Cheap meat for fresh fed dog owners

boomerang · 24-01-2012 12:46am

I agree it really is a lot to take on. To be honest, it wasn't until one of my dogs developed early signs of renal insufficiency that I did the proper research on alternatives to a commercial diet - and that's because the alternative - Hills k/d - is crap.

This is one of my favourite websites, with a lot of info on achieving a correct nutritional balance when preparing meals for your dog - be they cooked or raw.

http://www.dogaware.com

Ronnie Beck · 24-01-2012 12:52am

Cheap meat 1kg packs of chicken legs/thighs/drumsticks in lidl 2 packs for 4 euro. Think its a special offer. Alls going well with the raw food now. Mad little skinny springer pup is starting to build some muscle.

@Dogsfirst
hi, read through last couple of pages. Madness. Who would of thought it would so hard to convince people that meat is actually good for dogs. Snakes eat veg/grain in the stomach of mice but you wouldn't call them an omnivore and start them on a bag of royal canine.

Anyway

I was talking to you before about my friends westie with the red feet. Theve finished the bag of hills prescription cereal with little improvement on the condition. They have moved on now too cooked chicken rice veg etc. (getting there

). I mentioned to her that westies are one of only a few breeds that struggle to switch to natural food. Is this a genetic flaw in certain strains or a random condition that pops up here and there in a small gene pool. Or is it to do with damage to a weak digestive system from the processed food? All of the above??? Please explain

Also the boric/acetic treatment you recommended. She was wondering how many times a day to treat her.

Vince32 · 24-01-2012 1:45am

I think you missed my point AJ, I take yours and understand that you want to feed your dog a balanced healthy diet, if you remember I posted about a week ago on a superb dry dog food I planned to feed my Husky into adulthood.

When I said why bother buying processed, I was meaning that a tin of tuna, protein, a mashed carrot, antioxidants,fibre and minerals, and a sprout of broccoli , vitamin C and some anti-carcinogenic compounds, will be a balanced meal, and I as the owner can control the quality of the ingredients.
Where on the other hand, some business may cut some corners and lower the quality of the meats or veggies that go into the food, but not the amount, so reading the ingredient list would still be meat 28% etc, just to make the company more profitable in the long term.

Weather they do or don't cut corners is out of my hands, where if I feed fresh/raw, I control the intake, and as you said, you know your dog better than anyone else, and their likes and dislikes, what's good and bad for them.

Feeding fresh / raw just makes more sense to me personally, because the control of the intake is, I guess I could of written all that in the last post to save on the typing.

That's where I am at the moment, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, just this is where my inner most thoughts have taken me. I sometimes be afraid to speak my mind, cuz everyone tells me I'm nutz..

Graces7 · 24-01-2012 1:45am

DogsFirst wrote: »

This study is more an investigation of overdose and bears almost zero relevance to good nutritional health. These researchers fed four dogs 5g/kg of raw garlic a day for seven days!!! That is a standard lab eating 150g (or far more than a yoplait yoghurt in weight) of raw garlic a day. This is quite a jaunt from one clove of garlic in feed of meat now and again. For a dog to develop Heinz-body anemia, he would have to eat over 0.5% of his body weight in onions to even begin the danger process (so say one whole onion) and since red blood cells are constantly regenerated from the bone marrow, a dog would likely need to ingest much more every day to do harm. And that's onions. Garlic contains far far less Allicin so you're talking a lot more garlic. So a cat would have to eat many cloves a day, which is definitely not a good idea alright.

To avoid taking the thread off course I've pm'd you 35 studies that to date linking garlics benefits to hypotension (relaxing blood vessels), antioxidant activity and ability to reduce cardiovascular diseases (hence "good blood") as well as it's antimicrobial activity, anticancer activity, improving immune functions and anti-diabetic activity. All peer reviewed scientific studies, most of which investigate moderate doses and, most importantly, over time. Having worked with both sides I'm converted anyway, natural docs (human or vet) are rarely wrong on things they're been prescribing for millenia.

The key is dose, little bit, now and again, major advantage, likes lots of stuff. Maybe there's stuff on cats I'm missing, if you have any info would be obliged.

Thanks for this; so much panic is spread over tiny amounts.

Graces7 · 24-01-2012 1:55am

dahat wrote: »

Cappaquinn Chickens in Waterford sell a 5kg box of "pet food" for 60c a kilo.
I have gotten this a good few times,it is just meat that hit the floor or is damaged by the process it goes through...
A quality product for any RAW feeder..

We get chicken necks from a chicken factory for between E3 and E5 for pack of 10k; this is the staple for our dogs and cats. Well aware re battery etc but on a small pension? Also often get a chicken half price in Dunne's' once got one for 99 cents.

The trouble with all these scientific reports etc is that lay folk are not in tune with the jargon and background and thus a little knowledge can mislead. Also by next month more studies will be out that contradict the previous ones. And also different vets have different ideas. One vet told me chicken was very bad for dogs...

So now the trust is in experience of decades and many fine dog and cat owners who don't get swayed by the latest reports. Just now it is taurine; next month a new idea.

We now feed raw and home cooked; after many years on processed. This is easier and it is also much cheaper. Which does matter greatly.

DogsFirst · 24-01-2012 9:37am

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

No, the real question is what do they need to be happy and healthy? This varies between breeds and even individual dogs, science is only correct for as long as new evidence doesn't prove it wrong, which happens every day, new evidence is stamped as 'the facts' until newer evidence replaces it - which then becomes 'the facts'. Scientific research often has personal bias incorporated into it as there are always factors which have not been taken into account. Unexplainable exceptions are not unexplainable - it means something has been missed and not taken into consideration - in my humble unqualified opinion. How do you determine what nutrients and in what ratios are needed for each particular dog, how do you know you are doing it correctly and are not causing nutrient overload leading to various organ failure, kidneys, liver ect. or nutrient deficiency causing the same problems, which are often not detected until it is 'too late' - how do you prepare a meal for a dog that has the correct phosphorus:calcium ratio? I have no clue and my dog does not tolerate raw foods, so I look for the best commercially prepared foods armed with my list of 'good ingredients' and 'bad ingredients' accumulated from past experience of my own dog. The nutritional analysis is printed on the bag which tells me if it has the correct balance or not. So that's why I bother buying processed foods made by in-house experts (no inverted commas needed).

In house experts that reckon it's wise to feed a dog on mega high dose cereal (more than is advised in humans), twice cooked gack protein and chemicals. Doesn't sound too smart to me. If you studied nutrition that long, went to work for them and then tried to push it as "ideal" for your dog, how the hell could you go back to your wife at night? These guys have absolutely zero interest in truth and maximum interest in profit. Why not use more meat? Why not provide it fresh? Why use the worst grades of wheat? Why use chinese battery raised chciken, often 4d meat, pets and restaurant leftovers? Why advocate the cure to gingivitis in dogs is another manufactured bone?! These are all experts talking. Just not independent ones.

Its just scary stuff. There is variation between individuals, just like humans. What about feeding a child? Or yourself? How do you determine what nutrients and in what ratios are needed for each particular child, how do you know you are doing it correctly and are not causing nutrient overload leading to various organ failure, kidneys, liver ect. or nutrient deficiency causing the same problems, which are often not detected until it is 'too late' - how do you prepare a meal for a child that has the correct phosphorus:calcium ratio?

We have no idea as these are only a concern for dry foods which the dog eats morning and night times, every day, for years. Then these figures take on a whole new perspective and insufficiencies and excesses become an issue. But if you're feeding a varied diet as close to the natural as you can, these things are absolutely irrelevant to a healthy animal, dog or kid, as it all comes out in the wash. For example you need infinitesimally small amounts of vitamins to do you for weeks, a nibble on a spinach leaf, but go with a constantly low level of say vitamin E (constantly insufficient in dry food fue to storage times) and you have problems.

The problem is science has been brought into dog food to confuse everyone. It's called reductionism, stuff broken down to parts to help us understand the whole. Like taking apart a car engine. Except manufacturers now use it to ad an air of nutritional wonder to your crackers. First dogs ate meat and a few scraps, then they ate protein fat and carbs, now they eat key amino acid groups, linoleic acid and a certain amount of disaccharides. Without the proper training this confuses everyone to the point that they think they're killing their dog.

We did pretty well without all this. Back when dogs were carnivores, we fed 'em scraps and the rest they went and got for themselves. Nice and varied.

All the science malarky has no place in dog food. People just use it wrong then get up in a tizzy when nutritionists discuss it with them, adding to the stress.

Want to know what to feed a dog? Ask grandad, or vets older than 70, not a scientist. Want to know how a car works, ask someone that drives one or buy a book, don't ask a mechanic. But if something goes wrong in your car, best keep their number in your phone.

Cherry Blossom · 24-01-2012 9:46am

Vince32 wrote: »

I sometimes be afraid to speak my mind, cuz everyone tells me I'm nutz..

I was just answering a question you didn't really mean to ask

Lot's of people all ready know why they feed their dog what they do but get confused with all the discussion and debate and some people advocating one thing but feeding their own dog another. I don't own a husky but it seems clear to me that they would have evolved to make a very efficient meal out of raw fish (as did their Inuit owners - the only race of people who can effectively digest raw fish).

Cherry Blossom · 24-01-2012 10:13am

DogsFirst wrote: »

mum interest in profit. Why not use more meat? Why not provide it fresh? Why use the worst grades of wheat? Why use chinese battery raised chciken, often 4d meat, pets and restaurant leftovers? Why advocate the cure to gingivitis in dogs is another manufactured bone?! These are all experts talking. Just not independent ones.

You seriously under-estimate the lengths I go to to trace *everything* that comes into this house back to it's source and raw materials, when I say everything I mean everything. Such is the life of a person with OCD trying to live in a manner which does not compromise the ethical treatment of anyone or anything else. It is the tarring of every single dog food manufacturer with a great big brush regardless of method or source of the ingredients that constantly flaws your arguments, you won't find many in this forum that feed their pets a food containing any of the crap listed above. It is pure scaremongering at it's finest to assume that all commercial foods are equal. How many specific commercial dog foods have you traced back to source of the raw materials? We shouldn't feed Chinese battery chicken in commercial foods, but the purpose of this thread is where to find it raw?!?

As for the irrelevant rant on feeding a child - there is a wealth of information freely available on human nutrition (and equine nutrition for that matter which I have a thorough understanding of), canine nutrition - not so much.

Graces7 · 24-01-2012 10:32am

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

You seriously under-estimate the lengths I go to to trace *everything* that comes into this house back to it's source and raw materials, when I say everything I mean everything. Such is the life of a person with OCD trying to live in a manner which does not compromise the ethical treatment of anyone or anything else. It is the tarring of every single dog food manufacturer with a great big brush regardless of method or source of the ingredients that constantly flaws your arguments, you won't find many in this forum that feed their pets a food containing any of the crap listed above. It is pure scaremongering at it's finest to assume that all commercial foods are equal. How many specific commercial dog foods have you traced back to source of the raw materials? We shouldn't feed Chinese battery chicken in commercial foods, but the purpose of this thread is where to find it raw?!?

As for the irrelevant rant on feeding a child - there is a wealth of information freely available on human nutrition (and equine nutrition for that matter which I have a thorough understanding of), canine nutrition - not so much.

Sympathy here; it was the experience of nearly losing a treasured cat because of a vet's advice that finally finished me with all processed food. She had cystitis and I let him sell me some dietary food guaranteed to cure and prevent it. Within less than an hour she was bleeding again and the same with any dried food and we realised it is grain in any form that she cannot take.

So now it is raw for all the critters here and what few table scraps we have, which these days is few enough. lol

It really is so very simple and the last thing we worry about. Pets thrived on scraps for generations after all.

ISDW · 24-01-2012 10:34am

DogsFirst wrote: »

In house experts that reckon it's wise to feed a dog on mega high dose cereal (more than is advised in humans), twice cooked gack protein and chemicals. Doesn't sound too smart to me. If you studied nutrition that long, went to work for them and then tried to push it as "ideal" for your dog, how the hell could you go back to your wife at night? These guys have absolutely zero interest in truth and maximum interest in profit. Why not use more meat? Why not provide it fresh? Why use the worst grades of wheat? Why use chinese battery raised chciken, often 4d meat, pets and restaurant leftovers? Why advocate the cure to gingivitis in dogs is another manufactured bone?! These are all experts talking. Just not independent ones.

Its just scary stuff. There is variation between individuals, just like humans. What about feeding a child? Or yourself? How do you determine what nutrients and in what ratios are needed for each particular child, how do you know you are doing it correctly and are not causing nutrient overload leading to various organ failure, kidneys, liver ect. or nutrient deficiency causing the same problems, which are often not detected until it is 'too late' - how do you prepare a meal for a child that has the correct phosphorus:calcium ratio?

We have no idea as these are only a concern for dry foods which the dog eats morning and night times, every day, for years. Then these figures take on a whole new perspective and insufficiencies and excesses become an issue. But if you're feeding a varied diet as close to the natural as you can, these things are absolutely irrelevant to a healthy animal, dog or kid, as it all comes out in the wash. For example you need infinitesimally small amounts of vitamins to do you for weeks, a nibble on a spinach leaf, but go with a constantly low level of say vitamin E (constantly insufficient in dry food fue to storage times) and you have problems.

The problem is science has been brought into dog food to confuse everyone. It's called reductionism, stuff broken down to parts to help us understand the whole. Like taking apart a car engine. Except manufacturers now use it to ad an air of nutritional wonder to your crackers. First dogs ate meat and a few scraps, then they ate protein fat and carbs, now they eat key amino acid groups, linoleic acid and a certain amount of disaccharides. Without the proper training this confuses everyone to the point that they think they're killing their dog.

We did pretty well without all this. Back when dogs were carnivores, we fed 'em scraps and the rest they went and got for themselves. Nice and varied.

All the science malarky has no place in dog food. People just use it wrong then get up in a tizzy when nutritionists discuss it with them, adding to the stress.

Want to know what to feed a dog? Ask grandad, or vets older than 70, not a scientist. Want to know how a car works, ask someone that drives one or buy a book, don't ask a mechanic. But if something goes wrong in your car, best keep their number in your phone.

I really cannot believe you've said that.:eek:

If my Grandad was still alive and I asked him about a dog - he'd say let it live outside, his dogs used to live in an old Morris Minor in their garden. The dogs would be fed scraps, and never lived particularly long lives.

I drive a car, and I have Haynes manuals. Those things do not make me an expert on how it works.

Vince32 · 24-01-2012 11:28am

I don't believe that absolutely every food manufacturer will use lower quality foods than perhaps one would choose themselves. But I do believe it happens, or at least has happened.

I know some people go through 3-4 sample bags of food before the find one, both they and the dog like, and that's fine, I don't have any grudge against corporate food makers at all. But in the same breath, feeding raw, or cooked or fresh is just as cheap as the processed stuff (if you know where to look) and the dogs get to eat like real animals, eating real food and the quality is 100% better than what someone may find in a bag of dried chicken and veggies.

I know it's like anti argument saying, the 100's of food company's can't feed your dog as well as you can, and forget about nutrition for just a thought, Imagine there was a choice between, porridge for breakfast, tea and pastry for lunch, and meat and veggie for dinner as a meal, or choice b: A bowl of nutritional nuts 2 times a day. (human)

I know what I would choose, and I know given the choice what (dare I say any dog) would choose. Even if the meats were steamed with the veggies, and cooked all the way through, it would still be a good meal.

What I've learned in the last weeks, is that feeding raw/cooked/fresh foods, is not only better or at least just as good, for the dog, it can be cheaper than feeding from bags of kibble. If you know where to find cheap meats to get started.

Vince32 · 24-01-2012 11:38am

I think it's just the malarky he objects too, not the science since he has posted some pretty extensive links on the science part in is own posts.

People who over complicate the issue by bring human standards, or portions of science to make a partial picture of the point they are making.

I remember when my mother wanted me to eat veggies and told me all about these "hidden" goodness that live inside the veg and meats, and I was more than sceptical, but as it turns out, mom was right, nature supplies everything you need to grow up big and strong.

DogsFirst · 24-01-2012 12:33pm

ISDW wrote: »

I really cannot believe you've said that.:eek:

If my Grandad was still alive and I asked him about a dog - he'd say let it live outside, his dogs used to live in an old Morris Minor in their garden. The dogs would be fed scraps, and never lived particularly long lives.

I drive a car, and I have Haynes manuals. Those things do not make me an expert on how it works.

Never lived long lives......hmmmmm... I guess the next thing you're going to say is "but thanks to the experts designing the ideal cracker they now live long and "healthy" lives". What about Americans, they live longer, reckon they got a good diet?

I'm trying to say feeding a dog is as easy as driving a car. You don't need to worry about nutrient excesses, insufficiencies, how the carburetor works. Just stick in unleaded (raw meat bit of cooked veg) and not diesel (cereal, cooked crap every single day) and off you go!! The only time you need to worry about the science of it all is when stuff goes wrong. Like dietary intolerance. A very tricky subject that takes a good bit of head down to really understand, or argue.

Look lads, this is a really common situation in Ireland, I have dealt with it for years. They say if you can make it in Ireland you can make it anywhere. But its particularly apparent in our doggie people. It's why we are so far behind on the whole fresh nutrition for dogs. Dry food sales fell for the first time ever in the US in 2010, not the case here. Last year 50% of Australians were making their own food (Australian Companion Animal Council (2010). Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy - 7th Edition), nowhere near that here at all, paling in comparison to the UK even (who have 5 raw product manufacturers, two of which are over here). In Ireland dry food reigns supreme, just check out our dog shows, all because "we don't like your type round here".
where specific training is something to be suspected or need to be brought down to size.

I don't get it. I'm too easily sucked into it all, and I don't have the time. Leave it to you lads. Best of luck fresh feeders.

ISDW · 24-01-2012 1:27pm

Vince32 wrote: »

I think it's just the malarky he objects too, not the science since he has posted some pretty extensive links on the science part in is own posts.

People who over complicate the issue by bring human standards, or portions of science to make a partial picture of the point they are making.

I remember when my mother wanted me to eat veggies and told me all about these "hidden" goodness that live inside the veg and meats, and I was more than sceptical, but as it turns out, mom was right, nature supplies everything you need to grow up big and strong.

Which was my point exactly Vince.

star-pants · 24-01-2012 4:46pm

Guys, just a note, please attack the post, not the poster. Let's try not make general sweeping statements.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion (once provided in a polite way). Everyone is passionate about their beliefs and their pets.

bfocusd · 24-01-2012 5:42pm

I gave my dog a shank of meat, we were cooking ham and it was too big for the pot, I put it in her bowl and she looked at it licked it and strolled off! The dog I had before her would be trying to eat it without chewing. She does eat other meat in smaller portions and loves chicken, but for whatever reason she couldn't if been less bothered.
It was soaked twice to remove the saltiness and then after she turned away i slow cooked it, she still didn't want it.
She's too well fed and picky.

Vince32 · 24-01-2012 6:52pm

My dogs dry food was in the bowl for 16 hours, she sniffed it a few times and walked away, I've taken it up for an hour and put it down again loads of times she just isn't interested in it, and I was getting worried, about 30 minutes ago I gave her a tin of salmon, just to see if she would eat it, and she devoured it.

I know now that she is just waiting for me to cave in and give her what she wants, and if she won't eat the dry stuff then she won't eat regularly. I guess she is leaving me little choice but to go and get the discount meats from Aldi's or Lidl's.

It's good for someone starting a raw or fresh diet to know how and where to get the meats, I only know of 2 slaughter houses in Dublin, and they are both shut down now, so getting the really cheap necks, hearts and livers is always harder for someone in the suburbs.

Wibbs · 24-01-2012 7:07pm

DogsFirst wrote: »

Still think its pedantics!! You're missing all the info by trying to pick holes.

Sorry DF, when your timelines are out by thousands of years, which could make a bit of a difference that's hardly pedantics.

I feel like I'm debating the existence of God with a guy using the fossil record and all you can do is focus on the gaps in the fossil record - what happened there then?!! I dunno. Well then, it's possible you're wrong!!!! Yup. It's very very unlikely, especially considering all the other stuff....but it's too late, he's skipping down the road to build another church and loot the locals.

Bit of a strawman don't you think?

Forgive me if I get a few bits wrong but by focusing on the 8000 yrs or 6000yrs you miss the point - it taked thousands of years to form new gut system / function and thousands / millions of deaths

That's not how selection pressure operates, though a common idea. The human genome has changed/evolved more in the last 10,000 years than in the previous 100,000. Many gene changes in humans have occurred in the last 2000 years. Neither have required thousands/millions of deaths. Coeliacs don't drop dead from eating bread before reproductive age, yet there are a lot fewer of them than thousands of years ago. The slightest thing over many generations where one group successfully reproduces just that little bit more does the trick. Yet you reckon the dog which has been with us for all of that time facing similar pressures has remained identical to a wolf in dietary needs? The mechanics of comparative dentition alone strongly suggest this is likely to be a very grey area. OK ask yourself this; why does a dog the same overall size as a wolf have significantly smaller teeth and reduced enamel? That's before you get near the smaller breeds and toys with teeth more cat sized.

but aside all that, what you're saying is "its possible a dog has evolved to digest gluten better / eat cooked protein better / become an omnivore". Absolutely it is, nobodys disagreeing with you there. And the gluten thing is a hot topic.

Has anyone actually done the science on this DF? It's pretty well nailed down in the human subject so likely some of it could be applied to a a canine model. Given Ronnie Beck's comment about westies having trouble moving to an exclusively raw diet that might be one good place to look breedwise?

It is interesting re wolves, I don't think 8000 years of domestication can have no effect on an animal, but their guts are the same size and shape and they look damn similar on the inside.

Numero uno and again it's not 8000 years(or 6 as you suggested before), even the conservative DNA studies give a figure double that, even if we dismiss as a dead end the fossil record which gives a figure over triple that. That's an awfully long time of parallel living and well enough time for evolution to have it's evil way. Plus looking at the macro features is hardly proof either way. Our guts are the same size and shape as they were 100,000 years ago. Hell you could likely go back even further, yet our responses to novel proteins and other dietary additions are quite different. Give a cheese sandwich and a beer to one of our pre agricultural ancestors and he's gonna get a long strong dose of the liquid sitdowns.

Then we could look at the huge diversity of dog breeds today. Some are more "wolf like" in size and shape, however some are significantly different. Much smaller teeth, jaws and guts. One size may not fit all. Plus selective breeding for looks or purpose can have more hidden effects than what you're aiming for. Look at all the genetic conditions various breeds are noted for. Conditions not observed in wild dogs. Some appear to have some digestive connections, like some breeds being prone to put on weight and others with allergies with a genetic component. Then look at lifestyle differences. A wolf is a very high energy long distance predator out in all weathers, often sub zero for much of their range. Their dietary needs are going to be different to a black lab that gets food on tap and has an hour long daily trot. Just as a sedentary office worker is not going to do too well on an ultra runners diet and vice versa.

Re cooked protein here and there is going to do little for evolution, we all know this. It's not going to kill a dog, just possibly make him sick / weaker for a bit. Cooked meat was a rarity (back then), especially for dogs so a little squit is a small price to pay for a meat feed.

Humans have been cooking meat for nigh on a million years. Domestication of the dog, regardless of whether one thinks it 6000 years ago or 60,000 their masters were eating cooked meat and their dogs were getting those scraps after we were done with them from the campsite/table along with other foods. Not from the raw kill site itself. Human hunters are incredibly efficient at rendering a carcass down to neigh on nothing. They use everything, meat, hide, bone sinew etc, leaving little if anything for scavengers(which is an area of debate for those trying to figure out how the domestication events occurred).

If he's domesticated (controlled breeding not focusing on digestive issues and great vet meds) it matters even less. Its evolutionary inertia. No stress, no evolution. Even if it doesn't make him sick, cooked meat is poor nutritionally. Enzymes gone, hard to digest, vitamin defunct. Cooking is unnatural and we're only getting used to it (very slowly in fact as we rarely pick mates based on little health problems like "dunno man, she gets the runs now and again".

Really? Only getting used to it? You'd think after nigh on a million years of consuming cooked meat we might be catching up at this stage.

I've met folks with allergies to various mostly plant proteins but rarely the proteins in a cooked steak. TBH the second I read "cooking is unnatural", I'm afraid I tend to switch off as it's pretty dubious science (and in definition). "Enzymes gone". Which ones? What temperature sensitivity are we talking about here? What digestive purposes do these meat borne enzymes actually have? "Vitamin defunct", this is one regularly trotted among rawists both human and animal and it's at best a half truth. Most vitamins aren't heat sensitive, not at cooking temps. The ones that are like Vit C and some of the B's aren't utterly destroyed, merely reduced(unless you like your meat blackened). As far as vit C goes unlike us, guinea pigs and gorillas dogs can make it for themselves, so even if it were absent it's hardly a loss. At least you didn't suggest cooking destroys minerals. I've heard that one before and it's kinda odd, even if you're cooking with a blast furnace.:)

Bottom line: dogs can be influenced to eat veg, like cats. Does it make them ominvores? Nope, as left to their own devices, free of human influence, they still reckon they're carnivores.

Which is precisely my point DF, domestic dogs haven't been left to their own devices for many thousands of years and its likely to have left it's mark.

Ronnie Beck wrote:

@Dogsfirst
hi, read through last couple of pages. Madness. Who would of thought it would so hard to convince people that meat is actually good for dogs.

No one has. I certainly haven't. I believe and have stated many times hereabouts that I think commercial dog food is mostly muck, that it can cause health issues and that the industry all too often supported by vets is feeding us BS and our animals crap too much of the time. Willfully or out of ignorance or lack of common sense. That dogs should be fed more meat and as much home sourced foods as you can afford. I feed my own dog largely raw. What I'm suggesting is simply that one size may not fit all. That it's not a "failure" if your dog doesn't do well on the raw diet and prefers and does better on homecooked meat and veg. I'm suggesting that applying the "wild" diet in a blanket way to an animal that has been domesticated for so long and exposed to different foods during that time, may not be directly applicable and that going from one extreme to the other especially where it becomes a meme/mantra is often unhelpful.

PS RB NASA ain't aiming for a manned mars mission in 2014 and the Russians worked out the minimal diet thing for cosmonauts a good while ago.

Ronnie Beck · 24-01-2012 8:38pm

The slightest thing over many generations where one group successfully reproduces just that little bit more does the trick. Yet you reckon the dog which has been with us for all of that time facing similar pressures has remained identical to a wolf in dietary needs? The mechanics of comparative dentition alone strongly suggest this is likely to be a very grey area.

what reproductive pressures do domestic dogs face?
You cant apply models of natural selection to artificial selection. there completely different. An Alsatians jaw didn't end up that way because of its diet no more than pugs did.

recedite · 24-01-2012 8:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Basically R, it's not because they're soft, quite the opposite. If they were softer it would be fine. Cooked bones are harder and more likely to splinter and cause damage to the digestive tract.

They are softer. I've eaten a few myself, so I know. As I explained, I put the bones in a pressure cooker for up to half an hour.
In order of likelihood of splintering; roast chicken bones > raw bones> pressure cooked bones.

DogsFirst wrote: »

So the question is, left to their own devices and completely free of human influence, what do wild dogs chose to eat? And the answer apparently is wild domestic dogs, when left to their own devices, follow a completely carnivorous way of life (see Fleming et al 2003, a study incorporating 30,000 stomach samples of wild domestic dogs, dog/dingo hybrids and dingos

Just to point out that there are no wild dogs, just as there are no wild humans (ie humans who exist without the trappings of civilisation- clothes, tools, fire etc). Our wild ancestor is extinct. Wolves are their wild ancestor. Dingos are feral dogs. African wild dogs are not related at all.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Inuit owners - the only race of people who can effectively digest raw fish).

AFAIK the likes of the Inuit and Japanese have different bacteria living in their gut which help them digest raw fish, but anyone could acquire these bacteria after living the lifestyle for a while.

This is an interesting thread, and I know its only an internet discussion forum, but way too many people are spouting their opinions as undisputed fact, which tends to devalue it.

DBB · 24-01-2012 8:53pm

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

I mentioned to her that westies are one of only a few breeds that struggle to switch to natural food. Is this a genetic flaw in certain strains or a random condition that pops up here and there in a small gene pool. Or is it to do with damage to a weak digestive system from the processed food? All of the above??? Please explain

Westies struggle to switch to natural food? Really? I'd better go and tell the lots of Westie owners I've got to move their Westies (my own included) onto natural, and who are certainly not struggling with it! I think dogsfirst mentioned he'd come acorss one or two Westies who he'd struggled with... I don't think that's a reason to generalise about the whole breed!

Now, I have a question re cooked food vs raw. I very lightly cook my dog's meat, because they prefer it. Indeed, they are very slow to eat raw at all. Dogs have shown a preference for cooked meat in preference tests: indeed they prefer canned over freshly cooked. And a preference for beef over other meats (in the order beef, pork, lamb, chicken, horsemeat). They prefer it minced rather than in chunks, and warm rather than cold.
References: Houpt and Hintz (1978); Houpt (1991); Lohse (1974); Smith et al (1984); Thorne (1995); Kitchell (1978)
Any comments?:)

dahat · 24-01-2012 9:00pm

DBB wrote: »

Westies struggle to switch to natural food? Really? I'd better go and tell the lots of Westie owners I've got to move their Westies (my own included) onto natural, and who are certainly not struggling with it! I think dogsfirst mentioned he'd come acorss one or two Westies who he'd struggled with... I don't think that's a reason to generalise about the whole breed!

Now, I have a question re cooked food vs raw. I very lightly cook my dog's meat, because they prefer it. Indeed, they are very slow to eat raw at all. Dogs have shown a preference for cooked meat in preference tests: indeed they prefer canned over freshly cooked. And a preference for beef over other meats (in the order beef, pork, lamb, chicken, horsemeat). They prefer it minced rather than in chunks, and warm rather than cold.
References: Houpt and Hintz (1978); Houpt (1991); Lohse (1974); Smith et al (1984); Thorne (1995); Kitchell (1978)
Any comments?:)

Minced meat is not much fun for the dog and no test what so ever.
For feeding RAW is about getting the most from the meat and best for my dogs,seeing them catch a heart in between the fron paws and tear at it till eaten is rewarding for both of us.
My own dogs have shown a preference for heart meat,pork,beef and Lamb in no order.Horsemeat while conterversial proved popular too the few times i had it,would prefer other meats myself though due to possible contamination from various drugs etc...

Ronnie Beck · 24-01-2012 9:12pm

DBB wrote: »

Westies struggle to switch to natural food? Really? I'd better go and tell the lots of Westie owners I've got to move their Westies (my own included) onto natural, and who are certainly not struggling with it! I think dogsfirst mentioned he'd come acorss one or two Westies who he'd struggled with... I don't think that's a reason to generalise about the whole breed!

Now, I have a question re cooked food vs raw. I very lightly cook my dog's meat, because they prefer it. Indeed, they are very slow to eat raw at all. Dogs have shown a preference for cooked meat in preference tests: indeed they prefer canned over freshly cooked. And a preference for beef over other meats (in the order beef, pork, lamb, chicken, horsemeat). They prefer it minced rather than in chunks, and warm rather than cold.
References: Houpt and Hintz (1978); Houpt (1991); Lohse (1974); Smith et al (1984); Thorne (1995); Kitchell (1978)
Any comments?:)

Taken out of context there DBB. I was kinda jumpin in on the thread from a old conversation with DF on a previous thread. I meant there are a few cases that have occured to to the constant inbreeding over the years. Gonna stay out of this whole issue now. too much nit picking, tangents, references that no one wants read. I do enough of that in real life:D. You just gave me a load of references to food that dogs prefer too eat. What their preference that got to do with it?

TooManyDogs · 24-01-2012 9:16pm

DBB wrote: »

They prefer it minced rather than in chunks, and warm rather than cold.

Any comments?:)

I wonder is it to do with the aromatic compounds in the meat being actived with heat and therefore being more smelly and appetising? We all know dogs love to eat anything that honks, the smellier the better

Mine don't show any particular preferance, will gobble anything down so no good for scientific studies!

dahat · 24-01-2012 9:22pm

Mine will also eat partially frozen meat though as previous poster said they generally wolf most things down,larger hearts and partially frozen meat are to try slow them down.
Just got my pork hearts,10 euro for 15 of them,well pleased i tell ya.

boomerang · 24-01-2012 9:46pm

DogsFirst wrote: »

I'm trying to say feeding a dog is as easy as driving a car. You don't need to worry about nutrient excesses, insufficiencies, how the carburetor works. Just stick in unleaded (raw meat bit of cooked veg) and not diesel (cereal, cooked crap every single day) and off you go!! The only time you need to worry about the science of it all is when stuff goes wrong. Like dietary intolerance. A very tricky subject that takes a good bit of head down to really understand, or argue.

You know I'm pro raw/fresh feeding DogsFirst, but I'd have to disagree with you on the above. I actually think it's really important for people to be aware of the potential nutritional excesses or deficiencies in their dog's diet. I think it's misleading and potentially dangerous to encourage owners to have a go at raw feeding like it's the easiest thing in the world - as you know, it's not.

With my own dog I have to analyse the nutritional content of every recipe I make for her. (Thank you, www.nutritiondata.com!) I watch her sodium intake to ensure it's not too low and measure her phosphorous intake to balance it with calcium. I am reading and researching and trying to extend my knowledge all the time. I'm not being precious about home-prepared diets; anyone could create such a regime for their dog, but you have to do the research first. I don't want to take chances with my dog's health.

I also think it's wrong to dismiss commercial foods entirely - they have a place and I think you're always more likely to win people over to your way of thinking if you show a little more tolerance for other forms of feeding.

Cherry Blossom · 24-01-2012 10:02pm

boomerang wrote: »

With my own dog I have to analyse the nutritional content of every recipe I make for her. (Thank you, www.nutritiondata.com!) I watch her sodium intake to ensure it's not too low and measure her phosphorous intake to balance it with calcium. I am reading and researching and trying to extend my knowledge all the time. I'm not being precious about home-prepared diets; anyone could create such a regime for their dog, but you have to do the research first. I don't want to take chances with my dog's health.

Got any more of these links hidden up your sleeves?

Wibbs · 24-01-2012 10:42pm

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

what reproductive pressures do domestic dogs face?

Lots. In the pressure to become domestic for a start.

You cant apply models of natural selection to artificial selection. there completely different.

Not really. The latter is much faster, however "manmade" or "natural" the mechanics are the same. An environmental source puts adaptive pressure on the organism

An Alsatians jaw didn't end up that way because of its diet no more than pugs did.

Then why do even the most ancient of dog lines look different to wolves in the jaw and face? Two reasons; as a side effect domestication favours neotony, IE retention of juvenile features and behaviour into adulthood. This has a tendency to shorten the muzzle(among other things). Dogs are (very) basically infantalised wolves. Second reason, adaptation to a softer diet. The dentition reduces in size and strength with thinner enamel as it's not required anymore. The alsations jaw is more wolflike anyway, so not a great example. Plus they have a hint of relatively recent wolf outbreeding in the line as the founder of the breed used high content wolfdogs as part of his initial breeding programme. Pugs were selected for even more infantalised facial features as humans see this as "cute".

Even when you look at the infant nursing diet of two canids, one wild(Arctic wolf), one domestic(Inuit Husky) living in the same environment with not dissimilar diets and the domestic dog being a more ancient line(with possible wolf outbreeding) and similar enough body shape(well those eejits who buy huskies cos they stupidly(on so many levels) think it looks like a wolf think so), you see differences.
COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE COMPOSITIONS OF MILKS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES

The values which were obtained for fat and protein are as follows:

wolf, 6.60%, 12.38%; husky dog, 12.31%, 8.23% (averages);

The wolf's milk has half the fat and nigh on a third more protein than the Husky mothers. In another study in beagles it came out at 9.47% fat, 7.53% protein. Again higher fat and lower protein.

Try as I have to find more stuff along these lines it's been hard going. I'd love to see comparative figures for a wolf and a raw fed dog with regard to stomach acids for example. Should be a simple enough one, though I can understand the reticence of any scientist when faced with shoving a stomach probe down the business end of a beagle, never mind a wolf. WOLF: "YAY! here comes that nice researcher, she usually gives me treats and attention... Eh wut. What's that yoke she's carrying? WTF!:eek: hmmmmmm researcher sure tastes gooooood"

recedite wrote: »

They are softer. I've eaten a few myself, so I know. As I explained, I put the bones in a pressure cooker for up to half an hour.
In order of likelihood of splintering; roast chicken bones > raw bones> pressure cooked bones.

Sorry missed the pressure cooked bit R

. Yea I could well see how pressure cooking would soften the bones alright. I've eaten pressure cooked fish(ugh) and you're dead right the bones were like rubber as if the calcium et al had been leached from them.

Just to point out that there are no wild dogs, just as there are no wild humans (ie humans who exist without the trappings of civilisation- clothes, tools, fire etc). Our wild ancestor is extinct. Wolves are their wild ancestor. Dingos are feral dogs. African wild dogs are not related at all.

Good point. There are archaic dogs which may be representative of very early proto dogs. The singing dogs of southeast Asia(and another in Africa) spring to mind, but they're similar to the dingo. Less barking more vocalisations. Like many of the spitz breeds also old line dogs. Still like you point out domestic dogs mind you.

AFAIK the likes of the Inuit and Japanese have different bacteria living in their gut which help them digest raw fish, but anyone could acquire these bacteria after living the lifestyle for a while.

The Inuit have larger livers too IIRC.

dahat wrote:

Mine will also eat partially frozen meat though as previous poster said they generally wolf most things down,larger hearts and partially frozen meat are to try slow them down.

Same with my fella. Really fast eater. To paraphrase the cockney gangster from Snatch, "He goes through bone like butter" and he's still a baby. I used to give chicken wings to my last guy(similar sized and breed of dog) with no problems at all, but after a couple of times with my new guy I stopped. What was coming out the other end looked potentially dangerous. Very sharp slivers of bone about an inch long, which went clean through the poop bag and into my finger. Now he gets the bigger stuff to slow him down. Even so he can go through a 9 inch lamb leg bone and reduce it to a two inch long tube bereft of marrow in 10-15 minutes. So IMH you do have to be careful and adjust according to your guy or gals needs, feeding habits and physical build. Personally speaking I'd avoid something like chicken wings like the plague with something like an Irish Wolfhound or Mastiff. One of my clients has an Irish wolfhound. Sadly rare enough to see these days. Thank the gods they're lovely easy going guys and gals cos if one of them ever got angry...

She feeds a home brewed diet too, with a side order of one of the better dry foods and he looks good on it.

DBB · 24-01-2012 11:16pm

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Taken out of context there DBB. I was kinda jumpin in on the thread from a old conversation with DF on a previous thread. I meant there are a few cases that have occured to to the constant inbreeding over the years. Gonna stay out of this whole issue now. too much nit picking, tangents, references that no one wants read. I do enough of that in real life:D. You just gave me a load of references to food that dogs prefer too eat. What their preference that got to do with it?

I read the other thread too, and still don't think it's entirely accurate to tell Westie owners their dogs may find it difficult to make the transition. It certainly hasn't been my experience with the breed, and dog knows, of all breeds we don't need Westie owners to be put off trying a natural diet!

As for "references that no one wants to read": I didn't give them to you... that part of the post was not aimed at you, it was a general point I was interested in getting comments upon. You might not want to read the references, that's fair enough, but maybe others do. There are a few posters here who like to dig deeper, and I posted those refs (as do other posters) in case they wanted to do so. I read a lot of refs/papers in daily life too, but I appreciate knowing where people source their information from even on discussion forums where devisive info is being discussed.
As for "what their preference has to do with it"? Preference has everything to do with it: it's a standard way of assessing what an animal would choose given the choice, and is therefore a useful way of improving that animal's welfare. In addition, dog food companies spend millions every year researching food preferences to try to get ahead of the competition.

TooManyDogs · 24-01-2012 11:27pm

boomerang wrote: »

With my own dog I have to analyse the nutritional content of every recipe I make for her. (Thank you, www.nutritiondata.com!) I watch her sodium intake to ensure it's not too low and measure her phosphorous intake to balance it with calcium.

I was just looking at that site, how do you figure the nutritional breakdown of the bones part of the dinners? Or do you analyse that seperately? I wouldnt mind figuring out exactly what goes into my dinners. Having said that I think it's also hard to find any conclusive breakdown of what is the nutritional needs of a dog.

Wouldn't it be great if there was an agreed upon food pyramid for dogs?

Between the BARF diet, raw meaty bones diet and then prey model diet it can get very confusing

Cheap meat for fresh fed dog owners

Comments