I expected that they wouldn't like 'Work Wonders' and Billinghurst books.(I really like 'Work Wonders'. :smile

Didn't expect 'Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats: The Ultimate Diet' to be on the bad list, though. They say why?

Re: Natural Nutrition by Schultze. "Diet is limited, details are few, and instructions are inflexible. No nutritional analysis for the diet is provided. No index or references."

Cool. Thank you, Tracy.:smile:

WOW ok, ok i get it i should be feeding my dog omega 3 / 6 - i skimmed the thread will get the details later - and vit. E to process it whatever.

No, no one said to give supplemental 6s.

one question - and i do not doubt you guys - but if these "ESSENTIAL" things are so essential how come most evryone i know including greyhound trainers, sport triallers, show people, security guards, hunters, breeders, pet owners...aren't aware of it???

You asked them?

... why aren't their dogs all dead for lack of ESSENTIAL chemicals??? just sayin.

Chemicals? I guess you could call the oil in salmon, sardines, etc. a chemical, but it's unusual.

and noone mentioned what these ESSENTIAL things actually do for the dog, and how did wild dogs survive witout them - again i only skimmed.

Well, I suggested you use "search" here with the term fish oil. You would get a TON of information, including benefits, how it works, history, how wild canids get long-chain 3s (no one said they go without them), and much much more. You'd know that modern grain-fed slaughter animals (raw or kibbled) are a big part of the need to replace Omega 3s. You'd know exactly how DHA and EPA declined in modern western diets.



PS noone mentioned quantities of Vit. E / omega etc and when to feed at what age etc - details.

You didn't ask, but again, that search would have given you the answer over and over, which is dependent on the dog's weight.

What is the dog's weight?

Chemicals? I guess you could call the oil in salmon, sardines, etc. a chemical, but it's unusual.


Connie with full repect to you, i am involved in agriculture and i have to burst this public perception bubble for people on a daily basis - IF IT EXISTS ITS A CHEMICAL - evrything we can possibly touch, inhale, eat is a chemical, chemical free foods only exist in our imaginations and heck our imaginations even have a bio-chemical basis, there is nothing "UNUSUAL" about it at all, the only thing unusual is that people think there is sumthin else - deal with. sorry about the rant but i am sick of the "farmers killing us for profit conspiracy" generally not true.

ok you got me in that i have not specifically asked about some of the "chemical" supplements - i have however seriously harrased said people about their feeding/nutritional protocols n the supps never came up. i will for correctness ask specifically and report back here.

i do care about my dog but admit i am lazier than i thought - i prolly won't do a full research and analysis but will just go with the one or two books / DVD's ED offers and trust in Ed's product judgement - not perfect but more than most folks do and unlikely to harm dog i would guess.
heers all for the comments although my head is swimming right now from the info.
c

Yes, water is a chemical, but we rarely refer to it as such. In common conversation, we typically draw a distinction between organic and inorganic compounds, and naturally occurring vs created substances.

You're playing a game of semantics, and for what purpose?
If you work in the food industry, then you should be well aware of the issues surrounding Omega 3 fatty acids.

Animals would consume them naturally through their diet.
By virtue of feeding a biologically inappropriate diet to livestock, we've removed the availability of Omega 3 fatty acids from our diets, and our pets'. This isn't rocket science- it's common sense.

Peter, I'm sure you understood me to say that in normal conversational parlance, "chemical" is not a word that would "usually" be used to refer to a natural oil.

Since you're looking for an easy one-source authority on canine nutrition, it's a little ironic that you've stumbled across her, and stubbed your toe in the process. There is no more respected authority than Connie Sutherland. You could learn a lot from her.

 Quote: Peter Cavallaro

i prolly won't do a full research and analysis but will just go with the one or two books / DVD's ED offers and trust in Ed's product judgement

Good idea!

http://leerburg.com/diet2.htm

http://leerburg.com/feedpups.htm

You will see the fish oil and E included in every day's menu.

 Quote: aaron myracle

... If you work in the food industry, then you should be well aware of the issues surrounding Omega 3 fatty acids.

Animals would consume them naturally through their diet.
By virtue of feeding a biologically inappropriate diet to livestock, we've removed the availability of Omega 3 fatty acids from our diets, and our pets'. This isn't rocket science- it's common sense.

I agree 100%.

Peter, you asked. I did not email you and say "Hey, how come you are not providing more EPA and DHA to your dogs than there is in grain-fed slaughter animal diets?"



QUOTE: "supplements for dogs?? what are they and when do you use them. .... i have possibly the best cared for dog on the planet. i don't want to miss anything."

This was your post. You were answered.

I personally have spent many hours typing detailed posts about the Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio and the several reasons for its major shift in the past one to two centuries. I have explained exactly how both categories of EFAs work to promote specific inflammation-supporting and inflammation-suppressing hormones. I've described the role of inflammation gone amok in chronic diseases of all kinds. I've provided links and I've quoted from nutrition and vet manuals (and many other sources). I've explained how the PUFAs in oil supplements used E and why it was simple and safe, even though it's a fat-soluble vitamin, to just go ahead and replace it without specifically testing the dog to ascertain that yes, this dog needs more E as a result of PUFA processing.

All JMHO, of course. With citations.

And that's just me. I am far from the only one to contribute to the significant body of information here on Omega 3s (particularly long-chain 3s).

I generally give a brief answer and a suggestion that the poster avail himself of the excellent info already typed in such detail. That search box up to your left there ... "fish oil" or "salmon oil" would yield discussions galore, any one of which would have provided you with much more info than I now see you really wanted.

You ask, I (we) answer, and your reaction is sarcasm (after "skimming").

- shrug -

Why ask?