Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog Food and Recipes


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-05-2012, 08:05 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
such sights to show you
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalfeddogs View Post
I don't think anything scientific has been done either. All the "evidence" needed is what you see for yourself in the results of your dogs.
Oh, good. Because the evidence I see for myself my kibble+raw-at-the-same-meal fed dogs is that they don't have any problems with it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-05-2012, 08:09 AM
naturalfeddogs's Avatar
naturalfeddogs naturalfeddogs is offline
love the fluff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Talladega, Alabama
Posts: 230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
Oh, good. Because the evidence I see for myself my kibble+raw-at-the-same-meal fed dogs is that they don't have any problems with it.
I never said they all do. SOME do. Depends on the dog.
__________________
JENNY
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-05-2012, 08:18 AM
naturalfeddogs's Avatar
naturalfeddogs naturalfeddogs is offline
love the fluff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Talladega, Alabama
Posts: 230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
If I google "UFOs are real" I get ten million links. :/

I'm not arguing that raw isn't beneficial. I feed partially raw. I just wish people would leave it at "mixing the raw and kibble might cause diarrhea in some dogs" instead of making up a scenario to explain or justify why that then propagates into some kind of gospel fact. Precisely because there are so few studies done, stuff like this just gives opposition more ammunition against "those crazy raw feeders".

Because when I sit down and actually think about how digestion works both mechanically and enzymatically, "digesting at different rates" makes no scientific or physiologic sense for an animal that first nature turned into an opportunistic glutton and then we bred far, far away from any semblance of a natural wild animal.
Nature didn't "turn" them into anything. Dogs will scavange (as will we) if hungry enough. Nature designed dogs for raw meat, bones and organs.

We have changed dogs in the way of developing breeds for specific jobs, but not changed anything about how their body works. A domestic dog is the same as a wolf today, and thousands of years ago all the way from the teeth to the way the digestives work.

Kibble has only been around for about 100 years, developed by man and only really got popular about 60 or so years ago. Raw is natural to them and been around for thousands and thousands of years.

How can man made, over cooked over processed nuggets in a bag be more natural than what they were designed to eat?
__________________
JENNY
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:01 AM
Shai's Avatar
Shai Shai is offline
& the Muttly Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalfeddogs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
If I google "UFOs are real" I get ten million links. :/

I'm not arguing that raw isn't beneficial. I feed partially raw. I just wish people would leave it at "mixing the raw and kibble might cause diarrhea in some dogs" instead of making up a scenario to explain or justify why that then propagates into some kind of gospel fact. Precisely because there are so few studies done, stuff like this just gives opposition more ammunition against "those crazy raw feeders".

Because when I sit down and actually think about how digestion works both mechanically and enzymatically, "digesting at different rates" makes no scientific or physiologic sense for an animal that first nature turned into an opportunistic glutton and then we bred far, far away from any semblance of a natural wild animal.
Nature didn't "turn" them into anything. Dogs will scavange (as will we) if hungry enough. Nature designed dogs for raw meat, bones and organs.

We have changed dogs in the way of developing breeds for specific jobs, but not changed anything about how their body works. A domestic dog is the same as a wolf today, and thousands of years ago all the way from the teeth to the way the digestives work.

Kibble has only been around for about 100 years, developed by man and only really got popular about 60 or so years ago. Raw is natural to them and been around for thousands and thousands of years.

How can man made, over cooked over processed nuggets in a bag be more natural than what they were designed to eat?
Did you quote the post you intended to quote?

Sounded to me like sassafras was just saying that there's no real reason that kibble would digest markedly slower than raw foods. Which makes sense if you are looking at them from a scavenger point of view...scavengers should be able to handle a wide range of crazy stuff. I'm sure the pariah dogs managed to grab and eat stale or burn bits of bread, burnt meat/fat tips, sun-dried deer excrement, etc. It's not like everything they ate along the outskirts of humans society was clean raw meat, bones, and organs...nor does it mean that their diet met all their nutritional needs, just that it sustained them long enough to reproduce.

The recurring point seems to be that some dogs can handle frequent switches and some can't. If I go a week all vegetarian and then eat a steak I'm going to get a stomach ache. Doesn't mean the steak was bad for me but that my body doesn't handle abrupt changes in diet particularly well. My spouse could go a week eating vegetarian then eat a steak, potato chips, and wash the whole concoction down with chocolate milk and feel great.
__________________

ARCHX U-CD Kim MX MXJ NF CL3-SF RL3/2X/1X-COE CGC -- Golden Ditzhund, b. ~Mar'07
MACH ARCHX U-CD Webster MXB MJB RL3/2X/1X-COE CGC -- Flying Houdini, b. ~Jun'07
Mira CD JH MX MXB MXJ MJB CGC WCX -- Princess Cheeseface, b. Jul'09
Lodin -- Crazy Monkeybean, b. Dec'13
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:03 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
such sights to show you
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalfeddogs View Post
Nature didn't "turn" them into anything. Dogs will scavange (as will we) if hungry enough. Nature designed dogs for raw meat, bones and organs.
According to the co-evolution theory, dogs have evolved alongside us from wolves. i.e. They were turned from wolves into dogs by selection pressures.

Quote:
We have changed dogs in the way of developing breeds for specific jobs, but not changed anything about how their body works. A domestic dog is the same as a wolf today, and thousands of years ago all the way from the teeth to the way the digestives work.
Dogs are not wolves. Dogs are dogs. Have you read the Siberian fox experiments? In those experiments, selectively breeding for specific behaviors led to changes in physical characteristics like ear set and coat color. It is difficult for me to believe, then, that selectively breeding for both physical and behavioral characteristics in our modern day dogs does not also results in internal physiologic effects as well. We don't know what kind of gene sets are linked.

It is becoming more and more well known that the physiology of individuals varies tremendously in terms of how many and what specific types of, just as one example, pain receptors they have. That is why morphine makes one person sick and relieves another person's pain. I have one dog that does best on kibble. I have one dog that does best on about half/half raw and kibble (which I'm told is typical for his type). I have one dog who thrives on all raw. So I'm not sure how an assertion can be made that the digestive system has somehow been magically protected from all of the genetic manipulation we've done with dogs. I suspect that our mucking about with selective breeding has created dogs with a lot of individual variations in the digestive system.

Quote:
Kibble has only been around for about 100 years, developed by man and only really got popular about 60 or so years ago. Raw is natural to them and been around for thousands and thousands of years.
Do you think that the majority of domestic dogs had been eating primarily PMR prior to the introduction of kibble? That humans, who often were living on the raggedy edge themselves and couldn't afford to eat meat regularly, were taking care to feed their dogs PMR? Dogs got scraps and corn mush and whatever they could catch themselves. There are still people living nomadic lifestyles today who feed their dogs this way, some of them claim that their breeds actually do BETTER on what we would consider a crummy diet. The idyllic good old days, weren't. Medical care for pets is a relatively new invention, too. Doesn't mean I'm going to reject it.

Quote:
How can man made, over cooked over processed nuggets in a bag be more natural than what they were designed to eat?
Where have I said it is more natural? And why is natural automatically better, anyway? Nature doesn't care about anyone or anything living a long and healthy life. Nature only cares that someone in the species lives long enough to reproduce. There is absolutely NO natural selection pressure that I can think of to select FOR an animal to eat a diet that will carry it through to a healthy old age.

Again, I'm not arguing that raw is a bad diet. I don't think raw OR kibble is "better" or "worse" - I think that there are individuals, and inventing or parroting outlandish claims and theories to back up unproven and scientifically unsound theories does nothing in my mind to make raw feeding more accepted among the general public or even hard core dog owners.

/rant
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:05 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
such sights to show you
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai View Post
Did you quote the post you intended to quote?

Sounded to me like sassafras was just saying that there's no real reason that kibble would digest markedly slower than raw foods. Which makes sense if you are looking at them from a scavenger point of view...scavengers should be able to handle a wide range of crazy stuff. I'm sure the pariah dogs managed to grab and eat stale or burn bits of bread, burnt meat/fat tips, sun-dried deer excrement, etc. It's not like everything they ate along the outskirts of humans society was clean raw meat, bones, and organs...nor does it mean that their diet met all their nutritional needs, just that it sustained them long enough to reproduce.

The recurring point seems to be that some dogs can handle frequent switches and some can't. If I go a week all vegetarian and then eat a steak I'm going to get a stomach ache. Doesn't mean the steak was bad for me but that my body doesn't handle abrupt changes in diet particularly well. My spouse could go a week eating vegetarian then eat a steak, potato chips, and wash the whole concoction down with chocolate milk and feel great.
Yes, thank you. It very much bothers me to hold a single way of feeding up as the "one true way" and ignore the fact that dogs are individuals. Especially when using unsound theory to justify it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:10 AM
naturalfeddogs's Avatar
naturalfeddogs naturalfeddogs is offline
love the fluff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Talladega, Alabama
Posts: 230
Default

Here a link.http://preymodelraw.com/why-pmr/
__________________
JENNY
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:17 AM
naturalfeddogs's Avatar
naturalfeddogs naturalfeddogs is offline
love the fluff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Talladega, Alabama
Posts: 230
Default

And one more....http://trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm
__________________
JENNY
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:18 AM
Emily's Avatar
Emily Emily is offline
Rollin' with my bitches
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
There are still people living nomadic lifestyles today who feed their dogs this way, some of them claim that their breeds actually do BETTER on what we would consider a crummy diet. The idyllic good old days, weren't. Medical care for pets is a relatively new invention, too. Doesn't mean I'm going to reject it.
Agreed. In fact, Cardigans are known for being relatively insensitive to what they're fed. They can do well on some pretty junky ****, probably because they're a relatively primitive breed from a very harsh place. And they were farm dogs, not pets, and expected to get by on whatever. And there are some people who feel they do best with some filler in their food. Mine does great on a more or less filler free diet, but some people do clame they need it.

I've fed raw for years and I'm still annoyed by the "oh it's magical and natural!!!" I feed raw because 1.) my potential chubster Macky maintains a healthy weight without having to be starved on it - that's how I got started feeding raw. 2.) My dogs seem to thrive on it, short and long term. 3.) I just like feeding whole, unprocessed foods and knowing exactly what goes into my dog's diet. 4.) Dental benefits, gotta say I do love this aspect. The vet can't believe Macky's 7 and never had a dental, and isn't anywhere needing one. 5.) Give a corgi a frozen chicken quarter, and she won't bark for at least 30 min. LOL

I think "Mixing raw and kibble gives some dogs diarrhea" is pretty accurate. Just like lots of things give some dog diarrhea when they're suddenly introduced.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:21 AM
naturalfeddogs's Avatar
naturalfeddogs naturalfeddogs is offline
love the fluff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Talladega, Alabama
Posts: 230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily View Post
Agreed. In fact, Cardigans are known for being relatively insensitive to what they're fed. They can do well on some pretty junky ****, probably because they're a relatively primitive breed from a very harsh place. And they were farm dogs, not pets, and expected to get by on whatever. And there are some people who feel they do best with some filler in their food. Mine does great on a more or less filler free diet, but some people do clame they need it.

I've fed raw for years and I'm still annoyed by the "oh it's magical and natural!!!" I feed raw because 1.) my potential chubster Macky maintains a healthy weight without having to be starved on it - that's how I got started feeding raw. 2.) My dogs seem to thrive on it, short and long term. 3.) I just like feeding whole, unprocessed foods and knowing exactly what goes into my dog's diet. 4.) Dental benefits, gotta say I do love this aspect. The vet can't believe Macky's 7 and never had a dental, and isn't anywhere needing one. 5.) Give a corgi a frozen chicken quarter, and she won't bark for at least 30 min. LOL

I think "Mixing raw and kibble gives some dogs diarrhea" is pretty accurate. Just like lots of things give some dog diarrhea when they're suddenly introduced.
Definantly not "magical", but natural, yes. And all the benefits you just named don't come in kibble.
__________________
JENNY
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site