[Spy Car]

Dogs are going to experience health problems if they are fed high levels of carbohydrates and plant proteins whether those sub-standard ingredients come from so-called grain-free foods or ones loaded with grains.

The answer to optimal health isn’t to switch from one type of junk food diet to another, it is to cut out carbohydrates and plant proteins as much as humanly feasible.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@aimee, I don’t have independent knowledge of what percentages of their ingredients pass inspections as “human grade” food and what percentages are contaminated/condemned or are from non-USDA inspected sources. Do you?

It seems to me that pet food companies are not at all open to providing this sort of information to customers and that they will even use the claim that all their products “come from USDA inspected plants” when that phraseology covers using contaminated/condemned parts that fail inspections.

Wouldn’t you agree that it is wrong to mislead consumers to say products “come from USDA inspected plants” when they have actually failed inspections? Doesn’t that seem misleading and like an attempted fraud on average consumers who don’t realize the deception?

Bill

[Spy Car]

@pitlove,

And I, in turn, am disappointed that you are accusing me of being a criminal–as slander is an actionable crime. So I guess you are also claiming the Administrators of this forum are also guilty of slander, as the article that I linked to made similar points was authored by Dog Food Advisor.

I don’t personally enjoy being defamed for reporting what is allowed under AAFCO regulations. The president of AAFCO admitted on camera that it was completely possible that dog food could include dead pets under the regulations. The current regulations also permit the use of contaminated/condemned ingredients so long as they are rendered.

Accusing me of being fueled by “emotion and bias hatred of the pet food industry” is a personal attack and the opposite of the truth. I’m dismayed by what is permissible under current regulations and labeling laws. This dismay is based on reason.

I’m disappointed you’d make false characterizations and personal attacks in response to legitimate criticisms of the pet food industry.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@aimme, who made the argument not to feed by-products because both by-products and meat products destined for dog food are often condemned and contaminated? Not me.

Seems like you want to defeat a straw man.

I’m for the inclusion of most items classed as by-products in pet food. I’d also like all parts used in dog food to be wholesome and unspoiled.

There are no regulations stopping an “integrated” rendering plant from accepting the same sort of “roadkill, expired meats, dead zoo animals, bloated dead livestock, offal left in trucks in the elements for days” as is common with independent rendering plants. There is no mechanism to prevent such practices.

Claims that “all ingredients are from USDA facilities” is one of the worst abuses in the industry as it allows them to claim condemned foods are “from” inspected plants.

You seem to have more faith in these companies than I do.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@joanne l The USDA is already in the meat processing plants. To allow pet food companies to claim that products that USDA inspectors condemn “come from USDA inspected plants” is a scandal.

Processors have the capacity to prevent meat-products from being grossly contaminated by pathogens. They have proven to have the capacity to do so without imposing unreasonable costs. it isn’t asking too much that ordinary care be taken to keep dog food ingredients safe and sanitary.

Right now the rules allow almost any fetid meat-stuffs into pet food as long as it is sent to a rendering facility first. The idea that the only choices are between using contaminated wastes and $200 bags of kibble is a false dichotomy. Processors can keep food ingredients wholesome without breaking the bank as we see in the human food supply.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@joanne l, I don’t think is too much to ask that slaughterhouses treat ingredient intended for pet food be treated respectfully and not to become grossly contaminated and spoiled by pathogens. Such facilities already have the capacity to treat processed meat and offal safely and without adding unreasonably to the end cost.

So I disagree that pet foods that were not allowed to become putrid would cost “an arm and a leg.”

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Aimee, are you unconcerned that any or all animal parts can be (and are) regularly mishandled?

If “integrated” pet-food corporations send condemned and contaminated parts to their own own rendering plants for use in their own product lines, what advantage is there over sending similarly condemned and contaminated parts to independent rendering plants?

I’m at a loss to see what protections a consumer has in integrated processing.

And it seems like fatalism to disregard the mishandling and consequent use of spoiled by-products in pet food because meat parts are similarly mishandled, contaminated, and used in pet food.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@joanne l, when someone from a pet food company says “all our food comes from USDA inspected plants” please understand what that phrase does (and does not) mean.

Saying the items came “from” a USDA inspected plant DOES NOT mean those items passed inspection. In fact, the pet food companies (can and do) use items that have been condemned for human consumption as a regular practice. You need to understand how deliberately misleading the current labling laws are.

Items that have been condemned by USDA inspectors are regularly sent to rendering facilities where those ingredients are rendered (cooked for a long time under pressure) until pathogens in the often-spoiled items are killed.

Are spoiled meats that are loaded with pathogens “safe” after they have been cooked under pressure beyond recognition? I guess the question rests on the definition of “safe.” I accept the process likely kills of the pathogens (and degrades nutritional values).

From my point of view, it makes sense on a host of levels to feed dogs on parts that are not going to be used in the human food chain. Most of these ingredients would be highly nutritious for dogs if they were handled in a safe and sanitary fashion (which often isn’t the case) and it would be bad for our environment and our pocketbooks to waste otherwise nutritious left-overs that can be used to feed dogs.

The issue isn’t about using potentially nutritious by-products or non-prime cuts, it is about how those by-products and other parts are dealt with at slaughterhouses (and afterward). If ingredients are allowed to be used in dog food despite being spoiled (so long as they are rendered) there is no disincentive to bad slaughterhouse practices.

Likewise, there is no disincentive when pet-food companies are able to claim ingredients come “from” USDA inspected plants when there are no requirements for them to state those same ingredients may have been condemned during inspections.

The rules and labeling claims are controlled by the pet food industry, which controls AAFCO.

I’d like to hear what the guy who claimed: “Our dog food comes from USDA inspected facilities” would say (under oath) if asked if that means all those ingredients “passed” inspections?

Those familiar with pet-food industry practice know the truth about this deliberately misleading claim, one that while currently “legal” is an unethical use of language designed to deceive consumers into thinking “from” means “passed.”

Bill

[Spy Car]

@ Spycar/and whoever else
I watched the YouTube video, less than 1 minute of gibberish. I would not take dietary advice from that guy, he is overweight (big time). Plus, he looks a little pasty, hope he’s getting routine labs done. Just saying. Could be the camera angle? Lighting?
Again, absolutely no meaningful information presented.

Just my opinion, if you find these things helpful, I’m glad.

LOL @ anon101.

The video wasn’t about the head of AAFCO offering dietary advice. It was part of a news story where he confirmed that AAFCO standards allow pet food companies to use dead pets as ingredients in dog food.

You may not find it meaningful that dead dogs and cats can be legally fed to dogs and cats as part of commercial pet food products, but I suspect some consumers might have a different perspective.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@pitlove, with due respect, there is no slander here on my part. It is perfectly legal and within AAFCO guidelines to send condemned animal parts including (but not limited to) animal by-products to rendering facilities to use in dog food.

I’d suggest doing your own research (after which you might wish to offer an apology).

An article published by this forum makes the same points I did:

“However, what makes some by-products edible (and others not) isn’t just a matter of what they are but how they’re handled after slaughter.

For example, giblets not refrigerated immediately after slaughter but stored for up to 24 hours in a hot offal trailer cannot be sold for human consumption.

Yet they can still be legally used for making pet food.

Likewise, dead-on-arrival animals or other condemned parts that have been declared inedible and unfit for human consumption can still be used for making pet food.”

/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/#fnref-3142-3

You really shouldn’t accuse others of “slander” when the practices of the pet food industry are widely known.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@joanne l, as I mentioned in a previous post any average consumer would believe that a pet food that claims its ingredients come from a USDA inspected plant would mean that those ingredients “passed” USDA inspections. But that’s not the case.

Under AAFCO rules ingredients that are specifically condemned can be (are regularly) used so long as they are sent to a rendering plant. These condemned parts can then be touted as “coming from USDA inspected plants” without requiring to mention that they were rejected by inspectors. This sets up a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of consumers and is in all intents and purposes a “legal lie” and a fraud on the consumer.

Sorry, but that’s the truth of the situation.

Bill

[Spy Car]

What I find funny is people who (falsely) accuse others of an irrational disdain for “by-products,” but who won’t feed fresh, wholesome, and inexpensive raw chicken feet as an excellent dietary source of glucosamine, and who instead turn to expensive supplements that make his or her dog sick.

Bill

[Spy Car]

The AAFCO standards allow for dead dogs and cats to be ingredients in pet food. No really. They also allow dead, dying, downed, and diseased animals to be used in pet food.

They allow condemned parts from slaughterhouses to be used in dog food and even allow pet food companies to say that these spoiled ingredients come from “USDA inspected plants” despite being condemned.

As long as spoiled parts are rendered, almost anything goes.

In short, AAFCO standards are a joke and a fig-leaf that covers the atrocious practices of the pet-food industry (which in turn controls AAFCO). AAFCO certification misleads consumers into believing the product inside bags has some stamp of approval that means a great deal. That is false.

About the only thing one can count on is that foods that claim to meet AAFCO standards will get the calcium to phosphorus mineral balance right. Other than that, the worst sort of crap can (and does) go into these “foods.”

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 8 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

I’m of the opinion that if most of the items classified as “by-products” were fresh and unspoiled that they’d be great ingredients in dog’s rations, and I seek out many of these items myself for my dog’s PMR meals.

The problem is how “by-products” are treated at slaughterhouses. They are treated as waste, often kept in hot offal trailers where they spoil and become contaminated and unwholesome and are consequently condemned for human use. But these contaminated and spoiled parts can still be used in dog food if this waste is sent to a rendering facility first, where any remaining nutritional value is degraded by cooking beyond recognition.

It isn’t the ingredients themselves that are a problem, but industry practices that allow for the use of highly contaminated by-products.

Bill

[Spy Car]

And I have found that it is best not to abuse science and engage in deception by presenting half-truths in a fashion that are designed to mislead readers. SkeptVet is not an honest broker.

To be told again and again on a discussion forum on animal nutrition that the only valid approach is to consult a veterinary healthcare professional is obnoxious and troll-like behavior.

Please stop.

Bill

[Spy Car]

SkeptVet is a notoriously dishonest broker who slews his arguments with misleading half-truths. I’ve learned that this source has no credibility and his claim to practice “science-based veterinary medicine” are false.

This is yet another example of what is business as usual at SpeptVet, He has created a straw-man argument here (that, according to him, some people claim carbs are “toxic” for cats). He can easily defeat his own straw-man because–strictly speaking–carbs are not “toxic” (as toxins are defined by science).

But that doesn’t make the argument that carbohydrates are either necessary or beneficial in a feline diet. They are not.

This is a dishonest source who abuses the principles of science to advance his own agenda.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Has anyone else noticed that while cats are “obligate carnivores” that pet food companies never-the-less load up commercial cat “food” with carbohydrates? WTF?

Neither cats nor dogs have any dietary need for carbohydrates in their diets.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@JS, I wondered if the Calcium to Phosphorus mineral balance might be different for a cat food vs a dog food, but it isn’t. There are some dog foods, like Victors Ultra Pro, that have higher protein and fat percentages (42/22) which is a decided positive, despite the misinformation you are getting from some sources.

I feed my dog a PMR style raw diet. No Carbs. Best thing ever. Better teeth, better coat, better energy (while also calm), great muscle mass with no body fat.

Cats fed PMR eat exactly the same way dogs do, with the exception being that cats need an adequate source of dietary taurine (as they can’t synthesize their own). I feed regular amounts of taurine-rich beef heart in any case to my dog.

I can’t say (having never investigated the question) whether there are any nutrients in cat food that are not balanced for dogs. I’d want to do due diligence on that question.

But the idea that cat food is too high in protein and fat is a total falsehood. The fewer carbs in the diet the better. Carbs add no essential nutrients to a canine diet. None. They also don’t belong in a feline diet.

Bill

[Spy Car]

It is utter nonsense that a dog food can the “too high in fat and protein.” The truth is that fats and proteins are what canines were shaped by evolution to consume as an optimal diet and–in contrast–carbohydrates are non-essential, not “natural,” and are detrimental to health.

Carbohydrates are in dog foods for only two reasons:

1) Because the cereal-making machinery that was converted to produce dog food requires a substantial amount starch in the manufacturing process.

2) Feeding carbs (and plant-based proteins) reduces costs to producers and increases profits.

But there are no essential nutrients in carbohydrates. None.

Dogs who are fed fat as a primary energy source have much higher stamina than dogs fed a high carb kibble diet.

Some folks who admit not having expertise in these matters sure seem to like putting out false information.

Bill

[Spy Car]

As Haleycookie recommends, I hand fed when my pup was very young (we also started at 8 weeks), but by 6 months he was a pro at chewing bone. But whatever it takes.

Raw chicken bones (even frozen) are not nearly hard enough to damage teeth. It will make a dog chew.

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Feed bigger pieces and/or feed the bone-in pieces frozen, which should maximize chewing.

Don’t feed trolls.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Oh, a disgruntled ex-employee. Got it 🙂

I did try to watch it… couldn’t tolerate more than a few minutes. Didn’t make sense, based on my knowledge and experience.

If you choose to believe it, good luck.

Now you are inventing things? The guy was the head of AAFCO. Now you claim without evidence that he’s a disgruntled ex-employee? LOL. Why state deliberate falsehoods.

Hard to watch a few minutes of a 43-second video. LOL.

Your veracity isn’t being helped here.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Reese B,

I feed my dog meat, organs, soft-edible bone, fish, eggs, and other animal-based products in PMR style ratios.

Bill

[Spy Car]

The official in the video is a former head of AAFCO.

Obviously, anon101, you didn’t watch the video, yet you brand it “propaganda” sight unseen.

LOL.

Bill

[Spy Car]

The vet is putting you on the wrong track IMO.

You are using one of the best kibbles available (despite my strong preference for PMR raw, as a disclaimer).

Other formulas are going to increase calories from carbohydrates which is a huge negative and will directly de-condition your dog as a result of the dietary change.

The “only working dogs require protein” argument is a fallacy.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Here is what AAFCO allows in dog food: Fluffy.

Bill

[Spy Car]

The AAFCO feeding trials only require 8 dogs. 2 of whom can be dropped (say what?).

Six dogs need to survive 6 months. Not drop more than 15% of body weight and pass blood tests. Big deal.

These trials are no guarantees a dog food is healthful, much less optimal.

All it provides is a false sense of security.

Bill

[Spy Car]

It isn’t like “grain” is a positive in canine diets. If there is a problem with feeding legumes, the answer isn’t to feed grain. It is to stop feeding legumes.

This isn’t a binary choice. Suggesting otherwise is a false dichotomy.

Bill

[Spy Car]

AAFCO standards are a joke. The purpose is to give the illusion that there is is a regulating authority when in fact AAFCO allows the most appalling practices (and ingredients) imaginable.

AAFCO doesn’t ensure quality food. Quite to the contrary. This is a group that’s in the hands of the pet food industry to provide a fig-leaf for very bad practices.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hate to tell you but meeting AAFCO standards says virtually nothing. Food trials only need to keep dogs alive for a short time frame with no serious repercussions, and a fair number of dogs are allowed to drop out. Almost meaningless.

I will beg to differ with Anon 101 on the quality of USDA meats that are approved for human consumption vs the contaminated/condemned products that are completely legal and AAFCO allowed diseased, downed, dying and dead animals that are allowed to be rendered into dog food. AAFCO standard even allows rendering dead dogs and cats for dog food.

Bill

[Spy Car]

I’ve had a veterinary healthcare professional (in real life) that has examined my dog. That vet gives my dog glowing reports on his condition and has ruled out periodontal disease.

One of main reasons for the lack of activity here, in my opinion, is the disrespect shown towards those who have reasoned raw feeding makes sense. Especially when things like the superior condition of dogs teeth when they are fed PMR vs kibble is plainly evident.

To be told we are “silly and boring,” that nothing we say should be read seriously, or that our views are unscientific is grating. You claim to “sincerely hope I didn’t offend anyone” while being insulting in the extreme.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Aimee,

Thanks for the laugh. I do my part for canine health by having my dog get regular exams. My traditional (and very outstanding) vet is exceedingly happy with my Vizsla’s condition.

She is particularly complimentary of my dog’s dental health. It stands in very marked contrast with what she generally sees, and she’s said as much.

And yes, in answer to your question, our vet does thoroughly probe and measure the space between the teeth and the gums looking for any pockets and does a thorough exam of the gums. She says the results couldn’t be more outstanding. There is no sign of periodontal disease.

You are defending a type of feeding where there is massive evidence of a problem. At the same time, you attempt to suggest that those who are feeding diets that promote good dental health (which is clear and demonstrable) are unscientific in their reasoning and you are not. LOL.

It is topsy-turvy, I’m afraid.

I don’t think self-funded studies started by self-selected individuals are the way science works. LOL.

In the meantime, I chose to believe my own eyes. There is no comparison (and I mean none) between the dental health of PMR fed dogs and kibble fed dogs. All the greenies in the world won’t change that.

We already know that 70-80% of kibble-fed dogs have periodontal disease by the time they are THREE. THREE YEARS OLD. That is a horrifying statistic and it can only get worse as dogs become seniors.

Sorry, but you are attempting to defend a losing proposition.

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Hi Aimee,

I think that it is you who had made the classic mistake. You take the absence of evidence as evidence. That is not a valid approach.

Unfortunately, veterinary studies are almost always funded by pet food companies and they have no interest in proving the superiority of a PMR diet in maintaining healthy teeth vs a commercial diet. So there are no studies.

Many will then attempt to argue that “there are no studies that show…” as if that proves anything (when all it shows are lack of studies).

Meanwhile, there are many thousands of well-networked PMR feeders who raise dogs, see with their own eyes all the advantages (which include, but are not limited to, cleaner teeth) and we take our dogs to veterinarians for examinations and get great reports on oral health.

In contrast, 70-80% of kibble fed dogs have periodontal disease by the time they are three. Three-years-old. And it only gets worse. Feeding kibble diet is a virtual guarantee of developing periodontal disease.

It is not the case with a PMR diet. We don’t see that in our community. A community made up of avid dog trainers and some of the most experienced handlers of elite canine athletes. People who know dogs.

It is not true that dogs with periodontal disease won’t show signs as all one need to do is look at the gums for signs of inflammation and health to have a pretty good clue.

The “studies” you referred to are not relevant.

As to tooth damage or tooth wear, it is certainly possible to cause wear or fractures/breakages by feeding hard weight-bearing bones from large animals. That’s why many PMR feeders (like myself) advocate for eliminating so-called “recreational” bones from the diet.

Soft-edible bones (like chicken bones) virtually eliminate both risks to teeth and impactions issues, but anti-raw activists like to focus on items I personally don’t feed as if that’s the only option.

Of course, the visible portion of the tooth is whiter in PMR fed dogs. It is the same at the gum line and below. My vet confirms this at examination time. No hint of the periodontal disease most kibble fed dogs have at his age.

I’m afraid that the improper use of non-germaine studies and the error of the absence of evidence as evidence has put you on the wrong side of gauging the reality of the dental health of kibble-fed dogs vs PMR fed dogs. You are simply dead wrong on the issue.

Feeding a PMR diet using soft-edible bones (while avoiding risky weight-bearing bones) maximizes canine dental health. The alternative virtually guarantees periodontal disease.

There are few areas in dog rearing, canine nutrition and health where the contrast between the dreadful consequences of kibble-feeding and a PMR diet is starker. Yet you attempt to accuse me of a non-scientific worldview? Please. Spare me.

You are on the wrong side of all the very clear evidence.

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Again, a PMR diet does NOT include vegetables that contain carbohydrates and that negatively impact dental health.

PMR dogs fed soft edible bones are not at risk of tooth breakage and wear.

These are twisted arguments that don’t apply.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Aimee, these are apples and oranges comparisons.

There is no quantified measure of what’s called “varying degrees of periodontal disease” in the Foxhounds study and the risks of tooth injury and wear present in the Foxhound study and the Wild African dog (LOL) study is why smart PRM feeders feed their dogs soft edible bone (like chicken bones) that are very gentle on teeth and present a near-zero risk of tooth breakage as opposed to whole animal carcases of animals like antelopes or cattle.

So the point of comparison on tooth damage is a false one. Nothing is worse than cherry-picked science to promote fear-mongering.

Anyone with a brain can see the dramatic differences in dental hygiene and tooth health between a dog eating a PMR diet with 10% soft-edible bone in its diet and those of a kibble fed dog. There is no comparison.

PMR fed dogs are common. There is no need to reach for skulls in museums for African wild dogs to fairly compare a PMR diet with kibble diets in companion dogs.

That said, the African wild dogs had about half the incidence of periodontal disease compared with three-year-old kibble fed dogs (and three is a shockingly young age for a 70-80% incidence rate). One can presume the incidence rate only goes up for kibble fed dogs as their ages advance. How old were the African wild dog skulls in the museums? LOL.

IMO these arguments are a misuse of scientific studies. The benefits of a PMR diet with soft edible bone are as plain as day. As is the atrocious rate of periodontal disease in kibble fed dogs.

No comparison.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Skeptvet, who often plays fast and loose with the truth, at least acknowledges in an article linked above that 70-80% of dogs have periodontal disease by the age of three. That’s appalling.

What he leaves out is that this outrageous condition is directly related to the junk-food diets that commercial pet-food companies market as dog “food.”

Dogs fed PRM style diets with 10% soft-edible bone have clean healthy teeth unlike kibble fed dogs who almost all develop serious dental problems.

It is all in the unnatural carbohydrate-based diets they consume.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Feed him a Prey Model Raw diet. He will love it and be much healthier as a result.

A dog who refuses to eat so-called “dog food” is a smart dog. Dogs were not shaped by evolution to eat a cereal-based diet.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@RottieMom, I don’t think anyone believes that feeding a dog massive amounts of low quality (low nutritional value, low calorie) food is as kind to their digestive tracts as feeding smaller portions of high-density foods.

Moving a lot of filler is hard on dog’s GI tracts and the evidence is in the copious production of stinky poop.

I hope you find an answer that works for you. Observing the scat gives pretty good clues about food choices.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@ Phyllis L, what are you doing to provide the calcium requirements in your dog’s diet?

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Patricia A, the article is misinformed. You want a raw diet with high fat and protein, No carbs. No plant products. 10% edible bone, 10% organs.

Calories from fat should be in the 50-60% range *remembering fat has 2.25 times the calories per gram than protein (or carbs).

When you get a dog off carbs they metabolize fat as their primary energy source, and do so with great efficiency. Far metabolism proves steady and almost unlimited energy and improves a dog’s aerobic capacity in a dramatic fashion.

The fat in a balanced raw diet is necessary and healthful.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Driving up carbohydrates (which is what so-called “lite” or “weight reduction” formulas do), is the worst thing you can do for a dog, especially one who is a senior or who need weight loss.

Better to drive down carbs and to reduce the total calories. When cutting calories it is vital to cut non-essential calories (canines have no essential need for carbohydrates) and to retain essential nutrients from protein and fat.

Counterintuitively, dogs metabolize fats with great efficiency. Carbs pack weight on dogs and cut their vitality. Fat metabolism increases stamina and vitality.

The marketing gurus are convincing people to do the exact opposite of what’s good for senior and overweight pets. There is a lot of profit in selling cereals as dog food. Don’t fall for it.

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@RottieMom, it is notoriously hard on dog’s GI tracts to process large amounts of low quality and low calorie processed foods that are mostly plant-based ingredients and/or carbohydrates.

As a species, the kibble diet is a very unnatural one for dogs. And the capacity to process carbohydrates is unevenly distributed among the dog population.

My very active Vizsla eats meat, organs, and edible bones. Not a huge amount (since the meals are nutrient dense and bioavailable. He has no need to process “fillers” since there are none in his diet. In consequence, his stools are very small and well-formed and look almost like they come from a different species. They look more like wild-animal scat compared to the loose and huge plops of poop left by kibble fed dogs.

Unfortunately, most kibble formulas include a lot of low-nutrient “stuff” that a dog has to pass through its GI tract with little or no benefit and with a lot of downsides. This is very rough on dogs and harder on some than others.

I trust that you will get a lot of contradictory advice on this thread. I’m telling you the benefits I’ve seen feeding dogs as nature intended vs the cereal-based commercial diets that large marketing efforts have convinced too many of us to accept as “normal” when it is in fact not in the interest of our canine companions.

You will have to use your own inner-intelligence to weight the options.

Best.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Tara H, I’d make doubly sure the issue isn’t giardia or other similar issues. Likewise, I’d want to know there is no issue with the pancreatic tests that have been run.

Assuming there are no issues, I’d either move to a PRM raw diet (my strong preference) or move to a mushers-type formula that minimizes carbs as much as possible (for a kibbled diet).

Victors brand, which you’ve tried, has a formula called Ultra Pro which is 44/22 (protein/fat) that minimizes carbs and is high calorie (so you can feed less food). Aside from having to process too much carb-waste, the other main food-related cause of diarrhea is eating too great a volume of food. Smaller portions of high-density foods (with less or no non-essential carbs) is kinder to a dog’s GI tract.

I would rule out any vet issues.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Moving to an even lower protein (and lower fat) food is just going to drive up the calories from carbohydrates, which is the worst option for any dog (but particularly a puppy).

Better to drive the carbohydrates down as much as possible (zero being best).

Bill

[Spy Car]

Is it dangerous to eat dry kibble? It may contain harmful bacteria.

It also may (and almost assuredly does) contain ingredients that have been condemned by USDA inspectors and/or comes from dead, dying, diseased, or downed animals.

The laws allow pet-food companies to put dead dogs into dog food kibble for Cripes sake.

Many people get sick after handling kibble every year. Many dogs have been killed due to foul contaminants in pet “food.”

Dogs are not people. They handle raw food very well.

Please stop the nonsense.

Bill

• This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

AAFCO rules allow for condemned animal parts, and those from dead, downed, and diseased animals (including dead pets) to be used in kibble, so long as the foul ingredient are first rendered.

It is hilarious that you are tying to suggest human quality food items that have passed USDA inspections are more dangerous than the vile ingredients legally used in dog kibble. LOL.

Please stop this nonsense.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Zombie thread. Never too late to spam a raw feeding subforum with scare tactics and misinformation.

Hilarious when one considers the number of dog’s killed by tainted dog food every year.

Why do the Admins allow such trolling?

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hey Sweet Pea, unfortunately, this forum has a dedicated anti-raw member who uses scare tactics to dissuade people from feeding the obviously best and most healthful diet for dogs.

The link to Skeptic Vet is full of easily debunked nonsense. But it gets posted in every thread as spam.

People get sick from Salmonella as a result of handling kibble all the time. People feeding raw need to follow the same precautions they do when handling raw meat for their families.

Raw feeding is pretty easy to do DIY. Bu following the prey model (80% meat/5% liver/5% other secreting organs/10 soft-edible bone) all a dog’s nutritional needs get met.

The difference in condition between a raw fed dog and a kibble fed dog are dramatic. A PRM diet will help clean up the teeth. You probably still need a dental vet check up as 60% of kibble fed dogs develop periodontal disease as a result of a high carb kibble diet. A kibble diet is hell on teeth.

PMR fed dogs have sparkling white teeth. My 4+ year old Vizsla (raw fed from 8 weeks) has zero tartar or plaque. Typical of PMR dogs.

Carbohydrates (which all kibbles abound in, but Science Diet takes to an extreme) are junk calories. They provide no essential nutrients.

You seem to understand intrinsically what your dog needs. Provide it in the right balance and you will see a transformation take place. In contrast, kibble is junk food.

Go with your intelligence on not marketing and scare tactics.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

I’ve seen these 2 strategies work for many (many) dogs. One will almost always do the trick.

If the frozen trick works out, feeding gets that much easier. No thawing.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

Sometimes it is a texture thing. Many dogs who are averse to organs will eat them frozen or semi-frozen.

If it is only a “smell” thing (vs a texture thing), I’d advise only giving a light sear to change the nose, but not fully cooking the organ, if possible. It could take a process of more cooked, to progressive less seared, to raw.

Precutting fresh organs into 10% of the daily diet-sized pieces and then individually freezing the pieces can make one’s life easier (assuming the frozen tip works).

Bill

[Author]

Posts