# Thinking Aloud About Prey Model Feeding



## Anne Vaini

I'm just itching to feed raw again. I can't stand the way my dog looks on kibble (even grain-free kibble). But, I have the basics down and I want to do a better job of it this time.

I am interested in prey model feeding and wondering about a few things?

Does anyone vary the food/proportion seasonally? 

For instance, dairy would be naturally available in large quanities in the spring and summer months. The highest percent I can see possible would be 8% of the diet being rennin-curdled milk for a period of 3-6 months, and negligible the rest of the year. Fish would only be available when there is open water...

I am interested in moving away from commercially-prepared supplements. I've been using salmon oil and HUGE doses of vitamin B (when doing INTENSE physical conditioning).

It seems that I need to use plant sources to get adequate amounts of vitamins. When choosing meats that are high in a particular nutrient, I was finding it easy for the entire diet to fall too far out of balance. I was thinking about up-ing the organ meat and bone, while reduceing the muscle meat. I couldn't find any good information on the reasoning behind the majority of the diet being muscle meat.

As far as plant sources, I am debating between fermenting plant matter or adding digestive enzymes. If I ferment plant matter and use salt, I can isolate lactobacillus and eliminate the sugar-based probiotic products for the diet. 

I found some information on the stomach contents of killed animals - deer, fawns, rabbits - and am debating whether to ferment grasses and miscellanous vegetation, or to ferment nutrient-rich plant sources.

Sources for fur...? The butcher I go to has been great... but asking for skin and fur scraps has GOT to be over-the-top. :lol: I'm not spending $5 per pound for whole ground animal meat (bone in, fur on)! I'm still trying to keep this under $0.50 per pound.


----------



## Megan Bays

I am by no means an expert in feeding raw, but especially when feeding a prey model diet, wouldn't you feed more muscle meat than organ meat b/c that's what there is more of in an animal?


----------



## David Scholes

Megan McCallister said:


> I am by no means an expert in feeding raw, but especially when feeding a prey model diet, wouldn't you feed more muscle meat than organ meat b/c that's what there is more of in an animal?


Once you take the hide, head, organs and bones, on most animals that is OVER half the live weight.


----------



## Megan Bays

True. I always figured there was more muscle meat than organ meat. I guess that would really depend on the animal though.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

This will have to be a short post on just one aspect of it, but just as FYI kinda deal...I ran my diet through the Zootrition software and it was something like 900% of the recommended daily allowance for the B vitamins if I recall. I asked my nutrition professor why, who said there is a lot of B vitamins in meat anyways and that it should not be necessary to supplement it. The kidneys will excrete what it does not use, so the massive of supplementation is likely probably not going to help if you're doing that sort of home prepared diet. Now I _really_ gotta get off this forum and onto studying for my four finals this week. :roll:


----------



## David Scholes

Anne Vaini said:


> ...
> Fish would only be available when there is open water...
> ....
> Sources for fur...? The butcher I go to has been great... but asking for skin and fur scraps has GOT to be over-the-top. :lol: I'm not spending $5 per pound for whole ground animal meat (bone in, fur on)! I'm still trying to keep this under $0.50 per pound.


For fish year round try finding some ice fishermen. Sometimes they throw back the over populated small ones or varieties they don't like to eat.

I'm impressed you are thinking of hair! All the wild predators (when eating meat) normally have lots of hair in the scat they leave behind. You never know, the fiber may have a purpose and it sure doesn't hurt. Try meat rabbit raisers. Most do not save the fur. I use mine as a tug/chew toy until they get too shredded. Look for ads in the newspaper especially come easter (watch out for the pet people). Also alot of people give away their pet rabbits but may not like YOU eating them... I wouldn't mention the dog :lol:.

They won't give you the fur but I'd try to find a muskrat trapper for free whole muskrat bodies. They usually just throw them away.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Maren Bell Jones said:


> This will have to be a short post on just one aspect of it, but just as FYI kinda deal...I ran my diet through the Zootrition software and it was something like 900% of the recommended daily allowance for the B vitamins if I recall. I asked my nutrition professor why, who said there is a lot of B vitamins in meat anyways and that it should not be necessary to supplement it. The kidneys will excrete what it does not use, so the massive of supplementation is likely probably not going to help if you're doing that sort of home prepared diet. Now I _really_ gotta get off this forum and onto studying for my four finals this week. :roll:


I had been giving 2 "Super B Complex" tabs and an extra biotin supplement. My vet laughed at me and said I was making "expensive pee." Before supplementing, I was feeding a diet heavy in pork heart which is one of the most B-vitamin rich meat I could find. When I started adding the B-vitamin complex my dog gained 2 INCHES of muscle mass around her shoulders/chest. That was a 9% gain for her. 

*sigh* My babies were ripped, shiny and gorgeous on raw.

Maren! UNPLUG your computer and study!

Where can I get the Zootrition software?


----------



## Konnie Hein

Roadkill will solve all your problems, Anne!!!

As far as the fermenting plant matter - skip that entirely and just buy green tripe (or find a good free source of it) if you can't get roadkill.

How much are you planning to "up the organ meat and bone?"


----------



## Tanya Beka

Read "The Complete Herbal Handbook for Dogs and Cats" by Juliette de Bairacli Levi. It has a lot of information on prey model and natural feeding...quite detailed, but not easy to do without time and money.

http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Herbal-Handbook-Dogs-Cats/dp/0571161154


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... Where can I get the Zootrition software?


http://www.stlzoo.org/animals/animalfoodnutritioncenter/zootrition.htm


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Megan McCallister said:


> I am by no means an expert in feeding raw, but especially when feeding a prey model diet, wouldn't you feed more muscle meat than organ meat b/c that's what there is more of in an animal?


Yes.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Yes.


Percent of animal that is not muscle meat:

Domestic Animals:
Cows - 46% - 50%
Sheep / Goat - 48%
Pig - 38% - 40% 
Chicken - 28% - 32%
Turkey - 22% 

Game animals:
Deer - 60 - 70%

I want to base off of game animals, not domestic that have been selectively bred for meat yield.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

"Not muscle meat" has very little to do with "percentage that is organ compared to mm."


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> "Not muscle meat" has very little to do with "percentage that is organ compared to mm."


Right. I should have stated it as "feeding less muscle meat" rather than "up-ing the organ meat and bone, while reduceing the muscle meat." I found some interesting data about the propotionate weights of bone, blood, stomach contents, muscle meat, etc. I think I can form a theoretic diet off of it. I'm not sure if I can actually GET the ingredients on a regular basis. I guess a chat with the butcher is in order.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> Right. I should have stated it as "feeding less muscle meat" rather than "up-ing the organ meat and bone, while reduceing the muscle meat." I found some interesting data about the propotionate weights of bone, blood, stomach contents, muscle meat, etc. I think I can form a theoretic diet off of it. I'm not sure if I can actually GET the ingredients on a regular basis. I guess a chat with the butcher is in order.


Here is an interesting experiment that I did waaaay back when (when I was checking the 15% bones that the prey model web site were talking about).

Get a whole small prey animal. A rabbit and a range-fed chicken might be good. These would be prey items that a wild canid would eat in their entirety.

Take them apart and see what the piles of organs, muscle meat, bones, and "other" look like.

eta 
A large ungulate or other large prey are not nearly as simple because the canid doesn't devour the whole thing (like all of the bones).


----------



## Konnie Hein

I remember you posting about that before, Connie. I can't remember what your findings were upon taking the animal apart, re: the general percentages.

I think it also depends on what type of prey you're talking about. The wolves on Isle Royale eat a diet almost completely composed of moose. Other wolves might have more variety or might specialize in smaller prey they consume whole. So, all in all, what type of prey does a "prey-model" diet try to simulate? And, as an aside, I wonder what variation exists in the Ca ratio of these different diets.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Konnie Hein said:


> I remember you posting about that before, Connie. I can't remember what your findings were upon taking the animal apart, re: the general percentages.
> 
> I think it also depends on what type of prey you're talking about. The wolves on Isle Royale eat a diet almost completely composed of moose. Other wolves might have more variety or might specialize in smaller prey they consume whole. So, all in all, what type of prey does a "prey-model" diet try to simulate? And, as an aside, I wonder what variation exists in the Ca ratio of these different diets.


Is there any way I can set up a home lab to measure these sorts of things? I find it ridiculously interesting.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> Is there any way I can set up a home lab to measure these sorts of things? I find it ridiculously interesting.


What exactly do you want to determine?

Have you ever seen a dissection video?

I have not watched this one, but it might be interesting.

http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/ANSC*2340/LABS/LAB4.2.html


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Konnie Hein said:


> ... I think it also depends on what type of prey you're talking about. The wolves on Isle Royale eat a diet almost completely composed of moose. Other wolves might have more variety or might specialize in smaller prey they consume whole. So, all in all, what type of prey does a "prey-model" diet try to simulate? And, as an aside, I wonder what variation exists in the Ca ratio of these different diets.


That is one of the ways that the term falls down. As Tom Lonsdale points out, the phrase is hardly ever used with any uniformity on web sites. Is the head included? Is the hide still on? What size is the prey (as you mentioned)? 

His prey model tries to average the small prey consumed in its entirety with the large prey, many of the bones of which are not consumed.

(O.T. a little: I remember that large deer bones break into bad shards, and that the weight-bearing bones of farm -- not wild -- turkeys were hard to digest. The turkeys -- had something to do with being grown so fast and large that the bones are brittle rather than soft-centered [marrow-y]. I personally do not feed turkey legs because I have seen big chunks of them come out at the end, even with experienced raw-fed dogs.)

A rabbit is about 10% bone, as I recall. Deer are 13% or so, but not all the bones are consumable. I found about 15-18% bones in a small fryer.

Calcium-phosphorous is crucial, but I believe that the ratio has leeway. It's anywhere from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1. The optimal (last time I looked in a small animal nutrition manual, maybe 2002 or 2003) is 1.20:1 or 1.30:1.

Meaty chicken backs happen to have a ratio of just about that, with calcium at 0.48% and phosphorous at 0.4%. .4 x 120 = .48. Lovely!

Chicken breasts, though, at 0.015 and 0.180 -- not so lovely.

Just those two sets of numbers alone point up the importance of giving the entire prey animal (over time is fine) and not some body part over and over.

About those moose-eating deer. They eat no rodents? Moose would be extremely skewed towards phosphorous, if they are even close to cattle in that ratio.


P.S. I find it fascinating, too, Anne. I am particularly fascinated at how two people can read the same information and the same experiments and studies and one of them will come up with a corn-based dog food. :lol:


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Calcium-phosphorous is crucial, but I believe that the ratio has leeway. It's anywhere from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1. The optimal (last time I looked in a small animal nutrition manual, maybe 2002 or 2003) is 1.20:1 or 1.30:1.
> 
> Meaty chicken backs happen to have a ratio of just about that, with calcium at 0.48% and phosphorous at 0.4%. .4 x 120 = .48. Lovely!
> 
> Chicken breasts, though, at 0.015 and 0.180 -- not so lovely.
> 
> Just those two sets of numbers alone point up the importance of giving the entire prey animal (over time is fine) and not some body part over and over.
> 
> About those moose-eating deer. They eat no rodents? Moose would be extremely skewed towards phosphorous, if they are even close to cattle in that ratio.
> 
> 
> P.S. I find it fascinating, too, Anne. I am particularly fascinated at how two people can read the same information and the same experiments and studies and one of them will come up with a corn-based dog food. :lol:


How are you calculating the Ca ratio? I want to figure that out myself. I use the USDA Nutrition Database, but bone is considered "waste." It does give the amount of bone, but I don't have the information for the bone.

Maren - I sent you a link a year or more ago that had the make-up of bone in it. I was doing some figuring about (don't quote me here) magnesium levels in raw diets versus a Hill's prescription diet. Something to do with a dog with urine crystals. Do you have the link anymore?

Also, does bone significantly vary in composition depending on the animal or the "type" of bone? Assuming the bones are free of marrow... 

Nutritional info for marrow?

More questions than answers! :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> How are you calculating the Ca ratio? I want to figure that out myself.


I don't know how.

I took 'em from the AAFCO 2001 Official Pub.

I betcha Maren's software would do it!


----------



## Anne Vaini

> Maren, I was doing some reading about urine crystals in dogs. Specifically about lwering urine pH.
> 
> So Science Diet UD no meat, virtually no protein. for God's sake SAWDUST ermm... powdered cellulose was in the top 5 ingredients.
> 
> It is to acidify urine and had reduced mineral content - specifically magnesium.
> 
> I looked into this some more.
> 
> The "thing" that has the biggest effect on urine pH is calcium. There are several different kinds of calcium, some base so acid.
> 
> I found that raw chicken leg quarters with bone has dramatically lower magnesium content than UD and contains an acidifying type of calcium (unlike UD). Perhaps there is more to it, but I believe raw diet without supplements should solve many cases of crystals from to base-ic of urinepH.


Found the message, but not the link.  It's been so long I can't even be sure that I did the #'s right.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... Also, does bone significantly vary in composition depending on the animal or the "type" of bone?


Yes. Bones are mostly (70% or so) inorganic, and that inorganic part is mostly hydroxyapatite (calcium, phosphorous, oxygen, and I think hydrogen. I'm really only sure of the calcium and phosphorous.)

The organic part is mostly collagen. I think there's a little chondroitin and some fats.

Species:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/139/2/663


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Yes. Bones are mostly (70% or so) inorganic, and that inorganic part is mostly hydroxyapatite (calcium, phosphorous, oxygen, and I think hydrogen. I'm really only sure of the calcium and phosphorous.)
> 
> The organic part is mostly collagen. I think there's a little chondroitin and some fats.
> 
> Species:
> http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/139/2/663



O! Awesome! I'll have to read that carefully when I'm less sleep deprived. :lol: Thank you.


----------



## Anne Vaini

I think this is the link I had before? http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html

Not that I agree with all of the POV in there...


----------



## Konnie Hein

Connie Sutherland said:


> About those moose-eating deer. They eat no rodents? Moose would be extremely skewed towards phosphorous, if they are even close to cattle in that ratio.


90% of the wolves' diet on Isle Royale is Moose. Beaver and Snowshoe Hare make up the rest.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Konnie Hein said:


> 90% of the wolves' diet on Isle Royale is Moose. Beaver and Snowshoe Hare make up the rest.


Wow.

I wish I could read more about that. Do you have any links or books?


----------



## Konnie Hein

This should give you a good start:
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/wolfhome/home.html

Connie: I think you will really enjoy the annual reports. The 2007-2008 report has a pic of a wolf eating apples!  
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ann_rep_pdf/ISRO_annrep07-08.pdf



> However, in early September 2007 apple trees, dating from 19th-century mining activity near the Daisy Farm Campground (the largest backcountry campground in the park), produced a bumper crop of green apples, and wolves began to appear on a daily basis to take advantage of this “windfall.” To protect both wolves and visitors, the National Park Service closed the campground for the remainder of the season, and wolves consumed undisturbed about 120 pounds of apples over the next month (Fig. 11)​


----------



## David Scholes

Anne Vaini said:


> Is there any way I can set up a home lab to measure these sorts of things? I find it ridiculously interesting.


I went through a phase (ornery spouse avoidance) where I spent every free moment evenings & weekends hunting predators using a varmint call. I've literally seen the insides of hundreds of wild canines. Not scientific but I learned a lot you don't see published.

You're never going to get an exact perfect prey model diet because in different areas they also eat things most people don't consider depending on the season. Not sure about wolves but I've personally witness both fox & coyote with lots of fruit and berries in their stomach & scat. Fruits like manzanita berries, prickly pear, mesquite bean pods and even some varieties of juniper berries. In my opinion, most people want to feed way too much muscle meat and not near enough organ, hide etc. I've seen lots of predator stomach contents with well over 50% plant material containing lots of fiber. When smaller animals such as jackrabbits and fawn are eaten EVERYTHING is eaten including the hair.

I'd just feed the mix that keeps the dog looking great.


----------



## Konnie Hein

I've seen fox scat that was made up entirely of cricket exoskeleton. Weird lookin' stuff!


----------



## David Scholes

Konnie Hein said:


> I've seen fox scat that was made up entirely of cricket exoskeleton. Weird lookin' stuff!


Interesting, I've seen bear with ant exoskeleton mixed with lots of sand. That's got me thinking and this would be hard to verify but I suspect there may be a significant volume of maggots regularly ingested, especially from larger kills taken in the summer that take a few days to consume.


----------



## Konnie Hein

I'm picturing Anne in her kitchen mixing up a batch of crickets, ants, sand and maggots for her dog's dinner!
:razz:


----------



## Michael Wise

David Scholes said:


> That's got me thinking and this would be hard to verify but I suspect there may be a significant volume of maggots regularly ingested, especially from larger kills taken in the summer that take a few days to consume.


 To add to what Connie said about Tom Lonsdale, this is also another aspect that Lonsdale points out about "prey model". Micro prey.

While I don't think as far into it as you are, this has been a pretty cool raw discussion, Anne.8)

Variety, variety, variety.


----------



## Anna Kasho

Ye Gods, thanks for the visual Konnie... I was trying to eat MY dinner...:-&


----------



## Konnie Hein

Maggots are actually pretty good. Mealworms aren't bad either. I've had both, sauteed with butter and garlic. Not bad at all!


----------



## Michael Wise

David Scholes said:


> In my opinion, most people want to feed way too much muscle meat and not near enough organ, hide etc.


I would've thought that most fed about the right amount of muscle meat, but probably more than enough bone and liver.

I do agree with the lack of organs. Not so much that enough isn't fed, but that organs like the pancreas, spleen, brain, etc. don't get fed enough. Mainly liver and kidney is what I see most available and hear mentioned the most in diets.

Every part of every prey animal has to play some role.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Thanks for mentioning the micro-prey. I didn't think of that! I've had bug-catching dogs, so it makes sense to me. I'm choosing not to think about the maggots right now. 

I've watched domestic dogs that run loose picking wild raspberries off the plant and eating fallen apples, so I was planning on including items like that. I was thinking about fermenting them first though. 

If a wolf or wild dog killed a fawn, weighing about 100 pounds, It could eat off that minimum 5 days (The largest recorded amount eaten by a wolf in one meal was 22.5 lb.) and a maximum of 50 days (assuming 2lb per day to sustain the dog/wolf). What volume of maggots, slugs and other pukey things would the dog consume? 

So... does anyone have nutrition information on maggots?


----------



## Konnie Hein

A 100 lb. fawn would be a heck of a big fawn!


----------



## Anne Vaini

Konnie Hein said:


> A 100 lb. fawn would be a heck of a big fawn!


Well... by the time it gets to hunting season they're a bit bigger than a baby. :lol: Maybe yearling or "button buck" would have been better. Field-dressed weight would be about 75 lb.


----------



## Anne Vaini

I'm not finding ANYTHING on the nutritional info for maggots, except "high in protein." Not so helpful. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Konnie Hein said:


> Connie: I think you will really enjoy the annual reports. The 2007-2008 report has a pic of a wolf eating apples!
> http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ann_rep_pdf/ISRO_annrep07-08.pdf


This does not surprise me at all, because I have watched the U.C. Gray Wolf Project vids. Wolves were eating ripe berries and even tender ferns that grow by water, and this was not in no-prey times. That whole never-eat-produce-unless-starving went out the window for me.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... I've watched domestic dogs that run loose picking wild raspberries off the plant and eating fallen apples ...


Apple seeds are toxic to dogs, although the affected dogs have generally been busy with a windfall, rather than one apple snatched off a table.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Apple seeds are toxic to dogs, although the affected dogs have generally been busy with a windfall, rather than one apple snatched off a table.


I'm assuming that is the arsenic in the apple seeds? My parent's 60lb dog ate A LOT of apples over several years. Must have given her a stomachache sometime, because she started refusing apples later.

My dog will eat an apple in a hurry, but not the seeds. :shrug:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> I'm assuming that is the arsenic in the apple seeds? My parent's 60lb dog ate A LOT of apples over several years. Must have given her a stomachache sometime, because she started refusing apples later.
> 
> My dog will eat an apple in a hurry, but not the seeds. :shrug:


Cyanide. I've read too that it's a suspected abortion-trigger in sheep and some other farm animals, and that it "probably" is to dogs too.

Again, this would be from a windfall, and not from devouring an apple.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Connie Sutherland said:


> This does not surprise me at all, because I have watched the U.C. Gray Wolf Project vids. Wolves were eating ripe berries and even tender ferns that grow by water, and this was not in no-prey times. That whole never-eat-produce-unless-starving went out the window for me.


That's exactly why I thought you'd like reading this account too. I remembered from a post a while ago that you mentioned wolves eating vegetation and thus feed your dogs some veg matter accordingly.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Konnie Hein said:


> That's exactly why I thought you'd like reading this account too. I remembered from a post a while ago that you mentioned wolves eating vegetation and thus feed your dogs some veg matter accordingly.


Yes. I have your links bookmarked for the weekend. 8) THANK YOU!

I always doubted (as in thought they were full of doody) the folks who swore that gray wolves (timber wolves) ate no produce unless they were starving, and also did not eat the digestive system contents.

It made no sense to me. For one thing, I couldn't picture a wolf field-dressing a rabbit or mouse.

Seeing that it just was not true was very good. 

The problem is that the term "prey model" on its own makes sense .... but what is MEANT by "prey model" is almost always pretty far from what a wild canid actually eats.

Maybe a new term. Maybe "real prey model"? :lol: Like "prey model" and "real prey model"?


----------



## Michael Wise

The only thing that bugs me, and now that I really think about it's probably why I tend to downplay vegetables, is when vegetables DOMINATE raw feeding talk.

I know they don't go rinse tripe off in a stream, but do they really consume the contents by themselves? All the cow stomachs that I have emptied had over 50 lbs. of grass. That is probably a WAY low guess, too, but I don't want to be accused of exaggerating.

I've even seen where Billinghurst was quoted as saying something to the tune of, "fruit and veggie's aren't optional, meat IS optional".

As far as if they do consume fruit and vegetables, all the evidence is pointing towards yes, from what I've read lately.

Its seems like a lot of the time vegetables take up over 50% of the conversation. I just don't want anyone to think that it should make up 50% of the diet.


E.T.A. Anne, sorry if this post is straying far away from your original post. What you are doing here is cool and has really got me to thinking about nutrient requirements and such. It's made me want to try harder to replicate a "real prey model". Thats gonna be the title of Connie's book.


----------



## Konnie Hein

In reading the annual reports from the Isle Royale project, it seems that when moose #s are way down and kill #s are low, the wolves consume almost the entire carcass (including bones), _except for the stomach contents_. This is apparently a rare occurrance though. When moose #s are up, they tend not to eat the bones.

I'm not saying they never eat the stomach of their prey, however, I think the consumption of stomach contents varies on the type of prey caught.

All in all, I think we all agree that variation is the key to feeding a good diet of any type. And, I also personally believe our dogs can thrive on various diets within certain (and very broad) guidelines. JMO.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Just wanted to add this quote from the 2005-2006 annual report of the Ecological Studies of Wolves on Isle Royale:


> Wolves don’t eat the plant matter in a moose’s stomach contents, but they generally spill the highly liquid stomach contents on the ground while feeding on internal organs.


Just thought it was an interesting addition to this discussion.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Because of the nature of the rumen (and how it's like shag carpeting), a wild animal is not going to be able to get all plant material out unless they've got a high powered hose (which is what we had to use to get our cow rumen totally clean last year in anatomy). So even if they toss the bulk, there will still be a good bit left remaining.


----------



## Michael Wise

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Because of the nature of the rumen (and how it's like shag carpeting), a wild animal is not going to be able to get all plant material out unless they've got a high powered hose (which is what we had to use to get our cow rumen totally clean last year in anatomy). So even if they toss the bulk, there will still be a good bit left remaining.


Right, but this is nowhere near the 30+ plus gallons of stomach contents.

When I process tripe, I don't try to clean it at all. Dump the bulk, cut it, and bag it.

My dogs get more grass out of the yard on their tripe than what stays on it after processing.:lol:


----------



## Konnie Hein

Absolutely - and the reason I feed stinky green tripe on a daily basis. :-& Thanks for adding that info. So, now we can have a big discussion on what exactly is in those stomachs too, right?? :lol: 

I thought the quotes were interesting reading and worth posting though. I couldn't find info in the annual reports about the degree of consumption for their smaller prey animals though (beavers and hares). I assume much more of the entire animal is consumed, but I wish there was more specific info mentioned in that regard. The reports document a few kills of these smaller species, so something must remain of the animal for them to make these identifications.

I wonder if Rolf would email me back if I emailed him directly to ask more detailed questions on the consumption of the prey animals. Not that it would change much for me, but it would be kinda cool to find out. I'm a wildlife biologist by education (but I know way more about bats than I do wolves!), so I'm a complete nerd about this kind of stuff. I read every one of those annual reports cover to cover.

Don't you have tests to study for, Maren?!


----------



## David Scholes

Konnie Hein said:


> ...
> I thought the quotes were interesting reading and worth posting though. I couldn't find info in the annual reports about the degree of consumption for their smaller prey animals though (beavers and hares). I assume much more of the entire animal is consumed, but I wish there was more specific info mentioned in that regard. The reports document a few kills of these smaller species, so something must remain of the animal for them to make these identifications.
> ...


I doubt they find any remains. They can tell what was eaten after the fact by the hair and bone fragments in the scat.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Konnie Hein said:


> Don't you have tests to study for, Maren?!


Nope! They all about killed me (especially radiology...ugh, I hate that crap), but I survived this block. Took a 4 hour nap yesterday and a two hour one today to recover. And no, not from the drinking either! :lol: I actually don't drink O, but some days...](*,)](*,)](*,)

Next block is small animal surgery, small animal internal medicine, toxicology, and anesthesiology. Yipes...


----------



## Tammy Cohen

I thought this may be a useful addition to the conversation

Nutritional Value of Feeder Insects
http://grubco.com/Nutritional_Information.cfm


----------



## Konnie Hein

Very cool, Tammy! Who woulda thunk that there'd be nutritional information for fly larvae on the net!


----------



## Tammy Cohen

I work in a reptile breeding facility/ pet store and my dogs have become expert hunters of escaped crickets. They also enjoy snacking on the frozen mice and rats! 

Heres something else everyone may find interesting:
*Nutrient Composition of Whole Vertebrate Prey*
http://rodentpro.com/qpage_articles_03.asp
It has everything from deer to tadpoles!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Ya know, I tried the frozen/thawed mice thing with my dogs (I have them for my two snakes). Weren't that interested... #-o


----------



## Tammy Cohen

I guess rodents are an acquired taste...
Try drive building with them first. Maybe if they have to work for it they'll be more inclined to eat it :grin:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Probably also doesn't help that I have pet rats that I breed that they're not allowed to touch upon pain of death. :mrgreen: We had a mouse in the house about 2 months ago that ran literally right in front of Fawkes and he looked down and looked back up at me and was like "I better not do anything!" even though I was yelling "get it!"


----------



## Anna Kasho

Maren Bell Jones said:


> We had a mouse in the house about 2 months ago that ran literally right in front of Fawkes and he looked down and looked back up at me and was like "I better not do anything!" even though I was yelling "get it!"


That made me giggle. I had mice in the house once (dirty little nasties) but that was before dogs and cats. I pray that a mouse will not get it when I'm not home, because I'd have the dogs and one cat tearing the house apart bit by bit trying to get it. When I have a scurrying fleeing animal on the floor I am usually yelling "leave it" - can honestly say "get it" would not be a problem...:lol:

Rodents are yummy crunchy treats.


----------



## Bob Scott

We had a very large cicadia hatch this year. I actually cut back on my JRTs food a bit. 
Same thing when all the starlings would nest in my old garage. 
They don't fly very well when they first leave the nest. 8-[ :grin:


----------



## Anne Vaini

> Probably also doesn't help that I have pet rats that I breed that they're not allowed to touch upon pain of death.


How about a comprimise? :lol: Emma has been taught not to THINK about harassing my rat when it is in an exercise ball. Otherwise.... bye-bye rat-rat!

There was a dead mouse in my basement a couple of months ago. (eewww!) I called Emma to come downstairs and had her "take care of it." She was happy to! :lol:

Thank you for the AWESOME links! I can't wait to look at them tonight!


----------



## Anne Vaini

How is it that Phosphorus is "not applicable" for mice and rats? Sorta makes the whole Ca/P ratio hard to determine.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Has anyone looked into the AAFCO guidelines for "complete and balanced" dog food? Particularly the testing procedure... I shouldn't have been surprised. But I am. :twisted:


----------



## Anne Vaini

FRUSTRATED!

OK. So I'm trying to pull some data together into a diet. I want to base the diet off a readily available meat. If I can formulate a "complete and balanced" meal, and then build off of that. I have no problem with variety and flexibility in raw. I just think that when I didn't find enough variety previously that my dogs were not as well-fed.

Chicken backs are easy for me and cheap. My problem is that the data does not include the composition of the bone.

1 chicken back is 198g, bone removed. The chicken back is 44% waste (bone), so a total weight for the chicken back can be estimated at 285g.

Not considering the moisture contained in the bone, the chicken back contains 115g water.

(198 + 87) - 115 = 170 dry weight of chicken back. This is an overestimate as it includes the moisture in the bone.

Now, I have noted that bone is approximately 2/3 calcium phosphate. Calcium phosphate is Ca3(PO4)2, a ratio of 3 calcium ions to 2 phosphate ions. (The majority of phosphorus is found as phosphate) Assuming that calcium and phosphate are of equal weight...

87g bone / .66 = 57.42g calcium phosphate 

(2/5)*57=22.8g phosphate
(3/5)*57=34.2g calcium

Add to this the calcium and phosphate contained in the meat.

26mg (.026g)calcium, 224mg (2.24g) phosphate

That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.826g calcium and 36.44g phosphate.

The chicken back is .8% calcium and 1.27% phosphorus. 

The Ca ratio is:

Using 2.07 as GCF...

.8/2.07=.39, 2.07/1.27=1.63 

which simplifies to a Ca ratio of approximately 1:3.3

The AAFCO maximum Ca ration is 2:1 (recommended is 1:1).

So the "perfect" Ca-balanced RMB, doesn't seem so great. Granted, some assumptions are made in calculation and I'm prone to making stupid mistakes, which is why I shared my whole thought process.

To get a better analysis, I really need some more pieces of information.

Maren - HELP! :lol:


----------



## Tammy Cohen

Hang on...
I think you added the wrong numbers together, if you add the meat and bone together you should get 25.04g phosphate and 34.226g calcium.
Right?


----------



## Anna Kasho

Yup. Check your math. :lol:


----------



## Tammy Cohen

How much information can you process before your brain explodes! :-o 

Moving away from all of that.

Just to make things a little more fun...
The atomic weight of calcium is higher than phosphorus
http://www.webelements.com/
Therefor if you are going by weight alone there would be a little less calcium than originally thought.
Right?
or is it the other way around....

Then there are other factors that affect calcium absorption. Magnesium, vitamin D and C....hormones, bioavailability and what not. I think it's just going to get more and more complicated.

I guess all of this is why dog food companies make the big bucks 
Bastards...8-[ 

I feed my dogs lots of chicken backs and they're alright.
I don't think most people put this much effort into what they feed their kids :-#


----------



## David Scholes

I think I'll skip the math. IMO nutrition is as much an art as it is a science.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Anne Vaini said:


> Maren - HELP! :lol:


You now understand why board certified veterinary nutritionists have a higher average salary than board certified veterinary surgeons. :lol: As the Joker said, if you're good at something, never do it for free! ;-) Actually to be honest, I'd suspect you'd need a software program. There are ways to do it by paper (and I'm sure I'll have to learn them, ugh...) but the Zootrition program is like $400.

http://www.stlzoo.org/animals/animalfoodnutritioncenter/zootrition.htm


----------



## Anne Vaini

Tammy Cohen said:


> Hang on...
> I think you added the wrong numbers together, if you add the meat and bone together you should get 25.04g phosphate and 34.226g calcium.
> Right?


OMG. You're right. :lol:


----------



## Anne Vaini

Tammy Cohen said:


> Hang on...
> I think you added the wrong numbers together, if you add the meat and bone together you should get 25.04g phosphate and 34.226g calcium.
> Right?





> That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.826g calcium and 36.44g phosphate.
> 
> The chicken back is .8% calcium and 1.27% phosphorus.
> 
> The Ca ratio is:
> 
> Using 2.07 as GCF...
> 
> .8/2.07=.39, 2.07/1.27=1.63
> 
> which simplifies to a Ca ratio of approximately 1:3.3
> 
> The AAFCO maximum Ca ration is 2:1 (recommended is 1:1).
> 
> So the "perfect" Ca-balanced RMB, doesn't seem so great. Granted, some assumptions are made in calculation and I'm prone to making stupid mistakes, which is why I shared my whole thought process.


CORRECTION:
That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 34.226g calcium and 25.04g phosphate.

The chicken back is 1.2% calcium and .88% phosphorus. 

The Ca ratio is: 1.4:1

The AAFCO maximum Ca ration is 2:1 (recommended is 1:1).

That's better! Now to account for the atomic weight... and I was going to go back and figure it for the back with skin removed and see if it makes a difference.

I have a few others to sort out. Basically, I want a list of RMB's that have a correct Ca ratio, that can be used alone as a base meal. The levels of Ca in "meaty meat" (boneless meat) and supplements seem to be low enough that I don't need to account for them if my base RMB Ca ratio is correct.

Once I have a list of base meats I'm comfy with, I'll go through the USDA nutrient database and pull up the particulars for the vitamins and minerals to compare against the AAFCO requirements.

After that, I'll be able to pick ingredients (organ meats, micro-prey, plant matter) for what the dog actually needs. I'm hoping to find that I don't need any pill supplements.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

There is a big difference between a meaty chicken back and a not-meaty one, based on how the bird is butchered.

In a nutrition seminar I took years ago, chicken backs were a big topic (because of their fairly decent replication of the overall bird's calcium-phosphorous ratio, IF THEY WERE MEATY).

So, meaty chicken backs (.48:.40) happen to have a ratio of just about 1.2:1, with calcium at 0.48% and phosphorous at 0.4%. .4 x 120 = .48.

I noted:
Scanty backs: (.88:.51)

I don't remember the measuring tools. Just whatever I wrote down. :lol:


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie, could you attempt to estimate the percent meat on "meaty backs" versus "scanty backs." The ones I had data for were 56% meat, 44% bone.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> Connie, could you attempt to estimate the percent meat on "meaty backs" versus "scanty backs." The ones I had data for were 56% meat, 44% bone.



Yes, a wild guess would be 56% meat to 44% bone if sinew, etc., was in the meat side.

This was what stuck in my mind:

The instructor butchered the range-fed bird. We set aside the guts. We separated the rest.

Then he took a back from a supermarket package that was clearly more bone than meat. I guess I would reverse your 56 and 44.

His point was nothing more finely-tuned than his opinion that there were parts that replicated the entire bird if butchered a certain way, but that "here" is what those parts look like, and "here" is what it looks like when you need to add some muscle meat.

He was inclined to go with the scanty backs in order to have the required added muscle meat be the constant opportunity to increase variety (because you're adding non-RMB meat, so it can be any type of meat).


----------



## Anne Vaini

Alright! My Chemistry-expert friend helped me out on this.

3Ca(PO4)2

3 calcium ions at 40.08 molecular mass each = 120/309 = 39%
2 phosphorus ions at 30.97 molecular mass = 62/309 = 19.7%

By weight, the compound 3Ca(PO4)2 is 39% Ca and 19.7% P

87g bone / .66 = 57.42g calcium phosphate 

.38 * 57.42 = calcium
.197 * 57.42 = phosphorus


22.39g calcium in the bone
11.31g phosphorus in the bone

(Compare with the incorrect numbers from my assumption)


> (3/5)*57=34.2g calcium
> (2/5)*57=22.8g phosphate


Add to this the calcium and phosphate contained in the meat.

26mg (.026g)calcium, 224mg (2.24g) phosphate

That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.416g calcium and 13.55g phosphorus.

22.416:13.55 simplifies to 1.6:1 which still falls within the AAFCO profile. 

I like this number. It gives me wiggle room to add non-RMB ingredients without the total food Ca ratio falling below 1:1.

"My brain feels good when it knows stuff"


----------



## Anne Vaini

Next up - the chicken leg quarter.

45.09g bone
167g meat

.39 * 45.09 = 17.59g calcium in bone
.179 * 45.09 = 8.07g phosphorus in bone

.017g calcium in meat
.249 phosphorus in meat

17.57 calcium
8.319 phosphorus

17.57:8.319 simplifies to 2.1:1 which is OVER the AAFCO mximum of 2:1

That seems wrong. (some one check my math please!)

Alright - I used to feed

1 chicken leg quarter, 1/2 lb burger/organ meat, plus supplements (2 oz yogurt, 1/4 canned veggies, salmon oil, vitamins).

17.863 Ca
8.859 P

17.863:8.859 simplifies to 2.02:1

Connie and Maren - is there any long term health affect known from feeding a diet borderline high in calcium?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Last I looked in the dumpster, which is where most dogs would be eating, churches fried chicken bones where the main ingredient next to pizzia crust, and greasy pizza box bottom.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Last I looked in the dumpster, which is where most dogs would be eating, churches fried chicken bones where the main ingredient next to pizzia crust, and greasy pizza box bottom.


:lol: Thanks Jeff. I was trying to do a little bit better than that!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Last I looked in the dumpster, which is where most dogs would be eating, churches fried chicken bones where the main ingredient ..... .



You go to church dinners, Jeff?! :-o


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.416g calcium and 13.55g phosphorus."_


I admit that I only glanced over your formula. But can you derive anything like that by weight without knowing the amount of water in the meat? That's gonna vary wildly, from variables like storage time and injected poultry meat.

I think that you can know the _ratio_ of calcium to phosphorous without knowing the water-weight variations, but you can't know the _amounts_ (as above, in grams) without it. Right?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... is there any long term health affect known from feeding a diet borderline high in calcium?


Puppies, yes, and adults, not so much, depending on what you mean by borderline. Or that's my understanding. The adult body has systems that, if healthy, regulate calcium's use and storage. (The hormones that regulate calcium storage, use, flushing, etc., are parathyroid hormone and calcitriol [Vitamin D].)


What DO you mean by borderline?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I guess I should have written that it is a fried chicken fast food chain as well. : )


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.416g calcium and 13.55g phosphorus."_
> 
> 
> I admit that I only glanced over your formula. But can you derive anything like that by weight without knowing the amount of water in the meat? That's gonna vary wildly, from variables like storage time and injected poultry meat.
> 
> I think that you can know the _ratio_ of calcium to phosphorous without knowing the water-weight variations, but you can't know the _amounts_ (as above, in grams) without it. Right?


I know the weight of the bone (not dry) and the percent of the bone's weight that is calcium phosphate, therefore I know the weight of the compound. 

By knowing the molecular weight of the elements in the compound and the formula of the compound, I can determine the percent weight of the compound, which I can apply to the entire mass to determine the weight in grams of Ca and P in the bone. 

The weights of Ca and P were available in the USDA nutrient database, so that was only a matter of addition.

I am interested if the bones of different animals vary in the % composition of calcium phospate. They MUST. I didn't see this addressed in the article about bone linked previously in this thread.

If I make the assumption that all bones of all animals are the same percent calcium phosphate, then I think I have enough information to make a chart up to help me out. I can get almost-naked RMB from the butcher for super cheap. But I have to know how much meat to add to make it right. If I take the info and make a chart, I would be able to weigh the bone, and see from my chart how much meat needs to go with it.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Puppies, yes, and adults, not so much, depending on what you mean by borderline. Or that's my understanding. The adult body has systems that, if healthy, regulate calcium's use and storage. (The hormones that regulate calcium storage, use, flushing, etc., are parathyroid hormone and calcitriol [Vitamin D].)
> 
> 
> What DO you mean by borderline?


AAFCO uses a 1:1 Ca ratio, with a maximum of 2:1. What I had been feeding previously has a Ca ratio of 2.02:1. My dogs (adults) looked awesome so they were apparently not affected.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... But I have to know how much meat to add to make it right. If I take the info and make a chart, I would be able to weigh the bone, and see from my chart how much meat needs to go with it.


This too fluctuates by the water in the meat. Probably not nearly enough to care about for your purposes, but my point was that you can't know this:
_
"That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.416g calcium and 13.55g phosphorus."
_
with such specificity as to contents-by-weight, but only the proportions (I am talking about the meat part), unless you have the water difference factor. Chickens, say, "enhanced" with injected flavored water, will not have as many grams per ounce of either as chicken not so injected.

It wasn't helpful. :lol: I just meant that sticking to proportions is the only safe method when you're talking about something with such varying water weight.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> AAFCO uses a 1:1 Ca ratio, with a maximum of 2:1. What I had been feeding previously has a Ca ratio of 2.02:1. My dogs (adults) looked awesome so they were apparently not affected.


OH!

Oh, no. Articles about maladies in puppies triggered by overfeeding calcium talk about much much bigger overages than that.

And you have adults.

I'm sure Maren can speak to this, but I think that this is OK even if you didn't balance it out every so often with a little extra mm, which would be very easy to do.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

How much ARE super-cheap almost-naked RBs?


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> This too fluctuates by the water in the meat. Probably not nearly enough to care about for your purposes, but my point was that you can't know this:
> _
> "That leaves us with a 285g chicken back, containing 22.416g calcium and 13.55g phosphorus."
> _
> with such specificity as to contents-by-weight, but only the proportions (I am talking about the meat part), unless you have the water difference factor. Chickens, say, "enhanced" with injected flavored water, will not have as many grams per ounce of either as chicken not so injected.
> 
> It wasn't helpful. :lol: I just meant that sticking to proportions is the only safe method when you're talking about something with such varying water weight.


The water weight was calculated on the meat side, but I didn't do it - the #'s were already figured out. It was like 115g water in the 285g back BTW.

Those super cheap mostly-nakeds were about *$0.15 per pound.* Maybe less. I ddin't weight the box, but it was about 30 lb for $5. Sometimes it's free. Depends on othe day. :shrug: Many of the bones were meaty enough for a meal. Others were given along with a less bony RMB (like leg quarter). I mostly didn't worry about it. If I thought it was particularly bony, I would add canned pumpkin and ACV to add moisture, speed digestion and prevent impaction/constipation.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> OH!
> 
> Oh, no. Articles about maladies in puppies triggered by overfeeding calcium talk about much much bigger overages than that.
> 
> And you have adults.
> 
> I'm sure Maren can speak to this, but I think that this is OK even if you didn't balance it out every so often with a little extra mm, which would be very easy to do.


Did you save any articles about this? I am curious!

Particularly because a lot of raw feeders say to raise the bone to lower the protein to keep a pup growing slowly. But that must be OK if bone is (as calculated) 39:19.7 (roughly 2:1).

How did the pups get high calcium diet in the studies? In real life?

I think a fault in my previous diet was not enough organ meat / not enough variety. There were too many days when I chucked them a leg quarter and offered a little "side" dish to go with. That's not complete or balanced. I need to figure out options for extras! 

I've got some work to do still on making sure my base RMB is good. It looks like it's pretty hard to screw up the Ca ratio as long as bone is included in the diet - but I'm still only running numbers for one meat source. There is so little Ca and P in the meat side of things that it doesn't sway the Ca ratio significantly.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> ... Those super cheap mostly-nakeds were about *$0.15 per pound.* Maybe less.


Holy moley! Worth a little numbers-crunching!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> Did you save any articles about this? I am curious!


Yes. Will dig up later.

Again, puppies are the only real concern as long as the diet calcium is within reason, because puppies don't yet have the mechanism to adapt their calcium absorption to calcium intake. The adult dog can limit his absorption to as low as 15% of dietary calcium. I think I remember that puppies always absorb at least 40% of excess calcium.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Connie Sutherland said:


> Yes. Will dig up later.
> 
> Again, puppies are the only real concern as long as the diet calcium is within reason, because puppies don't yet have the mechanism to adapt their calcium absorption to calcium intake. The adult dog can limit his absorption to as low as 15% of dietary calcium. I think I remember that puppies always absorb at least 40% of excess calcium.


At what age is this no longer a concern?


----------



## Anne Vaini

Where do y'all get your green tripe? I've never fed it, but I'm thinking this would be a good time to start!


----------



## Konnie Hein

I buy my tripe from Bravo. They are located here in CT, so that makes it easy, but they do have suppliers across the nation. I used to buy it from Oma's Pride, but Bravo beats them out on price for me.

http://www.bravorawdiet.com/
http://www.omaspride.com/

Sounds like a lot of folks here get it for free though. I'm sure they'll chime in!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> At what age is this no longer a concern?


It depends on the breed because of the later maturation of some breeds (like GSDs).

I wish I knew better than that. Maybe Maren does.

The damage (osteoporosis) would be done as bones were forming, so I would imagine that even if I did not know the age at which such mechanisms are mature, I'd probably care most about the age at which the bones have finished growing.

Everything that I have posted, including the 900 or so mg. of calcium needed per pound of muscle meat, is about adult dogs.

I really have never researched puppy diets at all.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> Where do y'all get your green tripe? I've never fed it, but I'm thinking this would be a good time to start!



I have *never* read or heard a reason not to give green tripe. Well, except for how it smells to me. :-&


----------



## Tammy Cohen

This is reasonably priced
http://greentripe.com/

I really like this stuff:
http://www.thehonestkitchen.com/products/preference.shtml
not terribly cheap, but it's convenient and it makes a lot mixed w/ water.


----------



## Ryan Cole

I've enjoyed the detail with which this topic is being discussed. I'm glad that there are enthusiasts who are willing to take such time and effort, because if I trust that you were sincere in arriving at your conclusions, I will trust them and use the info to my advantage!

However, I also must say that if this type of thread is all I had ever come across when doing my Raw research, I would have never even considered switching over.

I am glad and thankful to have found some of Tom Lonsdale's(& others) sane, logical, and convincing arguments AGAINST going into so much detail when figuring out a diet, and trusting yourself to kind of 'wing-it' with an imitation of the so-called [real] prey-model.
After all, no coyote or wolf has ever calculated its Calciumhosphorus ratio and turned away a potential meal because the critter it caught didn't have the correct amounts!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Ryan Cole said:


> I've enjoyed the detail with which this topic is being discussed. I'm glad that there are enthusiasts who are willing to take such time and effort, because if I trust that you were sincere in arriving at your conclusions, I will trust them and use the info to my advantage!
> 
> However, I also must say that if this type of thread is all I had ever come across when doing my Raw research, I would have never even considered switching over.
> 
> I am glad and thankful to have found some of Tom Lonsdale's(& others) sane, logical, and convincing arguments AGAINST going into so much detail when figuring out a diet, and trusting yourself to kind of 'wing-it' with an imitation of the so-called [real] prey-model.
> After all, no coyote or wolf has ever calculated its Calciumhosphorus ratio and turned away a potential meal because the critter it caught didn't have the correct amounts!


Very, very few raw feeders truly feed whole prey unless they are raising it themselves or are very avid hunters. Coyotes and wolves do not eat cleaned chicken quarters or backs and a little bit of organ meat. If you are modeling it, just "winging it" and encouraging others to do so is irresponsible. If you want to do it, do it right. JMO from seeing a wave of people lately who want the results but without the work. Kind of like dog training...


----------



## Ryan Cole

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Very, very few raw feeders truly feed whole prey unless they are raising it themselves or are very avid hunters. Coyotes and wolves do not eat cleaned chicken quarters or backs and a little bit of organ meat. If you are modeling it, just "winging it" and encouraging others to do so is irresponsible. If you want to do it, do it right. JMO from seeing a wave of people lately who want the results but without the work. Kind of like dog training...


You mean I can't send my year old 'washout' adoptee to a pro trainer and get a Sch3 champ back in 6 weeks for the low low price of only $1,995? #-o 

Thank you. I do not mean to come across as being hap-hazard. Rather, I do put a lot of non-mathematical thought into the process of coming up with what I think is a balanced diet. I think that, as someone said earlier, there is a bit of art to it.
I am thankful for the ability to read the detailed analysis, I just don't think it will be necessary for each raw feeder to "reinvent that wheel" in their own homes. 
And, like most things where data is crunched for answers, I believe that after a certain point, the highly detailed caculations only bring diminished returns. I guess the key is knowing where that point is!

PS: 
All respect to you, Maren, as it was some of your own posts here that finally brought my wife over from "hating but allowing" the raw feeding to actually thinking it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Ryan Cole said:


> Thank you. I do not mean to come across as being hap-hazard. Rather, I do put a lot of non-mathematical thought into the process of coming up with what I think is a balanced diet. I think that, as someone said earlier, there is a bit of art to it.
> I am thankful for the ability to read the detailed analysis, I just don't think it will be necessary for each raw feeder to "reinvent that wheel" in their own homes.
> And, like most things where data is crunched for answers, I believe that after a certain point, the highly detailed caculations only bring diminished returns. I guess the key is knowing where that point is!


I wanted to feed raw for a long time before I started. I had to see it "in-person" first. I fed pretty hap-hazardly, but with a good idea of what it should look like. My dogs did look fabulous. 

Now when I'm crunching the numbers, I'm finding where the faults were. I'm also finding that it's pretty hard to screw up if just a few rules are followed.

I don't go this in depth because I feel it is necessary, but because I have *fun* doing it (the math) and I want to feed my dog(s) better.


----------



## Ryan Cole

Anne Vaini said:


> I wanted to feed raw for a long time before I started. I had to see it "in-person" first. I fed pretty hap-hazardly, but with a good idea of what it should look like. My dogs did look fabulous.
> 
> Now when I'm crunching the numbers, I'm finding where the faults were. I'm also finding that it's pretty hard to screw up if just a few rules are followed.
> 
> I don't go this in depth because I feel it is necessary, but because I have *fun* doing it (the math) and I want to feed my dog(s) better.


I love your reasoning. I'm glad for folks like you and Maren. I'll stick with those few rules that make it pretty hard for me to screw up and sponge info off of you guys when I feel unsure of myself.:wink:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

No worries, Ryan. ;-) I was trained as an evidence based scientist, so I tend not to think a lot of a bunch of feel good hand waving and selectively taking the bits and pieces of nutrition that they agree with (or that's most convenient for them, in most cases) any more than I like the idea that dogs need nutrients not ingredients. 

Doing nutritional consults in the future, I'll have to keep it as simple as possible because as I've tried to point out before, you guys who are actually truly interested in nutrition are really quite rare in the dog owning public. In addition in the future, I'd like to come up with some very high quality pre-made veterinary diets for managing conditions like renal failure which can't be helped with commercial preparations sold only through vets. Perhaps in a kibble or can, perhaps a ground food in a chub of sorts. Because right now, you can either give your dog the incredibly expensive veterinary prescription diets from Hill's, Purina, Royal Canin, IAMS, etc, or you can homecook using recipes that unless they come from a veterinary nutritionist, they are likely incorrect and out of date. I think there is a niche in between those that is unfullfilled.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Ryan Cole said:


> After all, no coyote or wolf has ever calculated its Calciumhosphorus ratio and turned away a potential meal because the critter it caught didn't have the correct amounts!


Neither would a dog owner if s/he fed actual whole prey.

This whole thread has been about ways to feed something cheaper or more plentiful than whole birds or rabbits or whatever and still replicate the whole prey.

With a domesticated animal who doesn't have the opportunity to instinctively correct feeding errors by running to the supermarket. 

P.S. Replicating actual prey is actually _the_ rule. 

It doesn't turn into percents or ratios at all unless and until the person doing the feeding wants or needs to base the diet on something that does not replicate whole prey.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Maren Bell Jones said:


> .... as I've tried to point out before, you guys who are actually truly interested in nutrition are really quite rare in the dog owning public. ....


Exactly. This thread is not really one that most owners, no matter how conscientious, will find interesting.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Yup, for my average client who is like "my dog/cat has stones or renal disease, I can't afford/don't like/they're not available/etc Purina/Hill's/IAMS, etc veterinary diets, what do I do to home cook?" kind of folks, they basically need a good solid recipe that is as simple as possible with a good all in one multivitamin (like from balanceit.com) to cover the basics. For people who want to learn more, I'd be glad to teach them as part of an additional consult, but the majority of clients do not to do the work involved in a good solid home prepared diet. Trust me! :lol: If you've ever tried to explain a good rotational home prepared raw diet to a casual pet owner, it's like I can almost count down the seconds before their eyes glaze over and they reach back over for the Beneful. #-o


----------



## Yuko Blum

Ryan, I couldn't agree more with you!

Now of course there are a few minimum basic rules to follow when feeding a raw diet, such as making sure that there are edible bones, that the meat/bone/organ ratios aren't completely off and including decent variety, but beyond that it's more for the owner's amusement than for nutritional necessity.

Maren, I received 4 years of training as an "evidence based scientist" and one thing that the concept of modern "completely perfect processed diet in a bag" is NOT, is scientifically sound. It doesn't even resemble quality science. 
Unless you're working in a closed, controlled system in which every single variable is reasonably well accounted for and individually manipulated, you can't draw conclusions with a real degree of certainty (and anyone who claims to have a full understanding of all nutrient requirements, nutrient interactions, absorption mechanisms in an animal model should be laughed at).

The whole idea that the dog's nutrition is "off" because someone is "winging it" and maybe ends up feeding 1/3 less liver, 1/2 more heart, 1/8 less kidney, 1/3 more muscle etc. than what you would get from "whole prey" is ridiculous. 

What proof do you have of that?

Of course whole prey is what we should all be aiming for, but you can't honestly believe that the diet is going to be lacking because of the type of variation mentioned above. The nutritional content of heart vs. liver. vs. kidney vs. tongue. vs. stomach is not so dramatically different that it will make a difference if you're off by a bit in your proportions. Dogs are not some kind of precisely calibrated, rigidly inflexible robots that need a perfectly calculated set of nutrients (nor are we).
The body, if provided with a species-appropriate diet of whole foods with decent variety, will absorb what it needs, has safety margins built into it and has the ability to adapt its metabolism to diet changes as needed.

It's not like dogs or people were faced with an identical diet throughout the world, for the entire history of our existence. If that were the case, I'd be more willing to accept the "perfect ideal balanced diet" notion. If we weren't designed to be able to adapt our metabolism to deal with a reasonable variation within diets, we wouldn't have made it this far. 

Here's an experiment for you. Take your control group of "perfectly" fed dogs, according to your calculated ratios, weigh every single damn thing and make sure there isn't so much as a stray molecule, then take another group of dogs, this time receiving "skewed" ratios made up of frankenprey. Y'know, a chicken carcass here, some pork RMBs there, deer parts here, a heart and liver here, a few caribou heads tossed in, a kidney and spleen there, some occasional veggie mush, tripe, eggs, fish, whole rabbits, random scraps from the household kitchen etc.

Y'know, the type of thing that most of us feed. It would still include good variety, just about all the organs the average person can get their hands on and the cheaper meats that aren't typically eaten by people (chicken carcasses, pork heads, various scraps of meats and bones etc.)

Now, what endpoint would you propose to measure in these "experiment" dogs to prove that your perfectly calculated diet is healthier? You seriously think you're going to find any kind of statistically significant difference in any relevant measure of health? Say, lower rates of joint malformations, lower rates of infectious diseases, less allergies, increased longevity and so on?

That would be science.

The notion that scientists currently have the knowledge and ability to replicate a diet of whole unprocessed species-appropriate foods by synthesizing and mixing nutrients together is JUNK science, nothing more.

If your doctor told you that the diet of fresh whole unprocessed foods you're currently eating is inappropriate due to "wrong" ratios and that a better option would be to eat corn, crackers and potato chips with added nutrients formulated in PERFECT BALANCE (ooh, sounds scientif-y doesn't it?) for the rest of your life instead, what would you think?
If you were told that fine, if you insist, you can feed yourself that way, but please don't "experiment" on a growing child with such haphazard "winging" and stick to a SCIENTIFICALLY FORMULATED PERFECT RATIO diet until the child is finished growing. You know, so you don't screw them up by not calculating everything!

It should be an instinctive reaction, yet people still seem to get sucked into this ridiculous "balanced diet in a bag" notion, thanks to the propaganda by vets.

Of course you're not the norm here, since, as you said, you actually prefer the whole foods vs nutrients method of feeding. I just get irritated when people (vets or not, scientists or not) get this notion of an "ideal" diet into their heads, and assume that it makes a difference in the animal's health, without the slightest shred of real proof. Testable proof, with statistical significance, in a controlled study.

So for all those claims that the extra calculations actually produce any health benefits in dogs vs. the eyeballing approach, PROVE IT!


----------



## Yuko Blum

Just to add that I find nutritional research to be quite interesting and I read up various articles just for fun. All it's proven to me so far is what a bad idea it is to go with "nutrients" instead of whole foods, as you pointed out, Maren.

The studies where the taurine deficiencies were found in many commercial diet preparations come to mind. All of a sudden it was like, "what? dogs actually need taurine? aren't they supposed to synthesize it on their own? they're actually getting sick from not having it?".

Yet the kibble companies and vets always claim to know everything that the dog could possibly need and in what proportions. So then why do these sudden "discoveries" keep happening?

If people had just fed their meats, bones, organs in reasonably whole-prey-like proportions, you think there would have been taurine deficiency problems in all those animals? Even without feeding every single organ present in whole prey and if they (godforbid) fed too much heart in proportion to liver and trachea?

I think not 

I do appreciate the details and knowledge that you bring, Maren. I just think you take yourself a little too seriously when assuming that a newbie raw-feeder's attempt at putting together a decent whole-prey model diet, even without bothering with calculations or nutrient content analyses, is somehow yielding an inferior diet than if they'd looked these things up and employed the use of nutrient profile calculating methods and so on.

And to advise puppy owners who haven't fed raw before to go with kibble and not "experiment" on a puppy? C'mon, that's just arrogance. Unless they're doing something horrible, like not feeding any bones, or organs, a raw diet is going to be a hundred times healthier than anything that comes processed in a bag.

(You didn't say that here, but I do recall you writing that on another thread a while back - I found it very irritating. I know you mean well, but you need to calm down a little ).


----------



## Yuko Blum

Maren Bell Jones said:


> If you've ever tried to explain a good rotational home prepared raw diet to a casual pet owner, it's like I can almost count down the seconds before their eyes glaze over and they reach back over for the Beneful.


Well no wonder, after seeing what you've been posting here!

I've never needed more than about 15 seconds to explain the basics on how to formulate a good raw diet to a "casual pet owner" around here and I certainly never experienced any eye glazing from my audience.

How hard is it to just say: "picture a whole cow, or whole rabbit, or whole chicken and try to replicate that as much as possible?"

Then move on to "make sure there's enough bone in the dog's diet; if the poop's firm, there's enough bone, if the poop's loose, not enough bones" and of course "if there's constipation, then too much bone. Also, leg bones from large prey are hard and can break teeth so supervize when feeding them!"

What else? Oh right, "muscle meat is different from organ meat; liver, kidney, spleen are organs so feed them in small amounts compared to muscle meats. Heart, tongue and stomach are muscle meats and can be fed in larger amounts"

Wow, I don't think there were any equations in that. Complicated eh? 

Oh right, almost forgot: "include eggs, sardines, mackarel, and vegetable scraps/veggie mush for added nutritional variety. Berries are also very healthy."

and "salmon oil (10 g for a 100-lb dog) and a vitamin E capsule a few times a week to make up for the low omega 3 contents in grain-fed commercial meats".

I could write that onto a postit for a new raw feeder. Anyone with half a brain could follow such a simple list. To say that this kind of approach is irresponsible is... well, I'd have to say "Get Over Yourself"! :-\"


----------



## Anne Vaini

Yuko Blum said:


> Well no wonder, after seeing what you've been posting here!
> 
> I've never needed more than about 15 seconds to explain the basics on how to formulate a good raw diet to a "casual pet owner" around here and I certainly never experienced any eye glazing from my audience.
> 
> How hard is it to just say: "picture a whole cow, or whole rabbit, or whole chicken and try to replicate that as much as possible?"
> 
> Then move on to "make sure there's enough bone in the dog's diet; if the poop's firm, there's enough bone, if the poop's loose, not enough bones" and of course "if there's constipation, then too much bone. Also, leg bones from large prey are hard and can break teeth so supervize when feeding them!"
> 
> What else? Oh right, "muscle meat is different from organ meat; liver, kidney, spleen are organs so feed them in small amounts compared to muscle meats. Heart, tongue and stomach are muscle meats and can be fed in larger amounts"
> 
> Wow, I don't think there were any equations in that. Complicated eh?
> 
> Oh right, almost forgot: "include eggs, sardines, mackarel, and vegetable scraps/veggie mush for added nutritional variety. Berries are also very healthy."
> 
> and "salmon oil (10 g for a 100-lb dog) and a vitamin E capsule a few times a week to make up for the low omega 3 contents in grain-fed commercial meats".
> 
> I could write that onto a postit for a new raw feeder. Anyone with half a brain could follow such a simple list. To say that this kind of approach is irresponsible is... well, I'd have to say "Get Over Yourself"! :-\"


Yuko - people do dumb stuff. I think you covered most of the rules. I've run across "raw feeders" who feed a diet of 50% or more plant material with muscle meat. No bone. 

The only thing I would add to your description is explaining that not all bones are created equal - and avoiding what we call recreational bones.

I am perfectly capable of explaining it clearly. But I just gotta see for myself that the numbers really do work. It appears they do for everything except the feeding a can of mackerel with a 1/2 lb of burger for a meal. Too much of that could be bad, I think. No, I haven't run the numbers to average the meals over a week and see how they stack up. Maybe later :lol:


----------



## Yuko Blum

Anne Vaini said:


> Yuko - people do dumb stuff. I think you covered most of the rules. I've run across "raw feeders" who feed a diet of 50% or more plant material with muscle meat. No bone.


If someone's so dumb that they're told the following: "try to replicate a whole animal, make sure there are enough bones (firm poops)", but goes off and feeds a boneless vegetable or grain-based diet anyway, then yes, they're retards.

But to assume that the average dog owner is a retard is what's so insulting about the type of stuff Maren says sometimes. All she's doing by ranting on about softwares for calculating ratios and percentages and calling everyone else irresponsible is turning dog owners AWAY from raw feeding.

I'm not saying anything against attempting to replicate whole prey as much as possible, I think it's what we should all be striving for. What I'm saying is that a decently balanced raw diet (easily done by "winging and eyeballing" without calculations) will not result in less healthy dogs than the "perfectly" balanced calculated diet that Maren was going on about. For someone who claims to be an evidence-based scientist, she certainly throws baseless assumptions around (insulting ones at that) without the slightest evidence to back them up.

Maybe it's the years of having to cram and regurgitate knowledge without ever having to justify and provide evidence for any of it that's compromising her critical thinking skills. Or maybe the arrogant "only those with my education can figure out how to properly feed a dog, the rest of you are too ignorant and couldn't possibly get this right" attitude is something that's taught at vet school too.

Who knows? Lol.

At least your average vets, while they may villify raw diets due to their ignorance, admit that they don't know much about nutrition and just give you the "buy kibble, it's scientifically formulated and is far too complicated for any of us to grasp".

Maren has taken this arrogance even further by admitting that yes, most commercial kibbles aren't ideal and a whole prey model raw diet is best... but, wait for it, ONLY IF SOMEONE AS EDUCATED AS HER IN VET SCHOOL can possibly understand the incredibly complex ratios and calculations required to prepare a good raw diet.

As for the rest of us, if we're just going with approximations and eyeballing stuff, we're just irresponsible at best and doing it wrong. Oh and if you're new at raw feeding and own a puppy, then for god's sake don't "experiment" with your primitive raw feeding knowledge and screw up the poor creature. Either follow the advice of a highly educated expert like herself, or just do the puppy a favour and feed it kibble.
Even though kibble sucks, at least it doesn't suck as much as what a retarded average dog owner would come up with... right?



> The only thing I would add to your description is explaining that not all bones are created equal - and avoiding what we call recreational bones.


Yep, I think I covered that part with "leg bones from large prey are hard and can break teeth so supervize when feeding them".

But yes, you're right. I had to learn that one the hard way (no broken teeth, but a few chipped teeth, not requiring treatment or anything, but still something I'd rather have avoided). I wish someone had warned me about weight-bearing bones from big animals back when I started raw... I always warn newbie raw feeders though


----------



## Connie Sutherland

All this seems way beyond not liking the detail of the thread.

If we go back to pages 1 and 2 of the thread, we see that the O.P. was _asking_ for this kind of precise detail.

also from the O.P.: _"Maren - I sent you a link a year or more ago that had the make-up of bone in it. I was doing some figuring about (don't quote me here) magnesium levels in raw diets versus a Hill's prescription diet. "_

and _"So the "perfect" Ca-balanced RMB, doesn't seem so great. Granted, some assumptions are made in calculation and I'm prone to making stupid mistakes, which is why I shared my whole thought process."_

and _"To get a better analysis, I really need some more pieces of information. ... Maren - HELP!"_


The O.P. also said today: _"I am perfectly capable of explaining it clearly. But I just gotta see for myself that the numbers really do work." _

And Maren's most recent post, I believe, includes this:


Maren Bell Jones said:


> .... you guys who are actually truly interested in nutrition are really quite rare in the dog owning public. In addition in the future, I'd like to come up with some very high quality pre-made veterinary diets for managing conditions like renal failure which can't be helped with commercial preparations sold only through vets. Perhaps in a kibble or can, perhaps a ground food in a chub of sorts. ....


So .... maybe another thread (or threads) is being referenced in these last few posts? Because to me it pretty much looks as if an admittedly esoteric line of inquiry was introduced by the O.P., elaborated on by the O.P., and responded to in kind. :-k


----------



## Yuko Blum

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Very, very few raw feeders truly feed whole prey unless they are raising it themselves or are very avid hunters. Coyotes and wolves do not eat cleaned chicken quarters or backs and a little bit of organ meat. If you are modeling it, just "winging it" and encouraging others to do so is irresponsible. If you want to do it, do it right. JMO from seeing a wave of people lately who want the results but without the work. Kind of like dog training...


Connie, did you read this?

That was in response to Ryan's post where he was talking about not bothering with complex calculations but just "going with it". Something about being grateful to people like Tom Lonsdale who use logical sane arguments to show people why going into such details isn't necessary (paraphrasing, sorry Ryan ) and thereby encouraging people new to raw to give it a try.
Ryan is hardly one of those people who hears "raw diet", ends their learning there and immediately proceeds to feed nothing but hamburger and potatoes to their dogs. He's actually doing what the rest of us are, and Maren comes up with that condescending post.

I don't care what the initial question was, her reply was in a specific context, and in this context I found it very insulting. Considering the "thank you for saying what was on my mind" PMs I've received over this, I clearly wasn't the only one who was put off by her arrogance.

My puppy comment was from this thread: http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f25/raw-diet-10046/



> I think it's fine to start a physically mature dog on raw for the first time, but it's not something I would do with a puppy if you've never done it until you really know what works. Nutrition can be a tricky thing with a breed like a Rottweiler, who undergoes different growth spurts and must be kept lean.





> I've raised a pup on raw (never had any kibble until he was 16 months old and he's going in for his OFAs for hips and elbows in 2 months), but I had done it for about 3 years in adults first.





> Mostly calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin D imbalances, but those are mostly because those are fairly well studied. Sodium, chloride, and potassium are all critical too. We still don't have a great appreciate for the micronutrients and how those interact. Most people tend to think of calcium just important for bones, which it is, but is vital for soooo many physiological (AKA non-structural) functions in the body. And it's not just strictly amounts, but it is how they interact with the minerals and vitamins as well. I love internal medicine, but I still have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around all the fluctuations that can happen clinically. You have to do some serious study to have an appreciate for how complicated it is.


You think that a puppy owner who decides to read up on raw diets thinking it might be a good thing and comes across these types of posts (coupled with the "your method of winging it & approximating is irresponsible") is going to encourage a newbie to try raw feeding?

Again, I maintain that the average dog owner is more than capable of putting together a good raw diet and Maren's attitude is NOT helpful. Connie, how many times have you reassured people who got insulted, admonished and condescended to by their vets for not having the education to possibly be able to prepare their dogs' diet by themselves??

This is what she's doing! You already have one person saying "I wouldn't have switched to raw if I'd come across these types of posts when I was first researching" and I agree with him.
Had I been faced with posts like Maren's when I first started looking into raw feeding, I might've been scared off as well.

I think it's bad enough to find that kind of attitude in traditional vets, last thing we need is for it to come from raw feeders.

By the way, I had no trouble raising 2 pups on raw, even though I was brand new to it (didn't have the 3 years of experience apparently recommended by Maren). They turned out great and at no time did they get fat (what the hell does that have to do with raw feeding anyway?? Kibble fed pups are far more likely to get fat from the grains!)
It isn't nuclear physics; basic research, use of common sense and advice from helpful raw feeders is all you need to prepare a perfectly healthy diet for your dog.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Not sure if you know this or not, but as a heads up, not all raw feeders drink the Kool-Aid and just go by whatever anyone with some bandwith on their website says. :roll: I have a research based masters in biology (on nutrition, among other things, if you are bored and want to read it, just google my whole name and it should come up...it could have essentially been titled: Why Ingredients Matter) which I got before vet school, so if you knew my faculty adviser and his penchant for controversy, you would understand that I already have a bit of a rep as being a pot stirrer at the vet school. But I always have my reasons for any position I take. Which is why I am baffled why you are insinuating I am some sort of sheep that merely regurgitates everything. In fact, I'm a pretty terrible regurgitator as my rather poor grades in anatomy last year showed. #-o I fully accept that I don't know everything about nutrition and neither does anyone else. That's the nature of science and why I'm constantly doing my own research. My faculty adviser from grad school (and my second major in religious studies) taught me that quite well to question everything. A couple months back when we did that Myers Brigg personality thing, us INTJs (called The Scientists, interestingly) are quite clear when they don't know something. 

So I have no idea why you are putting words in my mouth or making me into your strawman other than you've had some grudge against vets perhaps? I don't think every client is a moron, nor do I like being treated like one. In fact, I was just discussing this with a classmate the other day how to implement in my future practice how to gauge your good A and B clients who honestly want to learn from your C and D clients who just want to get by so we can sort the wheat from the chaff. Though on this forum, we sure just LOVE to make fun of the fur baby crowd, do we not? Same exact concept.

However, it is a FACT that MOST clients do NOT want to do a rotational home prepared whole prey model diet any more than MOST pet owners do NOT want to train Fluffy to a Schutzhund or Ring 3. MOST clients want something simple they can make a bunch of up at a time and just throw it in the bowl and be done with it. No decapitated pig heads in the living room for the fur baby folks.

And yes, I 100% stand behind my statement that puppies should NOT be fed a home prepared raw diet if you've never done it before. I've fed raw for around 4 years or so and I don't how long you have, but many people have a sharp learning curve when it comes to raw and it takes them months or even years to tweak it just so. Which is not a huge deal with an adult dog if it takes you some time to slowly work in so much organ meats, veggies, and so on based on how well the dog is doing. But if you're doing that with a large breed growing pup for the first time and you have no experience making a home prepared diet, you're asking for trouble. Your dogs are your own business and you as a lay person can make any batshit crazy recommendation you want. Cause hey, it's the internet so Dr. Google must know all. But as I'll be out in practice in a few years and my license would be on the line, that's not something I would ever recommend to a newbie raw or cooked feeder. In addtion, I'll also have to take exhaustive steps to educate the client on food preparation. You may not think it's a big deal, but I'd prefer to not have my ass sued if someone's toddler or immunocompromised grandmother gets E. coli 0157:H7 and dies because I didn't instruct them on how to prepare and clean up after the meal. Many of the holistic vets are now starting to have liability waivers, which is CYA medicine at its best. So I don't think you realize quite what the stakes are, nor the amount of training that will be required to get me to where I'd like to be in the next 10 years. 

You can disagree with me if you want (and I actually don't disagree with your methods all that much, FWIW, just recognize that even many raw feeders don't go to that extent). Just don't set me up with some of your own preconceived biases about what all vets think, believe, or act as you just end up looking ridiculous. There's absolutely no need to be defensive or hostile or feel threatened by me, as that's what your posts come across as. After all, I'm trying to be on you all's side and help you so we can all improve. Most people on this forum (Connie and Anne in particular) understand that. The sooner you do, the more help we can be.


----------



## susan tuck

One thing about the "puppy" thing: 

I, for example, decided to start RAW for the first time ever, with my young male dog when I got him as an 8 week old pup. Of course, there were people on the message boards like Connie (especially Connie), to virtually hold my hand along the way, answer every question patiently, etc.. I firmly believe feeding RAW to a pup is a good way to grow a pup and I would hate to think someone would be hesitant to give their pup the best possible start only because they hadn't done RAW before. 

As far as Maren goes, she has always been very helpful to me. I think she probably will go a long way to making sure other vets and vet students see the advantages to a RAW diet. I too have seen a lot of dumbass furbaby owners. They only hear what they want to hear, would probably feed 8 week old fluffy nothing but hamburger then blame their vet when the dog didn't grow right!

Yuko, you too have been very helpful to me and I always enjoy your posts and learn from them.


----------



## Yuko Blum

Maren Bell Jones said:


> And yes, I 100% stand behind my statement that puppies should NOT be fed a home prepared raw diet if you've never done it before. I've fed raw for around 4 years or so and I don't how long you have, but many people have a sharp learning curve when it comes to raw and it takes them months or even years to tweak it just so.


Wow, you arrogant little... you know what, never mind.

In the meantime, the PMs keep piling up from people who have had enough of your condescending know-it-all attitude. I wish those people would also speak up publicly on these threads so that you would learn to keep the attitude in check. As for me, I've said all I've wanted to. Still have no proof that the average raw feeder who just "eyeballs" portions and ratios and monitors poops to ensure proper bone content in the diet are being "irresponsible" and are ending up with less healthy dogs, I take it?

So, baseless assumption it was after all.

Wow, 4 years of raw feeding experience... that's just overwhelming. No wonder you can speak with so much authority on the subject!! And here I thought I had moderate raw experience with 3 years of raw feeding (3 dogs; one older sicker dog switched, two puppies raised on it). Had I known 4 years was the "super expert lecturer" level, I might've put on a haughtier tone when doling out advice :lol: :lol:

Interesting how none of the HUGELY experienced raw feeding breeders out there - I'm talkingn 10 to 40 years of experience feeding adults, young, old, puppies, helping hundreds of puppy buyers figure out raw etc. - recommend kibble to their puppy buyers (unless the buyers clearly have no interest in pursuing raw)... after all, according to you, all of us are incapable of following a simple list of instructions and putting together what is admittedly a simple enough diet.
I actually handed a list to my mom last summer when I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and I left the dogs with her. She knows very little of raw feeding, and I wrote down everything she needed to know (and then some) for her and it took less than half a page. That's including the list of suppliers with addresses, numbers, prices etc.

I didn't have to send her to vet school for a couple of years ahead of time! LMAO, what a joke!

I know, I know, you like to blow everything out of proportion and make it sound ridiculously more complicated than it is to show off your regurgitation skills. You're not impressing anyone with that, so you might as well drop the med/vet school syndrome (of thinking you're suddenly so much more knowledgeable and important than you actually are) and stick to offering helpful advice instead of put downs and the type of condescending insulting irrational views expected from a typical vet without the slightest real evidence to back them up. I personally like my vets. They know nothing about nutrition, but at least they were happy with the research I'd done before I took in my new pup (raw weaned, raw fed since the day I got him; same with my youngest pup). They are far less arrogant than you are about home-prepared diets and they don't even recommend raw. Hah! I think you're in trouble :lol:

So, where are all those studies showing the horrible effects on dogs resulting from us owners estimating balance over time without calculating anything complicated? Surely you must have a huge pile of them to be lecturing us with such dire warnings on how we're screwing up our dogs (especially puppies) with our home-prepared diets?

Right? :razz: 

Oh ok, you have liability issues and we don't.

So?

Are you bringing up justifications for your condescending attitude? Because you have so much more to deal with than us poor average raw feeders could possibly understand? What does someone's sick grandma have to do with not feeding raw to a puppy?

How about providing some evidence for a change... you're all over the place with vague justifications for who knows what, and not making a whole lot of sense.

Oh well, I think I've accomplished my goal. Any newbie raw feeder who comes along with a puppy, eager to switch will hopefully realize that all it takes is some research, some effort in putting together a proper diet and some common sense to raise a perfectly healthy puppy on raw (ignore vets, they're obviously way too full of themselves... well, if you pay them I'm sure they'll tell you you'll do just fine feeding raw to your pup, but you definitely can't figure it out for yourself!!).

It's obvious to those of us who have been feeding raw for years how full of yourself and way off base you are; my concern was that you would scare off the newbies (those more than willing to research and certainly capable of raising a pup on raw). Raising my pups on raw was the best decision I ever made in their care and I am extremely grateful to those raw feeders who provided me with the information I needed at the time. Cindy and Connie from Leerburg were and still are some of the best and most knowledgeable raw feeding people you can find... they were a huge help to me in the beginning and I hope any newbie raw feeder chooses to go with their advice and not Maren's convoluted pretentious nonsense 

'Night.


----------



## Yuko Blum

susan tuck said:


> Of course, there were people on the message boards like Connie (especially Connie), to virtually hold my hand along the way, answer every question patiently, etc.. I firmly believe feeding RAW to a pup is a good way to grow a pup and I would hate to think someone would be hesitant to give their pup the best possible start only because they hadn't done RAW before.


Absolutely, Susan. Well said.

That's why I would recommend people considering raw to go to Leerburg and read what Cindy and Connie have to say. Cindy especially for puppies. Just ignore Maren, raising your pup on raw is the best thing you can do for its lifelong health... don't listen to know-it-alls like Maren. All you'll do is regret not having started sooner, unfortunately.

I would give just about anything to go back in time and be given the chance to raise my old girl on raw since she was a pup. Kibble did horrible things to her health (including many "degenerative", "incurable" diagnoses from vets, all attributed to "genetics") and raw cured them all. Well, except for the hip displaysia... maybe if she hadn't been raised on corn she would've turned out healthier.

Thanks Susan. You and I are perfect examples of people who did just fine raising puppies on raw without previous experience. Good thing we didn't have a Maren around back then :lol:


----------



## Guest

Speaking of nutrition and confusion regarding scales and measurements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOOo7tSDCUs

"You're a smart mother****er, Maren. That's right. The metric system."
:grin:


----------



## Scott Dunmore

Steven, are you saying that a Big Kahuna burger is the cornerstone of any nutritious raw diet?
I like it; look at the big brain on Steven.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

So, dogs on a raw diet shouldn't eat Big Kahuna Burgers, or they get shot by thugs ???

Does Marcelle Wallace sell the raw diet ???

**** that, get some pro plan and call it a day. Last thing I want to waste brain cells on is some stupid raw diet so my dog MIGHT live another 6 months...........then die of cancer anyway. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


----------



## Guest

I was hoping to not sound ignorant, but I was basically asking what the calcium/phosphorus ratio is of big kahuna burgers...and sprite.

Cuz Brett seems to be doing fine on it.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Yuko Blum said:


> Still have no proof that the average raw feeder who just "eyeballs" portions and ratios and monitors poops to ensure proper bone content in the diet are being "irresponsible" and are ending up with less healthy dogs, I take it?


I had a very interesting conversation a few years ago with someone I consider one of the premiere people when it comes to structural evaluations on dogs. And before you even ask, no, I will not say who it was. I will say they have their hands on 100's of litters a year, are flown all over the country to evaluate people's litters and are in a position to watch the pups grow into adults. We were discussing nutrition, and I asked if they could recommend a specific food that seems to work well for raising pups. I also asked if there was anything they felt should be avoided. They said that the vast majority of litters that they looked at who were being fed a raw diet had nutritionally related structural problems. Everyone thought they were doing it right, but the pups bodies were saying something different. 

Did she say it couldn't be done correctly? No. But it was definitely harder then people seemed to think, especially with growing puppies, and for this reason she didn't recommend it.


----------



## Yuko Blum

"someone who does structural evaluations on dogs" eh?

LOL! I suppose if they didn't find a lot of crippled dogs people wouldn't be scared into hiring such a quack to begin with :lol: :lol:

Let me guess. It was a PURINA MARKETER!!!! No?
HILL'S MARKETER!!!!

Oh oh, or was it one of those show judges, y'know, the ones responsible for having those horrendously crippled unworkable ASS dogs win year after year? (ASS = American showline shepherd) The ones who never actually bother to work a dog but who talk on and on and on about "PROPER STRUCTURE"??

WOW, it must be true if it comes from a "structural evaluator", whatever the hell that is  

So... for all those who claim how freaking complicated non-harmful feeding is. How long ago did people even start caring about ratios or even nutrients for dogs for that matter?

Now, how long since humans have domesticated dogs and have worked them? Worked them HARD and only bred those who could do the work and stay healthy and produce healthy pups on top of that?

What do you think domesticated dogs have been living off since they came into existence? You think our ancestors 30 000 years ago killed a buffalo, then sat around the campfire saying "we'd better feed the whole thing to the dogs, or the structural evaluator will yell at us"??? :lol:

Or did people just toss the scraps of meat, bones and whatever carcass parts they didn't want to the dogs? So let me get this right; the entire dog species was started and evolved for tens of thousands of years on a "winged" whole prey model diet (basically the parts of the whole prey people didn't want, supplemented by the occasional rabbit and rat the dog might catch itself). The dogs worked hard (or why would humans keep them around??), maintained great endurance, fended off disease, managed great feats of athleticism for years on end and kept producing pups that could do the same.

BUT THEN, some quacks 50 years ago figure they can make a quick buck by selling some indigestible concoction of wheat/corn/bird feathers or whatever they put into kibble and all of a sudden, nutrition is an important science needed for raising dogs.

Way too complicated for any average person to understand of course, but that's ok, the kibble companies are willing to do all the work for you. You just gotta pay them 30$ for a bag of indigestible wheat/corn/bird feathers.

Real food is too dangerous though. So don't even THINK about it unless you have special degrees, years of schooling and nifty softwares that will calculate every last detail to make sure the "scraps" being fed to the dogs are adequate   

I wonder what's so hard to understand about the word "evidence"??

I should have clarified "evidence from a credible source". (Structural evaluator, LMAO!!!!!!)


----------



## susan tuck

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> **** that, get some pro plan and call it a day. Last thing I want to waste brain cells on is some stupid raw diet so my dog MIGHT live another 6 months...........then die of cancer anyway. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


To be clear, I am not feeding RAW so that my dogs will live longer. I have had long lived GSDs fed kibble (12yrs through 14yrs my last 4 GSDs). Cancer is a disease to which the aged are prone. 3 of my aged kibble fed dogs developed cancers. Anyways, I think a fresh diet is more healthy than a processed cereal diet for 2 legged and 4 legged creatures alike. 

As far as your previous statement about dogs being scavengers, yes they are marvelously adaptable, and can survive on the most horrendous of diets. I believe though, there is a big difference between mere survival and thriving. Good to know in this current economic crisis though.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Yuko, you can only hope to one day have the knowledge about canine structure that this person has. They have literally had their hands on thousands of pups from many different breeds over the years, and not just at 8 weeks but had the opportunity to watch then grow up and see how something at 8 weeks predicts or doesn't predict something at maturity. And the reason I won't give out their name is because the conversation was private and they did not want to be quoted by someone as endorsing one type of food over the other. They "endorse" whatever works for each litter, recognizing that dogs are individuals and what works for one may not work for another.

When they evaluate a litter, you fill out a questionaire. One of the things you put on it is what you feed, however, you don't give them the form until the entire evaluation is done, you have the results for each pup, etc. If they don't see any nutritionally related structural issues, they recommend you keep feeding whatever you are feeding. If they do see problems, they recommend you change foods. They don't tell you want to change to, that's up to the breeder to decide, but they do tell you what to look for and how to tell if the food change is working.

And they were not anti-raw at all. For that matter, I'm not either, I've done an all raw diet, and routinely do a combination of raw and kibble. Anyway, they felt a PROPERLY done raw diet is a good thing, but they also said their experience showed that the majority of breeders who were bringing litters to them, who felt they were doing a properly excuted raw diet, weren't. And it showed in their pups with the flat feet, pasterns, etc.

As far as attitude in posts go, I find your attitude to be more offensive then Maren's. Her posts can get a little preachy at times but I don't recall her ever going on page after page of personal attacks, sarcasm and insults.


----------



## Michael Wise

Kadi, this isn't a loaded question. Did they ever encounter pups on a commercially prepared kibble or canned diet that had structurally related issues?


----------



## Guest

What is a structural evaluator anyway? Is it related to conformation? Is it medically oriented? Folk wisdom?

I've never heard of it. 

Anyone care to elaborate?


----------



## Yuko Blum

"And it showed in their pups with the flat feet, pasterns, etc"

And your evaluator person can prove that these problems are diet related? Not genetic?

Ok, I shouldn't have directed my sarcasm at you Kadi, you were polite the whole time and didn't insult anyone. Sorry about that.

However, I still don't accept your "evidence". I hear showline people whining about structure this, structure that (yes, flat feet and pasterns and so on keep coming up) and these are litters raised on the same kibble. Some pups turn out fine (according to their definitions of "good structure" anyway) and others are apparently poorly structured. Even though they're all being fed the exact same kibble!!! And believe me, they found a LOT of "poorly structured" pups and had to weed through a whole bunch of them before finding a show-worthy one.

Logically, I believe that suggests a genetic cause, not a dietary one (ie. they're breeding crappy genetics, what do they expect???). Simply observing a large number of puppies, saying many of them ended up poorly structured and concluding that it was the diet's fault is hardly what I call a logical conclusion 

As for my attitude, yes, I delighted in all the sarcastic comments to show how nonsensical Maren's logic was. However, unlike her, I never read a consciencious dog owner's comments (raw feeder or not), then immediately proceeded to insult them by telling them that they're not putting the effort required into the feeding (by not calculating everything), that they're being irresponsible not only for feeding that way but for advising others to do the same. That's crossing the line.

I guess the difference is that I'm putting all my sarcastic comments on the board, whereas others are choosing to keep them in PMs.

I actually find a lot of Maren's "lectures" very interesting, especially the ones with all the pathology pictures and so on. I think she contributes a lot with that type of input.

But by putting down people who have clearly done their research and are putting more than enough effort into their dogs' feeding is offensive. Or how about categorically stating that NO ONE should even consider feeding a puppy a raw diet unless they're already a seasoned pro? That's not just preachy (which I would just ignore), that's just offensive, misleading and ridiculously pretentious. When's the last time a raw feeder tolerated that kind of crap from their vet?

Normally we jump all over that type of vet comment, mock them and confront the hell out of them, yet what, it's posted on the board here by Maren so we just have to ignore it?

Anyway, you've made a good point. I've already gone on more than enough on this pointless discussion.


----------



## Julie Blanding

Scott Dunmore said:


> Steven, are you saying that a Big Kahuna burger is the cornerstone of any nutritious raw diet?
> I like it; look at the big brain on Steven.


I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Michael Wise said:


> Kadi, this isn't a loaded question. Did they ever encounter pups on a commercially prepared kibble or canned diet that had structurally related issues?


Yes, quite often. I had one litter I had evaluated that I was raising on a quality kibble and they told me "change it". The pups feet weren't horrible but they weren't tight, a little down in the pasterns, etc. I changed to another brand, within a week the feet/pasterns looked much better, within around 10 days they looked like they should. It was my understanding that quite a few times the litters on the higher end kibbles needed to have their food changed, she felt that sometimes the kibbles were "too much", encouraging the pups to grow to fast and out of whack, and if this continued into adulthood, once the dog was done growing it was what it was, to late to fix it by fixing the nutrition. Kind of like oversupplementing with vitamins/minerals.

I had another litter I took in with one specific pup I wanted to talk to her about. Most of the litter looked good, but this one pup ... She said it was nutritional, change the food, although she did think it was odd the rest of the litter was doing fine on that food. I changed foods, still didn't fix it. Changed the food a couple of times, still didn't fix it. Finally figured out he had some issues digesting certain things, got him on a specialty diet, and the issues resolved. So it was definitely nutritional in his case, although it wasn't a problem with the foods as much as the dog himself.

Actually Yuko both of these pertain to something you said also.



> I hear showline people whining about structure this, structure that (yes, flat feet and pasterns and so on keep coming up) and these are litters raised on the same kibble. Some pups turn out fine (according to their definitions of "good structure" anyway) and others are apparently poorly structured. Even though they're all being fed the exact same kibble!!! And believe me, they found a LOT of "poorly structured" pups and had to weed through a whole bunch of them before finding a show-worthy one.
> 
> Logically, I believe that suggests a genetic cause, not a dietary one (ie. they're breeding crappy genetics, what do they expect???). Simply observing a large number of puppies, saying many of them ended up poorly structured and concluding that it was the diet's fault is hardly what I call a logical conclusion


The food change worked often enough for me to accept the "evidence". It's not a scientific study, but I've seen it to many times and not just with my own litters, but with other people's litters and puppies. But one thing I don't think is clear hear is the difference between nutritionally related structure problems and just plan genetic structure problems. Changing the food isn't going to create better angulation, give a cowhocked dog straight legs, make a long backed dog shorter backed, etc. But there are some issues, that are sometimes nutrition and not just how the genetics say the dog should be built. Flat feet and being down in the pasterns are two that are first to appear and are most easily noted. That doesn't mean that if you feed a certain food you will never see a flat footed dog again, if you breed a flat footed dog to a flat footed dog you will probably get a litter of flat footed dogs. But if you breed two dogs with "cats feet" and the pups have splayed feet, it might be the nutrition not the genetics. 

If correct nutrition didn't play a part in a puppies structural development, then we could feed our puppies anything we wanted, no matter how crappy, and they would grow up to be exactly what their genetic "blueprint" says they should be. I think we can agree that this isn't true.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Her posts can get a little preachy at times but I don't recall her ever going on page after page of personal attacks, sarcasm and insults.



Personally, I accept preachiness as "comes-with-the-territory" with all med students (sorry, Maren :lol: ; I've known much preachier!). 

I also accept every piece of info from them as a gift. A free gift. Education that I did not pay for. 

I don't much care about the delivery.

What's that "gift horse" thing again?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Steven Lepic said:


> What is a structural evaluator anyway? Is it related to conformation? Is it medically oriented? Folk wisdom?


They literally evaluate structure. It's related to conformation in that the conformation of the dog is based on the structure of the dog. But each breeder is supposed to know their own standard and what is required for their own breed.

If I take in a litter of pups, they look at each individual pup and grade various areas such as front and rear angulation, topline, length of the legs, feet, pasterns, etc. Now I may take in a pup and the evaluation may comment that the pup has a long back. Fine if it's a Corgi, not so correct if it's a Malinois. But these are things the breeder should know, about their own standard. The evaluator isn't going to tell me if that big white patch on the puppies chest is OK, that's up to me to know because it doesn't have anything to do with the structure of the dog. 

But they may comment on things like a pup with a "ewe neck". Which means there is to much "play" in the pups neck, in a severe ewe neck the pups head can actually be bent backwards until it touches their back. It's not something that's obvious unless you are looking for it, but say you wanted to do Sch with that pup.  The long bite would be potentially dangerous because the pup doesn't have the strength/stability in it's neck that another pup would. The retrieves might also be a problem because a pup with a ewe neck also isn't as strong in the neck as a pup with a normal neck, so it can't pick up and carry heavy objects as easily (the SchIII dumbell). In general this isn't a good thing, but there is one breed that I believe has this as part of the their standard, I can't remember what they are called but it's a rare breed known for it's flexibility, I think they have extra toes on the front feet also. 

Or maybe the pup has a mild herring gut. This is measured by looking at how far the rib cage comes back on the dog. Since the size of the rib cage determines the space for the organs like the heart and lungs, a dog with a herring gut may not have the stamina of a dog with a normal one, because of there being less room for the heart and lungs. 

This is the type of thing someone who does structural evaluations is looking for. Basically, how close to "perfect" is the dog in terms of structure. The balance between the angulation, depth of chest, topline, etc. Is this a dog that may break down a little earlier in life, or be more prone to injury, or be more resilient structurally (less likely to get injured). 

There are quite a few terms/definitions on this website.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/terms.htm


----------



## Yuko Blum

"Finally figured out he had some issues digesting certain things, got him on a specialty diet, and the issues resolved."

So, the pup had a genetic issue that prevented him from developing normally in the same environment (food) as his sibblings. That is not a purely nutritional example you gave there. Take a human with celiac disease; any "normal" human will thrive with grains in their diet, yet a celiac person will become very sick on that same diet. Put them on a specialty diet free of gluten and they do fine. You would call this a nutritional issue? I'd call it a congenital disease that's managed with diet changes. Not quite the same.



> she felt that sometimes the kibbles were "too much", encouraging the pups to grow to fast and out of whack


Absolutely agreed.
It's probably the biggest argument I use to encourage raw feeding a puppy. Grains make pups grow faster than they're supposed to and contribute to real structural problems (not just show lingo stuff, but real things like hip dysplasia, pano and so on). And it's only in highly processed foods where one is forced to obsess over "too much protein" and calcium/phosphorus ratios. That's the problem with feeding overly processed foods like kibble; they alter the nutrients and interfere with the dog's ability to use them (think digestion of cooked fats vs. raw).

So just go with a good raw diet and not only is it so much simpler (since the dog is designed to digest whole foods where the nutrients are already "in balance") but a lot safer for a growing pup.
That's why I find it a ridiculous argument that it's "safer" to raise a puppy on kibble than trying out a raw diet for the first time. Your own examples show just how unpredictable kibbles can be and how they have to be "changed around" so they don't screw up the puppies. Seems like going with a highly processed diet is a far riskier experiment on a growing puppy than a simple but sound raw diet of whole foods in their natural state


----------



## Yuko Blum

Kadi: just read your definition of a structural evaluator. I guess that's the problem I have with shows in general, where judges and evaluators try to pick apart the physical characteristics that make a "sound" dog. Problem is, it's not a direct measure of the dog's soundness.

Obvious deformities might be picked up that way, but otherwise, the only real relevant method of judging a dog's "structural resilience" is just to go out and work it. If the dog can run 20 km races on a regular basis (thinking sled dogs here) for years on end without breaking down, then it's sound. The different "parts" obviously work the way they are, no "evaluator" needed. If a police or sport dog spends its life jumping over huge obstacles, chasing down and fighting the bad guy or decoy, is expected to perform hard physical work for hours every day and can keep going at that rate into old age, then the dog is sound! Same with a sheep herding dog that can run 8 hours a day for 10+ years and stay healthy. No way to argue that!

That's why I don't buy that type of visual evaluation. How many show dogs (no matter how badly crippled) are declared "sound", "perfect specimen of the breed" by some interpretation or other of the breed standard? For some of these dogs, it's obvious that they're crippled and couldn't come close to working like the working-lines (horrible hip displaysia, snapping tendons at a young age from terrible structure in champion show lines, dogs that wobble when they walk and practically fall over on turns).
So unless your evaluator can point out an obvious defect (x-ray showing obvious joint deformities, snapped tendons, excess vertebrae etc.), there's really no way to be sure how relevant those measured endpoints are, is there?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Yuko Blum said:


> "Finally figured out he had some issues digesting certain things, got him on a specialty diet, and the issues resolved."
> 
> So, the pup had a genetic issue that prevented him from developing normally in the same environment (food) as his sibblings. That is not a purely nutritional example you gave there.


I can't remember exactly what the problem was with this dog, he's 7 or 8 now so it's been a few years. However, it resolved on it's own by the time he was 6 or 7 months old.

And my point was that he had nutritionally caused structural problems. 



> Obvious deformities might be picked up that way, but otherwise, the only real relevant method of judging a dog's "structural resilience" is just to go out and work it. If the dog can run 20 km races on a regular basis (thinking sled dogs here) for years on end without breaking down, then it's sound. The different "parts" obviously work the way they are, no "evaluator" needed. If a police or sport dog spends its life jumping over huge obstacles, chasing down and fighting the bad guy or decoy, is expected to perform hard physical work for hours every day and can keep going at that rate into old age, then the dog is sound! Same with a sheep herding dog that can run 8 hours a day for 10+ years and stay healthy. No way to argue that!


Actually this is not always correct, I've seen dogs with hip and/or elbow dysplasia that never showed a problem, worked their entire life, etc. However they had very high pain tolerance and were able to work despite the pain. But they weren't sound. 

I find value in structural evaluations. Some people may not. But if I'm looking at 2 8 week old pups and they are showing me the same drive, stability, grip, personality, etc then I'm going to pick based on which pup has the better structure. They are pups, they aren't a sure thing, but why would I take the pup with a structural fault that may cause it to break down later on, over the pup without any obvious structural faults?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

I'm actually finding it somewhat hilarious that you keep going on and on about things that I've supposedly said but never did. Please let me know when and where I've ever said everyone who makes a home prepared diet needs to sit down and do calculations, oh queen of the straw man. And this ain't a popularity contest. People need to utilize all the resources that they have on hand, not just the ones that sound nice and romantic or that are the most convenient. 

And I've been through this before with other people. Nutrition isn't a hobby to me like dog training is. It's the difference between someone who goes to the training club with their dog once or twice a week versus someone who works and trains every single day as a professional trainer, handler, behaviorist, whatever. It's my future profession which I take pretty seriously, as I'm sure you take your profession pretty seriously. If people are just pulling things out of their ass or just repeating something they heard somewhere on another forum or website without basis (which is unfortunately the nature of raw feeding as we have so little evidence based science to back it up, which I'm trying very hard to change), I'm going to call them on it, particularly if it could be detrimental to the dog or the humans involved. And even if someone was a raw feeder for 40 years, just like with breeders or trainers who've been doing it for 40 years, they can be doing it 40 years incorrectly. I've raised a pup on raw myself too, but I had several years of experience by then and was comfortable with what worked. He goes in for his OFAs next month at 2 years, so we'll see how he does. 

Like I said, you can feed your dogs whatever you like...Ol' Roy to gourmet meals, that's your right. When I'm out in practice, I will not be able to just scribble a few things down on a post it pad for a client without getting sued for me not explaining just about everything involved in preparation for a home prepared diet. That is why I cannot in good conscience recommend people to start a home prepared raw diet for the first time on a pup if they've never tried it before over the internet or to some stranger in passing. The only people who really can get away with that are people like yourselves who have no professional liability. If people want to follow what those websites have to say, that's fine, but I'm from Missouri, so SHOW ME the peer reviewed evidence in the literature, not just anectdotes (which are fine too, but as an adjunct). 

Anyways, I am just perplexed at the hostility because I'm working *extremely* hard in the veterinary community to educate as many of my future colleagues as possible on why raw and holistic diets can be very beneficial if done correctly. Heck, I've now got over half my classmates on the Natura food program so they're not all just parroting Science Diet and Purina. Being antagonistic to me is completely the wrong thing to do. For God's sake, *I AM ON YOUR SIDE*. I don't know what experience you've had with previous vets, but please do get over it in dealing with me. That will be the last word from me. Now back on topic...


----------



## Yuko Blum

> Nutrition isn't a hobby to me like dog training is. It's the difference between someone who goes to the training club with their dog once or twice a week versus someone who works and trains every single day as a professional trainer, handler, behaviorist, whatever.


Right, a dog who gets trained every day will perform a lot better than a dog who gets worked once a week.

Any proof that being as detail-obsessive as you are about raw feeding gets you any better results than what the rest of us do? I think that's pretty much the only question I've been asking you this whole time. I don't care about liability issues (you're right), I don't care how much work you're putting in or what priority you want to give feeding in your life. All I'm asking for is evidence that the extra obsessiveness actually produces better results! You're telling raw feeders that they're irresponsible and pulling things out of their ass or from forums, so I assume you had some kind of proof about all these so-called screw ups that we're making by keeping things simple.

I'll just assume you really don't have any evidence of that. So, as I said, baseless assumption.

I don't believe you're on "my side" when you advise people new to raw not to feed their puppies raw. That is a HUGE disservice to just about anyone seriously considering a raw diet for their pups. Again, you're working off the assumption that kibble is "safe" for growing pups and that a simple but decently balanced and varied raw diet (which most of us feed, without obsessing over it) isn't. That has hardly been my experience, so until you justify that with actual evidence, I will also consider it a baseless assumption.

So many unjustified assumptions in your arguments do not, in my mind, put your posts in the "science" category.


----------



## Konnie Hein

:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o 

Yuko is in da house!


----------



## Ryan Cole

Connie Sutherland said:


> Personally, I accept preachiness as "comes-with-the-territory" with all med students (sorry, Maren :lol: ; I've known much preachier!).
> 
> I also accept every piece of info from them as a gift. A free gift. Education that I did not pay for.
> 
> I don't much care about the delivery.
> 
> What's that "gift horse" thing again?


----------



## Anne Vaini

If the style of fact-checking for raw feeding doesn't appeal to you, then don't read it. It's really that simple.

When I started raw feeding, I didn't have enough information. Handholding by Connie and other mentors got me through without damaging a dog because of it.

I want to be sure that information is available for people who want to find it, that's why this is a public thread - not a PM.

Take it or leave it.


----------



## Ryan Cole

Connie Sutherland said:


> Personally, I accept preachiness as "comes-with-the-territory" with all med students (sorry, Maren :lol: ; I've known much preachier!).
> 
> I also accept every piece of info from them as a gift. A free gift. Education that I did not pay for.
> 
> I don't much care about the delivery.
> 
> What's that 'gift horse' thing again?


Connie, thanks for saying this. I agree 100%

I just want to make clear that although I appreciate the support Yuko has given my original contribution to this thread, I did not intend for my comment to be taken the way the thread has turned.

I stand by the comment that I would be discouraged from trying out Raw if not for those saying how simple it CAN be, but I also am SOOO VERY grateful for the ability to have someone like Maren to speak with, as Connie says. There is a large middle ground of those people who are sincerely concerned with trying to do the best thing for their pets but simply can't go into so much detail. For those of us in that position, we NEED somone like Maren to guide the way. Maren, however, could use a Marketing or PR Dept if she's ever interested in convincing others to see the light! wink wink


----------



## Ryan Cole

Ryan Cole said:


> Connie, thanks for saying this. I agree 100%
> 
> I just want to make clear that although I appreciate the support Yuko has given my original contribution to this thread, I did not intend for my comment to be taken the way the thread has turned.
> 
> I stand by the comment that I would be discouraged from trying out Raw if not for those saying how simple it CAN be, but I also am SOOO VERY grateful for the ability to have someone like Maren to speak with, as Connie says. There is a large middle ground of those people who are sincerely concerned with trying to do the best thing for their pets but simply can't go into so much detail. For those of us in that position, we NEED somone like Maren to guide the way. Maren, however, could use a Marketing or PR Dept if she's ever interested in convincing others to see the light! wink wink


...which Connie and others have been doing a great job of!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Yuko, I'm having to wade through so much of your personal insults and rants, I can't hardly wade through anything intelligible you have to say. But if you want to stick to the facts, I can answer. If it's just more insults, just don't bother.



Yuko Blum said:


> Right, a dog who gets trained every day will perform a lot better than a dog who gets worked once a week.


No, you missed the point. It's about the trainers, not the dogs. A hobbyist dog trainer has no one but their own dog to take responsibility for. A professional dog trainer has their reputation and livelihood at stake.



> Any proof that being as detail-obsessive as you are about raw feeding gets you any better results than what the rest of us do? I think that's pretty much the only question I've been asking you this whole time. I don't care about liability issues (you're right), I don't care how much work you're putting in or what priority you want to give feeding in your life. All I'm asking for is evidence that the extra obsessiveness actually produces better results! You're telling raw feeders that they're irresponsible and pulling things out of their ass or from forums, so I assume you had some kind of proof about all these so-called screw ups that we're making by keeping things simple.
> 
> I'll just assume you really don't have any evidence of that. So, as I said, baseless assumption.


Like I said, I couldn't even pick apart a question aside from your insults and ramblings, so thanks for stating it clearly. But yes, I ran my diet through the Zootrition software last year (they have whole prey items as an option as it's designed for feeding exotics in addition to a few domestic species). I saw I was approaching deficiency in a few different minerals, so I had to tweak it just a bit and add in a bit more veggie mix. They were also stealing veggies and fruits out of my garden, so that was another clue. My two young adult dogs (both aged 4 now) seemed to be fine either way, but my youngest dog (about a year old at the time) and my oldest dog (about 12 years old) improved in coat quality and body condition (both the youngest and oldest were getting too thin and the oldest was losing muscle mass even with it being pretty protein heavy) and stool quality (the youngest firmed up a bit more). 

In addition, I've spoken with Dr. Susan Wynn, a name who needs no introduction if you are familiar with holistic medicine. She's also a nutrition resident at the University of Tennessee and she's working with raw feeders and home cookers. She and I (and Connie) share a very similar diet philosophy. She also notices that the raw feeders who go too light on the veggies, fruits, and a small amount of grains don't do as well long term over the course of several years. Which makes sense if you think about it for those who don't feed any or enough fruits, veggies, and tripe. Wolves and coyotes seem to do okay over the winter months with little vegetation available to them or their prey, but the other months of the year, they have access to it either directly or through their prey animals. So to answer your question, yes, I did notice a difference in crunching the numbers.




> I don't believe you're on "my side" when you advise people new to raw not to feed their puppies raw. That is a HUGE disservice to just about anyone seriously considering a raw diet for their pups. Again, you're working off the assumption that kibble is "safe" for growing pups and that a simple but decently balanced and varied raw diet (which most of us feed, without obsessing over it) isn't. That has hardly been my experience, so until you justify that with actual evidence, I will also consider it a baseless assumption.
> 
> So many unjustified assumptions in your arguments do not, in my mind, put your posts in the "science" category.


I never said nor do I believe you have to feed puppies kibble if you've never tried a raw diet before. There are other good alternatives (canned, dehydrated, etc), and even Nature's Variety frozen raw is AAFCO formulated and has undergone the diet trials. It's more expensive that way, but for the typical raw feeding newbie who is feeling overhelmed, it's a good way to ease yourself in. Nor do I think kibble is inately evil or that there is something magical about raw either. There's no need to be dogmatical about raw because it doesn't work well for every dog or every owner or to take it personally if someone wants to run the numbers. As I've said before, my youngest dog has done best on a low grain kibble more so than a home prepared or commercially prepared raw diet or a grain free kibble. And that's okay. Why get so insulted or worked up about it?

For someone who says they are likewise trained in science, hiding your head in the sand and going with 
whatever you think works is hardly scientific. I had implemented a good, well thought out rotational raw diet and when I ran the numbers, it wasn't as good as I thought. I made some adjustments based on the DATA, not just on my feelings or opinions, and it was better for the dogs. I can admit that and not want to hide my head in shame. 

Tell you what...if you're so confident in your diet, why don't you submit your diet plan to a nutritionist and see how it shakes down? No need to be scared of anything and that way you'll know. Then we can all use it as an educational experience. Heck, I'll even ask my nutrition professor if I can have access to the software again if you want to send it to me.


----------



## Michael Wise

So far the general consensus is that it is dangerous for puppies to eat.

I prefer Lonsdale's approach.

If you can't grasp approximately what whole prey looks like, then the %'s that are given for "prey model" are helpful, as guidelines only.

There are some serious double standards happening here. So if you aren't a seasoned raw feeder, you need to feed puppies a "scientifically formulated" diet that can screw puppies up the same or worse as what is being claimed of the mentioned "bad" raw diets.

How did science miss the lack of taurine in feline commercial diets years ago? And how are inadequate commercial puppy diets still made today?

I'm just not seeing science do any better here.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Michael Wise said:


> So far the general consensus is that it is dangerous for puppies to eat.
> 
> I prefer Lonsdale's approach.
> 
> If you can't grasp approximately what whole prey looks like, then the %'s that are given for "prey model" are helpful, as guidelines only.
> 
> There are some serious double standards happening here. So if you aren't a seasoned raw feeder, you need to feed puppies a "scientifically formulated" diet that can screw puppies up the same or worse as what is being claimed of the mentioned "bad" raw diets.
> 
> How did science miss the lack of taurine in feline commercial diets years ago? And how are inadequate commercial puppy diets still made today?
> 
> I'm just not seeing science do any better here.


Michael, sometimes lay people (and even some scientists) don't realize that science is never an end, but a process that we work through. When you know better, you do better. They likely missed the taurine because mice and rats are chock full of taurine. Other animal protein sources are not. So it was really only in the last few decades when we started moving our cats back inside where they couldn't hunt that they noticed the taurine issue because outdoor kitties fed canned or dry food on top of their hunted meals wouldn't have had a problem.


----------



## Paul Smikovecus

From my understanding, Dog food production was a 1970's concept based off of cereal.

you don't have to get too crazy with all types of variations for raw:

1) Chicken Backs and or Leg quarter's
2) Beef Hearts (ground or whole)
3) Fresh Green Tripe (not cooked or processed) its the 4th Chamber of a cows stomach and its LOADED with the minerals and microbials you are looking for...very similar to yogurt in the way it supports digestion...also helps strip away all the GUNK on their teeth to keep them pearly white.

(IT STINKS, but they LOVE IT and will make noises you never heard before when you feed it)

4) Raw Eggs including the shell

Hope that helps.

I like to supplement fresh salmon when I can afford it.

All my dogs have never looked better in their lives!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Paul, I guarantee that's deficient in minerals and vitamins (particularly the kind that are found in the liver, which is one of the very first organs large carnivores and carnivorous omnivores eat). And green tripe does not have to come from just the abomasum either.


----------



## susan tuck

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I never said nor do I believe you have to feed puppies kibble if you've never tried a raw diet before. There are other good alternatives (canned, dehydrated, etc), and even Nature's Variety frozen raw is AAFCO formulated and has undergone the diet trials. It's more expensive that way, but for the typical raw feeding newbie who is feeling overhelmed, it's a good way to ease yourself in. Nor do I think kibble is inately evil or that there is something magical about raw either. There's no need to be dogmatical about raw because it doesn't work well for every dog or every owner or to take it personally if someone wants to run the numbers. As I've said before, my youngest dog has done best on a low grain kibble more so than a home prepared or commercially prepared raw diet or a grain free kibble. And that's okay. Why get so insulted or worked up about it?quote]
> 
> Oh yeah, I see what you mean and I agree 100%. I know when I first started, for example, I talked to Connie about some prepared diets, and I did start out using Bravo's blends, the ground meat/bone/organ/veg. Of course there were vitamins I added including Salmon Oil, vit E and others. I also always fed whole chicken backs and necks too. Gradually, really not until my pup was over a year did I feel comfortable enough to completely switch to making my dogs food all by myself rather than a blend.
> 
> Wow, I remember the first time I handed my pup a neck/back. I think I was on the computer with Connie for about an hour trying to convince myself what I was about to do wouldn't kill the pup.


----------



## Yuko Blum

Michael Wise said:


> So far the general consensus is that it is dangerous for puppies to eat.
> 
> I prefer Lonsdale's approach.
> 
> If you can't grasp approximately what whole prey looks like, then the %'s that are given for "prey model" are helpful, as guidelines only.
> 
> There are some serious double standards happening here. So if you aren't a seasoned raw feeder, you need to feed puppies a "scientifically formulated" diet that can screw puppies up the same or worse as what is being claimed of the mentioned "bad" raw diets.
> 
> How did science miss the lack of taurine in feline commercial diets years ago? And how are inadequate commercial puppy diets still made today?
> 
> I'm just not seeing science do any better here.


Well said!

So Maren, you ARE claiming that scientists know every last nutrient requirement in dogs if you would suggest this:


> if you're so confident in your diet, why don't you submit your diet plan to a nutritionist and see how it shakes down?


How it shakes down compared to what? Who exactly is determining what the "perfect" diet is? Based on what? A kibble-fed dog's blood profile? A raw fed dog's profile? The nutrient contents in a whole mouse? Or rabbit? Or cow? What is "perfect prey"? Nutrient deficient when compared to what exactly?
Hey, my dogs' coats don't gleam quite as much when they're blowing them out (still far more than any kibble fed dog), regardless of diet. Once the new coat's in, they're ridiculously shiny (take a look at their pictures and try to argue against that). That's your proof that we're screwing up? That your dogs didn't look quite as shiny and muscled one day and that you saw them eating vegetables? My dogs would gobble up chocolate in huge amounts if given the chance. Does that mean they're deficient in chocolate too? If given 20 kg of meats and bones, they'd eat all the meat they possibly can and not touch the bones. Does this mean they don't need bones, because they'd rather eat the meat??

Wow, that's an overwhelming amount of evidence Maren. Impressive  

Michael said it perfectly. Yesterday it was "oops, cats need taurine... we didn't know that, but only cats, not dogs", today it's "oops, dogs apparently need dietary taurine too, but otherwise we know all the nutritional requirements" and tomorrow it'll be something else that pops up, another "oops" and yet another series of modifications to the "perfect" balance of nutrients.

So why are you using this constantly changing, never really correct nutritional "standard" to evaluate your diet? Where's the logic in that? You could've run a horribly taurine-deficient diet through your analysis a few years ago and it would've given you an A+ when you were actually slowly killing your dogs and cats. But all of a sudden they're reliable?
If all those kibbles out there are conforming to these "perfect standards", then why do people have to keep switching kibbles around on growing pups to find the balance that isn't screwing up their growth? Why do dogs keep showing huge improvements when switched to raw?

What a joke. I'm with Mike on this one and I'll take his approach any day. Common sense and simple, logical methods that are proven over time. I do also believe in including good variety, of not only meats but also some veggie & fruit scraps - when they're not getting actual whole, freshly killed prey - to cover any nutritional bases I might be missing without them.
However, these nutritional "standards" have not been proven reliable AT ALL; kibbles and pre-made diets are all over the place these days and dog owners still keep having to switch around a lot before they find something that doesn't screw up their dogs.


----------



## Paul Smikovecus

Then, I guess its a good thing i feed liver too. Just curious, what types of minerals and vitamin deficiencies are you claiming there to be? Any knowledge you are willing to share would be greatly appreciated.

I just listed the basics, not every detail of their diet.


Thank you for your time.


----------



## susan tuck

Hey I feel like this thread has become seriously whacked. I don't remember Maren ever saying that because RAW diets might not be 100% nutritionally complete we should therefore feed kibble. I think she and others are simply stating facts. 

Maren is not the enemy here. She is greatly appreciated by most of us. Personally I think everyone needs to take a step back and regroup.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Paul Smikovecus said:


> Then, I guess its a good thing i feed liver too. Just curious, what types of minerals and vitamin deficiencies are you claiming there to be? Any knowledge you are willing to share would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> I just listed the basics, not every detail of their diet.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time.


Hi, Paul, 

The missing non-heart organ meat was the first thing to jump out at me too. 

I'm glad it was not a complete list.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> .... *Maren is not the enemy here. She is greatly appreciated by most of us. Personally I think everyone needs to take a step back and regroup.*


----------



## Paul Smikovecus

Me too! :-({|=


----------



## Michael Wise

Aren't AAFCO trials something like 26 weeks, and thats it? Honest question, how can that tell us the viability of a tested food at say, 27 weeks? I know I'm missing something, because surely a food can't receive a seal of approval by keeping a dog healthy for 26 weeks.

Can raw foods be accurately analyzed without degrading the nutrients and minerals through some form of processing?


----------



## susan tuck

Paul Smikovecus said:


> Me too! :-({|=


What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Yuko Blum

Ok, I can see how this could get confusing, seeing how long the arguments have been going on.
Susan, I agree that Maren's advice and lectures are very helpful most of the time. I enjoy knowing a lot more details than absolutely needed to prepare a raw diet so that was never my problem.

God only knows how many incredibly detailed and involved (esoteric, even, lol) raw feeding discussions we've gotten involved in on the LB board, just for the fun of it 

In order not to add to the confusion, the following are Maren's quotes and they are what I'm replying to (not including the earlier quotes on "only seasoned raw feeders should even consider feeding their puppies a homemade diet" - I think that's been hammered out enough  )



> If people are just pulling things out of their ass or just repeating something they heard somewhere on another forum or website without basis (which is unfortunately the nature of raw feeding as we have so little evidence based science to back it up, which I'm trying very hard to change), I'm going to call them on it, particularly if it could be detrimental to the dog or the humans involved. And even if someone was a raw feeder for 40 years, just like with breeders or trainers who've been doing it for 40 years, they can be doing it 40 years incorrectly.


I asked for evidence of "raw feeding being done wrong" & detrimental to the dogs and her justification for "calling people out on it" and got the following response:



> I saw I was approaching deficiency in a few different minerals, so I had to tweak it just a bit and add in a bit more veggie mix. They were also stealing veggies and fruits out of my garden, so that was another clue. My two young adult dogs (both aged 4 now) seemed to be fine either way, but my youngest dog (about a year old at the time) and my oldest dog (about 12 years old) improved in coat quality and body condition (both the youngest and oldest were getting too thin and the oldest was losing muscle mass even with it being pretty protein heavy) and stool quality (the youngest firmed up a bit more).


So I asked you for evidence that those of us operating without nutrient analysis softwares, and supposedly creating nutrient deficient diets for our dogs, are ending up with less healthy animals. Your evidence is a anecdote from your two dogs who "looked a little better" once you added more vegetables to their diet?
(And that they ate some veggies from your garden?)

You told me the following: "SHOW ME the peer reviewed evidence in the literature, not just anectdotes (which are fine too, but as an adjunct)."
So I have to come up with peer reviewed evidence for my arguments to be considered valid, but when it's your turn to justify something an anecdote is considered sufficient?

Again, I'm just as happy as you are (well, almost) to discuss details on raw feeding, but I do believe that when you claim to "call people out" on creating deficient diets and being irresponsible for not being as detail-obsessive as you are, that you should have to provide evidence for this.
You really haven't, have you?

Or is your anecdote what you consider scientific validation of the nutritional software?? (If you're going to talk down to me for not using DATA, and just going with feelings or whatever you said, please at least provide some kind of evidence that this DATA is relevant to begin with.)


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Paul Smikovecus said:


> Then, I guess its a good thing i feed liver too. Just curious, what types of minerals and vitamin deficiencies are you claiming there to be? Any knowledge you are willing to share would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> I just listed the basics, not every detail of their diet.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time.


Paul, thank you thank you thank. You EXACTLY proved my point. You say "oh, feed these four items and you'll be just fine!" I point that out why both nutritionally and biologically that doesn't work, and you back peddle to try and cover your butt. That is *precisely* why these kinds of discussions can be dangerous to people who believe everything they read on a forum! Liver is an excellent source of iron, zinc, and other macro and micro minerals and also high in vitamin A, which is why it typically the first or one of the first organs to be consumed, to answer your previous question.

Yuko, you've pretty much proven you'd rather hide your head in the sand rather than possibly admit that your diet is not as perfect as you think. I'm sure your dogs appreciate your zealotry. I'm done responding to you as all you prefer to do is put words in my mouth.


----------



## Yuko Blum

Susan, you wonder why I'm getting riled up in this thread when Maren is just "posting facts".

Maren has pretty much come out and said that all our home prepared raw diets are deficient in some way or another (what with not using DATA from her software).

I must admit, I'm taken aback by the fact that many of you raw feeders are simply willing to take her statement as "fact", when she hasn't been able to provide a shred of evidence to back it up!

Maren, since you have no real evidence, why not say the following instead?

"I have no evidence that the "wing it" approach of most raw feeders who provide decent balance, variety (meats, organs, even veggies) and monitor their dogs' conditions without getting bogged down in details is any less effective in producing healthy dogs when compared to my extensive data analysis and highly researched approach. However, for those of you who are interested in learning more about the current tools and softwares available for nutrient analysis (however accurate they may be), here is what I can tell you..."

Why do you have to keep insisting on calling people out and puppies being screwed up by first-time raw feeders without so much as a shred of evidence?

Did you just assume that no one would ever call you out on those claims and ask for proof?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Michael Wise said:


> Aren't AAFCO trials something like 26 weeks, and thats it? Honest question, how can that tell us the viability of a tested food at say, 27 weeks? I know I'm missing something, because surely a food can't receive a seal of approval by keeping a dog healthy for 26 weeks.
> 
> Can raw foods be accurately analyzed without degrading the nutrients and minerals through some form of processing?


Yes, that is their length for maintenance. And yes, they are not perfect (I'd love to re-design them). And yes, they can be accurately analyzed by laboratories. That is how the commercial manufacturers know how much vitamins, minerals, and other supplements to add after cooking. To see what I mean, look at the USDA's site and try typing in raw chicken, for example:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Or for whole prey items:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/zoo/WholePreyFinal02May29.pdf


----------



## Yuko Blum

Asking you for real evidence instead of just the one anecdote to justify your claims is hiding my head in the sand? Because I don't just immediately take what you spout as fact? I just asked you to define what a "perfect" diet was so I could see how mine matches up, but you didn't answer that either.

Interesting way of thinking you have. The first request for proof and you shut right down.

I suppose I could list everything I've fed my dogs over the past few weeks. Is that what you want? I don't get it... nevermind. This clearly isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Bob Scott

!!!SIGH!!! :roll:

Anyone has the right to disagree with anyone else on this forum. That's what these forums are for. 
If anyone feels the need to take any of it personelly then take it to PMs or leave it at home!


----------



## susan tuck

For what it's worth, I don't think any diet has to be or is "perfect". I know my own certainly isn't, in fact my dogs diet is healthier than mine and other than early onset Alzheimer's I think I'm doing OK!!!!! :lol: So while I know this thread took this particular direction because people were wanting to know what was required in order to make a diet 100% complete, does anyone really believe that most dogs who are on a RAW diet (for example the RAW feeding instructions on Leerburg) are suffering any consequences from any nutrient deficiencies and if so, what consequences have you seen from a diet such as the one outlined on Leerburg?


----------



## Michael Wise

Maren Bell Jones said:


> That is how the commercial manufacturers know how much vitamins, minerals, and other supplements to add after cooking.


Then arise all the issues of bioavailability and interaction of the replaced vitamins and minerals with the altered(processed/cooked) nutrients and minerals that remain in the food......


----------



## Yuko Blum

susan tuck said:


> does anyone really believe that most dogs who are on a RAW diet (for example the RAW feeding instructions on Leerburg) are suffering any consequences from any nutrient deficiencies and if so, what consequences have you seen from a diet such as the one outlined on Leerburg?


Lol.

Susan, I've been trying to get a straight answer to that question out of Maren for well over 500 pages now.

Apparently it's a no-no to ask her to justify anything. She's obviously so much smarter than the rest of us that it's foolish not to just accept what she says as gospel. Questioning her only proves you have your head in the sand... O 

I'm with you Susan. I don't believe in this "perfect" diet thing, as I've been saying since post 1. Apparently, only Maren here believes in that (and the resulting deficiencies from not following her "ideal" software calculated diet), but she has yet to provide a single shred of evidence for it.

This "argument" could've been settled by her very first reply to me if she'd just give me a straight answer already!


----------



## Konnie Hein

I'll stick with my opinion posted earlier in this thread:



Konnie Hein said:


> All in all, I think we all agree that variation is the key to feeding a good diet of any type. And, I also personally believe our dogs can thrive on various diets within certain (and very broad) guidelines. JMO.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think any diet has to be or is "perfect". I know my own certainly isn't, in fact my dogs diet is healthier than mine and other than early onset Alzheimer's I think I'm doing OK!!!!! :lol:


Variety takes so much risk out of the process. 

Day after day after day on one meal repeated over and over is where one potential problem lies. If one micronutrient (or macronutrient, for that matter) is missing, it will never be "fixed."

That's why I think the LB diet is a great diet for the intro to raw. It has variety. But even so, I still always tell folks that introducing more variety is in the dog's best interest. The chances of covering everything are so much better with variety -- even micronutrients we don't even know about yet. The functions of at least two have just been identified in my adult lifetime. But even not knowing about them, a varied diet would've covered them.

P.S. Yeah, I hate that pesky early-onset Alzheimer's too. :lol:


----------



## Michael Wise

susan tuck said:


> does anyone really believe that most dogs who are on a RAW diet (for example the RAW feeding instructions on Leerburg) are suffering any consequences from any nutrient deficiencies and if so, what consequences have you seen from a diet such as the one outlined on Leerburg?


I'd like to see how it holds up being run through the software. I'd be curious to see the results.

My wife is gonna kick my ass when my $$$$$$$$ software shows up on the credit card.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Michael Wise said:


> My wife is gonna kick my ass when my $$$$$$$$ software shows up on the credit card.


Fear not!

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBul...ng-others-photos-10442/index3.html#post112733


----------



## Michael Wise

Connie Sutherland said:


> Fear not!
> 
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBul...ng-others-photos-10442/index3.html#post112733


:lol: :lol: :lol: BILLY MADE ME DO IT!!! It was his beard.

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, right?


----------



## susan tuck

Connie Sutherland said:


> Variety takes so much risk out of the process.
> 
> Day after day after day on one meal repeated over and over is where one potential problem lies. If one micronutrient (or macronutrient, for that matter) is missing, it will never be "fixed."


I agree, and guess who I learned it from............you!   It is also my understanding that feeding only one single protein source, like chicken for example, can possibly lead to a sensitivity/allergy to that particular protein source.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Michael Wise said:


> Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, right?


Well, hide it until the time for returning it has passed...... :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Variety takes so much risk out of the process. 


susan tuck said:


> I agree, and guess who I learned it from............you!


Same with humans! :lol:


----------



## susan tuck

Connie Sutherland said:


> Variety takes so much risk out of the process.
> 
> 
> Same with humans! :lol:


AHAHHAA!!!! \\/


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

What's the big deal about prey model feeding anyway ? Dogs haven't done this naturally in my lifetime and I doubt if anyone else here can say they have seen this with the exception of Jeff who made the post about dumpster diving, which is probably as close as you're gonna get.

I feed raw but that's are far as I'm willing to go, the toenails and hair belong in baloney and wieners.


----------



## susan tuck

Speaking of toenails, is there any nutritional value to chicken feet? I give them out as snacks, but never thought of them as a significant part of my dogs diet.


----------



## Chris McDonald

The more I read and learn the more feel as if I am doing better than I though. I think I understand Anne’s question that started this whole mess as a question from someone who is trying to take it to the next level because she wants to. Not necessarily because what she is doing is the minimum needed for a healthy dog. I am not going to the next level with this raw stuff. But at my level I do note a big improvement in a better looking coat, eyes etc. when feeding what some of you would consider a half ass raw diet. Although I find this is a bit tougher to compare, I think there is also an improvement in overall energy and recovery as well. I think I am covering more bases than I thought. Although looks can be deceiving I find it hard to believe that there can be such notable improvement in so many things, but yet my half ass raw diet to be overall worse than a high quality kibble. Does anyone here know of a dog that was being feed raw and had a sickness or serious issue directly related to being feed an “improper” raw diet? I’m not looking for answers of what could/may happen if this or if that is left out. I’m looking for someone who dog it actually happened to?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Gerry Grimwood said:


> What's the big deal about prey model feeding anyway ? Dogs haven't done this naturally in my lifetime and I doubt if anyone else here can say they have seen this with the exception of Jeff who made the post about dumpster diving, which is probably as close as you're gonna get.
> 
> I feed raw but that's are far as I'm willing to go, the toenails and hair belong in baloney and wieners.


This is funny…


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Yuko Blum said:


> Did you just assume that no one would ever call you out on those claims and ask for proof?





Yuko Blum said:


> Interesting way of thinking you have. The first request for proof and you shut right down.





Yuko Blum said:


> This "argument" could've been settled by her very first reply to me if she'd just give me a straight answer already!



Crikey, Yuko, you just don't get it. It's not what you're asking, but how. I answer people's questions on here to be of help and it also is an educational experience for me because it's what I'll be doing in the future. Why should I bother answering anything for you on my own free time (of which I have precious little) if you can't keep a civil tongue? It's like you're a puppy howling in a crate that hasn't gotten the idea of an extinction burst yet. Even if I did, you'd still probably twist everything I say around. Why is that even worth my time?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Chris McDonald said:


> I’m not looking for answers of what could/may happen if this or if that is left out. I’m looking for someone who dog it actually happened to?


The "best" I can do is knowing one, not owning one. Fractures and bone malformation.

Shame on me if I allowed it to happen to my dog! I know better, so I would have no excuse whatsoever.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Connie Sutherland said:


> The "best" I can do is knowing one, not owning one. Fractures and bone malformation.
> 
> Shame on me if I allowed it to happen to my dog! I know better, so I would have no excuse whatsoever.


 
I hear you


----------



## Michael Wise

Connie Sutherland said:


> The "best" I can do is knowing one, not owning one. Fractures and bone malformation.
> 
> Shame on me if I allowed it to happen to my dog! I know better, so I would have no excuse whatsoever.


Were you or they able to pinpoint the problem?


----------



## Michael Wise

Maren Bell Jones said:


> And yes, they can be accurately analyzed by laboratories.


Vaguely, do you know the processes used?

I'm having trouble finding anything on the subject. Not that I would understand it totally anyway.

The only thing I am finding is from Tom Lonsdale.

Regarding micronutrients:


Raw Meaty Bones said:


> Finding out is nigh on impossible too, as heating or solvent extracting the complex biochemicals affects their structure and quantity.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM deelicious homeopathy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozfio_e1Xj0

I love when people bust out the homeopathy arguement.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

I'm not an analytical chemist (blech...) and I have a teensy tiny bit of experience with doing analysis of fat samples using osmium tetroxide in grade school, but your macro and microminerals (Ca, P, Se, Zn, Cu, etc) should remain intact through heat or solvent extraction. I think. ;-) I talked to my nutrition professor about raw versus cooked foods and he stated that like two of the amino acids (the building blocks that make up the protein) get their side chains changed in heating and that some foods do need to be cooked before we can efficiently extract some of their nutrients, like complex starches like sweet potatoes. But he's pretty mystified at all these magical enzymes floating around raw food. This seems to be a more prevalent notion in the human raw foodist school of thought, but yeah...


----------



## Anne Vaini

susan tuck said:


> So while I know this thread took this particular direction because people were wanting to know what was required in order to make a diet 100% complete, does anyone really believe that most dogs who are on a RAW diet (for example the RAW feeding instructions on Leerburg) are suffering any consequences from any nutrient deficiencies and if so, what consequences have you seen from a diet such as the one outlined on Leerburg?


I started with the Leerburg diet. I think it is a good, safe starting point. Dogs do fabulously well on it as compared to kibble.

I think there are weaknesses in the diet posted on the website, versus the one that was actually used at Leerburg. The kennel diet was always tweaked and changed, and adjusted for the dog's condition, the weather, and breedings. ... Probably other things I'm not aware of as well. ... The actual diet that was fed at LB 2 years ago included far more variety than the version posted on the site. I'm sure that as everyone continues to learn more, the diet that was fed 2 years ago is different from what LB feeds today.

One specific part of that diet that I am not thrilled with is the substitution of canned fish for a meal, with or without some meat on the side. While the Ca ratio stays safe, there isn't enough calcium. I've never seen this affect an adult dog, but I have seen it affect a young dog - down in the pasterns. With the adjustment of increasing the amount of bone in the diet, it was corrected in a couple weeks.

Another concern for me is organ meat. I feel like I don't have a good understanding of it. I don't think that feeding liver once a week is adequate. If I remember correctly, liver is 1/2 of the organ weight of an animal. (Is that right?) So I think that feeding liver is a good start. But seriously, there is so much more "tissue" than muscle meat, bone and liver! I think it is a little foolish to think that the rest of an animal has little or no nutritional value. No proof  working on that part yet.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Maren Bell Jones said:


> But he's pretty mystified at all these magical enzymes floating around raw food. This seems to be a more prevalent notion in the human raw foodist school of thought, but yeah...


:lol: I'm mystified too! :lol:


----------



## Michael Wise

Anne Vaini said:


> One specific part of that diet that I am not thrilled with is the substitution of canned fish for a meal, with or without some meat on the side. While the Ca ratio stays safe, there isn't enough calcium. I've never seen this affect an adult dog, but I have seen it affect a young dog - down in the pasterns. With the adjustment of increasing the amount of bone in the diet, it was corrected in a couple weeks.


From one meal of canned fish? Or the whole diet is low in calcium?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Michael Wise said:


> Were you or they able to pinpoint the problem?


I think it’s a dig at me, Connie as been nice enough to answer a few of my questions with those PMs. Don’t worry I got it all under control, trust me!


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM deelicious homeopathy.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozfio_e1Xj0
> 
> I love when people bust out the homeopathy arguement.


Homeo what? … these Homeo people are only there because they couldn’t make it in the real world…. Kinda like chiropractiors and witch doctors. I watched the vidio for a few minutes it said this Homeo stuff started about 200 years ago, that’s about when we started burring witches so they just switched over. I got this sh*t all figured out!


----------



## Anne Vaini

Chris McDonald said:


> Does anyone here know of a dog that was being feed raw and had a sickness or serious issue directly related to being feed an “improper” raw diet? I’m not looking for answers of what could/may happen if this or if that is left out. I’m looking for someone who dog it actually happened to?



I had a dog that died. How about that. The dog was not-quite-right since a pup. The vet and I talked about diet changes... vet never suggested bloodwork.

A time of the year when I was doing very intense work with my dogs, I would have to add fat to the diet to keep them in condition. This pup was about 7 or 8 months old? I was switching over from skinless chicken necks to skin-on chicken necks. I was tearing the skin (fat) off of 1/3 of hers and giving them to another dog that had high fat needs.

End of the story - the pup had had pancreatitis the whole time. The increase in fat was too much, causing necrotizing pancreatitis. She died within 2 weeks of the diet change.

I should have done bloodwork. ...


----------



## Anne Vaini

Michael Wise said:


> From one meal of canned fish? Or the whole diet is low in calcium?


2 per week. I *think* that chicken legs quarters are a little low in calcium, but I haven't computed yet. It's a gut feeling at this point - i could be wrong.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Anne Vaini said:


> I had a dog that died. How about that. The dog was not-quite-right since a pup.
> ...
> End of the story - the pup had had pancreatitis the whole time. The increase in fat was too much, causing necrotizing pancreatitis.


What was "not-quite-right since a pup" about her? Did she have a "deformity" that caused her to not be able to process the fats properly? I remember your posts from when this happened, but can't remember the specific details.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Konnie Hein said:


> What was "not-quite-right since a pup" about her? Did she have a "deformity" that caused her to not be able to process the fats properly? I remember your posts from when this happened, but can't remember the specific details.


I now believe she had pancreatitis from a puppy. By 10 weeks old, she already wasn't quite right. She had bad teeth, strangely "thick" and "slimy" saliva, she had a "veiny" look in her legs - similar to what you would see in a puppy with a massive intestinal parasite colony. She was more aggressive than would be expected for her age, breed and breeding (sometimes a symptom of malnutrition). She never grew quite right and stayed very small. Her cartilage didn't follow her bone grwoth, giving her a snout/muzzle with a distinct and odd narrowing. Her structure was ... strange.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=62473&l=1f1f9eb06f&id=650576100

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=62472&l=25a3ad63bd&id=650576100

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyNMbriD-cw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC6qy_AnCGw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHS3MvNYCGc&feature=related

The morning she was euthanized. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/1052104061/


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Michael Wise said:


> Were you or they able to pinpoint the problem?


No "pinpointing" needed. 80% boneless meat diet, young pup.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Chris McDonald said:


> I think it’s a dig at me, Connie as been nice enough to answer a few of my questions with those PMs. Don’t worry I got it all under control, trust me!


Good grief! :lol:

It was not!

I know a dog _who had it happen_ .... I didn't mean "knowing someone who is researching calcium the way a responsible owner does" !


----------



## todd pavlus

Chris McDonald said:


> Homeo what? … these Homeo people are only there because they couldn’t make it in the real world…. Kinda like chiropractiors and witch doctors. I watched the vidio for a few minutes it said this Homeo stuff started about 200 years ago, that’s about when we started burring witches so they just switched over. I got this sh*t all figured out!


 Not to hijack, but they didn't start burning witches till the late 1600's[-X. Don't ask why I know that useless fact


----------



## Anne Vaini

The acute/necrotizing pancreatitis presented as dehydration and not-quite-lethargy. I thought it was heat stroke as it was a warm (not hot) day and the dogs had dumped their water bucket. I took her in and she received fluids. I declined bloodwork on the logic that if it was anything more serious, I would know within 24 hours and do bloodwork at that time. Within 24 hours, the vomiting and diarrhea started. With supportive care - meds, special diet, sub-q fluids, keeping her packed up in blankets and heating packs, she lived about 1 week. When the fecal vomiting started, we knew it was necrotizing and irreversible.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I am about to start a raw feeder burning program. I am looking into getting the big scales and weighing them against a feather. If they weigh more, then they are raw feeding witches and will be burned. 

If death doesn't occur, I will use homeopathy to cure them. I will just use a bic lighter, or a match.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> ... If death doesn't occur, I will use homeopathy to cure them. I will just use a bic lighter, or a match.



Oh God ... my biggest laugh in days.

And from JEFF. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Konnie Hein

Anne - do you think things would have been different if you had fed her a kibble diet?

Jeff - What if we're a raw feeder just because it's damn cheap and we're too poor to go out and buy pro plan kibble?? Can I be saved from burning??? Hang on a minute...somebody is ringing the door bell...they have torches and are chanting something...should I answer it???


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

I've heard three stories from the community practice doctors at the teaching hospital (keeping in mind there is not a lot of raw feeders around here). Two were related to salmonella: one was an older dog with cancer and the other case was half a litter of pups from a raw fed dam, both died of complications from salmonellosis (they cultured a fecal sample and there was a massive amount in the case of the cancer dog). Which is one of the reasons I disagree with giving cancer dogs raw (home cooked is better for immunocompromised dogs). The third was a German shepherd pup that was on it. Didn't die, but had malformed joints at around 9-10 weeks. I tried to get him to describe what the owner was feeding precisely and I think I remember hearing mostly ground meat and lamb necks were the calcium source? I wonder if the pup couldn't handle the necks and so wasn't getting the calcium. Owner put him on a kibble and corrected the problem.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Jeff - What if we're a raw feeder just because it's damn cheap and we're too poor to go out and buy pro plan kibble??

You are ok because you don't go on and on and on and on and on about this shit.

I can see Maren and Yogi's eyes rolling back in their head with religeous extacy as the drone on and on about feeding a ****ing dog.

OOOO oOOOO I have a computer program, I have a computer program.

SHUT THE **** UP already.

** completely off-topic addendum deleted **


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> You are ok because you don't go on and on and on and on and on about this shit.




I am always surprised that you read it. :lol: 


Why in the world do you?


----------



## Anne Vaini

Konnie Hein said:


> Anne - do you think things would have been different if you had fed her a kibble diet?


Konnie - she had been on a kibble diet previously. I don't remember for how long though. She was weaned on kibble, and I remember when I boarded her with the breeder a couple months later, he was observing her condition - blaming it on raw feeding - and I was like ... umm... she's eating the same kibble that you had her on ... 

I'd have to look for an old thread about her to "jog" my memory about the exact circumstances.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I am always surprised that you read it. 


Why in the world do you?

The world is filled with people that are completely full of shit. I like pointing out that fact, as they are just quoting more people that are completely full of shit.

What goes for working dog people should go for fake working dog people that want to go on and on and on about not having a clue, but insisting that they do.

Post some ****ing training threads. :grin:


----------



## Anne Vaini

Moxie Thread:

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f25/puppy-scare-2853/index3.html


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Post some ****ing training threads. :grin:


Do that!

I read those too. :lol:


----------



## Anne Vaini

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Post some ****ing training threads. :grin:



I'm out of ideas for training the dog. If you can't help me with some working behaviors I might be forced to train her to paint. :lol:

I'm brooding over some training theory. Thread coming!


----------



## Chris McDonald

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I've heard three stories from the community practice doctors at the teaching hospital (keeping in mind there is not a lot of raw feeders around here). Two were related to salmonella: one was an older dog with cancer and the other case was half a litter of pups from a raw fed dam, both died of complications from salmonellosis (they cultured a fecal sample and there was a massive amount in the case of the cancer dog). Which is one of the reasons I disagree with giving cancer dogs raw (home cooked is better for immunocompromised dogs). The third was a German shepherd pup that was on it. Didn't die, but had malformed joints at around 9-10 weeks. I tried to get him to describe what the owner was feeding precisely and I think I remember hearing mostly ground meat and lamb necks were the calcium source? I wonder if the pup couldn't handle the necks and so wasn't getting the calcium. Owner put him on a kibble and corrected the problem.


The one dog really died of cancer, if it did not have cancer the Salmonella would have never got him. 
The puppy died because that’s what puppies do sometimes. 
Imagine that, a German shepherd with malformed joints?


----------



## Anne Vaini

Chris McDonald said:


> The one dog really died of cancer, if it did not have cancer the Salmonella would have never got him.
> The puppy died because that’s what puppies do sometimes.
> Imagine that, a German shepherd with malformed joints?


Seriously?! OMG. :twisted:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

A thought, in response to no one in particular. 

Does anyone here "not believe in" nutrition-related health challenges in humans? Rickets, gout, osteoporosis, iron deficiency anemia, pellagra, scurvy..... 

And these are just a few among hundreds.

But in another mammal (in fact, one that shares many diseases with humans), such an idea as researching micronutrients and their effects is silly? 

If it's interesting to someone else and they are providing results of research and experiments, I'm gonna take that free info and run. 

But OTOH, many people, excellent dog owners, want to leave it up to the commercial-food researchers. And that's great, too!

I don't get why one is silly and one not. 

I don't believe that intelligent people really think that nutrition is meaningless. Flat do not believe it. 

So it has to be a matter of degree or preference that makes for all the attacks.

I find it a fascinating area of study (both human and canine nutrition), but I know that most people do not. If degree of fine-pointing or preference of source bother anyone, it seems so easy to skip the thread.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Chris McDonald said:


> The one dog really died of cancer, if it did not have cancer the Salmonella would have never got him.


That's like saying you died of peracute lead overdose toxicity instead of a gunshot wound. :roll::lol:


----------



## Alyssa Myracle

Maren Bell Jones said:


> That's like saying you died of peracute lead overdose toxicity instead of a gunshot wound. :roll::lol:


It's usually the shock and loss of blood that kills ya...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Alyssa Myracle said:


> It's usually the shock and loss of blood that kills ya...


Right! Like the salmonella.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Maren Bell Jones said:


> That's like saying you died of peracute lead overdose toxicity instead of a gunshot wound. :roll::lol:


No its not, I (first hand) know people and animals that had cancer and were very sick from cancer but most died due to an infection or something else. If they were healthy they more than likely would have fought it off. 
I (fist hand) know of someone who had some little 5 pound piece of Shi* dog that was old and sick as hell for a long time. Something was failing and it spent a few days at the vet, got pepped up a bit, but it was close to the end with no fixing. It comes home from the vet and was expected to die within a few weeks. It initially came home from the vet with more energy than it had for the past year or two. So the old lady who owned it went out the back door of her house and slammed the door on the way out. Only to slam the door on the little dog and kill it. Turned out, years ago the dog use to rip out the back door with the lady. But due to its sickness it didn’t try to rip out the door in years. So the lady was broken out of the habit. 
Now we can argue about what killed the mutt. You can say it was the lady and the door, or even the vet for spunking up the dog, but ultimately the dog is dead due to the sickness. 
True story!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I eat the worst garbage known to man, have for years and I am fine. Years ago, there was this really hot nutritionist that I wanted to do horrible things to naked, and she was a vegitarian, and convinced me, (after the nakedness) to try it for a year.

I ate what she told me, and after about 6 months, I really felt awful all the time. I started to fall out of runs, and the second time I did that I got pissed off and went to a steak house and spent about 200 dollars eating steak after steak.

Never fell out of a run again.

However, it is just genetics at play. Some people just were not designed to make it. however, since we have all but eliminated natural selection, they get to suffer and be in misery. 

Nice.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> .... I ate what she told me, and after about 6 months, I really felt awful all the time. I started to fall out of runs, and the second time I did that I got pissed off and went to a steak house and spent about 200 dollars eating steak after steak. ..... Never fell out of a run again. ....




You experienced significant deleterious effects from following nutrition advice that was not good for you. (Maybe there was not enough protein ... whatever.)

So you changed your diet on your own, and improved your athletic performance and well-being just by doing so.

Interesting.

Bad effects on your overall well-being ("felt awful") and physical prowess ("started to fall out of runs") on one diet, and "I am fine" and "Never fell out of a run again" on a different diet.

All from diet changes.


I have to admit that sometimes a post from Jeff is exactly what a thread needs to get it back on track.


----------



## Jim Nash

Huh ? I thought we were talking about hot naked nutritionists now . Sometimes this staying on topic stuff sucks .


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jim Nash said:


> Huh ? I thought we were talking about hot naked nutritionists now . Sometimes this staying on topic stuff sucks .


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Wow! There is so much attitude and childish behavior in this thread that I feel sick! It's like watching kindergartners debating whether or not the red crayon is the prettiest.

When I read crap like what was posted in this thread, it reads something like:



> The red crayon is the prettiest because I said so and I've used the red crayon more than you and your nose looks funny so that means you're wrong automagically!


Believe me, the number of PM's I get about all of you has you all beat. People pick sides based on a lot of things, and the correctness of someone's posts is usually not one of the considerations.

Grow up and learn how to argue like big people so I don't have to waste my time reading crap like this 18 hours before an international move.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Wow! There is so much attitude and childish behavior in this thread that I feel sick!


It made me sick too. Page after page after page of crap.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Real question now:

Would you rather feed:


Green tripe with 12,000 CFU/G of lactic acid bacteria.
Plain yogurt with 12 million CFU/G of lactic acid bacteria.
Probios dispersible powder with (guaranteed minimum) 10 million CFU/G of lactic acid bacteria.

I've had an issue with Probios powder because it is packed in sucrose, I ASSume that the dried bacteria are inactive, therefore the sucrose isn't digested, so it's essentially giving the dog a spoonful of sugar. Can anyone challenge that logic with some more information or data?

I expected the green tripe to have higher CFU/G. I don't have details on the age of the sample or method of storage.

Yogurt is really easy for me to make and have on hand.

Another option would be cultured, fermented plant matter as previously discussed on this thread. I tried this without using a starter culture and chickened out - I threw it in the compost. Next time I'll use a starter culture!


----------



## Anne Vaini

Anyone know off-hand of natural sources of vitamin E? I upp-ed my dog's vit E to 400 IU per day (35 lb dog) and saw an improvement. This is an item that I hope to address in a diet, not in a pill form.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne, would you start a new thread for these two new posts? This thread had the kiss of death around page 11 or 12 and never recovered.

Thanks!


----------



## Anne Vaini

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f25/analyzing-raw-diet-10656/#post115464


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Anne Vaini said:


> http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f25/analyzing-raw-diet-10656/#post115464


Great! Thanks.


----------

