Go Back   Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca > Discussion Groups - mainly cats and dogs > Dog food forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old December 13th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Scott_B's Avatar
Scott_B Scott_B is offline
Rosco, Raw Fed & LOVES IT
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prin View Post
I'm sorry, but saying our dogs are not a priority because we feed "fast" kibble instead of taking the time to grind and whatever is insulting.

There's a difference between:
"I feed raw because I feel it's best for my dog." AND
"I feed raw and other people are just lazy and don't care about their dog's nutrition and health enough to take the time to do it."

Not what she said literally, but it's what it means.

Well then I think thats your problem and insecurities Prin. No offense, but I don't see her saying that.

If people asked why I feed raw its because I believe its the best choice out there for my pup. When I fed Canidae it was because it was the best choice out there for my pup.

For the longest time you where pro SG. If a question was asked about what food to feed, you suggested SG. It was because you felt it was the "best choice" for your dogs. No one said, "wow that Prin makes me feel like crap because I don't feed SG". Because no one thought that. This is no different. Your just reading into it too much.

And Mem, i understand what your saying. Raw feeders take a lot of verbal abuse from vets and such, and so many do feel they need to defend their choice, but only because they want to inform others of why they feel its a better way of feeding. Same way one would inform about a quality kibble. I still recommend Canidae as I feel its one of the best out there.

And one of the biggest excuses or issues people have with raw or homemade is that its too time consuming. And to me, shes just explaining why its not.
__________________
Please please please give Maggie the steak! Its not too big for her little mouth!

Their impression of power is remarkable. They give one the feeling of immense reserves of energy, of great reservoirs of knowledge, of tolerance of disposition, obstinacy of purpose, and tenacity of principle. They are responsive, and they have a lot of quiet, good sense.

-J. Wentworth Day, from The Dog in Sport, 1938

Last edited by Scott_B; December 13th, 2006 at 03:02 PM.
  #92  
Old December 13th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
No one said, "wow that Prin makes me feel like crap because I don't feed SG". Because no one thought that.
Actually, yeah, they did and still do. Not about the SG, but about holistic food in general, and I've learned to back off.

A lot of raw feeders feel like techno does, and that's fine. But you have to remember, even when you're talking to another raw feeder here, there are other people reading.
  #93  
Old December 13th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Scott_B's Avatar
Scott_B Scott_B is offline
Rosco, Raw Fed & LOVES IT
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Actually, yeah, they did and still do. Not about the SG, but about holistic food in general, and I've learned to back off.

A lot of raw feeders feel like techno does, and that's fine. But you have to remember, even when you're talking to another raw feeder here, there are other people reading.
But you defended why you thought it was a great food. I see no fault in that. And some people just like to knit pick.

As for the others who read this forum. So? I'm all for new people who come on and ask, "whats this raw you speak of, and why is it so great?"

No one has said if you feed kibble, you hate your pet. And I don't believe for a second anyone on here feels that way. If you seriously feel that way then you have guilt issues. I've seen Techno recomend different kibbles all the time.

As I said, I feed raw because its the best thing for my pup, and I would do anything for him. If I feed kibble, it would be because I love my pet and its what I felt is best for him. Goes both ways.

Kibble feeders just seem to get upst that raw feeders say these things, even though kibble feeders say it all the time. They feel they have to defend their kibble and so they get defensive and think the raw feeders think they dont love their pets. And its just not true!

lol that was long winded..hope it made sense

PS, I hate grouping into two parties raw vs kibble feeders. We're all pet lovers and thats what counts!
__________________
Please please please give Maggie the steak! Its not too big for her little mouth!

Their impression of power is remarkable. They give one the feeling of immense reserves of energy, of great reservoirs of knowledge, of tolerance of disposition, obstinacy of purpose, and tenacity of principle. They are responsive, and they have a lot of quiet, good sense.

-J. Wentworth Day, from The Dog in Sport, 1938

Last edited by Scott_B; December 13th, 2006 at 03:24 PM.
  #94  
Old December 13th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
What's up with the poking at my mental state over and over? Seems I have issues left and right.
Quote:
If you seriously feel that way then you have guilt issues. I've seen Techno recomend different kibbles all the time.
Honestly, I feel what meb described often, and I just gave up.
Like here: post #2
http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=33146
How is it best for them if they haven't tried it yet? Unless.. that's a general statement about how techno feels about raw?

Sorry, techno, you know how you feel and I know how you feel, but sometimes, it just rubs too hard.
  #95  
Old December 13th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Scott_B's Avatar
Scott_B Scott_B is offline
Rosco, Raw Fed & LOVES IT
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prin View Post
What's up with the poking at my mental state over and over? Seems I have issues left and right.


Honestly, I feel what meb described often, and I just gave up.
Like here: post #2
http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=33146
How is it best for them if they haven't tried it yet? Unless.. that's a general statement about how techno feels about raw?

Sorry, techno, you know how you feel and I know how you feel, but sometimes, it just rubs too hard.

Sorry, I meant that in a general sense, not personally towards you Prin.

And again, I see no issue on what she posted there. I too believe raw is the diet that is best for dogs. And maybe thats why I don't have a problem with it. But you shouldn't take offense to her belief over it. I don't take offense that you feed kibble, or that you feel its better for your pup. Thats Great that you do. And I see no problem with that.
__________________
Please please please give Maggie the steak! Its not too big for her little mouth!

Their impression of power is remarkable. They give one the feeling of immense reserves of energy, of great reservoirs of knowledge, of tolerance of disposition, obstinacy of purpose, and tenacity of principle. They are responsive, and they have a lot of quiet, good sense.

-J. Wentworth Day, from The Dog in Sport, 1938
  #96  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:02 PM
marine's girlie marine's girlie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: where the USMC sends us
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodoll View Post
My understanding is that denatured (cooked) protein is more likely to be recognised as a foreign protein by the dog's body, which can cause an allergic reaction - while in humans it is the contrary. canines possess a very different inner anatomy than humans, they are designed by nature to eat, digest and process raw meat while we do better with cooked foods.
if this were true, then humans who were allergic to the raw version of a certain food woud do ok with the cooked one, but we know this to be untrue. people with food allergies are reactive to both the raw and cooled form of the food. i don't see why it would be any different for dogs.

and while i agree that the physiology of dogs and humans is different, the rules of biochemistry are not. thus i view comparing dogs and humans as comparing tangerines and oranges not oranges and apples. we are at least in the same ball park, even if we are't playing the exact same game. also, modern dogs and modern humans have walked down the evolutionary path together, so i think that dogs have been exposed to cooked foods for longer than people realize.
i'm just wondering if the increase in health problems noted in both dogs and humans is fall out from improvments in diagnostic technology and improvements in health care that allow us to live long enough to have health problems, rather than solely the fault of diet.
  #97  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:06 PM
technodoll's Avatar
technodoll technodoll is offline
Honest Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by meb999
there are more and more of these comments being made on the board, and I gotta say it's really starting to bug me. You feed RAW and you feel it's the best for your dog. Good for you, I think that's great.
um wait - i never mentioned anything in there about feeding raw. i said it's about taking the time to put a good meal together, whatever that is. most raw feeders take a lot LESS time to feed their dogs than i do, so that really wasn't the point i was trying to make. i'm sorry my statement sounded ambiguous.

Scott, thanks for being there to explain my thoughts, while i was away in a 2-hour meeting, LOL!
__________________
"Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine"

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

:love: ~Akitas Are Love~ :love:

Last edited by technodoll; December 13th, 2006 at 04:11 PM.
  #98  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
LOL well, that would have saved me and Scott a page!
  #99  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:13 PM
technodoll's Avatar
technodoll technodoll is offline
Honest Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by marine's girlie
if this were true, then humans who were allergic to the raw version of a certain food woud do ok with the cooked one, but we know this to be untrue. people with food allergies are reactive to both the raw and cooled form of the food. i don't see why it would be any different for dogs.
simple: dogs are NOT humans, and their anatomical responses are different than ours. i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. why not compare how humans process food to how fish or crocodiles process foods? same difference.
__________________
"Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine"

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

:love: ~Akitas Are Love~ :love:
  #100  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:16 PM
technodoll's Avatar
technodoll technodoll is offline
Honest Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by prin
LOL well, that would have saved me and Scott a page!
no no, debates are a good thing as long as they remain civil
__________________
"Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine"

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

:love: ~Akitas Are Love~ :love:
  #101  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
And like I said before, the heat used in dog food extrusion is much higher than heat used for human foods. That's also why dogs who are super intolerant to a certain food within a dog food can eat it fine if you cook it up on the stove.
  #102  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:28 PM
LL1 LL1 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodoll View Post
simple: dogs are NOT humans, and their anatomical responses are different than ours. i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. why not compare how humans process food to how fish or crocodiles process foods? same difference.
I agree marines girlie, the immune response system,aside from very small differences,is the same for all mammals as far as I am aware,certainly the same as far foreign proteins,so it would be the same for cooked and raw.

And I agree Prin,home cooked versus kibble are 2 very different things.
  #103  
Old December 13th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Ok, so low temp cooked (like on a stove) and raw cause the same allergic reaction, but the ultra high temps of extrusion and other processes to make dog food alter things and change the reactivity. Right?
  #104  
Old December 13th, 2006, 05:43 PM
marine's girlie marine's girlie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: where the USMC sends us
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodoll View Post
My understanding is that denatured (cooked) protein is more likely to be recognised as a foreign protein by the dog's body, which can cause an allergic reaction - while in humans it is the contrary. canines possess a very different inner anatomy than humans, they are designed by nature to eat, digest and process raw meat while we do better with cooked foods.

here is a wonderfully detailed, yet simple, explanation & outline: http://b-naturals.com/Sep2005.php
according to this article, the emptying time of the human stomach in a normal subject is about 4 hours, give or take 39 minutes (248 +/- 39 min) not the 30-60 min claimed by the quote. current thought in anthropology is that cooking was adapted as a way of breaking down food to make it more digestible not to deal with parasite issues. meat eating (raw) predates cooking (presumably tubers) in the archaeological record.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

here are articles on salmonella and dogs which refute the idea that dogs are any better equipped to deal with foodborne pathogens than people are, at any rate, asymptomatic dogs can act as carriers and a source of infection to their human caretakers as well as succumb themselves:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=339295

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...ournalCode=jvb

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

there's more, just look on pubmed



also techno mentions: "Bitzane said that a protein’s function determines its shape. “When you mess up that shape, it’s called denaturation,” she said. Cooking causes a protein to lose its shape and its ability to perform its original function. "

but the original function is only relevent in a living functioning being. once removed from the animal, "meat" functions as a source of amino acids and other nutrients. the pepsin in the stomach acids function to break down the structure of proteins so that the individual amino acids can be re-used. cooking does the same thing. the stomach uses pH change and enzymes, cooking uses heat. two processes that perform the same function.
again, the temperature range that i found for kibble precessing is around 250F while food is baked in home ovens at much higher temperatures (350-500F). i fail to see how 250F is considered "ultra high" temp when my oven is routinelyheated to 325F or more. stove tops get at least as hot as well. i'm embarassed to say how many things i've had to scrape off my stovetop after placing thm there, not realizing that it is still hot from making something.
  #105  
Old December 13th, 2006, 06:12 PM
marine's girlie marine's girlie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: where the USMC sends us
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodoll View Post
simple: dogs are NOT humans, and their anatomical responses are different than ours. i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. why not compare how humans process food to how fish or crocodiles process foods? same difference.
comparing fish and crocodiles to humans and dogs is not the "same difference". fish and reptiles are ectothermic, mammals are not. and that's just the short version of the differences. just as there are themes that run through reptilian (or fish) digestion there are themes that run through all mammalian digestive systems. physiologically, all mammals have certain features in common as well as components that act with the same mechanistic characteristics. this can be seen in functions from muscle contraction to the release and regulation of glucose. mammalian physiology is mammalian physiology regardless of the name of the organism. like i said: tangerines to oranges not apples to oranges. or for those that prefer adult beverages: its the difference between red wine and white wine and the difference between wine and hard liquor.
  #106  
Old December 13th, 2006, 07:42 PM
technodoll's Avatar
technodoll technodoll is offline
Honest Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,900
marine's girlie... sorry but i'm completely confused by your posts. what was your original question? you've gone all over the place...

Note: this is not a place to critique raw vs cooked for pets. there is a food forum for those who feed kibble or cooked or other, and a forum for those who feed raw. This happened to avoid endless debates and arguments. Just making sure you understand i am not here to say which method is better, we were discussing dog allergies as seen in those eating cooked foods vs raw foods. that's it.
__________________
"Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine"

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

:love: ~Akitas Are Love~ :love:
  #107  
Old December 13th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Scott_B's Avatar
Scott_B Scott_B is offline
Rosco, Raw Fed & LOVES IT
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,268
So they tested stool and found salmonella. Big deal. Dont eat your dogs poo and you should be fine lol. Why do we cook chicken? Because most of it contains salmonella. imo, if you eat chicken, or hamburger yourself, there is no difference in handling the meat. And one case of a dog being sick really doesnt say much, when you consider the amount of dogs that eat raw and never get sick. I'm sure if i went digging I could find a dog that got sick from a kibble.
__________________
Please please please give Maggie the steak! Its not too big for her little mouth!

Their impression of power is remarkable. They give one the feeling of immense reserves of energy, of great reservoirs of knowledge, of tolerance of disposition, obstinacy of purpose, and tenacity of principle. They are responsive, and they have a lot of quiet, good sense.

-J. Wentworth Day, from The Dog in Sport, 1938
  #108  
Old December 13th, 2006, 08:24 PM
marine's girlie marine's girlie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: where the USMC sends us
Posts: 40
i never stated that raw was better than kibble or vice versa. i realize this is not the place to debate that, but i was attempting to correct to what i perceived as misconceptions in the previous posts (eg dogs are resistant to parasites, so they can and should eat a raw food, cooked allergens are more reactive than raw ones, etc). that tract wasn't started by me, i just responded to the direction of the conversation. someone else brought up raw and then the convenience or inconvenience, then the benefits of feeding a raw diet. i stayed out of that, but i put in what i did as a by-the-way, with credible references.
soooo.. back to the allergy idea...my original post was disagreeing with a statement that raw foods are not allergenic while cooked ones are. in a truly allergic dog or human, they will both be misinterpreted by the immune system as an invader.

i was also disagreeing with you that one cannot draw correlations between allergic mechanisms in dogs and humans. i think there can be parallels drawn and the point i was making is that it still doesn't make sense to me that a raw food item will not incite an allergic response while the cooked one will. you said that comparing dogs to humans was like comparing humans to fish, and i disagree completely. dogs and humans have much more in common than either have with fish. the outward signs are different, but the underlying mechanism is the same. therefore, simply feeding a raw diet in my view doesn't "cure" or "solve" allergy problems, but feeding a raw diet devoid of the individual's allergenic foods can. the same goes for a kibble.
  #109  
Old December 13th, 2006, 08:37 PM
technodoll's Avatar
technodoll technodoll is offline
Honest Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
my original post was disagreeing with a statement that raw foods are not allergenic while cooked ones are. in a truly allergic dog or human, they will both be misinterpreted by the immune system as an invader.
ok - so explain to me how dogs allergic to certain meats in kibble or cooked, can eat them fine in a raw state (have no allergic reactions) this is not theory, this "phenomena" happens all the time.

Quote:
therefore, simply feeding a raw diet in my view doesn't "cure" or "solve" allergy problems, but feeding a raw diet devoid of the individual's allergenic foods can. the same goes for a kibble.
i respectfully disagree, see above for why.
__________________
"Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine"

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

:love: ~Akitas Are Love~ :love:
  #110  
Old December 13th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Prin Prin is offline
Senior member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_B View Post
Why do we cook chicken? Because most of it contains salmonella. imo, if you eat chicken, or hamburger yourself, there is no difference in handling the meat.
Actually, not all chicken has salmonella. It's supposed to be far less than half of the chickens out there. And even then the virulence of the salmonella itself might differ from infected chicken to chicken.
  #111  
Old December 13th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Blathach's Avatar
Blathach Blathach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 401
This thread has run its course and will now be closed. The original question from the OP has been answered.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Terms of Use

  • All Bulletin Board Posts are for personal/non-commercial use only.
  • Self-promotion and/or promotion in general is prohibited.
  • Debate is healthy but profane and deliberately rude posts will be deleted.
  • Posters not following the rules will be banned at the Admins' discretion.
  • Read the Full Forum Rules

Forum Details

  • Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
    Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
    vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 0%).
  • All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.