Jump to content

Welcome to Prey Model Raw
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Brilliant Minds Needed

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1
Poodlebeguiled

Poodlebeguiled

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Washington

LOL. I knew I'd getcha on here with that title. haha :lol: . Say, I think I've even posted this once upon a time for discussion but not sure it was here or on the other forum I go on. But this article, posted by someone else recently is up for discussion on the other forum I go on and everyone is singing it's praises. I wondered what you all would say about it so I can either cross post with your permission or tell about what I find in the way of opinions from others. I have in my mind some points to make but wanted your input too, if you're so inclined. 

 

My first point would be that although dogs and wolves are not one in the same, just because their dna is so close, I've come to understand that their digestive systems and nutritional needs are almost identical. Is this not true? What about wild or feral dogs? We know they're probably mostly scavengers, more so than hunters, although, of course wild dogs hunt plenty. But what's the deal about evolving to handle carbs? Well, I've learned that while they can handle them through evolution with humans...eating human stuff, it may not really be too good for their pancreas. Where is some proof for this? 

 

Anyhow, any other brilliant words of wisdom would make for a stimulating discussion, especially if I can share with others too...if that's allowed. 

 

Here's the article: https://therawfeedin...ed-it-like-one/



#2
naturalfeddogs

naturalfeddogs

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,293 posts
  • LocationTalladega, Alabama

Yes you are correct, their nutritional needs are the same in both our pets and wolves. Feral/strays ate the same, but are more on the scavenger side, considering they will eat any scraps they can find to survive. 

 

Wolves eat their natural diet in the wild, of prey in the way of buffalo, elk, rabbit, or anything of nature.

 

Dogs CAN eat carbs, but have no biological need. Unfortunately kibble eating dogs always get carbs because its in all kibble. Its used as the primary source of energy, which just sort of spikes, then quickly goes away. Considering how closely related dogs and wolves are with the same nutrional needs, wolves don't eat carbs, therefore dogs don't need either. Neither have a biological need for them.


  • Spy Car and Poodlebeguiled like this

#3
Spy Car

Spy Car

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Dogs and wolves don't just share DNA, they are a common species. The analogy between chimps and humans (species that long ago diverged from a common ancestor) simply does not hold with dogs and wolves, which if inter-bred produce fertile offspring.

That said, this PMR raw feeder doesn't feed this diet only because it most closely resembles what wolves eat in the wild. *If* there was evidence that domesticated dogs did better eating plants and carbohydrates then *I* would opt for the more optimal option myself. But that is not what the evidence shows. Quite to the contrary.

The differences in stamina, coat condition, clean teeth and breath, lean muscle mass (vs obesity), and over-all health are not subtle in a PMR vs standard kibble diet.

The fact that one diet is "natural" (as shaped by eons of canine evolution) and another is "unnatural" (in being in existence since 1956 when human cereal machinery was modified to produce species inappropriate "dog food") wouldn't matter to me if the results showed superior health and performance with kibble-fed dogs, but that is manifestly not the case.

I see the difference every single day when I compare the condition of my dog with kibble-fed dogs. Same when we get together with full-siblings and half-siblings. My Vizsa has more stamina, a leaner and stranger body, softer fur, and better teeth than his siblings/half-siblings.

So while not a "slave to mother nature," when a PMR diet shows me dramatically positive results in real-life experience, and when all leading scientific studies show dogs that metabolized fat as their primary energy source (as opposed to those who burn carbohydrates) have far superior stamina and vastly higher aerobic capacity, and when the world's leading authority on canine nutrition (the National Research Council) says there is no essential need for carbohydrates in a canine diet, the fact that a PRM diet is a natural species-appropriate is confirmative for me that this is the optimal choice.

If I believed there was a better option, I'd take it, no matter what wolves might eat in the wild. But evidence shows that dogs do better (much better) on high-protein high-fat diets. Feeding carbohydrates only causes negative health consequences, and is done for economy and convenience, not in the interest of good nutrition.

Bill


  • naturalfeddogs, Iorveth and Poodlebeguiled like this

#4
naturalfeddogs

naturalfeddogs

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,293 posts
  • LocationTalladega, Alabama

One thing Bill said is key that stands out to me and I forgot to mention. The common species part. To anyone who ever tells me they aren't, I always ask them "ok, so then why can they interbreed"? That is a huge part of the proof to me, about dogs and wolves being so close that they are one in the same. A species that isn't, wouldn't be able to interbreed. And they can. 


  • Spy Car and Poodlebeguiled like this

#5
Poodlebeguiled

Poodlebeguiled

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Washington

I agree with all that. But I know the argument (playing devil's advocate here) then, might go like this... theory: But dogs evolved with humans for a very long time (not so long on a whole evolutionary scale, but pretty long) and when humans went from hunter/gatherer to agriculturists, settling in one place, dogs ate what humans ate and that was inclusive of carbohydrates. That is why dogs are able to metabolize grain all right. Not as well as we do, of course, but they seem to be able to break it down somewhat anyhow...not that it's necessarily good for them. Many wild dogs also scavenge from the edges of human villages... those proto dogs that are thought to be our dogs' ancestors are not feral, but domestic in the sense that they're descendants of the self-domesticated dogs that evolved from wolves... those that have been seen off the coast of Africa on an Pemba Island, for instance.

 

Wolves probably broke into a few groups, some of which were tamer and could tolerate close proximity to humans, where usually, with the exception of captive wolves, wolves can not eat in the presence of humans. This group or groups (different locations and types of wolves throughout the world likely) got tamer and tamer and as a result, this caused physical changes because the brain's pituitary changed with this peace loving way they were adapting... and put out more happy hormones. There is a direct link from this to smaller brain size, skull, teeth, floppy ears, unusual coat color and other such physical changes. They look more like puppies. And domesticated animals are thought to be neotenic versions of their more adult-like counterparts. Ie: We are more juvenile as adults than Chimpanzees are as adults. Dogs, as adults are more playful than adult wolves. This was all discovered as many of you might already know, during a wild fox study done by Dmitri Belyaev, a Russian scientist. The foxes that were more docile were bred. This was the only criteria for breeding....tameness. After a few generations, the foxes started developing curly tails, white in the fur, smaller teeth, jaws, skulls etc. And they were ONLY selected for docility. In social animals, tolerance pays off. They survive better and evolve when they are more tolerant and can work in numbers better. So, with these tamer wolves, evolving to become domesticated dogs after probably another or more than just one other domestication event, they also started eating what humans were eating, which included grains and some vegetables, along with some meat and bones.  

 

I don't think 100 years, since the approximate beginning of kibble is much time for too much evolution to take place, so no, I don't think kibble is a natural food for dogs. But I question whether some carbs might be a natural food for dogs because domestic dogs' evolutionary niche is with humans, not a total hunting of prey. Now, of course, humans hunted and ate meat when they could get it, no doubt. So, naturally, the dogs that hung around ate that too. But once humans started growing grain, some researchers think that their dogs must have eaten that too. It certainly may be that it's not a necessary nutritional need or an item that makes their digestion work better. But do we really know for sure what is natural for a dog? 

 

However, it appears that around 10,000 BC when humans started their agriculture and the hunting and gathering lessened, they also became less healthy. Archaeology evidence shows when grain was introduced, tooth decay and arthritis set in. People died younger if I recall what I read a long time ago. So, grain may indeed be the very devil himself. 

 

I think if a dog is doing fine on their diet long term as well as the immediate condition, then that must be just fine. But I had dogs on kibble and they were healthy. My child hood dogs lived to be 18 and 15 and they were not toy breeds. We didn't even feed premium dog food. It was Purina and Gravy Train. Those dogs had loads of stamina. My Bruno use to go with my horse and me on loooooong all day trail rides. He was none the worse for wear. I had a GSD too who also, all day long went riding with us....hard running, lots of it. He was beautiful and healthy. I wonder if commercial dog food has declined in quality significantly since those days. 

 

I'm feeding raw because I too, have seen the benefits right before my eyes. My gut (oy, bad choice of a word) tells me that what carnivores (besides Pandas) eat out in the woods is probably pretty natural. I don't trust commercial dog food companies anymore. I don't know what they put in that stuff. I believe it's dwindled over the years in quality. They don't care about my dogs like I do. They are in it to make money. And making money involves being frugal with it. So that is what they do. I am not terribly frugal when it comes to my dogs. Also, it makes sense to me that fresh, unprocessed food is healthier. It is for us and it is for dogs. They're getting lots of meat and that's what dogs need. I don't think commercial food has enough meat in it and not the best quality. So, yep...that pretty much sums it up for me as to why I feed them this way. I do see some problems with their poop but not all the time. Sometimes it's just too hard or too much mucus which makes me think colitis. Then I make an adjustment and it's all good for a few days until again, something isn't quite right. But over all, I'd say my dogs are doing well. Jose` especially...lots of really noticeable differences with that boy.

 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what is natural for a dog. What is natural after all? Is it what wild dogs hunt and eat in the woods or is it what almost domesticated dogs ate when living on the outskirts of human settlements as they became tamer and tamer? Are they really unsuited for a diet inclusive of some carbs? I wish I could get in a time machine and go back through time and see first hand what did those wolves eat as they were becoming domesticated. Did they get some flat bread or some berries, whatever else humans were eating? Or just an old rabbit that either they caught or a human caught for them? The human would have had to have had a good day hunting. But again, just because they might eat something doesn't mean it's good for them, right?



#6
naturalfeddogs

naturalfeddogs

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,293 posts
  • LocationTalladega, Alabama

In short, meat/bones/organs are natural for dogs. They were eating that long before humans. Around domestication, and interaction with humans is when the humans started giving them left over with probably carbs and grains, at some point. The wolves ate it because it was there and easy to get. It doesn't mean it ever changed them, they still had and don't today a biological NEED for either one. They can't process it very well, but given it to them sure. They'll eat it. Both dogs and wolves are still very much wired for a staple of raw meat/bones/organs.


  • Poodlebeguiled likes this

#7
Spy Car

Spy Car

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

60 years since the introduction of commercial kibble. In evolutionary time that is nothing. Can dogs (in very uneven terms, varying by both individuals and breeds) process starches? I suppose. But at what costs?

 

The study you refereed to (which I read, a laborious chore I can assure you) showed dogs (unevenly) have more genes markers pancreatic amylase, but did not establish how the increased gene expression functioned in the real world. All omnivores produce amylase in saliva to start the process of pre-digestion as food is chewed. Dogs have no salivary amylase, and can not pre-digest starch as a result. The whole burden is pushed onto the pancreas. No surprise then than sick and inflamed pancreases are not unusual.

 

I think many dog owners have no clue how unfit their dogs are, and that many prefer them that way. As de-tuned couch potatoes whose sedentary lifestyle fits the owners own.

 

Fatty tumors, disgusting yellow rotting teeth, obesity, and shot joints are accepted as "normal" in American society. Damn shame IMO.

 

There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind whether a PRM diet or a kibble diet is for optimal for dogs. Surviving is not synonymous with thriving. That village dogs in the developing world, or dogs during early period of domestication survived eating human garbage (including cast-off sources of carbohydrates) doesn't convince me that feeding my dog a garbage model diet (GMD) is a good idea. 

 

The science we have clearly shows the superiority of high protein high fat diets for stamina, endurance, and peak aerobic capacity. 

 

When I'm shown evidence of a better way than PRM I'll be all ears. So far the evidence all points the other way. And my experience mirrors that as well.

 

I've had wonderful athletic dogs that I fed kibble. I sincerely wish I could turn back time and apply the knowledge I lacked then, but have now. Never again.

 

Bill


  • naturalfeddogs and Poodlebeguiled like this

#8
Poodlebeguiled

Poodlebeguiled

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Washington

I totally agree. I was wanting to share something with other people, if you don't mind, that is. I wanted to play a little bit devil's advocate to make comparisons or show a distinction. It does look like they evolved to digest grain all right. They can tolerate it to a degree. But like you said, that doesn't mean that it is the best thing for them. I see it too, right before my eyes. My young Poodles are already highly energetic so it's hard to see a marked difference. But boy oh boy, with my 14 year old, I've seen his arthritis improve somewhat, I've seen his alopecia improve on his ears and around his eye rims...hair almost all grown back. I've seen bad breath not caused by teeth, but some stomach issue probably, improve vastly. I attribute that to that raw tripe in particular, so full of digestive enzymes and probiotics, although it could be just the better nutrition all the way around. Fresh, whole food that is what these kinds of animals eat has to be far superior to dried, cooked, processed food that has vastly more starch in it than anything else...that is made by companies that care not about my dogs but naturally are in business to make the most profit they can. It's a no brainer and that's what made me finally bite the bullet and find out about it.

 

Yes, I've read about the genetic markers for amylase and how they compare to wolves. Dogs did evolve to develop these markers in significantly higher number than wolves. But it does appear to be sporadic. And like you said, only in the pancreas. I think those early dogs that started feasting on left overs (which I am not even sure of that theory because would there really be enough garbage for groups of such a large animal as a wolf? (before they turned into dogs) But they thrived because if an species doesn't thrive, it doesn't evolve. They probably got better than just garbage. So, they were forced to develop a way to digest grain when humans started using grain after evolving from wolf to dog, so the theory goes. There could be other reasons they developed this amylase. It might not have everything to do with eating grain. It can be a piggy back gene off of something else. It can have to do with genetic linking. So, I think more research would need to be done.

 

But many of your words could be my words. I've done my fair share of studying this since beginning this diet. I hemmed and hawed a little with the vegetable addition but only on account of my thinking that my dogs aren't getting any hair or feathers that they might pick up by accident when killing an animal to eat. I was thinking...fiber. But maybe they don't need fiber. Anyhow, I've since stopped feeding vegetables to see also, how they'd do. And they do well except for some inconsistency in their poop, but mostly it's good. So, I guess it's just a matter of getting that bone to meat ratio more "on" all the time. Jose`, whom I feed ground up bone to has much more consistent consistency. lol. I must be getting the amount better with him that the Poodles...consistently, that is. 



#9
Spy Car

Spy Car

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

I realize you are playing Devil's Advocate and believe it is smart to question ones assumptions. That is where I come from in any case. I have no ideological loyalty to a PRM diet. I follow it because every bit of evidence I see points to it being the most optimal choice.

 

The fibers in plants are implicated in creating gas in the digestive system, which in turn is implicated in bloat/torsion (GVD). Having lost my first dog as a youth to GVD, and enjoying deep-chested narrow-waisted breeds that are prone to GVD, bloat remains a concern.

 

IMO small nutrient rich meals that produce far less (if any) gas and produce far less waste significantly reduce chances of bloat. Meat, bone, and organs do not swell after being eaten. They don't produce gas the way that fibrous meals do. Because the energy release of glycogen is very steady and sustained when dogs are fed fat as the prime energy source it is unnecessary to run them on full bellies (cutting out another risk factor in GVD).

 

One could go on and on on other risk factors with feeding dogs plants.

 

I've seen zero advantages to feeding dogs carbohydrates/plants/sugars/starches, and lots of downsides. These risk factors and lack of advantages remain even if we put aside what wolves eat in the wild from consideration.

 

If we could do better for dogs on a nutritional level than PMR I would alter the way I feed. But I'm not seeing it. And PMR feedings are giving me phenomenal results. As good or better than I could have hoped for when we started.

 

Bill


  • naturalfeddogs and Poodlebeguiled like this

#10
Poodlebeguiled

Poodlebeguiled

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Washington

Yes, I had a Doberman and they too, are prone to bloat. So are Poodles, but I think it's more the standards. However, I understand that it could happen even with the toys. They are tiny but have a very deep chest. It's always a fear. My Doberman ate Taste of the Wild and did fine on it. At that time the info was to not let them run hard an hour before or a couple hours after a meal. Now, they say that doesn't seem to be concluded after all as being a culprit. Then it was raised food bowls, then not raised food bowls. lol. I think you're onto something when it comes to gas and foods swelling as causing potential problems. I notice my dogs hardly ever toot. I think Jose` did the other day. But honestly, come to think of it, they hardly ever seem to have gas. Well, I am feeling pretty good about how my dogs are eating. They seem to be lovin' it too. The Poodles use to pick at their food. They had kibble and canned and always the "premium" foods. But although they eventually ate their meal, they didn't love it like they do this. Tomorrow it's fresh sardines and a wee bit of green tripe which they get at every meal. Woo hoo! I was so nervous at first. Remember? Now, things are going right along. And much of that confidence and success for my dogs can be attributed to the help you and the others here generously supplied. 


  • naturalfeddogs and Spy Car like this

#11
Iorveth

Iorveth

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Whenever people try to tell me that all dogs should be fed kibble because "it's formulated by nutritionists and is a balanced diet" all I can think of is Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park. 

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I think it EVERY time and it never fails to make me giggle. 

I'm with Bill. The facts tell me that the raw diet is what dogs are designed to eat and, like him, if kibble actually proved to be better, I would feed it. I watched Dude go from a greasy, shedding mess with nasty teeth and a body that reeked of dog no matter how recently I'd bathed him to a dog you could pet without that nasty film on your hands, normal, twice a year coat blowing dog with clean teeth, no bad breath, and no doggy odor. Even Buck, the hound, doesn't smell like a musky hound unless he really needs a bath or has gone out in the summer and is a panting, drooling mess. When that happens, it's just his face. My dogs are muscular and athletic and run circles around their kibble fed playmates.

I know I've probably said it before, but since switching to raw, I have naturally become closer to my dogs because I am physically closer to them. I love on them and kiss all over their faces like I never did with my kibble fed dogs and I believe it is because my kibble fed dogs all had rancid breath and reeked like dog. Iorveth is a bit unusual because he has no coat and always smells like Hempz or cocoa butter, but their breaths don't smell and I like having them in my face when we're playing or wrestling or cuddling. Just this fact alone makes raw feeding worth it. I know it sounds sappy and is giving the diet a lot of credit, but it has literally tightened my relationship with my dogs and I look back on my old Brittany and wish I'd had that with him too.


  • naturalfeddogs and Poodlebeguiled like this

#12
naturalfeddogs

naturalfeddogs

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,293 posts
  • LocationTalladega, Alabama

Whenever people try to tell me that all dogs should be fed kibble because "it's formulated by nutritionists and is a balanced diet" all I can think of is Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park. 

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I think it EVERY time and it never fails to make me giggle. 

I'm with Bill. The facts tell me that the raw diet is what dogs are designed to eat and, like him, if kibble actually proved to be better, I would feed it. I watched Dude go from a greasy, shedding mess with nasty teeth and a body that reeked of dog no matter how recently I'd bathed him to a dog you could pet without that nasty film on your hands, normal, twice a year coat blowing dog with clean teeth, no bad breath, and no doggy odor. Even Buck, the hound, doesn't smell like a musky hound unless he really needs a bath or has gone out in the summer and is a panting, drooling mess. When that happens, it's just his face. My dogs are muscular and athletic and run circles around their kibble fed playmates.

I know I've probably said it before, but since switching to raw, I have naturally become closer to my dogs because I am physically closer to them. I love on them and kiss all over their faces like I never did with my kibble fed dogs and I believe it is because my kibble fed dogs all had rancid breath and reeked like dog. Iorveth is a bit unusual because he has no coat and always smells like Hempz or cocoa butter, but their breaths don't smell and I like having them in my face when we're playing or wrestling or cuddling. Just this fact alone makes raw feeding worth it. I know it sounds sappy and is giving the diet a lot of credit, but it has literally tightened my relationship with my dogs and I look back on my old Brittany and wish I'd had that with him too.

I think back over all the dogs I had as a kid growing up, and so wish we had fed raw as well. But unfortunantly I knew nothing about it, and grew up with parents who swore by (and still do) Purina. (They feed Beneful)! They think the fact that I feed raw is ridiculus, and I am going to kill the dogs. They are 85 and 84 years old. I'm not gonna change their thinking, at this point! LOL!


  • Iorveth, Sunny and Poodlebeguiled like this

#13
Caniches

Caniches

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

I think back over all the dogs I had as a kid growing up, and so wish we had fed raw as well. But unfortunantly I knew nothing about it, and grew up with parents who swore by (and still do) Purina. (They feed Beneful)! They think the fact that I feed raw is ridiculus, and I am going to kill the dogs. They are 85 and 84 years old. I'm not gonna change their thinking, at this point! LOL!

 

Oh gosh, me too. When I think of my childhood dog and the life we gave her ... it pains me. We were a typical midwestern suburban family, and we fed her Pedigree kibble with a half can of wet food, and kept her tied up to a tree in our backyard. Even then I knew it was wrong, I was just too young to do anything about it. She was such a sweet dog, she died far too young, and she deserved so much more. But that experience propelled me to the best owner I can for my current dog. She eats raw, gets lots of safe off-leash exercise, participates in dog sports, has lots of human and dog friends, and is deeply loved.


  • naturalfeddogs, Iorveth, Spy Car and 1 other like this

#14
Poodlebeguiled

Poodlebeguiled

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Washington

Iorveth, your account of your previous dog's odoriferous, greasy coat, horrendous teeth and breath is an extreme example I think. My dogs, until last December all ate a "premium" kibble and canned. Never in my 56 years of having dogs have I ever experienced anything like you describe. My childhood dogs were fed Purina and Gravy Train and were healthy and lived exceptionally long lives. My more recent dogs did fine except their teeth did get bad soon. These were the toy breeds. Their breath was okay. I don't recall anything extreme one way or the other and I'm a groveler with my babies and a snuggler. 

 

That said, I don't believe kibble is a great way to feed a dog. I don't trust dog food companies and what they put in or leave out of dog food. They put way too much carbohydrate in food and things like pea protein instead of meat. And what kind of meat when they do put in meat? Scary sometimes what kind of meat. To me, it's a no brainer that processed so called food isn't as healthy as fresh food any way you slice it. So, that is why I switched from commercial to a home done raw diet of great variety and all the best ingredients I can find. 

 

The differences I see I've written about before and most noticeable are in my old Chihuahua mix. He is remarkably better off since going on the raw food diet. And maybe my previous dogs would have lived even longer but some of the illnesses they acquired had nothing to do with diet. Being born with a too small liver or inability to process copper was something my Doberman suffered until he got stomach cancer which is what killed him. If that was on account of diet, why don't more dogs get stomach cancer? Why don't most all dogs get greasy coats, horrendous teeth (I don't see that all dogs get horrendous teeth) or horrible breath? I've been around a lot of dogs and I haven't seen this. So I wonder if some dogs are genetically better able to utilize kibble than others...more evolved? I wonder what the differences are between dogs that are so strongly affected by what they eat and those that do just fine. My Poodles are doing fine on the raw except sometimes I must miscalculate their ratios (I guess that's what it is) because they don't have a consistently easy time pooping. Can they run faster or longer than they did before? I don't notice that. They always had loads of energy and athletic ability. 

 

So I do agree wholeheartedly that raw, fresh food is vastly better than processed food that is loaded with fillers and substandard ingredients. But I haven't seen such extremes as I read about sometimes. I wonder if commercial dog food has gotten worse lately than it was...if they're cheapening it even more than before. I do hear a lot about skin issues and allergies which I think can be directly related to too many carbs and crummy ingredients. I hear more about yeast over growth in ears. I read a lot about lousy teeth, yes. And some other maladies that are probably directly related to diet. Or over vaccination. Something is upsetting the immune system in some of these dogs. 



#15
naturalfeddogs

naturalfeddogs

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,293 posts
  • LocationTalladega, Alabama

Iorveth, your account of your previous dog's odoriferous, greasy coat, horrendous teeth and breath is an extreme example I think. My dogs, until last December all ate a "premium" kibble and canned. Never in my 56 years of having dogs have I ever experienced anything like you describe. My childhood dogs were fed Purina and Gravy Train and were healthy and lived exceptionally long lives. My more recent dogs did fine except their teeth did get bad soon. These were the toy breeds. Their breath was okay. I don't recall anything extreme one way or the other and I'm a groveler with my babies and a snuggler. 

 

That said, I don't believe kibble is a great way to feed a dog. I don't trust dog food companies and what they put in or leave out of dog food. They put way too much carbohydrate in food and things like pea protein instead of meat. And what kind of meat when they do put in meat? Scary sometimes what kind of meat. To me, it's a no brainer that processed so called food isn't as healthy as fresh food any way you slice it. So, that is why I switched from commercial to a home done raw diet of great variety and all the best ingredients I can find. 

 

The differences I see I've written about before and most noticeable are in my old Chihuahua mix. He is remarkably better off since going on the raw food diet. And maybe my previous dogs would have lived even longer but some of the illnesses they acquired had nothing to do with diet. Being born with a too small liver or inability to process copper was something my Doberman suffered until he got stomach cancer which is what killed him. If that was on account of diet, why don't more dogs get stomach cancer? Why don't most all dogs get greasy coats, horrendous teeth (I don't see that all dogs get horrendous teeth) or horrible breath? I've been around a lot of dogs and I haven't seen this. So I wonder if some dogs are genetically better able to utilize kibble than others...more evolved? I wonder what the differences are between dogs that are so strongly affected by what they eat and those that do just fine. My Poodles are doing fine on the raw except sometimes I must miscalculate their ratios (I guess that's what it is) because they don't have a consistently easy time pooping. Can they run faster or longer than they did before? I don't notice that. They always had loads of energy and athletic ability. 

 

So I do agree wholeheartedly that raw, fresh food is vastly better than processed food that is loaded with fillers and substandard ingredients. But I haven't seen such extremes as I read about sometimes. I wonder if commercial dog food has gotten worse lately than it was...if they're cheapening it even more than before. I do hear a lot about skin issues and allergies which I think can be directly related to too many carbs and crummy ingredients. I hear more about yeast over growth in ears. I read a lot about lousy teeth, yes. And some other maladies that are probably directly related to diet. Or over vaccination. Something is upsetting the immune system in some of these dogs. 

Back in my kibble feeding days, I also had several dogs with greasy stinky coats. In fact, everything Iorveth said I have experienced, but maybe not all symptoms in one dog. But yes, I have seen all of that. I think a lot of people who know nothing but kibble feeding have these issues, and don't even realize it. They probably wouldn't if they don't have anything to compare it to.


  • Iorveth and Poodlebeguiled like this

#16
Iorveth

Iorveth

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Iorveth, your account of your previous dog's odoriferous, greasy coat, horrendous teeth and breath is an extreme example I think. My dogs, until last December all ate a "premium" kibble and canned. Never in my 56 years of having dogs have I ever experienced anything like you describe. My childhood dogs were fed Purina and Gravy Train and were healthy and lived exceptionally long lives. My more recent dogs did fine except their teeth did get bad soon. These were the toy breeds. Their breath was okay. I don't recall anything extreme one way or the other and I'm a groveler with my babies and a snuggler. 

 

Not an extreme example at all. He was one of the cleanest dogs in the neighborhood. I was the only one I knew of who regularly groomed and bathed my dogs. You mention that yours were on premium kibble. Dude was not. He was a Pedigree dog and all of my dogs before that were Iams dogs. Mind you, he was 7 years old at the time I realized how gross his teeth were so imagine a middle aged dog who had never had a dental and had been eating crappy kibble his whole life. 

He was VERY typical of all the kibble fed dogs I've known. EVERY single one of my neighbors' dogs at my mom's house where I grew up, my grandfather's Dobermans, the majority of the dogs at the park, and the dogs in my current neighborhood are all what Dude used to be like. They're all smelly and leave that nasty film on your hands. Is it because some of them need baths? Sure, but even the indoor dogs are that way. 

Now, I don't believe food is the end all, be all in lifespan. Not at all. I think genetics plays a much larger role, but I do believe food helps enough to be significant. My longest living dog was my Brittany who was nearly 18 years old when he died and he was on Iams and Pedigree his whole life, but let me tell you, he did NOT smell pleasant, mostly because of his breath. 

You have to remember that these were just your average dogs. They were family, but they were still dogs rather than "furry children". I grew up in an area where you loved your dogs, but no one knew you could have your dogs' teeth cleaned or fed anything better than your grocery store kibble. 

I also think Jenny nailed it on the head. People think these gross things they experience in their dogs is just part of owning a dog when, in reality, it doesn't have to be. Are some breeds naturally smellier than others? Absolutely. Hounds have that naturally musky smell that other breeds don't have, but they don't HAVE to smell that way. As I mentioned, Buck only starts smelling houndy when he gets hot and damp or just plain needs a bath. When people come over to our house, they get down with our dogs and ALWAYS comment on how they don't smell like dogs and ask how we keep our dogs so clean. Iorveth is an unusual case with his lotion and weekly baths, but Buck only gets a bath every few months, really.

ETA: You know, I do want to add that I never hold any ill feelings for those I might disagree or debate with. I know tone doesn't always come across well in text so I want to be clear that I never think poorly of anyone even if we disagree on things. Heck, Bill and I disagree on a number of things, but I still like him quite a lot!


Edited by Iorveth, 02 July 2016 - 04:57 PM.

  • naturalfeddogs and Poodlebeguiled like this

#17
WirehairedVizslalove

WirehairedVizslalove

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

I am a dog walker for a living and my dog is raw fed and he comes to work with me often.  So, with that said, I have been around a lot of kibble fed dogs (nearly all of them - 100 dogs), and my dogs coat is shinier, his teeth are clean, his breathe doesnt smell at all, and he has more energy than the other dogs.  The kibble fed dogs teeth are nasty, overweight, bad ears, etc...The wet food stinks and most of the time people will use the same bag of kibble for 6 months before they run out and go buy the biggest cheapest bag out there....


  • naturalfeddogs and Spy Car like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We use this company for SEO