Puppy Problem!

Twinwolf

Ok, minor problem. My 4 month old bichon is refusing to eat his kibble - its burns puppy food. He has been eating it no problem up until now. I give him 3 feeds a day & in between feeds try to do some training or games with a clicker & rewards, have been using chicken, sausages, ham, cheese, carrot, etc - in small amounts obviously - and i make sure i give him a bit less kibble when I do.

Thing is now he's realised theres better food out there, there is no budging him. I've been stubborn for the last two days, leaving his food down and giving him nothing else thinking that he will eat it when he gets hungry - but he hasn't. I had to relent tonight & give him some kibble mixed with wet dog food as i'd people coming to dinner & didn't want him begging & barking or to have him in another room as he loves people.

So my only idea is to continue holding out, not giving anything but his kibble until he eats it - but i can think of nothing else!!!!

Anyone have any suggestions as to what else might work??

Thanks.

tk123

Put the kibble down for 20 mins and take it away if he doesn't eat it - once he realises that's all he's going to get he should give in. You could try mixing in some warm water so it has a nicer smell and also to make it softer - he might be teething and a bit sore.. I usually just give my guy kibble for training treats at home and save the higher value stuff for outside. If you're giving him chicken etc at home it's not going to be worth as much to him eg outside or in the park where there's more distractions.

Sigma Force

He has it all worked out lol, I would say keep feeds to three times a day but it sounds like you could be better off with 2 feeds a day from now on and see how you go, he's still young but since he does get the training food too two meals of day might be enough. Our lad will look for food when we're eating but he will eventually give up and eat his own, but he'll chance his arm (well leg) every single time.

Maybe do his training sessions outside only for now as well.

Twinwolf

Too right – he has me sussed – big softly with a rubbery resolve. I can’t bear it when he doesn’t eat, I hate thinking he’s hungry or unhappy! Therefore I added a little gravy to his kibble the other night!! Just to get him eating.

I definitely need to get better at taking his food up, I leave it down and forget about it, but will start with taking it up after 20 mins and move on to the two feeds a day, I’m giving him the right amt for his weight but maybe he just doesn’t need it all. I had tried the warm water & he just turned his nose up completely. I had started using just kibble for training treats and then I watched a lot of kikopup on youtube & she said to use high value treats, and I also thought I’d like him to get the extra/different nutrients. (but not overfeed, just reduce his kibble.)

The last two days he’s improved a bit – I think its just down to me now, sticking to routines & be consistent etc.

I will TRY to do some training outside, although so far no luck on that one, I can’t even get him to sit, and I could have the best treats in the world and he’s just not interested cause he’s too excited/distracted – even at the end when he’s worn out – so that makes good sense, only the best of treats outside.

Thanks for the advice!! My first dog so a bit lost at times!

kylith

Are you still giving him training treats when he turns his nose up? If you are then he's looking for more of that. Obviously training is very important, but if I were you I'd switch the treats for his kibble until he's eating again.

Irishchick

He is showing dominance over you with his food. the 2 most important things in a dogs life are food and attention.It nothing got to do with taste. If it was dogs wouldn't eat each others poop!

By you pandering to him your telling him that he's top dog. That he can choose what he wants to eat and when. You need to show him otherwise, that you are in control and that he must eat when the food is there or he will get nothing until the next meal. I think at this stage 2 meals a day is enough.

Leave the food down for 15 mins max. If he doesn't eat it then take it away. Don't give him anything until his next meal time. Repeat this process until he eats what and when you want him to eat. He will eventually learn that he has to eat when you tell him too!

Believe me he wont starve himself! A dog can easily go for days without eating but he will eventually give in when he realises you are the boss

Trostan

Twinwolf wrote: »

Ok, minor problem. My 4 month old bichon is refusing to eat his kibble - its burns puppy food. He has been eating it no problem up until now. I give him 3 feeds a day & in between feeds try to do some training or games with a clicker & rewards, have been using chicken, sausages, ham, cheese, carrot, etc - in small amounts obviously - and i make sure i give him a bit less kibble when I do.

Thing is now he's realised theres better food out there, there is no budging him. I've been stubborn for the last two days, leaving his food down and giving him nothing else thinking that he will eat it when he gets hungry - but he hasn't. I had to relent tonight & give him some kibble mixed with wet dog food as i'd people coming to dinner & didn't want him begging & barking or to have him in another room as he loves people.

So my only idea is to continue holding out, not giving anything but his kibble until he eats it - but i can think of nothing else!!!!

Anyone have any suggestions as to what else might work??

Thanks.

I supply Husse pet food in Ireland. Sometimes pups/dogs use food (the most important issue in the dog's and pack's lives) as a dominance ploy. The "unwillingness" to eat could be seen in the pack as an attempt to control YOUR behaviour, as the pup attempts to control your behaviour. ( primarily don't feed your dog pork products - not easily assimilated and in some cases threatening).
You are succumbing to the manipulation by allowing the pup to control you.

Here's a method we recommend to affect the pup's eating behaviour. Change the brand (try Husse!?) and let the pup "discover" and "take ownership" of the new brand.
Starve the pup overnight. The next day, and always without your scent on the food bowl or the food!!!!, put a bowl of very lightly damped pup food high up in your kitchen. (slightly damping the dry food releases the aroma - our lamb and rice pup food has a strong scent). Just sprinkle a little water on the food and you will smell the released aroma!!
Allow the pup on its own for an hour into the kitchen and let it stay there with the aroma - starving!!!!
Take the pup out of the kitchen and don't let it see you go back in. Again, making sure there is no scent of you of the bowl or food, place the food on the kitchen floor. let the pup in on its own to "discover" the food. Hopefully, the pup "takes ownership" of the food and it will then think it has fooled you.
We have some success with this method, but not always, but do ensure that you are the "Alpha" not the pup!! Good luck

IvySlayer

OK the dog isn't trying to take over the world or anything, he's just being stubborn.

Put his food down, if he doesn't eat, take it away and do NOT cave in. No treats. Try again

As for training, I've got my Westie fairly trained and they are very tough to train :P Show the treat, make him do what you want to do and say a word to associate it. Keep repeating until he learns. That or you can consider obedience classes.

Twinwolf

“Are you still giving him training treats when he turns his nose up? If you are then he's looking for more of that. Obviously training is very important, but if I were you I'd switch the treats for his kibble until he's eating again.”

I had planned not to until he was eating properly again – but end up giving a few bits of different food as I know he hasn’t eaten & they are rewards for being good – for being quiet while we are eating, getting brushed, eyes cleaned etc. I didn’t think it was enough to be filling him in replace of his food. Even as I write this I can see that it’s just foolish, I need to go back to the start and only kibble until he starts eating properly again.

“He is showing dominance over you with his food. By you pandering to him your telling him that he's top dog. That he can choose what he wants to eat and when. You need to show him otherwise, that you are in control and that he must eat when the food is there or he will get nothing until the next meal. I think at this stage 2 meals a day is enough.”

I hadn’t thought of it as him looking for control or power – but you’re dead right – he’s trying to get me to feed him what he wants, when he wants. I know I’m going to struggle with this dog to be the alpha!!! That’s why I have been trying to do command training & using high value treats so that he’ll learn & listen – but it’s obviously got a bit confused somewhere. I think the suggestions about being strict with food, strict about feeding times and how long I leave it down, and moving training and high value treats only outside (but will not re-introduce ‘treats’ until his feeding is back on track. )

“Sometimes pups/dogs use food (the most important issue in the dog's and pack's lives) as a dominance ploy. The "unwillingness" to eat could be seen in the pack as an attempt to control YOUR behaviour, as the pup attempts to control your behaviour. ( primarily don't feed your dog pork products - not easily assimilated and in some cases threatening).You are succumbing to the manipulation by allowing the pup to control you.”

I think for the moment I’ll stick with the burns – he has been eating it without a bother from the start – plus I have a massive bag of it & twas quite expensive – but will look into the husse when this runs out. I didn’t know that about pork products – I’ve been watching kikopup (youtube) and I love everything she does & the way she promotes training – and she suggest using things like sausages, frankfurters etc – but will not use them if they are not good foods - I want to be using tasty but nutritious foods for treats.

Thanks for all the advice – I’m going to stick to my guns now!!!!! As hard as that is for me (I just like to spoil a bit!) until this gets better - I can’t have him dictating what food he’ll have, and I can’t continue to keep feeling bad that he hasn’t had his food & is hungry! Will let you know how its going.

Twinwolf

IvySlayer wrote: »

OK the dog isn't trying to take over the world or anything, he's just being stubborn.

Put his food down, if he doesn't eat, take it away and do NOT cave in. No treats. Try again

As for training, I've got my Westie fairly trained and they are very tough to train :P Show the treat, make him do what you want to do and say a word to associate it. Keep repeating until he learns. That or you can consider obedience classes.

Funny! I think he thinks he is trying to take over the world!! Thats the biggest issue I think, me not caving. God - this is turning into more life lessons for me really than the dogs behaviour - he's behaving that way cause i'm a bit of a pushover! LOL

I will try continue the training for now with just kibble (although he's not too happy when he realises he's just sat, lay down, stayed - for a piece of kibble!). I have been trying to use clicks when he does the right command - but i think i forgot the bit about cutting back on the treats and just giving clicks.

Trostan

1) Pork. Try to find "Pork and Rice" alongside the chicken, lamb, turkey, salmon, duck and rice in the pet shop. You won't. There must be a reason why top manufacturers like us don't make it!!!!!!!! Avoid to much cheese, onion and never ever give dark chocolate to your dog.
2) treats. Only give one treat for a specific act of good behaviour. associate the treat with a word and reward the dog with the treat word and a pat.
3) Alpha behaviour:- to become Alpha, always greet the dog last (after other family members. Alpha greets the pack in order of priority.
Feed the dog last. Always ensure the dog leaves and enters the house (lair) last. Don't let the dog pull when walking (hunting). Alpha's leave and enter the lair first and leads the "hunt". The dog will become secure and happy when you have clearly given it its specific role in the pack, which is, of course, last.

Regards,

IvySlayer

Twinwolf wrote: »

Funny! I think he thinks he is trying to take over the world!! Thats the biggest issue I think, me not caving. God - this is turning into more life lessons for me really than the dogs behaviour - he's behaving that way cause i'm a bit of a pushover! LOL

I will try continue the training for now with just kibble (although he's not too happy when he realises he's just sat, lay down, stayed - for a piece of kibble!). I have been trying to use clicks when he does the right command - but i think i forgot the bit about cutting back on the treats and just giving clicks.

Dogs are a lot smarter then we think and they will find your weaknesses :P

I find making a huge fuss out of the dog when s/he does something right the best.

DBB

Trostan wrote: »

Sometimes pups/dogs use food (the most important issue in the dog's and pack's lives) as a dominance ploy. The "unwillingness" to eat could be seen in the pack as an attempt to control YOUR behaviour, as the pup attempts to control your behaviour.

Hopefully, the pup "takes ownership" of the food and it will then think it
has fooled you.
We have some success with this method, but not always, but do ensure that you are the "Alpha" not the pup!! Good luck

Trostan wrote: »

3) Alpha behaviour:- to become Alpha, always greet the dog last (after other family members. Alpha greets the pack in order of priority.
Feed the dog last. Always ensure the dog leaves and enters the house (lair) last. Don't let the dog pull when walking (hunting). Alpha's leave and enter the lair first and leads the "hunt". The dog will become secure and happy when you have clearly given it its specific role in the pack, which is, of course, last.

Trostan,
Is your take on how dogs view the world one that is supported by Husse?
I'm assuming that Husse and their representatives base their food, and advice they give on food, on best independent scientific research, although I'm aware that when it comes to dog food, independent research is seriously lacking.
I ask this because I'd be really surprised that a dog food company would still be waxing lyrical about matters of "dominance" and this idea that dogs, let alone 4 month old pups, spend their lives trying to figure out how to take over the world in a bid to stamp out humanity! So I'd like to know if this is the Husse line on dog behaviour, or your own personal opinion?
What is this creature you talk of entering a "lair", to go out hunting? Is this something out of Lord of the Rings?
You see, this whole notion of dominance, pack leadership, and applying a "place in the pack" to the dog, has never had any basis in fact. There is no research to suggest that wolves, let alone their behaviourally distantly-related cousins the dog, adhere to any sort of social rules around a "lair", or who gets to eat first, or any of the other bunkum spread by people who haven't realised yet that what they're saying is, well, unfounded, and potentially harmful rubbish. Starve a four month old pup? Really?:eek: And what has not leaving your scent on the food/bowls got to do with anything?

Everything you've posted stems about dog behaviour from one researcher, David Mech, who studied unrelated, captive wolves living in a highly stressed environment. What he observed was the same behaviour we see when we force humans, or any other social animal, to live in close proximity in groups which have no business being together. When Mech later studied wolves in the wild, he realised how horribly wrong he'd got it. He saw how peaceable wolves are, how very gentle they are with each other, and how they do not apply these "alpha" behaviours as you describe.
Indeed, the term "alpha" is not meant to denote a supreme, all-powerful, being who enforces his rule of law, it is simply another word for a "parent", when it comes to wolf society. And, in fact, the relationship between wolves is far, far more comparable to that of a human family: parents who keep the show on the road, guiding their young through life, helped by the older siblings, and very, very rarely tipping over into any form of aggression, let alone rowing over who gets to go into the "lair" first, or who gets to eat first. That is utter fallacy, and proven to be.
Needless to say, Mech has retracted his earlier research, and I'm sure he'd be horrified at the way it has been misapplied to dog training. Dogs are so, so different to wolves (and proven to be), that even if wolves behaved the way you say they do, applying the same rules to dogs as would be the same as applying chimpanzee behavioural rules onto humans. Close, but no cigar.

On the contrary, there is much evidence, and it is increasing all the time, to show how dogs really do view the world. The behaviours which proponents of the outdated, disproven pack-leader approach describe as being "dominant", can all be explained in a far more straightforward, unconvoluted way, based on the simple laws of learning theory.
I don't need to go into it here, but I would direct you to the following website so that you can bring yourself up to speed on things:
www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

I will ask this question once again, as I do every time this subject comes up: if dogs were really trying to plot a military coups against us, how on earth could we keep them as pets? How could so many enjoy fantastic relationships with them without any fear of one assuming this terrifying "alpha" role?

OP, don't sweat. Your pup is not trying to establish himself as pack leader.. he's simply holding out for something nicer, based on what you have (inadvertently) taught him! There is no law that says your dog has to eat dry food, many dogs don't like it. Based on pretty intensive research, I have come to realise that dry food, even the best dry food, is no substitute for a fresh, home-made diet. Indeed, it doesn't have to be home-made, their are nice commercially prepared "soft food" diets available which most dogs hugely prefer. In fact, I would go so far to say that dry food may cause ill-health in older dogs. There is more research becoming available in this area, but I think the day will come where dog owners will regret ever feeding dry food to their dogs.
So, worry not. If your dog likes chicken, give him chicken! Or beef, or fish, or turkey, or whatever! What the hell, why not? Does the dog REALLY have to eat the same boring old dry stuff every day? Who says?;)

DogsFirst

Totally agree DBB. Trained guide dogs for years. Used to employ the same methods. The dog would go off their crackers and the old idea was to pick them up. Don't want it now you'll want it tmrw. They used to do the same with concentration camp rations. Been working with raw fed populations for the last 5 years though more on a nutritional basis. Yet to see the behaviour in a dog fed fresh meaty dinners. Like so many things out there today in dogs, it's a dry food phenomenon. It's because dry food tastes crap is why they don't want to eat it. And that's something with limited taste buds. Every single dinner. Obvious in hind sight but with no other options back in the day it was a "behaviour" thing! Poor little mites.

tk123

Trostan wrote: »

1) Pork. Try to find "Pork and Rice" alongside the chicken, lamb, turkey, salmon, duck and rice in the pet shop. You won't. There must be a reason why top manufacturers like us don't make it!!!!!!!!

LOLs the green "bones" that you sell which I may add one of your reps told me and my friend was "100% green tea" have pork in them (among other crappy ingredients) :rolleyes:
http://www.husse.ie/dog-food-products/dog-snacks/?product=133
(my friend binned hers as her dog has food allergies and I binned ours too as I prefer to feed real bones instead of fake ones)

Back on topic..OP for clicker training - you always click AND treat! The click is to tell them yes that's what I want you to do to get this treat. Are you charging the clicker before your sessions eg click and treat say 10 times before you start - does he take the kibble then? Would he maybe take it from a treat/food dispensing toy eg buster cube, linkables, kong wobbler etc?
I feed my guy raw btw and he's a 30kg retriever so i find the thought of feeding a little tiny bichon raw amazing - my freezer drawer full of chicken and oxtail would last you a year lol!! :pac:

DBB

tk123 wrote: »

- my freezer drawer full of chicken and oxtail would last you a year lol!! :pac:

Ooooh.. where is you getting the oxtail from?

Twinwolf

DBB, I LOVED your post! Really, I think you’ve given a lot of sound advice and I like your view on dog training, less pack leader, more teacher/parent, more gentle – that site is very good. I’ve read the ceaser millan how to raise a puppy book, and it’s been invaluable, but that complete pack leader, dominant approach is just not me, it hasn’t worked for me, and it’s nice to be told that’s ok, that gentle guiding works just as well if not better. It’s obviously a personal choice for everyone, and everyone needs to find what suits them based on the best information they can get.

I know it’s absolutely down to me that he was getting confused about the whole thing, I was not sticking to a routine, and I was confusing it, therefore he was getting confused!!! But he’s my first pup & there’s going to be loads of learning along the way, I know I’ll get loads of things wrong, but try to do as much research about it as I can, I was just afraid a bad behaviour was starting & wanted to nip it in the bud. I think cause it’s my first dog I want to do everything ‘right’ (especially since most people I know with a dog, their dogs have major problems so I can’t ask their advice) so at the first sign of a problem I’m trying to think what’s the right/wrong thing to do in this situation… and I do get confused, it’s one thing reading all the different methods, to then applying it for the first time.

So the verdict so far is, puppy is doing great! I scaled back big time on treats, and started on the two feeds a day, and limited time on how long the bowl was down, and last two days, ate straight away when the bowl went down.

“There is no law that says your dog has to eat dry food, many dogs don't like it. Based on pretty intensive research, I have come to realise that dry food, even the best dry food, is no substitute for a fresh, home-made diet. Indeed, it doesn't have to be home-made, their are nice commercially prepared "soft food" diets available which most dogs hugely prefer.”

“it's a dry food phenomenon. It's because dry food tastes crap is why they don't want to eat it.”

“I feed my guy raw btw and he's a 30kg retriever so i find the thought of feeding a little tiny bichon raw amazing - my freezer drawer full of chicken and oxtail would last you a year lol!!”

Yep, I’m just as lost in this area, my research thus far (random internet browsing & various random advice) had led me to believe kibble only was best, and that burns was one of the better brands. I’d much prefer to be giving him food that’s nutritious AND yummy. I’ll look up some soft foods and maybe use half & half.

I’d need to research the whole, homemade, raw diet for a dog before I started it, which I just can’t dedicate any time to at the minute. But maybe in the future.

“Back on topic..OP for clicker training - you always click AND treat! The click is to tell them yes that's what I want you to do to get this treat. Are you charging the clicker before your sessions eg click and treat say 10 times before you start - does he take the kibble then? Would he maybe take it from a treat/food dispensing toy eg buster cube, linkables, kong wobbler etc”

As far as I knew, the clicker is now charged – I did in the beginning click and treat the first few days to associate the click meant a treat, he’s now aware of that so I didn’t think it needed doing at the start of each session. And I thought that while you always use treats with the clicker, that when the behaviour is solid, that you reduce treats and give praise in place, and reduce the treat to every second time, third time etc.

And in regards to pork products, apparently “pork isn't any more dangerous than beef, lamb or chicken” according to the dog food project and as other posters have said is contained in many brands of dog food. I’m not giving him a lot of it, it’s literally tiny bits for training and variety, and he likes it and hasn’t had a bad reaction to it, so I think I’ll continue to use it, probably less but occasionally.

tk123

DBB wrote: »

Ooooh.. where is you getting the oxtail from?

I've gotten it from a few places. It's around €6-7 for a whole tail..

Tesco sell it in pieces at the butcher counter so you could pick the pieces you want but I've been lucky twice and gotten it from the reduced section - the whole tail split in 2 bags @ €1.96 each!

Dublin meat company have it vacuum packed in their Artane shop (don't know about the other shops) for €6 they seem to do it by weight so you can get packs with just big pieces and ones with smaller/a mix..they don't have it on their online shop but i'd say they'd deliver it thru the shop if you asked because they're good like that. I always ask for bones when I order online and they always send a few lol

Lastly I've gotten whole tails in FX Buckleys in Moore street - they do chicken necks as well but tbh it can be a bit gross with bluebottles buzzing around the meat etc

Trostan

You should study the industry reports on Research into pet food.
Every 2 years over 1,000 food scientists have a conference to discuss research into animal and pet foods.
Their latest report, which is very technical amounts to over 400 pages if research and examines every facet of dog and cat metabolisms and body structure.
your cynicism is based on prejudice and lack of information.
The key to manufactured dry pet food is that ingredient control is down to a fraction of 1%. The care and precision taken in balancing the very finest ingredients is unremitting.
EG each Husse dog dry food is tested by a precision pressure machine where a needle is driven into the kibble to test its density and breaking pressure. This is to ensure that the kibble shards in the mouth, not melts, so that the mechanical cleaning effect on the teeth is exact. This removes the plaque which has already been softened by the ascrophyllum nodosum, a natural seaweed extract added to the food and passed to the gums by the blood stream.
Not to mention the human consumable proteins, the African marigolds, the white grape seed extracts, the yucca, the green lipped mussels, the sea algae, the eggs, the salmon oil, the taurin, the lecithin, the fortified vitamin c, the fructooligosacharrides etc. etc.
All precisely and scientifically added, not just supply energy, but to treat the dog's (and cat's) organs and ensure long life and complete health.
People who work in the pet world mostly care deeply for them, that's why they are there in the first place.
Just to let you know that my last terrier lived for nineteen and a half happy, healthy years!







Trostan,
Is your take on how dogs view the world one that is supported by Husse?
I'm assuming that Husse and their representatives base their food, and advice they give on food, on best independent scientific research, although I'm aware that when it comes to dog food, independent research is seriously lacking.
I ask this because I'd be really surprised that a dog food company would still be waxing lyrical about matters of "dominance" and this idea that dogs, let alone 4 month old pups, spend their lives trying to figure out how to take over the world in a bid to stamp out humanity! So I'd like to know if this is the Husse line on dog behaviour, or your own personal opinion?
What is this creature you talk of entering a "lair", to go out hunting? Is this something out of Lord of the Rings?
You see, this whole notion of dominance, pack leadership, and applying a "place in the pack" to the dog, has never had any basis in fact. There is no research to suggest that wolves, let alone their behaviourally distantly-related cousins the dog, adhere to any sort of social rules around a "lair", or who gets to eat first, or any of the other bunkum spread by people who haven't realised yet that what they're saying is, well, unfounded, and potentially harmful rubbish. Starve a four month old pup? Really?:eek: And what has not leaving your scent on the food/bowls got to do with anything?

Everything you've posted stems about dog behaviour from one researcher, David Mech, who studied unrelated, captive wolves living in a highly stressed environment. What he observed was the same behaviour we see when we force humans, or any other social animal, to live in close proximity in groups which have no business being together. When Mech later studied wolves in the wild, he realised how horribly wrong he'd got it. He saw how peaceable wolves are, how very gentle they are with each other, and how they do not apply these "alpha" behaviours as you describe.
Indeed, the term "alpha" is not meant to denote a supreme, all-powerful, being who enforces his rule of law, it is simply another word for a "parent", when it comes to wolf society. And, in fact, the relationship between wolves is far, far more comparable to that of a human family: parents who keep the show on the road, guiding their young through life, helped by the older siblings, and very, very rarely tipping over into any form of aggression, let alone rowing over who gets to go into the "lair" first, or who gets to eat first. That is utter fallacy, and proven to be.
Needless to say, Mech has retracted his earlier research, and I'm sure he'd be horrified at the way it has been misapplied to dog training. Dogs are so, so different to wolves (and proven to be), that even if wolves behaved the way you say they do, applying the same rules to dogs as would be the same as applying chimpanzee behavioural rules onto humans. Close, but no cigar.

On the contrary, there is much evidence, and it is increasing all the time, to show how dogs really do view the world. The behaviours which proponents of the outdated, disproven pack-leader approach describe as being "dominant", can all be explained in a far more straightforward, unconvoluted way, based on the simple laws of learning theory.
I don't need to go into it here, but I would direct you to the following website so that you can bring yourself up to speed on things:
www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

I will ask this question once again, as I do every time this subject comes up: if dogs were really trying to plot a military coups against us, how on earth could we keep them as pets? How could so many enjoy fantastic relationships with them without any fear of one assuming this terrifying "alpha" role?

OP, don't sweat. Your pup is not trying to establish himself as pack leader.. he's simply holding out for something nicer, based on what you have (inadvertently) taught him! There is no law that says your dog has to eat dry food, many dogs don't like it. Based on pretty intensive research, I have come to realise that dry food, even the best dry food, is no substitute for a fresh, home-made diet. Indeed, it doesn't have to be home-made, their are nice commercially prepared "soft food" diets available which most dogs hugely prefer. In fact, I would go so far to say that dry food may cause ill-health in older dogs. There is more research becoming available in this area, but I think the day will come where dog owners will regret ever feeding dry food to their dogs.
So, worry not. If your dog likes chicken, give him chicken! Or beef, or fish, or turkey, or whatever! What the hell, why not? Does the dog REALLY have to eat the same boring old dry stuff every day? Who says?;)[/QUOTE]

Trostan

As for the proof of pack behaviour, read or watch anything by Jan Fennel, read "the philosopher and the wolf"
Dogs are pack animals; their genetic behaviour is pack behaviour, please don't embarrass yourself.

tk123

Trostan wrote: »

As for the proof of pack behaviour, read or watch anything by Jan Fennel, read "the philosopher and the wolf"
Dogs are pack animals; their genetic behaviour is pack behaviour, please don't embarrass yourself.

The quality of your advice and behavioural knowlege equals the quality of the food you're shilling IMO

DBB

Trostan wrote: »

You should study the industry reports on Research into pet food. Every 2 years over 1,000 food scientists have a conference to discuss research into animal and pet foods.

Food scientists who work for the dog food industry. Forgive my prejudice! I don't have an agenda when it comes to advising on what dog foods are best, unlike yourself.
Lack of information? Nope, I think I've done more research into dog nutrition than the vast majority of vets, for example. That's why I can't bring myself to feed dry food any more... I know too much about it!

EG each Husse dog dry food is tested by a precision pressure machine where a needle is driven into the kibble to test its density and breaking pressure. This is to ensure that the kibble shards in the mouth, not melts, so that the mechanical cleaning effect on the teeth is exact. This removes the plaque which has already been softened by the ascrophyllum nodosum, a natural seaweed extract added to the food and passed to the gums by the blood stream.
Not to mention the human consumable proteins, the African marigolds, the white grape seed extracts, the yucca, the green lipped mussels, the sea algae, the eggs, the salmon oil, the taurin, the lecithin, the fortified vitamin c, the fructooligosacharrides etc. etc.

Where's the meat in all of this? I see mention of eggs, green lipped mussels, and salmon oil are your only mention of animal-derived nutrients. Not saying there's no meat (which I'm assuming has been cooked to within an inch of its life before being compressed into kibble), you understand, just drawing attention to the fact that dog food companies seem to have a fixation on the vegetative portion of dog food, the bit the dog needs least!
I'm not so sure on your info about technology behind the kibble and clean teeth! I can't count how many dry-fed dogs I know who's teeth are terrible. In any case, I don;t really care so much about the technology behind how the kibble keeps the teeth clean, I'd rather know more about the actual nutritive contribution the dry diet makeas to a dog's health. Like I say, I believe, and have good reason to, that dry food is going to suffer a blow in years to come when people realise it's causing liver and kidney disease in their dogs, thus killing them several years earlier than nature intended.

Just to let you know that my last terrier lived for nineteen and a half happy, healthy years!

What? Husse dog food was available all that time ago? I've had plenty of dogs that lived to a ripe ould age too, but all of them before dry food became so popular in recent years.

DBB

Trostan wrote: »

As for the proof of pack behaviour, read or watch anything by Jan Fennel, read "the philosopher and the wolf"
Dogs are pack animals; their genetic behaviour is pack behaviour, please don't embarrass yourself.

Oh lordy. Are you for real?
I'm sorry, but if that's what you're using to base your behavioural advice on, you need to wake up. Jan Fennell, another utterly unqualified, uncertified Dog Botherer.
Like I said before, if yuo want qualified advice, go to www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

Also, is the Jan Fennell line the Husse line? You didn't answer my question in that regard. I'd like to know if Husse dog food support the behavioural advice you're giving out?
I also asked, can you explain how we live so peacefully with our dogs? If what Fennell says is true, our dogs are trying to find a way to overthrow our fiefdom? How is that? I don't impose any sort of hierarchy here other than a quasi-parental role of guidance, and I have never once seen any of my dogs try to impose this supposed Dog Law on me... maybe my dogs aren't normal though?

DogsFirst

Trostan wrote: »

You should study the industry reports on Research into pet food.
Every 2 years over 1,000 food scientists have a conference to discuss research into animal and pet foods.
Their latest report, which is very technical amounts to over 400 pages if research and examines every facet of dog and cat metabolisms and body structure.
your cynicism is based on prejudice and lack of information.
The key to manufactured dry pet food is that ingredient control is down to a fraction of 1%. The care and precision taken in balancing the very finest ingredients is unremitting.

To be clear, this is absolute nonsense also. I've studied these reports. Every two years 1,000 Mars / Nestle / Colgate Palmollive researchers get together. That'snot science. That's a gathering of food reps. Science is when independent, peer reviewed (others outside your inst. review your work) studies get together and bounce results. Their "millions on research" by thousands of researchers by their science arms such as the Morris Inst (CP) or Waltham (Mars) has resulted in a very scientific little pellet alright! But no science behind it's efficacy.

After all this "research" these food reps still believe:

1. Think the dog is an omnivore. Or they know he's a carnivore and hope it's OK to feed them 50% cereal, cereal that we as omnivores are told to avoid in favour of slow releasing carbs like brown rice, and then only 20% of our diet should be the likes.

2. They believe processed animal remains are as good nutrition as fresh. They dogs are immune to the effects of processed meats when humans are told to eat a matchbox amount a day, max!

3. Your average lab requires 1g of salt per 400g of food. Dry food starts at 1.2% salt (same as sea water), without it dogs won't eat it. So a 400g pile of pellets is at the very least 6g of salt per day for your dog . Or 6 times the dogs RDA of salt. When we eat 9g instead of 6g per day we die suffer osteoporosis, cardiovasc disease etc. Why is it OK for dogs?

4. Dry food is made to contain the minimum amount of protein (24%) and the minimum amount of vitamins necessary for normal development in the dog, not the optimum (type in AAFCO 2008 Feeding Guidelines into google to get the most up to date recommendations from AAFCO, which all dry foods boast to adhering to). These minimum levels, laid out to get dry food off the floor in the 80's, have become targets, protein or extra vitamins are expensive. How has this escaped all the incredible "scientists" working so hard on behalf of these food companies.

5. The fat is sprayed on the outside of the pellet after manufacturing. These must last well over 6mths in warm storage withour going rancid (which cause radicles in your body and kill you over time). So dry food uses preservatives. How is this ideal nutiriton?! Fats need to be fresh, unprocessed, not covering your chips. This is basic nutrition advice.

6. Dry food companies employ empty calories (plant fibre) in their lite pellets to slim dogs rather than increase protein and decrease carbs, the proper way as you can make more money doing the former.

7. Protein is still reduced in senior dogs diet despite an absolute raft of science evidence to do the opposite (increase fresh, digestible protein) due to a false "belief" that it may benefit their kidneys. This is extremely detrimental for older dogs and yet it still goes on in all brands.

8. Theres no such thing as complete dinners, its a fallacy brought on by industry. Any nutritionist that perpetuates such a need in dog owners is being paid by the top four. Due to cooking, ingredients bouncing off each other etc, NASA can't make it for astronauts. Charities were shot down for thinking out loud could left over dog pellets be fed to the starving. The answer was no and people no doubt starved.


Not forgetting gluten in wheat, food chemicals like texturisers, preservatives, stabilisers, colours, allergy, rocketing chronic disease, terrible gums, huge amounts of product recalls and countless stories of the inadequacies of dry food, dogs allergic to chicken and beef like cows being allergic to grass, all before you consider the ANTECH study in 2003 of 200 premium dry fed dogs to 200 fresh fed dogs. In short fresh fed dogs were significantly healthier.

Every single canine nutritional book written in the last 20 years talks of fresh diets, full of meat, cartilage and bone, how a dog is supposed to be fed. The only people pushing crackers is people benefiting from the enormous amount of return guaranteed in their sale. If you type in "dry food" into amazon, the only book that comes up are market reports. Very telling.

Scientists!!!!!!! Come on, wake up, all the science is on the front of the bag to dupe the public into paying their vet for meat flavoured crackers, there is very very little going on behind.

This is coming from an independent scientist (well no longer independent, but up until 3mths ago, totally independent for three years!!!....)

ISDW

Trostan wrote: »

As for the proof of pack behaviour, read or watch anything by Jan Fennel, read "the philosopher and the wolf"
Dogs are pack animals; their genetic behaviour is pack behaviour, please don't embarrass yourself.

One of the funniest (albeit inadvertently) posts i've read on here. Jan's dog listener followers have divided, there are now pure dog listeners, a break away movement. Please do some research into dog behaviour using recent works.

On the topic of dogs living long and healthy lives, my childhood dog lived for 15 years on a diet of toast for breakfast, tinned food with mixer at night and the odd bone thrown in - including cooked bones from our plates. Only vet visit was after an accident with a golf club. But surely you wont say that was the ideal canine diet?

borderlinemeath

The whole idea of dominance amuses me. As DBB says

"dominance" and this idea that dogs, let alone 4 month old pups, spend their lives trying to figure out how to take over the world in a bid to stamp out humanity!

is hilarious. The idea that dogs shouldn't go through doors first or get fed last is complete hokum as far as I'm concerned. I play a game with my dogs when I come home called 'Who's in first?' - ie they crowd up to the door jostling for position and run in, sometimes for nothing, othertimes there might be a toy on the floor to grab. All it takes is for me to put the key in the door and say 'Who's in first' to get them exited and ready to get inside.

They're also allowed up on the couch, or the bed, wherever they want to get a cuddle:). The only things they aren't allowed do are counter surf or rob food off plates. If they're getting a bit of leftovers they wait (drooling) until it's given. They're not going to attack me for a bit of fat left over from my steak! I believe once dogs are happy and well fed they will do anything for their owner - once their owner shows respect towards them in training - ie doesn't try dominance training or negative reinforcement.

OP every dog is different - mine love their food, a mix of kibble and fresh to keep it interesting so I rarely lift the bowls between meals. If they leave a bit in their bowl they can go back to it when they want. In fact one of mine goes and taps her bowl to tell me when she's hungry:D. But your little bichon might benefit from the food being taken up between meals as he's realised that you will give in and give him the good stuff! Nothing wrong with mixing a small bit of wet food in to make it more appetising but instead I use a tin of sardines (in sunflower oil), a raw egg or sometimes some chicken thighs cooked up and deboned and mixed with kibble make a very flavoursome meal. If I'm cooking mince I drain off the stock (before adding anything like salt or seasoning) and keep that for flavouring the dogs dinner as well.

DogsFirst

I like the example - my best mate plays football for Dublin. It happens he smokes, what does this tell us about smoking? Pay a team of smokers and you'll get them in the second half

Trostan

Thanks,
First I've never heard of David Mech, so am not quoting him.
I will study what you have posted and see if I can improve my knowledge.
However, nothing you have posted causes me to radically change my mind and my comments are largely based on my own experiences and what I have read elsewhere, having had the great opportunity to share my life with many dogs.

Regards,

Trostan

Really, this responder who claims to be a scientist does no research and has absolutely no idea about the manufacturing, research, ingredients and controls in the quality pet food industry.

Let's see what he says:-
"Every two years 1,000 Mars / Nestle / Colgate Palmollive researchers get together. That's not science. That's a gathering of food reps. Science is when independent, peer reviewed (others outside your inst. review your work) studies get together and bounce results. Their "millions on research" by thousands of researchers by their science arms such as the Morris Inst (CP) or Waltham (Mars) has resulted in a very scientific little pellet alright! But no science behind it's efficacy."

Here's the names of some of the "gathering of food reps" who submitted the last report, upon which we rely heavily.

Donald C. Beitz, Ph.D. - Charles F. Curtiss Professor of Agriculture in the Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology at Iowa State University.

John E. Bauer, Ph.D. D.V.M - Professor of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, and Professor of Clinical Nutrition in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University

Keith Behnke Ph.D. - Department of Grain Science at Kansas State University

David A Dzanis D.V.M, Ph.D. - Consultant in his own company on veterinary nutrition and federal regulation and licencing.

George C. Fahey, Ph.D. - Professor of Animal Sciences and Nutritional Sciences, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois.

Richard C Hill, Vet Mb, Ph.D., MRCVS professor of Clinical Nutrition, Dept. of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida

Plus another 7 such "Mars/Nestle/Palmolive employees". Though I would suggest that should you report them to their various educational faculties as such, they might well face severe disciplinary action.
Indeed I would be delighted to observe their collective reaction as I introduce you to them as the person who referred to them as "a gathering of food reps".

Indeed, also on that panel was Quinton D. Rogers Ph.D. professor of physiological chemistry at University of California. Someone who is as knowledgeable as you knows, of course, that Rodgers is one of the most lauded small animal researchers in the world and it was he who discovered the necessity for the supplementation of taurine for cats and for large breed dogs. This "food rep" has been responsible for saving literally millions of companion animals from blindness and early death.
(Maybe HE works for Whiskas.)

The report collated by them 4 years ago was based on their own collective research and from submitted papers by up to 600 other "food reps" is called "Nutrition Requirements of Dogs and Cats" and was prepared and published under the auspices of The National Research Council in the US, one of the National Academies. This highly authoritative 438 page report deals with all the latest research into all aspects of the components of nutrition needed for manufactured foods.
Their statement "one of the best delivery methods for nutritional balance for dogs is through properly prepared dry pet food" may have some significance.

"Every single canine nutritional book written in the last 20 years talks of fresh diets, full of meat, cartilage and bone, how a dog is supposed to be fed."

Nowhere in this report do these eminent scientists recommend any form of fresh meat diets.

So let's get the rubbish about "food reps" out of the way once and for all.

The rest of your list of points wavers between total misinformation and prejudice. Let's have a look:- (in relation to our food)

"50% cereal" - dogs are indeed omnivores and can survive without any meat in their food. Many vegans and vegetarians feed such a diet, carefully balanced, to their healthy pets. Cats, however are pure carnivores and need a meat content. Dogs will develop better and faster however, when fed a properly balanced meat-inclusive diet.
The ridiculous mythology about cereal is widespread. Provided the starch within the cereal is properly gelatinised in a pressure and steam environment, it becomes up to 86% digestible, providing approx 14% to 17% of a dog's energy requirement by weight. Protein provides approximately the same %, with fats providing the balance of about 60%. Cereal husks used for bulking in some cheaper foods are of no nutritional value. Rice is the most easily digestible carb and is used in over 90% of our foods as the Starch source.
9 out of 10 of our Super Premium foods list the meat protein first in the ingredients, meaning that these are, by weight, the dominant constituent of the food.
Our beef is carved from the bone in Germany, fat removed and prepared as for human consumption. Lamb is NZ prepared, fat removed and turned into a "meal" for transportation. Salmon is from Norway; Chickens - fed to our nutrient specification and differing for pup, adult and senior food are from co-ops in Belgium and Northern France. All the proteins are tracked and traceable and all are human grade. No derivative is used, the flesh is the ingredient.
Exploding these prejudicial myths is always worthwhile.
Like other premium quality manufacturers, we take care to ensure that only the best is included.

"They believe processed animal remains are as good nutrition as fresh. They dogs are immune to the effects of processed meats when humans are told to eat a matchbox amount a day, max!"
"Immunity" to food is a strange expression for a scientist to offer!! As stated above, dogs eat for energy; the vast majority of which is provided by animal fats. The quality of these fats and how the dog's digestive tract and how energy conversion to oxygen within individual cells are performed is the critical factor to the delivery of this energy and the efficient use of it for warmth, exercise and digestion. Up to 15% of the energy used by a dog goes solely to the digestion system.

This submitter ignores or may be unaware of the supplementation of NATURAL Lecithin and Carnitin in the super premium foods.
Feeding vast lumps of fatty oils in a raw diet is an inefficient way of delivering energy. The bulk of the globules of the fats pass through the short alimentary system and are excreted, explaining why the ancient wolf who ate such diets aged early and had a very short lifespan .Since the introduction of dry dog food (and with improved animal welfare standards) the average lifespan of the dog has increased by over 2 years.

Supplementation of lecithin emulsifies the fats into small globules, greatly increasing their surface area and allowing for more efficient digestive transfer of this main energy source.

The supplementation of natural carnitin acts as a fat burner in the mitochondrium of the cell, improving the "burning" of the fat and accelerating its conversion.
The effective result is that these fats are converted to useful energy, helping the dog maintain its body conformation due to non over-supply of fat and improving energy delivery through the cells with less necessity for increased feeding amounts.

The addition of fructo and mannan-oligosaccarides sugars inhibit the ability of pathogenic bacteria to cling to the food in the digestive tract, allowing for better absorption by beneficial bacteris, giving our food a digestibility of 90-92%. Indeed our dogs mainly excrete the fibre we put into the food to clean their intestine. Without this fibre and with such high digestibility, the dog would struggle to have anything to excrete at all.

Hydrolysed chicken - the enzymatic process of breaking down complex amino acid chains in the proteins, prior to digestion, ensures rapid digestion, helps prevent allergenic reaction and improves the palatability, removing the need for supplemental flavourings. Again nature adapted to the ultimate benefit of the dog.

This respondent should take a breath now and consider how the "food reps" at their meeting came up with all of this. Maybe it was in between beers at the bar.

The supplementation of chrondroitin and glucosamine (from sea algae and green lipped mussels) strengthens and fortifies the cartilage in the joint articulations, delaying the onset of arthritic problems. The addition of Devils Claw - a herb from Namibia - provides nature's anti-inflammatory relief for dogs with pain from poor articulation in the relevant foods. We supplement these from puppy hood on and have seen wonderful results in mobility and pain relief from breeds with arthritic tendencies.

"Fat is sprayed on from the outside" - more wrong and ill-informed nonsense.
In the process of extrusion, the warm kibble burst from the extruder and expand, becoming porous as they harden and dry. The kibble is now a maze of tiny holes.
The dry kibble is transferred to a huge vacuum processor, where up to 1.5 tonnes is introduced. The air is withdrawn from the chamber and it is inverted, causing the kibble to "float" in suspension.
Two large pumps - one with the fats, oils and digest mix - the other with vitamins and minerals, release carefully measured and balanced quantities (food dependent) into the vacuum chamber, which is again rotated. The food and the these mixes are now in suspension. Air is rammed back into the vacuum at high pressure, driving the mixes deep into each kibble and saturating them. This is "vacuum-coating" and is used by all the major premium food producers.
You should check your facts before making ridiculous claims about spraying.

"Dry food manufacturers use plant fibre" - a sweeping and mis-leading statement. This may refer to small producers and much cheapo food does indeed contain such. All mammals need fibre in their diet - difficult to introduce in an all meat diet. Non-digestible fibre cleans the digestive tract and works with the arythmical movement of the dog's anus during the act of excretion. Without this fibre the dog has a great deal more trouble during excretion, leading to potential problems with. In the wild wolves get semi-digested fibres from the stomach of "kill". We use beet fibre as a means to assist the dog in this area and indeed often that is all the dog excretes.

The nonsense about vitamins is derisory. Not only do we use the highest quality minerals and vitamins, we stabilise some of them with enzymes, extending their life and ensuring delivery. Our vitamin C provides 85% efficiency in the food after 9 months, as against 25% in non-stabilised varieties.
As for the key minerals, research (as above) shows the following.
Remember that in a raw food diet, the host animal has already "used" (to an unknown extent) some of the key minerals. How old was the animal that is providing this "raw" diet - the mineral levels available in the meat depend on the host's age. How long ago was it killed? What level of pathology is present?
How much should be externally supplemented?
A raw meat diet provides on average 0.04 per cent calcium, 0.61 per cent phosphor, giving a ratio of .7 between these. These critical minerals, vital for the stabilisation of the skeletal structure should be in a ratio of 1.4, which is the balanced figure available from our foods. If meat diets are so efficient, why do they have to be supplemented so much?

The "raft of scientific evidence" about high levels of protein in older dogs is not evident. Once again, the importance of the percent of protein in food is completely inferior to its "digestibility". Beef is the least digestible of meats and delivers poor protein supplementation to dogs. The complex amino acids are difficult to break down, this is why in older dogs and dogs with poor digestions, chicken, lamb and salmon are much better alternatives. Older dogs do indeed require less protein as their organs are not renewed as regularly as when younger. Remember protein only delivers a fraction of the dogs energy requirements. Also a reduction in the energy derived from fats that is needed for older dogs, to prevent weight increase. So look for a fat content of not more than 11%


8. "Theres no such thing as complete dinners, its a fallacy brought on by industry. Any nutritionist that perpetuates such a need in dog owners is being paid by the top four. Due to cooking, ingredients bouncing off each other etc, NASA can't make it for astronauts. Charities were shot down for thinking out loud could left over dog pellets be fed to the starving. The answer was no and people no doubt starved."
"Ingredients bouncing off each other????"
I won't bother. Other than my last terrier fed "complete dinners!!!!" lived for 19 years and 4 months and died "healthy". In fact the day before she died she was chasing a ball. Properly manufactured dry food has greatly contributed to the increase in longevity of dogs.


"Not forgetting gluten in wheat, food chemicals like texturisers, preservatives, stabilisers, colours, allergy, rocketing chronic disease, terrible gums, huge amounts of product recalls and countless stories of the inadequacies of dry food, dogs allergic to chicken and beef like cows being allergic to grass, all before you consider the ANTECH study in 2003 of 200 premium dry fed dogs to 200 fresh fed dogs. In short fresh fed dogs were significantly healthier."

Did you ever notice the terms - gluten free - on the packaging, did you know that 90% of premium dog food does not contain the vegetable derivative that contains that protein?
"Terrible gums!!!!!" - we supplement sea weed (KELP)in our food, it transfers ascophyllum nodosum through the blood stream to the saliva, where it softens the tartar.
The kibble are tested for hardness on a continuing basis to ensure that they shard in the dog's mouth, with these shards having the mechanical effect of removing the softened tartar from and in between the teeth. Result - white teeth, fresh breath. Please do some research!

More unsupported allegations not worth dealing with. There are no chemical supplements, additives or colorants in our foods. There are no soaps in our shampoos. Our arthritis treatments and wormers are herbal; our poop collection bags are made from corn. Our packaging is bio-degradable. Like other environmentally aware manufactured food producers, we care deeply about the animals and the environment and work with researchers such as those above to ensure the very highest standards are maintained.

The "scientist's" post shows a complete lack of research, knowledge or interest in the industry and is a lot of self-justifying and inaccurate misinformation.

Trostan

DBB wrote: »

The opinions on dog behaviour are very much my own, based on research and my own observations. The observations on nutrition are from Husse.
Jan Fennel, Bruce Fogel and Linda Case would be some of my highly respected references in these areas and they broadly support the "pack animal" and "dominance in the hierarchy" theories.
It is being stated that with continuing domestication that dogs are moving towards a more interactive relationship with humans, but given that the wolf has been around for many millions of years, it is unlikely that a few decades of human intercession will quickly influence such lengthy atavistic behaviour.

However, it is not the most vital aspect of my existence and I admire your concern for these great animals.
By the way, please don't denigrate research into animal nutrition; I assure you it goes on day in and day out all over the world. Refer to my other post re: "Nutrition Of Dogs and Cats" by 12 of the world's eminent academic animal nutrition researchers.



Trostan,
Is your take on how dogs view the world one that is supported by Husse?
I'm assuming that Husse and their representatives base their food, and advice they give on food, on best independent scientific research, although I'm aware that when it comes to dog food, independent research is seriously lacking.
I ask this because I'd be really surprised that a dog food company would still be waxing lyrical about matters of "dominance" and this idea that dogs, let alone 4 month old pups, spend their lives trying to figure out how to take over the world in a bid to stamp out humanity! So I'd like to know if this is the Husse line on dog behaviour, or your own personal opinion?
What is this creature you talk of entering a "lair", to go out hunting? Is this something out of Lord of the Rings?
You see, this whole notion of dominance, pack leadership, and applying a "place in the pack" to the dog, has never had any basis in fact. There is no research to suggest that wolves, let alone their behaviourally distantly-related cousins the dog, adhere to any sort of social rules around a "lair", or who gets to eat first, or any of the other bunkum spread by people who haven't realised yet that what they're saying is, well, unfounded, and potentially harmful rubbish. Starve a four month old pup? Really?:eek: And what has not leaving your scent on the food/bowls got to do with anything?

Everything you've posted stems about dog behaviour from one researcher, David Mech, who studied unrelated, captive wolves living in a highly stressed environment. What he observed was the same behaviour we see when we force humans, or any other social animal, to live in close proximity in groups which have no business being together. When Mech later studied wolves in the wild, he realised how horribly wrong he'd got it. He saw how peaceable wolves are, how very gentle they are with each other, and how they do not apply these "alpha" behaviours as you describe.
Indeed, the term "alpha" is not meant to denote a supreme, all-powerful, being who enforces his rule of law, it is simply another word for a "parent", when it comes to wolf society. And, in fact, the relationship between wolves is far, far more comparable to that of a human family: parents who keep the show on the road, guiding their young through life, helped by the older siblings, and very, very rarely tipping over into any form of aggression, let alone rowing over who gets to go into the "lair" first, or who gets to eat first. That is utter fallacy, and proven to be.
Needless to say, Mech has retracted his earlier research, and I'm sure he'd be horrified at the way it has been misapplied to dog training. Dogs are so, so different to wolves (and proven to be), that even if wolves behaved the way you say they do, applying the same rules to dogs as would be the same as applying chimpanzee behavioural rules onto humans. Close, but no cigar.

On the contrary, there is much evidence, and it is increasing all the time, to show how dogs really do view the world. The behaviours which proponents of the outdated, disproven pack-leader approach describe as being "dominant", can all be explained in a far more straightforward, unconvoluted way, based on the simple laws of learning theory.
I don't need to go into it here, but I would direct you to the following website so that you can bring yourself up to speed on things:
www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

I will ask this question once again, as I do every time this subject comes up: if dogs were really trying to plot a military coups against us, how on earth could we keep them as pets? How could so many enjoy fantastic relationships with them without any fear of one assuming this terrifying "alpha" role?

OP, don't sweat. Your pup is not trying to establish himself as pack leader.. he's simply holding out for something nicer, based on what you have (inadvertently) taught him! There is no law that says your dog has to eat dry food, many dogs don't like it. Based on pretty intensive research, I have come to realise that dry food, even the best dry food, is no substitute for a fresh, home-made diet. Indeed, it doesn't have to be home-made, their are nice commercially prepared "soft food" diets available which most dogs hugely prefer. In fact, I would go so far to say that dry food may cause ill-health in older dogs. There is more research becoming available in this area, but I think the day will come where dog owners will regret ever feeding dry food to their dogs.
So, worry not. If your dog likes chicken, give him chicken! Or beef, or fish, or turkey, or whatever! What the hell, why not? Does the dog REALLY have to eat the same boring old dry stuff every day? Who says?;)

DogsFirst

Look I didn't actually read any of that.

I notice one bit about "ingredients bouncing off eachother" which you're laughing at. It's slang to save people the boredom of reading stuff like the above. I refere of cource to the whole idea of complete, getting everything in there at once, every meal. Which is not possible as NASA nutrition scientists will explain to you. Phytic acid in wheat binds pretty much everything out like zinc and mangnesium, which you can't increase as it binds out copper etc etc.

And, why put scientist in quotations. I spent a lot of time in university studying this stuff!!

Look all my stuff is up there for everyone to see. Go ahead and look read my books, articles or vids which have all the references you need, certainly for the whole omnivory thing you're stuck on, including lots of work done on the studies and conclusion produced by some of the lads you mention above.

If you find anything, anything at all that I may be askew on please point it out, one thing at a time, dry or fresh food, training or behaviour for that matter, and we can discuss it in under 50 words tweet style. If I'm wrong I'd appreciate the heads up.

Trostan

Oh I missed this one!!

More nonsense. No premium pet food that I am aware of contains 1.2% salt!
Our food contains between 0.3% and 0.5% with higher levels in food delivering higher energy levels.

This means that a Lab eating 320 gms of food per day - gets - yes you're right! - 1 gram of salt.

3. Your average lab requires 1g of salt per 400g of food. Dry food starts at 1.2% salt (same as sea water), without it dogs won't eat it. So a 400g pile of pellets is at the very least 6g of salt per day for your dog . Or 6 times the dogs RDA of salt. When we eat 9g instead of 6g per day we die suffer osteoporosis, cardiovasc disease etc. Why is it OK for dogs?

DogsFirst

Quick look at biggest seller in Australia - Advance pet food....pick any product anywhere

http://www.advancepet.com.au/products/dog-products/puppy/puppy-plus-growth-largeplus-breed,-chicken-15kg.aspx

0.6% sodium. Sodium makes up 40% of salt. The rest is chloride. Hence this particualr pup food is 1.5% salt.

DogsFirst

That's just a big selling Mars product, most of the top sellers. Most dry foods don't state salt content on their websites in percentages, preferring to say "Guranteed Analysis" which looks like the dog needs it. As opposed to simply, nutritional information.

Which one are you selling and lets take a look at the salt there

DogsFirst

Not accounting for the likes of potassium chloride of course, which is also salt and used along side sodium chloride, adding to the salt effect

Trostan

I can imagine, based on your previous post that you don't read anything.
However that doesn't explain the "food reps" jibe and you failed to comment on the research book.
If, as you say, you are a food scientist, have you read this bible of the pet food industry?
Surely as an expert, you must assess all available data, particularly that fro the leading pet food academics in the world.

Comment on your totally incorrect claims:- sprayed on fats, high levels of salt, protein levels in senior dogs.

Finally, in face of the evidence of these animal nutrition scientists, hat has NASA got to do with animal nutrition?

I suggest you DO read, perhaps you might modify your prejudices.
To that end, if you contact us at ireland@husse.com, I will open up our partner, nutrition training videos for your comments.
Prepared by Dr Guy Werquin Ph.D., our food design consultant (who is a vet, a botanist and a zoologist), these online presentations may open up more opportunities for you to criticize or comment.

DogsFirst wrote: »

Look I didn't actually read any of that.

I notice one bit about "ingredients bouncing off eachother" which you're laughing at. It's slang to save people the boredom of reading stuff like the above. I refere of cource to the whole idea of complete, getting everything in there at once, every meal. Which is not possible as NASA nutrition scientists will explain to you. Phytic acid in wheat binds pretty much everything out like zinc and mangnesium, which you can't increase as it binds out copper etc etc.

And, why put scientist in quotations. I spent a lot of time in university studying this stuff!!

Look all my stuff is up there for everyone to see. Go ahead and look read my books, articles or vids which have all the references you need, certainly for the whole omnivory thing you're stuck on, including lots of work done on the studies and conclusion produced by some of the lads you mention above.

If you find anything, anything at all that I may be askew on please point it out, one thing at a time, dry or fresh food, training or behaviour for that matter, and we can discuss it in under 50 words tweet style. If I'm wrong I'd appreciate the heads up.

DogsFirst

Yes definitely I've read a lot stuff put out there by big industry, it was my job. The bible I refer to is "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition" used by most vets worldwide, published by Morris Inst (which is owned by Colgate-Palmollive, which only shot to prominence in the dog food world in the 90's afer they got vets to endorse their Science products, following from their successful, heavily financially motivated endorsement of their tooth pastes by dentists in the 80's). But universities need cash so in it goes.

I have no doubt your vet is an excellent nutritionist and I'm sure your food is better than most as a result. But I have seen the veterinary curriculum in Ireland and the UK and little to no time is spent on fresh food. A curriculum that covers subjects as vast as biology, physiology, oncology, nutrition and pharmacology in 5 different animal groups, in five years! As most information thereafter is supplied by pet food companies (and I attended their lectures whilst with guide dogs here and abroad) and because I lecture to vets on the matter (last year my course offered 4CVE points for attendance, I invited the majority of dog food companies, one showed and were great fun) he may be at a disadvantage discussing the pros and cons of a fresh diet with me. By all means though, submit my above comments to him, I'd appreciate his advice.

I have one question for him though, the same one I asked lots of nutritionists in pet food companies, does he believe your processed food is better than feeding fresh food to a dog? That's the bottom line. I know what the printed answer is already. The true answers are face to face.

Also coming back to salt as pointed out, ask your nutritionist what the salt content of Husse is, it's not on the website, sodium chloride and potassium chloride. But I suggest you don't, this isn't going to end favourably for your brand up on boards.

Irishchick

Trostan wrote: »

Really, this responder who claims to be a scientist does no research and has absolutely no idea about the manufacturing, research, ingredients and controls in the quality pet food industry.

Let's see what he says:-
"Every two years 1,000 Mars / Nestle / Colgate Palmollive researchers get together. That's not science. That's a gathering of food reps. Science is when independent, peer reviewed (others outside your inst. review your work) studies get together and bounce results. Their "millions on research" by thousands of researchers by their science arms such as the Morris Inst (CP) or Waltham (Mars) has resulted in a very scientific little pellet alright! But no science behind it's efficacy."

Here's the names of some of the "gathering of food reps" who submitted the last report, upon which we rely heavily.

Donald C. Beitz, Ph.D. - Charles F. Curtiss Professor of Agriculture in the Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology at Iowa State University.

John E. Bauer, Ph.D. D.V.M - Professor of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, and Professor of Clinical Nutrition in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University

Keith Behnke Ph.D. - Department of Grain Science at Kansas State University

David A Dzanis D.V.M, Ph.D. - Consultant in his own company on veterinary nutrition and federal regulation and licencing.

George C. Fahey, Ph.D. - Professor of Animal Sciences and Nutritional Sciences, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois.

Richard C Hill, Vet Mb, Ph.D., MRCVS professor of Clinical Nutrition, Dept. of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida

Plus another 7 such "Mars/Nestle/Palmolive employees". Though I would suggest that should you report them to their various educational faculties as such, they might well face severe disciplinary action.
Indeed I would be delighted to observe their collective reaction as I introduce you to them as the person who referred to them as "a gathering of food reps".

Indeed, also on that panel was Quinton D. Rogers Ph.D. professor of physiological chemistry at University of California. Someone who is as knowledgeable as you knows, of course, that Rodgers is one of the most lauded small animal researchers in the world and it was he who discovered the necessity for the supplementation of taurine for cats and for large breed dogs. This "food rep" has been responsible for saving literally millions of companion animals from blindness and early death.
(Maybe HE works for Whiskas.)

The report collated by them 4 years ago was based on their own collective research and from submitted papers by up to 600 other "food reps" is called "Nutrition Requirements of Dogs and Cats" and was prepared and published under the auspices of The National Research Council in the US, one of the National Academies. This highly authoritative 438 page report deals with all the latest research into all aspects of the components of nutrition needed for manufactured foods.
Their statement "one of the best delivery methods for nutritional balance for dogs is through properly prepared dry pet food" may have some significance.

"Every single canine nutritional book written in the last 20 years talks of fresh diets, full of meat, cartilage and bone, how a dog is supposed to be fed."

Nowhere in this report do these eminent scientists recommend any form of fresh meat diets.

So let's get the rubbish about "food reps" out of the way once and for all.

The rest of your list of points wavers between total misinformation and prejudice. Let's have a look:- (in relation to our food)

"50% cereal" - dogs are indeed omnivores and can survive without any meat in their food. Many vegans and vegetarians feed such a diet, carefully balanced, to their healthy pets. Cats, however are pure carnivores and need a meat content. Dogs will develop better and faster however, when fed a properly balanced meat-inclusive diet.
The ridiculous mythology about cereal is widespread. Provided the starch within the cereal is properly gelatinised in a pressure and steam environment, it becomes up to 86% digestible, providing approx 14% to 17% of a dog's energy requirement by weight. Protein provides approximately the same %, with fats providing the balance of about 60%. Cereal husks used for bulking in some cheaper foods are of no nutritional value. Rice is the most easily digestible carb and is used in over 90% of our foods as the Starch source.
9 out of 10 of our Super Premium foods list the meat protein first in the ingredients, meaning that these are, by weight, the dominant constituent of the food.
Our beef is carved from the bone in Germany, fat removed and prepared as for human consumption. Lamb is NZ prepared, fat removed and turned into a "meal" for transportation. Salmon is from Norway; Chickens - fed to our nutrient specification and differing for pup, adult and senior food are from co-ops in Belgium and Northern France. All the proteins are tracked and traceable and all are human grade. No derivative is used, the flesh is the ingredient.
Exploding these prejudicial myths is always worthwhile.
Like other premium quality manufacturers, we take care to ensure that only the best is included.

"They believe processed animal remains are as good nutrition as fresh. They dogs are immune to the effects of processed meats when humans are told to eat a matchbox amount a day, max!"
"Immunity" to food is a strange expression for a scientist to offer!! As stated above, dogs eat for energy; the vast majority of which is provided by animal fats. The quality of these fats and how the dog's digestive tract and how energy conversion to oxygen within individual cells are performed is the critical factor to the delivery of this energy and the efficient use of it for warmth, exercise and digestion. Up to 15% of the energy used by a dog goes solely to the digestion system.

This submitter ignores or may be unaware of the supplementation of NATURAL Lecithin and Carnitin in the super premium foods.
Feeding vast lumps of fatty oils in a raw diet is an inefficient way of delivering energy. The bulk of the globules of the fats pass through the short alimentary system and are excreted, explaining why the ancient wolf who ate such diets aged early and had a very short lifespan .Since the introduction of dry dog food (and with improved animal welfare standards) the average lifespan of the dog has increased by over 2 years.

Supplementation of lecithin emulsifies the fats into small globules, greatly increasing their surface area and allowing for more efficient digestive transfer of this main energy source.

The supplementation of natural carnitin acts as a fat burner in the mitochondrium of the cell, improving the "burning" of the fat and accelerating its conversion.
The effective result is that these fats are converted to useful energy, helping the dog maintain its body conformation due to non over-supply of fat and improving energy delivery through the cells with less necessity for increased feeding amounts.

The addition of fructo and mannan-oligosaccarides sugars inhibit the ability of pathogenic bacteria to cling to the food in the digestive tract, allowing for better absorption by beneficial bacteris, giving our food a digestibility of 90-92%. Indeed our dogs mainly excrete the fibre we put into the food to clean their intestine. Without this fibre and with such high digestibility, the dog would struggle to have anything to excrete at all.

Hydrolysed chicken - the enzymatic process of breaking down complex amino acid chains in the proteins, prior to digestion, ensures rapid digestion, helps prevent allergenic reaction and improves the palatability, removing the need for supplemental flavourings. Again nature adapted to the ultimate benefit of the dog.

This respondent should take a breath now and consider how the "food reps" at their meeting came up with all of this. Maybe it was in between beers at the bar.

The supplementation of chrondroitin and glucosamine (from sea algae and green lipped mussels) strengthens and fortifies the cartilage in the joint articulations, delaying the onset of arthritic problems. The addition of Devils Claw - a herb from Namibia - provides nature's anti-inflammatory relief for dogs with pain from poor articulation in the relevant foods. We supplement these from puppy hood on and have seen wonderful results in mobility and pain relief from breeds with arthritic tendencies.

"Fat is sprayed on from the outside" - more wrong and ill-informed nonsense.
In the process of extrusion, the warm kibble burst from the extruder and expand, becoming porous as they harden and dry. The kibble is now a maze of tiny holes.
The dry kibble is transferred to a huge vacuum processor, where up to 1.5 tonnes is introduced. The air is withdrawn from the chamber and it is inverted, causing the kibble to "float" in suspension.
Two large pumps - one with the fats, oils and digest mix - the other with vitamins and minerals, release carefully measured and balanced quantities (food dependent) into the vacuum chamber, which is again rotated. The food and the these mixes are now in suspension. Air is rammed back into the vacuum at high pressure, driving the mixes deep into each kibble and saturating them. This is "vacuum-coating" and is used by all the major premium food producers.
You should check your facts before making ridiculous claims about spraying.

"Dry food manufacturers use plant fibre" - a sweeping and mis-leading statement. This may refer to small producers and much cheapo food does indeed contain such. All mammals need fibre in their diet - difficult to introduce in an all meat diet. Non-digestible fibre cleans the digestive tract and works with the arythmical movement of the dog's anus during the act of excretion. Without this fibre the dog has a great deal more trouble during excretion, leading to potential problems with. In the wild wolves get semi-digested fibres from the stomach of "kill". We use beet fibre as a means to assist the dog in this area and indeed often that is all the dog excretes.

The nonsense about vitamins is derisory. Not only do we use the highest quality minerals and vitamins, we stabilise some of them with enzymes, extending their life and ensuring delivery. Our vitamin C provides 85% efficiency in the food after 9 months, as against 25% in non-stabilised varieties.
As for the key minerals, research (as above) shows the following.
Remember that in a raw food diet, the host animal has already "used" (to an unknown extent) some of the key minerals. How old was the animal that is providing this "raw" diet - the mineral levels available in the meat depend on the host's age. How long ago was it killed? What level of pathology is present?
How much should be externally supplemented?
A raw meat diet provides on average 0.04 per cent calcium, 0.61 per cent phosphor, giving a ratio of .7 between these. These critical minerals, vital for the stabilisation of the skeletal structure should be in a ratio of 1.4, which is the balanced figure available from our foods. If meat diets are so efficient, why do they have to be supplemented so much?

The "raft of scientific evidence" about high levels of protein in older dogs is not evident. Once again, the importance of the percent of protein in food is completely inferior to its "digestibility". Beef is the least digestible of meats and delivers poor protein supplementation to dogs. The complex amino acids are difficult to break down, this is why in older dogs and dogs with poor digestions, chicken, lamb and salmon are much better alternatives. Older dogs do indeed require less protein as their organs are not renewed as regularly as when younger. Remember protein only delivers a fraction of the dogs energy requirements. Also a reduction in the energy derived from fats that is needed for older dogs, to prevent weight increase. So look for a fat content of not more than 11%


8. "Theres no such thing as complete dinners, its a fallacy brought on by industry. Any nutritionist that perpetuates such a need in dog owners is being paid by the top four. Due to cooking, ingredients bouncing off each other etc, NASA can't make it for astronauts. Charities were shot down for thinking out loud could left over dog pellets be fed to the starving. The answer was no and people no doubt starved."
"Ingredients bouncing off each other????"
I won't bother. Other than my last terrier fed "complete dinners!!!!" lived for 19 years and 4 months and died "healthy". In fact the day before she died she was chasing a ball. Properly manufactured dry food has greatly contributed to the increase in longevity of dogs.


"Not forgetting gluten in wheat, food chemicals like texturisers, preservatives, stabilisers, colours, allergy, rocketing chronic disease, terrible gums, huge amounts of product recalls and countless stories of the inadequacies of dry food, dogs allergic to chicken and beef like cows being allergic to grass, all before you consider the ANTECH study in 2003 of 200 premium dry fed dogs to 200 fresh fed dogs. In short fresh fed dogs were significantly healthier."

Did you ever notice the terms - gluten free - on the packaging, did you know that 90% of premium dog food does not contain the vegetable derivative that contains that protein?
"Terrible gums!!!!!" - we supplement sea weed (KELP)in our food, it transfers ascophyllum nodosum through the blood stream to the saliva, where it softens the tartar.
The kibble are tested for hardness on a continuing basis to ensure that they shard in the dog's mouth, with these shards having the mechanical effect of removing the softened tartar from and in between the teeth. Result - white teeth, fresh breath. Please do some research!

More unsupported allegations not worth dealing with. There are no chemical supplements, additives or colorants in our foods. There are no soaps in our shampoos. Our arthritis treatments and wormers are herbal; our poop collection bags are made from corn. Our packaging is bio-degradable. Like other environmentally aware manufactured food producers, we care deeply about the animals and the environment and work with researchers such as those above to ensure the very highest standards are maintained.

The "scientist's" post shows a complete lack of research, knowledge or interest in the industry and is a lot of self-justifying and inaccurate misinformation.

Thanks for posting that it was actually really informative. Learned a lot about the manufacturing process.

Just 1 disagreement. No studies, as of yet have concluded that glucosamine and Condriotin do anything to effect joint mobility.

Glucosamine MAY help absorption which acts as a shock absorber but this cannot be 100% proven.

It's still a very grey area.

ISDW

Thanks trostan, very informative. I think im probably like the vast majority of dog and cat owners, want to feed whats best, but get confused by the myriad of different information and opinions out there. Im not saying im going to go off and change my dogs' food now, but good info to read.
I read a newspaper article once abour the uks oldest dog, he was 27 years old and had been fed a totally vegetarian diet. Lol

DogsFirst

I was going to let it go but to be very clear, I'm not putting out misinformation.


1. Adult dry food by husse (http://www.husse.ie/dog-food-products/dry-food-for-dogs/?product=95)
Wheat flour, wheat, meat meal, greaves, animal fat, hydrolysed chicken protein, beet pulp.......

You say meat is your first ingredient. Even it it was in some of your products it's a wet weight you're talking about, the other ingredients are dry. So you have a lump wet meat, 75% of which is water and the next two or three ingredients are heaps of dry cereal. That's a huge amount of cereal. Humans are advised to include max 25% cereal, and they should be the whole grain varieties like brown rice. Now dogs eat 50% wheat. When this years weather pushes the wheat prices up I bet we'll have a few more rice based product next year.


2. Without plant fibre dogs have more trouble excreting!!!! Ridiculous. I would say dogs with their anal glands blocked up are having difficulty excreting. Having anal glands removed. Big wet sloppy stools that are now the standard for dogs. "Dogs mostly excrete the plant fibre...." Their rapid systems excrete all of it. Rapidly. Likely pushing digesta past at rates beyond limits of absorbtion in the dog. No studies exist in support of this yet but there is also no scientific benefit to putting indigestible plant fibre in healthy dogs. Your products are 3.3% indigestible plant fibre.

And once again wolves do not eat the stomach contents of their prey. Is that why you put so much cereal in?
Mech is a good example here, 350 years of collective research where he highlights it is "the only bit consistently ignored" (p450 I think, Wolves: Biology, Consv. Behaviour)

Also check out this video of dogs eating a sheep avoiding the YUMMY stomach contents
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB0jNiELlyk, skip to 1:40 and watch for 20 seconds, the big white bag you see hanging out is the rumen, the sheeps stomach, which is carefully avoided by the dogs

To be clear I support nothing said in the above video.


3. As for fresh food being deficient in vitamins due to some usage by the animal itself.....brilliant! How do all the carnivores manage to get by on their own before pet food saved the day?!!! I saw a group of wolves attack a Boots there last week, got away with 50 packs of Centrum.


4. Protein in older dogs, please google scholar the below article. This has already been up on boards, with a "raft" of other references, no need to go through it all again. They need need more, higher quality proten, not less. Husse drop the protein level from 28% in adult carnivores to 22%. 22% protein, much of which in contributed by your plant ingredients.

Laflamme, D. P. (2008). Pet food safety: Dietary protein. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 23(3): 154–157.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1938973608000421

Now you show me a study, just one, that supports cash saving protein restriction in healthy older dogs.


5. So you're saying dry food is not responsible for 4/5 3yr olds dogs having immunologically destructive gum disease?
Whats the point in arguing with someone who has this stance, a stance directly in opposition of British and Australian Veterinary Associations.

Instead of having a million scientists engineering each little kibble for the benefit of your clients, give dogs a fresh bone.

irishbucsfan

DogsFirst, you are continually referring to problems caused by the feeding of standard foods which is confusing the argument.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are dry foods out there that are certainly bulked like you claim. A lot of standard foods (the household names) are extremely guilty of this.

However the good foods out there (hills/Husse/Euk etc.) are not guilty of this at all. Gum disease may be prevalent in 3 y/o dogs, but not in those fed on foods such as the above.

You are dead right to criticise some dry foods, and I for one wish pet owners were more aware of the difference the quality of food can make to a dogs life, however you are not making the very important distinction between, say, Pedigree Chum and Hills Science or Husse Optimal. There is no point even having the discussion if this distinction isn't made, it's like discussing cars without making the distinction between a Ford Fiesta and a Bentley Continental.

As for dogs fed on a fresh food diet, they can be extremely healthy for sure, but they are missing out on some of the superb natural additives that these excellent companies scour the world to find. I don't think you have a bunch of African Marigolds or Devils Claw, or whatever else the crazy Swedish Husse guys like Trostan was talking about, growing in your garden! Also, the scientific foods reach digestibility levels of 90%, you'll never reach anything like that on a fresh food diet.

DogsFirst

Agree with a lot of that but I can't comment on individual brands unless dealing with the companies or the reps themselves.

So yes I suppose they are sweeping statements but I it's like saying TV dinners are acceptable because some of them include parsley, or some starter bottled milk for babies is OK because they found a way to include colostrum. Granted dry food is starting to put in some good stuff but it doesn't outweigh the points mentioned above, particularly when they cost the same. All the Devils Claw in the world will not make up nutritionally for a cereal based product containing cooked processed meat and high salt content in every meal for life. Cooking destroys infinitesimal bits in fresh food that NASA hasn't been able to replicate for astronauts. They only freeze dry and say on their site "we still haven't got it right yet". Zoo keepers will not allow dry food companies in though they badly need their dollars. We haven't got a complete food for starving humans. It doesn't exist and it's a fallacy to say it exists in dogs. 6/8 caged dogs are proven to survive adequately for 6mths but in a comparison of 200 fresh fed to premium dry fed by ANTECH 2003 (ANTECH Diagnostics® services more than 19,000 animal hospitals throughout North America), fresh fed were significantly and statistically healthier.

At this point dry food companies say, yeah but that's not our product, ours is totally different. Which is ridiculous. All pet foods are made by the big four under different names. When one is recalled for hypervitaminosis or whatever (see FDA recalls) sometimes over 150 brands are taken back.

Dry food sales (in quantity, not cash of course) are now falling in the US. Dry food companies know this. It makes marketing (let alone scientific) sense to compare their complete products to the control diet - a fresh, natural meat based diet, one likely to be absent in Devils claw, for a period of years to give some substance to their claims, but it's not done. Or it has been done repeatedly but the results are either not released or do not pass independent peer review as a scientific study. Whichever.

As a result the best brands are those with the biggest advertising budget. It's not a debate and it's not fair on the public. It's an onslaught of marketing dollars to ingrain acceptability. The same happened with TV dinners and bottle milk. Nestle used dentists to push their toothpaste in the 80's, a brilliant marketing ploy and within a year had "the best tooth paste". In the 90's they used vets and now make "the best food" prescribed by vets. Google Parker Popes article in the Wall Street Journal in 1997 that documented this move into universities.

The breast versus bottle debate waged in the courts for years before big companies were forced down, so they moved to the third world. Only one or two dog owners have tried that route and it didn't go well for them. Dogs unfortunately have some way to go.

irishbucsfan

DogsFirst wrote: »

Agree with a lot of that but I can't comment on individual brands unless dealing with the companies or the reps themselves.

So yes I suppose they are sweeping statements but I it's like saying TV dinners are acceptable because some of them include parsley, or some starter bottled milk for babies is OK because they found a way to include colostrum. Granted dry food is starting to put in some good stuff but it doesn't outweigh the points mentioned above, particularly when they cost the same. All the Devils Claw in the world will not make up nutritionally for a cereal based product containing cooked processed meat and high salt content in every meal for life. Cooking destroys infinitesimal bits in fresh food that NASA hasn't been able to replicate for astronauts. They only freeze dry and say on their site "we still haven't got it right yet". Zoo keepers will not allow dry food companies in though they badly need their dollars. We haven't got a complete food for starving humans. It doesn't exist and it's a fallacy to say it exists in dogs. 6/8 caged dogs are proven to survive adequately for 6mths but in a comparison of 200 fresh fed to premium dry fed by ANTECH 2003 (ANTECH Diagnostics® services more than 19,000 animal hospitals throughout North America), fresh fed were significantly and statistically healthier.

It is not a fallacy to say that Eukanuba or Hills Science is a complete food. The evidence of this surrounds us every day. There are some superbly healthy animals that are fed exclusively on these foods. How can you explain this? The super premium foods offered by these companies, or indeed the Optimal range of those Husse foods, are very specifically engineered to be a complete food. You can claim they aren't a complete food but the truth is they absolutely are.

At this point dry food companies say, yeah but that's not our product, ours is totally different. Which is ridiculous. All pet foods are made by the big four under different names. When one is recalled for hypervitaminosis or whatever (see FDA recalls) sometimes over 150 brands are taken back.

Really? Which of the big four own Arden Grange? Or Husse? There are plenty of very successful and highly rated independent dry food manufacturers across Europe.

Dry food sales (in quantity, not cash of course) are now falling in the US. Dry food companies know this. It makes marketing (let alone scientific) sense to compare their complete products to the control diet - a fresh, natural meat based diet, one likely to be absent in Devils claw, for a period of years to give some substance to their claims, but it's not done. Or it has been done repeatedly but the results are either not released or do not pass independent peer review as a scientific study. Whichever.

Do you have any statistics on the quantity of dry food sales in the US? It has increased in value by 33.3% since 2003 according to one website I can see.

As a result the best brands are those with the biggest advertising budget. It's not a debate and it's not fair on the public. It's an onslaught of marketing dollars to ingrain acceptability. The same happened with TV dinners and bottle milk. Nestle used dentists to push their toothpaste in the 80's, a brilliant marketing ploy and within a year had "the best tooth paste". In the 90's they used vets and now make "the best food" prescribed by vets. Google Parker Popes article in the Wall Street Journal in 1997 that documented this move into universities.

Absolutely. This is the same in so many industries though so I'm not sure of your point. Market share doesn't grant quality though and people who take the time to look into the options available to them will be able to see that the standard foods available don't match up at all in terms of quality or value to the top end of the market. I don't think there are many retail markets where the best quality product is automatically granted the biggest market share and pet food is no different.

The breast versus bottle debate waged in the courts for years before big companies were forced down, so they moved to the third world. Only one or two dog owners have tried that route and it didn't go well for them. Dogs unfortunately have some way to go.

If people were more educated (and in the case of some others, more accurately educated) about pet nutrition, then the bulk foods would be forced out of the market. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon. The best you can do is let people know that moving to a brand at the top end of the market will decrease the amount they need to feed their dog making the food more valuable and will also increase the quality of the dog's life. I've seen it first hand myself.

borderlinemeath

irishbucsfan wrote: »

DogsFirst, you are continually referring to problems caused by the feeding of standard foods which is confusing the argument.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are dry foods out there that are certainly bulked like you claim. A lot of standard foods (the household names) are extremely guilty of this.

However the good foods out there (hills/Husse/Euk etc.) are not guilty of this at all. Gum disease may be prevalent in 3 y/o dogs, but not in those fed on foods such as the above.

I wouldn't rate hills tbh, I think an awful lot of people have it up there on a pedestal because vets recommend it as most of them sell it. I've met a few dogs that are on it purely because the vet recommended it and it caused them fairly bad flatulence and runny poo.

You are dead right to criticise some dry foods, and I for one wish pet owners were more aware of the difference the quality of food can make to a dogs life, however you are not making the very important distinction between, say, Pedigree Chum and Hills Science or Husse Optimal. There is no point even having the discussion if this distinction isn't made, it's like discussing cars without making the distinction between a Ford Fiesta and a Bentley Continental.

As for dogs fed on a fresh food diet, they can be extremely healthy for sure, but they are missing out on some of the superb natural additives that these excellent companies scour the world to find. I don't think you have a bunch of African Marigolds or Devils Claw, or whatever else the crazy Swedish Husse guys like Trostan was talking about, growing in your garden! Also, the scientific foods reach digestibility levels of 90%, you'll never reach anything like that on a fresh food diet.

And most dogs in their natural environment pre dried food wouldn't come across those ingredients and were probably just as healthy.

Every dog is different and will thrive on different things, just as every human is different and some are intolerant to some foodstuffs. I think some dogs do just fine on certain dried foods, some need a specific food that may be gluten free or whatever.

DogsFirst

There's no evidence that dry fed dogs are healthier Irishbucsfan, but there is for the opposite. Dogs today are possibly living longer, no data I can find on that one. But its like saying Americans are living longer thanks to their diet. They are living longer despite their diet. Chemical sales are rocketing. Chronic disease is rocketing. 3 times the rate of diabetes than humans, 25 times the rate of pancreatitis than humans. Both diet related. Copious amounts of carbohydrate are processed by the pancreas which must produce enough amylase to digest the entirely unnatural amount (from o carbs to 50%) and then enough insulin to balance soaring blood sugars. 4/5 dogs with gum disease. Gut cancer far beyond that in humans. Allergy, skin and gut medication making up the top 5 vet complaints. All diet related illnesses.

I mean come on everyone knows a dry fed dog that lasted 20years. A vegetarian with a vegetarian dog. My friend plays football for Dublin, he's good. Happens he smokes. What does that tell us about smoking? Nothing. Pit 11 smokers against 11 non-smokers and the non-smokers do them in the second half. When dry fed dogs are pitted against fresh fed dogs, they lose immunologicaly speaking. Dry food companies have not one study to show dogs do better on their food. Dogs can live for an undetermined time on it, that is all. The conclusion from the ANTECH study would be dogs would live longer on fresh.

And sorry you're right on the independent brands of dry food thing, apologies. It was a sweeping statement. 95% say.

The stats on dry food sales come from Euromonitor Pet Food Report 2010, summary available at their site, http://www.euromonitor.com. Sales decreased in 2010-2011 in quantity and it actually says here in the latest increased by 0.7% in 2011-2012 (went up 4% in cash sales) but are stalling again. Dig up the figures. One quote I remember was "exponential growth of raw products".

Disagree with market share thing, marketing dollars equals top sellers equals "best brands" in pubic persona. Not every time, that would be a sweeping statement.

SillyMangoX

This is kinda ridiculous, the OP posted because their pup wasn't eating and it somehow transpired to a pissing match between 2 dog food suppliers.. I really don't see how it has anything to do with what the OP posted!

DogsFirst

Agreed. Apologies. It won't happen again.

tk123

Hey OP if you're sticking with Burns zooplus.co.uk are giving £5 when you spend £39 - the offer is on their homepage

Trostan

The Green tea bones we supply are anti-oxidant and provide cell protection as well as tooth cleaning. The sea weed in the food softens tartar and the sharding of the kibble removes the tartar. however, they don'lasyt too long
i totally agree with you giving your dog fresh bones, both for calcium etc. and also to postpone boredom.

wetfish

Trostan wrote: »

The Green tea bones we supply are anti-oxidant and provide cell protection as well as tooth cleaning. The sea weed in the food softens tartar and the sharding of the kibble removes the tartar. however, they don'lasyt too long
i totally agree with you giving your dog fresh bones, both for calcium etc. and also to postpone boredom.

That's it! Trostan has me totally won over. I'm moving over to a diet of dry dog-food and my Trixie will just have to settle with raw meats.

Now will you let me live in peace!