Husky too thin?

ISDW wrote: »

We were discussing greyhound food, for working dogs. Tracker is for resting dogs, so therefore the protein level is lower. I'm guessing most rottie owners in this country don't work their dogs.

I won't carry on with this discussion with you as I find your posts really patronising, you are obviously the expert and everybody else knows nothing, which is also why I didn't reply to your pm.

I'm very sorry if you find me patronising ISDW, I always try to moderate my tone. Unfortunately the only people to feel patronised so far have been yourself and vets, hopefully others find the information useful.

I really feel this is a problem unique to the doggy realm. Dog breeders, trainers, vets, all of us, can't seem to be told anything. It's a major problem and one of the reasons why dog food is the way it is. I remember I was running a stand for guide dogs once when a famous lab breeder came up us (an organisation who has been training dogs 9-5, for the last 60 years) and told us that we were damn fools for using dogs as well as bitches "when everyone knows the dogs are only good for one thing". We couldn't argue as she was not going to listen so my boss thanked her. I wouldn't have and would of argued the point. I am not sure who would be more right.

You are feeling patronised because as you pointed out, I am very knowledgable in this profession, I lecture on the matter and there are relatively few better poised to do so. The difference between your argument and mine is that mine is based on facts and figures. Without this stuff you feel threatened. I don't understand that mentality. I mean if I'm wiring my house with a remedial training in electricity and an electrician comes along and tells me I'm doing it wrong, I'd appreciate the professional direction. A lot of doggy professionals would just tell that electrician to hop it!

The best dog trainers learn every day. The worst ones know it all and won't budge. We saw it with the use of treats, clicker, a good relationship instead of a good slap, whatever. All adamantly opposed for so long. And to this day. I'm not sure that would happen in any other profession.

I love the new info this forum provides and previous posts reveal this where people have great ideas and new facts. But

Sorry again ISDW. Ironically I might've sounded less patronising to you if I was a vet who, without further personal and extensive research, would be far less capable of arguing the point, than I am.

If you have a look at my conversations with Wibbs who obviously knows his stuff, from the offset we to'd and fro'd from but it never got patronising or offensive, we were just bouncing ideas off eachother and arguing points. I made and conceded points, as did he. I don't think at any point Wibbs was threatened, just eager.

But thanks for your comments, I will take more time in addressing the tone of my emails in future. However I will continue to correct your quotes where they are wrong as too many people will be affected. I honestly only mean it in the spirit the forum was created.

So.........

ISDW wrote: »

Tracker is for resting dogs, so therefore the protein level is lower.

Lowering the protein content of the food for a resting dog is incorrect. Assuming you are trying to provide a lower energy food for the resting dog, you are lowering the one ingredient that is not stored by the body, which is protein, and in turn are increasing the carbohydrate and / or fat content, which are both stored as fat.

Take human athletes as the obvious example here. Before the big race they eat high carb meals for that required energy boost. Afterwards, like race car drivers, jockeys, models, weight lifters, anyone that watches their weight, they focus on protein. Protein builds muscle, maintains the body, but doesn't affect the bodies fat.

It may be that you are increasing indigestible bulking fibre (which is itself a carbohydrate) and this will give you the lower energy food you are looking for. However fibre is not only completely unnecessary in the dogs diet, it bulks up and waters down the dogs faeces. Food is encouraged to shoot through the dogs already rapid system, so the dog gets even less from his diet. Without adequate protein and now malabsorbtion from the fibre (and likely gluten laden meal) the dog's body will canabalise it's own protein from it's muscles and organs to maintain itself, resulting in muscle wastage.

Greyhound breeders who work so hard at putting lean muscle mass on their dogs need to maintain these dogs on high quality protein diets while at rest, maintaining lean muscle mass, and put the carbs / fat in pre race, like humans, and very other animal model out there.

Bar some rare examples of serious illness, there is never a need to maintain a dog on a low protein diet unless that need is cost and convenience.


Sorry ISDW, I will try to avoid you in the future.

I obviously agree whole heartedly to this.

Lets get married.

I'm looking at my previous posts, I think they're a bit long. I need to work on my wordiness. This forum is slightly different to the more specialised dog forums where long, supported arguments / answers are considered beneficial / necessary.

Sorry if taking attention off point....