# Blue Buffalo recalls foods



## Anne Jones (Mar 27, 2006)

For those of you that feed kibble....yet another recall:

Blue buffalo has recalled Wilderness Chicken-Dog, Basics Salmon-Dog and Large Breed Adult Dog foods for causing elevated levels of Vitamin D with symptoms ranging from increased thirst and urination, and some of them also suffered weight loss, loss of appetite and signs of kidney damage.

I believe that there was a thread recently regarding dogs getting sick on this product. 

Here is the linc.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2010/10/head_blue_buffalo_recalls_dog.html


Yet another reason for feeding a natural raw diet.


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

or a home _cooked_ diet.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

Joo-Ryong Kim said:


> or a home _cooked_ diet.


Honestly I don't see the point in bothering to go through all the trouble of "COOKING" a dogs food and removing half the nutrients. :-s

Why pay the money for the same food and then pretty much ruin most of the benefit of feeding it in the first place?


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

Unless if you have empirical evidence showing that cooking food removes 50% of nutrients, I'd brush that off as an over and beyond statement of exaggeration. Do you have empirical evidence proving that dogs absorb more nutrients from raw than cooked? Do you have empirical evidence disproving that cooked foods is a form of predigestion which in turn allows the animal's digestive system access to greater potential nutrients as opposed to raw? Show me some empirical evidence that goes against modern day school of thought found in the scientific community regarding the greater accessibility of nutrients from cooked as opposed to raw. I'm afraid the raw diet movement was birthed out of "human intuition" rather than science & logic. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, since there are already countless studies and journals written in the scientific community regarding the benefits of cooked food.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The proof is out there, but your basic premise is that heat doesn't break things down, and then destroy them. 

Sure everything is fine after a house fire. Seems kinda dumb to even bother arguing with that. It doesn't ruin everything, but raw would have to be a bit better.

I feed pro plan by the way, and most people just are not good enough, or have a good enough understanding I should say of what a dog needs. You can see that these "special" food dipshits can't get it right either.

I am feeding pro plan. My dogs look as good or better as dogs eating raw. I DAMN sure am not cooking for a ****ing dog. LOL That is just crazy.


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

Well the basic premise in the most dumbed down version I can think of is this:

1) If you cook raw food, you lose potential calories due to heat.
2) Potential calories lost to heat is negligible, because food exposed to heat denatures protein, makes food more palatable, and releases water allowing more food storage.
3) Digestive system spends less energy digesting cooked food.
4) Although raw food has all its calories, the digestive system spends more energy converting raw food into energy. Raw food is less palatable, proteins are not denatured, and has more water.
5) There is a net gain in calories from cooked versus raw. And those potential calories have been measured.

These are found in easily accessible peer-reviewed journals. I feed dry commercial too, but if I weren't so lazy I'd cook because it would save me more money in the end. Commercial products are there to make profits.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

Joo-Ryong Kim said:


> Well the basic premise in the most dumbed down version I can think of is this:
> 
> 1) If you cook raw food, you lose potential calories due to heat.
> 2) Potential calories lost to heat is negligible, because food exposed to heat denatures protein, makes food more palatable, and releases water allowing more food storage.
> ...


The burden of proof is on me to provide proof that cooked food isn't better for dogs? How so, you can NOT compare the human digestive system to dogs so studies showing any benefits to HUMANS in cooked vs raw doesn't really apply in lending it to me to have the burden of proof. I'm pretty sure you'll see nutrition reports for DOGS leaning the other direction.

Peer reviewed journals on human nutrition show grapes are a pretty cool fruit, maybe we should feed those to our dogs?


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

Wonder where who what said that the journals are relative to human digestion. I'm pretty sure I said animal digestion as in dogs. And yes, the burden of proof still remains on raw advocates, sadly.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Cooking breaks down important enzymes that no commercially made or cooked food can give a dog.
Example;
Clean teeth are as much a product of enzymes in raw meat as it is the "scrubbing" from the bones.
They are also very helpful in digestion.
I'm sure Connie could give a much better explanation.
Cooking your dog's food is still better then commercial "IF" it is a balanced diet.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Cooking breaks down important enzymes that no commercially made or cooked food can give a dog.
> Example;
> Clean teeth are as much a product of enzymes in raw meat as it is the "scrubbing" from the bones.
> They are also very helpful in digestion.
> ...


Bob the burden of evidence is on us don't you know? You should provide links to peer reviewed journals saying that. I won't even go into ruining all those awesome raw bones.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Amy Swaby said:


> Bob the burden of evidence is on us don't you know? You should provide links to peer reviewed journals saying that. I won't even go into ruining all those awesome raw bones.


Thus my referral to Connie. I sure as hell don't know what I'm talking about. :lol:;-)


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Joo-Ryong Kim said:


> Well the basic premise in the most dumbed down version I can think of is this:
> 
> 1) If you cook raw food, you lose potential calories due to heat.
> 2) Potential calories lost to heat is negligible, because food exposed to heat denatures protein, makes food more palatable, and releases water allowing more food storage.
> ...


You've already stated in your above comment why raw is better for my dogs. I've fed both raw and certain high quality commercial kibble to my dogs and have "tested" both with the two breeds I work and/or condition now. Raw wins every time. I rotate a high quality kibble into their diet probably once a month or so for balance and variety, but my dogs work longer and stronger on a raw diet. Lately I've supplemented w/ Robert Abady Maintenance and Stress formula for its high fat content for off season conditioning and their skin, coat, and endurance are admirable at the very least. Clean teeth healthy gums... and all the benefits that have been listed in these past posts regarding feeding a raw diet. 

I may be a little partial because of the results I've gotten with a raw diet, but man has been trying to imitate Mother Nature for centuries as far as nutrition goes and from my experiences I'll be sticking w/ Mother Nature.

p.s.- Are we bk on this again?! Where's the guy w/ the photo of the dead horse being beaten?](*,):roll:


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

I know right? Everyone should just believe in homeopathy already. Meanwhile, let's ignore those mad scientists claiming to have data revealing net energy from conversion and absorption of cooked is not much different from net energy from conversion and absorption of raw. Let's follow the gut feeling that since wild dogs eat raw in the wild so should our domesticated dogs _exclusively_ eat raw , enter BARF. While we're at it, let's just assault the idea of cooked food based on our gut feelings about it, ****s the science. HEY **** YOU MR. SPOCK! Hey my dog's poop seems to be better on raw and the coat is shiny! Therefore cooking must be wrong. There's no other possible explanation. That's cute. I almost chuckled.

Look raw is nice, I give the dogs raw meat bones now and then. Never would I make the claim raw is bad. Nor would I make the claim that raw is better, when there isn't any convincing evidence.


----------



## Joo-Ryong Kim (Oct 8, 2010)

I don't want to beat a dead horse too.

I only posted here to point out the real crime in this thread. As OP claims, we should all feed raw because a kibble company f'd up by putting in excessive vitamin d in their bags. How desperate are these raw pride advocates? srsly.


----------



## Rob Meredith (Feb 14, 2010)

Here is a little bit of information that does have science to back it, and everyone hold your breath, A KIBBLE COMPANY THAT SAYS THE BEST THING YOU CAN FEED YOUR DOG IS RAW! http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/ORIJEN_White_Paper.pdf This is a pretty easy and short read that covers general information about dogs and cats but more importantly it also give you the sources of the information. There are plenty of studies that show that raw diets are better for animals than processed diets, in fact there are studies that take place in animal nutrition every day, just take a trip to the zoo and take a look at what they feed, they are not feeding their carnivores, herbivores, or omnivores, processed foods. 

Just another a quick question, why don't we cook feed for horses and livestock? If it really does make it more bioavailable then shouldn't we process their foods?


----------



## Nick Jenkins (Oct 4, 2010)

Food for other livestock animals are processed as well. In fact soy must be processed. Concentrated feeds are processed pelleted and science used to formulate the best possible ration. Without this there would be less lower quality meat and significantly less milk as compared to a "wild diet". As far as dogs are concerned science is science and it comes down to the amount of nutrients present in the feed, just so happens kibble can be accurately measured and studied raw cannot. Also dogs have lived with humans for thousands of years eating our scraps. Domestic dogs are scavengers they are thousands of years removed from hunting and eating raw kills, more like left overs and garbage. Not saying raw is bad just that conventional isn't either(well the low quality foods aren't great). Just going off of my ownresearch and schooling on this subject.


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Joo-Ryong Kim said:


> I know right? Everyone should just believe in homeopathy already. Meanwhile, let's ignore those mad scientists claiming to have data revealing net energy from conversion and absorption of cooked is not much different from net energy from conversion and absorption of raw. Let's follow the gut feeling that since wild dogs eat raw in the wild so should our domesticated dogs _exclusively_ eat raw , enter BARF. While we're at it, let's just assault the idea of cooked food based on our gut feelings about it, ****s the science. HEY **** YOU MR. SPOCK! Hey my dog's poop seems to be better on raw and the coat is shiny! Therefore cooking must be wrong. There's no other possible explanation. That's cute. I almost chuckled.
> 
> Look raw is nice, I give the dogs raw meat bones now and then. Never would I make the claim raw is bad. Nor would I make the claim that raw is better, when there isn't any convincing evidence.


I'm glad you got a kick out of my post. Hope everyone was amused. If you read my post in detail you'd see that I am referring to MY DOGS only and the results I'VE ACHIEVED with what I feed. Hey, if your dog does well on a sh*t kibble then great. I'm happy for u. I don't really care. I was only stating what works for mine. If my dog did better on a commercial kibble then guess what I'd be feeding? That's right commercial kibble (w/ a great deal of reluctance). I don't have anything against "high quality" commercial kibbles. I feed them every so often. I'm not knocking itAll I'm saying is that man has always been hard pressed to imitate Mother Nature re: nutrition, exercise, etc.


----------



## Nick Jenkins (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes feed your dog what works I think everyone can agree on that. What I do not agree with is mimicing mother nature. Why mimic mother nature where a drought leads to prey leaving an area and the pack starves or gets killed for stealing a farmer's livestock. The mother nature that let's an animal starve and die in agony after a small fracture or other orthapedic issue. Let's face it we have surpassed mother nature in terms of raising animals. They live longer healthier stronger happier. It isn't fair to cite the benefits of mother nature without adressing the clear negatives.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

Nick Jenkins said:


> Yes feed your dog what works I think everyone can agree on that. What I do not agree with is mimicing mother nature. Why mimic mother nature where a drought leads to prey leaving an area and the pack starves or gets killed for stealing a farmer's livestock. The mother nature that let's an animal starve and die in agony after a small fracture or other orthapedic issue. Let's face it we have surpassed mother nature in terms of raising animals. They live longer healthier stronger happier. It isn't fair to cite the benefits of mother nature without adressing the clear negatives.


I disagree that we've surpassed mother nature in terms of feeding. Most livestock ARE felt diets relatively similar to the wild when it can be afforded, so I'm not sure what you mean there. If anything farmers have found exactly what mixtures of feed from nature provide the best results. 

Most chefs agree grass fed beef is better than beef raised on commercial feed. The only difference is that we supplement this with better care when an animal sick and that they are provided with steady meals vs having to hunt their food. 

When it comes to nutrition... sorry no I wholly disagree there is anything on the market via kibble that has "surpassed" a natural diet. I am not arguing against feeding kibble. I FEED kibble, I can't afford raw and I certainly can;t afford the time to buy raw and then COOK it for 6 dogs. When i could afford raw however they showed clear results of a healthier system than on kibble.

ETA:
I'd also like to note Joo and I weren't even arguing about kibble, but the value of cooking homemade meals vs just offering the same meal raw. Nothing in our arguments is about kibble *period* It's about offering raw meals or COOKING the meat and which is better for the dog in terms of nutrition.


----------



## Nick Jenkins (Oct 4, 2010)

Without concentrated feeds(cannot be found in nature) livestock would not produce products like they do. Grass fed is a loose term as there Isstill the ability to supplement feed. Look at dairy cows producing well over 100 lbs of milk per day. Then look at cows living only on pasture there is a severe drop in production. This isn't opinion. So if you are able to formulate a non natural diet that allows extreme production or perfomance over what an animal in the wild would eat. How is that not surpassing that? As far as raw vs cooked I'm sure a little is lost but then it becomes a safety vs nutrients argument. I will bring this up to my masters nutrition professor and report back.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

Here is a commparison that someone had told me in comparing feeding dogs kibble vs raw or home made cooked.....she said think about it this way.....isnt it a lot healthier for us humans to eat a home cooked meal with all ingredients from scratch than eating say a box of Kraft Mac n Cheese every night for dinner(ie, processed food vs natural)? Makes sense to me! My dogs have never looked better since I switched to raw, and I was feeding high quality kibble...Innova Evo.


----------



## Anne Jones (Mar 27, 2006)

The proof is in the results. 

My dogs have been on raw since weening. I wouldn't feed anything else. They are happy, healthy & full of energy. (which is one of the first things that people notice when switching to raw) They have nice coats & don't have doggie ordor or doggie breath. And it is cheaper to feed the way that I buy, (from a restraunt wholesaler) then to feed high end kibble.

That's about as good as it gets in my book.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html


----------



## Tabatha Farnel (Sep 7, 2008)

Faisal Khan said:


> http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html


This is honestly one of the most retarded articles I have ever read.
Lol. "Handling of raw meat is fraught with danger." Lol.


----------



## Alex Pitawanakwat (Sep 28, 2010)

Faisal Khan said:


> http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html



They keep harping on 100,000 years of evolution. That's a drop in the bucket in evolutionary terms. Not enough time to evolve a whole new digestive system, nor have humans selected for a digestive tract different from that of a wolf.

http://rawfed.com/myths/index.html

My dogs look much better on raw, have better conditioning, far superior teeth, no odor, tiny poop, less shedding, glossier coat... and they didn't look bad on kibble to begin with. Even my dog who's currently suffering some sort of dermititis looks great! He has itchy lumps, but he's not lost fur, he's had only tiny hotspots (less than one cm), no dandruff. He still has a thick and glossy coat! I work at a pet store and I see dogs with horrendous hotspots that pop up over night from the most minor irritations. Monty's coat is resilient enough to withstand a pretty severe allergy of some sort while we fuddle through medications. 

As far as raw vs. cooked goes, I don't cook much more than Ramen noodles for myself, I sure as hell am not cooking anything for my dogs. If someone wants to cook their dog's real food rather than feeding them kibble, I'd applaud them for that, not criticize them for choosing cooked over raw.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

I've noticed an improvement in condition after switching to raw. My pups seem to be more robust and very advanced at a young age and the mom's keep great condition while nursing. I actually have to take care that the bitch doesn't gain too much weight many times even with large litters.

Here's a pix of a 16 day old malinois pup already choosing to eat ground raw mixture.

I've noticed an extreme improvement with my cats and kittens once switching to raw. Many have the option of eating dry grain-free kibble as well. However, the house cats are only on raw. Doing this has completely eliminated the occasional "puke" on the tile floor.


----------



## Alex Pitawanakwat (Sep 28, 2010)

Debbie Skinner said:


> I've noticed an extreme improvement with my cats and kittens once switching to raw. Many have the option of eating dry grain-free kibble as well. However, the house cats are only on raw. Doing this has completely eliminated the occasional "puke" on the tile floor.


My cats look AMAZING compared to being on commercial foods, including grain free, premium grain inclusive, and grain free canned foods. Beautiful healthy weights (obesity is SUCH an epidemic in cats!!), thick glossy coat, beautiful teeth, and their poop doesn't even stink.  No puking, no hairballs.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I can only base my feeding raw when I had two Border Terriers and one JRT.
I used to scale all their teeth twice a year on kibble. 
When I started raw I did a little testing. I scaled the teeth on one Border and the JRT. The other Border I left alone.
In six months ALL three had nice clean teeth. I no longer had to scale any of their teeth. 
Unfortunately, being retired and having two GSDs now raw is just to expensive.
Lord only knows I'd like to just for the small, non smelly crap because of my now very small yard. If I miss one of my twice a day yard cleanings, I know it the next day when I walk outside in the back yard. :-o


----------

