register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Radar Ears
Dogsey Senior
Radar Ears is offline  
Location: Essex
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 506
Female 
 
29-06-2006, 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by lizziel
We freeze all our raw food and take it out the day before to defrost so there is only ever two dog meals in the fridge at a go.
As all the meat we feed is fit for human consumption it is no different to any other meat we have in the fridge.
I don't really like handling raw meat - its the smell, yuk - but well worth the effort as it has made a great difference to our dog since he started on the raw diet.
Hi Lizziel

What sort of difference has it made ?

(If you don't mind me asking)

Regards

Radar
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
29-06-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by Tan
But surely the domestic dog has evolved from its wild ancestor?
I guess for thousands of years they've been sharing mankind's food and not hunting.
I agree entirely Tan. Right from the early days of domestication the village dogs would have scavenged on waste which would have included a large proportion of cooked cereal and little raw meat.

Specific breeds have also developed on cereal rich diets, the Collies in particular where meat was at a premium. Cereal, oats for the Scottish breeds formed a large part of the diet. Dogs that couldn't cope with this diet simply wouldn't survive so the breeds naturally evolved a digestion to suit their environment.

My own breed the Finnish Lapphund is said to have developed on a diet of mainly cooked stew made from reindeer blood and rye cereal. I have noticed with them that if the cereal proportion in the diet is reduced too far, the coat quality suffers and from reading forums etc on this subject, this often seems to be noticed on a BARF diet in various breeds.

I have no doubt that a diet containing a proportion of raw meat and bones is beneficial for most dogs but what the BARF regime doesn't seem to embrace is the vast diversity that has developed within the species, which does include breeds that would probably do well on a diet totally devoid of cereal and here the Arctic landraces spring to mind, where cereals would not have been available at all.
Reply With Quote
ShaynLola
Almost a Veteran
ShaynLola is offline  
Location: N. Ireland
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,119
Female 
 
29-06-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by Tan
But surely the domestic dog has evolved from its wild ancestor?
I guess for thousands of years they've been sharing mankind's food and not hunting.

To quote from an article I found ' There are practical reasons why the diet of the wild dog is not automatically suitable for the domestic dog. The modern dog and its lifestyle bear no similarity whatever to the wild dog. We provide shelter in heated houses, they do not have to forage or compete for food, they eat every day, and they have little exercise compared to a wild dog.

Many dogs have dietary sensitivity which means that they need a highly digestible diet, low in protein and low in fat. I can’t see how that could be achieved with a BARF diet.

Modern farm livestock is reared in such a way that the fat content, even in “lean” meat is very high. So a diet high in meat will inevitably be high in fat too.'

According to Dr Billinghurst dogs cannot digest carbohydrate. In reality, the dog has very sophisticated, sensitive and efficient mechanisms for breaking down carbohydrate and ensuring its absorption. This could not have evolved if carbohydrate was detrimental.'


It doesn't affect me as raw feeding doesn't suit my lifestyle, but I guess it's not a black & white issue.
(by the way, the article was at http://www.burns-pet-nutrition.co.uk..._Food_Diet.htm)

I see a lot of healthy looking dogs around who have done well on a whole range of feeding systems - maybe we're guilty of imposing our own prejudices onto them (Gosh, that's a bit deep this time in the morning )

Time to go to work I reckon
Interesting that it's taken from the website of a commercial food manufacturer Which is why it's important to read a wide variety of material and draw your own conclusions. I'm sure you are smarter than to simply accept the word of someone who is trying to sell you something as gospel

Like I said before I have nothing against commercial diets for dogs (well, certainly the better quality ones anyway). I have fed Burns in the past and would do so again.

I have two very fit, happy, healthy dogs and that's proof enough to me that their diet suits them
Reply With Quote
lizziel
Almost a Veteran
lizziel is offline  
Location: kent
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,008
Female 
 
29-06-2006, 09:54 PM
Hi Radar Ears

From being an indifferent feeder when on kibble - we had to add some tinned dog food to it for him to be interested - he is now an enthusiastic eater.

His coat is really shiny and he no longer sheds his coat in great fluff balls ( he is a Golden Retriever).

There is so much less poo to clear up and he only goes twice a day now after each feed whereas before it could be 4 or 5 times a day.

It does take a bit of thinking ahead when you first start and i was quite panicky as to whether he was getting the right amount of everything as he is still quite young - around 6 months at the time. We also don't have much freezer room.

However I am now beginning to chill out a bit and don't worry quite so much if I am getting it right because his condition tells me I can't be too far out.

I did start by feeding him the same weight in raw as i did in kibble but have now cut him back to around 900g a day split into 2 feeds and he seems to be about right on this.

I am no expert on the subject but am here if you need a bot of moral support when starting to feed raw as it can seem quite scary to begin with

Lizziel
Reply With Quote
jess
Dogsey Veteran
jess is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,578
Female 
 
30-06-2006, 09:14 AM
I guess that's my point too, as lizzel said (sorry if i got your name wrong)

I have been feeding raw for a few years now, and i remember it being scary at first. It's new and not many people were doing it that i knew of, and the very fact that my vet(s) were so against it of course made me worried. But even more worrying is what I was reading and finding out about commercial food manufactureres.

Now I think it's silly, and don't think twice about throwing them a bone, or not having time to make up veg (this morning). Sometimes I go without a 'complete and balanced' day, and it annoyes me slightly that these companies are selling based on 'this is the food you only ever need to feed your dog for ever'.

The fact is I speak to every dog owner i can, and for over three years have now got the knowledge base to back up my feelings on the subject. As someone very wisely posted, it's not a black and white issue. And the longer I go on, the more strongly i feel that dogs are neither suited to JUST commercial food, OR just raw meaty bones. They are neither robots that need carboard or blood thirsty hunters that need meat meat meat. They have evolved, as have we, but we cannot ever compare them to ourselves.
For a start their teeth are different (a clue ) as if they weren't needed evolution would gotten rid of them, and then their is the insides. The intestines of a carnivore is shorter than that of a herby, or omnivore. They can cope with much more bactiera than we, and even have salmonella in their gut, doing harmless things, which in a human gut could kill us. This is why it is so important to not feed a cheap grain based food. A predominantly grain based product simply sits in the intestine, taking a long time to digest, in reality it shoudl be passed and absorbed quicker. Much of the cheap grains used in pet foods are not even absorbable by the dog, therefore invite parasites like worms to feast on the decaying material which is not moving (sorry, not nice i know).
Feeding a good mix of 'real' foods (or live foods) either cooked or raw, helps the body get it through the system and absorb more 'good' stuff. We see a difference in poos, there are less, because more food is absorbed, meaning less is sitting in the gut for a long time (leading to bowel problems over long periods of time).
Also because of the nature of food, and the fact it goes off over time, pet food companies have to add preservatives and additives, which are not natural, and it is not known exactly what damage it done long term. Aside from that the effects short term are obvious when reducing or taken the dog off the commericial or processed foods. The 'doggie' smell from the coat tends to disapear, poos smell good (trust me i am not crazy!) and almost all people report that there dog appears shiny and more healthy looking.
To be honest you can see it for yourself, and I guess that is why I am so adamant about advocating it. The results appear before your eyes, and it just simply, makes good sense. To feed your children on pot noodle for the rest of it's life, yeah it would probably live, and seem healthy, but to then switch to real fresh foods, you would see them glow...
I am sorry if i seemed harsh before, there is no malice in me towards dog owners, it is the system that is to blame for brainwashing us all into believeing that we shoudl do as we are told.
best wishes, Jesse.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top