Thoughts on cooking your own dog food
Question:
I have been privileged to be owned by half a dozen rottweilers in my life. My first dog was a bomb dog who lived to be 12. I am looking at my old Britta who is lying on the floor at my feet. She’s a thief when it comes to food and she’ll be 14 at the end of March.
I do agree with parts that you are saying. At least in my area, Rotties especially, seem to be lasting no longer than about 7 years – maybe up to 9 if you are lucky. Parvo is a big cause of it, and now immune system problems with pancreatic problems are popping up. Bone cancer has been a big one, too. Even my vet said that she has seen more problems lately, in every breed. Sure, there are those that you can feed anything too, and they will last forever – I had one of them. The ones that I really researched the food and did everything right too, succumbed the earliest to severe was very little, made him live to 17 <g> — Cyndi
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. > Cite, please. TIA 
. > Dianne > I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking > of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making > meta analysis of the information. There are many papers on the > incidence of diseases in dogs and the changing nature of prevalence. > Start with Kelsey, JL, AS Moore, and LT Glickman. Epidemiologic > studies of risk factors for cancer in pet dogs. Epidemiologic Reviews > 20(2):204-217 (1998) and back track similar studies prior to that to > see some comparisons. > I’m sorry to say that their is never one single source of information > but you already know that. Do a bit of homework and you’ll see that > there has been a significant increase in bladder cancer in dogs over > the last ten years as an example. Some attribute it to the increased > use of pesticides since components of those pesticides have been found > in dogs autopsied with bladder cancer. > There is no definitive answer in life. If their were you wouldn’t be > here right now, but just like you’d never stick your hand in boiling > water, one must evaluate what could cause potential problems and > eliminate them.
Response:
> You’ve put this wonderfully and I agree entirely. > Thanks again for your post. > Dianne
And thank you for always supplying informative and thought provoking questions and answers. Like many on this group, you have often challenged statements and comments not with malice, stubbornness, or ad hoc responses, but with well though out and well documented rebuttals. Although not everyone has the science background that some like you and I share, there are many members of this group who I have seen become surprisingly more knowledgeable about nutrition and their pets due to some stimulating threads brought up here. My hats off to most everyone on this group for making it a fun place to turn for interesting conversation. We may never agree about everything discussed, I don’t expect to, but it’s nice to see people thinking and questioning what goes on around them. I remember only a few years ago, many on this group were satisfied with such popular brands as Science Diet and Pedigree, not for what was in the can but because they were the ‘in’ dog food at the time. Now I see these same people not only using higher quality foods but much more knowledgeable about their dogs health and general well being.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > — > Cyndi > > >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. > > Cite, please. TIA . > > Dianne > I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking > of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making > meta analysis of the information. There are many papers on the > incidence of diseases in dogs and the changing nature of prevalence. > Start with Kelsey, JL, AS Moore, and LT Glickman. Epidemiologic > studies of risk factors for cancer in pet dogs. Epidemiologic Reviews > 20(2):204-217 (1998) and back track similar studies prior to that to > see some comparisons. > I’m sorry to say that their is never one single source of information > but you already know that. Do a bit of homework and you’ll see that > there has been a significant increase in bladder cancer in dogs over > the last ten years as an example. Some attribute it to the increased > use of pesticides since components of those pesticides have been found > in dogs autopsied with bladder cancer. > There is no definitive answer in life. If their were you wouldn’t be > here right now, but just like you’d never stick your hand in boiling > water, one must evaluate what could cause potential problems and > eliminate them.
How much of these things that dogs are dying of is because people are now LOOKING? Used to be, a dog died, and people got another one, never even giving it a thought WHY it died. Now people spend lots of money doing tests that technology allows, that were before, unheard of. Diagnosis are now possible, and better communications allow more accurate reporting. I have a feeling there is really nothing really new under the sun. The average household pet, I have a feeling is actually living much longer. No scientific facts on that, I just know mine are. diddy -not a vet.
Response:
— Cyndi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. > Cite, please. TIA . > Dianne > I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking > of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making > meta analysis of the information. There are many papers on the > incidence of diseases in dogs and the changing nature of prevalence. > Start with Kelsey, JL, AS Moore, and LT Glickman. Epidemiologic > studies of risk factors for cancer in pet dogs. Epidemiologic Reviews > 20(2):204-217 (1998) and back track similar studies prior to that to > see some comparisons. > I’m sorry to say that their is never one single source of information > but you already know that. Do a bit of homework and you’ll see that > there has been a significant increase in bladder cancer in dogs over > the last ten years as an example. Some attribute it to the increased > use of pesticides since components of those pesticides have been found > in dogs autopsied with bladder cancer. > There is no definitive answer in life. If their were you wouldn’t be > here right now, but just like you’d never stick your hand in boiling > water, one must evaluate what could cause potential problems and > eliminate them.
Response:
>That’s PubMed, an index maintained by the National >Library of Medicine to the major medical research >journals. While it’s mostly human-oriented, the >major journals of veterinary medicine are included >too.
…….Sigh, but many vet journals do not even provide abstracts to look at. I have to order articles and I hate to do that on the strength of a title only. :-( >there is a fairly >substantial amount of money for epidemiological research >for humans–and basically *none* for animals >Since I am a person that likes to quantitate things, this >is a very frustrating state of affairs for me. However, >it’s unlikely that this is ever going to change, mostly >because good epidemiological research is hideously >difficult and expensive to do,
are seeing a huge number of dogs with lymphoma, mostly Goldens. I tried to find out if this phenomena had anything to do with locality, reputation of the clinic, etc. and got no answer as they’d never looked at this info at that level. I mentioned it would be nice if there was a local meeting of vets to discuss incidences of diseases, but most vets don’t have time to run to local meetings. It sure would be nice to have a reporting system like the agricultural people do for diseases – reports are only due once a year, but it at least gives you some numbers. Chronic renal failure is a common in cats and its >prevalence is apparently increasing. As many as 30% of cats 15 years >and older have CRF. Now the question is, does that have anything to do >with increased frequency or is it possibly due to increased >veterinary attention to older cats?
recent Western Veterinary Conference Dr. Michael Lappin from Colorado State Univ. presented information (in yet to be published paper) about a connection between the FVRCP vaccine (not intranasal) and CRF in cats. Seems the antibodies for this vaccine are from cultures of Crandall Reese Feline Kidney cells and may cause antibody formation against renal tissue. buglady take out the dog before replying
Response:
Walter, thank you for your long & thoughtful response. Surprisingly, it turns out that we are substantially in agreement on this. >I should have not used the term "exponential growth". It is a harsh word >and incorrect. I actually thought about it after I saw it posted and >realized I was incorrect in using it. What I probably would have said was >that incidence was in the rise. Thanks for pointing it out.
And thanks for correcting that. >It does say that, is a good start, and why I listed it as the first >thing to read. First of all it helps to identify exactly what diseases >we are talking about and tells you one simple truth, if you want to >find out you are going to have to look. It’s not going to be found in >a science textbook.
Agreed. For the benefit of those reading this who don’t have a background in science, I’ll add that textbooks are a good way to learn the basics of a field, but are less-than-useless in assessing its current state. What we know changes *all* the time and the only way to keep up with it is to read the current journals. Things appear in textbooks years after they’ve been known by professionals in a given area and after they’ve been accepted as the "party line"; furthermore, they’re only the interpretation by one person (or a small group of people). A useful link for anyone interested in current research in animal health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi That’s PubMed, an index maintained by the National Library of Medicine to the major medical research journals. While it’s mostly human-oriented, the major journals of veterinary medicine are included too. >In my post, I said you’d then have to look at more work to see what was >prevalent at various times. You tried to say that me pointing out such >work contradicts what I said. No, actually the reason why I posted it was >that it says what I believe; you are going to have to look at a lot of >work to squeeze out the info necessary to come to any conclusion.
OK. I accept your reason for citing that study. My point was rather from the opposite direction: we’ve got VERY little hard data on the prevalence of disease in animals. My background is in human research and there is a fairly substantial amount of money for epidemiological research for humans–and basically *none* for animals. What little data we have comes from sources like the Veterinary Medicine Database (http://www.vet.purdue.edu/~yshen/vmdb.html) and is really so biased as to be useless. (Note that when I say "biased", I don’t mean in the colloquial sense of reflecting an individual’s opinions; I mean in the statistical sense of being influenced by outside factors.) Since I am a person that likes to quantitate things, this is a very frustrating state of affairs for me. However, it’s unlikely that this is ever going to change, mostly because good epidemiological research is hideously difficult and expensive to do, and there’s simply not enough economic incentive for anyone to fund it. >Part of the problem with this work and why it will not give you the >answer is the same problem with similarities in the way human medicine >likes to look at disease. Human medicine loves to talk about disease >but it is a non-no to mention how disease is growing. I guess if >everyone did, then it would seem like the treatments that they spend >so much time writing about might not seem like they are working.
Well, I will agree that there are economic factors behind the current ways of looking at health/disease. >Animal medicine models human medicine. They talk about disease, >treatments, and options but rarely is their a mention of prevalence.
And a good part of that is that we don’t have good information about prevalence (see my comments above). >Correct me if I am wrong but I would imagine that in some ways you >might have a bias toward any statement that disease prevalence in dogs >since you are a breeder and strive to breed animals that are disease >free?
Actually I am not a breeder; at this point it would be more accurate to describe me as someone who’s done a lot of research into breeding. FWIW, I do believe that knowledgeable breeding can reduce the incidence of some problems. I do not believe that it is the entire answer, however, and that there are certainly environmental influences on health as well. >There is also another explanation for disease prevalence. That is >treatment. Chronic renal failure is a common in cats and its >prevalence is apparently increasing. As many as 30% of cats 15 years >and older have CRF. Now the question is, does that have anything to do >with increased frequency or is it possibly due to increased >veterinary attention to older cats? It’s a good question. It’s similar >to what is starting to become a money making area of animal care, >cardiology. Do more dogs have heart problems or are we looking for >more problems and hense finding them? We know that in many areas of >the country there were 14-40% increases in cases of heartworm found in >dogs in the mid nineties. That scare caused many more people to turn >to some dangerous long term drug use. In the end many papers accounted >for the increase as not an increase in incidence but merely in >detection. That meant the prevalence of heartworm hadn’t changed.
Absolutely wonderful examples about why it is so difficult to get good numbers about prevalence. >You will never find any definitive science which shows why something >happened the way it does, only possibilities. Outside of that one has >to do a bit of homework and make their own judgements.
Yes. >Take diabetes for example. Prevalence in humans has been increasing >significantly over the years. (Like that word? :) )
<*g*> >What could be the causes? Well one can definitely see a trend in diet >towards a dramatic increase in processed carbohydrates in humans could >clearly make a connection. Does that mean processed carbohydrates are the >culprit? Might not be, but if you suspect something and you have >reasonable evidence that it might be true, then you could start a program >to avoid the potential and see what happens.
Exactly. To establish causality it’s necessary to do experimental studies. Epidemiology alone can tell you *what* is going on, but not *why*. >So what we need to do is realize that what we consider right is right >but not necessarily right for someone else. We have all seen that >women wearing what we would consider gaudy. Do you think she wore it >because she thought it was gaudy? No, she wore it because she liked >it. So although you might think it’s ugly, you have to remember that >her values are different than yours. As a person feeding our dogs >bagged or canned food, we have to remember that we are given little to >no information that tells us anything about what we are feeding. So we >have to look beyond the ingredient list and the phrase ‘veterinary >approved’, and make a decision based on what we believe to be correct. >Others may disagree but that is their right and their privilege. Take >in as much information about feeding your dog. In the end do what you >think is right. You are right. Just remember that no one else is wrong >either.
You’ve put this wonderfully and I agree entirely. Thanks again for your post. Dianne
Response:
> >> >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. >> Cite, please. TIA . >I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking >of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making >meta analysis of the information. > FWIW, I was working on epidemiological studies and taking > graduate courses in biostatistics a dozen years ago. It *is* > a subject I know a little about. And this is the first time > I’ve ever heard rampant hyperbole referred to as ‘meta analysis’. > Dianne
Dianne I will not debate your assertion. (Did my work in statistics at the University of Arizona many years ago too). I should have not used the term "exponential growth". It is a harsh word and incorrect. I actually thought about it after I saw it posted and realized I was incorrect in using it. What I probably would have said was that incidence was in the rise. Thanks for pointing it out. > OK, just ordered it through Loansome Doc. However, I did locate > a paraphrase of it by Todd Bessinger at > http://members.tripod.com/~RavenwoodDals/cancer.htm > As the title would suggest, this appears to be a study of risk > factors and not of prevalence (two ENTIRELY different things). > In fact, after citing figures breaking down common cancers > by site, Bessinger states: "Keep in mind, however, that these > numbers are from the 1960s! There are no newer studies and the > increased life expectancy of dogs since the 1960s has probably > changed this order somewhat."
It does say that, is a good start, and why I listed it as the first thing to read. First of all it helps to identify exactly what diseases we are talking about and tells you one simple truth, if you want to find out you are going to have to look. It’s not going to be found in a science textbook. In my post, I said you’d then have to look at more work to see what was prevalent at various times. You tried to say that me pointing out such work contradicts what I said. No, actually the reason why I posted it was that it says what I believe; you are going to have to look at a lot of work to squeeze out the info necessary to come to any conclusion. I was going to tell you to very simply come to the animal hospital here in NYC (or any other) which has increased its patient load here in NY substantially in the last ten years(dog/human population ratios in NYC are the same) and give you examples of what types of problems they are seeing large increases in but I didn’t want to hear you mention the words ‘anecdotal’ and ‘not’ together in a sentence. (read a few paragraphs below I have another explanation). Part of the problem with this work and why it will not give you the answer is the same problem with similarities in the way human medicine likes to look at disease. Human medicine loves to talk about disease but it is a non-no to mention how disease is growing. I guess if everyone did, then it would seem like the treatments that they spend so much time writing about might not seem like they are working. Animal medicine models human medicine. They talk about disease, treatments, and options but rarely is their a mention of prevalence. It would be like you owning a security company. You would talk about what you do, and how security is an issue but you wouldn’t talk about how crime has risen where you offer security. As the article says, "there are no newer studies…since the 1960s". That statement doesn’t mean there isn’t more incidence, merely no one bothered to write about it. A simple visit to your vet and one simple question will give many a direction: "What disorders in dogs have you seen the most increases in the last ten years?" Correct me if I am wrong but I would imagine that in some ways you might have a bias toward any statement that disease prevalence in dogs since you are a breeder and strive to breed animals that are disease free? That makes perfect sense, but outside of the control of responsible breeders such as yourself is a pool of poor breeding practices which is certainly doing little in helping rid our mass population of degenerative disease. Responsible breeding has seen negative trends in degenerative disease such as hip dysplasia, but the environmental factors such as the increase exposure to pesticides and poor quality commercial food is affecting dogs with certain organ diseases. Sorry you will not find that statement in a paper published by Waltham. > "Significant" is not the same as "exponential".
And I corrected what was an incorrect statement. > Here are some obvious math.. > * Say 2% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1990 > and 2.5% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2000.
Obvious math but good for a newgroup like this. Quite often a discussion involves numbers and in the end one can create most any assertion by how they look at numbers. For instance you could read a headline in USA Today that says "AIDS rises 40% in heterosexuals, yet when you read the story it says that AIDS amongst heterosexuals rose form 3% to 5% which depending on which way you want to look at it could be a 40% rise or a 2% rise. It all depends on how much you’re looking to scare people. There is also another explanation for disease prevalence. That is treatment. Chronic renal failure is a common in cats and its prevalence is apparently increasing. As many as 30% of cats 15 years and older have CRF. Now the question is, does that have anything to do with increased frequency or is it possibly due to increased veterinary attention to older cats? It’s a good question. It’s similar to what is starting to become a money making area of animal care, cardiology. Do more dogs have heart problems or are we looking for more problems and hense finding them? We know that in many areas of the country there were 14-40% increases in cases of heartworm found in dogs in the mid nineties. That scare caused many more people to turn to some dangerous long term drug use. In the end many papers accounted for the increase as not an increase in incidence but merely in detection. That meant the prevalence of heartworm hadn’t changed. A lot of dogs had always had it, probably never showed any symptoms of it affecting the dog, and over time like with most cases of heartworm it went its course. But the news sure made the drug companies happy and to this day they like to mention the increase but not the real reason for the increase. So numbers can often be used to scare people into using a drug or treatment even though a course without that treatment might give the same results. Human prostate cancer is a perfect example. A number of studies show that intervention and treatment of PC does not increase lifespan and in fact actually decreases it somewhat. The same is true of human cardiology and angioplasties. The science shows that intervention and treatment with stents is useless 98% of the time and in fact angioplasty actually decreases lifespan by 1 point something percent. But don’t tell that to the masses who have been convinced by the ten billion dollar a year industry that angioplasty is both beneficial and necessary anytime one goes under the knife. You will never find any definitive science which shows why something happened the way it does, only possibilities. Outside of that one has to do a bit of homework and make their own judgements. Take diabetes for example. Prevalence in humans has been increasing significantly over the years. (Like that word? :) ) What could be the causes? Well one can definitely see a trend in diet towards a dramatic increase in processed carbohydrates in humans could clearly make a connection. Does that mean processed carbohydrates are the culprit? Might not be, but if you suspect something and you have reasonable evidence that it might be true, then you could start a program to avoid the potential and see what happens. Take Preservatives in dogs. Some have been shown to cause cancer in rats. Some say yea but those rats were fed large doses. Question you have to ask is do I need a chemical in my dogs food that could cause cancer or very simply do I find another dog food that doesn’t use it. The answer is yours to choose. You wrote a long article correcting my use of the term exponential and I appreciate you correcting me but I don’t want to loose sight of what I was saying. There is no definitive answer to anything. All one can do is weight the options and pick what they choose to be correct. the term correct is a subjective term. Is BARF correct? well that depends on who you are asking. If it’s a person that has switched to BARF and after two years their dog no longer has the auto immune problem it had most of its life, than it is correct. For another person who believes BARF is bad and that dogs are going to get bones stuck in their throat so it is a bad choice is also correct. Life is about perception more than reality. I’m afraid the fixations that we all carry around in us only allow us to see life from a very limited perspective. If anyone in interested a great way of looking at your fixations and understanding them is a science called the Enneagram (I like Don Richard Riso’s work). So what we need to do is realize that what we consider right is right but not necessarily right for someone else. We have all seen that women wearing what we would consider gaudy. Do you think she wore it because she thought it was gaudy? No, she wore it because she liked it. So although you might think it’s ugly, you have to remember that her values are different than yours. As a person feeding our dogs bagged or canned food, we have to remember that we are given little to no information that tells us anything about what we are feeding. So we have to … read more »
Response:
Try http://www.vetinfo.com buglady take out the dog before replying
>Friday we get the first blood test and start therapy for auto immune system disease. >I would like to read more about the immune disease but can’t seem to
kind it anywhere K-9 all the info I find is human. I was told it is like K-9 lupus.
Response:
>We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially.
Cite, please. TIA . Dianne
Response:
> >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. > Cite, please. TIA . > Dianne
I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making meta analysis of the information. There are many papers on the incidence of diseases in dogs and the changing nature of prevalence. Start with Kelsey, JL, AS Moore, and LT Glickman. Epidemiologic studies of risk factors for cancer in pet dogs. Epidemiologic Reviews 20(2):204-217 (1998) and back track similar studies prior to that to see some comparisons. I’m sorry to say that their is never one single source of information but you already know that. Do a bit of homework and you’ll see that there has been a significant increase in bladder cancer in dogs over the last ten years as an example. Some attribute it to the increased use of pesticides since components of those pesticides have been found in dogs autopsied with bladder cancer. There is no definitive answer in life. If their were you wouldn’t be here right now, but just like you’d never stick your hand in boiling water, one must evaluate what could cause potential problems and eliminate them.
Response:
. Not saying you are, just responding to your asthma > response which is very much incorrect.
I wasn’t even saying it was correct, Walter. Jenn S.
Response:
Want some good recipe treats since you are cooking for your dogs? You can get some here, for a good cause. http://members.ebay.com/bostonterrierbenefitauctions/ I feed my dogs mostly chicken and rice soup (homemade) over a small amount of dog food. Some of my dogs don’t even want the dog food part. It is good for them and I have my vets approval. If you are keeping up on my updates about Spunky, he has tested NEG. for lymes and lepto…good. Friday we get the first blood test and start therapy for auto immune system disease. I would like to read more about the immune disease but can’t seem to kind it anywhere K-9 all the info I find is human. I was told it is like K-9 lupus. Any help here? Thanks
Response:
>> >We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. > Cite, please. TIA . >I wish life were as simple as ‘site please’. You can start by looking >of surveillance studies and epidemiological studies of dogs and making >meta analysis of the information.
FWIW, I was working on epidemiological studies and taking graduate courses in biostatistics a dozen years ago. It *is* a subject I know a little about. And this is the first time I’ve ever heard rampant hyperbole referred to as ‘meta analysis’. <*g*> >There are many papers on the incidence of diseases in dogs and the >changing nature of prevalence. Start with Kelsey, JL, AS Moore, and LT >Glickman. Epidemiologic studies of risk factors for cancer in pet dogs. >Epidemiologic Reviews 20(2):204-217 (1998) and back track similar studies >prior to that to see some comparisons.
OK, just ordered it through Loansome Doc. However, I did locate a paraphrase of it by Todd Bessinger at http://members.tripod.com/~RavenwoodDals/cancer.htm As the title would suggest, this appears to be a study of risk factors and not of prevalence (two ENTIRELY different things). In fact, after citing figures breaking down common cancers by site, Bessinger states: "Keep in mind, however, that these numbers are from the 1960s! There are no newer studies and the increased life expectancy of dogs since the 1960s has probably changed this order somewhat." Unless Bessinger is totally contradicting the article he’s paraphrasing, it seems this article probably undermines your claim rather than supporting it. >Do a bit of homework and you’ll see that there has been a significant >increase in bladder cancer in dogs over the last ten years as an example.
"Significant" is not the same as "exponential". I don’t mean to belabor the obvious, but for the non-mathematically inclined, here are some comparisions. (These numbers are somewhat simplified to make clear the concepts involved.) * Say 2% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1990 and 2.5% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2000. That might or might not be signficant… for instance, if diagnosis had improved during that decade (which it probably did) we could just be *finding* more cases of bladder cancer than we were then. Or if dogs are living longer, and old dogs are more likely to get cancer, then it also might not be significant. (Things like this are called "confounding factors" and are hard as heck to control for in research like this.) * Say 2% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1990 and the rate grew linearly at the rate of 1% a year. Then you would expect to see 12% of all dogs diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2000. * Finally, say that 2% of all dogs were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1990 and the rate grew exponentially each year (remember, Walter, your original claim WAS "exponential growth".) By mid-1995 every dog would have been diagnosed with bladder cancer. And it doesn’t take a great critical thinker to figure out that that simply isn’t the case. JFWIW, Dianne
Response:
> My grandmother’s Chihuahua lived to be 18 y.o., and Cheeky never ate > anything but KFC chicken breast. Every night on her way home from work, > gramma would stop at KFC and buy two chicken breasts, and Cheeky got one cut > up for supper hot and one cold at breakfast. Would I recommend that to > anyone? No. > I just think there is a lot more than food to consider.
While these stories are great, I am sorry to say they are exceptions to the norm. We know that disease in dogs is climbing exponentially. Part of it has to do with diet and another part has to do with stress and the environment. Another part has to do with our self appointed position of master of the universe making dogs look the way we want without any consideration for the physiological consequences. There is never one factor involved with problems in dogs. Perfect machines need complex causes and reactions to break down. Sometimes when you think you’ve stuck a big monkey wrench in the machine, it figures out how to work around the problem no different than the heart which grows paths for blood when the system around the heart clogs. While there is more to consider outside of diet, in today’s world maintaining proper immune function is critical. Immune function exists for the most part in the digestive tract. Proacting a dogs potential health with proper nutrition doesn’t guarantee anything but it sure increases the odds of a better quality of life throughout the lifetime of the animal.
Response:
> No, all I was saying is that it is ironic that when I just fed my dogs > food from the grocery store, and changed around whenever we saw > something new that looked interesting, and every type of table scrap and > junk that they wanted, they lived longer lives then the ones that I did > research into good food and watched what they ate, to help their lives > be better.
There are exceptions to every rule. As I said many dogs live happy lives on nothing more than poor quality foods. Dogs like humans are perfect machines. It takes years to break down perfect machines as hard as you try. Ever seen that uncle who no one can understand why after 60 years of a pint of liquor every day, he’s still drinking? Eventually it catches up with him. Genetic predisposition helps you break down faster amongst other factors so it all depends on where your dogs come from and what they do in their life. For many though, proacting a dogs good health is better than reacting to disease. For others it’s live life and see what happens. Sorry to say we have so shortened the general life spans of captive dogs that in the end dogs never live long enough to worry about it so some say why bother. It’s not for everyone and I respect those that don’t believe in proacting. Perfectly fine. At the same time, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t condemn those that did. Not saying you are, just responding to your asthma response which is very much incorrect.
Response:
My grandmother’s Chihuahua lived to be 18 y.o., and Cheeky never ate anything but KFC chicken breast. Every night on her way home from work, gramma would stop at KFC and buy two chicken breasts, and Cheeky got one cut up for supper hot and one cold at breakfast. Would I recommend that to anyone? No. I just think there is a lot more than food to consider. Jenn — remove "E" from "powersurfEr" to email "Don’t accept your dog’s admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful." – Ann Landers My babies : http://www.geocities.com/pywhacket1971/dogs_1
No, all I was saying is that it is ironic that when I just fed my dogs food from the grocery store, and changed around whenever we saw something new that looked interesting, and every type of table scrap and junk that they wanted, they lived longer lives then the ones that I did research into good food and watched what they ate, to help their lives be better. — Cyndi
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snip> > all I know is that the dogs that were on Pedigree (from the grocery store) > did better than they dogs on "great kibble" from feed stores or ordered. > — > Cyndi > Kids are getting athsma more often than they did 20 years ago, even if their > parents feed them homemade baby foods with no added sugar or salt. > By the logic you’ve used above, I could say that kids are getting athsma > because they eat high quality diets. > Jenn
Response:
No, all I was saying is that it is ironic that when I just fed my dogs food from the grocery store, and changed around whenever we saw something new that looked interesting, and every type of table scrap and junk that they wanted, they lived longer lives then the ones that I did research into good food and watched what they ate, to help their lives be better. — Cyndi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snip> > all I know is that the dogs that were on Pedigree (from the grocery store) > did better than they dogs on "great kibble" from feed stores or ordered. > — > Cyndi > Kids are getting athsma more often than they did 20 years ago, even if their > parents feed them homemade baby foods with no added sugar or salt. > By the logic you’ve used above, I could say that kids are getting athsma > because they eat high quality diets. > Jenn
Response:
check into a book by donald strombeck – excellent reference for home-cooked diets. tracy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am thinking very seriously about giving my dog freshly cooked, all > from human quality, dog food. (Food you buy in the grocery store). > Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?
Response:
— Cyndi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am thinking very seriously about giving my dog freshly cooked, all > from human quality, dog food. (Food you buy in the grocery store). > Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this? > Here are some of my thoughts: > I know the trend is to "dis" most commercial dog foods, but I do not > fall into that group. I think that, especially some of the premium > high-end dog foods available at pet stores, or via mail order can be > very good. I do believe, that it CAN’T be as good as all-fresh > ingredients hand picked by me. > I also do not even want to consider a BARF diet, with all due respect > for the people that take the time and effort and cost to feed their > dogs BARF diets. Please don’t post FEED THEM RAW MEAT AND BONES! I > respect your decision to feed that to your dog, and I know that, just > like me, you are trying to give your dog what is best. I do not want > this post to become a discussion of raw vs. cooked food for dogs. > Again, I am glad that you have taken the time and effort to feed your > dog what you believe to be the best possible nutrition, please respect > my opinion also. > I am going to buy 2 or 3 books on home dog cooking and dog nutrition > on amazon.com and do some reading. Just cooking good food is not > enough. I still need to give her a balanced diet, and do not want to > forget anything. We all talk about the "bad" things about dog food, > but one of the good things about dog food, even the cheap grocery > store ones, is that the dog food is at least a nutritionally adequate > sustenance that will keep a dog healthy. Before I new any better or > even started to second guess or even just think seriously about dog > food, My Mom and Dad fed our two family dogs most Kibbles and Bits, > and whatever else was on sale. We used to love to "treat them" with > gains burgers (aaaauuuuugggggg!!!) They both lived to over 16 years > old and were relatively healthy right until the end. We loved them, > and just assumed that is what you are supposed to feed your dog. God, > I wish I could do that over again! Again, I am not in favor of cheap > grocery store dog food, but just emphasizing the importance of being > nutritionally complete, or at least adequate dog food recipe. > I have been working on a "dog stew" recipe formula, and will "tweak > it" after reading the books. > I have a smaller dog (13 or 14 pound Jack Russell Terrier and I just > love her!), and she does not eat much, so this will not cost me an arm > and a leg. I think that I might think twice about doing this if I had > a couple of very large dogs. > After making the "dog stew" I was going to freeze it in individual > containers and thaw one out a day, this way I can make a boatload and > keep it in my freezer. Maybe do a 4 day rotation in my refrigerator, > after 4 days of thawing out in the refrigerator, serve. Every day I > take out one more out of the freezer and put it in the back of the > rotation of the refrigerate dog food. This might be as little as 2 > days, I don’t know how long it will take to thaw out. It is important > to thaw out frozen food at the proper temperature. Letting it thaw at > room temperature is not good (the outside can thaw and go to room > temperature, and even spoil, while the inside is still frozen!) > I don’t want to "love my dog to death" by making her deficient in > vitamins, so I will nutritionally analyze my recipe before I start > cooking (I do this professionally at work, so I have the software and > database to do this!) > I don’t have the exact recipe or quantities yet (and quantities will > be a very important part of this recipe!) but some ideas I have been > thinking about: > -Use oatmeal as a thickener and to bind the stew. It would also add > vitamins and minerals > -Adding brewers yeast > -Just before freezing, add GROUND flax seed "meal" (omega 3 fatty acid > and lineolic acid) Cooking "hurts" ground flax seed. > -Adding dehydrated nonfat skim milk (powdered) for calcium > -Equal parts salmon (or tuna or other deep cold water fish), beef, > poultry (all cubed and saut
Related Posts