Last Batch of Frontline Lost Effectiveness in a Week
jl
with fleas. They are getting them from the doggie park.
Anybody else having this experience? That damn stuff is too expensive
to waste money on.
Shelly
"jl" <jls...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6c22aeb3-e503-4ddc...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I've found Frontline to be useless for flea control where I live. I
assume, because the fleas are resistant to it. But, it can also be a
matter of improper application. Are you bathing the dogs before
applying Frontline? The coat needs time to redevelop it's normal level
of oil, so I'd wait 7-10 days after a bath to put any sort of top spot
flea treatment on the dog. And, even though Frontline is water
resistant, I'd wait a week or so after applying before bathing, just to
make sure it had a chance to distribute properly.
You can also ask your vet about alternatives, since the product is not
working for you.
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
Phyrie
"Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote in message
news:gdq45k$qh4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Are you bathing the dogs before
> applying Frontline? The coat needs time to redevelop it's normal level of
> oil, so I'd wait 7-10 days after a bath to put any sort of top spot flea
> treatment on the dog. And, even though Frontline is water resistant, I'd
> wait a week or so after applying before bathing, just to make sure it had
> a chance to distribute properly.
>
....
Really, Shelley? I'm using Advantage, and I bathe Kiba either the day of,
or the day before I apply it, to avoid washing it off. Kiba does have some
itching issues that we treated with steroids last month. His itchy cycle
seems to be broken, and now that the colder weather is getting here, I hope
whatever he is allergic to is gone for the winter. But your statement has
me wondering if I'm not contributing to Kiba's itchiness. I'll ask the vet,
but in the meantime, do you have a basis for your statement? Other than
it's common-senseness, of course! :-D
I have noticed this late summer and early fall, the fleas are HORRIBLE, and
Kiba seems to need a re-application of Advantage about every three weeks
instead of four. My vet says that's OK, and he concurs that this year's
flea infestation is really, really bad. At least, it sure is up here on the
West Coast. He said 5 out of 6 dogs he sees in clinic are there for fleas.
--
Phyrie
Kiba the Cav's Pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phyrie/sets/72157602686758930/detail/
Shelly
news:gdqrgb$n1c$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
> Really, Shelley? I'm using Advantage, and I bathe Kiba either the
> day of, or the day before I apply it, to avoid washing it off.
Frontline and Advantage are not the same product. They have totally
different active ingredients, and as far as I know, they may have
different modes of action.
Frontline works by being absorbed into the dog's oil glands, then
secreted and distributed with the dog's natural coat oils. So if you
strip away those oils, you strip away the product. More will be
distributed as the dog secretes more coat oils, which is why
Frontline is "waterproof," but if you bathe too frequently, you will
reduce the ability of the product to work.
> do you have a basis for your statement?
Well, I wasn't talking about Advantage. The package insert for
Advantabe Multi (couldn't find one online for plain Advantage) says
not to bathe or immerse the dog in water for at least four days after
treatment. It also says that bathing as often as once weekly will
reduce the product's efficacy for killing fleas.
Phyrie
Thanks for replying. We only bathe once a month if we can, barring any
"incidences" that require more bathing. I did read the Advantage insert,
and had decided that bathing before, so as not to need to after, was the way
to go.
I didn't realize that the two products were completely different. I just
thought, same delivery, same drug, different company sort of thing. My vet
advises Advantage for the reasons you state above i.e. it's not absorbed by
the dog, but remains on the skin.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
jl
> about it?
>
> i hear that in some places, frontline isn't working anymore, and the
> vets there recommend a switch to some of the other flea meds coming
> out- comfortis, promeris, etc. where i live, it still seems to be
> working fine.
>
> if you haven't treated your house, make sure that you do so. adult
> fleas are just the tip of the iceberg in a flea population.
>
> --http://underdogged.net
> x-no-archive:yes in headers
We are in western NC. Just to be sure we didn't get a bad batch we
called the vet and he said go ahead and try another batch, and don't
bathe the doggies beforehand. (We don't bathe but once a month
anyway.) So we followed his instructions to the letter, as well as
meticulously following the instructions for application of the
Frontline. That means we applied a new batch of Frontline two weeks
after application of the previous batch.
Results: Another $50 wasted. Our babies are still infested with
fleas.
Either the parasites have developed a resistance or we got two bad
batches in a row. I have saved the Frontline containers and the sales
slip and we're going to demand a refund. We bought the Frontline at
Superpetz on Brevard Rd. in West Asheville. Dates on the packages
indicate they were fresh.
And yes, we treat our home with flea bombs while the babies are away.
Thank you kindly to everyone for your advice.
Delusional_Dimensions_Recovery_DDR
BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
IDIOT <{}: ~ ( >
"jl" <jls...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:e8e4ea17-967b-4fe5...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
jl
<Human_And_Animal_Behavior_Forensic_Sciences_Research_Laborat...@HotMail.Com>
wrote:
> BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
I see y'all got a keyboard goliath --- 120 lbs. soaking wet and 5'8"
tall with no arse and the IQ of an imbecile.
Btw, the babies are still infested with fleas. I am calling
Superpetz to demand money refunded and put them on notice that
Frontline is ineffective.
Groups trimmed. Have a nice day.
Spot
the flea cycle it only kills the current fleas. You need to use the
Frontline Plus which has a growth inhibitor and kills the fleas and stops
the eggs from developing into fleas.
Also quit taking them to the dog park if you know that's where you are
getting the fleas from.
Celeste
--
Save 25% or more on your eBay® auctions
Snipe eBay Auctions with Bidnip
http://www.bidnip.com/a.php?id=39019
"jl" <jls...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6c22aeb3-e503-4ddc...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Delusional_Dimensions_Recovery_DDR
On Oct 30, 10:10 am, "Delusional_Dimensions_Recovery_DDR"
<Human_And_Animal_Behavior_Forensic_Sciences_Research_Laborat...@HotMail.Com>
wrote:
>> BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
> I see y'all got a keyboard goliath --
Yeah. It comes with the TERRORtory <{}: ~ ) >
> - 120 lbs. soaking wet and 5'8" tall with no arse
Nope. Got WON RIGHT HERE <{}: ~ ) >
> and the IQ of an imbecile.
Yup...
> Btw, the babies are still infested with fleas.
Naaaaah??
Ever hear of coconut oil soap an water?
> I am calling Superpetz to demand money refunded
BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
> and put them on notice that frontline is ineffective.
AND TOXIC, to boot <{}: ~ ( >
> Groups trimmed.
Yeah. THAT'S my SPECIALTY <{}: ~ ) >
> Have a nice day.
TOLD YOU SO <{}: ~ ) >
BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
jl
> Did you use Frontline or Frontline Plus? Frontline itself does not break
> the flea cycle it only kills the current fleas. You need to use the
> Frontline Plus which has a growth inhibitor and kills the fleas and stops
> the eggs from developing into fleas.
>
> Also quit taking them to the dog park if you know that's where you are
> getting the fleas from.
>
> Celeste
>
> --
> Save 25% or more on your eBay® auctions
> Snipe eBay Auctions with Bidniphttp://www.bidnip.com/a.php?id=39019
>
>
> news:6c22aeb3-e503-4ddc...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Are fleas developing resistance? Three 8-lb. dogs -- each is covered
> > with fleas. They are getting them from the doggie park.
>
> > Anybody else having this experience? That damn stuff is too expensive
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was indeed Frontline Plus. We still have fleas though. $50 wasted.
Sharon Too
Please see below for Merial's guarantee and your options:
http://frontline.us.merial.com/products/products_guarantee.asp
If you are having difficulty achieving the level of flea or tick control
that you desire, please call our experts at 1-800-660-1842, 8 AM to 8 PM EST
(8 AM to 7 PM EST during winter months), Monday thru Friday.
If our experts are not able to offer acceptable solutions to your flea or
tick problem, you may be eligible for a one time Satisfaction Guarantee. You
must call the toll free number listed above in order to obtain a Case
Number. Guarantee requests submitted without Case Numbers will not be
processed.
Satisfaction Guarantee rules:
1. The Satisfaction Guarantee is only available for the most recent purchase
of a complete 3 pack or 6 pack of FRONTLINE Brand products. Purchase must
have been made within the last 12 months. You may receive either one
replacement package of the same FRONTLINE product purchased or a refund for
the purchase price. Taxes and shipping charges are not reimbursable.
2. Purchases of single doses will not be eligible for the Satisfaction
Guarantee.
3. An itemized, printed receipt for the purchase of FRONTLINE Brand products
must be submitted to Merial. The printed receipt must show the place of
purchase, the date of purchase, the product brand name, the amount of
product purchased and the purchase price.
4. Merial reserves the right to request original printed receipts to be
submitted by mail before a Satisfaction Guarantee will be processed.
5. If the pet owner's name appears on the printed receipt, the Satisfaction
Guarantee can only be processed for that individual.
6. All unused product and the box must be returned to Merial. Postage will
not be reimbursed.
7. Satisfaction Guarantee valid only on FRONTLINE Brand Products labeled for
sale in the United States.
8. Satisfaction Guarantee not valid in situations where FRONTLINE Brand
Products have not been used according to label directions.
9. One offer per household. Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing.
10. Because the flea lifecycle can vary from 2 weeks to 6 months, it may
take several monthly applications of FRONTLINE Brand products to break the
flea life cycle that has been established in the pet's environment.
Therefore, you are required to use one full dose of FRONTLINE Brand products
for 3 consecutive months on every cat and dog, 8 weeks of age and older, in
the household (indoor and outdoor) in order to be eligible for the
Satisfaction Guarantee.
11. FRONTLINE Brand Products that have been obtained free of charge are not
eligible for the Satisfaction Guarantee program.
12. Households with 6 or more animals are not eligible for the Satisfaction
Guarantee.
13. The Satisfaction Guarantee does not cover any other costs associated
with the control of fleas and ticks, nor does it cover medical expenses.
chardonnay9
It also poisons your pet! Don't wonder why dogs and cats are getting
such a tremendous cancer rate when they are exposed to all the chemicals.
I stopped using all that awhile back and I've been able to keep things
under control. Look into diatomaceous earth, nematodes, flea combs, even
using Dawn dish soap would be a large reduction in chemicals.
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/avictim.htm
Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you will have
terrible problems with allergies, hot spots, yeast infections, etc. It
is processed to the extreme, leaving no nutrition left which is why they
add vitamins and why pet suppliments is such a huge market.
Vets tend to just hide the symptoms instead of treating the underlying
cause. Steroids are not a solution and neither is Benadryl.
A well fed, raw fed dog is much more flea resistant and can save you
thousands in vet bills.
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you will have
>terrible problems with allergies,
Nope
>hot spots,
Nuh-uh.
>yeast infections,
Wrong-o
>etc.
Sorry!
>It
>is processed to the extreme, leaving no nutrition left
Words have meaning. Well, they used to, and some of us hold
out every hope that they might again. I can understand
wanting to feed your dog well and choosing a raw diet to do
it (even though you're at risk of malnourishing your dog if
you don't know what you're doing), but when you post stuff
that's hyperbolic in tone and just plain wrong on its facts,
you undermine your own argument. Badly.
All of which is a somewhat windy way of saying that you're
full of crap.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
Shelly
news:lvWdnS5uaoY_ZY_U...@earthlink.com...
> It also poisons your pet! Don't wonder why dogs and cats are getting
> such a tremendous cancer rate when they are exposed to all the
> chemicals.
In most cases, we don't know what causes cancer in pets, so blaming flea
topicals is ignorant.
> using Dawn dish soap would be a large reduction in chemicals.
Yes, because it's a well known fact that Dawn dish soap contains no
chemicals. WTF?!
> Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you will have
> terrible problems with allergies, hot spots, yeast infections, etc.
Funnily enough, millions of dogs do just fine on a kibble-only diet.
> A well fed, raw fed dog is much more flea resistant and can save you
> thousands in vet bills.
Or it can kill your dog, if you aren't careful. Raw food isn't a
magical cure-all.
Melinda Shore
Shelly <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote:
>Yes, because it's a well known fact that Dawn dish soap contains no
>chemicals. WTF?!
Chemicals contain *molecules*, and it is a well-known fact
that all carcinogens also contain molecules. Dawn dish
soap, on the other hand, was beamed in from the 17th
Dimension and is made up of light! Pretty, pretty light.
chardonnay9
> "chardonnay9" <chard...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lvWdnS5uaoY_ZY_U...@earthlink.com...
>
>> It also poisons your pet! Don't wonder why dogs and cats are getting
>> such a tremendous cancer rate when they are exposed to all the chemicals.
>
> In most cases, we don't know what causes cancer in pets, so blaming flea
> topicals is ignorant.
>
>> using Dawn dish soap would be a large reduction in chemicals.
>
> Yes, because it's a well known fact that Dawn dish soap contains no
> chemicals. WTF?!
I never said it didn't. It does. However, it's a bit less harmful than
topical flea products. You don't see problems like this from Dawn:
"please be careful when administering Flea and Tick meds. I applied
Frontline Top Spot (that i purchased from my Vet for the appropriate
size pet) I applied on a Sunday and by Tuesday my beloved 9lb Italian
Greyhound was so SICK. He was lethargic and not eating or drinking.
That progressed to Shaking uncontrollably and swaying while walking
almost like he was drunk. This went on for the longest 5 weeks of my
life. He was only a year old and my husband and I were so scared we
were going to lose him. After 2 emergency Vet visits and daily visits
to my local vet for IV fluids-Vets were baffled and very quick to
dismiss frontline as the cause. (see Merials kickback program) His
blood work and x rays were fine. Vets tried to say Pancreatitis and
then Shaker Dog syndrome but then they recanted. They just didnt know.
After doing much research-the chemical pesticide does go in the
central nervous system-merial needs to be accountable and people need to
be educated on putting this chemical on our dogs and cats. I will never
put any chemical on my dog again. Thank God He is fine now. We
suffered many unnecessary tears and much stress due to this. If I
thought I was going to harm him in any way I would NEVER have applied.
Thanks for listening. Michelle"
http://www.drweil.com/drw/ecs/forums/thread.html?docid=THR35009
I have a 6.5 year old, 95 pound German Shepherd/Newfie mix who
experienced a GM seizure
(for the first time that I was aware of) on Monday 4 June. Kodiak is at
home by himself during the
day except when some neighboring teenagers I've "hired" stop in after
school to exercise and
feed him.
After a visit to the ER vet on 4 June, no diagnosis could be found and
they suggested I have a
neurologist check him for a possible brain tumor. I also learned to my
surprise that a dog of that
size was considered geriatric at 6.5 yo. I left him overnight as his
behavior was still unusual,
including pacing around in circles. They gave him a bolus of glucose
and some charcoal as a
precaution.
Throughout the next week, he had a series of partial seizures -- some
seen by me and his afternoon
sitters. Who knows if there were more when nobody was around. Weakness
of the hindquarters,
lethargy, twitching mouth and splayed legs as he lost muscle control
were predominant symptoms.
This was all very distressing to watch and I brought him to another ER
vet on 11 June, where they
had neurologists on staff.
I'm now waiting on some tests to see if their theory of an insulinoma
can be validated. His blood
sugar was on the low side of normal which seemed to suggest an excessive
production of insulin
could be the culprit. An xray and ultrasound however did not show any
tumor in his pancreas area.
He's home with me as of 13 June on 30mg prednisone and being fed
frequent smaller meals per
day. So far everything looks fine, but clearly the prednisone is not a
long term solution.
I just found your web site and have been reading in fascination about
the symptoms documented
there. I had applied Frontline Plus for Dogs (89-132#) about a week
before Kodiak's GM seizure.
I see a definite cause and effect cycle! While I'd mentioned that to
both vets, it was dismissed as
not a cause. I will definitely be discussing the cases I've read about
here with my vet when they
call with the glucose/insulin ratio test results.
I'm about to bathe him in Dawn today as a further precaution. I've got
my fingers crossed that the
worst is over. I guess I'm wondering what to expect next if this is
indeed associated with the
Frontline Plus. I'm about 3 weeks into it now.
Carol 6/16/07
http://www.elversonpuzzle.com/biospotlettersv15.html
There are hundreds more just like this!
>
>> Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you will have
>> terrible problems with allergies, hot spots, yeast infections, etc.
>
> Funnily enough, millions of dogs do just fine on a kibble-only diet.
No they don't. They are carnivores and kibble is mostly grains. It's not
their natural diet and many problems are related to eating it that you
are most likely not aware of. My dogs never need their teeth cleaned for
instance.
>
>> A well fed, raw fed dog is much more flea resistant and can save you
>> thousands in vet bills.
>
> Or it can kill your dog, if you aren't careful. Raw food isn't a
> magical cure-all.
>
It can't kill your dog. It's what they were meant to eat!
Shelly
> I never said it didn't. It does. However, it's a bit less harmful than
> topical flea products.
So is plain water. It's not exactly an effective flea treatment,
though.
[snip]
> There are hundreds more just like this!
Are you intending to post them all?
> No they don't.
I'll believe my own eyes over your assertions, thanks.
So the dogs I have owned, and the dogs I see every day, are
> They are carnivores and kibble is mostly grains. It's not their
> natural diet and many problems are related to eating it that you are
> most likely not aware of.
You have no idea what I'm aware of.
> My dogs never need their teeth cleaned for instance.
Interesting. On a recent vet visit, my vet said my dogs teeth were some
of the nicest she'd ever seen. She's 9.5 years old, and her teeth have
never been cleaned. Wanna guess what she eats?
> It can't kill your dog. It's what they were meant to eat!
Lordy! It most certainly can. It might help, too, if you'd define
"raw."
Shelly
"Melinda Shore" <sh...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:geuv92$kjd$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Chemicals contain *molecules*, and it is a well-known fact
> that all carcinogens also contain molecules.
Phase 3: Profit!
> Dawn dish
> soap, on the other hand, was beamed in from the 17th
> Dimension and is made up of light! Pretty, pretty light.
Needs more invisible pink unicorns.
jl
wrote:
Your satisfaction guarantee rules are indicative of gotcha capitalism
and bad faith. We just won't be buying any more Frontline or applying
it to our dogs.
Melinda Shore
Shelly <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote:
>Lordy! It most certainly can. It might help, too, if you'd define
>"raw."
Oh, you know - it's like "nutrition." It's full of light!
I'd be a lot more interested in what these incoherent
ideologues have to say if they talked about nutrition and
not just ingredients. This one obviously has no idea what
the word "nutrition" means, which bodes ill for her dog, but
it seems consistently to be the case in general that they've
got a narrow focus on ingredients and minimal interest in
nutrition.
Shelly
>Your satisfaction guarantee rules are indicative of gotcha capitalism
>and bad faith.
I don't see how it is Merial's fault that the product has apparently
lost effectiveness in your area.
>We just won't be buying any more Frontline or applying
>it to our dogs.
Since the product did not work for you, it would be kind of dumb to buy
more of it, wouldn't it?
Shelly
> I'd be a lot more interested in what these incoherent
> ideologues have to say if they talked about nutrition and
> not just ingredients.
Yeah, but they can't.
> This one obviously has no idea what
> the word "nutrition" means,
It's that stuff that kibble doesn't contain.
> which bodes ill for her dog, but
> it seems consistently to be the case in general that they've
> got a narrow focus on ingredients and minimal interest in
> nutrition.
I must admit that I'm a little obssessed about ingredients these days.
I'm not about to go out and hunt ducks for my dog. It just ain't
happening, so kibble is where it's at. Harriet's feet are almost back
to white, though (yay!), and even the silky tufts between her pads have
lost the red saliva stains. This is a *huge* deal. On the down side,
the stuff she's eating is not as nutrient dense as Evo or Euk premium
performance, so I've had to almost double her food intake. The output
is also obviously higher, but wev. We gots happy feets! And no
itchies!
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.health:
> Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you
> will have terrible problems with allergies, hot spots,
> yeast infections, etc.
Good kibble has helped me deal with one of my dogs' epilepsy
very successfully.
As to allegies, hot spots, infections - none of those in over 30
cumulative years of feeding dogs. Mind you, I feed what I
consider good stuff.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
chardonnay9
> chardonnay9 <chard...@earthlink.net> said in
> rec.pets.dogs.health:
>
>> Also, as long as you all are feeding your pets kibble you
>> will have terrible problems with allergies, hot spots,
>> yeast infections, etc.
>
> Good kibble has helped me deal with one of my dogs' epilepsy
> very successfully.
There is no such thing as "good kibble".
>
> As to allegies, hot spots, infections - none of those in over 30
> cumulative years of feeding dogs. Mind you, I feed what I
> consider good stuff.
>
I would bet that if I talked with you a bit I could show you negative
affects of the kibble that you weren't aware of, and present in your
dogs. Vaccine damage too.
Dogs are carnivores. Short digestive system with strong digestive
juices, meant for food to go through real fast. Kibble doesn't do that.
Dogs are 99.97% genetically related to wolves. I've yet to see a wolf
going to the supermarket for kibble.
Take note. Many dogs winning competitions of all kinds are now raw fed.
Raw fed, no vax puppies are gaining in popularity for a reason. They
just don't have the problems kibble dogs have.
Please don't take my word for it, do the research.
http://www.rawlearning.com/rawfaq.html
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/
http://svmweb.vetmed.wisc.edu/articles/68/5/39
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>Take note. Many dogs winning competitions of all kinds are now raw fed.
I guarantee you, no winning sled dog team is fed raw. Their
nutritional needs are too great, both in terms of calories
and in terms of macronutrients. A whole, raw chicken is only
about 20% protein and very little fat. But hey, who cares
about nutrition?
>Raw fed, no vax puppies are gaining in popularity for a reason.
Yeah! It's because Americans are increasingly
scientifically illiterate.
chardonnay9
> In article <HOKdnSVp_pPt1I7U...@earthlink.com>,
> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>> Take note. Many dogs winning competitions of all kinds are now raw fed.
>
> I guarantee you, no winning sled dog team is fed raw. Their
> nutritional needs are too great, both in terms of calories
> and in terms of macronutrients. A whole, raw chicken is only
> about 20% protein and very little fat. But hey, who cares
> about nutrition?
Their nutritional needs are met perfectly with a raw diet. It's what
they were created to eat. I really haven't seen many wolves at the
supermarket grabbing bags of kibble.
You give one example of a raw meal. Dogs should be fed mostly red meats,
adding bone and organ meat as well. There is no better diet on the
planet. Chicken lacks iron and zinc the dogs need. The best diet feeds
different protein sources over time. Mine get beef, pork, fish, turkey,
lamb, chicken, goat, whatever I can find.
Kibble is mostly carbs. A dog's digestive system cannot process carbs at
all, especially grains. I assure you if you switched to raw your dogs
would be healthier, faster, more energy, and more able to survive. I'm
really surprised to hear that raw feeding is so unknown in the sled dog
circles. Or is it just you?
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>Their nutritional needs are met perfectly with a raw diet. It's what
>they were created to eat.
Name one winning dogsled team that's fed raw. One. And if
you can't, maybe you could try explaining how you'll get
15,000 calories/day with over 30% protein and 20% fat into a
dog on a raw diet.
>I really haven't seen many wolves at the
>supermarket grabbing bags of kibble.
Well first, if you're talking about supermarket kibble then
you really don't have a basis for comparison. Second, dogs
aren't wolves.
>Kibble is mostly carbs. A dog's digestive system cannot process carbs at
>all, especially grains.
!!! That's factually incorrect. Dogs process carbs
differently from how humans do, but that doesn't mean that
they can't digest them. Indeed, carbs are a major source
of muscle glycogen and they're the major source of energy to
the brain which, come to think of it, explains quite a bit
about your posts.
I think you've made it quite clear that you don't know
anything at all about nutrition - nothing. Your advice
hurts dogs.
chardonnay9
> In article <4_CdnYe3yJGQxY7U...@earthlink.com>,
> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>> Their nutritional needs are met perfectly with a raw diet. It's what
>> they were created to eat.
>
> Name one winning dogsled team that's fed raw. One. And if
> you can't, maybe you could try explaining how you'll get
> 15,000 calories/day with over 30% protein and 20% fat into a
> dog on a raw diet.
>
>> I really haven't seen many wolves at the
>> supermarket grabbing bags of kibble.
>
> Well first, if you're talking about supermarket kibble then
> you really don't have a basis for comparison. Second, dogs
> aren't wolves.
Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
Myth: DOGS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WOLVES/HAVE BEEN CHANGED TOO MUCH,
AND THEREFORE CANNOT HANDLE A RAW DIET .
http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
This is MOSTLY false. The only truth found in this statement is that
humans have changed dogs. BUT, we have only changed their external
appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology.
The claim that dogs cannot handle a raw diet because they are so
domesticated is only true in that we have been feeding them commercial
diets for so long that a dog's system is not running up to par. The
result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a
suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes
necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw
Meaty Bones). This does NOT mean, however, that the dog does not "have"
those enzymes. Those enzymes are present, and once the dog is taken off
the grain-based, plant matter-filled food those enzymes quickly return
to the proper working level that allows for optimal digestion of raw
meaty bones.
Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently
used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation).
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA
(Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is
from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics
(taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).
"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf,
differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."
Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring—even
little dogs like Westies and Chihuahuas are capable of this! This is a
dramatic indication that dogs and wolves are very closely related and
are compatible in terms of genetics (incompatible animals do not produce
viable, fertile offspring, such as donkeys and horses. Their
offspring—the mule—is a sterile animal.). The genes for different coat
colors, lengths, conformations, and structural differences are present
in the wolf population to a certain degree (otherwise wolves would not
have been able to give rise to the different dogs we have today. In
order for a phenotypic change to occur, there has to be a genetic basis
off which to work. If the genes are not there, then the phenotypic
change is not going to "magically" occur), but are selected against by
nature because they are not advantageous to wolf survival. Humans are
the ones that manipulated the breedings to "create" smaller dogs and
dogs of varying colors, shapes, and sizes.
Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will
form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting a similar range of
behaviors like those seen in wolves. Phenotypic differences like size,
ears, etc. will often return to a more "wolf-like" state as the animals
outcross and breed freely (for example, Chihuahuas will increase in size
if left to breed without specific human selection for size); breed
characteristics have been specifically selected according to human whim,
and in order to retain those characteristics like dogs must be
continually bred to like dogs until the genes for those characteristics
are sufficiently 'fixed' within that population of dogs (which is how we
came upon the different dog breeds today). One can rightfully question
what dogs would end up looking like if they just bred for generations
without human interference. Would they gradually look more and more like
their ancestral predecessors?
Lastly, dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris
by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"
www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm), placing it in the same species as the
gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by
evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999.
Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.).
Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the
litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of
dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore.
Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have
the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous
predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their
herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow
and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior,
Ecology, and Conservation.). The next myth will discuss a dog's "changed
needs" to cooked food more fully.
And some kibble may be marketed as better than supermarket kibble, and
in same ways they are. However, they are still kibble, still have carbs
in them, still don't have what a dog needs in it, and still has
ingredients that cause allergies and yeast.
>
>> Kibble is mostly carbs. A dog's digestive system cannot process carbs at
>> all, especially grains.
>
> !!! That's factually incorrect. Dogs process carbs
> differently from how humans do, but that doesn't mean that
> they can't digest them. Indeed, carbs are a major source
> of muscle glycogen and they're the major source of energy to
> the brain which, come to think of it, explains quite a bit
> about your posts.
Myth: DOGS NEED CARBOHYDRATES IN THEIR DIET.
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/carbs.html
The following text is taken from Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog, by
Wendy Volhard and Kerry Brown. Their discussion of carbohydrates and the
functions they perform seem to "prove" that most dogs need additional
carbohydrates in their diet, a belief that is very pervasive in most
concepts of canine nutrition.
"In addition to providing energy, carbs maintain the health of the
thyroid, liver, heart, brain and nerve tissue. They regulate how much
starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. Once in the digestive
tract and assimilated, they are stored in the liver in the form of
glycogen, which controls energy balance. Low carb intake may cause
cardiac symptoms and angina. The central nervous system requires
carbohydrates for proper functioning as does the brain. The brain can't
store glucose and is therefore dependent on the minimum supply of
glucose from the blood. With insufficent carbs in the diet, protein and
fat are converted to energy, weakening the immune system and preventing
the body from building enough antibodies to fight disease. Poor hair
growth and constant shedding are symptoms of carbohydrate deficiency.
Thyroid function is also dependent on the correct amount of
carbohydrates in a dogs diet. B compounds found in many grains and
strach producing veggies is needed so the amino acids phenylalanine and
tyrosine can produce T3".
But do most dogs really need carbohydrates? In the Waltham Book of Dog
and Cat Nutrition (2nd edition, 1988), we read that
"There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either
the dog or the cat. Based on investigations in the dog and with other
species it is likely that dogs and cats can be maintained without
carbohydrates if the diet supplies enough fat or protein from which the
metabolic requirement for glucose is derived."
How can this be? Let us discuss just how the dog and cat are able to
fulfill their requirement for glucose through a diet of raw meat, bones,
and organs.
Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy. However, it is not
'carbs' that maintain the health of the organs listed in the quotes
above, but glucose. Glucose can be obtained from protein through a
process known as gluconeogenesis, where amino acids (not fatty acids;
those use a different cycle) are "converted" to glucose. Fat can also be
used for energy; fats are broken down into Acetyl CoA and are fed
directly into the Citric Acid Cycle, bypassing the process of glycolysis
(the first stage of carbohydrate metabolism). Thus, glucose and energy
can be obtained from other sources. However, if carbs are present they
will be converted to energy first before protein and fats because they
are easier to use. This is the reason that carbs regulate how much
starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. If there is a plethora
of carbohydrates, fat will be stored instead of used. If there are not
enough carbs to fulfill energy needs, then fat will be converted to
Acetyl CoA and used. If no carbs are present, then fat and protein are
used to fill energy needs.
Excess carbohydrates are stored in the liver and the muscles as glycogen
AND in the body as fat. However, since carboydrates are not the only
source of glycogen (which also comes from proteins and fats through a
process known as glyconeogenesis), they are not absolutely necessary.
Human athletes commonly perform 'carbo loading' techniques where they
eat huge carby meals of things like pasta to rapidly replenish their
glycogen stores in their muscles and liver before a competition. The
carbohydrates, when in excess, are more rapidly converted and stored as
glycogen compared to fat and protein. HOWEVER, once again, fat and
protein can also be stored as glycogen, which makes carbohydrates
unnecessary unless you want to perform 'carbo loading'. I believe it is
Purina that has capitalized on this and now has "energy bars" of complex
carbohydrates for the canine athlete to help them recover more quickly
between events. But, carbohydrates do not rebuild spent muscle tissue,
etc. Protein does that. Fat is also easily utilized for quick energy,
too, and provides more energy per gram that carbohydrate does (9
kcals/gram of fat compared to 4 kcals/gram of carbohydrate).
It is not low carbohydrate intake that causes things like cardiac
symptoms and angina; it is low blood glucose. If there is not enough
glucose in the blood system, then you run into many problems including
black outs, cardiac symptoms (like arrhythmia), and angina (chest pain).
Of course, it is interesting that wolves can go without food for weeks
and still survive well enough. How do they do that without eating carbs?
Simple—they use up fat reserves and may even dip into their own muscle
to get the necessary proteins and fats to provide glucose and energy for
their bodies. So carbohydrates themselves are not actually necessary;
glucose is necessary, and that can be obtained from sources other than
carbohydrates.
What about the brain? The brain is preferentially given glucose above
all other organs. Glucose in its ready form, at that. But does this mean
carbohydrates are necessary? Since glucose can be had from protein and
Acetyl CoA from fat, then no.
What about the claim of protein and fat—when converted to
energy—weakening the immune system? This seems to be taken from human
research where athletes in intensive training had suppressed immune
systems which could be improved by consuming proper amounts of
carbohydrate. Additionally, white blood cell production in humans seems
linked to glucose production. More glucose present means the body is
better able to mount an immune response—until there is "too much"
glucose around and insulin spikes and starts suppressing all other
pathways in the body except for those needed to force the glucose into
cells (fat cells). High amounts of simple carbohydrates and sugars are
known to suppress the immune system. If this is the case, though, one
could wonder how a diet high in grain affects our pets—overstimulation
of the immune system due to high concentrations of glucose from the
grain? Perhaps this is why many pets suffer "allergies" while on grain!
One other comment I have here is that as long as the animal is receiving
appropriate fat and protein, glucose production will not be an issue.
And for carnivorous animals like dogs, I cannot help but wonder if their
white blood cells are more sensitive to glucose than ours--meaning, less
glucose is needed to "stimulate" canine white blood cell (WBC)
production compared to human WBC production.
Using protein and fat for energy does not weaken the immune system
unless there is not enough to go around, so to speak. If someone is
starving, then using protein and fats for energy—while necessary—is a
little 'cost-intensive' on the body. But it is not the lack of carbs
that is hurting them; it is the simple lack of enough food. Similarly, a
human athlete in intensive training may overwork their body to the point
that using protein and fats for fuel becomes too cost-intensive to their
body.
What about poor hair growth and constant shedding resulting from a lack
of carbohydrates? Can these indicate a 'need' for carbs? Maybe, but more
likely it indicates a need for better overall nutrition. I personally
have NEVER heard of 'carbohydrate deficiency' in any animal. Why?
Because there is NO SUCH THING as a "necessary carbohydrate," just
necessary glucose. Our bodies, and our dogs' bodies, can do without
carbohydrates (although I would say our dogs would fare better than
humans, since we are omnivores who do well with fresh vegetables in our
diet—except for some cultures that eat mostly meat!). Fats and proteins
can be converted easily to Acetyl CoA and glucose, respectively. Poor
hair growth and constant shedding are linked to an overall poor diet,
poor consumption of essential fatty acids, biotin deficiencies, some
vitamin and mineral deficiencies, AND a lack of good fats and proteins
in the diet. PROTEIN, not carbohydrate, is the building block for hair
and skin and all other parts of the body. Carbohydrates do nothing for
building and maintaining the body structures except provide easy glucose
to fuel the rebuilding process.
What about thyroid function? Thyroid function is dependent upon the
correct amount of GLUCOSE produced by the dog's body, not by the correct
amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Too much glucose from easily
available carbohydrate energy sources can cause just as many problems as
not enough glucose. Since we have already established that glucose can
be produced from protein (or even skipped during fat metabolism, where
Acetyl CoA is used instead), then it would again seem that carbohydrates
are actually unnecessary provided that there is enough protein and fat
to go around (and a raw diet has PLENTY!).
B compounds, or B vitamins, are found not only in the dog's own
intestine (bacteria produce some B vitamins) but also in the meat and
organs of prey animals. Feeding a variety of organ meats as part of a
proper raw diet will cover the B-vitamin requirement quite easily. One
has to wonder--how much of the B compounds in grain and starch and
veggies is actually available to the dog? Compared to something more
bioavailable like liver, then I would say 'not much.'
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
No, they're really not. But wolves are opportunistic eaters
and will eat vegetation, as will dogs. The problem with
your argument is not that meat is good, but that you say
stuff that's demonstrably false, like that dogs can't
"process" carbs (WTF?) and that all of the "nutrition" has
been processed out of kibble (WTWTF??). It's crap like that
that makes it clear that you're a cultist who's just not
that interested in dog nutrition.
>http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
You can find stuff on the internet that asserts that the
earth is flat, that the moon landing was faked, that the
universe is 6000 years old, and that dogs can't digest
carbs.
>Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy.
Note that that "quick and easy energy" is necessary to
refuel for a sprinty effort following another sprinty
effort.
But still, do they? Weren't you the crackpot who said that
dogs can't process carbs? Huh. Interesting. <- Just
kidding!! Looking stuff up is really not a replacement for
understanding. Indeed, it can sometimes lead to
contradictory assertions, as you're doing here.
Did you know that posting to Usenet makes you pregnant?
It's true.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.health:
>> Good kibble has helped me deal with one of my dogs'
>> epilepsy very successfully.
>
> There is no such thing as "good kibble".
It's easy to live in a world that's only black and white, eh?
chardonnay9
> In article <esWdnZSySp6V9I7U...@earthlink.com>,
> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>> Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
>
> No, they're really not. But wolves are opportunistic eaters
> and will eat vegetation, as will dogs.
The only way that happens is when they eat the stomach content of small
prey. Anything large, the stomach is emptied then eaten. Since studies
have shown that the primary diet of wolves are the large prey, it means
they really don't get much in the way of vegetation. Now, coyotes are a
different story. However, they are not as closely related to dogs as
wolves are.
The problem with
> your argument is not that meat is good, but that you say
> stuff that's demonstrably false, like that dogs can't
> "process" carbs (WTF?) and that all of the "nutrition" has
> been processed out of kibble (WTWTF??). It's crap like that
> that makes it clear that you're a cultist who's just not
> that interested in dog nutrition.
Prove me wrong! Dogs need the nutrition from raw meat, not kibble which
has all nutrition cooked out and so then they have to supplement it all
back in! They cannot process carbs. Carbs are totally useless to dogs.
Can you once show me something instead of attacking? Are you able to?
I've been patient but you aren't doing so well in this debate.
>
>
>> http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
>
> You can find stuff on the internet that asserts that the
> earth is flat, that the moon landing was faked, that the
> universe is 6000 years old, and that dogs can't digest
> carbs.
>
>> Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy.
>
> Note that that "quick and easy energy" is necessary to
> refuel for a sprinty effort following another sprinty
> effort.
Not for dogs. I think you need to read it again for content.
>
> But still, do they? Weren't you the crackpot who said that
> dogs can't process carbs? Huh. Interesting. <- Just
> kidding!! Looking stuff up is really not a replacement for
> understanding. Indeed, it can sometimes lead to
> contradictory assertions, as you're doing here.
I studied nutrition for a few years and I damned certain I'm the one
that has it right. I've seen too much to ever think that the crap in a
bag would ever do anything positive for dogs.
As I said, back it up! And grow up too!
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9
All kibble is totally over processed till there is no nutritional value
left. What in the world could be left after what they do to it?
Please at least attempt to read this. It's long and boring but extremely
educational.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html#fnB140
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>All kibble is totally over processed till there is no nutritional value
>left. What in the world could be left after what they do to it?
You seem to want to be taken seriously and then you post
stuff like this. So let's get specific: What do you mean by
"no nutritional value?" And keep your answer focused on
*nutrition* - things like calorie content, fat, protein, and
micronutrients.
Janet Boss
chardonnay9 <chard...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> All kibble is totally over processed till there is no nutritional value
> left. What in the world could be left after what they do to it?
Really! Where DO you get your ACTUAL information?
Sad that my ken-l-ration biskit, malathion dipped, never on HW
preventative dog died at 15.5, while I lost a raw fed, minimal
vaccination, never a flea/tick preventative, monthly HW preventative dog
died quite quickly at only 7.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
chardonnay9
> In article <NsydnefVyqTm7o7U...@earthlink.com>,
> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>> I studied nutrition for a few years
>
> *I* am a big blonde Valkyrie!
Which means you can't back up a thing you say and just like trolling.
*plonk*
Melinda Shore
chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>Which means you can't back up a thing you say and just like trolling.
Okay, I'll treat you like the really really really serious
person you want to be some day: when you say that kibble has
"no nutritional value," what do you mean, specifically? And
since you're using the word "nutrition," discuss nutrition.
Sharon Too
and bad faith. We just won't be buying any more Frontline or applying
it to our dogs.
They're not MY rules. I have nothing to do with the company. I was just
trying to forward you the information in case you wanted to know.
chardonnay9
> In article <mfOdnYgk8cny647U...@earthlink.com>,
> chardonnay9 <chard...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> All kibble is totally over processed till there is no nutritional value
>> left. What in the world could be left after what they do to it?
>
> Really! Where DO you get your ACTUAL information?
From reliable sources like this
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
From studies, first hand knowledge and anecdotal evidence.
Janet Boss
chardonnay9 <chard...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> first hand knowledge and anecdotal evidence.
My first hand and anecdotal evidence disagrees. I have nothing against
feeding raw and it was a good answer for my dogs at various phases.
Still, it is not the "perfect" diet for all dogs, and not for PUPPIES in
particular. There is such a vast difference between various kibble
products, that your broad brush should be pitched in the trash.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Sharon Too
>
> http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
>
> From studies, first hand knowledge and anecdotal evidence.
That's not a study. It's a law school position paper. A high school debate
club can do better than this. Everything in there is subjective.
Shelly
> From reliable sources like this
>
> http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
Reliable? It's a random paper written by a random student for a
random course. And, nowhere does it contain the claim that kibble has
no nutritional value.
> From studies, first hand knowledge and anecdotal evidence.
Out of your ass, more like.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.health:
> There is no such thing as "good kibble".
You attributed the above to me in your previous post. Please
get it right in the future.
> All kibble is totally over processed till there is no
> nutritional value left. What in the world could be left
> after what they do to it?
Please define what you mean by nutrition and then what dogs need
such nutrition. Use your own dogs as a example as what
specifically makes their coats shine and their teeth gleem and
why (by your assinuation) my dogs are going to keel over any
second now.
> Please at least attempt to read this. It's long and boring
> but extremely educational.
No. I'm done with zealbots.
jl
wrote:
Thanks, and my beef is not with you but the company that manufactures
and markets this feckless chemical.
(null)
>
> Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
> Myth: DOGS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WOLVES/HAVE BEEN CHANGED TOO MUCH,
> AND THEREFORE CANNOT HANDLE A RAW DIET .
> http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
Wow! This poster is capable of plagarizing from a website authored
by someone totally lacking in credentials whatsoever! That's exactly
the kind of person I want to get advice from: someone who's obviously
lacking in both ethics and critical thinking skills (as well as even
the most basic knowledge about the subject they're prating about, of
course.)
Dianne
Sharon Too
and markets this feckless chemical.
Try another product. Once in a while, Frontline doesn't work and when
changed to Advantage there is improvement and visa versa. Try Advantage or
Promeris.
(null)
>
> [Dogs] cannot process carbs. Carbs are totally useless to dogs.
>
> Can you once show me something instead of attacking? Are you able to?
Murray SM, Fahey GC Jr, Merchen NR, Sunvold GD, Reinhart GA. Evaluation of
selected high-starch flours as ingredients in canine diets. J Anim Sci 1999.
77:2180-2186.
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801, USA.
Cereal grains represent 30 to 60% of the DM [dry matter] of many companion
animal diets. Once incorporated into a diet, the starch component of these
grains can provide an excellent source of ME [metabolizable energy]. However,
crystallinity and form of starch are variable and can cause incomplete digestion
within the gastrointestinal tract. Diets fed in this experiment included one
of six high-starch flours as the main source of carbohydrate. The flours
originated from barley, corn, potato, rice, sorghum, and wheat. The diets were
extruded and kibbled. Starch fraction concentrations of flours consisted of
nearly 100% rapidly digestible starch (RDS) and slowly digestible starch (SDS)
combined. Starch fraction concentrations of diets paralleled concentrations
in flours. Flours varied widely in concentrations of CP [crude protein], fat,
starch, and total dietary fiber. Ileal OM [organic matter] and CP [crude
protein] digestibilities were lowest for the potato flour treatment (74 and
64%, respectively). Ileal and total tract starch digestibilities were different
(P<.05) among treatments; however, the starch component of all diets was nearly
completely digested (>99%).
Full-text at http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/77/8/2180.pdf .
> I've been patient
No, you've been stupid. Uncritically reading websites doesn't constitute
educating yourself on nutrition.
Dianne
Shelly
"Rocky" <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Fri9B4E79C81A9BBau...@rocky-dog.com...
> As to allegies, hot spots, infections - none of those in over 30
> cumulative years of feeding dogs. Mind you, I feed what I
> consider good stuff.
Same here. I'm dealing with allergies with Harriet, but she wouldn't
magically stop being allergic to something just because it was raw.
As for kibble causing infections? I missed that part. Seriously?!
Shelly
news:HOKdnSVp_pPt1I7U...@earthlink.com...
> There is no such thing as "good kibble".
Kind of like there's no such thing as a bad "raw" diet? Such absolutism
makes you even less believable.
> Dogs are 99.97% genetically related to wolves. I've yet to see a wolf
> going to the supermarket for kibble.
Wolves will eat whatever is handy. So will dogs; they are not obligate
carnivores. Mine would live on grass, if I let her.
> Take note. Many dogs winning competitions of all kinds are now raw
> fed.
No one is denying that a carefully researched raw diet can be good. It
can. That is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not a good
quality kibble diet is healthy.
> Raw fed, no vax puppies are gaining in popularity for a reason.
Of course. There is no shortage of ignorant people out there, alas.
It's a renewable resource.
Rocky
> As for kibble causing infections? I missed that part.
> Seriously?!
Yeast infections.
Robin Nuttall
> Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> In article <esWdnZSySp6V9I7U...@earthlink.com>,
>> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
>>
>>
>> No, they're really not. But wolves are opportunistic eaters
>> and will eat vegetation, as will dogs.
>
>
> The only way that happens is when they eat the stomach content of small
> prey.
Do you even *own* dogs? My dogs love, love, love vegetation. Let them
loose in a sprouted winter wheat field and they are in heaven, gobbling
as much as they can. As for corn? This time of year is very hard because
they keep ripping whole cobs right off the stalks and trying to eat
them. I don't mind them getting the corn, but the cobs can cause blockages.
Dogs *are* different than wolves. Dogs have had 100,000 years of
cohabitation with man. During that time they weren't getting fresh raw
steak every day. They were getting a lot of grains and maybe a goat leg
here and there. Feral and pariah dogs still exist on this type of diet,
and quite nicely.
> Prove me wrong! Dogs need the nutrition from raw meat, not kibble which
> has all nutrition cooked out and so then they have to supplement it all
> back in! They cannot process carbs. Carbs are totally useless to dogs.
It's ludicrously easy to prove you wrong. I've never fed raw. My dogs
have super coat and condition. My oldest dog just turned 11 in a breed
where few dogs live past 10. I just took her to my National where people
literally did NOT believe she was 11 years old. My dogs do agility,
rally and obedience.
Here Viva is on her 11th birthday:
http://www.totaldobe.com/images/viva/viva_11_1.jpg
Here's a picture of Cala and Viva:
http://www.totaldobe.com/images/viva/dobegirls010sm.jpg
Zipper: http://www.totalminpin.net/images/zipper/zipperchweb1.jpg
>
> I studied nutrition for a few years and I damned certain I'm the one
> that has it right. I've seen too much to ever think that the crap in a
> bag would ever do anything positive for dogs.
Well look at those photos. BTW, Viva's dam lived to 16, never fed raw.
Her sire to 12, never fed raw.
I know of three cases personally where dogs fed raw have died directly
as a result from being fed raw.
Robin Nuttall
> Which means you can't back up a thing you say and just like trolling.
pot, kettle black dear.
Try coming up with some research that backs up your claim that kibble
has NO nutritional value. If that were true, then every kibble-fed dog
would be dead, yes? Because if a dog is not ingesting nutrients then it
is starving, yes? A food totally free of nutrients would kill a dog
through starvation.
Instead of quotes from bogus sources, please provide a citation to peer
reviewed veterinary journal studies showing that raw is superior to
kibble, that dogs do not need or get any value from carbs, and that
Robin Nuttall
>
> From reliable sources like this
>
> http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
>
> From studies, first hand knowledge and anecdotal evidence.
That's a coursework paper! It is not, not, not a peer reviewed study and
it clearly has bias. In fact it's pretty shoddily done.
Robin Nuttall
> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>[Dogs] cannot process carbs. Carbs are totally useless to dogs.
>>
>>Can you once show me something instead of attacking? Are you able to?
>
>
>
> Murray SM, Fahey GC Jr, Merchen NR, Sunvold GD, Reinhart GA. Evaluation of
> selected high-starch flours as ingredients in canine diets. J Anim Sci 1999.
> 77:2180-2186.
Oh look! An actual cite! That points out that plant based matter is
highly digestible to dogs. Thanks Dianne.
Robin Nuttall
>
> Take note. Many dogs winning competitions of all kinds are now raw fed.
And many are not. In fact I'd bet you big money that more dogs winning
competitions of all kinds are NOT fed raw than are.
Last year's Westminster winner? Not fed raw. I don't know a single top
conformation show dog that is. Most are fed either Pro Plan or Eukanuba.
And that's in a field where coat and condition are of primary importance.
I know a few agility competitors who feed raw, but many more do not, and
a lot I know who used to feed raw have moved to kibble because raw was
not working for them or their dogs.
As for not vaccinating at all, well sure, if you want to risk killing
your dog. You could be like a breeder I know who doesn't believe in vax.
He had a top schutzhund dog die at age 5 from parvo. And his no-vax dogs
almost never live past 10, even the ones fed raw.
But go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. It's entertaining anyway...
Sharon Too
> it clearly has bias. In fact it's pretty shoddily done.
Not only that, position papers in law school are usually assigned with a
side to be taken. It's the job of the writer to make an argument to sway the
reader (jury). This is "Spin" 101.
Sharon Too
Question
I am thinking of feeding my pet homemade meals. What factors should I
consider?
Answer
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) does not recommend
homemade meals for pets, due in large part to pets' hard-to-manage dietary
needs. Pets have different needs from humans, and dogs and cats have
distinct needs as well. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for even the
best-intentioned pet owner to meet a pet's nutrition requirements at home.
Many basic human foods like onions and chocolate are unsafe for pets, and
the chance for bacterial contamination from microorganisms like salmonella
and E. coli is high in raw or incorrectly cooked homemade foods.
Question
What are potential problems with homemade pet meals?
Answer
Homemade pet diets can result in a variety of problems:
a.. Raw foods carry a high risk of bacterial contamination as well as the
possibility of transmitting diseases to humans
b.. Too much calcium can result in growth problems, particularly for
puppies and kittens, but too little calcium can cause weak bones that are
susceptible to breaks
c.. Mismanaged fat intake, often a result of feeding pets the same poultry
skins and meats common in human foods, can result in pancreatic problems
In addition to dog- and cat-specific recipes, another obstacle to homemade
pet meals is in formulating diets that account for age, breed, size, and
level of activity of the animal. According to the American College of
Veterinary Nutritionists, "Many recipes found on the web or elsewhere, even
from well-meaning sources, may not be complete and balanced, creating the
possibility of significant long-term harm to animals fed diets based on
these recipes."
Question
Should I feed my pet raw meat?
Answer
The FDA does not believe feeding a pet raw meat is consistent with the goal
of protecting the public from significant health risks: 1) animals consuming
the raw meat are at risk of infection by organisms contained in the raw
tissues, and 2) the people handling the product are also at risk.
The FDA is not aware of scientific evidence to support claims that raw meat
foods are preferable to other products substantiated to be complete and
balanced.
Also, raw meat foods tend to be high in fat.
Question
I have heard a lot lately about raw pet food diets. Are these safe for my
pet?
Answer
Some pet food companies make a raw food diet for dogs and cats. Raw foods,
just like all pet foods, should be complete and balanced and meet the
standards of nutrition set by the Association of American Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO). If you are thinking about feeding your pet a raw diet
make sure the product is complete and balanced, change the type of pet food
gradually and be sure to following the product's safe handling instructions.
Remember, it is not advisable to experiment with making your own raw diets
since the nutritional needs of dogs and cats are very different from people
and possible deficiencies in homemade diets may not be immediately visible.
http://www.petfoodreport.com/homemade.htm
Question
Why are commercial pet foods better for my pet than homemade foods?
Answer
Pet foods available on store shelves have been developed following years of
study by manufacturers' own food scientists, chemists, pet nutritionists and
veterinarians to offer pets the healthiest meals possible. These meals are
fortified with proper vitamins and are nutritionally balanced.
These recipes are the result of experience, study and consumer feedback
combined to make the best product for your pet at all stages of its life.
Sharon Too
http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1569_16979_21266-151387--,00.html
Guaranteed Analysis
The guaranteed analysis specifies the product's minimum percentages of crude
protein and crude fat. It also gives the maximum percentages of crude fiber
and moisture. ("Crude" refers to a specific method of measuring the
nutrient, and is not an indication of quality.) Although not required, some
manufacturers also specify the percentages of other nutrients, such as ash
and taurine in cat food, and calcium and phosphorus in dog food.
The amounts of crude protein and most other nutrients appear less for canned
products than for dry ones because of differences in moisture content.
Canned foods typically contain about 75 percent moisture, while dry foods
contain only about 10 percent.
Nutritional Adequacy
The nutritional adequacy statement assures consumers that a product meets
all of a pet's nutritional needs. The Association of American Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO), an advisory body of state and federal feed regulators,
develops recommended standards for nutrient contents of dog and cat foods.
AAFCO also publishes ingredient definitions and regulations. Having
officially recognized definitions for ingredients assures that when
different companies list the name of an ingredient on a pet food label, that
ingredient meets the definition and standards that have been established for
it, and is the same in every product.
The FDA's CVM works in partnership with AAFCO to determine safe pet food
ingredients and testing protocols. In addition to federal regulation of pet
food, most state governments regulate pet foods and labeling through their
agricultural departments, such as the Michigan Department of Agriculture.
AAFCO has created a model feed bill that states often adopt in their own
laws.
CVM gives scientific and regulatory advice to AAFCO and the states on pet
food issues, and CVM representatives serve on AAFCO committees and meet
regularly with AAFCO's board of directors. CVM investigators also team with
AAFCO to check out questionable pet food ingredients or claims.
Manufacturers can show their food meets AAFCO's standards for nutritional
adequacy by calculations or by feeding trials. Calculations estimate the
amount of nutrients in a pet food either on the basis of average nutrient
content of its ingredients, or on results of laboratory tests--but not
animal feed tests. If the calculations show that the food provides
sufficient nutrients to meet the specific AAFCO nutritional profile
referenced, the pet food label must carry the statement: "(Name of product)
is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO (Dog
or Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles for (specific life stage)."
Feeding trials signify that the manufacturer has tested the product in dogs
or cats under strict guidelines. Products found to provide proper nutrition
based on feeding trials must carry the statement: "Animal feeding tests
using AAFCO procedures substantiate that (name of product) provides complete
and balanced nutrition for (specific life stage)."
Some pet foods which have not themselves been tested in feeding trials, but
are nutritionally similar to another (lead) product in the company's line
that has been tested, may be considered nutritionally adequate based on
acceptable test results of the lead product. Products that claim to provide
proper nutrition based on comparison with a tested product must carry the
statement: "(Name of product) provides complete and balanced nutrition for
(specific life stage), and is comparable in nutritional adequacy to a
product which has been substantiated using AAFCO feeding tests." To qualify
for comparison to a lead product, the untested products must be of the same
product type (dog food vs. cat food), product moisture (dry, semi-moist,
canned), and metabolizable energy content and nutrient levels as the tested
lead product.
Regardless of the method used, the nutritional adequacy statement on a cat
or dog food label must also tell which life stage the product is suitable
for. AAFCO has established two nutrient profiles each for dogs and
cats--growth/lactation and maintenance--to fit their life stages.
Every complete product must meet at least one of these two profiles or have
passed one or more feeding studies. A product intended for growing kittens
and puppies, or for pregnant or lactating females, must meet AAFCO's
nutrient profile for growth/lactation. Products that meet AAFCO's profile
for maintenance are suitable for an adult, non-reproducing dog or cat of
normal activity level, but may not be adequate for an immature, reproducing,
or hard-working animal. A product may claim that it is for "all life stages"
if it is suitable for adult maintenance and also meets the more stringent
nutritional needs for growth and reproduction.
Growth/lactation and maintenance are the only nutrient profiles authorized
by AAFCO and CVM, so terms like "senior" or "formulated for large breed
adults" essentially mean the food meets the requirements for adult
maintenance.
Snacks and treats that are clearly identified as such are not required to
include a nutritional adequacy statement. But these foods, in all other
respects, must meet FDA and state regulations for pet food labeling. Dog
chews made from rawhide, bone, or other animal parts (such as pig ears) are
also considered "food" since pets eat them. These products must bear a list
of ingredients and provide the manufacturer's name and address, but they are
not required to give a guaranteed analysis, nutritional adequacy statement,
or feeding directions.
Ingredients
Like human foods, pet foods are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and must be pure and wholesome and contain no harmful
substances. They also must be truthfully labeled. Foods for human or pet
consumption do not require FDA approval before they are marketed, but they
must be made with ingredients that are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS)
or ingredients that are approved food and color additives. If scientific
data show that an ingredient or additive presents a health risk to animals,
CVM can prohibit or modify its use in pet food.
Pet food ingredients must be listed on the label in descending order by
weight, but consumers should realize that the weight includes the moisture
in the ingredient, making it tricky sometimes to tell which ingredients
provide the preponderance of one or more nutrients. A moist ingredient, such
as beef, which may be 70 percent water, may be listed ahead of a dry
ingredient, such as soybean meal, which is only 10 percent water--yet the
soy actually contributes more protein to the diet.
Similar materials listed as separate ingredients may outweigh other
ingredients that precede them on the list of ingredients. For example,
chicken may be listed as the first ingredient, then wheat flour, ground
wheat, and wheat middlings. The consumer may believe that chicken is the
predominant ingredient, but the three wheat products--when added
together--may weigh more than the chicken.
Sharon Too
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE
FDA's REGULATION OF PET FOOD
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfoodflier.html
FDA is charged with the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the Act). Under the Act, a part of FDA's responsibility is to ensure
that human and animal foods are safe and properly labeled. Within FDA, the
Center for Veterinary Medicine is responsible for the regulation of animal
drugs, medicated feeds, food additives and feed ingredients, including pet
foods. The regulations based, in part, on this law are found in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 21, Food and Drugs, Part 500.
The Act is this country's basic food and drug law. It defines food as
"articles used for food or drink for man or other animals...and articles
used for components of any such article." There is no requirement that pet
foods have pre-market approval by FDA. The Act does require that pet foods,
like human foods, be pure and wholesome, contain no harmful or deleterious
substances, and be truthfully labeled. Additionally, canned pet foods must
be processed in conformance with low acid canned food regulations (Title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 113, abbreviated as 21 CFR 113).
In the Act a "drug" is, in part, an article intended for use in the
diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or an
article intended to affect the structure or function of the body other than
food (Sec. 201 (g)(1)). In the drug definition, the courts have interpreted
"food" as something that provides nutrition, taste, or aroma. If a food
affects the structure or function of the body, it does so by these
properties (for example, a food may provide nutrients such as calcium for
proper bone structure or taurine for healthy heart function in cats).
However, if a substance affects the structure or function of the body apart
from its nutritive value, such as urine acidification or improvement in
joint function, it may be considered a drug. Structure/function effects
extending beyond the "food" umbrella also include claims for improved or
increased production and performance, or alteration or improvement in
function.
When a substance, including one considered food, is intended to be used for
the treatment or prevention of disease or "non-food" structure/function
effect, FDA considers it a drug. Under the law, a new animal drug must be
shown to be safe and effective for its intended use by adequate data from
controlled scientific studies as part of a New Animal Drug Application (21
CFR, Part 514). If a product on the market is not approved, it may be deemed
an adulterated drug and subject to regulatory action.
In 1958, in response to public concern about the increased use of chemicals
in foods and food processing, Congress amended the Act to require the
pre-marketing clearance of additives whose safety was not generally
recognized. The Act was also amended to deem food unsafe and adulterated if
it contains an unapproved food additive. Under the definition for food
additive in Sec. 201 (s) of the Act, it provides that substances added to
food that qualified scientists generally recognize as safe (GRAS) under the
conditions of the intended use are not "food additives" and as such are
exempt from pre-clearance approval.
A food additive petition is the pre-clearance mechanism developed by the FDA
for demonstrating that a food additive is safe for its intended use and has
utility. If the FDA agrees with the petition, a regulation is published in
the Federal Register and 21 CFR, Part 573, Food Additives Permitted in the
Feed and Drinking Water of Animals, is amended. The information needed in a
food additive petition is described in Part 571 of Title 21. Briefly, a
petition contains a description of the chemical identity, manufacturing
process and controls, analytical methods, utility data, human food safety
data, target animal safety data, product labeling, and in some cases an
environmental assessment.
CVM has used regulatory discretion and not required food additive petitions
for substances that do not raise any safety concerns. In this case, we ask
the company to submit the information needed to list the ingredient in the
Official Publication of the Association of American Feed Control Officials
(AAFCO). This ingredient definition process is done to conserve agency
resources, as food additive approval is time-consuming. CVM reviews the data
to ensure the ingredient has utility and can be manufactured consistently to
meet product specifications. Although ingredients used under regulatory
discretion are still unapproved food additives, we agree we will not take
regulatory action as long as the labeling is consistent with the accepted
intended use, the labeling or advertising does not make drug claims, and new
data are not received that raise questions concerning safety or suitability.
A GRAS substance is GRAS only for an intended purpose. For example, sodium
aluminosilicate is GRAS as an anticaking agent. It has been purported to
bind mycotoxins and prevent absorption from the intestinal tract but would
not be GRAS for this use. A food substance also cannot be GRAS for the
prevention, treatment, or mitigation of a disease. So, chondroitin sulfates
cannot be GRAS to prevent or treat arthritis. For this use it would be a
drug.
It is very important to recognize that general recognition of safety of a
substance for an intended use may only be based on the views of experts
qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of
the substance. As interpreted by FDA and the courts, there are two
requirements that must be satisfied before a substance can be GRAS --
general recognition and safety:
1.. For general recognition, there must be an expert consensus that the
substance is safe for use as a component of food, and;
2.. This expert consensus of safety must be based on either (a)
generally available data and information to show common use of the substance
in animal feed prior to 1958 or (b) scientific procedures, which require the
same quantity and quality of scientific data needed for FDA approval of the
substance as a food additive. In addition, this information must be
published in the scientific literature.
Both of these requirements, general recognition and safety, must be met for
a substance to be considered as GRAS. The GRAS standard is actually more
stringent than that required for a food additive approval because for a
substance to be GRAS there must exist the same quality and quantity of
information needed for a food additive approval. In addition, the data must
be published and there must be a consensus among qualified experts, based on
the data, that the substance is safe for that use. Publication of data in a
company's annual report does not meet the publication standard. For general
recognition of safety to exist, the data must be available to the experts by
publication in the scientific literature. The Act permits companies to make
their own GRAS determination, and many times GRAS Panels will be assembled
that are comprised of scientific experts in a particular field to evaluate
the safety of a substance for an intended use. However, regardless of who
makes the determination, the FDA or the company, the standard for GRAS is
the same.
On April 17, 1997, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
and CVM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (62 FR 18938) to
amend the regulations to replace the current GRAS affirmation process with a
notification procedure. Under the notification procedure, any person could
notify the agency of a determination that a particular use of a substance is
GRAS. The notification would include a description of the substance, the
conditions of use, and the basis of the GRAS determination. The FDA would
not conduct its own detailed evaluation of the data, as was done previously
for GRAS affirmation petitions. Rather, FDA would evaluate whether the
notice provides sufficient basis for a GRAS determination and whether the
information in the notification or otherwise available to FDA raises issues
on whether the use of the substance is GRAS. In the proposal FDA would have
90 days to respond to the notifier. The summary of the GRAS notifications
would be available on the FDA Home Page, as would the FDA's responses to the
person submitting the notification. CVM is not currently accepting GRAS
notifications under the proposed rule; however, CFSAN is. A listing of the
notifications that have been submitted can be found on
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/.
Once the final rule is published, CVM will accept GRAS notifications. It is
anticipated that GRAS notifications submitted for use of substances in
animal feed will be posted on the CVM Home Page. When a GRAS notification
raises no issue of concern to CVM, the AAFCO Feed Ingredient Chair will be
notified so that the substance and its use can be listed in the AAFCO
publication.
The Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act
When Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act
(DSHEA) on October 25, 1994, it created a new category of substances and new
regulatory scheme. The Act was amended to define a dietary supplement as a
product intended to supplement the diet and that contains at least one or
more of the following ingredients: a vitamin; a mineral; a herb or other
botanical; an amino acid; a dietary substance for use to supplement the diet
by increasing total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite,
constituent, extract or combination of any of the previously mentioned
ingredients (Sec. 201 (ff) of the Act). The main effect of DSHEA was to
remove certain dietary ingredients from regulation as food additives, which
requires pre-market approval. On April 22, 1996, CVM published a notice in
the Federal Register outlining the reasons why FDA believes that Congress
did not intend DSHEA to apply to substances for use in animals. This has
been upheld in at least one court case. Thus, substances marketed as dietary
supplements for humans still fall under the pre-DSHEA regulatory scheme when
marketed for animals; that is, they are considered food, food additives, new
animal drugs, or GRAS depending on the intended use. Most of these types of
products on the market would be considered unapproved and unsafe food
additives or new animal drugs based on current intended uses.
It is important to note that DSHEA defines the term "dietary supplement" to
exclude products intended for use as conventional foods. For example, St.
John's Wort would not be considered a dietary supplement if it were added to
soup. Soup is a conventional food and any ingredient added to conventional
foods must be used in accordance with the food additive regulation or be
GRAS.
Health Claims
Congress also amended the Act when it enacted the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act in 1990. This law required FDA to write regulations to permit
health claims on human food. A number of these claims have been approved for
various foods. These can be found on the CFSAN web page.
CVM has incorporated the philosophy of NLEA in its policies in order to
permit meaningful health information on pet foods. Examples are the use of
urinary tract health claim on cat food diets, and development of AAFCO
regulations for light, lean, less or reduced calories, lean, and less or
reduced fat. Recently, CVM has been asked about complete cat foods for the
control of hairballs. We would likely not take regulatory action provided
the effect is achieved by ingredients already permitted for use in cat food,
such as fiber sources. In this case, we ask that the firm submit information
for review on the quantitative diet formulation, nutrient analysis, and
labeling, and discussion on the basis for the claim, i.e., scientific
studies or common knowledge of ingredients biological properties. If novel
ingredients are used to achieve the effect, then we believe data
demonstrating ingredient safety should be obtained prior to marketing.
Interaction with AAFCO
FDA also plays an active role in pet food regulation in partnership with
AAFCO. An FDA representative serves on the AAFCO Board of Directors. FDA has
served on the Pet Food Committee. CVM staff also serves on other standing
AAFCO committees and as investigators. We believe that continued partnership
with AAFCO is vital to the effective regulation of pet food products because
FDA has limited enforcement resources that are focused on human food safety
issues. For this reason, an important role of CVM staff is to serve as
scientific resources for State regulatory officials.
Summary
In summary, within the FDA, CVM has primary responsibility for enforcing the
Act to ensure that animal foods, including pet foods, are safe and labeled
appropriately and animal drugs are safe and effective. While FDA has tried
to incorporate some of the philosophy of NLEA to permit health claims for
pet foods, we believe that DSHEA was not intended by Congress to apply to
animal foods. Thus, substances sold as dietary supplements for humans may
not be legally distributed for use in animals unless the substances are
food, approved animal food additives, GRAS, or approved new animal drugs.
Sharon Too
Popular pet diet may pose significant health risks for you and
your pet
Raw food diets are a growing trend among pet owners hoping to
improve their pet's health. However, a study published in the
November/December 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Animal Hospital
Association found that these diets may cause a potentially fatal Salmonella
infection.
"While raw food diets are becoming increasingly popular among
pet owners, there is a growing body of information showing that these diets
pose a health risk not only for the pets that consume them but to their
owners as well," says Link Welborn, DVM, AAHA past president.
Shane L. Stiver, DVM, Kendall S. Frazier, DVM, Michael J. Mauel,
PhD, and Eloise L. Styer, PhD, from the University of Georgia College of
Veterinary Medicine conducted a case study of two cats that developed
salmonellosis (Salmonella infection) as a result of a raw meat-based diet.
The salmonellosis caused gastrointestinal upset, weight loss and anorexia
that resulted in the death of both cats. Salmonella in tissue cultures
isolated from one of the cats was identical to cultures from the raw beef
used in the cat's home-prepared diet, and the resulting infection was
confirmed as the cause of death in both cases. The report is the first to
describe the occurrence of salmonellosis in cats as a result of feeding a
raw meat-based diet.
The JAAHA study also found that while most human cases of
salmonellosis result from direct exposure to contaminated food, there are
documented cases of infection due to direct and indirect contact with
infected pets. In cats and humans, the very young and very old, as well as
those with an immune-compromised state, have the highest risk of infection.
Since people often spend a great deal of time in close proximity to their
pets, there are many opportunities for exposure to disease causing
organisms, such as Salmonella, through petting, grooming, food preparation,
water bowls and litter boxes.
The study concluded that cats fed raw meat contaminated with
Salmonella are at risk for development of salmonellosis and may pose a
disease risk to their owners and handlers. Feeding of raw meat contaminated
by Salmonella and recovery of Salmonella from the feces of sled dogs and
greyhounds has been documented, suggesting a risk of human infection from
contact with infected dogs as well as cats. Due to these risks, AAHA
recommends that pet owners not feed their pets a raw-meat based diet and
encourages owners to ask their veterinarian for advice regarding a
nutritionally balanced diet that is appropriate for their pet's age and
lifestyle.
"A substantial body of science-based nutritional data has
contributed to the longer life span that our companion animals currently
enjoy," says Dr. Welborn. "Your veterinarian uses these resources to provide
nutritional recommendations that will help your pet live a long and healthy
life."
Sharon Too
By: Alex Lieber
http://www.petplace.com/article-printer-friendly.aspx?id=3723
Raw Meat Debate
Along with politics and religion, meat is fast becoming one of those topics
no one can seem to agree on. The latest argument concerns the quality of
commercial pet food fed to dogs and cats.
Some people, including a few veterinarians, believe that raw meat is much
healthier for a dog or cat. According to the argument, commercial pet food
is over processed and tainted with toxins, which are used to preserve the
food and to give it an attractive smell and taste.
They advocate feeding fresh, raw meat (and other raw foods, such as
vegetables, if appropriate) to pets. The debate is becoming passionate, with
claims and counterclaims hurled through cyberspace and in between the pages
of magazines. This article explains the arguments pro and con.
Incidentally, a third argument opposes feeding any meat to dogs, cats or
people. Vegetarians and vegans (people who refuse to consume any animal
product, even milk) believe they can formulate the proper plant-based diet
for dogs and cats. This is a fallacy; while a dog can eat a carefully
formulated vegetarian diet, cats are strict carnivores and cannot digest
plant matter.
There are three major types of raw meat diets:
a.. Commercially available complete raw food diets. Sold frozen, the diets
are supposed to be complete and balanced.
a.. Homemade raw food diets. Suggestions for homemade raw-meat diets abound
on the Internet, in magazines and in books. One of the more popular is the
Bones And Raw Food diet - which goes by the unappetizing acronym BARF. For a
dog, the diet consists of 60 percent raw, meaty bones, and the rest
comprising a variety of foods that a wild dog would eat, like green
vegetables, eggs, milk and some organs such as liver or kidneys.
a.. Combination diets. Commercially available grain and supplements are
mixed with raw meat.
It should be pointed out that, as a matter of policy, PetPlace.com
veterinarians recommend that dogs and cats be fed prepared meat from high
quality brands such as Eukanuba or Science Diet.
On the One Hand ...
Proponents of raw meat argue that many commercial pet foods contain numerous
toxins that impair the health of the animal, such as sodium nitrate,
artificial flavorings and other impurities. Proponents contend that meats
have been so overprocessed that they don't contain the right nutrients
required by pets. According to Jean Hofve, DVM, in Cats magazine (July
2001), "Doctors and nutritionists have told us for years how important it is
for us to eat fresh, raw fruits and vegetables. Similarly, it is better for
our cats to eat fresh, raw, species-appropriate food than to be exclusively
fed processed, preserved foods."
Dogs and cats who eat an all-fresh food diet are supposed to have better
coats, fewer dental problems, fresher breath and less body odor.
Furthermore, dogs and particularly cats are natural predators - they simply
do better eating fresh, species-appropriate raw meat instead of processed
and persevered foods. Cats, for instance, have thrived on hunting and eating
their prey raw for eons. Hundreds of thousands of years cannot be waved away
by a few generations of eating commercial pet food, they say.
In the same vein, proponents argue that cats and dogs are much more
resistant to bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella, than people. One of
the reasons pet food is so processed is for the safety of the pet owner, not
the pet. Careful handing can minimize the risk of human infection.
On the Other Hand ...
Opponents dispute the notion that dogs and cats naturally do better on raw
meat diets. There is only "anecdotal" evidence that raw meat is better; in
other words, claims made by individuals, which aren't backed up by hard
clinical trials.
On the contrary, feeding your pet a raw-meat diet that you balance yourself
is dangerous for many reasons. Among them:
a.. High quality pet food is already balanced for the stage of life and
health condition of your pet. Trying to "wing it" by formulating the right
balance is very difficult and can easily lead to nutritional deficiency,
especially in young, growing pets.
a.. Raw bones in meat can splinter and become lodged in the throat or
digestive system, where they can block passage or cut tissue. They can also
fracture teeth.
a.. Bacteria in raw meat IS dangerous to pets, as well as owners. Dogs and
cats may have persistent diarrhea that their owners just accept as normal.
However, this is a sign of illness and can cause other problems down the
road, besides the discomfort suffered by the animal.
In the case of cats, proponents of raw meat claim that a cat's digestive
system is more acidic and can process food faster, so bacteria does not have
time to duplicate and cause illness.
That's nonsense, according to animal nutrition expert Rebecca Remillard,
DVM, DACVN, Ph.D. "Everyone's stomach is acidic," she says. "That's how we
digest food." Remillard, of Angell Memorial Animal Hospital, said the
dietary theories proposed by raw-meat advocates are too vague and are
causing a lot of problems in pets. "They're basically, 'open the fridge and
feed what you want, whenever you want.'"
An article in the March 2001 issue of JAVMA (Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association) compared raw meat diets with high-quality
commercial diets. The raw meat diets used in the comparison were well
researched and carefully balanced - a big assumption because many people do
not have the nutritional experience to formulate such diets.
Even so, the comparison showed that raw meat had significant risks: "The
results of the small number of diets analyzed here indicated that there are
clearly nutritional and health risks associated with feeding raw food diets.
All the diets tested had nutrient deficiencies or excesses that could cause
serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program."
Remillard hopes the raw meat issue is just a passing fad. "There's a general
distrust of big business, and the pet food industry is big business," she
said. "Add to that, food labels are not understandable and scary. But the
risks of raw meat are there. Is the risk worthwhile? No, it isn't."
Sharon Too
http://www.noah-health.org/en/healthy/pet/specific/nutrition.html
Kathleen
> chardonnay9 wrote:
>
>> Melinda Shore wrote:
>>
>>> In article <esWdnZSySp6V9I7U...@earthlink.com>,
>>> chardonnay9 <chard...@notearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their digestive systems are identical. No difference at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, they're really not. But wolves are opportunistic eaters
>>> and will eat vegetation, as will dogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only way that happens is when they eat the stomach content of
>> small prey.
>
>
> Do you even *own* dogs? My dogs love, love, love vegetation. Let them
> loose in a sprouted winter wheat field and they are in heaven, gobbling
> as much as they can. As for corn? This time of year is very hard because
> they keep ripping whole cobs right off the stalks and trying to eat
> them. I don't mind them getting the corn, but the cobs can cause blockages.
Mine eat apples off the ground, and pick them from low hanging branches.
They also steal tomatoes and eat blackberries off the vine.
>
> Dogs *are* different than wolves. Dogs have had 100,000 years of
> cohabitation with man. During that time they weren't getting fresh raw
> steak every day. They were getting a lot of grains and maybe a goat leg
> here and there. Feral and pariah dogs still exist on this type of diet,
> and quite nicely.
>
>> Prove me wrong! Dogs need the nutrition from raw meat, not kibble
>> which has all nutrition cooked out and so then they have to supplement
>> it all back in! They cannot process carbs. Carbs are totally useless
>> to dogs.
>
>
> It's ludicrously easy to prove you wrong. I've never fed raw. My dogs
> have super coat and condition. My oldest dog just turned 11 in a breed
> where few dogs live past 10. I just took her to my National where people
> literally did NOT believe she was 11 years old. My dogs do agility,
> rally and obedience.
>
> Here Viva is on her 11th birthday:
> http://www.totaldobe.com/images/viva/viva_11_1.jpg
>
> Here's a picture of Cala and Viva:
> http://www.totaldobe.com/images/viva/dobegirls010sm.jpg
>
> Zipper: http://www.totalminpin.net/images/zipper/zipperchweb1.jpg
I've never fed raw and my three are lean and well muscled with gorgeous
glossy coats. They play flyball and are tremendously fit, an assertion
that is supported by their split times. Most people assume that they
are two, maybe three years old (they are 8,7 and 5).
>
>>
>> I studied nutrition for a few years and I damned certain I'm the one
>> that has it right. I've seen too much to ever think that the crap in a
>> bag would ever do anything positive for dogs.
>
>
> Well look at those photos. BTW, Viva's dam lived to 16, never fed raw.
> Her sire to 12, never fed raw.
>
> I know of three cases personally where dogs fed raw have died directly
> as a result from being fed raw.
Not to mention Diddy's ordeal with Tuck after he grabbed and ate a raw
chicken wing.
Robin Nuttall
>
>
> Mine eat apples off the ground, and pick them from low hanging branches.
> They also steal tomatoes and eat blackberries off the vine.
Apples, berries, tomatoes (they mob me when I slice them). I had a dog
who used to dig her own potatoes too. Lettuce, they love it all and
actively seek it out. Every time we go to the row crop research farm
with a pack of dogs and they wade into the wheat, munching like starved
horses, we laugh and say, "oh yeah. Dogs. They hate grains. Right."
>
> Not to mention Diddy's ordeal with Tuck after he grabbed and ate a raw
> chicken wing.
Yep. One dog I know fed raw from puppy hood looked, at 9 months old, as
if she was about 4 months old. Her leg bones could literally be bent
with your hand. She died less than a year later. Another died of
gastritis caused by raw. Yet another from a turkey neck piercing her
esophagus.
I'm anti-raw because most people don't feed it properly and because
there's no science behind it, just a bunch of whacko hoo-doo like this
woman is spouting. I feed Evo red meat and love it. Works well for my
dogs. So does the occasional feast on wheatgrass, corn, and other veggies.
>
Sharon Too
>> They also steal tomatoes and eat blackberries off the vine.
Our dog would feast on unlimited carrots until he turned orange if we let
him. We had one larger mixed breed dog who could smell an orange being
peeled from outside. She loved orange wedges, apples, carrots, celery...
Lived to the ripe old age of 15.5 mostly on kibble with fruit and veggie
snacks.
One thing not mentioned yet is that genetics has a great deal to do with
health, tartar build-up and longevity in general. Kibble or (well researched
and prepared) raw, sometimes it's just in the genes (together with good
care).
Robin Nuttall
> One thing not mentioned yet is that genetics has a great deal to do with
> health, tartar build-up and longevity in general. Kibble or (well researched
> and prepared) raw, sometimes it's just in the genes (together with good
> care).
A LOT of times it's in the genes. Viva's 11th birthday was a week or so
ago, and we got in touch with other owners from the same litter. The
litter originally had 11 in it. Two were put down fairly young (long,
ugly story there). Two the breeder has lost track of. One had cancer.
All six of the others are still around at 11 and doing pretty well.
That's pretty incredible and shows extremely strong health/longevity
lines. Also pretty much shoves the whole "purebreds are so inbred they
aren't healthy any more" theory in the ass.
Melinda Shore
Robin Nuttall <rob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>Also pretty much shoves the whole "purebreds are so inbred they
>aren't healthy any more" theory in the ass.
Unfortunately, not really. Anecdotes != data, as we know.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
Robin Nuttall
> In article <mFgRk.370350$TT4.311211@attbi_s22>,
> Robin Nuttall <rob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Also pretty much shoves the whole "purebreds are so inbred they
>>aren't healthy any more" theory in the ass.
>
>
> Unfortunately, not really. Anecdotes != data, as we know.
You're right of course.
So instead I'll point out that there are a good number of purebred
breeds that are quite hardy and long-lived with few to no genetic
issues. Schipperke, Standard Schnauzer, Whippet, Min Pin, etc. come to
mind right off the top of my head but there are more. In those breeds
average age of death is well into the upper teens.
Melinda Shore
Robin Nuttall <rob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>So instead I'll point out that there are a good number of purebred
>breeds that are quite hardy and long-lived with few to no genetic
>issues. Schipperke, Standard Schnauzer, Whippet, Min Pin, etc. come to
>mind right off the top of my head but there are more. In those breeds
>average age of death is well into the upper teens.
Well, I think when someone says that all the nutritional
value is processed out of kibble, you can stop right there.
There is no planet on which a statement like that makes
sense. There are endless discussions to be had about
nutrition and about dog food, but "no nutritional value"
brings to mind Pauli's comment "That's not right. That's
not even wrong."
Robin Nuttall
> Well, I think when someone says that all the nutritional
> value is processed out of kibble, you can stop right there.
Well yeah. I mean, how stupid it that? If kibble had no nutritional
value, dogs would starve if on kibble.
Kathleen
I love it when Scully and Zane's breeder hosts her Norwood Reunions.
It's very cool to see how the various litters turned out, their
similarities and differences. We get them all together and take family
photos.
Scully's litter was amazingly uniform in appearance. I used to think
her sister, Sassy, who runs agility in our region was, well, kinda funny
looking. It's because it's like seeing Scully in a slightly warped
mirror. In photos even I have to look close to see which is which. I
remember once we were ring stewarding for an agility trial and one of my
teammates, a gal who initially could only tell Zane from Scully (!) by
looking underneath, pointed out a female BC and said, "Hey that dog
looks just like Scully. She even moves like her!". It was Sassy.
Zane's litter shows a lot more physical variation but are uniformly
hard-headed and drive-y - courtesy of their sire, Harley. All are
elite-level performers in their chosen sports - herding, agility,
obedience, flyball, tracking. His litter's owners have stayed very
connected, too, so there is a constant flow of information on
achievements and issues.
I totally agree that the whole mouth and dental health is strongly
genetic. A friend of mine had two dogs, same breed, same sex, same
diet. Both got their teeth brushed *daily*. One had immaculate white
snappers, the other's mouth was absolutely fetid. Being licked by him
was enough to make you want a tetanus shot. I suspect he had a drier
mouth, and/or maybe a different chemical composition to his saliva.
Given that I've never met a dog willing to chew sugarless gum to help
improve oral health, the only thing to be done was take him for regular
cleanings in addition to the daily brushing.
Kathleen
Jack Russell Terriers, too. Barring accidents I'll likely be coping
with Cooper for another 15 years.
FurPaw
> Given that I've never met a dog willing to chew sugarless gum to help
> improve oral health, the only thing to be done was take him for regular
> cleanings in addition to the daily brushing.
>
You wouldn't want to give sugarless gum to a dog, anyhow, not if
it contains xylitol - that's pretty toxic to dogs.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/xylitol.asp
My littermate Chihuahuas had very different oral health. Gordo's
problems started when he was about 4 or 5; Chile's teeth and
gums stayed healthy into her teens.
FurPaw
--
Why do people who embrace Social Darwinism object to teaching the
theory of evolution?
To reply, unleash the dog.