How Pet food is killing your dog (Channel 5 Thursday)

Bullseye1

Some of you might be interested in watching this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546512/How-pet-food-killing-dog-feeding-parsnips-yoghurt.html

Here is a link to the program details.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-truth-about-your-dogs-food/episodes/the-truth-about-your-dogs-food

Karlitto

Thanks!

I am planning to put the dogs on Raw food shortly, just need to do some more research first.

Mince Pie

Jaysus, my brain hurts from not knowing if I'm doing right from wrong for my pooches. I'm not sure about a "Daily Fail" article. I don't agree with anything they say so not sure about taking advice from them for my dog.

borderlinemeath

Mince Pie wrote: »

Jaysus, my brain hurts from not knowing if I'm doing right from wrong for my pooches. I'm not sure about a "Daily Fail" article. I don't agree with anything they say so not sure about taking advice from them for my dog.

I take Daily Mail articles with a pinch of salt, but it's not their documentary so I'm looking forward to watching it.

Karlitto

All seems well and good until in the list of foods they can eat included milk.... bit skeptical now, but shall watch it none the less.

mymo

Karlitto wrote: »

All seems well and good until in the list of foods they can eat included milk.... bit skeptical now, but shall watch it none the less.

Yeah, that was first thing struck me too. Very skeptical now.
I know most dog food is rubbish, but there are some very good quality food out there, human grade meat, grain free etc, bit of scaremongering going on I think. That said, it's amazing most people have no idea whats in dog food, it would be nice if they take an educational point of view.

Mince Pie

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I take Daily Mail articles with a pinch of salt, but it's not their documentary so I'm looking forward to watching it.

Yeah but have you ever watched a Ch5 documentary? Ch4 it ain't. They are usually quite rubbish.
Hence the head wobble. Will give it a look on Thursday anyway.

borderlinemeath

It depends who produced it. Channel 5 may have been the only channel to offer to screen it. I don't watch a huge amount of tv so I don't know of their reputation, good, bad or indifferent.

Mince Pie

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It depends who produced it. Channel 5 may have been the only channel to offer to screen it. I don't watch a huge amount of tv so I don't know of their reputation, good, bad or indifferent.

trust me, the amount of times I've looked at listings and seen a documentary and thought brilliant only to then notice it was on channel 5. Not once has anything been worth watching. Just repeating well known facts over and over and nothing new.
BBC or Ch4 would be a completely different matter.

deputy_dog

I'm a bit worried now. Think there's a lot of reading I need to do now. A lot of raw foods can be bad for dogs too right?

Gael23

We feed our cocker mainly on kibble and of course occasional leftovers of our meals, he's 14 now and apart from some age related issues, the vets tell us he is amazingly healthy or his age.
Another family member got the same breed mo frog from the same breeder a matter of weeks before us. He spent most of his life being fed on leftovers from human meals until he died 3 years ago so I don't entirely believe that commercial dog foods are all bad.

The Bishop Basher

ryanf1 wrote: »

We feed our cocker mainly on kibble and of course occasional leftovers of our meals, he's 14 now and apart from some age related issues, the vets tell us he is amazingly healthy or his age.
Another family member got the same breed mo frog from the same breeder a matter of weeks before us. He spent most of his life being fed on leftovers from human meals until he died 3 years ago so I don't entirely believe that commercial dog foods are all bad.

I couldn't agree more. I get that some food can be better then others and I too have fallen into the trap and feed nothing but the best.

But if what we're now being told is true....how come we all had dogs for years growing up, all of whom were fed on pedigree chum, yet they were all healthy, happy and lived good long lives ?

There's a disconnect somewhere and I can't figure it out.

DBB

Beware the confirmation bias folks. It's very easy to say "it weren't like that in my day", or to base your assessment of dog foods on one single example out of millions of dogs. But it's not right. Personal experience does not come close to permitting us to conclude anything meaningful about.... Anything!
In fact, the stats show that there has been little change in the incidence of various health problems in dogs that people anecdotally think there has been.
One thing is pretty certain...as a population, dogs fed crap food are more likely to develop health problems. Simple as. In the big scheme of things, it matters not one whit that random dogs do not suffer food-related health problems despite being fed rubbish all their lives... When viewed as a population, which allows for individual variations, crap food harms dogs, just as it harms us.

Mince Pie

Problem is though, its a minefield and how do you know if the food you are feeding your dog is good or not. Raw fed, expensive kibble, pedigree chum.
Its giving me a headache.

I get my dry food from the pet shop, can't remember the name of it but apparently people had requested for them to get it in.
I mix it with wet food and pop a wee bit of rapeseed or olive oil as well. I give them sardines once a week.
Oh and the off cuts of chicken (raw) or whatever I'm cooking and left overs, obviously no chocolate or onions etc.
But I'm still not sure if I'm doing whats best for them and now with this new show about to air tomorrow about dry food, its putting my head in a proper spin.

borderlinemeath

Swanner wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I get that some food can be better then others and I too have fallen into the trap and feed nothing but the best.

Nothing but the best what though? Dried processed food?

What doesn't sit comfortably with me is that as humans we're told we need fresh food, get your 5 a day, ensure you have enough vitamins and minerals. To avoid living on processed food, as the processing removes a large amount of nutrients, and that salt content is far higher than a human should have in their diet. Yet we're told by the brilliant marketing departments of the large pet food companies that dried processed food is the best for our dogs. If dried food was so good for animals wouldn't they be feeding it to the animals in zoos? You don't see the african hunting dogs in Dublin Zoo sitting down to a bowl of dried food.

But if what we're now being told is true....how come we all had dogs for years growing up, all of whom were fed on pedigree chum, yet they were all healthy, happy and lived good long lives ?

There's a disconnect somewhere and I can't figure it out.

I would imagine that 30 odd years ago the tins of dog food had a far higher meat content than the tins that are produced these days do. Plus they were always supplemented (in my house anyway) with leftovers and butchers scraps and bones.

I think the pet food companies tapped into the convenience element of dried food and managed to make consumers think that this convenient, 'complete' product was the best that we could feed our pets. When I was in my teens we got a new household dog and for the first time I saw a bag of dried dog food because it was what was 'recommended'. Back then I can't remember who recommended it, whether it was the breeder, or the vet, or the pet shop that the bed and kennel were bought in (it was in the days before the internet!) - roll forward 15 years and I get my own first dog and the first thing I purchase along with her new collar & lead & bed is a big bag of dried dog food because over time its become the norm.

It's only recently there's been a shift away from it, there seems to be very little research behind feeding fresh food to dogs - because there's no money in it. The majority of research is on dried food, by vets or vet students. Dig a little deeper and the vets/students are on dried food sponsored research programmes or sponsored college courses. I'm not going back to root for it at the moment but I recall having a similar debate not so long ago and a lot of the veterinary expert opinion was by vets who were sponsored through college by Purina. Of course it didn't say it on the articles, I had to research the authors to find out that 1 had been the recipient of a $50,000 dollar grant, another came from a college that the entire veterinary programme is sponsored by them. :-(

borderlinemeath

Mince Pie wrote: »

Problem is though, its a minefield and how do you know if the food you are feeding your dog is good or not. Raw fed, expensive kibble, pedigree chum.
Its giving me a headache.

I get my dry food from the pet shop, can't remember the name of it but apparently people had requested for them to get it in.
I mix it with wet food and pop a wee bit of rapeseed or olive oil as well. I give them sardines once a week.
Oh and the off cuts of chicken (raw) or whatever I'm cooking and left overs, obviously no chocolate or onions etc.
But I'm still not sure if I'm doing whats best for them and now with this new show about to air tomorrow about dry food, its putting my head in a proper spin.

A huge part of our guilty conscience is that our pets can't tell us until it's too late. At least with kids they can say - for example "when I eat dairy, my stomach really hurts"
Only by us watching our pets body language, if they're lethargic, if they've got runny poo, or if their coat has lost condition, or worst still, they get a serious illness do we know if our pets are suffering. A lot of pets tend to happily eat whatever is put in front of them, good or bad:(

Mince Pie

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A huge part of our guilty conscience is that our pets can't tell us until it's too late. At least with kids they can say - for example "when I eat dairy, my stomach really hurts"
Only by us watching our pets body language, if they're lethargic, if they've got runny poo, or if their coat has lost condition, or worst still, they get a serious illness do we know if our pets are suffering. A lot of pets tend to happily eat whatever is put in front of them, good or bad:(

See thats exactly what I'm talking about, I don't want to wait till its too late but haven't a clue if I'm feeding them right or not with all the conflicting opinions.
Coats are healthy and they seem happy. Poo's are mostly solid which helps greatly in picking them up.
But I'm still unsure if I'm doing right or wrong. Jaysus I tell ye, ignorance is truly bliss. The more I research for the benefit of the pooches the more confused I become.

DBB

You're quite right mince pie, it is a minefield! We've been brainwashed by the dog food companies, and increasingly, we have "the other side" trying to brainwash us about raw (I'm guilty of that myself, have moderated my views somewhat!)
To my mind, the single most important thing an owner should do is to ditch cereals. Rice is ok for most dogs, but gluten-containing cereals are not. So, if you're feeding dry, feed a cereal-free/rice as the only cereal food.
Next is meat. The higher the meat content, the better. The higher the quality of the protein, the better.
Meat costs money, so meaty dry food is more expensive. So owners should go for the highest meat content they can afford.
Just feeding dry food day in, day out doesn't sit well with me. So, if I was feeding dry (I'm not), I'd aim to have a couple of days in the week when I fed meat or fish with a bit of veg and some spuds, and no kibble. The meat doesn't have to be raw, I think that cooked fresh food trumps dry any day.
I'd also be inclined to feed a meaty, size-appropriate raw bone once or twice a week too.
Am I basing this on science? To an extent, yes, I've used what's available (though there's not enough independent research on either side), but otherwise, I'm kinda going along with what feels right! My own dogs get fresh chicken stew, supplemented with high quality tinned meat (Rocco, Lukullus), a meaty raw bone every couple of days, fish (tinned), and for snacks, dried meat chews and raw carrots!

The Bishop Basher

DBB wrote: »

Beware the confirmation bias folks. It's very easy to say "it weren't like that in my day", or to base your assessment of dog foods on one single example out of millions of dogs. But it's not right. Personal experience does not come close to permitting us to conclude anything meaningful about.... Anything!
In fact, the stats show that there has been little change in the incidence of various health problems in dogs that people anecdotally think there has been.
One thing is pretty certain...as a population, dogs fed crap food are more likely to develop health problems. Simple as. In the big scheme of things, it matters not one whit that random dogs do not suffer food-related health problems despite being fed rubbish all their lives... When viewed as a population, which allows for individual variations, crap food harms dogs, just as it harms us.

DBB - I agree on the confirmation bias and we need to be aware of that but i don't think we can simply dismiss the significant anecdotal evidence out of hand either.

I had a lot more then 1 dog growing up. We bred cockers and in many cases we stayed in touch with the new families. We had a couple of show dogs (which makes me cringe now) and we were heavily immersed in the doggie scene at the time. Couple that with the numerous friends and family that have and had pet dogs over the years. In my experience of all this, today's dogs are no healthier than they were back then, despite an "improved" diet.

I appreciate that this isn't scientifically based evidence but we all base certain opinions on personal experience and it shouldn't be completley dismissed.

You state a number of facts above. I'm searching online for the studies that confirm and backup these assertions. Do you know the name of the study so I can narrow my search ?

Edit to add...

I completley agree with you above. I could never feed a dog only dry food. It just doesn't feel right. I mix "Real Nature" wet food with Hills Dry food and supplement that with sardines, eggs, raw scraps, cooked scraps etc.

Mince Pie - At the end of the day we can only do what we feel is right for our pooches and they're all different. If what your doing is working, then stop feeling guilty and get busy enjoying your mutt :-)

Mince Pie

Oh I very very rarely feed the dogs just dry and that is only when I'm caught off guard just before payday and literally don't have anything else but even then I would at least throw a wee bit of olive oil on it.
I give them raw quite a bit, I usually cut the sinews off chicken etc before cooking it so they get that and I'm a bugger for doing extra sausages etc just so they get them. Oh and I always do extra roast potatoes so the dogs get some as well.

When you say cereal (sorry but getting some clarity here on the food for peace of mind) do you include porridge oats in that? Cos I'm sure I read somewhere that its good for them?
The dry food has meat content in it and have always mixed with tinned and as said previously they get a tin of oily sardines once a week cos they love it and its good for the coats.
Oh and cheese, they love the cheese. They only get a couple of nuggets once a week.

DBB

Swanner wrote: »

I appreciate that this isn't scientifically based evidence but we all base certain opinions on personal experience and it shouldn't be completley dismissed.

So, what if I counter what you've said here, and tell you that despite me being immersed in dogs too, I know hundreds of dogs that have died just a bit too young, all dry fed, all died with either liver problems, kidney problems, or cancer.
My anecdotal evidence contradicts yours.
And that's why, until somebody gathers the anecdotal evidence from thousands of random dog owners, and applies mathematical models to them, I'm afraid I'll be dismissing any individual's anecdotal evidence as just that.... One person's out of millions' experience.

You state a number of facts above. I'm searching online for the studies that confirm and backup these assertions. Do you know the name of the study so I can narrow my search ?

Can you clarify what facts you mean, please? I don't want to go looking for the wrong info!

DBB

@Mince Pie, oats contain gluten. Not as much as wheat, and they're more benign, but I personally would not feed any of the cereals to my dogs. Except a small bit of rice, and even then that's rare.

Mince Pie

DBB wrote: »

@Mince Pie, oats contain gluten. Not as much as wheat, and they're more benign, but I personally would not feed any of the cereals to my dogs. Except a small bit of rice, and even then that's rare.

Grand so, I don't feed them oats or cereal but was considering picking up some oats to mix in with the rest of their food. Won't bother now.
Only rice they get is once again, left overs. OMG just realised pasta would be included in that as well.
Ah its a good job I'm more of a spud nut so they don't get much of the above.

The Bishop Basher

DBB wrote: »

It's very easy to say "it weren't like that in my day", or to base your assessment of dog foods on one single example out of millions of dogs. But it's not right.

DBB wrote: »

In fact, the stats show that there has been little change in the incidence of various health problems in dogs that people anecdotally think there has been.

DBB wrote: »

One thing is pretty certain...as a population, dogs fed crap food are more likely to develop health problems. Simple as.

DBB wrote: »

When viewed as a population, which allows for individual variations, crap food harms dogs, just as it harms us.

These are all written as statements of fact.

I'm not having a go, i'm genuinely interested in this topic and would like to read up on some of the studies but I can't seem to find any. I also have a keen interest in thoroughbred horses and it's interesting to see the considerable variance in opinion as to what they should be fed. In most cases they are also fed on commercially processed foods and the jury is out as to whether they benefit or not. Obviously given the sums of money involved in top end horse racing, this area has been a researched a little more thoroughly yet even they don't seem to agree.

DBB

Swanner wrote: »

These are all written as statements of fact.

I'm not having a go, i'm genuinely interested in this topic and would like to read up on some of the studies but I can't seem to find any. I also have a keen interest in thoroughbred horses and it's interesting to see the considerable variance in opinion as to what they should be fed. In most cases they are also fed on commercially processed foods and the jury is out as to whether they benefit or not. Obviously given the sums of money involved in top end horse racing, this area has been a researched a little more thoroughly yet even they don't seem to agree.

The top one is a statement which says that's it's wrong to base facts on things we used to think were different, just because we, as individuals, think it, rather than it having been proved. I can only assume you don't need a link to demonstrate this?
The rest of them, I'll get back to you on. I'm on my phone and too much else going on here just at the minute.

The Bishop Basher

DBB wrote: »

The top one is a statement which says that's it's wrong to base facts on things we used to think were different, just because we, as individuals, think it, rather than it having been proved. I can only assume you don't need a link to demonstrate this?

Faie enough. I misundertood it.

DBB wrote: »

The rest of them, I'll get back to you on. I'm on my phone and too much else going on here just at the minute.

Thanks.

DBB

Okay, a very cursory glance through some of the research available, and I am limiting the stuff I’m citing here to stuff I happen to be reading up on at the moment anyway, I just haven’t time right now to do anything near an exhaustive search.. apologies, but real life and all that:o.
I’m going mad here because I cannot find the paper where it was asserted that health problems generally have not increased or decreased hugely over time… If I remember correctly the author’s argument was that some health problems may seem more common, but he puts it down to greater awareness… If I find it, I’ll post it, but it’s a year or so since I read it. Damn!

Anyway, at the moment I happen to be looking at thyroid function, and came across a fair bit of stuff about the interactions of diet on thyroid function, and indeed a number of other dietary interactions with health. In each case, I’m quoting research which tests various commercial dog foods.
Jean Dodds, mentioned here on this forum before, is probably the world’s leading expert on canine thyroid disorders. She doesn’t put a figure on it, I presume because she can’t, but considers that thyroid disorders have become “epidemic” in the dog population: this is linked to the huge growth in breeding/line-breeding/inbreeding over the decades, and also the fact that thyroid disorders tend to be substantially underdiagnosed, and it’s only now with increasing awareness that we’re becoming more tuned in to thyroid problems.
She lists an impressive list of breeds that are susceptible to one of the thyroid disorders (hypothyroidism), including common breeds such as English Setters, Labradors, Dobermann, Boxers, Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Irish setters, Staffies, Shetland Sheepdogs, Beagles, Maltese, and a number of other less common breeds (e.g. Old English Sheepdog, Leonberger, Rhodesian Ridgebacks). The most susceptible is the English Setter, a staggering 43% of them develop the condition.
Moving on to what this all has to do with diet! Well, there is a pretty strong link between ingredients in commercial foods, and the above-mentioned thyroid problems. They are included in the references below, as are a few other health problems linked to diet:

Soy, and soy-derived products, is in many a dry dog food (including Hill’s). Soy contains thyroid-disrupting isoflavones and phytoestrogens, which are known to cause various health problems in many species.

Isoflavones in commercial cat diets:
“The isoflavone content of commercially-available feline diets in New Zealand”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00480169.2006.36620#.Uukh5Pl_uD8

And dog diets:
“Effects of dietary soy isoflavones on health, steroidogenesis, and thyroid gland function in dogs”
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/ajvr.70.3.353

Phytoestrogen concentration in soy found in dog foods is high enough “to have biological effects [good and bad] when eaten long-term”, including on thyroid function, immunity, fertility, skin and coat length and quality:

“Identification and concentration of soy phytoestrogens in commercial dog foods”
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.592

Increased cancer risk in male dogs ingesting dietary phytoestrogens:
“Identification of phytoestrogens in the urine of male dogs”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022473188903433

Whilst soy introduces protein to the diet, the effects of it have to be countered by the introduction of iodine (via kelp) to diets containing soy. The levels of iodine in commercial pet foods today is three times the stated minimum requirement… such high levels of iodine themselves cause thyroid problems.
“Nutrition: Commercial diet induced hypothyroidism due to high iodine. A histological and radiological analysis”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01652176.2001.9695117


Moving away from thyroid-related problems:
8% of dogs presented for dermatology problems were found to be allergic to food containing the ingredients commonly found in cheaper dry dog foods:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2002.tb00058.x/abstract

The top 6 food allergens are wheat, corn, soy, milk, eggs, and beef
Source:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8755979

and also in Jean Dodds’ very good book “The Canine Thyroid Epidemic. Answers You Need for Your Dog”… lots of info about dietary intolerance associated with gluten.

Finally, for now at least, how starch levels in commercial diets can cause long-term effects on glucose, insulin, and diabetes.
“The effect of dietary starch level on postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations in cats and dogs.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22005401

Mo60

Anyone watch this program?

knarkypants

Yeah I did, now I didn't get to see all of but I did see most of it. I didn't find it as good as I had hoped. While it was interesting to learn about the names of some of the ingredients in dog food and what they actually mean there was very little in the way of actual research and facts.

I found it to be mostly "ambassadors" spouting on about how great their own dog food is. They all had their own agendas rather than having someone on who had nothing to gain but better inform people about what is best to feed your dog.

Disappointing really.

Zapperzy

Thought it was very interesting but very vague too. No real facts or studies to back anything up. I'd say a lot of people switched off and discounted it all as typical animal crackpots when the vegan people came on, I don't mind them having their own beliefs but to impose them on their carnivore dogs!

Very vague about the raw diet too, they could've explained a bit better what it involves, you'd pick up from that feeding any bit of meat with a bit of veg every day is ok. Hoping anyone who is interested in it after seeing this programme researches it well before changing their dog's diet.

Karl Stein

The average lifespan of a wild Wolf is 6 to 8 years.

The average lifespan of a Siberian Husky 12 to 15 years.

Context.

Mo60

I did watch it and did not learn anything new. It reminded me of the usual human diet programs where people all have different views on which diet should be followed.

Pretzill

For me nutrition for dogs has been a learning curve over 30 years a dog owner - my first dog born circa 1980 was fed at his dinner cheapo tinned food - this was largely supplemented by our leftovers - spuds,veg and gravy and fresh butchers bones (which he took a bad skin reaction to, but we only discovered after many trips to vet and cutting out raw bones that a neighbour was feeding him through the hedge!) he passed at 13 an energetic German shep crosd a few weeks before the end of kidney failure.

My dogs since of four 3 still here - my second lovely girl passed at 14 from liver failure she was a bcx - for most of her life ate tinned or dry food and mixed with leftovers - she loved chicken - she became weighty though at about 8 and we had to look at her diet and restrict her treats - she lived longer than my 1st dog but did suffer more health problems later in life.

Her brother is still with us at 15 - his diet was obviously similiar although he has been prone to arthritis and as well as feeding him now almost always a good quality recconmended dry food he gets a lot of oil supplements and meds to help him.

Age 3 bc doing extremely well on burns and some extras as is our youngest pup although i think burns makes them appear a wee bit skinny.

Truth is, it's a minefield - but like us humans a balanced diet should work for dogs - balanced for dogs that is - too much of one thing eg just protein isn't good and for all those of you worried about the average dogs capability to digest certain foods - dogs aren't wolves they have been domestcated for generations and as such, like ourselves, their ability to take on certain foods like carbs for instance comes from their domesticated forefathers - it's not all bad really they love junk as much as we do!

fatmammycat

I feed my dog raw food and only raw food, but it's early days (he's not quite 2) so I can't say if or not this is the be all and end all of diets; anecdotally he's lean, energetic, has no digestive problems and no allergies. I don't feed him any vegetables at all and any time he has eaten them they appear to come out the other side pretty much undigested so I don't see the point.

My father bred working collies (cattle dogs) when I was growing up and none of them ate dry food, and my abiding memory is that they were lean, fit, long-lived creatures (unless from accidental death). My mother's labrador, on the other hand, had a terrible diet, Pal, Chum, toast, cake, cornflakes with warm milk (!) dear god you name it, he ate it, and he had a barrage of healthy problems, being obese for most of his life being the main one. He died quite young from cancer. I know a number of dogs, however, who lived long lives on rubbish diets, but I can't speak to the quality of their health.

It may be that as my dog ages certain issues occur, and if they do I will make note of them and also share them. But for now, I am going to avoid cereal based dried food and keep feeding him as close to a natural diet as possible.

borderlinemeath

Charles Rocher wrote: »

The average lifespan of a wild Wolf is 6 to 8 years.

The average lifespan of a Siberian Husky 12 to 15 years.

Context.

Wolves live in the wild, they have to survive an inclement climate, a lack of food, their natural habitat being destroyed by humans, and the threat of being killed by humans. Also note 'average' age. Some can die younger and some can live a much longer life, some have been observed as old as 13 in the wild. In captivity they can live until 17.

Your average pet siberian husky is kept in a live of absolute luxury compared to the wolf. A constant bed, daily supply of food (wolves may have to go for days without eating), regular health checks, defleaing, worming and exercised accordingly. No worrying about where his next meal is coming from, whether he has to trek hundreds of km to get it, no danger of being shot by hunters, or getting involved in altercations with other huskies for access to a mate.

Context indeed.

Bullseye1

Interesting read from Pete Wedderburn in response to the program.
http://www.vethelpdirect.com/vetblog/2014/01/30/the-truth-about-your-dogs-food-or-sensationalist-entertainment-dressed-up-as-the-truth/

Karl Stein

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Wolves live in the wild, they have to survive an inclement climate, a lack of food, their natural habitat being destroyed by humans, and the threat of being killed by humans. Also note 'average' age. Some can die younger and some can live a much longer life, some have been observed as old as 13 in the wild. In captivity they can live until 17.

Your average pet siberian husky is kept in a live of absolute luxury compared to the wolf. A constant bed, daily supply of food (wolves may have to go for days without eating), regular health checks, defleaing, worming and exercised accordingly. No worrying about where his next meal is coming from, whether he has to trek hundreds of km to get it, no danger of being shot by hunters, or getting involved in altercations with other huskies for access to a mate.

Context indeed.

That's exactly my point.

We've significantly extended the average life span of domesticated pets because of how we care for them which puts the 'how pet food is killing your dog' headline in a wider context.

borderlinemeath

Charles Rocher wrote: »

That's exactly my point.

We've significantly extended the average life span of domesticated pets because of how we care for them which puts the 'how pet food is killing your dog' headline in a wider context.

Humans can also significantly extend the lifespan of wolves in a captive environment. They don't feed them processed commercial dog food though.

ferretone

DBB wrote: »

Beware the confirmation bias folks. It's very easy to say "it weren't like that in my day", or to base your assessment of dog foods on one single example out of millions of dogs. But it's not right. Personal experience does not come close to permitting us to conclude anything meaningful about.... Anything!

Didn't see the show myself, I'm a raw feeder, but was too busy providing a birthday/retirement meal for my fellow-raw-feeder neighbour.

Anyway, just in light of what's been posted after the show, just thought it is pertinent to bump up this very important point of DBB's, as it does look as tho it's been forgotten :rolleyes:

The Bishop Basher

Thanks DBB for going to the trouble of looking all that up and posting it.

Apologies for the delay in coming back but i've been laid up all weekend :-(

Anyway,

To be fair, while the links you posted certainly indicate an issue with allergens in some of the processed foods, there's nothing really to back up a lot of the assumptions made on here with regard to a direct link between feeding trends and declining / improving health in our pets.

Many of us, including myself, would have a gut feeling that an all dry food diet can't be that beneficial but we really have no scientific evidence to conclude one way or the other.

Same goes for those who so enthusiastically push the raw food agenda.

It's quite amazing, given the amount of money we spend on this that a more comprehensive scientific study has not been completed. That said though, it would be difficult to nail down an overall result given the differential between breeds.

I still firmly believe that the biggest negative impact on canine health is directly attributable to humans and our approaches to breeding, not just over breeding but inter breeding, but that's a whole different thread.

borderlinemeath

Swanner wrote: »

Thanks DBB for going to the trouble of looking all that up and posting it.

Apologies for the delay in coming back but i've been laid up all weekend :-(

Anyway,

To be fair, while the links you posted certainly indicate an issue with allergens in some of the processed foods, there's nothing really to back up a lot of the assumptions made on here with regard to a direct link between feeding trends and declining / improving health in our pets.

Many of us, including myself, would have a gut feeling that an all dry food diet can't be that beneficial but we really have no scientific evidence to conclude one way or the other.

Same goes for those who so enthusiastically push the raw food agenda.

It's quite amazing, given the amount of money we spend on this that a more comprehensive scientific study has not been completed. That said though, it would be difficult to nail down an overall result given the differential between breeds.

I still firmly believe that the biggest negative impact on canine health is directly attributable to humans and our approaches to breeding, not just over breeding but inter breeding, but that's a whole different thread.

Apart from a few very small independent fresh food companies who would benefit from such a study? Butchers? There have been plenty of studies done on feeding but all of them by the dry food companies and of course the results favour feeding dry. It's in their best interests. They may agree that there's a benefit to feeding fresh, unprocessed food, but will quickly put the frighteners on with the 'dangers' to human and canine health through handling raw meat, and the chance of contracting it through their faeces. Yet I handle raw meat when I'm cooking it for myself anyway, and I've yet to find anybody who willingly picks up dog poo in their bare hands, nor washes them.

Sure even the plum voiced owner of Lilys Kitchen in that programme had been sold that line, she was convinced that if she fed raw meat that the salmonella would come through in her dogs coat. (if by chance a bit of contaminated faeces got stuck and was left there:rolleyes:). And I'm sure she was fed all that scaremongering by the vets who have been 'advised' of the dangers by the dry food companies. It also makes her product look safer, so it's easier to believe in

Mo60

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Interesting read from Pete Wedderburn in response to the program.
http://www.vethelpdirect.com/vetblog/2014/01/30/the-truth-about-your-dogs-food-or-sensationalist-entertainment-dressed-up-as-the-truth/

I also found this very interesting. He gave a varied and, apparently,unbiased view on all aspects of feeding, and did not appear to have any special agenda.

DBB

Swanner wrote: »

To be fair, while the links you posted certainly indicate an issue with allergens in some of the processed foods, there's nothing really to back up a lot of the assumptions made on here with regard to a direct link between feeding trends and declining / improving health in our pets.

Many of us, including myself, would have a gut feeling that an all dry food diet can't be that beneficial but we really have no scientific evidence to conclude one way or the other.

I wasn't able to post some stuff the other day, it's not available (not even abstracts!) from some of the journals without paying for it, so no point in linking. On the off-chance you have access to the journals via university or somesuch, one of them that caught my eye is called "Nutrient-gene interactions and their role in complex diseases in dogs" by Swanson, it's in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association:)

If you can't get access, the gist of it is cited by the utterly fantastic Gary Landsberg (vet and behavioural scientist with too many letters after his name to list here ) et al, in their bible of veterinary behaviour, "Behavior Problems of the Dog and Cat (3rd ed)":

"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in phenotype or gene expression due to mechanisms other than DNA mutations. Diet is one of the more impactful nongenome catalysts in this regard, and the interaction of nutrients with genetic and epigenetic traits is sometimes referred to as nutritional genomics, or nutrigenomics. In this way, nutrients may affect the expression of a certain genetic trait, make a pet more or less susceptible to disease process, and have a variety of other positive or negative effects. This will become progressively more important in veterinary medicine, as researchers find links between genetic profiles and disease, the impact of diet on epigenetic inheritance, and the effects of diet on gene transcription and translation rates"

I think we're going to have our eyes opened one way or t'other in the years to come