I forgot for a minute that you were in Belgium. Orijen and Raw Instinct kibbles are available to you, along with others that are infinitely better (IMO) than anything from Hills.

A few months ago a forum member here posted a link to an article that used a lot of scare tactics about fresh (raw) feeding. It took a little digging, but it was eventually disclosed that the co-authors of the article were both executives at Hills.

This obvious (IMO) and extreme (IMO) conflict of interest should have been noted (IMO) and was not.

There was a 2002 "research" findings article published by the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association (anti-"BARF"; quotes are mine because of the ill-conceived and unbalanced, calcium-lacking diet the "researchers" used). The Journal much later posted a follow-up saying that the diet had not been "reviewed" for nutritional balance at the time the first article was posted; it was "under review" at that time. The later post indicated that readers interested in more information on BARF read Billinghurst, et al.

Which article do you think made a huge and hugely-publicized splash?

Guess who the number one "Platinum Sponsor" in the "CVMA Corporate Partnership Program" is?

Hill's. ("Global Leader in Pet Nutrition," and the manufacturer of the Science Diet crap in the vet-office waiting rooms.)

Hills is indeed a global leader in cheap grain-heavy crap food (IMO) pushed in vets' offices. Hills is also a leader - a BIG leader - in financial support to veterinary medicine associations and to vet med schools "nutrition" education programs.

Grains are not a food group that canids have any requirement for. That's not all: Grains are a protein source, and so they boost the protein content (and nutritional analysis) of foods that contain them. But the protein in grains is not protein that dogs digest well. By that I mean that dogs do not naturally produce the grain-processing enzymes, such as amylase, that humans do, and that would enable them to digest grains on a regular basis. One of the many results of the stress on the canine system resulting from its attempts to process daily protein grains can be (IMO) derangement of pancreatic tissue.

There is so much known (long-known, I may add) about the effects of grain-heavy daily diets on dogs.

But look for the money. The money is in those glossy bags in the vet's waiting room.

ALL JMO.

I know this is a tad off topic, but a quick question for the raw feeders:

Do you remove any fat or skin from the meats you feed?

I would think feeding too much excess fat/skin could lead to pancreatitis and such.

 Quote: brian berry

I know this is a tad off topic, but a quick question for the raw feeders:

Do you remove any fat or skin from the meats you feed?

I would think feeding too much excess fat/skin could lead to pancreatitis and such.

http://www.leerburg.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=12&Number=145466&Searchpage=1&Main=15417&Words=pancreatitis+Connie+Sutherland&topic=0&Search=true#Post145466

Many threads here have addressed the pancreatitis issue. Acute pancreatitis is sometimes called "Thanksgiving pancreatitis" because of the surge in cases in the holiday season. (You can Google that phrase to read up on it.)

Rancid fats and cooked fats are very hard to digest. Fatty leftovers are very appealing to dogs.

Chronic pancreatitis has multiple underlying causes.

http://www.vetinfo.com/dencyclopedia/depancrea.html

My own opinion is that cooked fat is not something dogs do particularly well with.

When I am switching an adopted dog to raw, I am very careful with adding each new item to the menu. I don't worry much about balance over the first days; I am more interested in watching each ingredient's effect on the dog and being able to back up on (or eliminate, even) anything that triggers digestive problems. I have found that very few items DO trigger problems when they are added slowly.

But I have definitely adopted dogs with pancreas challenges after years on kibble, and I have modified raw food to accommodate those challenges. One of the first things I do in those cases is to remove the skin from poultry.

I have not yet met a dog who was raw-fed from puppyhood who had a pancreas issue. I imagine that they exist, but I haven't seen it yet.

Ah, I appreciate the response Connie. I don't mean to sound confrontational, I'm just curious.

 Quote: Yuko Blum

It's truly disgusting, they include rotting carcasses (and any animal that dies on its way to the slaughterhouse), diseased animals, including large cancerous tumors, unborn foetuses, the intestines, teeth, hooves, hair, poop and whatever shavings and debris happens to be stuck to the meat.

And Yuko, I would like to know where you got that information from if you have a chance? Like a link or something. Again, Im not trying to be confrontational, and I am in NO way a fan of Hill's, but thats almost hard to believe some of that.

Thanks.

There are so many URLs that will take you to descriptions of by-products.....

The "by-products" that a wild canid would eat are not similar to the by-products that commercial foods can contain. JMO.

Anyway, one start is to Google this phrase:

4-D Meat

Also, http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/jimwilliscollection/a/VVP_petfooddiet_2.htm

 Quote: Brian Berry

I don't mean to sound confrontational,

You don't. We all had to start somewhere to get a good picture of the pet-food industry.

There are many smaller companies that sincerely work at producing quality products made from real foods. IMO, Hills and Purina and many other big manufacturers with enviable advertising budgets are not in that group.

Here's a quote for you from the AAFCO website itself (in their FAQ):

 Quote:

Question: Am I correct that parts from sick, dying, or dead animals are allowed? Doesn't this pose a health risk to pets?

Answer: Animal by-products which may include materials from animals which died by means other than slaughter are explicitly defined as adulterated unless the materials are rendered in compliance with animal health and protein product regulations to destroy any potential microorganisms which may be in the products. The processes used are deemed to be adequate to control risk of disease.

Here's the page (from the AAFCO website) that I took that from: http://www.aafco.org/Portals/0/Public/Q-AND-A-REGARDING-PETFOODREGS.PDF

Here's the AAFCO website: http://www.aafco.org

You can decide for yourself if you agree with their logic that dumping all these rotting, diseased, parasite-infested carcasses in your dog's food is fine because they processed it enough.

Frankly that's not my idea of "adequate to control the risk of disease".


Here's another website for you: http://pamperedpetorganics.com/BuyerBeware.htm

This one is more of an "author's opinion" type of article compared to the previous websites I linked to, but she does make some very good points, in my opinion.

A quote from this website:

 Quote:

The addition of euthanized pets goes beyond morally repugnant - it also introduces a host of chemicals not listed on pet food labels. At the rendering plant, time cannot be spared to remove even the green plastic bags the pets came wrapped in, let alone the insecticide laden flea and tick collars they were wearing! Even the very chemicals used to put these pets to death also find their way into the final product.

"Facts of Sodium Pentobarbital in Rendered Products", a University of Minnesota research paper, stated that sodium pentobarbital, the barbiturate which is most commonly used to euthanize small animals, "survived rendering without undergoing any degradation. When ingested, sodium pentobarbital has been shown to cause liver and kidney damage and renal failure. The pet food companies claim these chemicals are found in such low doses as to be harmless, but make no mention of what the cumulative effects of years of ingesting them may be."

If you find that some of the claims are too outrageous to believe, you can just look them up. You'd be surprised at what you find...


Again, happy reading (best not to read this if you're about to eat dinner...)

That'll teach ya' to ask Yuko for a source!

I Tom Lonsdales book, Raw Meaty Bones, he cover AAFCO minimum testing protocols for dog food. You can go to his website http://www.rawmeatybones.com/ to read it. It is in chapter 10, page 215. Pretty much sounds like you have to make a dog live on your diet for 26 weeks. A monkey could put together a diet that would sustain a dog for that long, IMO.

http://www.rawmeatybones.com/rmb/RMB-10-Misdirected%20science.pdf

Thanks for the information.

I have always avoided the big companies like Hills and Purina, knowing they weren't any good. But I never knew the ingredients were that...disgusting!

I have always and likely will always feed Canidae. I put a good bit of research into kibbles back when I was deciding and Canidae seemed like high quality. Human grade meats, quality ingredients, its my choice.