Some good articles on grain consumption and dogs
WalterNY
No Grains?
by Trina Nowak, B.Sc.Agr.
"Carnivores cannot maintain long term production of the quantity of
amylase enzyme necessary to properly digest and utilize the
carbohydrates. In addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive
than animal proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated
and weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and
carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems
may develop. The pet's pancreas will do its best to keep up with the
demand for amylase. What does this pancreatic stress do over a long
time? I don't know, but it cannot be good. I suspect that dental
calculus may be another problem promoted by grain consumption. "
Russell Swift, DVM
No Grains? This is a common question which we at Pets 4 Life and Aunt
Jeni's Home Made are faced with daily. We are very much opposed to
having grains in a pet food used everyday. In our opinion from
thorough research and by looking at the grain composition itself,
grains offer very little nutrition for the dog or cat. Too many times
when examining pet food labels, the first ingredient will be meat but
when you look at the next three to four ingredients they tend to be
grain-based. Therefore, the meat soon becomes a minority with three or
four grains composing the diet. Meat is an important ingredient for a
dog or cat's diet. Typically, our cats and dogs are not getting enough
meat in their diet. The pet food diets are primarily composed of
grains which promotes ill health as discussed below. To feed grains
every now and then is fine but to have it as the main dietary
ingredient of your pet's everyday diet is not satisfactory. Grains
should be eliminated from the eveyday diet of your pet for reasons of
grain composition, nutritional qualities and pet health.
Grains are not a dietary necessity for your dog or cat. Pat McKay
states, "I now believe as well as many holistic veterinarians that
grains are not necessary for carnivores, because the nutrients found
in grains are readily available from the meat, bones and vegetables
and supplements already provided in the raw food program." Grains are
composed of soluble and in-soluble fiber. In-soluble fiber is
beneficial because it cleanses the colon and keeps the lower digestive
tract healthy. Soluble fiber is generally made of starch which lends
itself to sugar. Dr. Ian Billinghurst, DVM states, "Unfortunately,
starch, once cooked, has a reaction in the body not much different to
feeding pure sugar. That is, such products fed over a long period of
time are likely to cause any disease which can be attributed to a diet
high in soluble carbohydratesŠ particularly sugar diabetes. This
is particularly true of breads, especially white breads. Of the
grains, it is the very popular rice which acts most like sugar."The
excess sugar means that the body has to deal with getting rid of this
"energy". It can store it as fat, or it can use it as energy, or it
can get rid of it as "waste". It means the body has to work harder to
use this excess energy. Why put it in the body if it doesn't need it?
The body gains energy much easier from fat. Fat is found in many whole
foods such as flaxseed and meat. As well, energy can come from
protein. Protein and fat are much better energy sources for your dog
or cat. As well, when you have too much sugar in the body, the
hormones insulin and glucagon have to work harder to manage the
excess. "Unfortunately, rice, the most popular of the grains that
people feed their dogs, is the one with the lowest levels of protein,
and possibly the poorest quality protein.", says Dr. Ian Billinghurst,
DVM.
The pH of the body is influenced as well. Grains tend to be very
alkaline because of increase soluble fiber (sugar). Grains elevate the
pH of the body leading to disease. Cats definitely need an acidic
urine pH to prevent urinary disorders (FUS/FLUTD). Dogs urine pH
should be slightly acidic. pH is essential to establishing homeostasis
(balance) in the body tissues and fluids (blood, urine, etc). Excess
sugars are also a problem with dental disease. It is not the hard
kibble that prevents tartar but rather the sugar-less foods which
prevent tartar/tooth decay. This is an important reason why Home Made
4 Life pet food is healthier for our pets. Dogs and cats do not have
the teeth or necessary salivary enzyme (amylase) to digest grains
properly. If whole grains were consumed they would be excreted whole
by the dog or cat which proves how indigestible whole grains can be.
Vegetables provide a large amount of insoluble fiber. Hence we added
vegetables into the Home Made 4 Life diet. The vegetables given to our
pets, via Home Made 4 Life, are pre-juiced to resemble that which they
would have found in the stomach of their kill. Pre-juicing vegetables
makes the vegetables more digestible, better assimilated and absorbed
within the gut. Grains tend to be highly indigestible without cooking
them. When you cook them you alter the chemical composition of the
grains and hence lose most of their nutritious qualities. As well,
pets can receive some benefit from vegetables because they are chalked
full of nutrients. We tried to put only the ingredients into the Home
Made 4 Life diet that we felt pets could truly benefit from.
As well grains in our diets are not "natural" they are highly
processed. They are not what would be found in the "wild". This is a
huge difference. When I think of food now I think of whole foods. Food
which is taken directly from the land and does not enter a
manufacturing plant. Wild cats and wild dogs used to forage on grasses
and green twigs years before they became domesticated. They did not
consume oatmeal porridge, white rice, or cooked grains. There is a
huge difference between eating directly from the land and eating
directly from the factory. We have forgotten about where food comes
from. It is time to reap the benefits of Mother Nature again.
Grains cause too many health problems. According to Dr. Ian
Billinghurst, DVM, "There is much circumstancial and direct evidence
linking the consumption of both of them (Grains and Legumes) in large
amounts to many disease problems suffered by modern dogs.
Unfortunately, grain based diets are implicated in all sorts of
allergies and other health problems such as arthritis and cancer in
human beings." They can contribute to the ill-effects of allergies,
obesity, indigestion, etc. Allergies occur because the body does not
recognize the nutrient it is exposed too. Cooking, as mentioned
previously, alters the chemical composition of the food. Kibble pet
food is over-cooked and highly processed. Grains must be cooked in
order to be digested. Therefore, most of the nutrients presented to
the dog or cat is in an altered state. The dog's and cat's body must
try to distinguish whether the food coming into the gut is usuable or
toxin. Many times the digestive tract does not recognize the 'altered'
food given and treats it as a toxin. The body must work at eliminating
this toxin. Toxins must exit the body via urine, stool, skin, eyes,
nose, mouth, ears, etc. Therefore, the pet owner will see infections,
diarrhea, constipation, skin problems, allergies, urinary
infections/incontinence, etc. We often think it is just our pet having
a bad day when in fact it is our pet eating poor quality pet food
which doesn't promote health but rather degrades health. Why not give
our pet's food which their body recognizes as food? Also, let's give
our pet food which is highly digestible, easily assimilated and
absorbed which will allow our pet to play, heal and enjoy life rather
than concentrate on digesting it's food. A homemade diet easily does
this and will most definitely build the immune system to prevent
disease.
Here are some questions to consider: Can grains build our immune
system? No. Can grains build muscle? No. Can grains repair cells? No.
Can grains help soothe skin problems? No. Can grains offer dogs or
cats proper nutrition? No. Are grains a typical filler in our pet's
diets? Yes. Does the current pet food you feed your dog or cat have 1
grain in it? The answer is most likely Yes. Is the grain in your pet's
food more "whole" (spelt, quinoa, barley, brown rice, etc)? Most
likely No. Are the grains we feed our dog or cat "natural"? No. Can
your pet derive any nutritional benefit from grains? I will leave this
for you to answer.
Grains are not a dietary necessity in a dog or cat's diet. They cause
too many health problems such as allergies, skin problems, diarrhea,
alter pH, infections, etc. We should truly consider giving our dog or
cat food they can truly derive benefit from. I have seen it time and
time again. We eliminate grains from the diet and our pets soon feel
and look well. Grains do not provide the nutrition required in fact
they provide too many simple carbohydrates in the diet which can lead
too dental disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. If we simply provide only
the nutrients our pets truly need then our pets will truly be healthy.
It is time to truly consider what we feed our pets and go back to
nature. After all , our pets do depend on us for their pet food.
Please go to your pet food and check the label carefully. If there is
one ingredient on that label you are unsure of, please think about why
you are feeding it to your pet. If you need further help with
deciphering your pet's food label, please contact Pets 4 Life at
in...@pets4life.com for help. Your pet is important to us.
References:
Holistic veterinary and optimum pet nutrition
"The Encyclopedia of Natural Pet Care" by C. J. Puotinen
"Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats" by
Richard H. Pitcairn & Susan Hubble Pitcairn
"Reigning Cats and Dogs" Pat McKay
"Give Your Dog A Bone" by Ian Billinghust
"Grow Your Pups With Bones" by Ian Billinghurst
Lew Olson's article: Dogs - Anatomy of a Carnivore and Dietary Needs
Pet Foods' Insidious Consequences by Tom Lonsdale
WalterNY
<lewo...@earthlink.net>
This article is written to address the current confusion of the
dietary needs of the domestic dog. The dog has been a companion to
humans for at least 10,000 to 14,000 years, although current molecular
data shows that the dog may be much older. Our domestic dog is closest
genetically to the wolf, and they differ in only 1% to 2% in their
gene sequences. This is quite significant, as dogs differ from coyotes
by 7.5% and even further from jackals and foxes. Wolves and domestic
dogs also have identical digestive tracts.
There are some differences in dogs and wolves, according to Ray
Coppinger, a professor of biology at Hampshire College in Amherst,
Massachusetts. He reports dogs skulls, teeth and brains are smaller
than wolves, with a 20% smaller brain. Dogs can also carry traits of a
sickle-shaped tail, floppy ears and pie-bald color patterns. Domestic
dogs also come into heat twice a year, while wolves only do so once a
year. Dogs also continue to show submissive behavior all their lives,
such as licking and greeting their masters the way wolf puppies do to
the older pack members.
Some of this is believed to have evolved due to humans selection of
dogs. Human's tend to prefer more submissive dogs, that carry more
neoteric, or immature features. It is felt submissive dogs would adapt
better in human families, and humans preferred the less threatening
look of a dog that carried juvenile features.(wagging high carried
tail, larger eyes and licking the owner)
It is also interesting to note that all domestic dogs, from the
Chihuahua to the St. Bernard carry the same DNA patterns. This
suggests that dogs have a single, rather than a multiple origin. The
only domestic dog that varies is the Arctic Elkhound, which appears to
have evolved separately. These new studies, done by Robert Wayne, a
University of California-Los Angeles evolutionary biologist shows
wolves are the closest species to the domestic dog. This is the
largest study ever done in this field, and includes 140 domestic dogs,
covering 67 purebreds and 4 crossbreeds. This was compared to samples
of DNA collected from 162 wolves, in 27 localities worldwide.
Wolves are members of the carnivore family, known as canis lupus. The
domestic dog is also of the carnivore family, known as canis
familiaris. The book, "The Carnivores", written by R. F. Ewer
(lecturer in biology at the University of Ghana) states that "Canis
Familiaris is generally believed to have evolved from the wolf, the
wild species that most closely resembles both anatomically and
behaviorally. The differences between the two are not great enough to
make it necessary to postulate a hypothetical ancestral wild species
which has neither survived to the present day not left any known
fossil remains."
Some typical features common to carnivores are a large mouth opening,
a single hinge joint that lays in the same plane as the teeth, and a
large primary muscle on the side of the head for operating the jaw.
The teeth are short and pointed, made for grasping and shredding.
These teeth come together to give a cutting motion and act like
shears. The teeth and mouth of the carnivore are developed to swallow
food whole, not for chewing or crushing. Carnivores do not have
digestive enzymes in their saliva. Humans have amylase, which helps to
begin to break down complex carbohydrates. The dogs digestive tract is
one third to one half the length of an omnivore. This shortness is
designed for adaption for quick, muscular digestion of raw meat and
bones. Carnivores have a much higher concentration of hydrochloric
acid in the stomach for break down of proteins and to kill any
dangerous bacteria. Their stomach acidity is less than or equal to pH
1 with food in the stomach, while humans are pH 4 to 5.
This raises the question of what is the best food for carnivores,
according to their digestive tract and physiology. Dogs, as
carnivores, have difficulty digesting grains and other complex
carbohydrates. With the lack of digestive enzymes in the mouth,
complex carbohydrates are not predigested, and take a long time to
break down in the stomach, and small intestine, if they break down at
all. Most of the complex carbohydrates pass through undigested, and
create large stools in the dog.
It is interesting to note that dry dog foods are mainly cereal,
consisting of a large part of corn, wheat, rice and soy. While dog
food companies would have you believe that grains are a good source of
protein, the fact is that dogs have a very difficult time digesting
and utilizing protein from carbohydrates. Studies show dogs do best on
animal protein, and the higher the quality, the better the protein is
assimilated. The poorer quality proteins create a stress on the dogs
kidneys and it makes proper nutritional digestion difficult.
Dr David Kronfeld reports that carbohydrates are most important for
dogs in two situations: puppies just coming off the mothers milk
(which is 12% carbohydrates) and the lactating bitch, who needs three
times the usual turnover of blood glucose for production of milk. He
goes on to state that "no carbohydrates need be provided in the diet
for pups after weaning or adult dogs, not even for those subjected to
hard work. The liver is easily able to synthesize sufficient glucose
(from amino acids derived from protein and glycerol derived from fats)
for transport in the blood and utilization in other tissues". He also
goes to state that he feels the high carbohydrate content in dog foods
is what contributes to coprophagy (stool eating), and hypoglycemia.
Dr Kronfeld does state that of all the grains, oatmeal is resistant to
milling, and since it is available in flaked form, it makes the best
choice for dogs, as it has a higher protein and fat content.
Cooking animal protein also changes many of the amino acids chains,
and makes some of the amino acids they need unusable or destroyed.
Dog's need for amino acids differ from humans, and raw meat contains
many or most needed for good tissue health, immunity and good coat and
skin for carnivores.
Lastly, cooking and processed foods, such as dog foods, creates
difficulty in digestion. It can take up to 15 hours to digest
processed foods, while fresh foods digest in about 4 to 6 hours. The
longer food stays in the system, the greater chance of allergies and
digestive upsets.
Commercial dog foods did not become available until the late 50s' and
early 60's. The draw of processed dog foods for the public are mainly
convenience, and good marketing. Dog food companies began to convince
the public that dog foods were complete in nutrition, and balanced.
They also used marketing and advertising to convince the public that
canine nutrition was complex, and only a dry, scientifically
formulated diet could give their dog complete nutrition. Prior to that
time, people gave their dogs scraps, raw meat, eggs and bones. The
digestive enzymes and bacteria found in fresh food helped dogs digest
food better, and built stronger immune systems. These necessary
nutrients are not found in processed foods, as the processing and
cooking destroys them. Dogs began to develop coat, skin and allergy
conditions. They also begin to show dental problems, as their teeth
are not designed for chewing, but for tearing and swallowing. Raw meat
and bones contain enzymes and acids that help keep teeth clean, and
also help to develop good musculature in the jaw and head.
Most of the fat used in processed foods can easily go rancid, and need
preservatives to help maintain their integrity. Many of these
preservatives have been found to be detrimental to the dogs health and
immune systems, most commonly ethoxiquin, BHA and BHT. These can
inhibit the production of white blood cells, lower the immune system
and block the absorption of glucose. Also lacking in processed foods
are the omega 3 fatty acids, necessary for good coat and skin health.
These fats cannot withstand the long shelf life of processed foods.
Fat is crucial to carnivores, in maintaining and creating energy, and
to produce glycerol. While humans require some carbohydrates for
energy and endurance, carnivores need fats, both animal and plant, for
creating glucose and developing stamina.
I hope that this article has created some ‘food for thought' for
your dog's diet. There are several ways to improve your dog's diet,
including adding fresh food to kibble, cooking fresh foods, or feeding
a completely raw diet. I recommend some books to learn more about
this, and at the end of this article I have listed a few. This is not
a complete list, there are several currently written on this topic.
These will provide a place to start for understanding which foods help
canine health, how to prepare them, and references for common
questions. Diet may not add longevity, but it can certainly add health
and vitality for the duration of the life, and decrease health
problems and vet bills.
References
API Report: What's Really in Pet Food,
http://www.api4animals.org/Petfood.htm
Case, Linda P. MS, Carey, Daniel P D.V.M. and Hirakawa, Diane A,
Ph.D., Canine and Feline Nutrition, Mosby Press 1995
Cohn, Jeffery: How Wild Wolves Became Domestic Dogs, Bioscience, Vol
47, December 1997
Ewer, RF: The Carnivores, Cornell University Press, 1977
Kronfeld, DE Ph.D. Dsc MVSc: Home Cooking For Dogs: Pure-Bred Dogs
American Kennel Gazette, July, 1978.
Kronfeld, DS Ph.D. Dsc, MVSc: Protein Quality and Amino Acid Profiles
of Commercial Dog Foods: Journal of the American Animal Hospital
Association, July/August 1982.Vol 18
Londale, Thomas D.V.M.: Pet Foods Insidious Consequences,
Mestel, Rosie: Ascent of the Dog: Discover, October, 1994.
Mills, Milton R MD.: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating,
Simpson, JW SDA BVM&S Mphil MRCVS, Anderson, RS BVMS Ph.D. MRCVS and
Markwell, PJ, Bsc, BvetMed MRCVS: Clinical Nutrition of the Dog and
Cat, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1993
WalterNY
by Russell Swift, DVM
At the recent American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association
Conference, I discovered that I am not the only one questioning the
use of grains in commercial and home-prepared pet foods. Grains, such
as oats, wheat, rice, barley, etc, are composed mostly of complex
carbohydrates. They also contain some protein, fiber, B-vitamins and
trace minerals.
However, they are NOT part of the natural diet of wild dogs and cats.
In the true natural setting, grains hardly exist at all. Wild grains
are much smaller than our hybridized domestic varieties. This means
that even a mouse or other prey animal is not going to find much of
its nutrition from grains. Therefore, the argument that "dogs and cats
eat animals that have grains in their digestive tracts" doesn’t
hold up to scrutiny. Prey animals that live near farms or other
"civilized" areas are likely to have access to grains. This is not a
truly wild diet.
What other clues do we have that grains are not necessary for
carnivores?
1) Dogs and cats do not have dietary requirements for complex
carbohydrates.
2) Grains must be cooked or sprouted and thoroughly chewed to be
digested Carnivores do not chew much at all.
3) The other nutrients in grains are readily available from other
dietary ingredients. For example, B-vitamins are found in organ meats
and trace minerals come from bones and vegetables. (Unfortunately,
modern farming has striped many trace minerals from produce and
supplementation is usually best.)
Why have grains become so "ingrained" in pet feeding? To the best of
my knowledge, grains were mainly introduced by the pet food industry.
The high carbohydrate content provides CHEAP calories. In addition,
grains assist in binding ingredients. We have become so used to
feeding grains to dogs and cats that most of us get nervous when we
decide not to use them. I know people who have been "grain-free"
feeding and doing very well. My own cat is one example.
What are the negative effects? I believe that carnivores cannot
maintain long term production of the quantity of amylase enzyme
necessary to properly digest and utilize the carbohydrates. In
addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive than animal
proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated and
weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and
carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems
may develop. The pet’s pancreas will do its best to keep up with
the demand for amylase. What does this pancreatic stress do over a
long time? I don’t know, but it cannot be good. I suspect that
dental calculus may be another problem promoted by grain consumption.
Currently, I am making grains optional in my general feeding recipes.
I am going "grainless" in more pets as I explore this area. I
recommend trying to feed without grains if your pet is not improving
on your current protocol.
"Carbohydrates from grain are simply not needed. Our pets get their
energy from fats and protein. Grains break down into sugar which can
grow yeast, produce mucous and may contribute to a multitude of
problems including skin allergies, cancer, digestive upsets and
skeletal disorders to name just a few." Ed Frawley, owner of Leerrburg
Kennels, GSD
WalterNY
manufaturer. I am not supporting their product, but I felt the
information they present was an important consideratrion when picking
a pet food.
diddy
Yes, I wanted to thank you for posting those Walter. I haven't read them
yet.. but I surely am going to
Steve Crane
as follows.
Abstract of Research Data
TITLE: Evaluation of selected high-starch flours as
ingredients in canine diets.
AUTHORS: Murray SM; Fahey GC Jr; Merchen NR; Sunvold GD;
Reinhart GA
AFFILIATION: Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana
61801
SOURCE: Journal of Animal Science 1999 Aug;77(8):2180-6
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10461997 UI: 99389093
ABSTRACT:
Cereal grains represent 30 to 60% of the DM of many companion animal diets.
Once incorporated into a diet, the starch component of these grains can
provide an excellent source of ME. 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, fat, starch, and total dietary fiber.
Ileal OM and CP 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%). Total
tract digestibility of DM and OM was lowest for sorghum (80 and 84%,
respectively) compared to all other diets. Crude protein digestibility was
highest for corn (87%). Wet fecal weights tended (P<.08) to be greatest for
dogs fed the barley treatment (175 g/d). However, dry fecal weights (dried
at 55 degrees C) were greatest for dogs consuming the sorghum diet (51 g/d).
Fecal scores were consistently greater (i.e., looser stools) for the barley
treatment. Any of these flours could be used without negative effects on
digestion at either the ileum or in the total tract.
personal opinions and related blather snipped.
by Tom Lonsdale
WalterNY
> Personal opinions, which is all Walter has posted are nice but the facts are
> as follows.
Here is something the group needs to know. First of all Steve Crane
can not say anything bad about grains because the product he sells is
full of them. So even if grains were not the optimum type of nutrition
for your dog, Steve will protect his product. This is why one must
consider what he posts and whether what he posts is done so
altruistically. As a result of his bias, he will find an abstract that
makes it seem like grains are good for a dog.
The beautiful thing about science is that there is no such thing as
'fact'. All we can do is test a hypothesis and draw a conclusion from
it. But just because one paper draws a conclusion does not make it
fact. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO UNDERSTAND. For every paper
that says one thing I can find another that says the opposite. It's up
to you to create an opinion based on the information at hand. Many
times one must look beyond the very narrow scope of a published paper.
That is one of the reasons why I posted the articles I did.
What we know is that many vets including the vets in the articles I
posted are very concerned about grains in pet foods and suggesting
that people stop using them. Another problem is that we do not know
who sponsored the work often posted. Many times these papers are
sponsored by the industry that makes the product so they are biased
reports which put the product in a good light.
Also Steve likes to post scientific abstracts as if that alone is
going to win his argument. What he fails to do is explain them. So
lets look at what he posted, explain it and note why what he posted
does not cover what I posted.
First off the article acknowledges that you better get used to it,
grain is a major part of dog food. One of the articles I posted
explained the evolution of dogs and how dogs were not designed to eat
grains. One way we know that is by the enzyme amylase which is the
enzyme used in digestion which breaks down starches. What the vet in
my article said was that he could not understand how dogs could keep
up with the long term ingestion of starches since the dogs body
doesn't ,make enough amylase to digest starches over long terms and
that the pancreas must suffer.
Steve's article merely tests what happens when starch is fed to a dog
and does not consider long term feeding. I can feed you once and
you'll be fine. What happens when you eat that chocolate daily?
Steve article then goes on to say that many flours used in dog foods
are not well digested depending on the flour. At least it admits the
truth. My article explains the reason for that, grains do not have the
proper balance of nutrients for dogs. The article then looks at six
common flours. Problem is it does not give consistent results. It
seems to talk about some of the grains specifically and does not give
individual results for all. In fact with corn it doesn't even talk
about starch, only protein digestion.
What might sound good in this mish mash of thoughts is where one must
draw a bigger picture "the starch component of all diets was nearly
completely digested (>99%)". That would make it sound like grains are
good, but as the article I posted state, dogs can not maintain proper
long-term digestion of grains, and that the starches which are
digestible turns to simple sugars in a dogs body. Sugar is a culprit
in much disease. In addition what Steve fails to point out is that
some of the worst absorbable grain flours in the paper are found in
Science Diet formulations.
As for those sugars, look at how much diabetes is growing in dogs. We
know grains are a dietary cause. So much so that some science is
trying to figure out how to let the grains pass without digestion in
order to help dogs with diabetes. For instance in :
"Effect of a wheat amylase inhibitor on canine carbohydrate digestion,
gastrointestinal function, and pancreatic growth."
Gastroenterology 1995 Apr;108(4):1221-9
Koike D, Yamadera K, DiMagno EP.
Scientists were looking for ways of preventing dogs with diabetes from
digesting wheat. I mentioned amylase before which is the enzyme
necessary for digesting starches. In this paper scientists tried
feeding dogs wheat and something to inhibit the dogs body from
digesting that wheat so that the wheat could pass through without
being digested turning to sugar which feeds diabetes.
And finally what Steve posts look mearly at how much is a substance is
left in the small intestine of a dog after digestion. It doe snot look
at allergies. We know that grains sources are one of the chief causes
of allergies in dogs.
Once again Steve is out to protect his product. Grains are so common
in some dog foods today because of one simple reason, they are very
cheap to use as ingredients. That means when you are paying a dollar
for a can of food, the company you are paying for that grain based
diet makes more profit than a company that cares about the quality of
protein that your dog gets by using what dogs are designed to eat,
meat. While a few Science Diet products actually have some meat
protein in them, you are paying a lot of money for a bunch of grain.
It's like buying pop corn in a theater, it sure is expensive and
you're getting ripped off.
Very simple answer! There are many companies that do not use grains
and are proud of it. At least when you buy these products you're
paying a dollar for meat and not a dollar for popcorn.
WalterNY
Feeding Grain to Dogs?
Should we feed our dogs grains?
An interesting question. I began my search for answers when I came
across an article questioning the feeding of grains. Until this point,
it had not occurred to me that my dog could thrive without grains. As
a matter of fact I was convinced they were necessary. After all, it is
a major ingredient in most pet foods and treats. My young German
Shepherd had been suffering with severe ear and skin problems. Due to
judicious cleaning they were never infected but were always on the
verge. We tried every solution we could find, both allopathic and
natural. Nothing worked. Ear washes and medications of all sorts only
lasted a short time. His problem was severe and he lost the hair on
his ears and muzzle. His ears bled and he kept me awake at night
moaning from the pain. I did not give up in my quest to help him. I
found a reprint of an article written by Russell Swift, D.V.M. that
questioned the feeding of grains. Since he was recommending grain free
diets as an option when the usual protocols did not work, I decided it
was worth a try. After seeing the results in my own dog and hearing
stories from others I decided to gather information to help others who
are struggling with unsolvable problems.
Why might grains be bad for my dog?
While many natural feeding proponents include grains such as oatmeal
and rice in their diets, others do not. Why wouldn't they?
The most basic reason would be that dogs have no nutritional need for
grains or the carbohydrates they provide. In the 1985 revised edition
of the Nutrient Requirements for Dogs, (page 7) studies confirm that
growing dogs who were fed a carbohydrate free diet "maintained normal
plasma glucose concentrations and normal rates of glucose
utilization". The results of the research agree with previous research
on growing rats and chickens that they "do not appear to have a
dietary requirement for carbohydrates provided adequate dietary
glucose precursors are available in the form of glucogenic amino acids
and glycerol". The other nutrients that grains provide are found in
other (some more easily digestible) food sources such as organ meats,
bones and vegetables.
Another factor that Russell Swift, D.V.M. suggests is that grains
inhibit the immune system. Grain proteins are less digestible than
animal proteins. He feels the presence of these "foreign,
non-nutritive protein and carbohydrate particles" may lead to
allergies and immune system problems.
Dogs do not contain the digestive enzyme in their saliva, amylase,
needed to begin the digestion of grains. Chewing, another factor in
grain digestion, is not something canines are designed to do. Rather
they catch, tear, crunch then swallow their foods in an instinctive
way. Digestion occurs in the stomach and the small intestine. It does
not begin in the mouth as it does in humans. Depending on the dog, two
or three chomps may be all they give, while others might savor their
food a little more. Grains are most thoroughly digested in animals
with long digestive tracts. Compared to animals who regularly eat
plant matter, a dog's digestive tract is about one third of the size.
In order to even begin to be digested grain must be either cooked,
soaked, fermented or sprouted. Undigested or the poorly digested
portion of grains is expelled in the form of large, semi-soft stool.
Some cheap grain-based commercial foods will produce almost as much
stool volume as food fed, leaving one to wonder what quantity of
nutrients have been absorbed from this food?
Grains, which are gluelike and break down into sugars, are likely to
be a contributing factor in the formation of dental calculus and
periodontal disease. Dogs who are fed a diet of kibble that includes
large amounts of grains (and does not provide the cleaning action that
raw meaty bones have) suffer from periodontal disease, tartar build up
and bad breath. Anecdotal evidence suggests that dogs who eat a grain
free diet are relatively free of the periodontal disease that plagues
many of our kibble eating pets.
Author and nutritionist Kymythy Schultze points out that "grains break
down into sugar within the body and can supply nourishment for yeast
overgrowth". She lists the problems that may be associated with grains
as: "allergies, ear infections, skin problems, bloating, joint
problems, malabsorption, and digestive disorders".
Pat McKay in "Reigning Cats and Dogs" discusses Candida Albicans or
chronic yeast infections, describing the symptoms of this serious
condition as: "excessive scratching, licking, chronic eye and/or ear
infections, rashes, hot spots, colitis, chronic cough, vaginitis,
kidney and bladder infections, arthritis, hypothyroidism, and even
diabetes".
In lecture notes from a seminar given by Dr. Ian Billinghurst
B.V.Sc.[Hons], B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., he points out that Hip Displaysia
was unknown before 1935 when cooked grains and artificial calcium were
introduced. By this I am assuming he means the introduction of
processed and prepackaged pet foods as opposed to feeding whole grains
as a part of a home prepared diet. He feels there is a genetic
disposition to hip displaysia but there is also a huge environmental
impact. In his book, Give Your Dog a Bone, Dr. Billinghurst writes:
"Dogs that eat grains as the major part of their diet suffer premature
ageing and the early development of degenerative diseases, such as
arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and other pancreatic problems. Many skin
problems, allergic problems and arthritic problems respond to the
withdrawl of grains from a dog's diet". He also points out
"Unfortunately, rice, the most popular of the grains that people feed
to their dogs, is the one with the lowest levels of protein, and
possibly the poorest quality protein". Dr. Billinghurst believes that
most allergies are developed due to feeding young puppies unsuitable
foods, setting it up for an allergy later in life.
Whole grains and other seeds have phytic acid in their shells. Phytic
acid binds to minerals like calcium preventing absorbption by the
body. In the 1930's a study found that dogs bacame ill with rickets
when they were fed a diet of oatmeal. Phytates prevent mineral
absorption in both dogs and humans. Techniques such as soaking and
fermenting reduce the amounts of phytic acid in grains by utilizing
the natural enzymes found in grains, phytases. Unfortunately,
phytases, like many enzymes are fragile and destroyed by commercial
processing. Another factor that inhibits nutrient absorption is the
lack of the amino acid lysine. Lysine is the amino acid that ensures
calcium absorption and distribution in the body. The lack of lysine in
combination with phytates makes minerals such as calcium, zinc,
selenium and chromium less or unavailable to your dog on a diet that
is high in whole grains.
Does my dog ever need carbohydrates?
Unless you are breeding your bitch, there is no reason to concern
yourself with carbohydrate intake. Carbohydrates do come from other
sources besides grains and in a balanced diet your dog will be eating
them. Carbohydrates are present in vegetables and dairy products. If
you have removed grains to cure a health problem in your bitch, you
may want to strongly consider whether this bitch is genetically the
best prospect for breeding. Research the health problem and it's
likeliness to be inherited.
Where would a dog on a carbohydrate free diet find the energy to
survive?
In humans, although most of us eat too many, carbohydrates are a
source of energy. While carbohydrates provide energy for dogs, they
have no biological requirement for them and easily get their energy
from fats and protein. Again from the book Nutrient Requirements for
Dogs (page 2), "gross energy values for mixed carbohydrates, fat and
protein average 4.15, 9.40 and 5.65 kcal/g, respectively. However, not
all gross energy contained in food is available for metabolism. An
undigested fraction is excreted in the feces. The difference between
the gross energy consumed and the gross energy in the feces is
referred to as apparent digestible energy (DE)". The energy excreted
in urine is subtracted from the DE in order to determine the
metabolizable energy or ME. Reasonable estimates of the ME available
to dogs from protein, fat and carbohydrates are 3.50, 8.46 and 3.50
respectively. When you consider the biologically superior ability of
the dog to digest animal protein and fat, carbohydrates take a much
less important if not negligible role. Fats and even protein provide
the energy for a dog's bodily functions.
A well balanced diet that includes a variety of vegetable matter will
provide carbohydrates so it is most unlikely that your pet would ever
be "carbohydrate free".
Why are grains fed to dogs?
The most common reason for feeding grains is cost. Grains are cheaper
than meats, particularly the "leftovers" from processing for human
consumption. Even respected author Dr Richard Pitcairn, D.V.M. writes
in his book, Natural Health for Dogs and Cats: "Whole grains are a
very cost-effective and environmentally sensitive way to provide the
mainstay of your pet's diet..." "...they are inexpensive sources of
protein as well". Dr Pitcairn even goes on to include a chart which
lists food ingredients by their approximate cost per gram of protein.
Cost is the determining factor for pet food manufacturers who often
produce foods with higher than 50 percent grain.
Grains are also needed to create "kibble". Trying to make "kibble"
without grains would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies
without flour. There are kibbled foods available that use potato
rather than grains but they are not widely available.
Another argument for feeding grains is that dogs, who are directly
descended from wolves, would find pre-digested grains in the stomachs
of their natural prey. To be honest, this is an argument that had
convinced me that grains were essential until I learned a little bit
more about prey diets and the animals that eat them. It turns out that
grains are not naturally abundant. Wolves, the closest relative to
almost all of our pet dog breeds, subsist mainly on large game such as
deer, moose, caribou, elk, bison, and muskox. Researchers studying
wolves in northern Alberta concluded that bison provided 80 percent of
the wolf's diet in summer and more in the winter. The prey animals of
wolves may eat some naturally occurring grain in the wild but
naturally occuring grains ripen and drop quickly to seed. They would
be available as a food source for only a few days or weeks in each
year. There's just not that much there to eat.
The most common source of grain in prey animals diets is found in
those animals that live near human cultivation. Given the opportunity,
animals such as white-tailed deer would choose to consume as much as
50 percent human grown grain crops as naturally occurring foods. The
reason is for this is simple. It's easy food! The grains we grow bear
little relation to grains found in the wild. We have developed,
through selective hybridization over the past 10,000 years, strong,
high yielding, genetically uniform crops that you just would not find
in a natural setting. Deer, as an example, without the benefit of
human cultivation, feed on leaves, twigs, buds of trees and shrubs,
hard and soft fruits, vines, forbs, lichens, mushrooms, and some
grassses. The most likely diet of prey animals would include
vegetation such as: grasses, seeds, nuts, berries, bark, roots, buds,
twigs and leaves.
Now that we can think about the stomach contents being rather low in
grain in most animals, it's time to move to the next step: killing and
eating. When wolves hunt in a pack, the wolf or wolves who eat the
organ meats depend on two things: pack order and personal preference.
Wolves, like humans (and dogs), are individuals. Some do not have the
opportunity to eat the organs and others may choose not to. I describe
this prey model only because it was the strongest argument that I had
heard to continue feeding grains to my dog. Unfortunately, it is not
backed up by fact.
My dog eats grains and is doing just fine!
Great! Your dog may be genetically capable of handling the grains.
Keep in mind that dogs are individuals. Also keep in mind that dogs
can survive on very poor diets. Dogs have lived for a half a century
now on questionable commercial concoctions based on the best guess at
their minimum nutritional requirements. Dogs are strong, they have to
be to be carnivores.
My dog needs grains to maintain his coat!
As far as I can tell, the most noticable change that dogs may show
when switching to a grain free diet is a coat change. "Show coats"
that are thick and full all year round can be diminished dramatically,
especially in the first year of the change. It has been my experience
that the coat returns in a more natural state which is different for
each dog depending on it's breed. If a dog appears to be suffering
unduly on a grain-free diet, and there is no health reason not to feed
grains, by all means go ahead and feed them. Consider, though, the
quantity and the quality as well as the overall diet of your dog. The
best way to feed grains is sprouted (raw) and in small quantities.
Also take into consideration your reason for feeding grains, is it a
true health concern or merely an appearance change?
GrainFreePets
I began researching this subject after seeing my dog suffer. I wanted
to find the root of his problem and not just treat the symptoms. Since
I have done this research (which is ongoing as I am passionate about
health and nutrition for my pets) I have reduced the amount of grain I
feed to my other dogs as well. As a proponent of food variety for
human health as well as my canine companions I have not eliminated
grain "snacks" for my dogs who can eat them. They even gets the odd
bowl of soaked whole oatmeal once in a blue moon. But, the amount they
eat now is dramatically less than what they were raised on with both
commercial and natural diets.
I urge you to continue researching for yourself. It is not my
intention to tell you how to feed your dogs, but rather to help anyone
who is reasearching diet consider another avenue to persue for the
overall health of your dogs.
Susan Cosby & Otto vom Wolfratshausen
A Grain Free Diet for dogs and cats:
Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats, The Ultimate Diet by: Kymythy
Schultze, C.C.N., A.H.I.
WalterNY
REIGNING CATS & DOGS by Pat McKay
For the past several months my own two dogs and two cats have been
eating their fresh, raw food meals without grains, and I see a decided
improvement in their overall healthy, especially, digestion and
stools.
The interesting part is that they are eating considerably less in
volume which more than makes up for the higher cost of meat and
vegetables as compared to grain.
The reason I continued to search for another formula was because my
cocker-mix had a chronic yeast infection (Candida albicans) which was
exacerbated by grains containing gluten.
The problem improved 50 percent in the first few months and continues
to improve by discontinuing the grains. She was not even able to
tolerate rice, millet and legumes which are ordinarily acceptable.
Symptoms of Candida albicans are excessive scratching, licking,
chronic eye and/or ear infections, rashes, hot spots, colitis, chronic
cough, vaginitis, kidney and bladder infections, arthritis,
hypothyroidism and even diabetes.
Celiac disease is another intestinal disorder (although more rare)
that is caused by the intolerance of some animals to gluten, a protein
that is in barley, oats, rye and wheat. Malnutrition often accompanies
this disorder because of the greatly reduced absorption of nutrients.
Symptoms of celiac disease include nausea, diarrhea, abdominal
swelling, foul-smelling stools, weight loss, anemia and skin rashes.
All in all, I believe for most cats and dogs, grains should not be a
regular part of their fresh, raw food program.
WalterNY
Grains, Grains & more Grains...
"Dogs are carnivores, or meat eaters. Their teeth are formed to pull
flesh apart. They have simple stomachs and a short digestive tract,
ideal for digesting meat. Cereal and vegetable proteins are not as
readily digested by the dog. While dogs have adapted somewhat to
digesting these proteins, they have to eat a greater quantity of such
foods to get the necessary nutrients. Dogs prefer a food high in
animal protein, and it makes them healthier and perform better".
Wendy Volhard
Grain makes up a considerable portion of both
commercial and many homemade diets. It has been stated that, "dogs do
not have a dietary requirement for carbohydrate" and "grains are used
only because they are a less expensive source of energy than fat or
protein."1 There are 'essential' fatty acids and 'essential' amino
acids (protein), but there are no known 'essential' carbohydrates.
Although carbohydrates can be manufactured from amino acids and
glycerol components of fats, a total lack may cause loss of energy,
and a breakdown of essential body protein. Diets in which protein is
too concentrated, may overwork kidneys as they attempt to rid toxins.
As such, a dog's diet should contain balanced proportions of
appropriate foods that provide optimum nutrition for their biological
requirements.
The history of human nutrition tells us that grain
products came to be as a result of the agricultural revolution and its
prominence in the diet of the dog began with commercial foods. To
humans, cooked grains are a convenient source of energy.
Unfortunately, the cooking or processing of grains denatures enzymes
which compromises digestion. However starch foods are satisfying
because they are metabolized slowly and perhaps this is why our mother
encouraged us to eat our oatmeal for breakfast - hoping to keeping
hunger away until dinner time! While this may be a good food addition
for humans with the digestive ability and enzymes to activate
digestion, it has been hypothesised that this may not be true for the
dog.
Carbohydrates come in two forms: complex and
simple. Simple; containing sugars like glucose and sucrose and complex
containing fiber and starch. Complex carbohydrates are referred to as
complex because of the number of glucose units in their structure and
the complexity of linkage. There are two groups of complex
carbohydrates. The first is high fiber complex carbohydrates which
are high in cellulose (the outer covering) and recommended for many
health benefits. In humans they are responsible for lower incidences
of cancer, arthritis, diabetes, etc. The second is low fiber complex
carbohydrates, involving cereals or grains, including rice. Both
simple and complex carbohydrates enter into the circulatory system
following digestion in the simple form as glucose, where it is used as
energy. To be transformed into simple sugars, complex carbohydrates
must undergo breakdown by appropriate enzymes.
In humans, the digestion of carbohydrates begins with
chewing. Amylase is secreted by the salivary glands in the mouth to
break down amylose, a form of starch. Unlike human saliva, which plays
a role in the initial digestion of starches, the saliva of the dog
does not.2 The digestive process is slower as starches make their way
through to the middle portion of the stomach where it is mixed with
hydrochloric acid, water and enzymes. Salivary amylase will not
function in this acidic environment and it is at this time that the
digestion of starches gradually diminishes. After several hours,
depending upon the combination of foods consumed with the grains, it
leaves the stomach and enters the small intestine. It is here that the
enzymes needed for digestion are released by the pancreas breaking
down the starch components which are then absorbed by the cells. Slow
digestion allows time for the grains to ferment and circulate toxins.
The pancreas has to produce not only enough enzymes, but adequate
insulin for the proper oxidization and utilization of blood sugar as
it transports it into the cells. This sugar in turn, may be stored as
fat, resulting in obesity. Excessive demands on the pancreas may
contribute to disorders such as diabetes, pancreatic insufficiency and
pancreatitis.
As a rule, animal sources of protein (high
biologic) are superior to plant sources. Too little high biologic
protein in a dog's diet can cause a protein deficiency which is
reflective in diseases that may include skin and chronic ear
infections, reproductive, heart, kidney, liver, bladder, thyroid and
adrenal gland malfunctions. While the chemical composition of protein
is similar for some grains and meats, the bioavailability is
different. Only high biologic sources provide complete amino acids.
Vegetable proteins which are incomplete must be combined with complete
proteins to provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids. Heat
processing alters amino acids which in turn affects their
bio-availability.
In a raw state, whole grains, contain natural
enzymes inside the seeds that will begin to digest the starch, protein
and fats before the seeds reach the intestines. It is a law of nature,
that these live food enzymes have been designed to predigest food and
that metabolic enzymes were never intended to do it alone. The enzyme
phytase which reduces phytic acid, is an example of a naturally
occuring food enzyme. However, once grains are processed (by heat),
these natural food enzymes are completely destroyed and the body must
rely on metabolic enzymes to do the work.
Typical commercial and natural 'meat and grain'
diets are high in phosphorus and low in calcium. To combat this,
copius amounts of artificial calcium is needed to balance the high
phosphorus content, potentially causing problems if supplemented
inappropriately.3 Calcium absorption is very inefficient with 20 to 30
percent actually being absorbed. As well, most of these diets are
formulated on a statistical average of dry matter, not on the
individual requirements and absorption of the dog, this being
essentially an unknown. However, there are some known factors which
are influenced by calcium intake. One is that excessive calcium will
attach to other essential nutrients present in the diet, forming new
compounds which prevents them from being absorbed. These lost
nutrients are then excreted in the feces. Excessive amounts of calcium
cannot be used efficiently and if not utilized may build up in tissues
or joints as deposits or potentially interfere with the functions of
the nervous and muscular systems. An excess in the blood causes
calcium rigor (muscles that contract and can't relax). The other is
that grains themselves, inhibit the absorption of calcium because they
do not contain the amino acid L-Lysine. This amino acid enables
calcium to be absorbed from the stomach distributing it into the
system as well as being responsible for the formation of collagen,
which is the protein in bone, cartilage and connective tissue,
including skin. Calcium deficiencies may lead to problems such as
joint pain, irritability of nerves, abnormal heartbeat and bone loss.
The phytic acid in the shell of whole grains binds to minerals like
calcium (iron, zinc and magnesium) to form insoluable compounds called
phytates. It was already discovered back in the 1930's that young dogs
got rickets when fed oatmeal and it was proven then that phytates were
the dietary factor responsible for inhibition of calcium absorption by
the oatmeal. There are many variables regarding calcium and phosphorus
in 'grain type' diets.
Other interesting points to consider regarding the
use of grains in the dog's diet include the undeniable fact that
grains produce overly-large stools that are due to an ove-rabundance
of fiber. Of course this does not pose any health problems, but it is
unnecessary. Dogs fed properly prepared high complex (plant)
carbohydrates as part of a nutritionally inherent diet maintain
optimum benefits without excess fecal waste. Dental calculus can also
be minimized as tartar build up is eliminated along with the bacteria
that thrive on the low fiber complex carbohydrates.
The 'middlings', flaked grains and white rice fed
in the dog's diet today, are not the same as naturally occuring
grasses ingested from the stomach of wild game. Nowadays, most
commercial 'meat producers' fatten their stock on grain instead of
grass, disregarding the richest sources of nutrition within the plant.
The leaves, stems, roots and flowers of living plants provide abundant
chlorophyll, vitamins, minerals, polyphenols4, phytochemicals5 and
carotenoids6. Oils in plants are EFA rich with more than half being
omega3. Leaves are usually high in calcium, iron, magnesium, vitamin C
and many B vitamins. The greener the plant, the richer the nutrients.
Grains are only the seed part of grasses such as oats
or rice, containing three parts within it's structure. The germ is the
heart of the grain, which sprouts when the seed is planted. It is very
rich in B vitamins, vitamin E, protein, unsaturated fat, minerals
(especially iron) and carbohydrates. The bran portion or covering is
cellulose with traces of B vitamins, minerals (especially iron) and
incomplete proteins. The endosperm constitutes the largest part of the
grain, composed mostly of carbohydrates in the form of starch with
some incomplete protein and traces of vitamins and minerals. The oils
in grains are approximately half omega6 and a small amount of omega3.
These oils spoil rapidly when they are broken, pressed or ground. To
improve storage and prevent rancidity, mills remove oils from the
seeds, along with vitamins, minerals, fiber, enzymes and some protein.
In order to reap full nutritional benefits, the whole grain should be
fed and preferably raw. Unfortunately, dogs are not birds and so
grains must be processed in some fashion for it to be digested. This
leaves it as not much other than filler with a few incomplete
proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
For centuries, meadows and woodlands have been
grazing grounds full of 'living' plants. These foods have been
consumed by herbivores and carnivores, through the food chain or by
instinctive selection. They have fulfilled a need that nature has
clearly indicated is part of a healthy dietary requirement. It is
becoming clearly evident, that when dogs eat human-type foods, they
will suffer a variety of human-type diseases. Contrary to this,
undomesticated animals are immune to our human degenerative diseases.
1 Merck Veterinary Manual 7th Edition as defined by AAFCO
2 Typically dogs do not chew their food, mostly swallowing it
semi-whole and digesting it later. Their teeth have been designed to
bite and tear, not chew as the human or herbivore would.
3 Calcium to phosphorus at 1:1% to 1.5% : 1.0% dry matter
4 Polyphenols - non-nutrient antioxidant compound found in vegetables
and fruits that aids in preventing cancer. Apples, strawberries, yams,
nuts, onions.
5 Phytochemicals - antioxidant contained in fruits and vegetables that
blocks processes leading to cancer and tumours. Brussels sprouts,
turnips, broccoli, cauliflower, kale and tomatoes.
6 Carotenoids - Antioxidants that destroy free-radical-causing disease
agents. Carrots, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, butternut squash etc.
WalterNY
E.E. Graney D.V.M.
The nutritional requirements of dogs are quite complex. Basic
guidelines can vary drastically according to the breed of dog, the
stress and performance demands placed upon the dog and climatic
conditions. The choice of dog food, then, is critical in determining
just how well the nutritional requirements of the individual dog will
be met. Just as important as the ingredients in the dog food is the
manufacturing process. Every manufacturing process has both positive
and negative effects on the nutritional value of the ingredients. The
key is to achieve a manufacturing process which both maximizes the
nutrient values and, at the same time, has the least destructive
effect on the overall product.
All pet foods utilize grains in their diets. Most brands utilize too
much grain to properly feed and maintain carnivores such as dogs and
cats. These raw grains contain raw starches, which will cause diarrhea
in a monogastric animal unless properly cooked.
The extrusion/expansion process (generally referred to as the
extrusion process) is still the most widely used. Much attention has
been given recently to a process that comes closer than any other to
meeting the manufacturing goals described previously. The pelleting
process, or soft-cooked method (a modification the pelleting process),
is performing favorably in laboratory tests and field trials when run
against dog foods manufactured by the common extrusion/expansion
process.
In the extrusion process, the raw, uncooked grains are combined with
vitamins, minerals, fully cooked proteins and other ingredients. This
mixture is then compressed through an extruder, creating very intense
pressure and heat. This highly compressed mixture is then extruded out
as a wet, doughy substance that expands as it encounters air. This
product then moves into a baking and drying oven that continues to
cook the product while it dehydrates into the well-recognized kibble.
Fat is then applied to the kibbles as they exit the oven after the
final cooking process.
In contrast, the pelleting process cooks the grains separately, apart
from the other ingredients. The cooked grains are then mixed with the
vitamins, minerals, prepared proteins and other ingredients and rushed
through a pellet mill which generates a small pellet. These pellets
are then sent either directly to the fat applicator and on to the
packaging system or are cracked and texturized before fat application
and packaging.
While a basic outline of the two different processes is helpful, they
are both much more complicated, and their complexities need to be
examined separately.
All dog foods use some kinds of grains. Dogs need grains in their
diets, but they (like humans) cannot properly digest raw uncooked
grains. When grains are cooked, the starches within them are expanded,
and the carbohydrates change, becoming fully digestible to a dog.
EXTRUSION PROCESS:
The grains (along with all the other ingredients) are cooked at
extremely high temperatures while they are being compressed. This
effectively cooks the starches and carbohydrates but overcooks the
already prepared meats and proteins which causes considerable harm to
many vitamins and amino acids.
Due to the nature of extruded products, the food swells in the dog's
stomach.
Effects on vitamins and amino acids: Vitamins and amino acids are
heated along with the other ingredients, to temperatures high enough
to cook the raw grains. Temperatures may vary but they must be at
least 350 degrees for the grains to be properly cooked. Many run as
high as 640 degrees. Since the vitamins and amino acids are subjected
to the same high temperatures, they are less available for the dog to
utilize. At 145 degrees you start to destroy the B complex vitamins,
vitamins E and C, and certain valuable amino acids that dogs and cats
need for building blocks.
PELLETING PROCESS:
The grains are cooked separately in what is effectively a hot-air corn
popper or roaster. These grains are then cooled before being mixed
with the other ingredients. The mixed product is then compacted as it
is rushed through the pellet mill at a temperature of about 125
degrees. In this way, the pellet enjoys the absence of excess air
pockets, which means a much denser - sometimes as much as 3.5 times
denser - dog food.
Absence of air and a high-density factor offers some excellent
advantages:
It is nearly impossible for dogs to become bloated when they eat the
dog food dry and then drink large quantities of water. This food does
not float and swell in a glass of water like kibbled pet foods.
Pelleted dog food immediately begins to disintegrate when it enters
the dog's stomach.
Effects on vitamins and amino acids: since the grains are cooked
separately from the other ingredients, the high temperatures required
to cook the grains do not affect the ingredients containing the
vitamins and amino acids. When the cooked grains are mixed with the
other ingredients and run through the pellet mill, they are rushed
through in a matter of seconds at about 125 degrees. Since the
vitamins and amino acids are not subjected to the same high
temperatures they are more available to be utilized by the dog. This
means a dog can eat less while still maintaining the same performance
levels. Of course, the less a dog has to eat to meet its nutritional
requirements the healthier it will be.
SOME UNIQUE ADVANTAGES OF THE PELLETING PROCESS:
Overall, pelleted products are more palatable than extruded products
simply because they have not been baked into a hard, biscuit-type
consistency like basic kibbles.
Pelleted products are generally more economical. More compact, can be
packed in smaller bags which allows more product to be shipped and
stored in limited space.
Obtain optimum performance for a reasonable price.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
The extrusion process is not a bad way to make dog food. It just might
not be the best way. Pelleted and soft-cooked foods are beginning to
be seen in large-scale markets all over the country. Remember, though,
that because of the difference in manufacturing processes, a pelleted
dog food with the same protein percentage as an extruded product will
in most cases outperform the extruded dog food. Therefore, one should
be aware that when comparing differently processed dog food, the
percentages listed on the labels can't be used to directly compare the
relative performance of each product.
"Doc's Choice uses only the highest grade, most digestible ingredients
available. Couple that fact with the pelleting process and the result
is a pet food that is unbeatable in performance at any price!"
Steve Crane
and I posted a peer reviewed published study proving you wrong, you are left
with nothing but personal attacks. It sure is getting easy to see when
you've lost the argument. So if you are right, find me the peer reviewed
published study which refutes the facts in the study I published. Good luck,
remember peer reviewed published study, NOT personal opinions.
"WalterNY" <walt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ef6a97e5.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message news:<6fEh8.725$d%
> > Personal opinions, which is all Walter has posted are nice but the facts
are
> > as follows.
>
> Here is something the group needs to know. First of all Steve Crane
> can not say anything bad about grains because the product he sells is
> full of them. So even if grains were not the optimum type of nutrition
> for your dog, Steve will protect his product. This is why one must
> consider what he posts and whether what he posts is done so
> altruistically. As a result of his bias, he will find an abstract that
> makes it seem like grains are good for a dog.
rubbish snipped
WalterNY
> and I posted a peer reviewed published study proving you wrong,
As I have said from day one, the extremely limited scope of peer
review is part of the equation in life but certainly not the rule.
Steve, I'm sorry to say that we will never find a common ground here.
You have a job and can not look beyond what could jeopardize the
product you push. That would make any discussion useless. As for peer
review and your often knowledgeless use of peer review citations as
fact I quote one of the most important and influential philosophers of
science, Karl Popper who shows us that not only is peer review not
fact, but those who are nonspecialists in science can't see that its
only opinion:
"The methods of peer review is to approach the truth through a series
of increasingly accurate or useful approximations, no piece of
research can be held to be definitive. All results are transitional
and approximative. Although scientists strive for perfection, by the
very nature of their endeavor they cannot achieve perfection. It
follows that neither a paper presenting new results of observation
or theory nor a proposal for a new investigation can be perfect.
They can only be 'good enough.' One of the paradoxes of science,
which purports to measure various phenomena with great precision,
is that it cannot define a precise measurement of 'good enough.'
Assessment of what 'enough' means is left to the judgement of
individual scientists. Hence nonspecialists who cannot reach an
informed opinion about some theory or discovery often tend to
be guided by the consensus OPINION of specialists."
Steve if you have a printer, print that one out and put it on your
wall. The next time you want to debate the 'facts' refer to it. Your
lack of formal education leaks out every now and then and these little
reminders might help.
I'll post some more quotes every now and then for you to put on your
wall.
Mike Fry
> "The methods of peer review is to approach the truth through a series
> of increasingly accurate or useful approximations, no piece of
> research can be held to be definitive.
In the cases of peer reviewed nutritional information, there is plenty of info
to suggest the peer review process is not working at all. For example: A
"study" published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association (JAVMA)
recently performed chemical analysis on raw, home-prepared diets. They then
compared these diets to commercial dog foods via tables of "known nutritional
adequacies."
Not surprisingly, they found deficiencies in every raw diet they tested, some
extreme deficiencies. This peer reviewed piece of work concluded that raw
diets were dangerous and that pet guardians who fed them to their pets were, in
effect, pointing a loaded weapon at them. It seemed like a serious blow to
those who feed raw diets. . . except for a few problems. . .
1) The data just didn't add up. Not even close. One of the commercial raw
diets that was tested had spent thousands of dollars on independent chemical
analysis of their diet prior to the study. They had data from multiple
laboratories verifying their analysis. So their attorneys and their
nutritionists began taking a closer look at the published data. What they
found was shocking. MOST of the data published was bad. So bad, in fact, that
it was not even plausible. One diet, for example, was reported to have higher
concentrations of vitamin D than does pure cod liver oil. The authors of the
study, through their attorney, did acknowledge that the math used to compute
the tables was in error. They worked to recompute the data. In the end, about
70% of the data points in the tables were changed. . . some by as much as a
factor of 10. Every data point cited in the original articles as proof that
raw diets are inadequate fell to within the "accepted" rage after correction.
Although there were still problems with the data. As I understand it, it took
3 tries to get the data right. JAVMA followed up with corrected data tables,
but never mentioned the scope of the underlying problems, or the extent to
which the flawed math would have effected the conclusions of the study.
2) The study methodology was flawed. No one really knows what was sampled,
because the sample sizes were so small and were collected by the people who fed
diets themselves. For example, when asked if the BARF diet they sampled
contained bones (the first data set showed very low CA for the BARF diet, which
did not seem possible, since the B stands for Bones), the authors did not
know. This highlights a basic flaw in the "scientific" methodology used. How
do you collect a 100 gram sample of a "diet" that is a system of feeding. . .
that is not represented by any one meal or any group of even 10 meals? Their
methodology did not account for this properly and, therefore, failed to
document that these diets were adequately sampled.
3) While there was clearly a fair amount of money behind this study (those
chemical analysis are not inexpensive), the funding source for the study was
never disclosed by JAVMA, which is counter to the publications written
policies. The "study" was first presented at a nutrition conference funded by
Purina. This, at least, gives the appearance of possible bias, that, to my
knowledge, has never been addressed.
In spite of the egregious problems with this "study," the peer review process
failed to detect or correct them. In fact, while JAVMA was aware of these
flaws, they chose to conceal them from their readership. While they did
publish a series of data corrections (in the form of corrected data tables),
they left it to the readers to go back and perform their own analysis of the
datas presented point by point to determine the scope of the math problems.
The final word I saw printed on the subject was a note from one of the authors
of the study indicating they were sorry for the need to present corrected data,
but that they stood by the study and the conclusions.
In other words, while the data used to make their arguments was wrong, and
while the corrected data no longer makes that case, and while the study
methodology was seriously flawed, they stand by the conclusions.
In this case, peer review did not work in the slightest. My veterinarian wrote
a letter to the editor of JAVMA about this "study." When the potential of
litigation finally arose, JAVMA agreed to publish the letter. It appeared next
to a couple of letters from veterinarians who were thanking the study authors
for giving them such a powerful weapon to use when talking to their clients
about pet foods. The study is still being cited as proof that raw diets are
dangerous.
--
Mike Fry
Animal Ark No-Kill Shelter
A no-kill shelter because pets aren't disposable
http://www.animalarkshelter.org
(651) 772-8983 (Shelter)
(612) 590-1868 (Direct)
GAUBSTER2
Some people think think they are too smart for the rest of us and like to
point out how much education they have as a basis for being egotistical.
Walter, you have some crazy, unfounded in fact, opinions that I believe come
from your "education" based on the examples of obscure studies that you have
posted in the past. One example of today's "educational" system-- did you know
that the war on terrorism and terrorism itself is because of repressed sexual
expression? That's an accredited course being taught at one of the prestigious
CA colleges according to The O'Reilly Factor on FOX news.
WalterNY
> to suggest the peer review process is not working at all.
Actually Mike, it's bigge than that. THe entire process of peer review
is coming under severe scrutiny. Many are demanding sweeping changes
because the system does not work.
Here are a few interesting perspectives:
Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science
Keywords: electronic communication, objectivity, peer review, refereed
journals, research grants, science funding, science publishing,
subjectivity.
MACIEJ HENNEBERG Note 1
Department of Anatomy and Histology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide
5005, Australia, mhen...@medicine.adelaide.edu.au
Received February 17, 1997, published February 20, 1997
Summary: A brief historical overview of the origins of peer review
reveals that it is neither the best means of evaluating contributions
to science nor the one most commonly used during the period in which
the modern scientific method developed. Throughout history, most
scientists published their views without formal review and peers
published their criticisms openly. It is argued here that peer review
as now undertaken by most scientific journals stifles scientific
communication, slows the advancement of knowledge and encourages
dishonest behavior among referees. Alternatives to peer review that
have already been used by some journals and funding bodies are
described. Since these alternatives have proved themselves in
practice, the now commonly practised form of peer review can be
abandoned or modified. Electronic communication can facilitate this
process.
Science, communication, society
Science is a specific collective human activity (Hull 1988). It is
about acquiring an understanding of the world that is of practical
value. It is different from both commerce and ideology and hence its
practice in society has to be controlled by a separate set of rules
and behavioral norms. Exchange of information and opinions among
practitioners of science is crucial to its progress. Results of
scientific research are useless unless they are communicated to other
scientists and the public at large.
Presentation by scientists of the results of their research to others,
be the work academic or industrial, is thus essential to the
scientific enterprise. Because the nature of scientific work, at least
according to Karl Popper (1972), is to approach the truth through a
series of increasingly accurate or useful approximations, no piece of
research can be held to be definitive. All results are transitional
and approximative. Although scientists strive for perfection, by the
very nature of their endeavor they cannot achieve perfection. It
follows that neither a paper presenting new results of observation or
theory nor a proposal for a new investigation can be perfect. They can
only be “good enough.” One of the paradoxes of science,
which purports to measure various phenomena with great precision, is
that it cannot define a precise measurement of “good
enough.” Assessment of what “enough” means is left
to the judgement of individual scientists. Hence nonspecialists who
cannot reach an informed opinion about some theory or discovery often
tend to be guided by the consensus opinion of specialists.
Leaving assessment of research results and theories to the judgement
of individuals, however well informed in a particular field of
expertise, introduces a factor of subjective opinion into seemingly
objective science. The ancient Greeks, who originated science as a
specific endeavor based on logical argument and empirical tests,
realized its susceptibility to subjective opinions. The Greek way of
dealing with possibly biased opinions was to conduct open debates
between scientists, to produce mathematically exact descriptions and
to run empirical tests of statements made by learned persons. Broad
discussion and empirical testing were the foundations of learning.
Sometimes these were taken too far, as for example in Hellenistic
Alexandria, where curious scientists conducted vivisections on
condemned criminals (Persaud 1984). Roman ethics put an end to such
practices and even forbade dissections of deceased humans. In Roman
times, learning became more dependent on written texts than on
observation of nature and theoretical arguments. Sanctity of the
written word was entrenched by medieval European scholastics.
Science as a human endeavor is also open to social pressures expressed
as moral and ethical norms. All human activities need to be organized
and regulated by norms of behavior that constrain actions of
individuals and attach value to decisions. In other words, individual
opinions and actions must be censored and decisions justified.
There exists a basic contradiction between the free search for ideas
and their empirical testing on the one hand, and a priori norms of
behavior on the other. In the ideal world, free flow of ideas and
unrestricted empirical testing should result in the greatest
accumulation of knowledge. Empirical tests require time and resources
that must somehow be provided by society. No economy is unlimited in
size and, hence, no economy can support all possible experiments
scientists might think of. Limited resources require that somebody
decides which experiments are to be done and which not. Such decisions
necessarily involve an element of subjectivity and are constrained by
social norms. Scientists in their quest for a practical understanding
of the world must navigate narrow straits between social conventions,
economic reality and their own human limitations. Not least among
these latter are egotism, greed and plain fear.
Historically, it seems that gentlemen-scientists with an elevated
social position and independent means, fared the best in science. In
the 16th century, at the dawn of the modern era, one such individual,
the son of a middle-class family, holder of the respectable office of
Canon of the Frombork Cathedral, published a book on the revolution of
celestial bodies that revolutionized understanding of our place in the
universe. The man was Nicholas Copernicus. His accomplishment was
simple: he moved the Earth from the center of the world onto an orbit
around the Sun. Being supported by the endowments attached to his post
and having received a thorough education at Polish and Italian
universities, he had the time and knowledge to conduct astronomical
observations and to write a lengthy manuscript in relative peace. He
realized the revolutionary nature of his work and dreaded the opinion
of many learned colleagues as he clearly spoke against the then
accepted views. And yet the book was published. It would not be
possible today to publish a book full of minor errors and
simplifications and arguing something so ludicrous as a complete
reversal of a consensus of well-established authorities. Would it also
be possible for a modern scientist to obtain a grant for a proposal
based on the supposition that the major publications on the subject
are wrong and that he will prove it by conducting observations from
the roof of his residence? Absolutely not. Peer review protects us
against such lunacies.
Debate of scientific theories and reinterpretation of results is a
core of science. This debate benefits from the widest possible
participation. This was well recognized by founders of scientific
journals in the early centuries of the modern era. Scientific journals
and published transactions of learned societies provided means of
relatively fast and broad communication of ideas among scientists.
Published works were there for everyone to read and it was open to
everyone to publish counter arguments. Transactions of many societies
included the text of both presented papers and the ensuing debate. All
points of view were there in print for everyone to see and comment on.
Reading such printed accounts could be bewildering for inexperienced
readers, but sharpened their powers of reasoning as each argument had
to be absorbed, evaluated and compared with other arguments.
With time it became obvious that not all written matter submitted to
journals for publication or to societies for presentation could be
published. A certain standard of quality had to be applied. Editors of
journals and officers of societies made judgements as to what is
acceptable and what not acceptable. Junior or less well-known
scientists were not allowed to present their papers at the meetings of
various societies, but their papers were introduced by recognized
fellows who themselves were elected to fellowships by older and
well-established colleagues. Fellowships of the Royal Society and many
national academies are awarded in this manner even today.
Editors of journals and fellows of learned societies in the 19th
century were usually broadly educated academics. They felt themselves
to be well equipped to judge the quality of practically all research
reports and theoretical papers submitted to them for publication or
presentation. In making such judgements, they also kept in mind the
reputation of the journals and societies, and so they also acted as
guardians of publicly accepted ethical norms.
It is only natural for humans to evaluate possible consequences of a
public statement before making it. Such evaluation, besides obvious
reliance on an individual’s knowledge and experience, often
tends to be based on the advice of friends, family members and
colleagues. Hence many manuscripts of scientific works were read and
commented on by the author’s friends and colleagues before being
submitted for publication. Such was the regular practice of Charles
Darwin, who tested his ideas on his friends before committing them to
print (Desmond and Moore 1991).
Peer review today
As the 20th century dawned, the breadth of scientific endeavor became
such that there were hardly any persons who could feel competent to
evaluate contributions in more than a limited range of subjects. Thus,
editors started asking specialists to evaluate papers submitted to
journals. The specialists acted in an advisory capacity, and editors
still took full responsibility for their decisions. In order to
encourage frankness by referees, editors undertook to ensure that they
would remain anonymous to the author. With time, overworked editors
transferred all work of evaluating manuscripts and suggesting
corrections to referees. Referees took make-or-break decisions, but
still remained anonymous. There is a commonly held view that
refereeing of papers ensures that they become definitive publications,
and that what is published must be true and need not be questioned.
This is obviously wrong as referees are as prone to errors as are
authors. Although it is less likely that a paper will contain major
mistakes after it has been scrutinized by several reviewers, errors in
published papers are nevertheless common. The proof lies in a number
of corrections published in Errata sections of major journals.
The most common form of peer review today is for an editor to send a
manuscript to several specialists asking them to answer standard
questions about the paper and to provide written comments. The
questions nearly always include the one regarding recommendation to
publish “as is,” “with revisions” or
“reject.” The process used to referee grant proposals is
virtually the same, although instead of “accept” or
“reject” referees are asked to assign a score or a grade
to the proposal.
Being asked to referee a paper or a grant proposal anonymously is the
dream of anybody seeking power—power without responsibility.
Referees acting under such circumstances may be tempted to reject, or
delay, publication of papers they disagree with, as their
pronouncements regarding the quality of work under review are unlikely
to be questioned. The same goes for the refereeing of grant proposals
(Goodstein 1996).
Since all the thinking about delaying publication of
“unwelcome” results is done in the heads of anonymous
referees, it cannot be examined directly. It can, though, be teased
out statistically. Increased reliance of journals on decisions made by
reviewers increases time from submission of a paper to its final
acceptance, because referees recommend alterations to the content and
form of the manuscript. The number and difficulty of proposed
alterations may be proportional to the intention to delay publication.
Many journals have adopted the practise of printing the “date
submitted” and the “date accepted” as a footnote to
a paper. I have examined the delay between submission and acceptance
in two journals: the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (AJPA)
and the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA). In 1980, when AJPA first
published the information, the average waiting time from submission to
acceptance was 6.9 months (Median = 4.8, SD = 4.5) whereas in 1996 it
increased significantly (P < 0.01) to 15.7 months (Me = 11.3, SD =
9.8). Papers published in MJA in 1984 had an average waiting time of
3.5 months (Me = 2.0, SD = 3.3), which increased significantly (P <
0.05) to 5.6 months (Me = 4.4, SD = 2.5) in 1995. It is strange that
these increases occurred during a period in which the quality of
research work should have improved and the efficiency of mails and
other communication systems increased. Slowdown in communication of
scientific results is obviously to the detriment of scientific
progress and appears linked to reliance on the process of peer review.
The peer review of grants has its origin in industrial practice. Many
people propose to do many things but resources are limited. How can a
small number of people who hold the purse strings know everything? The
answer is that they cannot, and so they must ask specialists. The best
solution is to ask people working on problems similar to the one a
grant application proposes to solve. They will be able to highlight
merits and point out errors of the proposal. Of course they will be
more frank if ensured anonymity. Since people working in similar areas
usually know each other and either agree and collaborate or dislike
each other and compete among themselves, the result of a review of a
particular application will depend on considerations external to the
application. These considerations, besides likes and dislikes, also
include political and financial elements. What being anonymous and
having power means to a referee has been discussed above. A good
grantsman will write an application in such a way as to avoid being
criticized. It will either be bland, proposing an innocuous piece of
research, or it will propose to continue what the author has been
successfully (in terms of grants) doing before. Any testing of
somebody else’s theory or encroachment into someone else’s
area of research creates a high risk of failure.
Paradoxically, some good scientists who do not feel inclined to use
anonymous powers to manipulate the system, are not keen to act as
referees. This happens to the extent that one of the major science
funding agencies now coerces people into refereeing grants by saying
that it will automatically refuse grants to academics who do not agree
to referee proposals of others. For an honest but busy academic there
is very little attraction in refereeing a paper or a grant proposal.
It takes time and effort to write a well thought-out assessment and,
since it is anonymous, no credit accrues to the reviewer even if, in
the process, he comes up with a bright new idea. Authors of papers who
receive substantial help from referees certainly recognize their
indebtedness, as they often thank referees for their input in the
“Acknowledgments” section of their papers. Referees of
grant proposals find themselves in an even worse predicament. Since
they referee grants in their own area of interest, they may be
strengthening their own competitors if they provide honest criticism
that can be used to improve the proposal.
In general, peer review stifles scientific enquiry both by subjecting
authors to anonymous critics whose comments cannot be directly
challenged, and by self-censorship by authors who hesitate to state
the exact rationale or goals of their proposed research for fear that
it would not pass the scrutiny of their colleagues. The word
colleagues describes referees more truthfully than the word peers,
because, although all scientists have a right to do research and
express opinions in any area, scientists are not all equal in
experience, talent and diligence. Those who are experienced, talented
and meticulous, rarely have peers in the sense of equals. How many
physicists of the 20th century would consider themselves equals of
Albert Einstein? Nevertheless, an enthusiastic and talented, but
inexperienced postgraduate student is going to have her work judged by
older, much more experienced professors as if her work had been done
by a professor. A bit of understanding and encouragement, rather than
strict criticism would perhaps help to develop a valuable scientist.
As it is, she may be discouraged by rejection of her work following
peer review.
Alternatives to current peer review practices
These days, everybody complains about deficiencies of peer review, but
few believe that anything can be done about it. How such a view could
pass peer review is beyond me. Over the years and in various countries
systems of evaluation according to principles other than “peer
review” have been applied with good results. These systems still
rely on opinions of academics other than the author, but these
opinions are not anonymous or dependent on reviewers ticking boxes or
assigning a score.
Until about 20 years ago, many journals relied on editors to make
decisions without formal refereeing of papers. Authors were expected
to have their manuscripts read and discussed by their colleagues
before submission, and it was customary for well-established academics
to recommend to the Editor publication of papers written by younger
colleagues or students, although this did not guarantee publication.
At the same time, students were free to submit papers without
professor’s recommendation. Editors, as they became conscious of
good work by particular academics, approached them with invitations to
publish in their journals. This tradition continues in a limited way
even today. For example, only two years ago a respected French
colleague approached one of my students to publish his freshly
completed PhD thesis in a series of which he was an editor. Such an
invitation does not mean that the manuscript will not need to be
edited based on direction of the Editor and comments of whomever he
has had review the manuscript. The decision, however, is very much out
of the hands of peers. Although an editor is, like an anonymous peer
reviewer, merely human, his name is known to authors and he has some
recognized general policy for his journal. Furthermore, he has a clear
interest in the reputation of the journal he edits. These goals are
not in conflict with the specific research goals pursued by authors
who may wish to publish in his journal.
The editorial system used by leading journals such as Nature run on
somewhat similar lines. In the first instance, papers submitted to
Nature are evaluated by its editors and only a small number that
survive editorial scrutiny are sent for peer review, which therefore
takes the form of technical advice to the editor. The extent of
editorial control over the process of publishing papers in Nature is
evident from the fact that the time from submission to acceptance has
not changed over the last 12 years. My calculations based on 283
research papers indicate that the mean delay between submission and
acceptance was the same in 1984 (3.1 months, Me = 2.9, SD = 1.7) as it
was in 1996 (3.1 months, Me = 2.8, SD = 1.8). The system used by
naturalSCIENCE is constructed along similar lines.
The need to allocate research monies unavoidably limits the freedom of
scientific exploration, with the result that not all scientists get to
pursue the research they want. However, the less the process of
allocation of funds stifles scientific freedom the better. Giving
money for three-year bits of circumscribed research, a practice that
seems now to be quite common, is the worst means of fund allocation.
It seems to have arisen from the need to give peace of mind to
administrators who cannot make too big a mistake by giving away funds
in dribs and drabs to projects having tight schedules and detailed
budgets. How can one budget for a discovery? Until the end of 1995, an
alternative system was used by the major South African government
agency the Foundation for Research Development. In a modified form,
combined with project-oriented funding, the same method is still used
under the new democratic South African government. The system is based
on the principle that good scientists produce even better science when
given resources. It relies on a scientist’s track record. A
funding submission consists of a Curriculum Vitae with a description
of research achievements, concentrating on the most recent past. The
candidate is invited to name internationally renowned referees,
although the agency may use other persons as well. The submission is
evaluated by several international referees in order to establish
whether the applicant is an international leader in his field (A), a
leader in a specialized area (B), or a scientist who makes regular
internationally recognized contributions to his field (C). If none of
those descriptions applies, the person is classified D (inactive, no
funding will be allocated). There is a special provision for young
scientists who have only just completed their doctorate but have
proven their worth in other ways (Y). Formerly, an academic was
reevaluated every 4 years. Funding was allocated for 4 years based on
a category and a one-paragraph general description of the planned
research. Now, a more detailed research plan is usually required. The
idea is simple—trust a researcher and she will produce results.
Similar methods of funding include giving a renowned researcher an
endowed chair with research funds attached, or establishing a
university research unit for an eminent scholar, which will receive
university-funded equipment and staff. In case of younger people,
funds such as scholarships or postdoctoral fellowships are allocated
by a process based on recommendations by supervisors and evaluation of
previous work and experience by variously constituted panels.
It seems ludicrous today to mention past systems in which academic
appointments carried a salary designed to cover research expenses, or
departmental budgets including lines for research equipment,
consumables and travel. And yet, under such arrangements, good
research was done because academics were genuinely interested in what
they were doing and did not have to rack their brains for ideas that
looked acceptable on a grant proposal. Most of the Nobel Prizes won
earlier this century were for work done under such circumstances.
There are ways, short of abolishing it, to make peer review less
obstructive. The simplest is to take away from reviewers the power to
make decisions on a paper or a grant. Instead, they should be asked to
provide substantive written comments but not to tick a box
recommending a concrete decision or to assign a score. Then the editor
or a panel of a grant agency will have to make a decision based on
their own assessment of the work and specific points raised by the
referees. More work for decision makers, but a fairer deal for
authors. The other way is to make referees' names known to the author.
This introduces subjective bias, but of a different kind—if a
referee wishes to criticize the work he can still do it and it will
carry more weight as his personal reputation is at stake. Every time I
referee a paper from which names of authors have not been removed (for
the purpose of “blind” refereeing), I insist that the
editor reveals my name to the author, even if my comments are very
critical. This ensures equality—I know her name, she knows mine.
Generally, it seems that the authors should be free to publish their
results and conclusions provided that they are presented in a
technically correct manner (which editors can check for themselves),
and colleagues should be free to publish their criticisms and derive
any credit that may be due for innovative comments, and for exposing
themselves to debate. Introduction of electronic means of
communication goes a long way toward making possible this ideal of
free exchange of scientific information. Cost of electronic publishing
is lower and hence the volume of exchanged information can increase.
Traceability of electronically published pieces is good, and hence
appropriate credit can be given to authors and their work can be
formally quoted.
References
Desmond A. and J. Moore. 1991. Darwin. Penguin Books, London, 807 p.
Goodstein, D. 1996. Conduct and misconduct in science. In The Flight
from Science and Reason, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Volume 775. Eds. P.R. Gross, N. Levitt, and M.W. Lewis. New York
Academy of Science, New York, pp 31–38.
Hull, D.L. 1988. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the
social and conceptual development of science. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 586 p.
Persaud, T.V.N. 1984. Early history of human anatomy: from antiquity
to the beginning of the modern era. C.C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 200
p.
Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach.
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 395 p.
About the Author
Since 1973, Maciej Henneberg has been engaged in research in
biological anthropology and anatomy with special emphasis on human
evolution. A native of Poland, he was detained for 100 days by
authorities as a Solidarity Union activist and harassed by state
police until he left Poland as a refugee in 1984. He has held academic
appointments at the A. Mickiewicz University, and the Universities of
Texas, Cape Town and Witwatersrand and in 1994 was a Visiting Scholar
in the Institute of Biological Anthropology at the University of
Oxford. Recently he was appointed the inaugural Wood Jones Professor
of Anthropological and Comparative Anatomy, in the Department of
Anatomy and Histology, which he heads, at the University of Adelaide.
Besides Polish and English, Professor Henneberg has studied both
Russian and Italian and understands more than half a dozen other
languages. He has conducted excavations in Poland, USA, Italy, South
Africa and Namibia and undertaken human population surveys in Poland,
USA, South Africa and Australia. He has published over 120 papers in
learned journals and his work has been described in many newspaper and
magazine articles including articles in the National Geographic, New
York Times and New Scientist. His wife Renata is a dental
anthropologist and co-author of many of his published works.
Does peer review serve bureaucracy better than science?
Everybody complains about peer review, but as Mark Twain is supposed
to have remarked about the weather, nobody does anything about it. Yet
it might be expected that a human tradition, particularly one that as
Maciej Henneberg shows in his essay Peer Review: the Holy Office of
Modern Science is of very recent origin, would be easier to change
than the weather. Why it appears otherwise, is therefore an
interesting question.
As with the perpetuation of any human institution, the persistence of
peer review reflects its value to those in a position to preserve it.
And it is those who “manage” science, the government
science funding agency staffs, foundation administrators, research
institute directors, deans of science and the like, who both value and
perpetuate the institution of peer review. To these people, peer
review serves two extremely useful functions. It places responsibility
for funding and hiring decisions on the judgment of technical experts,
thereby relieving the bureaucrats of responsibility should a project
fail to live up to expectations. Second, it achieves the translation
of incommensurable values to a linear scale, thereby eliminating the
need for deep knowledge or even superficial thought when making
comparative evaluations. Applicants for appointment can be ranked by
the number of their peer-reviewed publications, without regard to
their originality or literacy. Or research proposals can be evaluated
according to their rank on scales such as “feasibility” or
“originality,” values that can then be combined in an
overall score or funding worthiness quotient.
Thus, although administratively convenient, the value of peer review
for the evaluation of science may be less real than apparent.
Moreover, as Henneberg discusses, it can give rise to a variety of
ills including unfair competition, the discouragement of innovation,
and sheer waste of time and energy. However, as Henneberg also
discusses, peer review as most commonly practised is not the only way
to judge science and among the alternatives are some that seem clearly
superior.
In an increasingly crowded world, there is an increasing need to
substitute knowledge for other factors of production, particularly
natural resources and land, which means that the productivity of the
scientific enterprise is likely to be crucial to our future
well-being. Moreover, at a cost of something like 3% of GNP in G7
countries, science is hardly affordable at all unless it is
productive. It can be expected, therefore, that responsible
administrators will be ready to dispense with the convenience of peer
review as it is now practiced if good reasons are provided for the
view that alternative procedures can achieve greater productivity,
competitiveness and originality in scientific research. We believe,
therefore, that Professor Henneberg’s lucid essay will be
helpful in changing the view that nothing can be done about peer
review, and we invite readers with something to add to the discussion
to take Professor Henneberg’s essay as a starting point for
their own contribution to naturalSCIENCE.
Your comment on these items is invited and should be addressed to:
publ...@naturalscience.com. For further information on submitting a
contribution to naturalSCIENCE, please see the Author Guide
Steve Crane
refutes the study I provided earlier, not opinion now, an actual study which
conforms to scientific process.
Dr. Dean Edelle (sp) had an interesting comment on people like Walter
who refuse to believe facts and instead look for conspiracy under every
rock. The magnetic issues of high tension electrical wires, silicone breast
implants, alar, you name it. People who prefer to live like Chicken Little
will always find fault with every piece of hard evidence presented to them.
"WalterNY" <walt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ef6a97e5.0203...@posting.google.com...
WalterNY
> Let's make it easier for you Walter, find me any research study which
> refutes the study I provided earlier,
Steve, Steve Steve...
You just don't seem to learn. We could print article after article and
that will get us nowhere. I don't have any monetary interest in any
pet food product out there, so I only see things for what they are.
You on the other hand push an expensive product with an ingredient
list that looks like something I might find if I ground up everything
in a Mailbox Etc store. To continue explaining what it seems many on
this board already know is useless. And those studies you like to post
all have monetary interests in Hill's. (More on that later).
The funny thing you fail to realizes is why the article you printed
was done in the first place. I mean what is the reason these articles
are written? Is it because these guys have nothing better to do? No,
it's because they have questions that they want to answer (or it could
be a question that needs confirmation by someone who sells a
product-more on that later). In the case of what you published the
real question they needed to know is how absorbable is a product that
a dog is not physically designed to eat? Or in the case of Hill's pet
food, can we justify the ingredients we use faced with many who say
the grains we use are not the best thing for dogs.
In that paper they did what they needed to do to answer that question.
It is a very simple experiment. The problem with experiments such as
this is they are very limiting and very narrow in their scope. It's
the equivalent to getting a blood test. There are many types of blood
tests and many things a doctor could be looking for in that test. Say
you went to the doctor with incredibly swollen lymph nodes,
dehydrated, and generally feeling sick. He would follow protocol
testing for the symptoms of what he sees. He would have a blood test
that would look at various conditions of the blood related to what he
is looking for. But what if the real reason you were in this condition
was because you had been out on a two day cocaine binge and you never
bothered to tell the physician that. Guess what? If you didn't tell
him that, he wouldn't be looking for it so he would never see it. The
blood test wouldn't show drug use because he never asked anyone to
look for it.
I taught this little trick to parents of teens they suspected were
doing drugs in some old programs I taught. Many of them had indeed
brought their children to physicians with illnesses that seemed like
they were normal until they asked the physician to give drug tests and
then the real reasons became even clearer.
The paper you cited is a perfect example of the very limited nature of
scientific peer review and why in many instances it is nothing more
than a very narrow guestimate of what we are looking for. It may not
be looking for the bigger picture, it just answers the simple question
you need answered. In some cases you don't want to know more.
To answer your question, can I show a study that refutes what your
study says? Before I do I need to refresh our memory. I need to see
what you study asks and what it reports. The paper comes to the
conclusion that most of the crap sold by pet food companies is no
longer composed of the types of ingredients our dogs should be getting
based on their physiology. It says up to 60% of the ingredients are
grains. So the question is, can dogs actually absorb these cheap
ingredients? Actually all it wants to know is can these cheap sources
of starch be digested in dogs? It doesn't venture beyond that for I
suspect the scientists know more than they are saying. Here once again
like my drug example is the problem, it doesn't want to know anything
else. It doesn't want to know what happens to the body after eating
these foreign substances. It doesn't question what happens after a dog
is fed these foreign substances over a period of time? It doesn't ask
the question; 'what happens to a dogs immune system after eating these
foreign substances', or what happens when these foreign substances are
mixed with other types of nutrients, nor does it ask the question; 'do
these foreign substances prevent other important nutrients from being
absorbed? Nor does it ask any other question other than does the dogs
body seem to absorb the starch? The answer is, 'that all depends'. In
the end though, it seems like the starch is for the most part
absorbed, but what about all the other questions I asked?
Well you will not find those answers there. You would have to look at
what amounts to few if any studies done on pets and their food. Human
medicine has less than 30% of what it does documented by science. I'm
sorry to say animal science has far less so that might make it harder
to answer the question in the limited way you expect it.
But to me there is much more to the question they ask. To me what they
did was ask the question, would a 6 inch pot containing a plant absorb
a music acid and water combination as well as plain water? In that
experiment, just like the experiment they did, I would measure how
much acid I put in the soil, and then I would measure how much acid
was left in the soil after the plant had time to absorb it. Experiment
over!!!!
Of course I did not consider what the plant did with the acid in my
experiment or MORE IMPORTANTLY what the acid did to the plant? Of
course after a day the plant would be dead but since that is not the
question I asked, that is not important to the result. Hense, this is
one of the reasons why I would need to know who funded your study
because it stinks of a pet food company doing a very narrow experiment
in order to justify the crappy product they sell. Or perhaps it was
just a bunch of people interested in how dogs could possibly absorb
flour, something they never made for themselves or ate in their
history on earth outside of it being leftover from human consumption
and hense a cheap thing to make dog food out of. Something caused the
events that paid for the work. (More on that in a second).
So on to the bigger question that this very narrow article you printed
never asked. Actually I asked a bunch of questions above. I don't have
time to answer all of them but let's look at one. How about the
question, 'how does this starch effect other important nutrients and
their absorption'? Good question!! It's kind of like the next question
I would need to ask in my study of music acid and plants. Remember I
didn't ask the simple question, what happens to the plant after the
fact, just asked the question can a plant absorb music acid?
So what happens to a dog after you've fed him this flour? I mean what
about the other important ingredients? Does all this unnatural flour
cause a malabsorption of other ingredients? Well in a number of other
narrow experiments it was determined that the flour actually prevents
the dog from absorbing some important nutrients. Take a study that
appeared in the J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr in 2001. The question asked
in that study was did cellulose affect digestibility of proteins and
fats in the diet. Not exactly about starch but one important thing was
realized by this work. Three diets were fed, a high fat diet, a high
starch diet with raw starch and a high starch diet with cooked starch.
The results showed something very important. The apparent
digestibility of crude protein was decreased considerably by cellulose
in all diets. And worse than that, starch decreased protein
digestibility too. Even worse, the effects of both starch and
cellulose were additive. In other words the cellulose diet prevented
important protein from being digested, but the diet of cellulose and
cooked starch prevented even more VALUABLE PROTEIN FROM BEING
DIGESTED.
But wait!! Don't a lot of those products you push have lots of
cellulose in the form of peanut shells and lots and lots of flours in
them? So that could mean if I fed my dog any of your products that had
these combinations, my dog might not be absorbing the protein levels
listed on the label? Even worse is the protein listed on the label
isn't even a pure source of easily digestible protein as in chicken,
etc, but some kind of meal? Boy! I better stop here, because if I
look any deeper your stuff is going to look even worse than it's
perceived by many on the board already.
Now I couldn't finish without refreshing our minds on one important
fact. No scientific work is done without a purpose. There are a number
of other studies published by the scientists listed in the study you
printed. Most all of these studies done on grain consumption and dogs
by these scientists are done by the University of Illinois. These
folks in the citation you listed work for the University of Illinois.
The University has a financial tie to Hill's Pet Nutrition. In fact
Hill's offers scholarships to the University of Illinois.
{{{{{Bells starting to going off !!!!!!! }}}}}}
So connected to Hill's nutrition is the University of Illinois and
University of Wisconsin, and the University of Kansas that scientists
who work for Hill's often take jobs at the schools and visa versa.
It's a revolving door of people moving from academia to the corporate
world and back. For instance in one of many examples Dr. Doug Yanik
was named the assistant dean for Academic and Student Affairs at the
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine. That isn't bad.
Dr. Yanik is a 1990 graduate of the Iowa State University College of
Veterinary Medicine. That isn't bad. He earned an MBA degree from the
University of North Carolina in 1994. That isn't bad.
BUT WAIT! He leaves his position as professional services manager at
Hill's Pet Nutrition. Oh no!! Could their be a conflict of interest?
Maybe not but then again we are reading stories daily now in
editorials in peer review which reveals this is becoming the norm.
Hill's nutrition is in bed with the veterinary school at this
University. you may scream conspiracy but it is one of the reasons why
peer review is no longer accepting studies funded by pharmaceutical
companies which are about the ingredients in their product. Would you
believe the corporate world doesn't necessarily have the publics best
interest in mind? And that concerns humans. Imagine how much they care
about our pets? It's no wonder why all of these studies Steve tries to
push over as science which are specifically related to grains and pet
food are all coming out of the University of Illinois.
Folks, I'm sorry to say that this is one of the reasons why peer
review is a failure. It's about more about money and not discovery.
What better way that to quite those scientists who keep telling us
that grains are not good for pet than to go to bed with a University
that proves what you need it to. Hell, you keep letting your
employees go to work for the school and you take some of those people
into your company and pay them big fat checks. You also fund programs
at these Universities. Effectively you create a bias for your product.
So next time Steve makes one of his famous 'factual posts' take a look
to see if one of these three Universities did the work. Then ask
yourself the question, with their ties to Hill's is it unbiased work?
And ask yourself, what did they discover? Was it a simple question
such as will a plant absorb muric acid? And did they look at more
complex questions like what happens to that food when fed over time,
and what happens to that food when it interacts with your dog?
One must find out who commissioned any study they read and must look
at any potential conflicts of interest to see if that studies pupose
is altruistic or if it is to help a pet food manufacturer convince
people that the product it sells is acceptable in a world were those
not connected to the pet food manufacturer say that grains are not a
good thing to be feeding a dog.
In other words, just like the guy who goes to the doctor with problems
brought on by his cocaine binge, he only give the doctor the
information necessary to get himself better and leaves out information
that might offer a bit more detail. The University of Illinois has
its hand tied financially to Hill's in a number of ways as we can see.
In the end we have learned two important things. Flours, an ingredient
that dogs are not designed to eat in large quantities over time can be
absorbed by dogs just like muric acid can be absorbed by the roots of
a plant. At the same time, that same flour will prevent your dog from
absorbing important nutrients. Something to think about next time you
purchase dog food? My suggestion is to avoid any dog food that
contains a heavy load of grains. Or look at it this way, if I told you
a bag of corn has the same nutrition as a piece of beef so they are
the same price, which would you buy? More importantly what would you
think of me for making such a statment? And how would you feel knowing
I am charging the same price for a bag of corn as a piece of fresh
beef?
Steve Crane
Nothing but opinion and worthless philosophy, from a guy that believes
AIDS has nothing to do with HIV virus
High protein should be fed to animals in renal failure.
Children and pets should not be vaccinated against deadly diseases.
Go back to film, at least that you can do well.
Totally irrelevant garbage snipped
GAUBSTER2
> Nothing but opinion and worthless philosophy, from a guy that believes
>
>AIDS has nothing to do with HIV virus
>High protein should be fed to animals in renal failure.
>Children and pets should not be vaccinated against deadly diseases.
>
>Go back to film, at least that you can do well.
Whoa, I didn't know that Walter felt that way about AIDS!!??
roo
> "Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:<Mlzi8.816$d%4.20...@bcandid.telisphere.com>...
> > Let's make it easier for you Walter, find me any research study which
> > refutes the study I provided earlier,
[snip interesting rant]
Hi Walter,
Peer review isn't perfect. Quite apart from commercial pressures, that
influences which questions are asked, and which aren't asked, reviewers are
humans and so fallible. I have been peer reviewed, and once found the three
reviewers differed wildly in their assessments, so it is not a simple
process. One wanted major changes, one wanted a few changes, and one wanted
no changes. I ended up making very few changes, and of course grovellingly
thanking my reviewers, as one does.
What else do we put in its place though? Peer reviewing does at least mean
that authors get some feedback from others working in their field. It can
work well - so long as you can define the field and find people who are
competent and trying hard not to let prejudices and commercial pressures
sway them.
The other questions that arise from reading your tirades related to your
classification of dogs as carnivores. They are not carnivores in the same
way as cats are. They need to eat things other than meat.
And why do you talk about 'wild dogs'? Dogs aren't wild, they have developed
from a long-term association with people. There are feral dogs, which tend
to have short lives, and which need different qualities from pet dogs, eg
being very wary helps. There are wolves, but dogs aren't geared to eat the
sorts of things that wolves are.
Just curious.
Alikat
Jenn
> without grains would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies
> without flour. There are kibbled foods available that use potato
> rather than grains but they are not widely available.
Potato, though not a grain, is still completely starch. How is potato starch
better than grain starch?
Jenn S
WalterNY
about conspiracies. As I said, these large pet food manufacturers such
as Hill's are in bed with many of these universities. They like other
food companies fund much of the recearch out there. As a result, much
of the recearch works effectively to prove or disprove a position of
the food manufacturer. I just wanted to say after re-reading my post
that although Hill's has ties to work done at academic institutions,
the citation Steve posted about grains and dogs, was funded by the
people who make IAMS who also use grain ingredient formulas:
S.M., Fahey, G.C. Jr., Merchen, N.R., Sunvold, G.D., and Reinhart,
G.A.
(1999). Evaluation of Selected High-Starch Flours as Ingredients in
Canine Diets.Journal of Animal Science. 77: 2180-2186.
Funded by: IAMS
Animals: 6 (F) Hounds (3yrs ą 6 mon) ileal cannulated
Received: Oct 14, 1998
We have a disturbing problem in peer review right now. The problem is
that many of these studies funded by for-profit organizations have
results which benefit the product made by these companies.
So say you are the soy industry and you want to make it known that
your product makes a good ingredient in pet food. Well you fund a
study that shows your product makes a good ingredient. In fact you
share the funding with the company you sell your soy beans to. A
perfect example of that is:
Flickinger, E. A., B. W. Wolf, K. A. Garleb, J. Chow, G. J. Leyer, P.
W. Johns and G. C.
Fahey, Jr. 2000. Glucose-based oligosaccharides exhibit different in
vitro fermentation patternsand affect in vivo apparent nutrient
digestibility and microbial populations in dogs. J. Nutr.
1301267- 1273.
This study along with three others like it is funded by IAMS and the
United Soybean Board.
Just in case you are wondering, I am not making some sort of
conspiracy theory, nor am I revealing some sort of secret. This has
been happening in peer review for years. In fact you may have read an
article or two in your local newspaper about the ever growing problem
lately. The problem is that too many times recently, the scientific
community is finding that these studies are being manipulated in order
to print the results necessary for approval of products. In fact fraud
has become such a problem that many peer review publications are now
changing policies for acceptance. What you must remember is that you
simply do not know if the published peer review you read is actually
unbiased. I am not say that all peer review is corupt, but frankly no
one knows what is. Please remember that when you see someone try to
make a point by citing a reference. If I see citations, I will look up
who sponsored the study and let you know who published them and you
can draw your own conclusion.
GAUBSTER2
>that although Hill's has ties to work done at academic institutions,
>the citation Steve posted about grains and dogs, was funded by the
>people who make IAMS who also use grain ingredient formulas:
>
Walter--EVERY DRY DOG FOOD IS GRAIN BASED!!
sorry to yell, but apparently it's hard to get this point across!
WalterNY
> Nothing but opinion and worthless philosophy, from a guy that believes
>
> AIDS has nothing to do with HIV virus
> High protein should be fed to animals in renal failure.
> Children and pets should not be vaccinated against deadly diseases.
>
> Go back to film, at least that you can do well.
Thanks for the compliment. You are right, I can do film well. It's
actually interesting how I got into it. I was studying astrophysics at
the University of Arizona doing work in multispectral photography. One
day I decided to aim the cameras at the ground and I found yet another
career.
Actually looking at doing some more schooling right now continuing my
nutritional education. I seriously looking to do some work
specifically studying the effects of processed diets on the organs of
cats and dogs. That may take ten years, but at least we'll have an
answer. We'll se if I can pull it all together.
As for you posting what I believe, you are correct for the first
posting. I along with many others do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.
I have been working in the area of AIDS support for the last fifteen
years. Many of my friends, all scientists help educate people to the
alternative view of AIDS. Besides public debates on the issues of
science related to AIDS, I do work for an organization called HEAL
Health Education AIDS Liaison. We teach men who supposedly have AIDS
to treat the problem at hand and not the so-called AIDS. Today over
100 men call me an angel for opening up their eyes to one of the
biggest scientific blunders in history. At one time many were
bedridden, thinking that some retrovirus caused their condition. Today
they are all healthy. In fact some will tell you more healthy than
they've ever been. Honestly what they don't realize is that I am no
angel. I merely gave them all the information they were not getting.
They themselves made their own decision. What was important to me was
that they have as much education on the topic as possible. It's
important to understand that every story has two sides. Quite often we
are only told one side.
As for your second assertion, it is partially correct. Protein by
itself does not always exasperate renal failure. But please do not
misquote me by saying that I believe "High protein should be fed to
animals in renal failure". As I have stated many times and showed, it
depends on the individual first, the condition of the dog, and the
diet.
As for your vaccine statement, you are correct. There is no proof for
the efficacy of vaccination. But then again I can't convince you that
the product you sell has rendered product in it's formula, which it
does, so why would I bother to show you anything else?
And next time can you try to refute what I say with a bit more than
merely attacking me. It will help your reputation, or what's left of
it.
WalterNY
> What else do we put in its place though?
As we speak a number of organizations are deciding the future of peer
review. I think it's not necessarily what we put in its place but how
to we keep it unbiased and legitimate.
> The other questions that arise from reading your tirades related to your
> classification of dogs as carnivores. They are not carnivores in the same
> way as cats are. They need to eat things other than meat.
This is true. I never said that a dog was a true carnivore in the
sense of a cat who still needs a 100% meat diet (so much for the high
grain cat foods). What I refer to that perhaps you took out of context
is quality protein. Meat is the most absorbable and most correct
source of protein for a dog based on it's physiology. Hense one of the
reasons why pet food companies liketo make it ok to feed dogs flour by
publishing papers which show flour can be absorbed by a dog. Many dogs
are allergic to grains, yet we feed dogs grains in the form of
commercial pet food every day. THey don't do studies on antigen
reactions to pet foods because if they did... The strain on the
kidneys and the pancreas of dogs to process this food and the toxins
that go along with it is one of the reasons we see so many problems
related to the two organs.
> And why do you talk about 'wild dogs'? Dogs aren't wild, they have developed
> from a long-term association with people. There are feral dogs, which tend
> to have short lives, and which need different qualities from pet dogs, e.g.
> being very wary helps. There are wolves, but dogs aren't geared to eat the
> sorts of things that wolves are.
I don't think I used the term wild dogs. What I did make a reference
to a number of times is the physiology of dogs and evolution. Who told
you dogs are different than wolves? In studies of the DNA of species
of wolves, it was found that your dog is no more than 1% to 2%
different in the structure of its DNA that any wolf DNA sample taken
anywhere in the world. In fact in those same tests it was shown that
wolves are so close to your pet in DNA sequencing as to be 20 times
different than coyotes. Some scientist even go as far as to believe it
is incorrect that we use a subspecies term for our pets which is
different than wolves since technically to someone who is an
evolutionary biologist, dogs are really not dogs at all, but are
actually a diverse group of wolf ancestors.
Evolution doesn't take a few generations, but thousands to effect
change. For instance your inner workings are still designed to eat the
food we as humans ate some 15,000 years ago. Your dogs digestive tract
is still very much identical to a wolf in the sense of the structure
of the mouth, the types of teeth it has and thir function, the types
and quantities of digestive enzymes it makes, the quality of acid of
its stomach and the length of its digestive tract. Sure we have
designed the appearance of dogs to look like pugs, and shepherds but
inside your dog is still no different than the wolf. Just as 1 out of
150 people are intolerant to the protein found in many common grains
because in evolutionary terms we haven't eaten grains long enough to
affect change, your dog may suffer the same reaction. In humans the
reaction is the destruction of the sensitive hairs found in your
intestines by your own immune system which thinks of the proteins as
foreign invaders. Perhaps if we keep eating grains for the next 10,000
years are bodies will adapt properly. As for dogs, they have been
following us for the last 12,000-15,000 years so they like to eat what
we eat, but that doesn't mean they can.
roo
> As we speak a number of organizations are deciding the future of peer
> review. I think it's not necessarily what we put in its place but how
> to we keep it unbiased and legitimate.
What do you mean 'keep' - what makes you think it has ever been unbiased and
legitmate? There has always been some crap that gets through the peer review
process, as much due to the difficulty of finding conscientious reviewers,
as to pressures from commercial interests.
> > The other questions that arise from reading your tirades related to your
> > classification of dogs as carnivores. They are not carnivores in the
same
> > way as cats are. They need to eat things other than meat.
>
> This is true. I never said that a dog was a true carnivore in the
> sense of a cat who still needs a 100% meat diet (so much for the high
> grain cat foods).
What about fish? And 'meat' on its own doesn't tell you much - it could be
skin, tripe, rump steak, whatever...all with different nutritional
qualities.
What I refer to that perhaps you took out of context
> is quality protein. Meat is the most absorbable and most correct
> source of protein for a dog based on it's physiology. Hense one of the
> reasons why pet food companies liketo make it ok to feed dogs flour by
> publishing papers which show flour can be absorbed by a dog.
The 'hence' doesn't follow on from your first statement.
'Quality protein' = protein in a form that a dog can easily digest?
Again, what about fish?
Many dogs
> are allergic to grains, yet we feed dogs grains in the form of
> commercial pet food every day.
There are many different grains. Some dogs are allergic to some grains and
not to others.
THey don't do studies on antigen
> reactions to pet foods because if they did... The strain on the
> kidneys and the pancreas of dogs to process this food and the toxins
> that go along with it is one of the reasons we see so many problems
> related to the two organs.
'They'? Actually, one study I read, which was funded by a pet food company,
did mention this, and recommended home-cooked diets for pets with allergies.
Not everything funded by pet food companies is suspect, tho' obviously the
companies will tend to fund studies asking the sorts of questions they want
answers to, and will be happier to get the sorts of answers that fit their
economic interests. Companies are, however, capable of producing pet foods
for dogs with allergies, including foods with no grain, should that appear
to be a commercial proposition.
You maybe need to go beyond peer reviewing and the pet food companies and
look at the structure of US agriculture, and the weight the farming lobby
has on government policy. Why is there so much cheap grain in the US?
Government funded research isn't any less suspect than research funded by
companies, if there is a tendency for research to be funded only if it fits
in with government policy - and of course govt policies can be affected by
industry lobbies.
The whole question of who funds research has long been a contentious issue
that has caused concern to academics. It's not a new issue, not is it a
problem that's restricted to the US.
[..]
> Evolution doesn't take a few generations, but thousands to effect
> change. For instance your inner workings are still designed to eat the
> food we as humans ate some 15,000 years ago. Your dogs digestive tract
> is still very much identical to a wolf in the sense of the structure
> of the mouth, the types of teeth it has and thir function, the types
> and quantities of digestive enzymes it makes, the quality of acid of
> its stomach and the length of its digestive tract. Sure we have
> designed the appearance of dogs to look like pugs, and shepherds but
> inside your dog is still no different than the wolf.
[..]
True, to some extent. What worries me are people who say 'wolves eat x so
dogs should'. Dogs are different from wolves in many ways. They aren't as
good at hunting, and aren't able to digest the same sorts of things that
wolves can. In any case, wolves tend not to live as long as dogs, and one
reason they die younger may be that they pick up infections from raw food,
or eat things they can't easily digest, like some types of bones. Wolves eat
rabbits whole, but many domestic dogs would suffer digestive problems if
they did this. This applies especially to the smaller breeds. Giant dogs
also have different nutritional requirements from smaller dogs. You can get
some clues as to what might be good for dogs if you look at wolves' diets,
but things aren't necessarily good for dogs just because wolves eat them. We
should aim to give our dogs diets that are better than those of wolves, if
we are aiming for longevity.
I once picked up some feral pups which had been feeding mainly on dead carp
and their mother's milk. They were in fine shape, tho' that doesn't 'prove'
that all pups should be fed this diet.
Alikat
GAUBSTER2
>In studies of the DNA of species
>of wolves, it was found that your dog is no more than 1% to 2%
>different in the structure of its DNA that any wolf DNA sample taken
>anywhere in the world. In fact in those same tests it was shown that
>wolves are so close to your pet in DNA sequencing as to be 20 times
>different than coyotes.
Who funded these studies? And what did they have to gain by their findings??
Seriously, this is the type of question that needs to be asked. Interesting to
me that Walter will count on his studies to "prove" his point, but then asks
these types of questions about other studies.
> Meat is the most absorbable and most correct
>source of protein for a dog based on it's physiology.
Based on what?
**hippie music playing the background**
...what do we really KNOW?? why are we here?? what is the meaning of
life??...what is truth??...what is knowledge???.......
Mike Fry
> Who funded these studies? And what did they have to gain by their findings??
> Seriously, this is the type of question that needs to be asked. Interesting to
> me that Walter will count on his studies to "prove" his point, but then asks
> these types of questions about other studies.
This is not even worth debating. Several studies have shown that domestic dogs
technically ARE wolves. We do not need to cite study after study. There is one
simple fact that proves it. . . you can breed dog to wolf and the result is fertile
offspring. Dogs and modern day wolves have ancestors in common from a very, very
recent time or we would not be able to so easily breed dogs and wolves
interchangeably. Genetically, they are basically identical. . . this is not true
of dog/coyote, dog/fox, wolf/fox, wolf/coyote crosses.
Don't believe it? Check out any of the thousands of articles you can find at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dog+wolf+genetics&btnG=Google+Search
Mike Fry
> This is not even worth debating. Several studies have shown that domestic dogs
> technically ARE wolves. We do not need to cite study after study. There is one
> simple fact that proves it. . . you can breed dog to wolf and the result is fertile
> offspring. Dogs and modern day wolves have ancestors in common from a very, very
> recent time or we would not be able to so easily breed dogs and wolves
> interchangeably. Genetically, they are basically identical. . . this is not true
> of dog/coyote, dog/fox, wolf/fox, wolf/coyote crosses.
>
> Don't believe it? Check out any of the thousands of articles you can find at:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dog+wolf+genetics&btnG=Google+Search
>
Here is on very clear quote:
"....Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical
attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given
breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention
is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for
special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. "Recently I
attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further
emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves
from domestic dogs. "....I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and
domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf
hybrids should be designated as the sub-species "domesticus". I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr.,
Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia.
Letter, 30, Jan. 1990
buglady
roo wrote in message ...
In any case, wolves tend not to live as long as dogs, and one
>reason they die younger may be that they pick up infections from raw food,
>or eat things they can't easily digest, like some types of bones.
......Mostly they die due to loss of habitat - not enough territory and
therefore having enough to eat, which stresses the system and they end up
more susceptible to disease/parasites.
buglady
take out the dog before replying
WalterNY
It has never been. But methods are in order to attempt to either fix
it or find a method that makes it less corrupt.
There has always been some crap that gets through the peer review
> process, as much due to the difficulty of finding conscientious reviewers,
> as to pressures from commercial interests.
This is very true.
> What about fish? And 'meat' on its own doesn't tell you much - it could be
> skin, tripe, rump steak, whatever...all with different nutritional
> qualities.
By meat I mean flesh. Skin and the like is not meat and not classified
as meat.
Fish flesh is a readily absorbable form of protein although I would
not make it part of a daily diet for dogs.
> 'Quality protein' = protein in a form that a dog can easily digest?
Quality protein is protein that contians the proper amino acids in the
correct ratio for your dogs physiological requirements.
> Again, what about fish?
Fresh fish is a good quality protein but once again it all depends on
the fish. Overall fish lacks proper mineral balances to be fed every
day.
> There are many different grains. Some dogs are allergic to some grains and
> not to others.
This is true but then again comes the problems of how much of the
amino acids that make up those grains fit the requirements of dogs. As
I have said before the ten essential amino acids are needed in
specific quantity.
> 'They'? Actually, one study I read, which was funded by a pet food company,
> did mention this, and recommended home-cooked diets for pets with allergies.
Home cooked elimination diets are the single best way of determining
allergies as the study you point to shows.
> Not everything funded by pet food companies is suspect, tho' obviously the
> companies will tend to fund studies asking the sorts of questions they want
> answers to, and will be happier to get the sorts of answers that fit their
> economic interests.
Correct, as I said in my post. Problem is you don't know what fits
their needs and what is genuine.
Companies are, however, capable of producing pet foods
> for dogs with allergies, including foods with no grain, should that appear
> to be a commercial proposition.
There are a number of foods out there that use no grains in the
formulations.
> Government funded research isn't any less suspect than research funded by
> companies, if there is a tendency for research to be funded only if it fits
> in with government policy - and of course govt policies can be affected by
> industry lobbies.
Bottom line is that for the most part peer review is a failure.
> Wolves eat
> rabbits whole, but many domestic dogs would suffer digestive problems if
> they did this.
Can you tell me how you know this? I have owned a number of dogs who
caught and ate rabbits for years without a problem.
roo
"buglady" <bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote in message
news:u8qa994...@corp.supernews.com...
That's interesting - but do you know if they can always digest the food they
eat? I'm talking about adults - pups are always eating things they
shouldn't. Wolves are coming back to some parts of Spain, btw, where people
have deserted villages and moved to the towns.
Also, would you feed a dog the same food a wolf eats in the wild? It may be
that grain isn't good for dogs, and some grains certainly aren't good for
some dogs, but I would be very wary about giving dogs raw whole wild rabbits
to eat, even raw whole wild mice.
Alikat
GAUBSTER2
>findings??
>> Seriously, this is the type of question that needs to be asked.
>Interesting to
>> me that Walter will count on his studies to "prove" his point, but then
>asks
>> these types of questions about other studies.
>
Mike, the point of my question above is to illustrate the hypocrisy of those
that like to prove their point by posting a study, but then disavowing anybody
else's study to the contrary if it doesn't agree with their point of view based
on "conflicts of interest".
>This is not even worth debating. Several studies have shown that domestic
>dogs
>technically ARE wolves.
Incidentally, what makes these studies any more reputable than a dog food study
that is done?
GAUBSTER2
>allergies as the study you point to shows.
Not neccessarily. The new z/d Ultra from Hill's is completely hydrolized and
therefore can be used as a diagnostic tool for food allergies.
GAUBSTER2
>> rabbits whole, but many domestic dogs would suffer digestive problems if
>> they did this.
>
>Can you tell me how you know this? I have owned a number of dogs who
>caught and ate rabbits for years without a problem.
>
You let your dogs kill rabbits, Walter?? I thought you loved animals! Don't
let the animal rights weirdos hear about this! Your dogs could be put on trial
for murder ;)
Mike Fry
> Incidentally, what makes these studies any more reputable than a dog food study
> that is done?
The fact that wolves and dogs can be crossed and produce fertile offspring 100% of
the time. The fact that the is no distinguishable difference in their DNA
fingerprint. . . the fact that you literally can not tell them apart in a
measurable way using chemical analysis or DNA testing. . .
Dogs are wolves. End of story. While I do not expect you to concede what is
clear, unrefutable proof of your error (you've never done it before). I would at
least like you to try to present two other species that can be crossed with about
100% certainty of them producing fertile offspring. . . for many generations. . .
Steve Crane
I think I must be reading your note wrong, but there are a couple guys
currently doing time due to violations of Fish & Game laws involving cougars
and dogs. The dogs were proven to be the ones involved because of a DNA
test. They pinned it to the *individual* three dogs. That would seem to
indicate DNA is different. I don't believe there is no DNA difference
individual canines. It would make it kind of hard to have Chihuahuas and
great danes. :-))
"Mike Fry" <mik...@mikefry.net> wrote in message
news:3C8D809A...@mikefry.net...
Mike Fry
> Mike,
> I think I must be reading your note wrong, but there are a couple guys
> currently doing time due to violations of Fish & Game laws involving cougars
> and dogs. The dogs were proven to be the ones involved because of a DNA
> test. They pinned it to the *individual* three dogs. That would seem to
> indicate DNA is different. I don't believe there is no DNA difference
> individual canines. It would make it kind of hard to have Chihuahuas and
> great danes. :-))
But, as is typical, you miss the forest for the trees. Yes. There are genetic
differences between individual dogs. And there are differences between
individual wolves. But, genetically wolves, in general, are indistinguishable
from dogs. Did you even bother to *read* any of the articles provided? Based
on this off topic reply, I assume not. . . or that you did not understand the
nature of the work involved.
I will repeat this one, good quote. There are countless others. . . *if* you
would bother to do even a little research on the topic.
"....Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known
anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA
fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific
means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any
ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they
cannot be so defined in a legal sense. "Recently I attended a canine genetics
workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there
is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic
dogs. "....I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic
dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids
should be designated as the sub-species "domesticus". I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr.,
Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of
Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990
To deny that dogs are wolves only shows that you do not even seem to understand
*what species* we are discussing.
Again, if dogs are not wolves, than please explain how dogs and wolves can be
crossed with near 100% certainty they will product fertile offspring for
generation after generation?
Based on the archeological data available wolves and dogs share a common
ancestor as recently as 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. That amount of time is
insufficient to genetically produce an entirely new species. Many people
studying the genetics of dogs and wolves believe that our family pets should be
reclassified as the Canis lupus domesticus. . . i.e. a subspecies, not a
different species from C. lupus.
Mike Fry
> Based on the archeological data available wolves and dogs share a common
> ancestor as recently as 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. That amount of time is
> insufficient to genetically produce an entirely new species. Many people
> studying the genetics of dogs and wolves believe that our family pets should be
> reclassified as the Canis lupus domesticus. . . i.e. a subspecies, not a
> different species from C. lupus.
One more noteworthy quote on the topic:
"In 1993, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists
reclassified the dog from its separate species designation of Canis familiaris to
Canis lupus familiaris. So, now, the Timber wolf (Canis lupus nubilus), the
Mackenzie or Tundra wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), the dog (Canis lupus
familiaris), etc., fall under the genetic umbrella of the gray wolf: Canis lupus."
The complete text can be found at:
http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm
Jenn
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020311210405...@mb-fx.aol.com...
The idea is to feed z/d Ultra for 8 to 12 weeks to eliminate any trace of a
possible allergen in the dog's system. Then challenge the dog's system with
the old food to see if it causes symptoms to reappear.
It is essentially what Walter said, only a processed commercial product -
not home cooked.
Jenn S
roo
"WalterNY" <Walt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ab72d805.02031...@posting.google.com...
[..]
> Bottom line is that for the most part peer review is a failure.
There's the glass half empty and half full argument...I am heartened that,
despite pressures on researchers to conform to further their careers and get
funds, you still have researchers who do what they do for the love of it,
and have a respect for ideas like 'truth'.
>
> > Wolves eat
> > rabbits whole, but many domestic dogs would suffer digestive problems if
> > they did this.
>
> Can you tell me how you know this? I have owned a number of dogs who
> caught and ate rabbits for years without a problem.
I'd guess they are quite big - or that you prepare the rabbits for them. I
skin, eviscerate, and boil rabbits my dogs catch because I don't want them
catching infections or having bones and fur affect their digestion. Wolves
eat rabbits whole, and I'd guess that many healthy dogs that are about the
size of wolves could eat whole rabbits over a long period and show no ill
effects, esp. if they had been brought up to do this. However, there are
risks, esp with smaller dogs.
You could check out what kinds of infections dogs can get from eating raw
meat, for example - you seem to like doing research, and I am not sure what
sort of article would convince you. The infections that rabbits can get vary
from one region to another, and there are more 'nasties' in the US. Coccidia
is a problem in some overgrazed parts of the UK, and rabbits can die from
it, according to a recent Veterinary Record. A poster in another dog group
said that his dog had suffered from it.
The rabbits my dogs catch are often sick, which is why the dogs can catch
them. I did toy with the idea of putting whole cooked rabbit in a food
blender, but have never got around to this, as it would be very messy, so I
just skin them outside and feed them as a treat. We have far too many
rabbits here, and the vegetable growers get sick of seeing their seedlings
eaten by bunnies, so rabbitting dogs are welcome.
Alikat
buglady
Steve Crane wrote in message
<8Efj8.867$d%4.21...@bcandid.telisphere.com>...
I don't believe there is no DNA difference
>individual canines. It would make it kind of hard to have Chihuahuas and
>great danes. :-))
.......Uhm, Steve, do you know about the human genome project? Yes? Ok,
they're not looking for the DNA differences between all the humans on earth,
they're looking at the basic DNA of what is *human*. Do you think the DNA
between someone with red hair who is 5 feet tall and someone with blond hair
who is 6 feet tall is wildly different? That their digestive systems work
differently? These outward appearances in no way changes the basic DNA they
have.
buglady
roo wrote in message ...
>That's interesting - but do you know if they can always digest the food
they
>eat?
.......I guess I don't understand your point. If wolves as a species
couldn't digest what they ate they would have disappeared a long time ago.
Mine was that people are always saying that wolves die of bones and
parasites, which I think is misleading. I have one dog that would rather
try to swallow something whole than let the other dog get near her while
she's eating. I separate them so she can eat in peace. If I had a pack of
dogs and tossed the food on the ground to let them fight it out, she'd
probably lose. If she got the piece she'd probably swallow it whole and
maybe choke. To talk about *what wolves eat* you have to consider the
availability of game and the pack dynamic. Our pets are cosseted. We like
them. We have no intention of letting them die if they're not the fittest
in the pack.
>Also, would you feed a dog the same food a wolf eats in the wild? It may be
>that grain isn't good for dogs, and some grains certainly aren't good for
>some dogs, but I would be very wary about giving dogs raw whole wild
rabbits
>to eat, even raw whole wild mice.
.............A dog stomach can expand to 9 times it's empty state. They're
made to bolt food. If you allow your dogs to eat wild things, best to know
the incidence of diseases in the wild things they eat and whether or not
they can be *killed* by cooking. Freezing is sometimes just as efficient.
As far as feeding something whole, depends on the dog, as does any
discussion of dog food. I have one that eats fast but thoroughly crunches
every morsel. In the wild succesful wolves live, unsuccssful ones die. To
me feeding an exact same diet as far as *form* is not relevant. What's
relevant to me is getting a little closer to the *constituent* parts that
make up that diet.
WalterNY
how similar domestic dogs are to what someone referred to as 'wild'
animals. It just shows the complexity of evolution. They may look
different on the outside, but on the inside they are all identical,
hense their nutritional requirements aren't far off either. I think
people somehow think a lab has some sort of different requirement than
say a terrier. This all has to do with why dogs don't do well on
grains just like humans don't do well on grains. We've only been
eating them for 5,000 years, a blink in evolutionary terms. It's
actually pretty easy to see things that we are not designed to eat.
Anything you have to cook the hell out of to eat and can't eat raw
isn't part of our evolutionary needs. As for dogs, I don't think they
have learned to cook yet so the jury is still out. :)
WalterNY
WalterNY
> is a problem in some overgrazed parts of the UK, and rabbits can die from
> it, according to a recent Veterinary Record. A poster in another dog group
> said that his dog had suffered from it.
Coccidia is basically species specific. Dogs do get a form but not the
same form as rabbits. In fact, your dog may have some form of it right
now as more than half of dogs do.
roo
Thanks, and yes, I'd agree with both parts of what you say. That's what I
mean when I say the the diet has to be 'better' than what wolves eat -
wolves have a higher mortality rate than we want for our pets - tho' I take
your point that other things are more likely to kill wolves than the odd
bone, like lack of habitat, or simply not being strong enough to get enough
food.. And putting whole rabbits in the food blender, which I suggested
elsewhere as an idea, is so that they'd get the same sort of food that a
wolf eats, but in a more digestible form. Have to sort out the
practicalities though - it could be messy.
Alikat
Steve Crane
Maybe you better read what you wrote. I added the *-* around the word
no. You further insisted that you cannot tell a wolf from a dog in DNA
testing. That's simply in error. I gave you a chance to reword it, instead
you went off on a tangent. You can tell the difference between any
individual on the planet with DNA.
You might have reworded it to say that the difference in the genome is
so small as to be unimportant. That I would agree with. To say there is
*_no_* difference is incorrect. The difference between a chimpanzee and a
human is less than 3%.
> The fact that the is *_no_* distinguishable difference in their DNA
shelly
"Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:jBtj8.879$d%4.21...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
> Mike,
> Maybe you better read what you wrote. I added the *-* around the
word
> no. You further insisted that you cannot tell a wolf from a dog in
DNA
> testing. That's simply in error.
no, Mike is absolutely correct. *you* are in error.
> I gave you a chance to reword it, instead
> you went off on a tangent. You can tell the difference between any
> individual on the planet with DNA.
yes, **if** you have an individual to compare the sample with. but, if
you just have two DNA samples--one from a dog and one from a wolf--you
will not be able to tell which is which. there is nothing in a wolf's
or a dog's DNA that indicates whether it came from a wolf or a dog.
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
Mike Fry
> Mike,
> Maybe you better read what you wrote. I added the *-* around the word
> no. You further insisted that you cannot tell a wolf from a dog in DNA
> testing. That's simply in error. I gave you a chance to reword it, instead
> you went off on a tangent. You can tell the difference between any
> individual on the planet with DNA.
> You might have reworded it to say that the difference in the genome is
> so small as to be unimportant. That I would agree with. To say there is
> *_no_* difference is incorrect. The difference between a chimpanzee and a
> human is less than 3%.
Steve,
You are correct in that if you have a dog or wolf and you can sample their
dna. Their dna fingerprint will uniquely identify them. However, their dna
alone will not identify them as a dog or as a wolf. Technically, this
conversation is odd in and of itself, because based on their classification,
dogs ARE wolves. . . so even the question should probably be reworded.
If you are suggesting that you know how to identify dometic wolves (dogs) from
the wild grey wolf from their DNA alone, I suggest you contact Robert K. Wayne,
Ph.D. and Ray Coppinger, Ph.D. to let them know they can stop working on this
problem. They will be thrilled to know you have it all figured out.
btw: If there is a measurable genetic difference between grey wolves and out
pets, it is much, much, much less than 3%. . .
GAUBSTER2
with what you're implying. I'm simply asking a question...
GAUBSTER2
>and
>> therefore can be used as a diagnostic tool for food allergies.
>
>The idea is to feed z/d Ultra for 8 to 12 weeks to eliminate any trace of a
>possible allergen in the dog's system. Then challenge the dog's system with
>the old food to see if it causes symptoms to reappear.
>
OR you can feed it long term. It is not just a temporary solution.
buglady
>elsewhere as an idea, is so that they'd get the same sort of food that a
>wolf eats, but in a more digestible form. Have to sort out the
>practicalities though - it could be messy.
.....Uhm, no that would be a meat grinder! You'd have the blender for 5
minutes - I know! ;-) Many people are more comfortable grinding the food.
Every person decides what risks they want to take. It all depends on the
individual dog.
WalterNY
> > .......I guess I don't understand your point. If wolves...
Can we clear up one of the most ridiculous assumptions on this board?
I often see threads on wolves and how they don't live as long as our
pets, hense it must be the processed pet foods we feed and the modern
magic of medicine that allow dogs to live longer. First of all, wolves
in the wild do on AVERAGE, live a few years shorter than those in
captivity. Let's clarify the reason for this. I asked a zoologist
friend who specializes in wolves this very question. She said there
are all sorts of reasons given even by those who are suppose to be
experts on the matter but the consensus amongst those that work with
wolves come down to three possibilities-
1) Starvation-Wolves require lots of territory. As we take up that
territory, wolves have smaller parcels of land and less prey to catch.
2) Injuries that occur during hunting- Wolves can get hurt while
hunting. Many of these injuries involve lameness of a leg during a
chase or some other physical function. Injured wolves do not last very
long with injuries. Acute medicine in humans have helped us a great
deal specifically in that area. Wolves in the wild don't have that
luxury.
3) Fighting- bacterial problems are a problem amongst wolves who fight
for territory and succumb to injuries.
There you have it folks. Wolves in the wild ON AVERAGE do not live
longer than wolves in captivity, just like dogs living on the streets
ON AVERAGE will not live as long as a dog in captivity. It's not due
to the quality of food, nor is it because of disease. Part of it is
because of diet, but because of lack of diet (as in nothing to eat),
nothing more. Wolves in the wild rarely die from parvo or mange as
another myth I've seen spread. Part of that myth comes from us and our
pets invading wolf territory. Take Yellowstone Park for instance where
a large number of the few wolves that are left, live. There HAS been
an increase in parvo virus deaths in wolves in the park. This is
because of an unnatural introduction by people who bring their
infected pets into the park (So much for vaccinations and their
effectiveness?). In fact, the Parks Department is considering the
banning of dogs from the park as a result.
Now why do I capitalize the word AVERAGE? Because averages are numbers
that are neither maximums are minimums. Just like you may have a boxer
who lives to 15, what amounts to more years than the breed average, it
mean little. It's just like the myth that 200 years ago we used to
live till only 45 years of age. No! We lived just as long as we do now
if we made it past our fifth birthday. The averages they use to come
up with that myth involve childhood mortality rates, hense prior to
1950 when sanitation and medical treatment for infectious disease was
less than acceptable, the rates of children that died at childbirth or
a few years later was great. One might think that the signers of
Declaration of Independence all died in their forties considering that
according to some, people two hundred years ago didn't live anywhere
near as long as we live today. Yet when you look at the lifespans of
the twenty signers, the average age of the group was 70.1 years with
the top three ages being 91, 89, and 87. Sometimes generalizations are
very misleading.
In fact statistically when you compare the 150 million pet dogs in
this country to the 3000, yes three thousand wolves out there in the
wild, I don't think the comparison is even valid. In fact pretty soon
we may not have any wolves to compare if we keep destroying their
habitats.
Please share this information with the myth spreaders.
Mike Fry
> Mike, chill out! You're totally missing my point. I don't agree or disagree
> with what you're implying. I'm simply asking a question...
Yes. I really am. I do not see a point. You and Steve have stated that dogs and
wolves are not the same, because people have used wolf diets as a benchmark for
dog nutrition. However all data says dogs and wolves are basically identical.
Many have actually reclassified dogs, others feel strongly that a reclassification
is in order.
What makes these studies more valid than studies funded by pet food companies?
1) The researchers do not represent companies with a financial interest in the
outcome.
2) The questions being asked by the researchers are simple and relevant and the
implications of the answers straight forward.
3) The methods of measurement are objective and based on science that is
replicated across countless species.
4) The conclusions stand up to common sense scrutiny (i.e. you can breed a dog
and wolf and get fertile offspring pretty much every time.)
If there is a point to your question, it appears to be trying to dig yourself out
of a hole. . .
Problem is, if you accept dogs as wolves you have a harder time selling the idea
of a pack of wolves grazing on wheat fields as a primary source of their diet. . .
it just doesn't happen. And there is not a wolf biologist on the planet that will
say it does.
Jenn
I could, but do I really want to? No. On a dry matter basis, it is 18%
protein and 58% carbohydrate. I KNOW my dog doesn't do well long term on
that much carb.
Jenn
WalterNY
A DERMATOLOGIST'S PERSPECTIVE
By James Jeffers, VMD, Dipl. ACVD
Animal Allergy and Dermatology Clinic
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
The exact mechanisms by which adverse food reactions develop in dogs
and cats are unknown. These reactions are considered acquired rather
than inherited and usually develop as immediate or delayed reactions
to regularly ingested proteins. Adverse reactions to food additives
probably rarely occur.
No breed, age, or gender predilections to adverse food reactions have
been convincingly demonstrated. Adverse food reactions usually
manifest as nonseasonal pruritus. Response to corticosteroid treatment
ranges from complete to none at all. Virtually every type of primary
and secondary skin lesion in almost every location has been observed
in dogs with adverse food reactions. Lesions are usually associated
with self-trauma, seborrhea, and secondary infections. Adverse food
reactions may also manifest as only nonpruritic, recurrent bacterial
skin infections or otitis externa. In cats, pruritus most often occurs
on the head and neck but can occur anywhere. Miliary dermatitis,
self-induced alopecia, and the eosinophilic granuloma complex have
been associated with adverse food reactions. Gastrointestinal
abnormalities, in addition to skin problems, occur in a small
percentage of cases. Inhalant, fleabite, contact, or endoparasitic
allergies are seen concurrently in about 25% of cases.
Serologic or intradermal testing for adverse food reactions is
inaccurate. Instead, home-prepared elimination diets are often
recommended. These consist of a protein and a carbohydrate source to
which the animal has never been exposed. However, home-prepared
elimination diets can be expensive, time-consuming to prepare, and
nutritionally unbalanced. By comparison, commercially prepared
elimination diets are generally less expensive than home-prepared
diets, easier to feed, and nutritionally balanced. But virtually none
of the commercially manufactured elimination diets have been
rigorously tested with regard to their accuracy in diagnosing adverse
reactions to food.
Feeding a strict elimination diet for up to 10 weeks may be needed to
diagnose an adverse food reaction (based on a reduction in clinical
signs of at least 50% to 75%). Dogs and cats challenged with all
components of their original food will again manifest signs of adverse
food reaction (usually pruritus) within 1 hour to 14 days. Secondary
seborrhea or bacterial or Malassezia species infections must be
treated before ending the food elimination trial. To pinpoint all
offending food proteins, one food ingredient at a time is added to the
elimination diet for 7 to 14 days each. Proteins that the pet has had
the most opportunity to consume over its lifetime are used. Although
many different proteins have been reported to trigger adverse
reactions in the skin of dogs and cats, beef, soy, chicken, milk,
corn, wheat, and eggs are most commonly incriminated in dogs. Fish,
dairy, beef, and eggs are most often noted in cats. About 36% of dogs
react adversely to only one protein; conversely, 64% react to multiple
proteins. Cross-reactivity between products derived from the same
animal species or plant sources is unlikely.
Because natural desensitization is rare, avoidance is the only
treatment for adverse food reactions. Animals rarely develop other
adverse dietary reactions.
GAUBSTER2
>disagree
>> with what you're implying. I'm simply asking a question...
>
>Yes. I really am. I do not see a point. You and Steve have stated that
>dogs and
>wolves are not the same,
Mike, you are trying to put words in my mouth and (to use your term) being
deliberately obtuse. Do you even read what I write?? I NEVER said anything
about wolves or dogs being related one way or another. NEVER. I simply asked
a question regarding the validity of "studies".
>What makes these studies more valid than studies funded by pet food
>companies?
>
>1) The researchers do not represent companies with a financial interest in
>the
>outcome.
Now you're getting closer to my original question. Actually I disagree with
your 1st response. Logically speaking, the veracity of a study has nothing to
do with wether or not someone has a financial interest in the outcome.
Obviously pet food companies (those that care to do research) are trying to
make their products "better". Because they might fund research or formulate a
food based on a study done by someone else does not mean the veracity of the
study is compromised one way or another.
>2) The questions being asked by the researchers are simple and relevant and
>the
>implications of the answers straight forward.
>
So what?
>If there is a point to your question, it appears to be trying to dig yourself
>out
>of a hole. . .
Mike, you're "spinning" here. I've noticed that you like to portray people's
answers a certain way to make yourself look better. I simply asked a question
and you went off on a whole new tangent.
roo
soft. Not sure what benefits there are from rabbit skin and fur, tho', apart
from roughage. And what about the guts? Do they benefit dogs? They certainly
like rabbit poo.
Alikat
buglady
roo wrote in message ...
>like rabbit poo.
.....Personally I think glands are important.
roo
>
> roo wrote in message ...
> . And what about the guts? Do they benefit dogs? They certainly
> >like rabbit poo.
>
> .....Personally I think glands are important.
So do I - but I'd be grateful for a bit more of an explanation.
Alikat
roo
"WalterNY" <walt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ef6a97e5.02031...@posting.google.com...
[..]
I take your point that thinks other that what wolves eat are more likely to
kill them. Even so, there may be risks that wolves are exposed to through
their diet that we wouldn't want to expose pet dogs to.
> Now why do I capitalize the word AVERAGE? Because averages are numbers
> that are neither maximums are minimums. Just like you may have a boxer
> who lives to 15, what amounts to more years than the breed average, it
> mean little. It's just like the myth that 200 years ago we used to
> live till only 45 years of age. No! We lived just as long as we do now
> if we made it past our fifth birthday. The averages they use to come
> up with that myth involve childhood mortality rates, hense prior to
> 1950 when sanitation and medical treatment for infectious disease was
> less than acceptable, the rates of children that died at childbirth or
> a few years later was great. One might think that the signers of
> Declaration of Independence all died in their forties considering that
> according to some, people two hundred years ago didn't live anywhere
> near as long as we live today. Yet when you look at the lifespans of
> the twenty signers, the average age of the group was 70.1 years with
> the top three ages being 91, 89, and 87. Sometimes generalizations are
> very misleading.
This is nearly true. Most of the mortality was between birth and the first
birthday. When I checked records for a Spanish village in the 1930s, a
quarter of newborns didn't make it to their first birthday. This was such a
surprise, I went to the next village and checked the records there - same
result. Infectious diseases were the main killer, respiratory in winter,
digestive in summer. The adults who remembered those times said that the
babies were so poorly fed that any infection could carry them away. There
were also no bathrooms in the village in those days. Women and children used
the stables, which were part of the house, as a toilet. Men went outside,
villagers told me. This was recorded in a description of the village in the
19th century, and records say that the muck was heaped in the stables (in
the house) and only cleaned out every six months. Even so, adults were also
more likely to die of infectious diseases in the village and elsewhere in
Spain, Europe as a whole, and North America, in those days too, and 200
years ago. TB was a big killer of adults, for example.
Alikat
WalterNY
> 19th century, and records say that the muck was heaped in the stables (in
> the house) and only cleaned out every six months. Even so, adults were also
> more likely to die of infectious diseases in the village and elsewhere in
> Spain, Europe as a whole, and North America, in those days too, and 200
> years ago. TB was a big killer of adults, for example.
With the reduction in inner city over-crowding and improvements in
sanitation, the incidence of many infectious diseases such as TB have
fallen through much of the 20th century. Much of infectious disease
still occurs only where the above aforementioned conditions exist.
Disease itself has always existed. TB for instance can be found in
mummies unearthed in Egypt. Disease works wonderfully. It infects
those most susceptible, and when it's followed its course, it
disappears. The question of disease and the general population is not
at question. What is at question is the use of averages as general
'fact' rather than merely statistical representations of distribution.
I see far too many posts made on boards such as this where average is
used to apply to an entire species. The reality is that it's about
individuals and not masses. The simple truth is that EVERYONE did not
live till only 45 years of age 200 years ago. It is a misnomer brought
on by the incorrect use of statistical averages.
roo
Well, my three are horribly energetic and fit, whatever bugs and beasties
they may harbor. They played chase with Bertie the Airedale this morning. He
eats whole raw rabbit, and seems to thrive on it. The humans may be feeling
decrepit, but the dogs look fine.
Alikat
buglady
>
>So do I - but I'd be grateful for a bit more of an explanation.
Glands all have different mineral composition. By getting the glands also,
the animal gets what it needs to keep their own glands healthy.
......I just asked my vet today about calcium issues in food. (He ministers
to a wildlife sanctuary for injured animals and they feed the bobcats
chicken parts and had one time gotten into trouble because they were only
feeding chicken necks.) He said that the old thinking was that most animals
needed between 1.1-1.3 parts Ca to 1 part P. The new thinking (and
apparently there's nothing in print yet, this is all from attending
veterinary talks/conferences) is that most mammals need 1.5-2.0 parts Ca to
1 part P. That bioavailability is a big issue in considering minerals.
Zoos even have trouble when they feed whole processed chickens (no guts,
glands or fresh blood) to their big cats. That what meat eating mammals
need are whole animals to eat, so they get everything.
roo
That's interesting. I really must get a meat grinder then.
There has been a fair bit of reporting here on the history of human diet.
Apparently Stone Age humans were quite tall, and humans started shrinking
when we settled and developed agriculture. Then we got shorter and shorter,
to a low point in the Middle Ages. I'd guess that after the Black Death we
started growing again, at least in Europe, because food became less scarce
for many people. There were big problems when people moved to the cities en
masse in the UK in the 19th century - mortality rates shot up, mainly due to
disease from poor sanitation, but diet probably played a part. The diet in
the 1939-45 war and just after in the UK is often reported as healthier than
what came after, as many foods that are 'bad for you' like sugar, were
rationed.
You can also see spectacular differences in height in Spain, between people
who lived through the 1930s and 1940s when food was scarce for many, and
those who were born in the 1960s and after. Adult kids tower over their
parents. The old folk remember 'sharing an egg between three' in the 'Years
of Hunger' after the Civil War, and a nine-year-old going out as a shepherd
in the 1930s with a bit of bread and sausage to last all day. Garlic soup,
mainly water, garlic, bread and olive oil, is a common dish where I stay a
lot, in the 'wild west' of Spain, and that's a poor person's dish. But I
always feel fitter in Spain - more fish, fruit and veg and pulses.
I often think when feeding the dogs how bad our human diet is. At least mine
don't get any sweet biscuits and human packet 'snacks' that the Brits are so
fond of, though if you look on canned dog food labels, 'sugar' is often
listed as an ingredient. Beet pulp may be used - we have more sugar beet in
Europe.
Alikat
Jenn
your pardon ahead of time. I am of course, only thinking of how this
pertains to MY dog.<snip>
> No breed, age, or gender predilections to adverse food reactions have
> been convincingly demonstrated. Adverse food reactions usually
> manifest as nonseasonal pruritus. Response to corticosteroid treatment
> ranges from complete to none at all. Virtually every type of primary
> and secondary skin lesion in almost every location has been observed
> in dogs with adverse food reactions. Lesions are usually associated
> with self-trauma, seborrhea, and secondary infections. Adverse food
> reactions may also manifest as only nonpruritic, recurrent bacterial
> skin infections or otitis externa.
Are there incidences of ONLY otitis externa? That is the only problem. I
have never found any other type of lesion anywhere on the dog (Except when
we lived in a high-flea area, she had flea allergies and severe hot spots to
proove it.) She occassionally licks her paws, but that may be due to the dry
cold winter.
>
> Serologic or intradermal testing for adverse food reactions is
> inaccurate.
Good to know this, as it cost $250 ON TOP of everything else and I really
couldn't afford it.
Instead, home-prepared elimination diets are often
> recommended. These consist of a protein and a carbohydrate source to
> which the animal has never been exposed. However, home-prepared
> elimination diets can be expensive, time-consuming to prepare, and
> nutritionally unbalanced. By comparison, commercially prepared
> elimination diets are generally less expensive than home-prepared
> diets, easier to feed, and nutritionally balanced. But virtually none
> of the commercially manufactured elimination diets have been
> rigorously tested with regard to their accuracy in diagnosing adverse
> reactions to food.
She is on Hill's z/d Ultra. Ingredients are:
Dry: Starch, hydrolyzed chicken liver, vegetable oil (preserved with BHA,
propyl gallate and citric acid), hydrolyzed chicken, powdered cellulose,
dicalcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, glyceryl monostearate, potassium
chloride, iodized salt, choline chloride, DL-methionine, taurine, ferrous
sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium
selenite, vitamin A supplement, D-activated animal sterol, vitamin E
supplement, ethoxyquin (a preservative), niacin, thiamine, calcium
pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, folic acid, biotin,
vitamin B12 supplement.
This costs $50.87 for a 20lb bag. She should get 6 cups/day. Would feeding a
home prepared diet cost less? ( I think it would be better for her...)
>
> Feeding a strict elimination diet for up to 10 weeks may be needed to
> diagnose an adverse food reaction (based on a reduction in clinical
> signs of at least 50% to 75%). Dogs and cats challenged with all
> components of their original food will again manifest signs of adverse
> food reaction (usually pruritus) within 1 hour to 14 days. Secondary
> seborrhea or bacterial or Malassezia species infections must be
> treated before ending the food elimination trial. To pinpoint all
> offending food proteins, one food ingredient at a time is added to the
> elimination diet for 7 to 14 days each.
My vet recommends challenging with the former diet for 2 days.
<snip>
About 36% of dogs
> react adversely to only one protein; conversely, 64% react to multiple
> proteins. Cross-reactivity between products derived from the same
> animal species or plant sources is unlikely.
So if she has spent her entire life on processed foods with multiple protein
sources, (knowing that she is already allergic to beef-she vomits), how am I
ever possible going to discover what combinations she may be allergic
to????? She could be dead before I figure it out.
I'm afraid for Anja now, that she'll never be truly healthy again. No, not
just from this one article, but from all the study I have done on this for 5
years.
Jenn S
WalterNY
> have never found any other type of lesion anywhere on the dog (Except when
> we lived in a high-flea area, she had flea allergies and severe hot spots to
> proove it.) She occassionally licks her paws, but that may be due to the dry
> cold winter.
Externally the answer is yes. I believe there is always something
going on inside that you don't see. For instance a number of vets have
seen a direct relationship to ear problems and the kidneys. This does
not say that all ear problems are due to kidney problems but the
evidence is often there
> >
> > Serologic or intradermal testing for adverse food reactions is
> > inaccurate.
>
> Good to know this, as it cost $250 ON TOP of everything else and I really
> couldn't afford it.
The industry sure likes to get your money with this one. Nice to see
someone from the industry tells the truth.
> She is on Hill's z/d Ultra. Ingredients are:
> Dry: Starch, hydrolyzed chicken liver, vegetable oil (preserved with BHA,
> propyl gallate and citric acid), hydrolyzed chicken, powdered cellulose,
> dicalcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, glyceryl monostearate, potassium
> chloride, iodized salt, choline chloride, DL-methionine, taurine, ferrous
> sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium
> selenite, vitamin A supplement, D-activated animal sterol, vitamin E
> supplement, ethoxyquin (a preservative), niacin, thiamine, calcium
> pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, folic acid, biotin,
> vitamin B12 supplement.
>
> This costs $50.87 for a 20lb bag. She should get 6 cups/day. Would feeding a
> home prepared diet cost less? ( I think it would be better for her...)
I don't think is about cost as much as it is in what method is most
effective in determining the problem. Look at the ingredient list in
your formulation. If I asked you to try an elimination diet of chicken
and rice, could you say your formula was that or does it have lots of
other components which might not give you truly accurate results. The
idea behind an elimination diet is to eliminate everything and try one
ingredient at a time.
> My vet recommends challenging with the former diet for 2 days.
Sorry to say but many would say your vet needs to learn a bit more
about nutrition and allergies.
> So if she has spent her entire life on processed foods with multiple protein
> sources, (knowing that she is already allergic to beef-she vomits), how am I
> ever possible going to discover what combinations she may be allergic
> to????? She could be dead before I figure it out.
Good question. In my opinion most of the attempts at solving the
problem are useless.
> I'm afraid for Anja now, that she'll never be truly healthy again. No, not
> just from this one article, but from all the study I have done on this for 5
> years.
What exactly is wrong?
Jenn
> > I'm afraid for Anja now, that she'll never be truly healthy again. No,
not
> > just from this one article, but from all the study I have done on this
for 5
> > years.
>
> What exactly is wrong?
Recurrent Otitis externa. Several infections per year. That's it, that's
all. It gets very bad, and there is no pattern that would make it seasonal.
We all know what can happen in these cases just by doing a google search in
this NG. I can't stand to see my dog in so much pain so often and need to
find the underlying cause.
Jenn S
WalterNY
> Recurrent Otitis externa. Several infections per year. That's it, that's
> all. It gets very bad, and there is no pattern that would make it seasonal.
> We all know what can happen in these cases just by doing a google search in
> this NG. I can't stand to see my dog in so much pain so often and need to
> find the underlying cause.
Have you tried looking at:
candida overgrowth, one of the most overlooked yet most common
problems in dogs fed grain based diets
thyroid function?
Kidney function?
Is the dog on antibiotics during the year?
Is the food you feed the dog mostly grain based?
What do you do vaccination wise?
Does the infection come around same time each year?
How about itching?
What type of stress is the dog under?
Any paw licking?
How about odor?
Any arthritis?
Jenn
> > Recurrent Otitis externa. Several infections per year. That's it, that's
> > all. It gets very bad, and there is no pattern that would make it
seasonal.
> > We all know what can happen in these cases just by doing a google search
in
> > this NG. I can't stand to see my dog in so much pain so often and need
to
> > find the underlying cause.
>
> Have you tried looking at:
>
> candida overgrowth, one of the most overlooked yet most common
> problems in dogs fed grain based diets
No yeast found in latest cultures.
>
> thyroid function?
Did T3 and T4 and another one, all came back normal levels.
>
> Kidney function?
Urine test came back OK. Is there a blood test for this too?
>
> Is the dog on antibiotics during the year?
During the last two infections, yes. Will be cleansing her with milk thistle
as soon as vet gives the OK. She wants to wait until the food elimination
trial is complete, as cleansing often results in healing crisis that may
bring out another ear infection and we want to make sure it would be from
the cleanse and not an allergy.
> Is the food you feed the dog mostly grain based?
I have consistantly switched her food every six or so months for the past 6
1/2 years. Every one has been a processed premium kibble from a specialty
store. So, yes, it has been mostly grain based. The latest kibble was
Eukanuba Large Breed Senior, which she was only on for about 6 weeks before
the latest outbreak. She even had these while she was eating Sensible Choice
C&R (I think she was on that one for almost two years, actually).
I work at a pet store, and I have a very cheap husband who cannot justify my
buying a dog food anywhere that isn't going to give me a 15% discount.
Whenever he comes with me to buy it, he still seriously tries to convince me
that "Bargain Hound" at $10 for 40 lb is the way to go. If it weren't for
him, I probably would have fed something else like Innova LONG ago. Since he
controlls the budget, I have to buy my dog food where I work. I haven't been
able to convince him otherwise in 6 years. He doesn't hold the dog's health
and well-being as highly as I do. See the thread "I could kill my DH".
> What do you do vaccination wise?
I vaccinated yearly until she was 3, then I stopped vaccinating. Last May I
vaccinated her again (she was 5 1/2) as I could not get her licensed without
proof of Rabies vac.
> Does the infection come around same time each year?
I wrote about this in a previous thread. No it doesn't. She gets at least 4
each year, and every season is covered. It is either a food allergy or an
environmental allergy like dust mites or cigarette smoke.
> How about itching?
I answered this one in this thread. She's not an itchy dog. She only licks
her paws unless she has an ear infection, and of course scratches her ears.
The paw licking could be due to the cold, dry winters where no one nearby
skimps on the sidewalk salt. The only dandruff she gets is when we go to
the vet and she is stressed. There are no fleas where we live, either.
> What type of stress is the dog under?
She's got a 9 month old puppy to deal with, and she hates it when I take him
out without her. Other than that, I'd say the only stress she is under is
making sure he doesn't steal her Kong <VBG>
> Any paw licking?
See above
> How about odor?
She smells wonderful, until/unless she has an infection. Then her head
smells like dead fish. I only bathe her 1 or 2 x a year, and she doesn't
"smell like dog".
> Any arthritis?
Nope, she still bounces around like a puppy! Hips good, no bumps, her teeth
are in fabulous shape still not needing a scaling even at her age, though
they are a bit worn from too much Kong chewing.... Anything else? Oh, she IS
allergic to beef (makes her vomit), and flea bites (one of the reasons we
moved here), and I suspect propylene glycol (anytime she has something
containing this, she vomits - Jerky Treats, Dentabones, Booda Bones, etc.).
Jenn S
buglady
>> Is the dog on antibiotics during the year?
>During the last two infections, yes. Will be cleansing her with milk
thistle
>as soon as vet gives the OK. She wants to wait until the food elimination
>trial is complete, as cleansing often results in healing crisis that may
>bring out another ear infection and we want to make sure it would be from
>the cleanse and not an allergy.
..........Did you give any probiotics after antibiotics? I think I'd really
focus on her gut. Digestive enzymes, probiotics, maybe L-glutamine and see
if it helps. Maybe a month's worth of Vit A too after food trial is over.
The only dandruff she gets is when we go to
>the vet and she is stressed. There are no fleas where we live, either.
......Maybe extra B vits too. So much of the body is dependent on Bs and
they're water soluble.
I had a dog whose left ear would not clear up - heavy black goop, scratching
at ear. After I gave up grain in the food (and they still get grain in dog
biscuits) her ear is clear. Took a few months to get to that stage.
Jenn
>
> ..........Did you give any probiotics after antibiotics? I think I'd
really
> focus on her gut. Digestive enzymes, probiotics, maybe L-glutamine and
see
> if it helps.
No, I was told to wait until the food trial was over (by the vet).
>
> The only dandruff she gets is when we go to
> >the vet and she is stressed. There are no fleas where we live, either.
>
> ......Maybe extra B vits too. So much of the body is dependent on Bs and
> they're water soluble.
Good idea.
>
> I had a dog whose left ear would not clear up - heavy black goop,
scratching
> at ear. After I gave up grain in the food (and they still get grain in
dog
> biscuits) her ear is clear. Took a few months to get to that stage.
But going grain free is what did it for you? Do you make her food or use
kibble?
Jenn S
buglady
Jenn wrote in message ...
>kibble?
I was using kibble, then switched to Volhard diet, but that still has grain
in it. Then went to a fixed daily diet without grains. Now I feed RMBs as
part of the diet. Bonemeal was getting too hard to find, other souces of
calcium are sky high, except for ground up eggshells!