# Soak Kibble Before Feeding or Not?



## Katp (Jun 28, 2014)

If you feed your dog dry food, do you soak it in water before feeding, or simply feed it dry?

Also what are your opinions on soaking vs feeding it dry?


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

I prefer to soak it as it ensures my dog is getting enough water, especially on hot days!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Katp said:


> If you feed your dog dry food, do you soak it in water before feeding, or simply feed it dry?
> 
> Also what are your opinions on soaking vs feeding it dry?


I think you should do what suits your dog.

I never soak kibble as the type of kibble I feed does not really expand in water.

Also if I wanted to feed my dog wet, soft food I would be feeding it straight from the can rather than kibble.

My dogs have no problem drinking sufficient water whatever the weather as of course eating the kibble makes them thirsty.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

I'm sure most people would feed wet food if they could afford it!

I don't know if its true for dogs but cats cannot regulate their water intake, hence being a good idea to soak their dry food! Dogs would normally get about 70% of their water intake from their food.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I only soaked dry food when mine were puppies or recovering from dental surgery.
Other than that they have access to fresh clean full water bowls so no problems with getting enough water


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

I don't soak it but i do put a bit of water with it. They just prefer it that way, they don't like it soaked and mushy and i cant say i blame them!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> I'm sure most people would feed wet food if they could afford it!
> 
> I don't know if its true for dogs but cats cannot regulate their water intake, hence being a good idea to soak their dry food! Dogs would normally get about 70% of their water intake from their food.


It can be just as cheap or just as expensive to feed wet food as dry. 

I have no idea about cats but dogs can regulate their water intake very well unless they are suffering from a medical condition which renders them unable to do this.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> It can be just as cheap or just as expensive to feed wet food as dry.
> 
> I have no idea about cats but dogs can regulate their water intake very well unless they are suffering from a medical condition which renders them unable to do this.


Dry food is obviously cheaper to feed than wet food 

Like i said a dog would normally get 70% of its water intake from its food, for this reason i would soak it. Drinking a massive amount of water after a meal isnt advisable either.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> It can be just as cheap or just as expensive to feed wet food as dry.
> 
> I have no idea about cats but dogs can regulate their water intake very well unless they are suffering from a medical condition which renders them unable to do this.


Totally agree that canned can be fed as cheaply as dry, and so jmuch better for them. Just have to shop around.

It is not advisable to add water to dry food to feed cats, and I wouldn't think it would be any different for dogs.

Dry food is covered in bacteria. When wet, the bacteria multiplies very quickly.

Who wants to eat bacteria soup?



GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Dry food is obviously cheaper to feed than wet food
> 
> Also like i said a dog would normally get 70% of its water intake from its food, for this reason i would soak it. Drinking a massive amount of water after a meal isnt advisable either.


Dogs will drink when they are thirsty, unlike cats who cannot drink enough. Why not incorporate at least some canned food into your dog's diet if you are worried he isn't getting enough moisture.

You CAN add water to the canned food. I wouldn't add water to dry. Gross.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Dry food is obviously cheaper to feed than wet food
> 
> Like i said a dog would normally get 70% of its water intake from its food, for this reason i would soak it. Drinking a massive amount of water after a meal isnt advisable either.


I am afraid it is anything BUT obvious to me, perhaps you have some examples to demonstrate? 

There is no "normal" for a dog as all dogs are fed different diets.

Nobody said that a dog should or would drink a massive amount of water after a meal either?


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Staying on the subject of KIBBLE (as opposed to the price of wet vs dry!), my dogs normally get their kibble dry but I've started wetting it slightly so their joint supplement "sticks" to it. 
I used to soak Breeze's as that's what she was used to and she was eating a brand that expanded hugely, but it's not something I feel is necessary anymore.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> I'm sure most people would feed wet food if they could afford it!
> 
> I don't know if its true for dogs but cats cannot regulate their water intake, hence being a good idea to soak their dry food! Dogs would normally get about 70% of their water intake from their food.


On the contrary it is not at all a good idea to soak dry cat food. It's a very bad idea in fact. And probably for the same reasons, you should not soak dry dog food. Bacteria soup. That dry stuff already takes an over long time to digest and move through an animal's stomach.

Increasing the bacteria load before they ingest it, and letting all that bacteria sit in the gut is just not a good idea. I imagine animals fed this way have big tummy aches after they eat. Of course they can't tell us so.

The best way to get moisture in to a dog's diet (or a cat's) is to feed a canned or raw diet.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Maisies kibble is pre-seaked - her breeder advised me to do this when I collected her (she was an adult not pup) as she can have problems with dry kibble

I've stuck to it (her tum can be awful) - I don't drench it so its certainly not a soggy soup! But just cover to soften the pieces

Its much easier on their digestion so if you have a dog with an iffy tum it can help

It also seems to fill her up quicker as the food is already swollen when she eats it


----------



## Our3Dogs (Jul 3, 2014)

I do not soak the kibble but I do add a little warm water . It makes the dry kibble a little easier for them to swallow ..


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Good grief dogs were designed to kill and consume live prey as well as scavenge, or has domestication made some dogs so weedy they are unable to manage to crunch up teeny weeny dry kibble or digest it?

My dogs and many thousands more manage to consume (shock, horror) whole pig trotters, sheeps heads etc.

Even toothless old dogs have jaws hard enough to deal with raw bones!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Good grief dogs were designed to kill and consume live prey as well as scavenge


Which is also the reason "bacteria soup" isn't really an issue for dogs. After all it's not as though you should be allowing a dog to "graze" food which means bacteria don't really have time to multiply.



smokeybear said:


> or has domestication made some dogs so weedy they are unable to manage to crunch up teeny weeny dry kibble or digest it?


Some breeds, potentially yes looking at the dentition 

When it comes down to it, it's an owner's personal choice. There's arguments for and against but it also depends on the kibble and the dog in question. Simple one would be some would refuse to eat a dry food unless soaked  One argument for leaving it dry is that the abrasive nature of kibble is better for the teeth than a soggy mess. It's been proven dry food is actually better for the teeth than wet or even "mixed" (which is the worst). That's not to say kibble = healthy teeth or mixed = bad teeth, it's just compative. It does allow the idea to be used for marketing, despite the fact "80% of dogs have tooth problems by the time they are 3 years old" and most dogs are fed kibble. Mouth hygiene for me is of primary importance simply as it's the "window" to the rest of the body.

It should also be remembered that a dog doesn't necessarily need to chew food, unlike humans where chewing starts the digestion process. With a dog, the main reason for chewing is to cut food so it's small enough to be swallowed.


----------



## VickynHolly (Jun 23, 2013)

Nope, never have. Ted the Shih Tzu gets normal size pieces of kibble as well, granted he only has about 8 pieces per meal. Holly and Ted are mostly fed a wet diet.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> I am afraid it is anything BUT obvious to me, perhaps you have some examples to demonstrate?
> 
> There is no "normal" for a dog as all dogs are fed different diets.
> 
> Nobody said that a dog should or would drink a massive amount of water after a meal either?


I'm sure you would tottle off to poundstretcher and buy the cheapest wet food you could find to proove your point. Then give yourself a little trophy for another little victory in prooving wet can be cheaper than dry! :smilewinkgrin:

If you ate a packet of jacobs crackers i'm sure you are going to be thirsty afterwards!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Are there not reports out that soak kibble can contribute to bloat? ( not sure if I think that is true or not... )


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> I'm sure you would tottle off to poundstretcher and buy the cheapest wet food you could find to proove your point. Then give yourself a little trophy for another little victory in prooving wet can be cheaper than dry! :smilewinkgrin:
> 
> If you ate a packet of jacobs crackers i'm sure you are going to be thirsty afterwards!


Really? How old are you?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> When it comes down to it, it's an owner's personal choice. There's arguments for and against but it also depends on the kibble and the dog in question. Simple one would be some would refuse to eat a dry food unless soaked  One argument for leaving it dry is that the abrasive nature of kibble is better for the teeth than a soggy mess. It's been proven dry food is actually better for the teeth than wet or even "mixed" (which is the worst). That's not to say kibble = healthy teeth or mixed = bad teeth, it's just compative. It does allow the idea to be used for marketing, despite the fact "80% of dogs have tooth problems by the time they are 3 years old" and most dogs are fed kibble. Mouth hygiene for me is of primary importance simply as it's the "window" to the rest of the body.
> 
> It should also be remembered that a dog doesn't necessarily need to chew food, unlike humans where chewing starts the digestion process. With a dog, the main reason for chewing is to cut food so it's small enough to be swallowed.


I totally agree it is an owners choice.

And it is nobody else's business how they choose to feed.

It is the REASONING behind those choices I have issues with!

Ie easier to digest or make it easier to eat!

Dogs do not chew in any case as of course they do not have flat molars or jaws which move side to side.

They crunch, gnaw, shear, slice, etc but they do not chew.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> I'm sure you would tottle off to poundstretcher and buy the cheapest wet food you could find to proove your point. Then give yourself a little trophy for another little victory in prooving wet can be cheaper than dry! :smilewinkgrin:
> 
> If you ate a packet of jacobs crackers i'm sure you are going to be thirsty afterwards!


Good heavens, what is this "poundstretcher" of which you speak?

Are these similar to (_shudder_) Aldi or Lidl about which I have read (_whilst I was sipping my free coffee and reading my free newspaper in Waitrose_).

I rarely get thirsty after consuming Jacobs Cream Crackers accompanied by a lovely slab of mature cheddar, fresh tomatoes and of course a glass of cider.

ROFLMAO


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Good heavens, what is this "poundstretcher" of which you speak?
> 
> Are these similar to (_shudder_) Aldi or Lidl about which I have read (_whilst I was sipping my free coffee and reading my free newspaper in Waitrose_).
> 
> ...


Do you know it annoys me we have no Waitrose in Northern Ireland.......

Sulks.... :


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

I've been adding a small amount of very low sodium stock to my dogs kibble recently to help Bryn get used to eating it. At the shelter he was fed whatever was available or donated so never got used to eating any one kind of food I think. Sometimes he'll eat it without, and I would just leave it down for him to eat when he felt like if it weren't for Roxy being sneaky. She'd eat all of hers and his at once if given the opportunity. So I'm trying to get him used to eating at the same time as her. 
The kibble doesn't really expand with water and never has enough time to get really soaked given it's eaten in a few minutes! Definitely not long enough for "bacteria soup" to occur. Before bacteria start to divide they grow in mass with no cell division, this is the lag phase. Time varies between bacterial species, but if you add water and your dog eats its food straight away, it's unlikely you'd reach exponential growth and definitely not of all bacteria. 

Eventually I'll phase out the stock and see how he does on the kibble alone.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Im sure you wouldn't smokeybear. Cider is 95% water


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Which is also the reason "bacteria soup" isn't really an issue for dogs. After all it's not as though you should be allowing a dog to "graze" food which means bacteria don't really have time to multiply.


I've explained why this isn't so. Kibble sits in the gut fermenting much longer than raw food does. The bacteria has plenty of time to multiply.



> Some breeds, potentially yes looking at the dentition
> 
> When it comes down to it, it's an owner's personal choice. There's arguments for and against but it also depends on the kibble and the dog in question. Simple one would be some would refuse to eat a dry food unless soaked  One argument for leaving it dry is that the abrasive nature of kibble is better for the teeth than a soggy mess. *It's been proven dry food is actually better for the teeth than wet or even "mixed*" (which is the worst). That's not to say kibble = healthy teeth or mixed = bad teeth, it's just compative. It does allow the idea to be used for marketing, despite the fact "80% of dogs have tooth problems by the time they are 3 years old" and most dogs are fed kibble. Mouth hygiene for me is of primary importance simply as it's the "window" to the rest of the body.
> 
> It should also be remembered that a dog doesn't necessarily need to chew food, unlike humans where chewing starts the digestion process. With a dog, the main reason for chewing is to cut food so it's small enough to be swallowed.


Indeed it has NOT been "proven" that kibble cleans teeth. Kibble does NOT clean teeth. This is a lie perpetuated by the pet food companies who want you to buy their cheap full of junk kibble.

Kibble is full of carbs which turn to sugar. Kibble crumbs (wet or dry) stick to teeth causing bacteria to form which leads plaque, tartar and gum disease.

Do you eat crackers to clean your teeth? The only diet that is good for dental health is a prey model raw diet.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Im sure you wouldn't smokeybear. Cider is 95% water


OMG IS IT?

I will never be able to drink it WITH meals again, let alone AFTER them.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

lorilu said:


> I've explained why this isn't so. Kibble sits in the gut fermenting much longer than raw food does. The bacteria has plenty of time to multiply.


Would you mind expanding on this a little further? It's only that I haven't heard this before and wonder where the information comes from.
Not all bacteria is bad, some can be very beneficial and it is usually those involved in fermentation processes that are beneficial to the host and help to exclude pathogens. Microbial fermentation you refer to produces metabolites beneficial for growth of gut microflora and epithelial cells. 
Dogs have excellent immunity in their GI tract starting from their saliva and also their low gastric pH is bactericidal and virucidal. Immune response to commensal bacteria is regulated but pathogens are efficiently eliminated. By the time the food reaches the intestine a lot of bacteria are eliminated, but even within the intestine there's plenty of lymphoid tissue to eliminate further invading organisms and other factors that do the same and neutralise toxins. 
So, following what I said in my previous post, not all bacteria will have enough time to reach the exponential phase of growth in kibble from the addition of water and those that have managed to multiply, if for example the food is left sitting for around half an hour, will not just be sitting in the gut at all but be eliminated by the dogs mucosal immune system and secretory defences.

In terms of gut transit time though, surely it depends on the type of fermentable fibre in the diet which varies between kibble brands?


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

lorilu said:


> I've explained why this isn't so. Kibble sits in the gut fermenting much longer than raw food does. The bacteria has plenty of time to multiply.


Ive heard this over and over - that raw digests faster than kibble, or kibble sits in the gut longer than raw, and honestly Im just not buying it. For one, how has this even been studied or proven? Wouldnt time in the gut be more of an individual dog thing than a food you ate thing?

But even if kibble does sit in the gut longer, I still dont think bacteria soup is an issue. I dont know about anyone elses dogs, but mine will eat dead disgustingness at any opportunity, rotting road kill, cat poo, and all sorts of other non-sanitary things. They dont ever seem any worse for the wear. Makes me think dogs can handle bacteria soup (if there is such a thing) pretty well.

I also sometimes (gasp, horror) feed mine raw AND kibble at the same time. Theyre still alive and quite well 

Sometimes I add water to their kibble, sometimes I dont. I never soak it though. Just add the water and put the bowl down. They dont seem to care either way.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> OMG IS IT?
> 
> I will never be able to drink it WITH meals again, let alone AFTER them.


Well you can but there is no risk of you getting bloat, unlike a dog!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Well you can but there is no risk of you getting bloat, unlike a dog!


I think you have a full house of incorrect observations and answers so far! L)

People very often get bloated.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

> I've heard this over and over - that raw digests faster than kibble, or kibble sits in the gut longer than raw, and honestly I'm just not buying it. For one, how has this even been studied or proven? Wouldn't time in the gut be more of an individual dog thing than a food you ate thing?


Think about it. An animal's digestion is designed by nature to efficiently digest moisture rich meat, bone, organs and all that goes with it. Instead the animal is fed dry nuggets of something consisting of grains, binders, often sugars, and who knows what-all. Moistening it will not change the content of it, or help with the digestion of it. Once it gets to the stomach, moistend or not, it's going to turn into a big ball of dough. That is going to sit there a long time while the body struggles with it.

You won't find studies. The people who have the money for studies are the pet food companies and they don't want you to feed your dog (or cat) appropriately. They want you to believe their lies and half truths and feed your animal junk.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Think about it. An animal's digestion is designed by nature to efficiently digest moisture rich meat, bone, organs and all that goes with it. Instead the animal is fed dry nuggets of something consisting of grains, binders, often sugars, and who knows what-all. Moistening it will not change the content of it, or help with the digestion of it. Once it gets to the stomach, moistend or not, it's going to turn into a big ball of dough. That is going to sit there a long time while the body struggles with it.
> 
> You won't find studies. The people who have the money for studies are the pet food companies and they don't want you to feed your dog (or cat) appropriately. They want you to believe their lies and half truths and feed your animal junk.


A) You dont know what the dry nuggets my dogs eat consist of, since you dont know what I feed, hence you dont know the ingredient list.
B) Dogs have evolved along side of man mostly scavenging, not eating choice cuts of meat. 
C) Give me the benefit of the doubt and dont assume Im just buying the pet food industry sales pitch, thanks.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lorilu said:


> Think about it. An animal's digestion is designed by nature to efficiently digest moisture rich meat, bone, organs and all that goes with it. Instead the animal is fed dry nuggets of something consisting of grains, binders, often sugars, and who knows what-all. Moistening it will not change the content of it, or help with the digestion of it. Once it gets to the stomach, moistend or not, it's going to turn into a big ball of dough. That is going to sit there a long time while the body struggles with it.
> 
> *You won't find studies*. The people who have the money for studies are the pet food companies and they don't want you to feed your dog (or cat) appropriately. They want you to believe their lies and half truths and feed your animal junk.


So if there are no scientifc studies then how come this is banded about as true? It's very odd that people will ignore the lack of reserach in some areas buit not others 

My dogs eat a variety of foods, none of which will digest at the same rate .... why would they?

My dogs have had a raw & kibble at some points & my puppy is currently fed this, none of them have ever had problems & until I see any proper evidence then I will continue to carry on & not get sucked in to these internet myths


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> So if there are no scientifc studies then how come this is banded about as true? It's very odd that people will ignore the lack of reserach in some areas buit not others
> 
> My dogs eat a variety of foods, none of which will digest at the same rate .... why would they?
> 
> My dogs have had a raw & kibble at some points & my puppy is currently fed this, none of them have ever had problems & until I see any proper evidence then I will continue to carry on & not get sucked in to these internet myths


Game, set and match I think! 

I was listening to a Radio 4 interview the other day when a minister was contradicting a chief constable.

When asked where she got her figures from, she replied the police do not know and do not have them.

Then later on parried with she got the information from a FOI request but still failed to clarify what her figures were and their source.

Still we should NEVER allow personal prejudice, opinion, and cognitive dissonance stand in the way of current science or facts.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

lorilu said:


> Think about it. An animal's digestion is designed by nature to efficiently digest moisture rich meat, bone, organs and all that goes with it. Instead the animal is fed dry nuggets of something consisting of grains, binders, often sugars, and who knows what-all. Moistening it will not change the content of it, or help with the digestion of it. Once it gets to the stomach, moistend or not, it's going to turn into a big ball of dough. That is going to sit there a long time while the body struggles with it.
> 
> You won't find studies. The people who have the money for studies are the pet food companies and they don't want you to feed your dog (or cat) appropriately. They want you to believe their lies and half truths and feed your animal junk.


I'm not sure how you've related moisture to gut transit time? A major influence on this is as I said dietary fibre, which varies between kibble brands in its type. And in terms of the constituents of kibble, it depends what brand you feed once again. 
And the action of digestion in the stomach doesn't glue the kibble back together that would be ridiculous. Majority of water involved in digestion is secreted by the dog itself, not from it's food intake, so moisture content isn't going to have a huge effect on digestibility.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Well, here is my scientific evidence 

Regardless of what I feed them, my dogs poop around the same time every day, which happens to coincide with their morning walk. Its not a later poop when they eat kibble and an earlier poop when they eat raw or a middle-time poop when they eat both. 

Like I said, I think time in the gut is far more an individual dog thing than a what the dog ate thing.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Okay...I'm new here so I'm not professing to have any expert opinions on this subject, but we do soak kibble before feeding our dogs.
This actually began when we rescued two running dogs and all the research told us that they were susceptible to bloat because of their barrel chests (we also bought stands to place their food on, so they ate at the right height).

A short while later, we moved to Spain where it was very hot, and adding water to their kibble was a must for hydration purposes as well as anti-bloat. This is because we discovered that one of our dogs would not automatically drink when she was thirsty - she tended to sit down under the air conditioning and not want to move for anything apart from being coaxed out for her tea. Wet kibble guaranteed she would get some moisture and hydrate her enough to feel well enough to seek out her water bowl herself.

Like most expats in Spain, over time, we rescued a few street dogs, eventually ending up as foster carers in partnership with a local dog rescue who re-home the dogs all over Europe.
All our rescue dogs get kibble as their meal, and all get it soaked, no matter what their size or shape.
For us, it makes sense and the dogs certainly don't appear to mind. 

I'm now in the UK most of the time, with my little chihuahua cross (also a rescued Spanish street dog) and she has soaked kibble for her two meals a day (although in her case, she gets Arden Grange Adult, rather than the cheaper version of kibble we have to buy in Spain).
She is cranky, anxious, barky and, at times, thoroughly frustrating, but she is in good health (knock on wood) and enjoys her food.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> I think you have a full house of incorrect observations and answers so far! L)
> 
> People very often get bloated.


What people die of bloat do they?


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

When I fed kibble I started adding water to it in an attempt to encourage Millie to eat it **Fail**

Thus now I wouldnt even bother feeding it esp if I had to add water to encourage eating it - I think its your dog telling you something plus I wouldnt like to eat the same biscuits every day 

I do think that if alot of people did soak there kibble in water for an hour prior to feeding and saw how much 'some' (I know not all ) can expand it might make them think twice about feeding it - Its really quickt shocking what happens in your dogs stomach!

Have to agree with Smokeybear - For me with one medium size dog I can feed her on a decent wet (Lilys Kitchen / Natures Menu / Naturediet) for as much as a decent kibble would cost me.

When I was feeding just wet I shopped around and bought in bulk  Including shock horror but ebay I found very good - had some excellent hauls of Natures Menu tins which even with courier worked out at 40p a can compared to £1.40 a can from NM themselves. 

Theres often people selling large bulk buys of food due to dog not liking it


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> What people die of bloat do they?


Sadly yes they can/do

Gastric dilatation volvulus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Just skipping over the arguments a bit...

I add water to the dry food I give, especially to Beauty who I don't feel drinks enough water. She's not getting off her bed very much during the day at the moment, and her recent blood test did show up slightly elevated levels of urea which may be caused by slight dehydration. She drinks more in the evenings, but hardly anything in the day, so water twice a day in her food bowl is not hurting her.

I do feed wet too, but when you buy wet you are paying for the water (plus vat and possibly delivery by weight charges) which can be an issue for people on a budget when it comes out of the tap for free...


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

lorilu said:


> The only diet that is good for dental health is a prey model raw diet.


Dry kibble is so terrible that my 12 years old dogs teeth have zero tartar on them. He's never eaten raw meat or a bone in his life. He's been fed a dry food diet from 8 weeks old, and recently broke a tooth, so we had the usual "we'll remove the tooth, check the rest and remove any necessary, then scale and polish all the remaining" chat at the vets.

Result? One damaged tooth removed, one damaged tooth so well rooted that it was left in, not a scrap of tartar to remove, and a letter to the insurance company stating that his teeth were fantastic and that his damaged tooth was not as a result of poor hygiene (and as such they paid out in full).


----------



## mollymo (Oct 31, 2009)

I do soak kibble for just one of the girls due to her having reflux acid digestion problems and it has worked out for her very well and reduced her reflux bouts a lot.
But I must say the kibble being grain free still swells a lot which did surprise me being grain free but it does not really go to soup and I don't hear Emma complaining.

My other two just have dried kibble and wet food and its swallowed without being chewed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lorilu said:


> Indeed it has NOT been "proven" that kibble cleans teeth. Kibble does NOT clean teeth. This is a lie perpetuated by the pet food companies who want you to buy their cheap full of junk kibble.


Not a simple lie..

Influence of Diet on Oral Health in Cats and Dogs - Jerzy P. Gawor,*y4 Alexander M. Reiter,* American Society for Nutrition. J. Nutr. 136: 2021S2023S, 2006.

Conclusion:


> These results indicate that feeding a dry food diet has a positive influence on oral health, decreasing the occurrence of mandibular lymphadenopathy, dental deposits, and periodontal disease in cats and dogs.


Now.. does that mean what the adverts lead people to believe.. probably not, after all advertising = lying (had that from someone who worked in the business).

Please note: I feed raw, initially interested in it due to dental health. However it's important not to become a fanatic and to look at ALL information, even if it contradicts your previous belief or what you have been previously told, especially if that information isn't backed up by anything. It's a continual learning process and it needs to be.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I am afraid it is anything BUT obvious to me, perhaps you have some examples to demonstrate?
> 
> There is no "normal" for a dog as all dogs are fed different diets.


Just like cats, surely it is difficult for dogs to lap up a lot of water, the ammount missing from the dried food.
We can just get a cup, jut think how hard it would be for us, without a cup.
But I dont know, they do have very long tongues.

I feed a mixture of dry and wet. She always loves to eat the wet food first. I do add 50% water.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Not a simple lie..
> 
> Influence of Diet on Oral Health in Cats and Dogs - Jerzy P. Gawor,*y4 Alexander M. Reiter,* American Society for Nutrition. J. Nutr. 136: 2021S-2023S, 2006.


Awesome, I know of some of those vets they're very good in the dentistry field and maxillofacial surgery. 
It seems in Poland we get more nutrition education than those in the UK. I've heard people say over here they get 2 weeks or so on nutrition. In Poland we get a full year of nutrition being part of our course, one semester is focused on general nutrition and livestock nutrition and the other semester is more specific to dog and cat nutrition including how to make home prepared diets.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I don't soak Dillons kibble he wont eat it wet, but if I wanted to feed wet I'd buy tinned.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

mine have it dry


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> OMG IS IT?
> 
> I will never be able to drink it WITH meals again, let alone AFTER them.


You could tip it ON your crackers, so that they'll be easier to chew.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

ouesi said:


> A) You dont know what the dry nuggets my dogs eat consist of, since you dont know what I feed, hence you dont know the ingredient list.
> B) Dogs have evolved along side of man mostly scavenging, not eating choice cuts of meat.
> C) Give me the benefit of the doubt and dont assume Im just buying the pet food industry sales pitch, thanks.


Why are you taking this personally? I was answering questions relating to the discussion. I was not targeting you or anyone else.

These are my opinions. Given what I know about digestion and carnivores, this makes sense to me. You asked, I answered. I did not say anything about "choice cuts of meat". I said moisture rich meat, bone, and organs. The word "rich" goes with the word moisture. This is what carnivores were designed by nature to eat. Their digestive systems have not "evolved" to live on cereal. Subsist, maybe, but not thrive.

Again, this is not a personal comment directed at you or anyone else. It is my opinion, based on my own research, about kibble as pet food.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> So if there are no scientifc studies then how come this is banded about as true? It's very odd that people will ignore the lack of reserach in some areas buit not others
> 
> My dogs eat a variety of foods, none of which will digest at the same rate .... why would they?
> 
> My dogs have had a raw & kibble at some points & my puppy is currently fed this, none of them have ever had problems & until I see any proper evidence then I will continue to carry on & not get sucked in to these internet myths


Because the research you speak of is done by the pet food companies. It is biased. Conflict of interest.

Animals can't tell you if they have "problems". A vague stomach ache after eating a bowl of dry kibble is not going to slow a puppy, or an otherwise healthy adult down much. So how would you know? You won't.

The difference is noticed when the diet is changed. An animal seems "fine" on kibble. Switching to wet, many people discover "wow, I had no idea my pet could be so much more energetic, coat so much more soft, eyes so clear and bright, behavior so much better". From there move to raw and the exclamations become even more emphatic. 

Until one has removed kibble from a pet's diet, one will not understand the difference.


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

We dont soak kibble as she wont eat it wet.



lorilu said:


> Because the research you speak of is done by the pet food companies. It is biased. Conflict of interest.
> 
> Animals can't tell you if they have "problems". A vague stomach ache after eating a bowl of dry kibble is not going to slow a puppy, or an otherwise healthy adult down much. *So how would you know? You won't.*
> 
> ...


which also mean you wouldn't know if they did either so this is a bit of a moot point.

Food always depends on the pet, some do better on kibble, some do better on wet or raw. i dont think there is any set 'this is better' as no dog is the same as another.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

lorilu said:


> Because the research you speak of is done by the pet food companies. It is biased. Conflict of interest.
> 
> Animals can't tell you if they have "problems". A vague stomach ache after eating a bowl of dry kibble is not going to slow a puppy, or an otherwise healthy adult down much. So how would you know? You won't.
> 
> ...


No.

Whilst I fully respect your personal beliefs on what to feed your dog, and what you feel is best suited to your dog, to present this belief as a FACT is simply wrong.

I know more than one dog who did NOT thrive on BARF. I know more than one dog who didn't thrive on Kibble and I know plenty of both camps who lived to a ripe old age complete with great teeth and great coats.

Actually, I WISH it weren't so because my OWN belief system WANTS it to be skewed and support MY conclusions( = fresh unadulterated food is best). But to state this as a fact would be wrong, never mind contradict what I've observed over the years.

There are heaps of healthy senior dogs who had never anything other than supermarket own brand food supplemented with the odd table scraps, and their dentition as well as their joie de vivre is amazing. And I say that as someone who fed her dogs primarily raw and organic.

Just because we want something to be true, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Because the research you speak of is done by the pet food companies. It is biased. Conflict of interest.
> 
> Animals can't tell you if they have "problems". A vague stomach ache after eating a bowl of dry kibble is not going to slow a puppy, or an otherwise healthy adult down much. So how would you know? You won't.
> 
> ...


I'm very confused...are you saying *all* wet food is better than _*all*_ dry food? Because if you are then I'd disagree, wholeheartedly. Just go on to SixStars wet and dry dog food indices and look at the best quality dry compared to the worst quality wet.

But back to the soaking kibble debate, I don't do it, partly because Nooka doesn't like it wet (and is a big fusspot anyway), and secondly because she drinks water when she's thirsty. She's also sometimes fed raw, and occasionally wet food. She still toilets at roughly the same times every day, and it's nice, small, firm poos that dry up and crumble if left. Just like people, dogs digestive systems are individual and they digest at different rates. Some have sensitive digestion, some can eat anything no problem.

As for bacteria on dry dog food? You have seen a dog eat a whole, stinky, rotting rabbit corpse with no repercussions right? Or an old chew dug up from the garden, or a mouldy bit of cheese? Funny they seem to eat those OK. I've seen a tin of wet food grow some bacteria over the course of a day (tin opened in a.m. for brekkie and kept with a cover on until tea time), only little white bits...dog still ate it.

Dogs have great stomachs and I'm happy with what my dogs eat, and as long as you are happy with what you feed your dog then that's ok with me :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Why are you taking this personally? I was answering questions relating to the discussion. I was not targeting you or anyone else.
> 
> These are my opinions. Given what I know about digestion and carnivores, this makes sense to me. You asked, I answered. I did not say anything about "choice cuts of meat". I said moisture rich meat, bone, and organs. The word "rich" goes with the word moisture. This is what carnivores were designed by nature to eat. Their digestive systems have not "evolved" to live on cereal. Subsist, maybe, but not thrive.
> 
> Again, this is not a personal comment directed at you or anyone else. It is my opinion, based on my own research, about kibble as pet food.


I'm not taking this personally, I'm just not buying in to the one size fits all internet hype dog feeding. My dogs eat both raw and kibble and sometimes they even eat weird concoctions of oatmeal and leftovers. There is no difference in their overall health and condition between when they are eating mostly kibble and when they are eating mostly raw or homecooked.
I just don't think it's cool to scare or guilt trip owners in to any one type of feeding.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lorilu said:


> Because the research you speak of is done by the pet food companies. It is biased. Conflict of interest.
> 
> Animals can't tell you if they have "problems". A vague stomach ache after eating a bowl of dry kibble is not going to slow a puppy, or an otherwise healthy adult down much. So how would you know? You won't.
> 
> ...


But by your own admission in an earlier post there is no scientifc evidence to support your arguement ....

Despite feeding raw I didn't notice any improvement in coat, eyes, energy levels, etc in either of my dogs when I switched from kibble to raw. One of my dogs definitely became more interested in meal times but the other one has always been food obsessed.

Admittedly there poos aren't as stinky & their teeth are better but as for not mixing raw & kibble I don't see how people can be so adamant that this is wrong when there is no evidence to back this up.

Surely my dogs should have had infinite stomach problems by now through bacteria & indigested food (or whatever) as I have fed this combination several times over the years & currently have my puppy on this diet ... no problems at all ....

Personally I don't care what people feed their dogs or what their opinions are (although I am always willing to listen if they are knowledgable, have sufficent evidence, etc) but I do get a bit confused when opinions are somehow given as facts


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

After being fed a raw diet most of their lives (6 years) and now being put back on kibble, my dogs tend to struggle to swallow dry kibble - a bit like us eating cream crackers as quick as possible - so I dont soak it, but I do mix a bit of water with it, just to wet it enough so it goes down their gullets a little easier.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> Admittedly there poos aren't as stinky & their teeth are better but as for not mixing raw & kibble I don't see how people can be so adamant that this is wrong when there is no evidence to back this up.


People do believe the strangest things. They will have read a book or seen it online. Why do some people believe one thing, and others not?
Would a wild animal that eat raw, refuse dry or cooked food?

Dogs eat almost anything, I have fed raw, kibble and wet; strangly some raw offal was not eaten. I think consistancy is good, but the ideal diet for dogs should be high in meat content, and not supermarket bought.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

El Cid said:


> People do believe the strangest things. They will have read a book or seen it online.


The problem is that people don't look at their sources. I would only google something like "are vaccinations bad for my dog" if I was worried about vaccinations (lets not get into that debate!!), and chances are, anti-vaccination sites would come up probably for at least the first page of results. Too many people believe what they read on the Internet without doing proper research by reading scientific papers. I could easily find sites that claim the world is flat, and that the sun orbits the earth. Doesn't mean it's true.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Amelia66 said:


> We dont soak kibble as she wont eat it wet.
> 
> which also mean you wouldn't know if they did either so this is a bit of a moot point.
> 
> Food always depends on the pet, some do better on kibble, some do better on wet or raw. i dont think there is any set 'this is better' as no dog is the same as another.


I agree that every animal is different. I do not agree that kibble is good for any animal.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> No.
> 
> Whilst I fully respect your personal beliefs on what to feed your dog, and what you feel is best suited to your dog, to present this belief as a FACT is simply wrong.
> 
> ...


I did not claim my opinions are fact. I was very clear that these are my opinions based on my own knowledge, understanding and extensive research.



Sarah H said:


> I'm very confused...are you saying *all* wet food is better than _*all*_ dry food? Because if you are then I'd disagree, wholeheartedly. Just go on to SixStars wet and dry dog food indices and look at the best quality dry compared to the worst quality wet.
> 
> But back to the soaking kibble debate, I don't do it, partly because Nooka doesn't like it wet (and is a big fusspot anyway), and secondly because she drinks water when she's thirsty. She's also sometimes fed raw, and occasionally wet food. She still toilets at roughly the same times every day, and it's nice, small, firm poos that dry up and crumble if left. Just like people, dogs digestive systems are individual and they digest at different rates. Some have sensitive digestion, some can eat anything no problem.
> 
> ...


Yes, wet is better than dry. I hate kibble. With a passion.

Dogs eat all kinds of crap, no kidding. But that doesn't mean it's good for them. Just because their stomachs CAN handle something doesn't mean they should eat it. As for an exposed dead rabbit...well. That is what nature intended the dog to eat and he certainly has the enzymes to cope with it. Kibble is not the same thing at all. It turns into a lump of dough in the gut.

Yes, everyone is free to feed the family pet whatever they want. People asked, I gave my opinions.

To me, it is common sense that you don't feed a carnivore hard dry bits. But it's common sense to me _now_, because I took the trouble to learn about nutrition, pet food and the companies which manufacturer them, , and the basic biology of a carnivore. I didn't always feel this way. It's taken quite a few years of study and research.

But once things are learned, they can't be unlearned. So I am stuck feeding my pets as much of a species appropriate diet as I can manage, and helping others realize there is more to life than kibble, too 

No one has to take my suggestions. But someone might learn something, and go on to learn more on their own, and make some changes and that's what matters to me. That's what happened to me. That's why I bother. Because I care.


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

lorilu said:


> The difference is noticed when the diet is changed. An animal seems "fine" on kibble. Switching to wet, many people discover "wow, I had no idea my pet could be so much more energetic, coat so much more soft, eyes so clear and bright, behavior so much better". From there move to raw and the exclamations become even more emphatic.
> 
> Until one has removed kibble from a pet's diet, one will not understand the difference.


I went from kibble only to kibble and wet to only wet to raw and wet to all raw to raw and wet and kibble for one and kibble and wet for the other.

Difference between kibble and all wet? Yes. Diarrhoea. Difference between all wet and all raw? Yes. A 30 kilo dog (28 at the time I swapped) went down to 24 kilos. And i stuck at it for months because pro raw people just told me i was doing it wrong every time i asked for help. It was always my fault and the idea of going back to kibble ended in me being told i may as well put my dog to sleep as i would be killing him.

Guess what? My now 30 kilo greyhound is fabulously healthy. On kibble (with bacterial soup  ) and a little wet.


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

Dogs are not carnivores. That has been proven a million times over.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Dogs are indeed carnivores. They are not strict obligate carnivores like cats, but they are meat eaters, they are hunters, predators. Carnivores. Believe what you want. I do.


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

lorilu said:


> Dogs are indeed carnivores. They are not strict obligate carnivores like cats, but they are meat eaters, they are hunters, predators. Carnivores. Believe what you want. I do.


People eat meat, people hunt and are predators. Does that make people carnivores?

Dogs are omnivorous. They can and often do thrive on plant only diets and many dogs that are raw fed actually end up doing better when vegetables are added to their diet.

If you need proof, just look at their intestines. 

You are welcome to believe what you want, but it isn't correct.


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Dogs are indeed carnivores. They are not strict obligate carnivores like cats, but they are meat eaters, they are hunters, predators. Carnivores. Believe what you want. I do.


If they are predators then I obviously have defective dogs 

Today Nooka found a rather bedraggled and ill rabbit, but instead of doing what a terrier or lurcher would do and dispatching it asap, she spent an hour licking it and pouncing if it moved...  I had to dispatch it myself, not nice...

Muffin is worse, she once came nose to nose with a rabbit, looked at me, wagged her tail, then continued on pootling, what a great hunter...however if she finds a stinky corpse then that's a different matter 

Just because they _can_ survive on raw meat alone doesn't mean they _should_. Just as because they can survive on vegetables alone doesn't mean they should (like people). I like to raw feed, but it isn't for every dog or owner. As you say that dogs are predators, should we then not make them catch their own food? That's the next logical step right?


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

This is a public forum where all opinions are allowed. Don't like it? Ignore it.

The original question was about adding water to kibble. I think it's bad practice and I said so, and I said why I think so. When I was asked to elaborate I did.

So I don't agree with the majority in this thread. Who cares?  Hopefully I've helped a reader or two think and want to dig further on their own.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Yes, wet is better than dry. I hate kibble. With a passion.


So a cheap 50 pence tin of what is essentially crap from my local supermarket is better than the high meat content, grain free dry food that I feed my dog?

Why did no one tell me this sooner? Ill save so much money not spending £12 a kilo on dry dog food!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

BeauNoir said:


> Dogs are not carnivores. That has been proven a million times over.


Actually, no it hasn't. Technically they are carnivores, just as panda's are  Personally, I prefer hypercarnivore, 70% or more meat. They are carnivores who have adapted to be able to scavenge. They are not "designed" to eat plant and meat equally effectively which is what would be necessary for me, personally to call them omnivores. The main reason dogs can digest the plant material in kibble is the fact it has been processed. Even Barf'ers who declare that dogs are omnivores blend and process vegetation to increase the potential nutrient extraction. This wouldn't be necessary or make that much of a difference for a true "omnivore". It's dealing with semantics, something advertisers love. Call it an omnivore and it means meat can be the minority ingredient.

It's interesting to note that IAMS has "Data on file. The Iams Company 2001" (means I don't have actually the study) which shows:


> Adult and senior dogs were fed diets with varying amounts of protein from chicken and corn gluten meal, and their body composition (muscle versus fat tissue) was analyzed. In addition, levels of key blood and muscle proteins were measured.
> 
> Compared with dogs fed a diet with 100% chicken protein, dogs fed diets with decreasing levels of chicken and increasing levels of corn gluten meal had
> 
> ...


Okay, this was only corn gluten, don't know any studies involving the complete range of vegatation possibilities but another indication, away from basic body structure, that a meat based diet is best for dogs. To me, that means when looking at kibble or wet food you make sure it's primarily meat based, as you would for a carnivore.

I also feed prey model but I'm not going to panic if my dog enjoys a carrot now and again.


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

But humans don't use meat and plants with equal efficacy? In humans, many many types of plants are far more nutritionally and digestively efficient than any meat so you could therefore argue that humans are herbivores who can eat meat with some efficiency (the same way people say dogs are carnivores but can use plants with some efficiency).

Obviously carnivore/omnivore/herbivore have massive cross overs, I am not denying that. But, if you had to pick one of those 3 to put dogs into, it would be omnivore, they can process plants with great efficiency, not quite as good as meat in the most part but still well. If omnivores are only those who can process each side equally, then omnivores do not exist in any species.

I do feed a 70% meat kibble for the most part, so i agree that dogs should have mainly meat in their diet (with some exceptions), but i do not think they shouldn't have vegetables and that they are damaging in some way as many militant prey model raw feeders do.

If dogs are carnivores, i clearly do not have a dog, because my greyhound becomes dangerously underweight when I remove vegetables from his diet. The higher level of vegetables, the better condition he ends up in.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Little P said:


> I would only google something like "are vaccinations bad for my dog"


If you searched for that, you would find something, because all medications have side eects. There is always someone where a serious issue cropped up. But it does not mean it was caused by the vaccination.

Try something like "is my dog a carnivore?".


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

lorilu said:


> I agree that every animal is different.


Most dogs intestines are biologically made to digest the same type of food, some might have differences due to what they were fed when they were puppies.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Human digestion starts at the mouth, with the molars designed to chew to break down cell walls, dogs don't. Bears generally also have adaptations to process plant material. The key for dogs is processed plant matter can be easily digested and nutrients extracted. It could be said that this ability has evolved due to scavenging throughout history on human waste. Give our dogs a raw carrot and carrot comes out the other end. Give cooked carrot and it will not.

You also have to look at things like amino acids. Animal based proteins contain all of the amino acids essential to dogs in the right proportions, plant based proteins don't. Omega 3 can be broken down into alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which is plant based, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and epicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). A dog needs to convert ALA to DHA and EPA for it to be of use which they can do but it's not nutritionally efficient.

Cows, deer and sheep are known to eat animal matter on occasion. Youtube has a cow actually chasing and eating chicken somewhere. Scottish Deer Are Culprits in Bird Killings is also an interesting read. Carnivorous behavior driven by a potential nutritional deficiency. By your argument this makes them omnivores, not herbivores but I doubt if most people would agree. For dogs, it's accepted simply as the idea that they are omnivores is pushed by the pet food companies to justify their ingredients.

Of course we could debate this till the cows come home and I'll leave it there as we've diverted far from the original topic.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dogs are mostly carnivores who have adapted to eating our food too. There was a study done that showed that breeds that developed in areas where the human diet was grain heavy cope better with grain in their diet compared to say huskies which developed where even the humans eat nearly all meat diets. Heck giant pandas are classed as carnivores yet for some reason eat a plant diet. The classification isn't solely based on diet but on your digestive system,digestive enzymes etc

I've seen reports of dogs doing much better on raw diets and for others it has little effect. Raw isn't perfect for all dogs but it probably is the most natural you can feed. Some dogs can't handle it, some do best with grain heavy diets. The more fanatical raw feeders will tell you that kibble or cooked food is poison


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2014)

lorilu said:


> To me, it is common sense that you don't feed a carnivore hard dry bits. But it's common sense to me _now_, because I took the trouble to learn about nutrition, pet food and the companies which manufacturer them, , and the basic biology of a carnivore. I didn't always feel this way. It's taken quite a few years of study and research.


See, this is the part where youre going to get peoples backs up. I know you dont mean to sound this way, but it does sound a bit like you think that anyone who doesnt share your hate of kibble has either not researched, not researched the right articles, or doesnt have the ability to understand as fully as you do.

Heres the thing. Two equally intelligent people can do the same thorough research and examination, put in the same time and care in to the decision making process, and still come up with two different conclusions. When I make a decision to feed my dogs the way I do, I AM doing it based on thorough examination, I AM putting effort and care in to what Im deciding for the best of my dogs. Just because my decision differs from yours does not make me incompetent, uncaring, unintelligent, not well-read, etc. It just means I saw the same information but arrived at a different conclusion.

Give me and other owners the benefit of the doubt eh?

Oh, and BTW? Dogs ability to digest starches is one of the key pieces that separates them from wild canids, and makes them the domestic dog we have today.
Learning to love cereal was key to the evolution of dogs - The Washington Post

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lorilu said:


> I agree that every animal is different. I do not agree that kibble is good for any animal.
> 
> I did not claim my opinions are fact. I was very clear that these are my opinions based on my own knowledge, understanding and extensive research.
> 
> ...


You know what?

You do not hold the monopoly on research.

A fact is only a fact until it is no longer a fact.

Dogs survive and thrive on many different sorts of diets.

Food fascists who demonise a particur product or choice of caregivers undermine their own credibility by communicating the following messages

1 Owners who do not feed what you deem best are somewhat less caring, knowledgeable than you

2 You know best

3 They are less caring and responsible

This merely makes owners feel guilty, inadequate and defensive.

You also undermine your credibility by stating things which are not true and underlining your own personal prejudices by saying "I hate kibble with a passion", thus you are hardly going to be seen as an unbiased disinterested source of info. 

I have been feeding raw for over 13 years but I still use kibble for emergencies, training etc.

Relax, chill, lose the evangelical zeal.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

You people need to learn how to have an exchange of opinions and ideas without taking things so personally. You want to attack me with accusations and labels simply because my opinion doesn't agree with yours. It's just pointless to behave that way.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2014)

lorilu said:


> You people need to learn how to have an exchange of opinions and ideas without taking things so personally. You want to attack me with accusations and labels simply because my opinion doesn't agree with yours. It's just silly to behave that way.


This kind of response along with referring to fellow forum members as you people isnt the height of mature dialogue either 

Please show me where there was a single attack, accusation, or label in my post. I dont see any, but if you do, please tell me, then maybe I can make sure not to attack you again. Just to be clear though, not agreeing with someone does not constitute an attack.

Do you not believe two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions? And that those different conclusions can be equally valid?

I DO understand where the anti-kibble folks are coming from, I just dont happen to agree, thats all.

I dont think the kibble I feed is turning in to dough in my dogs guts. For one, the kibble doesnt have any leavening or fermenting properties, and two, Ive seen what it looks like on the rare occasion they throw it back up and trust me, thats not a lump of dough 

Do some dogs benefit from being taken off of kibble and put on a raw diet? Absolutely. Some dogs dont. And some dogs do better on commercial dog food of some sort than raw. Most dogs are just fine eating whatever.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

lorilu said:


> Dogs are indeed carnivores. They are not strict obligate carnivores like cats, but they are meat eaters, they are hunters, predators. Carnivores. Believe what you want. I do.


According to a well respected canine nutritionist dogs are obligate omnivores. They can eat and make use of both plant and animal food. I'd be grateful if you could point me towards the research you have discovered that disproves this current thinking.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

lorilu said:


> You people need to learn how to have an exchange of opinions and ideas without taking things so personally. You want to attack me with accusations and labels simply because my opinion doesn't agree with yours.


It isn't that. Honest.

What any owner feeds is up to them. You detesting kibble is perfectly ok. Your dogs, your choice.

But when you deliver the message "kibble is pure evil and cr*p, and if you knew anything about nutrition you wouldn't feed it to your poor dog", you HAVE to accept that the responses aren't going to be all fuzzy n' warm. Since it is an insult to every owner who does feed kibble. For perfectly valid reasons.

We all have to be cautious of confirmation bias and you flatly dismissing the nutritional value of ALL kibble is a violation of objective research.

That's all.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Hey, what is any self respecting dog forum without the anti-kibble, pro raw evangelists eh?

The way I see it is from a biological perspective, yes it is undoubtedly more 'natural' to feed a dog a raw diet. But that is where it ends. I think people take raw fanaticism way too far and it is a modern day phenomenon. No one can honestly say that if you forward back even as little as 50, 60, 70 years ago, that owners obsessed over everything their dog ate - the dogs were fed on scraps and other crap that the humans wouldn't eat and survived just fine. Heck, it must be some kind of miracle that domestic dogs have survived over tens of thousands of years. 

I've always maintained that I would much rather see a dog eating a decent quality dry or wet food than a poor quality raw diet. When working in veterinary practice, I saw the results of dogs being fed poor quality raw diets - underweight dogs, dogs with digestive problems, dogs with poor skin and coat, constipated dogs and even *shock horror* a dog with salmonella (great fun to deal with as you might imagine). So yes it is easy to get wrong and there can be consequences for the animal if it is not researched thoroughly. 

That is why I can't stand misinformation about particular diets being the be all and end all. There is no one size fits all. Some dogs thrive on raw, some don't. Equally many millions of dogs across the globe thrive on the dreaded dog food - yes that is thrive, not just survive. I'm not sure why the minority of raw fanatics take offense at that. Nope, those cruel kibble feeders are completely lacking in the cognitive ability to judge their own dogs body health and fitness!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm a new raw feeder so not evangelical about it. My dogs seem fine on it although the GSP has lost the shine to his coat (despite salmon oil, evening primrose and Vit E) and madam Indie has gained some weight which I'm struggling to get off her. The main benefit for my lot has been the calmness and obvious satisfaction when they have finished chomping away at a carcass or trotter. On kibble (and I tried many varieties) Indie was bouncing off the walls which is not good with her dodgy legs  I sometimes cook bits for them like offal, fish and heart because they really don't like the texture and always steam their veggies. However the point of my rambling is how do we actually know whether raw/wet/kibble is good or better for them? How do I know that my previous dogs who died young of heart problems and cancers might not have if I'd been feeding them raw and not kibble? How do any of us know?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

labradrk said:


> Hey, what is any self respecting dog forum without the anti-kibble, pro raw evangelists eh?
> 
> The way I see it is from a biological perspective, yes it is undoubtedly more 'natural' to feed a dog a raw diet. But that is where it ends. I think people take raw fanaticism way too far and it is a modern day phenomenon. No one can honestly say that if you forward back even as little as 50, 60, 70 years ago, that owners obsessed over everything their dog ate - the dogs were fed on scraps and other crap that the humans wouldn't eat and survived just fine. Heck, it must be some kind of miracle that domestic dogs have survived over tens of thousands of years.
> 
> ...


Definitely agree on a good commercial food being better than a bad raw. Some of the recommendations I've seen are just scary including frozen grapes in ones . Diet isn't one size fits all regardless of what it is


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm a new raw feeder so not evangelical about it. My dogs seem fine on it although the GSP has lost the shine to his coat (despite salmon oil, evening primrose and Vit E) and madam Indie has gained some weight which I'm struggling to get off her. The main benefit for my lot has been the calmness and obvious satisfaction when they have finished chomping away at a carcass or trotter. On kibble (and I tried many varieties) Indie was bouncing off the walls which is not good with her dodgy legs  I sometimes cook bits for them like offal, fish and heart because they really don't like the texture and always steam their veggies. *However the point of my rambling is how do we actually know whether raw/wet/kibble is good or better for them? How do I know that my previou dogs who died young of heart problems and cancers might not have if I'd been feeding them raw and not kibble? How do any of us know?*


We don't! simple! the proof of the pudding is the individual animal.

I've fed raw, various dry foods (from expensive grain free to dreaded budget brands) and wet and to tell you the truth, have noticed next to no difference in the health or behaviour of my dogs. Mine also eat all kinds of scraps and other crap with no ill effects. Bo ate a whole tray of brownies yesterday (theiving little £(%£!) without so much as a fart - I don't know how she manages it.

Sure, I could go back to feeding raw but to be perfectly honest, why would I bother when for the most part my dogs do excellently on dry/wet food? they like it and the convenience of it suits me and my budget so frankly, who cares?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> However the point of my rambling is how do we actually know whether raw/wet/kibble is good or better for them? How do I know that my previous dogs who died young of heart problems and cancers might not have if I'd been feeding them raw and not kibble? How do any of us know?


Simple answer is we don't, we can only play odds until such time as studies actually look into it in details which is probably going to be never. The only statistics I've seen is "Relation between the domestic dogs' well-being and life expectancy statistical essay - Lippert & Sapy 2003" which looked at a lot of the background for dogs, gardens size, family, size, neutering etc and their statistics showed that on average, a dog fed home made food (not raw) lived on average 3 years longer. Now this has to then be judged by how many of those commercially fed dogs were on a low quality kibble etc. As for cancer.. how much of it is genetic? They wrote as part of the conclusion in regards to food:


> The essential nutritional needs must be covered in terms of quantity and quality. The analysis shows clearly (1.7 chances out of 10.000 to be wrong, with a signivicativity bottom line of 95%) that the animals who receives varying home made food, will have the benefit of a longer life expectancy. This is probably a consequence of the basic quality of the food, and its better absorbtion as natural nutritional food. These characteristics could be missing with industrial canned food, as a consequence of the various physical treatments (High temperature, lyophilisation, extrusion, flaking,...) or chemicals (hydrolysis, food additives...) and also the basic quality of the ingredients (quality of the basic protein, vegetable protein for meat eating animals, vitamin, difficult to assimilate, low digestibility, solvable sugar present in large quantity....).
> 
> High sensitivity with food and dermatological problems related with it are frequent reasons for a visit to the veterinarian. (1% of the dermatosis examined in our daily practice, 10 to 20% of the dermatosis as a consequence) and the number raises continuously.


All we can do as owners is do some research and make a choice as to what we want to do with our own dogs bearing in mind, each is an individual.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> However the point of my rambling is how do we actually know whether raw/wet/kibble is good or better for them? How do I know that my previous dogs who died young of heart problems and cancers might not have if I'd been feeding them raw and not kibble? How do any of us know?


Mmmm, I know where you are coming from.

I recall stumbling out of my vet's office like I had been on an all night bender after he told me my boy had terminal cancer.

He was 6.

And the only thing my clouded brain could think was "How?? How is that possible? What did I do that he is dying?".

Hence, with my next one, by Joves I went to town with the health malarky. The water in his bowl was flipping Spring water since I deemed the tap water questionable ( the fluoride! the chlorine!).

Plus, I wanted to control every aspect of his food - the quality, the provenance, the composition, the ethics of the meat source, you name it. So that's what I did. Didn't do the dear lad any harm....but Holy Moses it was time consuming. Never mind the cost. Moreover, I did strongly suspect that the cheese had slid of my cracker somewhat with being this OTT 

In the end, I guess, you find a feeding solution that you are 100% comfortable with. For me that was a combination of homemade and kibble. Of raw and/or cooked (for health and to satisfy my inner control freak) and processed ( for convenience). At one point one stops caring whether this really is the "best method for optimum health"...... because the dog is vibrant and healthy. And because it's the best one can do according to what one knows NOW. For me , what I know now doesn't say "just feed RMB" or "just feed kibble".

So I don't


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

lorilu said:


> *Dogs are indeed carnivores.* They are not strict obligate carnivores like cats, but they are meat eaters, they are hunters, predators. Carnivores. Believe what you want. I do.


Well bugger me. I guess I'd better get a refund for the £30k I spent getting a degree in veterinary anatomy, because they told me dogs are omnivores?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Little P said:


> Well bugger me. I guess I'd better get a refund for the £30k I spent getting a degree in veterinary anatomy, because they told me dogs are omnivores?


So.. justify that with actual reasoning and biology


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Little P said:


> Well bugger me. I guess I'd better get a refund for the £30k I spent getting a degree in veterinary anatomy, because they told me dogs are omnivores?


I've been taught in both the anatomy, physiology and nutrition parts of my vet course so far that dogs are carnivores. Specifically that cats are obligate carnivores and dogs are facultative carnivores. Even though there's no clear distinction between facultative carnivore and omnivore, the point that seems to be made to us is that facultative carnivore is allocated to those where meat is the main component of the diet but plant-based foods can also be supplemented whereas omnivore is allocated to species who's diet is mostly equal in ratio of meat to plant components.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2014)

labradrk said:


> *Hey, what is any self respecting dog forum without the anti-kibble, pro raw evangelists eh?*
> 
> The way I see it is from a biological perspective, yes it is undoubtedly more 'natural' to feed a dog a raw diet. But that is where it ends. I think people take raw fanaticism way too far and it is a modern day phenomenon. No one can honestly say that if you forward back even as little as 50, 60, 70 years ago, that owners obsessed over everything their dog ate - the dogs were fed on scraps and other crap that the humans wouldn't eat and survived just fine. Heck, it must be some kind of miracle that domestic dogs have survived over tens of thousands of years.
> 
> ...


Not gonna lie, the bolded made me laugh out loud. I dont know which one is worse, the food wars or the training methods/tools wars 

Suffice it to say, on a forum where people join just to talk about them, we must all be very dedicated to our dogs and are well invested in doing what we feel is best for them.

As to how do we *know* one way is better than another? I dont think we do. There are just far too many factors that go in to our dogs over-all health than just the food they eat. Genetics plays a role, environment plays a role... And you can feed your dog the best, most species appropriate diet in the world, and still lose him too young to some freak accident. That happens too. At some point you have to just take a deep breath and let it be.

Right now Im obsessed with stress and its effect on health and general well-being. I definitely think that dogs who are under chronic stress tend to end up with health issues regardless of what you feed them.

I see it kind of the same way I see how I feed my human kids. Im going to instill good habits in them, Im going to provide nutrient-rich, whole foods, but Im not going to fill their heads with worry that if they eat a hot dog at a friends house theyre going to end up with nitrate poisoning and die of cancer at 30. I think that can be just as detrimental as bad food choices.

Same with the dogs, the bulk of their diet is pretty good stuff, but if they eat a reeses peanut butter cup at halloween or share popcorn with the kids on movie night, Im not going to freak out about it.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Goblin said:


> So.. justify that with actual reasoning and biology


Woah woah, wait a second there. I said I studied anatomy, not physiology! 



TashaMarie said:


> I've been taught in both the anatomy, physiology and nutrition parts of my vet course so far that dogs are carnivores. Specifically that cats are obligate carnivores and dogs are facultative an carnivores. *Even though there's no clear distinction between facultative carnivore and omnivore, the point that seems to be made to us is that facultative carnivore is allocated to those where meat is the main component of the diet but plant-based foods can also be supplemented whereas omnivore is allocated to species who's diet is mostly equal in ratio of meat to plant components*.


I guess animal: plant ratio depends what food you feed!  I was basically taught that they're 'predominantly carnivorous' but that the domesticated dog, fed a modern day commercial diet is essentially an omnivore.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Little P said:


> Woah woah, wait a second there. I said I studied anatomy, not physiology!


Key point here is the definition of omnivore and the way it's used. That's why we can talk in circles around it.

I've previously mentioned cows, deer and sheep are all known to occasionally eat meat, especially birds, due to suspected nutritional requirements. This make them omnivores but I bet you aren't told these are in a degree course. Omnivore is used and pushed for dogs precisely as it is so nebulous as to be meaningless but allows some commercial companies to mislead the public into thinking any food, plant or animal is equal. That's the reason I don't agree with the term and prefer hypercarnivore. Meat should be the primary source of protein. If you have to choose omnivore or carnivore, that means carnivore as meat should be > 50%.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Little P said:


> Well bugger me. I guess I'd better get a refund for the £30k I spent getting a degree in veterinary anatomy, because they told me dogs are omnivores?


At school they taught me about an all powerfull being, but most of us knew it was clap-trap.

I just did an experiment; dry kibble with a little wet meat on top at one side, and the same at the other side with water added.
My border collie ate all the dry, then the water/gravy at the other side and then the semi-soft kibble.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I guess it's difficult to assess what is truly a carnivore or an omnivore?

I do think that, given a choice between meat or veg., most dogs would always eat the meat.

Chimps live on leaves, herbs, plants and fruit, but occasionally will kill and eat a small monkey.

Then we have the big cats who live exclusively on meat.

If the definition of a carnivore is an animal that will ONLY eat meat, then dogs must be omnivores. My Rosie will happily eat fruit, for instance, but loves chicken more than anything else.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Chimps live on leaves, herbs, plants and fruit, but occasionally will kill and eat a small monkey.


I saw a documentary about this recently. PG Tips will never be the same


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

TashaMarie said:


> I've been taught in both the anatomy, physiology and nutrition parts of my vet course so far that dogs are carnivores. Specifically that cats are obligate carnivores and dogs are facultative carnivores. Even though there's no clear distinction between facultative carnivore and omnivore, the point that seems to be made to us is that facultative carnivore is allocated to those where meat is the main component .......


Makes you wonder then why all veterinary presciption diets are LOADED with simple carbs and grains. Which, given the above, is odd enough for the facultative carnivore, the dog, but ESPECIALLY for the true omnivore ....cats.

If that ain't a case of "physician, heal thyself" I don't know what is


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Classification isn't based solely on diet though. It's on the digestive system and what foods the body is designed to handle. Everything about the giant panda is designed to eat meat so they're classed as carnivores yet inexplicably they eat solely bamboo. Wolves are carnivores but will eat fruit and plants when times are lean. 

The only obligate carnivores are cats they can't synthesise taurine. We didn't find this out until they started being kept as house pets and being fed grain heavy diets without the odd bird or mouse to supplement their diet and they started getting kidney problems. Attempting to feed wild cats commercial cat food has caused problems as well. But an animal that is designed to eat meat but can digest other food sources is a carnivore. An animal that can live on all-meat, all-plant and everything in between ie humans is an omnivore.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Makes you wonder then why all veterinary presciption diets are LOADED with simple carbs and grains. Which, given the above, is odd enough for the facultative carnivore, the dog, but ESPECIALLY for the true omnivore ....cats.
> 
> If that ain't a case of "physician, heal thyself" I don't know what is


I've come across lots of differing opinions within the vet community on that. And I think the reasons why particular ingredients are used is well known on this forum.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

TashaMarie said:


> I've come across lots of differing opinions within the vet community on that. And I think the reasons why particular ingredients are used is well known on this forum.


Yeah, I know

The point I was making was that it is somewhat futile to debate whether or not dogs are strictly carnivores or omnivores...since even cats who OUGHT to be strictly carnivores aren't fed like it. Not even by vets.

Incidentally, NONE of my supposed fully fledged carnivore felines were remotely interested in meat. Not raw, not cooked. They craved and demanded the highly processed carb loaded crunchy stuff out of a box. Dito my friends cats. In view that the latter are mostly extremely senior ( 20 + yrs), turning a true carnivore into an omnivore can't be all bad....


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Yeah, I know
> 
> The point I was making was that it is somewhat futile to debate whether or not dogs are strictly carnivores or omnivores...since even cats who OUGHT to be strictly carnivores aren't fed like it. Not even by vets.
> 
> Incidentally, NONE of my supposed fully fledged carnivore felines were remotely interested in meat. Not raw, not cooked. They craved and demanded the highly processed carb loaded crunchy stuff out of a box. Dito my friends cats. In view that the latter are mostly extremely senior ( 20 + yrs), turning a true carnivore into an omnivore can't be all bad....


Good point, my friends cat turned her nose up at wet food, cooked chicken and fish but if she heard a box of cat biscuits shaking she would come running.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

This is because the kibble is sprayed with animal digest or other equally awful stuff, to make the cats crave it. Kibble addicts are created, not born.

The "prescription diets" are about as bad as you can get. It doesn't take an expert to know this all you have to do is read the label. They are filled with carbs, because throw away grains are cheap to put into pet food.

20 years is a nice long life for a cat, but it's not all about quantity you know, it's about quality too. And I'm not saying these cats are abused or mistreated. I'm sure they were very happy loved cats.

It often can take many months to convert a kibble fed cat to a better diet. It's worth it though.

Someone posted that cats are omnivores in this thread, I am hoping that was a typo. Cats are strict obligate carnivores. They require a meat diet to thrive. They may be "fine" on a carb loaded kibble, but if you put them on something different you'd be amazed how much better than "fine" they could be.

Of course cats that roam outside are hopefully supplementing their diets by hunting so at least they are getting something good.

Note: I know this thread is in the dogs' forums, but it wasn't I who began discussing cat diets on this page. But I had to address some of these things posted here.

Marketing is a very powerful thing. Pretty bright packages, advertisements with healthy pets bounding about, sneaky little catch phrases...it's easy for anyone to get sucked in. Anyone. But anyone can also learn to read ingredient labels.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

my oldie prefers hers soaking I use small portion of Burns weight control for her breakfast as it goes like weetabix (she likes a bit of milk on too) and I can disguise her painkiller amongst it. She does like the F4D weight control small bite dry as its so tiny and fits in her favourite wooden puzzles and she can have loads for very few calories. 

JJ's is currently coming in a large bag..I don't soak it but just run water over it then drain it straight away, this tends to make him less itchy and get rid of any storage mites that might have been in. His doesn't tend to go soft as well/quickly anyway cos its a cereal free one.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

staffgirl said:


> According to a well respected canine nutritionist dogs are obligate omnivores. They can eat and make use of both plant and animal food. I'd be grateful if you could point me towards the research you have discovered that disproves this current thinking.





lorilu said:


> Note: I know this thread is in the dogs' forums, but it wasn't I who began discussing cat diets on this page. But I had to address some of these things posted here.


Perhaps you missed my post about dogs - could you address it?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Then we have the big cats who live exclusively on meat.
> 
> If the definition of a carnivore is an animal that will ONLY eat meat, then dogs must be omnivores.


Domesticated cats have the same requirment as big cats, and the meat content of most domesticated cat food is very low; people have said around 4%. All cats are carnivores, it does not make them omnivore - just because we feed them junk.
Animals will eat what they are fed as babbies/youngsters


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

staffgirl said:


> Perhaps you missed my post about dogs - could you address it?


Simple counter question. What do vegetables provide which is not supplied by animal based matter? After all, we have taurine as an example of why cats are obligate carnivores. What's the plant equivalent of taurine that dogs need? Generic statements and quotes of experts are fine only when backed up by solid reasoning.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

lorilu said:


> This is because the kibble is sprayed with animal digest or other equally awful stuff, to make the cats crave it. Kibble addicts are created, not born.


Not all kibble. And dont forget, the UK has different (stricter?) requirements as to what is allowed in food stuffs.



lorilu said:


> Marketing is a very powerful thing. Pretty bright packages, advertisements with healthy pets bounding about, sneaky little catch phrases...it's easy for anyone to get sucked in. Anyone. But anyone can also learn to read ingredient labels.


Another remark that sounds really condescending. Please dont presume that those who choose to feed kibble are choosing to because theyre sucked in by pretty packages and catch phrases, or are incapable of reading ingredient labels. It is because I read ingredient labels that I know not all kibble is created equally.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

When i fed dry, i always put it with a little warm water, and always with a wet topper otherwise mine would never eat it.

Alfie especially liked 'warms' in winter.

Then i changed to wet as i realised mine really weren't enjoying dry. 

If i ever fed dry again, id still probably soak it a little and add wet, as it just looks and smells far more palatable. Mind you, if i had a dustbin dog....


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

lorilu said:


> This is because the kibble is sprayed with animal digest or other equally awful stuff, to make the cats crave it. Kibble addicts are created, not born.
> 
> The "prescription diets" are about as bad as you can get. It doesn't take an expert to know this all you have to do is read the label. They are filled with carbs, because throw away grains are cheap to put into pet food.
> 
> ...


 I think you are right that cats become conditioned kibble addicts. Whatever is sprayed on undeniably smells and tastes appetizing.

However, even if they are fed wet food, a great many cats just lick the gravy or jelly off and leave the "meaty bits" behind.

Either case leaves the owner with a problem - the pet needs SOMETHING to eat on a daily basis. If it isn't inclined to eat the "biologically appropriate" healthy option....what is the owner to do? Starve the animal into submission? Tell them to go and fend for themselves ?

In regards to the latter: a mouse, vole, bird or slow-worm may be what nature intended them to eat, but have you actually ever closely inspected what your domestic hunter proudly presents you with?

I have. And it REALLY wasn't something I WANTED them to eat. Mice hopping with stuff (fleas) and likely riddled with worms. Birds covered in ticks. Perhaps the slowworm would have been a sanitary option, unfortunately I declined inspection, squealed "there is a snake in the kitchen" and let my husband wrestle with it.

Now if that is YOUR idea of "optimal, species appropriate food", we are never going to find common ground. It is "natural", but that is about it.

Returning to dogs - WHEN in the entire history of mankind - canine relationship was it feasible to feed a dog, or cat, just meat? Aside from the pampered pooches of royalty. My great-grandmother lived through 2 world wars, dito my grandmother, my mum was at the tailend of one. The population was starving. Who do you think fed their pets meat whilst they didn't have sufficient food for themselves?

Which brings us to now and factory farming. Meat aplenty and inexpensive. Do you believe that copious amounts of meat from a cow who has never seen a field, or a chicken never been able to move as nature intended, is "healthy" for the eater? Aside from it being sh*t karma, do you believe THAT meat is particularly beneficial? Especially if that is ALL the animal consumes.

Me? Dunno. It is a huge experiment and time will tell. But until time HAS told, we cannot unequivocally state what the BEST way of feeding is. Might turn out that it was the dreaded grain and cereal rich diet. I mean that is possible, right? Until then, owners should be encouraged to think and question....everyone. And feed according to how THEY concluded was "best"


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Simple counter question. What do vegetables provide which is not supplied by animal based matter? After all, we have taurine as an example of why cats are obligate carnivores. What's the plant equivalent of taurine that dogs need? Generic statements and quotes of experts are fine only when backed up by solid reasoning.


I'm just asking for the information to be shared that Lorilu used that informed her views!

No agenda, just interested.

I have read literature based on research that has given me a certain amount of information, but I'm interested in seeing more.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

staffgirl said:


> I have read literature based on research that has given me a certain amount of information, but I'm interested in seeing more.


Day I stop learning is the day I'm probably dead.. let's keep learning and sharing


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Day I stop learning is the day I'm probably dead.. let's keep learning and sharing


Exactly! I'm all for sharing info and hearing from others who have researched things, and perhaps drawn different conclusions so I can ponder those too.


----------

