This will be my final post to the board as it seems that my attempts to provide factual information and correct incorrect ideas/interpretations about animal nutrition are not well received.

To clarify what conclusions authors of research can publish. When research is published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (such as the Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Nutrition, etc.) it has been reviewed by at least three other scientists. If these scientists do not agree with the validity of the conclusions drawn, the article will not be published. So these articles are never just the interpretation of one set of authors. There is no such peer-review process in place for info you find solely on the web (not including web-based publication of peer-reviewed journals) or in text-books.

To clarify practical experience regarding feeding milk protein to animals as well as a comment that no other animals (beside humans) eat milk after weaning (from the last thread). Milk proteins have been used extensively in commercial pig diets for well over thirty years. While many of you will say, "well that's a pig and not a dog" the gastrointestinal tract of the pig is remarkably similar to those of both humans and dogs. I think that thirty years of use in an industry where anything that negatively impacts the health of the animal will hit hard in the wallet, should qualify as pratical experience.
It amazes me what people are willing to believe and who they are willing to believe is an authority on nutrition. I am scoffed at, even though I have published multiple peer-reviewed papers in the area of animal nutrition, written invited review articles for peer-reviewed journals, given presentations at national meetings of the American Society of Animal Science (in the field of nutrition as well), and lectured in nutrition course (including a canine nutrition course) at an Ivy league University; whereas someone who publishes a book that says, "feed raw foods to your dogs because wolves can't cook" is considered an expert. I wish you all the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Chad, I respect the opinion of anybody who has taken the time to research X. However, I'm not willing to disregard all of the other folks who have reseached X, in exchange for the latest research of X, which, it seems to me, is often driven by reasons other than reaching the truth. All a person can do is add it all up and make their best guess. People who earn the big bucks for what they do, get paid because they have a good record of guessing right on the first try. I try to gather all of the info I can from multiple sources, regardless of the sources. I then try to back away from it all, and make my best guess. It still needs to be proven to me through trial and error. I hope you don't bail out, for I do respect the opinion of people who have taken the time to do research <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But count on me to offer some argument, as I have learned some things from guessing wrong.
Regarding your reference to pigs. Chad I think you forgot to "back away from it all." A Pig farmers goal of course is to fatten up his pigs as quickly and as cheaply as posible. This is hardly the same goal as we have for our dogs. Pig farmers also feed their pigs cooked potatoes because if they feed them raw their pigs won't fatten up for them, (raw potatoes are just too healthy for them).People will read into this in many different ways, all one can do is take their best guess.

Chad, I've found your input to be very useful. I'm skeptical of everything I read, and question my own knowledge all the time. How the heck do I know you are who you say you are? In my experience dealing with people, it doesn't matter how much you know or don't know about a subject. People are going to believe what they choose to believe. You can't control that. All you can do is put out accurate information, and leave it at that. I can verify the information that you provide through independent research, or I can disregard it and continue to believe what I choose. In other words, you will always be scoffed at by some! Hey, it happens to all of us!

But, overall, I have found your posts informative. I also find jason's posts to be of value. Just because the two of you don't agree doesn't make the information not worth looking at.

Some people have more of a closed mind than others.
I too find your posts informative, intelligent and well written. Please continue to post. There will always be people who disagree. I take what I find will help me and use it. What I can never figure out why people tend to resort to name-calling just because they have a different opinion or information.
We are all adults here and should behave as such. If one disagrees with an opionion, fine, state so without resorting to rude name calling (this is not directed at you by the way). Not all of us live in a box so please continue to post and ignore the obnoxious ones!!!

Sorry I disagree - with the earlier post. Chad passes bad information. He may get good grades in school but that doesn't play in my book - too much bad information for this old dog breeder.

Spouting bad facts does not make someone an expert - I don't have a lot of patience for things I know are bull shit - especially when I know they are bull shit (no matter what someone claims is written in some foolish study - like feeding dogs milk is 110% bull shit.

I will go with common sense, what works in my breeding rooms, what works in my whelping rooms and what works in my puppy pens. I respect experience 100 times more than someone who has published a paper and is impressed with their book learning.

After Chad has bred a 100 litters I would like to see how his posts change.

So no I won't miss his posts.

Ed,
I've read your 'recipes' on your web site for the ingredients and possible amounts that you feed your dogs. I just have a question- about how much do you feed of the vit.c, glucosamine powder and the various oils. Do you mix the oils or feed 1 tsp. or so of each? Thanks!

Board owner or not Mr. Frawley, you have some of the most petty, vindictive and ridiculous posts out there. Having read more of them I feel no desire to support any venture of yours.

Marks,

Ed in no way needs me to speak for him but I do want to comment on your post. No one says that you or anyone else has to agree with everything that Ed says, but I think "petty" and "vindictive" is a bit absurd. There is NO substitute for experience. All the scientific studies in the word can try and tell you that white is really black but when it comes down to it its experience that means more than anything. Do these people that do these studies have 40 years experience in breeding and raising healthy dogs? I'm sure there were mistakes made along the way but learning from them is the best tool to gaining knowlege. Again, if you have a legitimate dissagreement about something, speak your mind. There are people who read books, then there are people who raise dogs(and read books)! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Marks,

I feel that Chad came in here using a bunch of high fallooten words and crap thinking that it would add weight to what he was saying. I can't speak for Ed either, but that ALWAYS pisses me off! Science must never be allowed to "look down it's nose" at experience. His words would have been much better recieved if he hadn't done that. I'm afraid it's a disease that runs rampid in the scientific community. Chad continued with me offline and he has proven(to me)that he does know something about the science. He just has a lot to learn about people. Now, let's get back to the dogs! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I was going to stay out of this but.....

Chad put out sound information based on sound sceintific research. Often with out reading the information he put out he was talked down to, ridiculed, and called names. Anybody recognize the technique? I have been looking into alot of this type of information for years and what I have found is that in most cases there isn't much to support what is being put out. Because of that the people that support some of the new things have no place to go but to name call and ridicule. Recently I keep finding that the information on BARF and vaccinations that are being put out is just plain wrong. Many of the reputed benefits don't occur, dogs are more susceptable to baterial infections from the food than the stated position, there can be problems with pano and other nutritional problems, and on and on. Justlike with the manufactured foods. With vaccinations my very tolerant vet did titers on my dogs with little comment other than to state her experience with the titers on her own dogs. We found the same things, the dogs were immune to some things and not others (not immune to 2/3). One of the points made against yearlies is that adults don't get the diseases, again untrue. My vet has treated adults with "puppy" diseases. They are also reported in the Vet litirature.

Now here is my point. Everybody has a choice in how they raise the dogs. Everybody has different experiences, which is part of the value of this forum, it should be handeled profesionally. I don't mind some hard comments, I make my fair share, but are the personal attacks really needed? If that is your best defense, how sound is your position?