf

[Westhighlander]

So much for the Raw diet theory.

[Curbside Prophet]

I don't think the pamphlet excludes raw fed diets from being balanced. But I would agree the average raw feeding owner is probably not serving a balanced diet, and should consider this information in preparing their meals.

[RawFedDogs]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

I don't think the pamphlet excludes raw fed diets from being balanced.

I think this little pamphlet is a very good marketing brochure for the dog food industry and I would guess that was the reason it was written. I found enough errors in the parts that I have some knowledge of to be very wary of the information that was given in the parts that I am not very knowledgable about.

But I would agree the average raw feeding owner is probably not serving a balanced diet, and should consider this information in preparing their meals.

I honestly don't think anyone knows what "balance" is. I don't think wild wolves search or select their food for "balance". All we can go by is what nature decided "balance" would be. For our carnivores that would be meat, bones, and organs from a variety of animals. Mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. It's what I have been feeding my 2 dogs for 6 years. One of them has never eaten anything else.

If they weren't eating an balanced diet, it should have shown up by now. I had a blood panel on my 8 year old last year and everything was well within the normal ranges. Nothing was even "high normal" or "low normal".

If by "feeding raw" you mean people who feed the premix raw paddies or feed the BARF diet, then you could very well be correct. Both of those diets are just reverse engineered raw kibble.

[Curbside Prophet]

This is getting redundant but, the pamphlet isn't about wolf diets. It's in regards to dog diets, AFWIW, no dog food company is behind the pamphlet...so there goes YOUR theory. And we all know what circle you live in, so if the information is of no use to you, you may disregard it as you please. Otherwise, your opinion has no credence over the authors of the article IMO.

[RawFedDogs]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

This is getting redundant but, the pamphlet isn't about wolf diets.

Wolf diet - dog diet ... same thing.

It's in regards to dog diets, AFWIW, no dog food company is behind the pamphlet...so there goes YOUR theory.

No its not a "there goes YOUR theory". Who actually funded this pamphlet and the original book it was "based" on? The National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences don't use their own money to fund projects. They get private funding for that. It doesn't say anywhere in the pamphlet, nor can I find out. All I know is that this pamphlet is spouting the dog food company line from start to finish.

And we all know what circle you live in, so if the information is of no use to you, you may disregard it as you please.

I disregard it because of what I said in my previous post. It has too many errors in the parts I am knowledgable about. If there are errors in part of the pamphlet, there must be errors in other parts.

Otherwise, your opinion has no credence over the authors of the article IMO.

NO and we don't know the credentials of the author of the pamphlet. We don't know how closely he followed the original book. We don't know what are his words and what is out of the book.

So my opinion has no credence over the authors but no less either. Much of the information in the pamphlet is accurate. Some isn't.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

It doesn't say anywhere in the pamphlet, nor can I find out.

So we throw the baby out with the bath water? Or how about you conduct your own efforts to research what's important to you.

I disregard it because of what I said in my previous post. It has too many errors in the parts I am knowledgable about. If there are errors in part of the pamphlet, there must be errors in other parts.

That is your prerogative but again, your credence does not outweigh that of the authors IMO.

NO and we don't know the credentials of the author of the pamphlet.

Let's qualify this statement...YOU DON'T KNOW. Not we.

So my opinion has no credence over the authors but no less either. Much of the information in the pamphlet is accurate. Some isn't.

Use which ever portions you prefer, and exclude which ever portions you prefer. I think our forum is intelligent enough to do the same without your opinion. If you're looking for another thread to bash dog food companies, I suggest you find another forum to do that. Otherwise, if you have pertinent information on a dog's nutritional needs, you're welcome to post those if they are related to the content of the pamphlet.

[Westhighlander]

Your control group is 2 dogs over 6 years. My grandmother smoked and lived to be 90. Smoking is good for you.

[AnjlGurl]

I found this pamphlet really interesting, don't know that I would adopt it as doctrine, but will definitely include it in all of my reading materials when it comes to educating myself about my dogs nutrition, which is currently under review.

My question to RawFedDogs is: What parts of the pamphlet did you feel were incorrect? I ask out of honest curiosity, I am also curious why you feed your dogs only meat/animal product, do they get veggies & stuff too?

[RawFedDogs]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

I think our forum is intelligent enough to do the same without your opinion.

Excuse me, I thought this was a discussion group. One person makes a post and others discuss it.

Otherwise, if you have pertinent information on a dog's nutritional needs, you're welcome to post those if they are related to the content of the pamphlet.

I did, then I got got bashed for it.

[fyzbo]

RawFedDogs, didn't you get enough from this thread(http://www.dogforums.com/5-dog-food-...-wolves-5.html (Origin of Dogs - Just wolves or more?)). Why not let other threads about food continue without you portraying all your opinions as facts on every other post.

[RawFedDogs]

Originally Posted by AnjlGurl

My question to RawFedDogs is: What parts of the pamphlet did you feel were incorrect?

The things that quickly come to mind are the parts that say a dog is an omnivore and that dogs have a dietary need for carbs. Dogs are carnivores.
The Merck Veterinary Manual and The Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition 2nd Edition (1988) both say that dogs have no dietary need for carbs.

I ask out of honest curiosity, I am also curious why you feed your dogs only meat/animal product, do they get veggies & stuff too?

My dogs have eaten no plant material for 6 years. They eat only meat, bones, and organs. I have a 3 year old that has never eaten plant material in his life. I feed them this diet because they are carnivores and carnivores eat only animal products. Their bodies were designed by nature to only eat animal products and they aren't designed to digest plants.

Originally Posted by Westhighlander

Your control group is 2 dogs over 6 years. My grandmother smoked and lived to be 90. Smoking is good for you.

I'm in a discussion group with over 11,000 members who feed basically the same as I do, so I guess you could say that we have about 20,000 dogs in our control group and several members have been feeding this way for 30 years to multiple dogs.

No, this isn't just 2 dogs over 6 years but even if it were, doesn't it tell you something to see that they are healthy without eating any plant material in that long?

Originally Posted by fyzbo

RawFedDogs, didn't you get enough from this thread(http://www.dogforums.com/5-dog-food-...-wolves-5.html (Origin of Dogs - Just wolves or more?)). Why not let other threads about food continue without you portraying all your opinions as facts on every other post.

Which of what you call my opinions aren't fact? So when I see things posted that aren't factual, I should just let people who haven't spent the time I have studying the subject just go on not knowing that its not factual? People often ask me to prove my statements and I do.

Are you suggesting that when a person begins a thread, no one should post except to say, "me too"?

[Westhighlander]

There are over 16,000 members here which most feed kibble and their dogs are healthy - what does that say?

And no two dogs that are alive tell us nothing more than the fact you have two dogs that are alive.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

Excuse me, I thought this was a discussion group. One person makes a post and others discuss it.

You didn't begin your discussion with information relevant to the topic at hand. You made yet another attempt to discredit a discussion about dog nutrition to propagandize YOUR OWN ideology. These attempts are not welcome, and off topic.

[Sonn84]

That was an interesting and informative article.


I have noticed lately in the dog food section there is a ton of bickering happening. I just don't understand why. I mean what is right for one persons dog is not right for another. Everyone is going to have an opinion on what they think the best diet is but there is no need for us to shove it in each others face and say I am right you're wrong my dog will live better and healthier because I feed this this and this.

I do not agree with a prey model diet but that doesn't mean I think someone else shouldn't feed it.

Just my opinion.

[fyzbo]

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

Which of what you call my opinions aren't fact?

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

I think this little pamphlet is a very good marketing brochure for the dog food industry and I would guess that was the reason it was written.

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

Wolf diet - dog diet ... same thing.

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

So when I see things posted that aren't factual, I should just let people who haven't spent the time I have studying the subject just go on not knowing that its not factual? People often ask me to prove my statements and I do.

Are you suggesting that when a person begins a thread, no one should post except to say, "me too"?

Feel free to correct things that are not fact, but be sure to back it up. You often disagree with articles by vets/phds, or research papers and never give anything to back it up. That makes it come off as opinion.

As for posting your opinions, feel free, but too often on this board I've seen you get involved with a thread and take it over. You reply to every post as if it's a personal attack on you. Express your opinion, but realize that not everyone is going to agree. Some of us want to discuss commercial dog food, or home cooked food, your insistence to take over the thread arguing every single statement can get in the way of the discussion. You believe that raw feeding is the be all and end all of dog nutrition and everything else is crap, we get it, but just as some of us don't eat the diet of chimps we don't feed our dogs raw and that will not change regardless of how many threads bombard with comments.

[AnjlGurl]

Originally Posted by RawFedDogs

The things that quickly come to mind are the parts that say a dog is an omnivore and that dogs have a dietary need for carbs. Dogs are carnivores.
The Merck Veterinary Manual and The Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition 2nd Edition (1988) both say that dogs have no dietary need for carbs.

My dogs have eaten no plant material for 6 years. They eat only meat, bones, and organs. I have a 3 year old that has never eaten plant material in his life. I feed them this diet because they are carnivores and carnivores eat only animal products. Their bodies were designed by nature to only eat animal products and they aren't designed to digest plants.

I'm not here to really debate this, I just don't think I could ever be sold on the idea that Dogs & Cats are pure carnivores, I know for a fact my dog would disagree, he loves eating veggies, real live green veggies. I do believe however that things like corn, grains, and processed stuff isn't healthy, it isn't healthy for humans either... but that's a different forum

I'd also be curious to see more recent sources sited, no offense but 20 years ago there were a lot of medical beliefs we now know are false...

[trumpetjock]

Originally Posted by Westhighlander

Your control group is 2 dogs over 6 years. My grandmother smoked and lived to be 90. Smoking is good for you.

The worlds oldest living dog is a collie fed on nothing but rice and lentils for his entire life. He's currently 28 years old. Maybe vegetarian diets are the best for dogs?

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0209...es/020918a.htm

[Inga]

Wolf or dog, My dogs have always been grass grazers as well. I feed a high quality dog food with meat added. I do not feed anything with corn and fillers but my dogs have always gone out and nibbled grass. My old girl from young pup on ate grass. She actually ate it too, he poo showed that fact. she lived a few years past the average age for the breed so I suspect her diet worked for her. I am either very lucky or my dogs diets have all worked for them. Most of them have lived well beyond the average life expectancy for the breed. Thank God for that.
Thanks Curbside, I appreciate the info on nutrition.

[Criosphynx]

Nice article Curb...thanks!




Still waiting for pics of RFD's dogs in another thread.