The other big concern with 'made at home diets' is that the only performance indicators people use for the "health" of their animals are things like shiny coat, clean teeth, and lean physique.

Those performance indicators, amongst others. That is correct. What indicator do you use? A written essay? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Anyone that thinks that they can formulate a more ideal diet at home for their dogs, should go to their doctor and have their own iron, zinc, selenium, and copper status determined. If you manage to be without excess or deficiencies of these nutrients (less than 20% of the US pop.)maybe you could do the same for your dog.

Doctors? Which *one*?

And what has happened to the average life expectancy in the last 50 years?

It has gone up dramatically due in respective parts to the clostered environment of nursing homes in which people lie around in septic shock between visits to the ER; due to the coffee cup of pills senior citizens take every day; due to valve replacements; by-pass surgery; anti-biotics; EMT service etc. The morbidly obese are also living longer, same with diabetics despite their respective absoloute, and per capita, rise in numbers.

Our knowledge of biology and nutrition has increased expontentially over the past twenty years, let alone fifty.

Amongst other things. *If* such useful knowledge *is* trickling down to the American populace, something is very, very wrong.

To think that you at home, without any nutrient analysis capabilities, can meet all of the nutrient requirements without causing detrimental excesses of certain nutrients, is beyond naive.

Naive is thinking those who study pathology, and mechanically tinker with us NECCESARILY know about promoting health and fitness. They don't neccesarily. Naive is thinking that those in the boardroom give a flying -f- about ANY of this.

If you want to make your own dog food because you don't trust "big business"

Lemme get this straight? You DO?

It's your dog and your money - you can do whatever you like. But to read a book or two written by someone with virtually no nutritional training, and then to treat it as gospel is just funny.

Funny? As opposed to just trusting the company? It's also funny to assume that's all one has neccesarily done.

And with this last thought I'll end my rant...if the biggest arguement you can use for feeding an all natural raw diet to dogs is that this is closest to what their evolutionary ancestors ate, why would you cook your food?

That is certainly a lame reason, if the only one, to use.

And for my last condesending remark of this rant...I have concumed about a pot of coffee per day for the last 8 years. I have more energy, better skin tone, and firmer bowel movements since drinking coffee than before. Does that mean that the coffee is making me healthier?

This actually brings up a pretty good point. Is it neccesarily that which the animal is eating which accounts for apparent increases in fitness, performance, and apparent health? Or is it that which it is NOT eating? I.e. The orthodox atkins diet vs. a diet simply devoid of, say, trans fats.

Is health the same as fitness? Do either one neccesarily have any bearing on longevity? What would you call a 75 year old man who dies from a stroke in the middle of a gymnastics routine? Unhealthy? Unfit? What went wrong here? Aren't we all supposed to live as long as possible at any cost? I digress...

I, for one, am not of the opinion that raw meat is our savior. As far as I know, cooking denatures the protein but it doesn't render the usable amino acids inert...or however you'd say it. And the value and danger, respectively, of consuming bones would lie, in part, in the mechanical implications. It stimulates the teeth and gums, as well as involving the possibility of a mechanical injury. Not cooking the bones would seem to dramatically reduce the odds of the unfavorable possibility. So, if the raw meat is not so much of a problem (which, I'm finding, is not) and if raw bones occupy such a handy niche, why not feed raw meaty bones? In other words, why bother cooking the meat? So that's my rationale as far as that angle goes.

Furthermore, much of what you say is regarding nutritional defeciencies and excesses. That's got nothing to do with the "BARF" creed neccesarily, but the misapplication. Just like there's recklessly heaving around chunks or iron, and then there's *proper* weight resistance training...though both are "lifting weight".

As an aside, I was at a zoo not too long ago, and I stayed around til closing time and I just happened to be around some felines. What do you think I saw the little kitties eating?

Steven,

When I discuss performance indicators for nutrition, I am talking about quantifiable biological indices of a specific nutrient, for example glutathione peroxidase 1 for selenium status, not 'gosh the coat is shinier'.

I do trust companies more than individuals. Big business cares only about profit, pride never enters into its decission making.

I couldn't grasp the other points in your post.

A question for all home-prepared food people, how much selenium does your dog get per day?

When I discuss performance indicators for nutrition, I am talking about quantifiable biological indices of a specific nutrient, for example glutathione peroxidase 1 for selenium status

And what's the bottom line of these appropriate biological indices? Not that I even know what that particular substance is, but it ultimatly boils down to something, doesn't it? What would that be? In other words, you're not monitoring the status of glutathione peroxidase 1 for selenium for trivia's sake. What does the ideal status of glutathione peroxidase 1 for selenium ultimatly yield? Some sort of secondary indication, right? If it's an internal indication (beyond the appropriate of substance X in and of itself), how is that qualified and why does it matter if the desired external indications are in order?

not 'gosh the coat is shinier'.

Again, what do the indices of specific nutrients add up to? Something intangible? Peace of mind? If one can't objectively qualify what it means to have "an itchy coat", does that mean it doesn't exist as long as it's determined that all it's nutritional demands (as determined by Purina) are met?

I couldn't grasp the other points in your post. What didn't you grasp? I'd like the opportunity to clarify if I may.

Nancy,

A single blood panel on a single dog does not a proof make. Knowledge changes over time. As we learn we improve on what we do. That is the process.

THere are people that should have the motivation and ability to put together a single study on the subject. My understanding is that Bilinghurst is working on one.

The arguments remain circular, you either believe or you don't. I understand that the primary objection of Dr. Bilinghurst is that processing the food changes the nutrients, does that apply to the dehydrated food that he now sells? Freeze drying removes nutrients that water won't replace. Or have the arguments changed?

Wow! Sorry about stirring up so much emotion. Let me ask this,
1. For those who have gone the raw route, has anyone ever had to have a bone surgically removed from their dog?

2. Have you dogs ever come down with salmonella?

3. Has your dog ever died from this type od feeding?

Thanks

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Nancy,

A single blood panel on a single dog does not a proof make. Knowledge changes over time. As we learn we improve on what we do. That is the process.

I agree entirely but do think that the collective information (andecdotal) may be more useful than the feeding trials done by the food companies.

There are plenty of people who have panels run on their dogs....but someone has to be motivated to collect the data. Until then, all we have is testimonials by those who have tried. I would be interested in seeing the Billingurst study when it is done....but since he is marketing a product that can introduce bias as well, now, can't it?

It is tough to introduce a lot of bias if the study is peer reviewed. If you know how to read a study it is easy to identify bias in a study. I would love to see some data. I know what the current studies have found, I have watched the longevity and primary health of dogs increase as foods have gotten better. The idea that it is going back to what was intended for dogs has a flaw. For the last 50 years we have been working on encouraging and selecting for dogs that do better on the food that is being fed.

Anecdotal information is what starts most studies, but it is that the data that proves or disproves the anecdotal information. Case in point mosquito repelants. I know several people h swear by Avon's Skin so Soft as a repelant. So it was tested and found to have almost no value. If you believe something you will have a tendancy to find things to confirm that belief. Data is much harder to bias because it doesn't change with memory. Once recorded it stays the same.

 Quote:

3. Has your dog ever died from this type of feeding?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />