Dog food

muddypaws

I have noticed on here that raw food is being pushed by a lot of posters. I don't have an issue with raw feeding per se, if its done properly, although personally I don't know if the evidence exists that it is a healthy canine diet long term. I don't want to discuss particular brands of dog food, but I am really interested in canine nutrition and what actually is the best way to feed a dog.

Our dogs came from village dogs, who evolved to live with humans, and this includes their digestive system, they would live on what we threw away, so a lot of this would have been cooked in some way, and would also include vegetable matter etc. Dogs are omnivores, not carnivores, and in fact can live on a veggie diet, the oldest record dog in the UK (not sure if in the world) was a dog called Murphy who died aged 27, and had lived on a vegetarian diet.

So, the fact that dry food has vegetable matter, and grains etc in it, is that such a bad thing for dogs?

I have spoken to a few people, and I do take on board that the research into raw feeding probably will never be done, as theres no money in it, most canine nutrition research is done by the kibble companies, but are they not doing that research to find food that is right for dogs?

My mind is open on all this, I'm not coming at it from one particular point of view, up until recently, I had intended to switch all of my dogs to a completely raw diet when I had the storage capacity, but I'm not sure anymore. I think I will probably feed a mix of kibble and meat, but hope that we could have a discussion about it, without it becoming a way to knock any particular brands

Mo60

Years ago most pet dogs were fed on food scraps and were still healthy. Even now when visiting people in the country some leave a bowl for leftover food for their pets.

I have a dog that stands beside me when I am preparing vegetables waiting to be given scraps. She even goes upto the apple trees to shake them in the hope that some apples will fall off and, if she can, will eat my vegetables growing in the garden. She even ripped a hole in my polytunnel to get inside.:mad:

Besides this I normally feed my dogs dry food. Maybe I have been lucky, but all my previous dogs have lived to a ripe old age.

I look forward to this discussion and seeing other peoples experiences.

borderlinemeath

I've posted before about how dogs seemed to live far longer when they were eating our cast offs, what was left on the table, the fat from the meat and the stuff gone off from fridge, along with maybe a can of wet food if there wasn't enough leftovers. Dogs that I grew up with in the 70s/80s lived far longer than the dogs that are around today.

I feed raw/fresh. I'm not militant, my pair love kibble pieces as treats and I sometimes cook the food if they've turned their noses at it. I have no issues with any particular brand of kibble but what puzzles me is why so many dogs are intolerant to various brands. Switch from one to another and there's runny poos and upset stomachs. With all the scientific research it still seems to me that the kibble is not suited to a lot of dogs, if it was, why do they get sick changing over? And have giant sized turds that are of a fairly loose consistency? I think they need a varied diet rather than religiously sticking to the same thing day in day out. And in fairness, would you eat the same dry food day after day?

mel.b

I recently got a puppy who was raw fed (along with kibble), so i did some reading and decided i would give it a go. I stuck with it for about two months and am now in the process of stopping. For me, it didn't matter what i did, i couldn't get his poos right :eek: i can count on one hand the number of 'good poos' he had. I could never get them firm, let alone have good shape. I know that means he needed more bone, but it didn't seem to matter. Now switching to tinned food he is already having good shaped poos. At the moment he is getting nature's menu and i am waiting for an order from zooplus that is Bonzita, made in Sweeden which is 97% meat.

muddypaws

borderlinemeath wrote: »

what puzzles me is why so many dogs are intolerant to various brands. Switch from one to another and there's runny poos and upset stomachs. With all the scientific research it still seems to me that the kibble is not suited to a lot of dogs, if it was, why do they get sick changing over? And have giant sized turds that are of a fairly loose consistency? I think they need a varied diet rather than religiously sticking to the same thing day in day out. And in fairness, would you eat the same dry food day after day?

Its a really good point, we change food each day, and don't suffer from it, I know our digestion systems are different to dogs. Has anyone ever noticed a bad reaction when changing from kibble to meat? or if feeding one type of meat one day, and then another the next? Or is it purely dry food that has this effect? Huskies should be able to tolerate a change in food, as obviously where they came from, food wouldn't always be easily available, so they could have a varied diet, and were not known for having sensitive stomachs, that has changed in recent years though. I don't know if its the same in other breeds, I wouldn't know enough about them. So, is there a chance that the dry food is actually changing dogs' digestive systems physically?

Devi

I always feed my dogs the leftovers of the Sunday roast and I believe they are the better for it physically and mentality. Variety is important I think.

DBB

I think that the particular research paper which showed that dogs are more efficient starch-processors than wolves has given the raw-feeding world a bit of a shake, or perhaps more accurately, has given non-raw feeders a stick to shake! I read the paper when it was published but don't seem to be able to access anything other than the abstract now, so can only vaguely recall the details of it.
My initial question would be this... If "proto-dogs" were better at digesting starch than wolves, by what sort of factor are we talking? Twice as good? Five times? Twenty times?
I'm interested to know, because if wolves are not great at processing carbs, but dogs are e.g. twenty times better, twenty times a low number is still a low number! I'm always worried about the results of these research papers being stretched to fit an agenda, a great example being cancer risks in unneutered dogs... Not neutering increases X cancer by a large factor. But the initial risk is very low. Multiplying the initial risk by the risk factor still gives pretty low odds of cancer appearing.
Feeding dogs a totally non-meat diet is just extremism, in my view, and carrying things just a little too far. One dog making it to a grand old age is not evidence enough, nowhere near it. I know a JRT who was fed table scraps all his life until he died at 23. But I know hundreds more who died much earlier who were fed raw, or dry, or table scraps. This anecdotal one-off stuff just isn't good enough to use as evidence, they're just interesting exceptions. And on that note, the anecdotal-ness of raw feeding is indeed its big weakness.
Personally, I'd never have disputed the feeding of veg and some fruit to dogs, but isn't it interesting that they must have their veg and fruit either pre-cooked, or at least pre-finely shredded before they can digest it? We've all seen big lumps of carrot appear out the other end the day after feeding whole raw carrot!
It's cereals, I think, that cause the problems. And again, remember that these proto-dogs were eating our digested remains, feeding from our middens! Again, although they may have an increased ability to process carbs, it seems to me that those carbs could not be digested unless they were "pre-treated" in some way.
Still on the cereals front, and touching on what borderlinemeath said, the incidence of allergic reactions to cereals is pretty substantial in dogs (and humans!), and whilst cereals provide carbs, they also contain gluten, which I'll bet is the cause of many allergic reactions in dogs, as it is in humans.
So, I suppose what I'm saying is that if dogs are going to eat carbs, they're best fed in a "gentle" form, such as veg.
The problem with many dry dog foods is that they're chock-full of cereals.I feel that this argument still holds ground.... Ok, perhaps the dog can digest the carbs contained within better than a wolf could, but it's the other things in cereals that cause so much trouble. Plus there's the whole issue of preservatives, additives, and storage mites, which can cause a whole other raft of problems all on their own.
One of my dogs prefers cooked fresh food to raw, so that's what she gets. That, or Naturediet. Sometimes, she goes off even these and will only eat kibble. If that works for her, fine! But I'll only feed her a cereal-free kibble.
Indeed, I'm giving some thought to slow-cooking meat n veg meals for the dogs instead of raw, simply because they prefer it cooked. It's still lovely, fresh food, with nothing artificial added, it's just in a tastier form for them, for their tastes. And it reduces the chances, small though they apparently are, of picking up a bug from raw fowl.

muddypaws

So DBB, you would see the issue of changing foods and stool problems being due to the cereals and/or additives in the kibble? There are obviously raw foods that you can buy in processed form, probably without the cereals, does that affect dogs the same way as changing kibble?

DBB

It doesn't affect my dogs, but that's not to say it doesn't affect all! I think, and this pure conjecture, that once you've a dog established on raw, or fresh food, their systems become more geared up to variation... Changing from turkey to beef to chicken even in a day doesn't knock a feather out of them. And throwing on yogurt, or egg once or twice a week doesn't bother them.
What does cause trouble is a sudden change back to kibble. Large, smelly poops, rumbly tummies, farting etc. When I used to feed kibble, the dogs would be fine, but every few months would inexplicably become as above. My feeling is it was a building up of a reaction to whatver was in the dry food. I've had no incidences of the above since switching to raw/fresh, which is 3 yrs ago now.
But I have come across some owners who changed to raw and their dogs got sick, or runny, or just a bit icky. The advice is to change them slowly (though I know a well establshed "holistic" vet who says you can change them overnight) and I think these owners made the change too fast.
Is this the sort of thing you wanted to know?!

muddypaws

yeah, just really interested. I obviously want to do the best for my dogs, as I'm sure we all do, but so much information and mis-information that its really hard to know what that best actually is. And you might feed something and the dogs seem to be thriving, but in 10 years time will there issues that could be linked to that food?

I wonder if I could find anyone willing to pay me to do a raw versus kibble study?

borderlinemeath

Most dogs that I deal with are kibble fed and they mostly fit into 2 categories.

Type A can only eat one brand of kibble, NOTHING else, no mixer, no treats because "it'll upset his stomach" or "he'll get the runs"

Type B can eat anything "I always throw the leftovers in with his food" "He's a hoover, he'll eat anything and he'll be grand"

It seems that even within kibble if there's variety, and additions, that dogs seem to fare better and 'toughen up' whereas the dog that's fed solely on one type of kibble has a less tolerant to change gut. Some of the dogs, for certain cannot tolerate different kibbles but some of the dogs I find it's down to their owners doing a 'tough love/he only gets what he's given, give him anything else and he'll want it and leave the kibble' type scenario. I wonder, does this 'fine tune' the gut and make it less able to break down a new food when it's fed?

tk123

muddypaws wrote: »

So DBB, you would see the issue of changing foods and stool problems being due to the cereals and/or additives in the kibble? There are obviously raw foods that you can buy in processed form, probably without the cereals, does that affect dogs the same way as changing kibble?

I think it must be the cereals because I've changed between a few cereal free kibbles and haven't had a problem? The poos weren't great to start with but didn't get any worse

bluecherry74

muddypaws wrote: »

So, the fact that dry food has vegetable matter, and grains etc in it, is that such a bad thing for dogs?

I don't have an issue with the contents of dry food so much as the fact that it's so highly processed and it seems, to me at least, to be a completely unnatural diet for any animal.

muddypaws wrote: »

I don't have an issue with raw feeding per se, if its done properly, although personally I don't know if the evidence exists that it is a healthy canine diet long term.

Does any evidence exist that dry food is a healthy canine diet long term? I'm not sure it's been around long enough for anyone to determine that. Like many other posters, our dogs growing up were fed on a mixture of cheap tinned dog food with a healthy portion of leftovers. They also got raw liver most weeks and a raw bone every once in a while. My parents only started including dry food in the mid to late 80s. When I got my own dog for the first time I fed dry food exclusively, because that's what I was told was best. I never questioned it or did any research into alternative diets. Sadly, she died young at the age of nine. Whether her diet played a part in that I'll never know.

I started feeding my current dogs raw because one of them didn't do well on any of the dry foods I tried. I went through many of the high quality ones and still he had runny poos and dirty, waxy ears. It didn't matter what the meat ingredient was or whether or not they were grain free, they just didn't agree with him.

I researched raw for months before gradually making the change. The difference was remarkable. Both dogs have been on it for well over a year now and seem to be thriving.

muddypaws wrote: »

Has anyone ever noticed a bad reaction when changing from kibble to meat? or if feeding one type of meat one day, and then another the next? Or is it purely dry food that has this effect?

I change what they eat all the time and surprisingly it has no ill effects. It doesn't matter whether I'm changing from meat to fish to gRAW to chicken, or adding in random things like leftover veg or stew. I've even given them high quality tinned food once or twice with no effect. I think it's essential, actually, to change the menu as often as possible to make sure they're getting a wide variety of nutrients.

When they had to go into kennels for a few days last year, I started to gradually switch them back to dry food - Barking Heads Fusspot which is one of the cleanest in terms of ingredients - and almost immediately the runny poos returned. Luckily the guy who runs the kennels is a friend and has plenty of freezer space, so now I just bring pre-packed raw meals when I'm dropping them off.

muddypaws wrote: »

I obviously want to do the best for my dogs, as I'm sure we all do, but so much information and mis-information that its really hard to know what that best actually is. And you might feed something and the dogs seem to be thriving, but in 10 years time will there issues that could be linked to that food?

You're right, there is a lot of conflicting advice out there with regard to raw feeding. I think anyone who decides to do it needs to do a ton of research before making the leap. It also requires a lot of common sense and personal responsibility - I'm totally aware that because I decide what my dogs eat, I'm responsible if they develop any diet related illnesses in the future. I'll be honest, it scares me a little, but that's a good thing because it helps me to keep an open mind about what I'm doing!

I follow these basic rules - not saying it's definitely the right way to go about it, but it's what I've settled on as being the most sensible:

- feed mostly meat or fish
- feed bones several times a week
- feed offal every day
- feed veg/spuds/eggs/healthy leftovers as a supplement whenever I have them
- feed as wide a variety as possible of all of the above. I really think variety is important. So for me that means chicken, beef, lamb, mackerel, salmon, liver, kidney, heart, duck necks, canned sardines, chicken legs, leftover cooked meat, eggs, spuds, peas, green beans etc. etc. etc.

I'm no expert and I'm totally open to correction on what I'm feeding, but this seems to me to be a healthy, natural diet for my dogs.

TooManyDogs

muddypaws wrote: »

Has anyone ever noticed a bad reaction when changing from kibble to meat? or if feeding one type of meat one day, and then another the next?

I changed from dry food to raw without any problems and my lot get a heap of different things ranging from beef, chicken, salmon, mackerel, duck, tripe, hearts, liver along with left overs from the dinner table and their poos are pretty much always the same.

I'd love on one hand to see studies into raw food and have a bit more scientific data to back the diet up, but I'd be worried about what is actually involved in the scientific testing of dog food and I'd be ethically worried. From my days in science labs I can only imagine that the environment of the dogs would be controlled and the same, which would mean lab kennels where all dogs were treated the same with no outside influences such as different water, grass, environment etc. Now I hope I'd be wrong but I'd hate to think of dogs being kept as lab animals to test raw food, the pet food companies are obliged to do this but as a raw feeder I don't. For me the proof is in my dogs' health, energy, physicality and muscle tone so I'm going to keep going.

Hooked

Interesting reading all round... Me personally, I feed our Sibe kibble in the morning meal (sometimes add a raw egg, or yoghurt or salmon oil) and raw in the afternoon. Each day.

The raw feed can be any number of things, a veg, rice, fish and meat 'parcel' that I make and freeze, or whole chicken leg on the bone, medium brisket red meaty bone, heart, fish heads, you name it.

No reactions, no runny poos and a notable increase in muscle tone, strength and his coat and teeth are fantastic. Jumping out of his skin health wise.

Long may it continue.

inocybe

I also feed dry food in the morning and raw in the evening, no stomach problems. Only problem is that dog isn't keen on the kibble breakfast, knowing what real food tastes like...
It is strange about the trouble changing dry food brands. When I fed only kibble I switched twice between high quality brands, with bad effects both times. No such problem introducing the raw meal.

Hooked

inocybe wrote: »

I also feed dry food in the morning and raw in the evening, no stomach problems. Only problem is that dog isn't keen on the kibble breakfast, knowing what real food tastes like...
It is strange about the trouble changing dry food brands. When I fed only kibble I switched twice between high quality brands, with bad effects both times. No such problem introducing the raw meal.

Great to hear I'm not alone. Though Hugo is such a greedy guts... He'll eat kibble just as quick as raw. Do you mix anything into the kibble to entice yours?

I often add natural youghurt, a raw egg, some salmon oil, a small spoon of my porridge or cornflakes - just to give it a different smell. Small amounts mind...

Still - this morning it was plain old boring kibble - and it lasted about 30 seconds.

inocybe

Hooked wrote: »

Great to hear I'm not alone. Though Hugo is such a greedy guts... He'll eat kibble just as quick as raw. Do you mix anything into the kibble to entice yours?

I often add natural youghurt, a raw egg, some salmon oil, a small spoon of my porridge or cornflakes - just to give it a different smell. Small amounts mind...

Still - this morning it was plain old boring kibble - and it lasted about 30 seconds.

I mix something with it everytime, sardines are the favourite.

tk123

inocybe wrote: »

It is strange about the trouble changing dry food brands. When I fed only kibble I switched twice between high quality brands, with bad effects both times. No such problem introducing the raw meal.

Yeah why is that? Surely if they're complete/balanced there shouldn't be any issues? How come I can go from say something minced to something boney which should be more work to digest but different kibbles the same size and same main ingrediants can been worlds apart?

I've been advised to switch the dogs to dry because I need to reduce the 'fatty acids' in Bailey's blood (i've been lax with what I was feeding - lean meats only from now on) and apparently Lucy won't grow properly if she's not fed dry food. Now if I had of said they were both on Hills/RC/whoever pays for the shelves in reception the vets wouldn't make an issue of their diet.

I honestly dread the thought of having to switch to a dry food - there's so many that it's like a needle in a haystack trying to find one that suits both the dog(s) and our criteria - eg proper ingrediants, no corn because of how it can affect seratonin levels, no rice because Bailey doesn't tolerate it in dry food etc etc etc. And now there's two of them so double the work trying to find one that suits both!

borderlinemeath

tk123 wrote: »

Yeah why is that? Surely if they're complete/balanced there shouldn't be any issues? How come I can go from say something minced to something boney which should be more work to digest but different kibbles the same size and same main ingrediants can been worlds apart?

I've been advised to switch the dogs to dry because I need to reduce the 'fatty acids' in Bailey's blood (i've been lax with what I was feeding - lean meats only from now on) and apparently Lucy won't grow properly if she's not fed dry food. Now if I had of said they were both on Hills/RC/whoever pays for the shelves in reception the vets wouldn't make an issue of their diet.

I honestly dread the thought of having to switch to a dry food - there's so many that it's like a needle in a haystack trying to find one that suits both the dog(s) and our criteria - eg proper ingrediants, no corn because of how it can affect seratonin levels, no rice because Bailey doesn't tolerate it in dry food etc etc etc. And now there's two of them so double the work trying to find one that suits both!

Here's something for you TK

http://pippamattinson.com/are-vets-driving-raw-feeders-away/

Slutmonkey57b

Hooked wrote: »

Interesting reading all round... Me personally, I feed our Sibe kibble in the morning meal (sometimes add a raw egg, or yoghurt or salmon oil) and raw in the afternoon. Each day.

The raw feed can be any number of things, a veg, rice, fish and meat 'parcel' that I make and freeze, or whole chicken leg on the bone, medium brisket red meaty bone, heart, fish heads, you name it.

No reactions, no runny poos and a notable increase in muscle tone, strength and his coat and teeth are fantastic. Jumping out of his skin health wise.

Long may it continue.

No issues with feeding chicken bones? I was always taught they were dangerous things.

borderlinemeath

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No issues with feeding chicken bones? I was always taught they were dangerous things.

When they're cooked they are extremely dangerous, the cooking process hardens them and causes them to splinter. When they're raw, they are quite soft and very easily bitten down and digested.

Pretty much all cooked bones (including the ones you buy in pet shops) are far more dangerous than raw bones due to splintering and the risk of puncturing the intestinal wall.

Nody

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No issues with feeding chicken bones? I was always taught they were dangerous things.

Chicken bones are dangerous if cooked (they become brittle and shard like) or in rarer cases choking if you're dog is not used to them (watch over them when they get it).

Hooked

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No issues with feeding chicken bones? I was always taught they were dangerous things.

None. And you should see him make short work of a brisket bone.

As others have said... All bones fed are raw and therefore soft and not in danger of splintering etc...

Slutmonkey57b

Hmm.. Good to know. I've one dog who is a gobbler so I don't necessarily trust her to chew...

I'm trying to get away from dry food as I can't find one that all 3 dog tummies will agree on, and cooking chicken thighs and rice every day is quite the hassle sometimes...

muddypaws

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Here's something for you TK

http://pippamattinson.com/are-vets-driving-raw-feeders-away/

Thanks for that link, brilliant article, sums up how I'm feeling about diet at the moment.

borderlinemeath

muddypaws wrote: »

Thanks for that link, brilliant article, sums up how I'm feeling about diet at the moment.

Exactly, she's looking for the science and the facts, but nothing has yet been proven. The one thing that does seem to be happening is that vets are pushing commercial food as it pays their bills (through their surgeries and through grant aid in university it seems)

tk123

muddypaws wrote: »

Thanks for that link, brilliant article, sums up how I'm feeling about diet at the moment.

+1 I love the way the address the salmonella thing lol oh their poo could have salmonella - like were going to handle it?! :pac:

My vet was impressed with Bailey's condition the time before last - now suddenly it could be an issue when something crops up that plenty of dry fed dogs suffer from.

fiounnalbe

There's a definite opening for some scientists to really thoroughly do some research into all areas of dog feedings. I for one would be very interesting in reading something like this. At the moment there are so many conflicting reports and it's hard to make any decisions based on them.
A good evaluation on many different sizes and breeds of dogs, on different types of kibble and RAW would be great. There are so many companies out there now dishing out terrible kibble it would give them a shake up hopefully, or at least steer owners away from terrible foods, and a really good balanced RAW diet would be great too, that has no deficiencies etc that we're only going to find out about way down the line when the dogs really ill. Im also always confused when researching kibbles about protein levels, calcium levels etc.

I was talking to my vet about it and he was open to everything but admitted it was not his area of expertise. I think it's fair enough, they've to learn so much in college and food ideas are forever changing it must be difficult to keep up on them all. They have to get continuous learning points each year I know, but he said mostly any nutrition ones on he doesn't go to because it's just HILLs talking about their latest new food for hours, he prefers going to ones where he can learning new operating techniques, new blood testing way etc etc. and to be honest I would rather him attending them in case my dogs every needed new age surgical intervention!!

People are becoming more and more invested in their animals and conscious of whats best for them, I think it's time proper Doggie Nutritionists were born lol!!

bluecherry74

tk123 wrote: »

apparently Lucy won't grow properly if she's not fed dry food.

Henry has been on raw since he was 7 months old. He grew just fine! I do think it's taking him a long time to reach his full adult height and build. He'll be two this month and he's still getting bigger and stronger. I don't know if that's related to being fed raw though.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Here's something for you TK

http://pippamattinson.com/are-vets-driving-raw-feeders-away/

That really is a great article, thanks for posting the link. This bit really sums it up for me:

However, we simply do not know if long term kibble feeding compares well with raw feeding when measured against a whole range of other factors such as longevity, fertility, disease, etc.

muddypaws

OK, when I win the euromillions, and it is going to happen very soon, I will fund the studies into raw against commercial against cooked etc. From my own perspective it actually wouldn't be that difficult to do, could use a working kennel of huskies perhaps, so that they wouldn't be living in lab conditions, but ensure they did the same exercise etc, and just feed them different diets. Would be really interesting to do. hmmmmm

tk123

Grand you can hire us all

kylith

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I've posted before about how dogs seemed to live far longer when they were eating our cast offs, what was left on the table, the fat from the meat and the stuff gone off from fridge, along with maybe a can of wet food if there wasn't enough leftovers. Dogs that I grew up with in the 70s/80s lived far longer than the dogs that are around today.

That depends on the dog, though. I have a ~13 year old terrier at home who shows no signs of stopping, though she's slowed down a bit. She's definitely in better shape than my childhood terrier who, at the same age, was going deaf and blind, and was developing fatty lumps.

I would suggest that the state of breeding these days would be a contributory factor to dogs having a decreased relative life span. Not too long ago if you wanted a pet you generally just got a mutt and pedigrees were either for the rich or people who had a use for the breed. These days, with puppy farms (battery farming, really), pedigrees are being churned out with no respect for health, so their lifespan is likely influenced by substandard parents coupled with unsanitary conditions in puppyhood.

borderlinemeath

kylith wrote: »

That depends on the dog, though. I have a ~13 year old terrier at home who shows no signs of stopping, though she's slowed down a bit. She's definitely in better shape than my childhood terrier who, at the same age, was going deaf and blind, and was developing fatty lumps.

I would suggest that the state of breeding these days would be a contributory factor to dogs having a decreased relative life span. Not too long ago if you wanted a pet you generally just got a mutt and pedigrees were either for the rich or people who had a use for the breed. These days, with puppy farms (battery farming, really), pedigrees are being churned out with no respect for health, so their lifespan is likely influenced by substandard parents coupled with unsanitary conditions in puppyhood.

Absolutely, the inbreeding certainly isn't helping lifespan at all.

But I do think that feeding processed dry food long term is a large contributing factor. As humans we're told to eat fresh and healthy food for our own being and studies for humans have shown that processed foods can lead to obesity, diabetes, liver function, heart disease....etc etc. So why is it any different for dogs?

tk123

So as some of you know from my distress posts in other threads Lucy, our 14 week old puppy had a bad tummy the last week. From day one with us she's been on raw/barf (gRaw to be exact as we got a bogof deal he had) and from day one she's had great poos. As well as the raw she's had various treats - barking heads puppy food, puppy bonios, marmite, peanut butter, fruit and veg, ham, hotdogs and a small amount of scraps to see how she got on - eg a teaspoon of mash and roast chicken etc etc

Last week she went to daycare with her luncbox of gRaw and was given that as well as Luath dry food for treats. 11:30pm on Monday night she go sick in her crate and it all went downhill from there - only this morning the poops have started to resemble what I expect poo to look like.

From chatting to a few puppy owners and seeing what my friend's dog's do it's made me realize that most people aren't aware of what healthy poo looks like. They think it's normal for it to be sloppy and stinky or for a dog to have a 'sensitive tummy'. That wound me up no end on sat when somebody who's pup was producting a pile that would put a baby elephant to shame said that when I mentioned that Luath didn't agree with either of my dogs. I can say hand on heart that they don't have senstive tummies - point in case was big boy like a pelican yesterday swallowing a fish 2 or 3 feet long WHOLE and showing no signs of upset lol!

So I guess to sum up my rambling - I don't think a lot of people are aware of when a food doesn't suit their dog and go with what they hear from vets or 'professionals' - it's normal for dogs to have sensitive tummies, it's normal for a handful of dry food to make a dog sick and not much you can do about it because the food in question is 'hollistic/hypoallergenic'?

borderlinemeath

tk123 wrote: »

So as some of you know from my distress posts in other threads Lucy, our 14 week old puppy had a bad tummy the last week. From day one with us she's been on raw/barf (gRaw to be exact as we got a bogof deal he had) and from day one she's had great poos. As well as the raw she's had various treats - barking heads puppy food, puppy bonios, marmite, peanut butter, fruit and veg, ham, hotdogs and a small amount of scraps to see how she got on - eg a teaspoon of mash and roast chicken etc etc

Last week she went to daycare with her luncbox of gRaw and was given that as well as Luath dry food for treats. 11:30pm on Monday night she go sick in her crate and it all went downhill from there - only this morning the poops have started to resemble what I expect poo to look like.

From chatting to a few puppy owners and seeing what my friend's dog's do it's made me realize that most people aren't aware of what healthy poo looks like. They think it's normal for it to be sloppy and stinky or for a dog to have a 'sensitive tummy'. That wound me up no end on sat when somebody who's pup was producting a pile that would put a baby elephant to shame said that when I mentioned that Luath didn't agree with either of my dogs. I can say hand on heart that they don't have senstive tummies - point in case was big boy like a pelican yesterday swallowing a fish 2 or 3 feet long WHOLE and showing no signs of upset lol!

So I guess to sum up my rambling - I don't think a lot of people are aware of when a food doesn't suit their dog and go with what they hear from vets or 'professionals' - it's normal for dogs to have sensitive tummies, it's normal for a handful of dry food to make a dog sick and not much you can do about it because the food in question is 'hollistic/hypoallergenic'?

+1
The amount of owners I speak to and say to them that their dogs poos are loose and very big considering the amount of food they eat is huge. And these dogs are doing poos the size of babies arms! Imagine we were going to the loo like that, we'd be heading straight for the doctors for tests to see did we have any intolerances or IBS or whatever, but owners are taking their vets word for it and buying what is for sale in the surgeries.

One thing that really bugs me as well is the use/overuse of the word 'hypoallergenic'. Consumers see this and think "Great, this is the best, it will suit my dog, it's for sensitive stomachs" It's a marketers dream buzzword, along with 'enriched', 'fortified' and 'premium':P. All hypoallergenic means is that it may be less likely to cause a reaction, but no certainty whatsoever. Honestly, I would dread having a dog with a sensitive stomach or any intolerances and be stuck trying to find a dry food to suit. It's a minefield of misinformation!

muddypaws

I can only really speak from my own experiences, but so many husky owners think their dogs have sensitive stomachs, when really its just that they are overfeeding them. Without being too graphic, but I'm sure we can all relate to having a huge blow out meal, and how that affects our own toilet habits, feeling of being bloated and then getting rid of the excess. I know that sibes eat less than most other breeds, but I do wonder how many dogs are overfed, and then what isn't digested obviously has to come out the other end. So maybe, because raw feeders tend to put more care into what they feed, and I don't mean that as a criticism of dry feeders at all, but I think raw feeders do tend to weigh more, and look at exactly how much food their dog is getting, maybe their dogs are getting the right amount that they need to digest properly etc. Which could then be a contributing factor perhaps in the state of the poos?

Although yes, what is in a dry food is definitely a contributor, as I've found when the dogs have eaten different brands.

SillyMangoX

For those that don't know how a normal poop should look :P

borderlinemeath

SillyMangoX wrote: »

For those that don't know how a normal poop should look :P

I actually read that to the bottom and thought "who would give their dogs alcohol or recreational drugs?"

Doh, it's for humans:D

SillyMangoX

Haha yes discount the last one, the rest are the same :P Though you never know what a dog might get upto

SillyMangoX

Here is the veterinary version :P

boomerang

muddypaws wrote: »

So DBB, you would see the issue of changing foods and stool problems being due to the cereals and/or additives in the kibble? There are obviously raw foods that you can buy in processed form, probably without the cereals, does that affect dogs the same way as changing kibble?

I have no issues with any particular brand of kibble but what puzzles me is why so many dogs are intolerant to various brands. Switch from one to another and there's runny poos and upset stomachs. With all the scientific research it still seems to me that the kibble is not suited to a lot of dogs, if it was, why do they get sick changing over?

I think dogs (and cats) have problems with an abrupt switch from one brand to another because they have eaten nothing but one brand for so long... Which to me, isn't natural. I love The Whole Dog Journal and their researchers recommend that if you do feed kibble, change the brand as often as possible. One reason being, that you are not giving your dog too much or too little of a certain micronutrient or nutriceutical over time. I think that makes a lot of sense, when there doesn't seem to be academic consensus on exactly how much vitamin supplementation dogs need in commercial foods and the producers seem to err on the side of caution and actually over-supplement, to compensate for nutrient loss during cooking/extruding.

Dogs that are used to a lot of variety in their diet have far fewer problems with the addition of new foods. It applies to cats, too! Our feral cats are so used to scavenging, first of all, before we get involved, and then getting a mix of different commercial brands depending on what's donated, that they don't suffer from irritated tums in the same way our foster cats and kittens do, if we were to change their food suddenly.

My greyhound was a scavenging street dog for over a year and still has an iron constitution - nothing knocks her tum out, whatever she occasionally manages to rummage from the bin or the next-door neighbours!

My dog Boo had a pretty varied homecooked diet for the last three years of her life and I think in consequence didn't have tummy upset when new foods (including prescription renal food) were introduced occasionally.

bluecherry74

I was eating.

SillyMangoX wrote: »

Here is the veterinary version :P

Jess's always looks like Score 2 which I presume is grand, but Henry's is often like Score 3. Not sure if that's particularly bad? He's always been the most problematic when it comes to diet.

kylith

Ra's don't fit any on that chart, she poos little egg shaped ones like #1, normal in overall volume but in 4 or 5 'eggs', but has no signs of constipation. She always has pooed like that, so I think it's just whatever way her system is set up.

borderlinemeath

boomerang wrote: »

I think dogs (and cats) have problems with an abrupt switch from one brand to another because they have eaten nothing but one brand for so long... Which to me, isn't natural. I love The Whole Dog Journal and their researchers recommend that if you do feed kibble, change the brand as often as possible. One reason being, that you are not giving your dog too much or too little of a certain micronutrient or nutriceutical over time. I think that makes a lot of sense, when there doesn't seem to be academic consensus on exactly how much vitamin supplementation dogs need in commercial foods and the producers seem to err on the side of caution and actually over-supplement, to compensate for nutrient loss during cooking/extruding.

Dogs that are used to a lot of variety in their diet have far fewer problems with the addition of new foods. It applies to cats, too! Our feral cats are so used to scavenging, first of all, before we get involved, and then getting a mix of different commercial brands depending on what's donated, that they don't suffer from irritated tums in the same way our foster cats and kittens do, if we were to change their food suddenly.

My greyhound was a scavenging street dog for over a year and still has an iron constitution - nothing knocks her tum out, whatever she occasionally manages to rummage from the bin or the next-door neighbours!

My dog Boo had a pretty varied homecooked diet for the last three years of her life and I think in consequence didn't have tummy upset when new foods (including prescription renal food) were introduced occasionally.

I think I said earlier on in this thread that I thought that sticking religiously to the one food 'fine tunes' the dogs gut:).
My pair can eat anything, Benson was abandoned so scavanged at some point and then he was in rescue getting various donated kibbles. Coco always got a bit of variety in her diet and whatever was left on our plates too.