Dog Forum banner

61 - 80 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,331 Posts
I've fed raw, home cooked, kibble that most here would say are high quality. Right now, one of my dogs is on an Rx food for joint mobility. She is doing fantastic on it, and it is really helping her arthritic hock. This week I actually switched brands from the Purina J/M to Royal Canin Mobility Support. Its only been about a week, and I'm trying not to be too hopeful, but it appears this is a step up in effectiveness (It has green lipped mussel powder, supposed to be very good for joints) and I am seeing Tessa being more active and less sore by evening time. Fingers crossed I'm not imagining it! We'll know for sure in a few weeks.

A veterinarian who put me on to this food says she had her first "aha moment" about Rx foods for joint issues with a case early in her career. The dog was a 1 year old St. Bernard with such bad hip dysplasia she could hardly make it to the end of the driveway to go with her owner to get the mail. A month on the RC Mobility support and the dog was running laps at the dog park. This vet says she has seen many other successful cases since this one, but the first one made such an unforgettable impression for her.

By the way, the vet who clued me in to RC Mobility Support I "met" here on DF and she used to be an active poster. Her name here is "mythbuster"... some of you may remember her. :)

Its such an ironic thing because two years ago you could not have paid me enough to feed my dog Royal Canin anything, and now, despite what I once "knew" was true (RC is terrible!), I have to believe my own eyes about how my dog is doing. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,819 Posts
I think that most regular posters on DF know about dog food, know about the fillers that are in it, know that home cooking or a raw diet is health and may be healthiest for the dog (depends on if the diet is done correctly. We know that it's best to feed a dog the best quality food that you can and that the dog does well on.

Not everyone who comes on DF is a regular poster, we get a lot of one or handful of time posters, we get many more people who simply lurk and never post. I've lost count of the number of posters coming on here saying they feed Beneful, Purina, Iams, Pedigree, etc., heck I was feeding Pedigree when I first joined DF. Those are the posters that I, at least, try to reach with informative post, whether those post are nutrition, health, or behavioral, related. I tend to go back to basics unless the poster is one who obviously has a good working knowledge of the subject they are posting about. As an example there was a recent thread by someone who was trying to decide on a different food, she mentioned Beneful and Science Diet. I let her know that if those were her only two choices to please avoid the Beneful that not only was it loaded with things like corn, it was also loaded with dyes which could cause allergic reactions in dogs. She may have already known that and been going "duh!!!" but someone else lurking the thread may have not.

Please continue posting things that regular or more informed posters and lurkers may see and think "DUH!!!" about. We all had to start somewhere and some of us, and I include myself in that, started pretty far down the dog ownership ladder. If people hadn't taken the time to post those most already know this post we never would have learned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazy

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
As a societally labelled "hippie" and someone going to school for biology, the whole "GMO" scare is highly overblown. Many GMOs are actually better for you both due to nutrient increase, easier digestibility, and control against crop disease that could get you sick.

The main issue with GMOs are the pest-resistant ones due to risk of population explosion and potential invasion. GMO plants should be contained until more research is done, but I definitely support the making of them. They're currently developing GM roots larger and more nutritious for arid countries where starvation and lack of water is high. Golden rice also assists in getting people nutrients they need on a lower budget. They're making bananas that can carry the hepatitis B vaccine, and having worked in care systems with people who have hep B I know that this really excites me. My school is the leading body of genetic modification in an attempt to bring back the American Chestnut and so far has had exciting results, as all other attempts without GM replace about 50% of the genes with the Chinese chestnut.

We lack long-term data on the health effects of GMOs, but personally I see eating processed food contained in aluminum and plastic packaging as a much higher risk for any type of carcinogens. You're exposed to carcinogens everywhere: your car exhaust, your perfume, your deodorant, that box of frozen pizza. With no long-term data on GMOs being terrible for mammals (ecosystems can be another story) I rather take advantage of them and focus on what I KNOW is bad for me, there's more than enough of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
GMO could be partially the answer to world food supplies as they are more resistant to crop diseases. I will happily eat GMO and so will my future dog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kelly528

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
GMO could be partially the answer to world food supplies as they are more resistant to crop diseases. I will happily eat GMO and so will my future dog.
Don't know where you found this info, but BT corn is already breeding BT resistant corn ear worms & round up ready stuff is already getting roundup resistant weeds. So much so on the RR crops that Monsanto is breeding 2-4-D resistant crops & planning to market them so farmers can use the herbicide we did away with in the name of safety. Using stuff like this only creates new problems. Anything I have read has also said most grains have less nutrition then old time crops. We are raising more food with less nutrition. JMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
It is unfortunate that the OP has used such an alarmist tone, as I do think most of what she is saying has quite a bit of validity.

As someone with a biology background, I am not terribly concerned about the genetic make-up of GMO foods. I am VERY concerned about how those crops are raised and the economic dilemma they create for farmers. The vast majority of GMO products are "Round-up ready" crops. These crops are managed by aerial spraying of round-up (glyphosate) over the entire field, several times per season. Glyphosate when ingested has been proven to cause inflammation and eventually cancer. Glyphosate and it's break down products apparently do not dissipate much with cooking or over time. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that they could cause inflammation that would lead to a food allergy. I also find it abhorrent to manage weeds by aerial spraying. Eventually the weeds will adapt and these GMOs will need to be modified to accept a more toxic chemical if this form of crop cultivation is to be continued.

I also agree that both humans and dogs are not well adapted for eating the large amounts of carbohydrates that we do now. We only began eating this way about 10,000 years ago, which is a very short time frame for evolution. Blood sugar instability, leading to diabetes, runs in my family, and both of my sisters have had excellent results from eating a very low carbohydrate diet. They are now quite slim and very healthy. Though anecdotal, this information has led me to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about a good diet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
My contention with GMO's is more environmental. In the natural world, you never get something for nothing. While on paper engineering more nutritious plants is a good thing (though, in terms of "feeding the world," it's not a question of supply, it's distribution and poverty), where is that extra energy going to come from in the environment?
I don't see how engineering a plant with a higher vitamin content doesn't represent larger drains on soil resources, and in areas with already poor soil what sort of long-term consequences can we expect? Is this actually sustainable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
I don't think eating the large amount of processed (energy dense, nutrient poor, very low fiber) starches/sugars that we do now is good for us, but it's not really fair to say that we haven't adapted. Being able to digest starch at all is the adaptation, not necessarily how well we do so :).
FWIW, I also think that it's not only the volume of processed food itself, but that that volume of processed food necessitates a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables. I don't think starches are inherently bad for us (especially those higher in fiber/protein/vitamins) unless they come at the price of other nutrient rich produce.

Evolution only cares about us getting to breeding age healthy enough to reproduce to pass on our respective traits.

There's an interesting (though a little condescending) book I'm reading right now called "Paleofantasy" that, among other things, talks at length on how rapid evolution can be and how imperfect it is. Evolution isn't leading anything to an optimal design that is being continuously honed to a peak of perfection. Every adaptation is a balancing act, a tradeoff, and a direct response to its current environment and selection pressure.
E.g bipedalism: great for long distance locomotion and heat exchange, kindof a mess for childbirth and spine disorders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
@militantanimist--I always appreciate your take on things! Of course I disagree on the subject of carbohydrates. Yes, we do have the enzymes necessary (as well as do dogs), but it is a matter of proportion and type of carbohydrate. Not only that what we eat is lacking in nutrients, but that we should be getting a much higher proportion of calories from protein and fat. And dogs obviously can survive and thrive on almost zero carbohydrates. In times of scarcity, it is handy to have that enzyme that enables us to ingest many foods. But if we are trying to live past our allotted time, we need an optimum diet. (of course I am eating carrot cake as I type this!)

If anyone is interested in the subject of gyphosate in our food supply (from GMO foods), this overview links to an interesting study:

Roundup's reach: Present in all tested human and animal samples -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

As well as the glyphosate/cancer link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
@pappi pup: well thank you :)
I'm also going to have to disagree (just a bit) but that's ok too. And now I also wish I had carrot cake :p

Our cells run on glucose. We can get that from carbs (easy) or protein (harder). Our cells can also run on keytones (fat) but our bodies preference glucose and long term ketogenic studies have yet to be done.
I will certainly agree that we in North America are getting far too much of our glucose from white starches and sugars, when we should be getting them from whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables (fruits and veg are carbs too!).
I'm not a fan of the whole low fat craze (healthy fats are so important!) but we are still getting too much bad fat (certain polyunsaturated and hydrogenated vegetable oils) and bad protein (confinement animal protein and unfermented grains/legumes). So, I agree that we should be getting more good fats and proteins, but fats and proteins as categories aren't lacking in our diet by any means.

It's also true that grains in their raw form are difficult for our digestive system (as are many wild plants) but almost every culture has developed fermentation/sprouting/soaking practices to make them more bioavailable and disable their gut-irritating defence mechanisms.

Also, it's important to remember that there is no such thing as "the ideal human diet." We are far too geographically and genetically varied for that to be the case, and despite our best efforts, we know very little about the diets of ancestral man. Only suppositions.
In terms of modern man, the longest living populations (Japanese and Mediterranean) have diets rich in seafood, forraged greens and sea vegetables . . . and grains. :) But genetics play a very strong role here as well, to be sure.

I'd love to keep talking about this (I'm so into food!) but I feel like I'm in danger of derailing :p Let me know if I should start a new thread?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Honestly don't care.

I've fed my dogs with 'commercial pet food kibble' for the past twenty or more years. None of my dogs have died before the age of 14, irrespective of breed, and were fit and healthy all their lives.

My current dog eats a top end kibble, looks fantastic on it and is fit enough to run for miles. His food has no colours or artificial preservatives ( unlike the rubbish I feed myself with) but other than that I don't concern myself with the content.

Can't see what the issue is here. If I'm ill-informed then, thank goodness, cos I'd hate to know all this stuff to worry about.

PS. Apologies to all out there with dogs with allergies, etc. If I were in your situation then obviously my opinion might be different.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
Honestly don't care.

I've fed my dogs with 'commercial pet food kibble' for the past twenty or more years. None of my dogs have died before the age of 14, irrespective of breed, and were fit and healthy all their lives.

My current dog eats a top end kibble, looks fantastic on it and is fit enough to run for miles. His food has no colours or artificial preservatives ( unlike the rubbish I feed myself with) but other than that I don't concern myself with the content.

Can't see what the issue is here. If I'm ill-informed then, thank goodness, cos I'd hate to know all this stuff to worry about.

PS. Apologies to all out there with dogs with allergies, etc. If I were in your situation then obviously my opinion might be different.
Linda apology accepted and i can totally understand where your coming from. If my brother had his way he would give ozzy pedigree! As long as my dogs eat a high quality food with meat and veges im good. Jessie cant and she is mine she is on RC anallergenic (NZ recipe) and omg her coat i adore atm so so soft and smooth and silky! must be the RC anallergenic! her skin is also clearing up massively!

Yes im sure you would care if your dog had allergies as then you really do study ingredients as to what could be the allergy. still not worked out if Jess allergic to grains yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linda Hazel

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Ref: the GM thing....here in UK one of the main concerns is that GM crops will wipe out the more "native"/non-GM versions. Then if GM goes wrong, for any unforseen reason, we will have lost the ability to back-track.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I agree that lots of the stuff about GMOs is alarmist, but there are some troubling studies about the impact of chronic glyphosphate use Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans
and Don Huber has made dramatic claims about the long term effects of it on the reproductive health of livestock, though I have yet to see any publications from one of the scientists he is working with. I also used to think that the lengths companies would go to to stifle research questioning pesticides, etc., was overblown, but this article is compelling, and the source is certainly reputable:
Rachel Aviv: The Scientist Who Took on a Leading Herbicide Manufacturer : The New Yorker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
When did I ever use those terms interchangeably? I know I mentioned organic and pasture-raised together, but I never said they were the same.. what I was getting at is that organic and/or pasture raised are preferred over conventionally-raised meat. When did I show signs of confusing homemade with commercial, or GMO with organic, ect?

And I can read food labels just fine, thank you. I've researched my ingredients, and I've learned of the meanings behind all of the stickers, seals, symbols, phrases, claims, and whatnot. Turns out most of those claims don't mean much, particularly "all-natural," and so you're better off buying your food at a farmer's markets

Blue Buffalo, for example, is deemed as a top-quality dog food. Yet some of its products contain ingredients like canola oil (likely GMO), non-organic vegetables (sprayed with pesticides and herbicides), caramel (straight-up sugar), synthetic vitamins, and non-pastured and non-organic meat sources that likely came from factory farms (possibly fed hormones/antibiotics/GMO feed). Sounds like there's some toxins hankering around in there to me. But if you so strongly disagree, then so be it.

You know, you keep accusing me of saying things that I never actually said, and with that you're trying to undermine everything I say, and that's just not fair. You say you're "extremely practiced in reading comprehension." Well then why do you struggle so much to understand the points I am trying to lay across? No one here has showed as much difficulty as you have, and none of them claim to be "extremely practiced."

I didn't come here to argue over minor grammatical technicalities. If you have something to offer the conversation from a scientific aspect, then please do. The more learning that goes on, the better. I'm always open to new info or ways of thinking if there is good science to back it up. But grammar, really? This isn't an English class

I came here with the intention to help inform. And if not on the dangers of dog food, then at least about the dangers of GMOs. I'm new here, so how was I supposed to know that most people here have already done "extensive research" on their pet's diet? Most people I know, including myself at one point, didn't even know that there was a significant difference between brands of dog food except for price. And I had to learn the hard way.
But wow, you just keep making me feel sorry for even trying. With that, I'll take my leave. You can go ahead and butcher what I (never) said in this last post, too.
Blue Buffalo has actually helped improve my dog, thank you. And maybe if you had posted that GMOs don't affect all dogs (or my dog, at least) you might not have scared everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
If it comes into contact with a nutrient, does it explode?
No silly, they balance each other, for we cant have NUTRIENTS without ANTI-NUTRIENTS, or else the world and the universe itself would collapse in on itself into one super massive black hole! :rofl:

But really, all joking aside. The food I feed is made here in the USA from 100% USA grown ingredients and animals by a local plant in my state that is owned by the company who makes the food. My food is grain free so there are no GMO grains to be had anyway. Of course no one can know for sure just what goes into making kibble, but as long as there is nothing in the ingredients that is harmful to them, then I consider that a win.

Feeding raw isn't for everyone, not every dog does well on it, and not every owner (me for example) has the time, or the room (I have 4 dogs here and would need an entire separate chest freezer for the amount of food I would need!). I do give them raw bones for their teeth every once and a while though. So Sorry, but I guess I will just be forced to continue being cruel to my dogs by feeding them kibble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
Yes, you've got that right. It's quite unfair, isn't it? If anything, Monsanto should pay the farmer for loss of non-GMO crop. But as of late, I've been hearing of some success stories where judges ruled in favor of the farmers, so that's a good sign :)
Yes I do remember seeing a documentary on the PIVIT channel about how if organic farmers' crops are cross pollinated by GMO crops, than they become one one Monsanto's farmers whether they want to or not :/ it also mentioned other things that were very enlightening. I try not to buy anything made by Monsanto and I encourage others to do the same.

I also wish I lived near a Whole foods still but I don't :(
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Top