# The Truth About Your Dogs Food



## TennoAkita (Jul 28, 2012)

Anyone else catch the advert for this?

It's being shown on Channel 5 at 9pm this Thursday (30th).

Looks like it could be an interesting watch.

Found this article which points to the show at the end: How pet food is killing your dog - and why you should be feeding it parsnips and yoghurt | Mail Online

Haven't read it yet but looks interesting.

Probably full of stuff most of you already know lol.

TA


----------



## victoria171168 (Apr 8, 2013)

I hope the programme shows the difference on a high quality kibble as well.

I know how dog food is made and what a lot of the crap that goes in them , which is why before l chose what might eat l did a lot of research.however not all dried foods are the same.

Just hope its not a complete anti kibble program


----------



## Terry Delgado (Aug 19, 2013)

TennoAkita said:


> Anyone else catch the advert for this?
> 
> It's being shown on Channel 5 at 9pm this Thursday (30th).
> 
> ...


That article in the Daily Mail is written by Jonathan Self who is one of the founders of Honeys Real Dog Food, suppliers of raw dog food. Its bound to be biased.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

I also hope that they will be talking about different quality dry dog foods. Yes, dry food isn't perfect but for some people it's the best option and they will pay a lot of money for best quality food. So I think it's unfair when people try and put all the dry food under one umbrella. All dry food isn't the same just like raw meats are not all great... All I hope from this show is for them to expose chappie and pedigree as rubbish. Too many people believe they are super premium foods.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

shadowmare said:


> I also hope that they will be talking about different quality dry dog foods. Yes, dry food isn't perfect but for some people it's the best option and they will pay a lot of money for best quality food. So I think it's unfair when people try and put all the dry food under one umbrella. All dry food isn't the same just like raw meats are not all great... All I hope from this show is for them to expose chappie and pedigree as rubbish. Too many people believe they are super premium foods.


I hope so too. I feed a high quality kibble mainly because of our lifestyle. If we stayed in our house the entire year (apart from holidays) I would seriously consider a complete raw diet. However for about eight to nine months of the year we are visiting friends, travelling in our motorhome or staying in our static caravan neither of which have the storage capacity for raw foods. I content myself with giving Isla raw bones regularly and occasional raw dinners (the ready made ones). I've fed my last two dogs like this and they lived to very good ages for the breed. 
I think we do the best we can on this forum given our personal circumstances, and try to educate others. Like you, my hope that the truth is told about the very poor brands of kibble and that the good brands don't get swept under the same banner. In other words an unbiased account. Will we get that do you think?


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Siskin said:


> Like you, my hope that the truth is told about the very poor brands of kibble and that the good brands don't get swept under the same banner. In other words an unbiased account. Will we get that do you think?


Honestly? I doubt it. Even if they will try to say that some foods are complete rubbish rather than complete balanced diet, I don't think they will have the guts to name the poor quality foods. They would risk to be dragged into law suits I think?


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

I'd love to know what qualifications these "expert nutritionists" have in order to substantiate their claims.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Ohhhhh I'd seen this advertised and totally forgotten about it - thanks for the reminder  safely set to record!

Hopefully it will give a balanced view .....


----------



## guyblaskey (Nov 26, 2007)

In the run up to this programme the Channel 5 PR machine seems to have gone into overdrive and in my view, although they have done well at promoting the show, the standards of the 'experts' and the journalistic fact-checking leave a lot to be desired.

I have written a bit of a lengthy article about it at:
There is no Truth about Pet Food | Pooch and Mutt

As I say in the article, despite being the owner of a pet nutrition company, I do not claim to be an expert (I work with experts), but I am knowledgeable enough to know that people saying that they are experts definitely aren't.

I hope you all enjoy the article.

Guy


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

I'll be watching it. It would be interesting if they showed for example whether food like pedigree chum was better quality 20+yrs ago than it is now..the reason I say this is growing up our family dogs lived on Pedigree chum and mixer and both lived to 17yrs old.. dog were owned after each other so not over the same 17yrs. 

These days it doesn't seem to score very highly. My eldest Inca has been on JWB most of her life which is meant to be one of the better and more expensive foods, it certainly was when she first started on it nearly 13yrs ago... but she has had tummy problems this last year after been on it many years and trying some other supposedly 'top of the market' foods to see if they suited her better. 

I'm beginning to wonder if my current two should both be on pedigree chum so they may also live to 17! ..as ours had no health issues until they were in their last year (a corgi cross and a collie x lab..both entire males) I suspect though that it is not made from as good quality ingredients as it once was.

It will be interesting to see what they say but I suspect it will be just saying everyone should go raw cos that what wolves ate!


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

shadowmare said:


> I also hope that they will be talking about different quality dry dog foods. Yes, dry food isn't perfect but for some people it's the best option and they will pay a lot of money for best quality food. So I think it's unfair when people try and put all the dry food under one umbrella. All dry food isn't the same just like raw meats are not all great... All I hope from this show is for them to expose chappie and pedigree as rubbish. Too many people believe they are super premium foods.


Chappie though is often recommended by vets and works for upset tummies (original fish tinned) for many dogs and much better price than Royal Canin and Hills which is equally as bad ingredients wise but triple the price! At 84p a can I can afford to keep a couple in the cupboard. Not sure what it is about the ingredients but I've had Inca licking her lips (like when they're feeling queasy) given her some Chappie and she's stopped and not been sick all night as expected...I'd be interested to know what's in it that works!

As mentioned in my post above our family pets many years ago ate Pedigree chum & mixer for years and both lived to 17 on it!

and lets face it some brands are just charging ridiculous prices for foods that are not much better ingredients wise!


----------



## TennoAkita (Jul 28, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> Chappie though is often recommended by vets and works for upset tummies (original fish tinned) for many dogs and much better price than Royal Canin and Hills which is equally as bad ingredients wise but triple the price! At 84p a can I can afford to keep a couple in the cupboard. Not sure what it is about the ingredients but I've had Inca licking her lips (like when they're feeling queasy) given her some Chappie and she's stopped and not been sick all night as expected...I'd be interested to know what's in it that works!
> 
> As mentioned in my post above our family pets many years ago ate Pedigree chum & mixer for years and both lived to 17 on it!
> 
> and lets face it some brands are just charging ridiculous prices for foods that are not much better ingredients wise!


I guess it's kinda like humans. Put your fave takeaway in front of you and you'd prefer that to a well balanced meal that is created to suit you caloric requirements..... Mostly anyway lol. I'd scoff a Kebab, chinese, what have you over boiled chicken, broccoli and brown rice any day lol. We just have a better functioning/developed mind to know we really shouldn't (again mostly, as there are some that really dont give a crap what they eat).

The only 'kibble' Kuma ever ate without any meat mixed in was when my mum got him a box of Bakers years ago when I left him with her whilst I was sorting out the house. He will not eat the good kibble I get him on it's own lol.

It'll be an interesting show.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I doubt what will be shown will be informative or balanced. As has been said, these " experts" who will be appearing seem to be anything but. A lot of what they are quoted as saying is factually incorrect.

And as has been pointed out, the main presenter has a glaring conflict of interest- so much so, this programme would not have been able to have been shown on BBC.


I won't be watching


----------



## bigdogworld (Sep 5, 2010)

guyblaskey said:


> In the run up to this programme the Channel 5 PR machine seems to have gone into overdrive and in my view, although they have done well at promoting the show, the standards of the 'experts' and the journalistic fact-checking leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> I have written a bit of a lengthy article about it at:
> There is no Truth about Pet Food | Pooch and Mutt
> ...


Interesting article with well made points, thanks Guy.

Looking forward to the programme tonight but I have a feeling I may be shouting at the TV occasionally


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

I'll be tuning in - I do hope it's balenced and fair. 

I still personally don't believe grain is the devil, even after changing my dogs to a half raw diet. I still feed them kibble with grain in. 

I know of a Labrador (my old dog's sire in fact) who was fed on raw and budget kibble his whole life. He recently died aged 16 years.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

guyblaskey said:


> In the run up to this programme the Channel 5 PR machine seems to have gone into overdrive and in my view, although they have done well at promoting the show, the standards of the 'experts' and the journalistic fact-checking leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> I have written a bit of a lengthy article about it at:
> There is no Truth about Pet Food | Pooch and Mutt
> ...


Interesting article, thanks for posting


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'll be watching, just had a quick read of the article posted earlier in the thread, of course there are good and bad foods! A food that is incredibly high in cereals with a small and poor meat source isn't going to be as good as a food with a good quality meat content and little or no grain content. Surely that's common sense? Just as a food containing known carcinogens should be avoided. Just because a dog does ok on a [email protected] food, doesn't mean people shouldn't educate themselves about ingredients, and try to give their dog a good, affordable diet. Lots of people survive without eating fresh fruit and veg, but they are stacking up the odds against their body being as *healthy* as possible, and it's their choice to gamble with their health. Why would anyone not want to stack the odds in favour of the food they give their dog, giving the best nutrition possible for a healthy life?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'll be watching, just had a quick read of the article posted earlier in the thread, of course there are good and bad foods! A food that is incredibly high in cereals with a small and poor meat source isn't going to be as good as a food with a good quality meat content and little or no grain content. Surely that's common sense? Just as a food containing known carcinogens should be avoided. Just because a dog does ok on a [email protected] food, doesn't mean people shouldn't educate themselves about ingredients, and try to give their dog a good, affordable diet. Lots of people survive without eating fresh fruit and veg, but they are stacking up the odds against their body being as *healthy* as possible, and it's their choice to gamble with their health. Why would anyone not want to stack the odds in favour of the food they give their dog, giving the *best nutrition possible *for a healthy life?


Expense and false advertising are the main factors... we're talking £50 a sack for a top dry brand,a huge amount of money for a lot of people compared to budget brands for £10/15/20. Also advertising... how many times have I seen a Bakers ad on tv, papers etc? Loads, how many times Applaws/Simpsons etc? none. A lot of people honestly think the likes of Bakers is good food.


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm looking forward to watching it. I hadn't see any mention of it until this thread, so have just turned onto Channel 5 ready and saw the advert for it - looks interesting.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dandogman said:


> Expense and false advertising are the main factors... we're talking £50 a sack for a top dry brand, compared to budget brands for £10/15/20


I remember having a conversation with the butchers I get my free bones from. He knew I wanted them for the dogs, and whilst he was serving me one day, he proudly said you'll never guess what I feed my dogs. I told him to tell me, and said I'd tell him what I thought of the ingredients. His answer, Royal Canin at £65 per bag, he thought the fact that it's sold by vets, and the high price tag MUST mean it's good quality. I asked him to check the main ingredients, and he'd find there were at least three sources of grain, and that this food also, until recently, contained BHA and BHT, two known carcinogens.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I remember having a conversation with the butchers I get my free bones from. He knew I wanted them for the dogs, and whilst he was serving me one day, he proudly said you'll never guess what I feed my dogs. I told him to tell me, and said I'd tell him what I thought of the ingredients. His answer, Royal Canin at £65 per bag, he thought the fact that it's sold by vets, and the high price tag MUST mean it's good quality. I asked him to check the main ingredients, and he'd find there were at least three sources of grain, and that this food also, until recently, contained BHA and BHT, two known carcinogens.


I was talking to a local JRT owner (Molly's friend!) and I asked what he feeds, he said proudly 'Royal Canin, I don't feed anything cheap and rubbish'... he obviously doesn't know it's mostly maize... (which is rediculous for the price, I don't have much of a problem with maize tbh)


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I remember having a conversation with the butchers I get my free bones from. He knew I wanted them for the dogs, and whilst he was serving me one day, he proudly said you'll never guess what I feed my dogs. I told him to tell me, and said I'd tell him what I thought of the ingredients. His answer, Royal Canin at £65 per bag, he thought the fact that it's sold by vets, and the high price tag MUST mean it's good quality. I asked him to check the main ingredients, and he'd find there were at least three sources of grain, *and that this food also, until recently, contained BHA and BHT, two known carcinogens*.


Have you had it confirmed that Royal Canin foods no longer contain BHA and BHT? I've been trying to establish whether or not they're still used for some time now but can't seem to get a straight answer from them!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SixStar said:


> Have you had it confirmed that Royal Canin foods no longer contain BHA and BHT? I've been trying to establish whether or not they're still used for some time now but can't seem to get a straight answer from them!


I assumed as it no longer appears on their ingredients list, they no longer used it. It'd be bl**dy sneaky if they're still putting it in there but just hiding the fact!


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I assumed as it no longer appears on their ingredients list, they no longer used it. It'd be bl**dy sneaky if they're still putting it in there but just hiding the fact!


They never were printed directly on the ingredients lists as far as I know, they were/are included under 'antioxidants'.

I'll keep digging and see if I can get anywhere!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've just contacted them and asked them to confirm the preservatives, or at least confirm neither BHA or BHT is used in their products.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

Watching it, but I know for my girls raw is best


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've just contacted them and asked them to confirm the preservatives, or at least confirm neither BHA or BHT is used in their products.


They ignore or skit around the question! Let me know if you have more luck!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SixStar said:


> They ignore or skit around the question! Let me know if you have more luck!


If they try and evade the question, I'll just respond that my assumption will be that their food still contains these two ingredients, and express my disappointment that a food supposedly developed by vets, and promoted by them, contains known carcinogens.


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If they try and evade the question, I'll just respond that my assumption will be that their food still contains these two ingredients, and express my disappointment that a food supposedly developed by vets, and promoted by them, contains known carcinogens.


I suspect my email address has probably been added to their blacklist and I just get forwarded standard automated replies these days 

But yes, be interested to know what they say to you.

As for the programme, I've not got past drooling over that big beautiful black Newfie they keep showing! :001_wub:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So far, pleasantly surprised that they're not just pushing raw.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm watching. Just seen a lot of bags of that awful bakers. I never let my boy near bakers.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Heard a lot of crap so far...


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

they saying dogs can get salmonella from raw food. 

I do like Lily's Kitchen cos it would suit both mine but does work out expensive for 2 largish dogs. 

They haven't mentioned whether JWB is any good yet though showed Arden Grange when they were talking about better ones, though they only seem to have chicken flavour and they all have some kind of grain in, except for sensitive fish & potato which contains chicken digest??? so no good if your dog can have fish but allergic to chicken.


----------



## BlueJay (Sep 20, 2013)

All dry foods are the same, guys. That bald chap told me so.
Chuck out your Millies and Eden, just get Bakers instead


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The programme makers need stringing up. They've jumped on a hot topic and screwed it up


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

What an intelligent, unbiased, factually correct program!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> The programme makers need stringing up. They've jumped on a hot topic and screwed it up


How? All they've done, is got people to think about what is in their dog food. I thought it was fairly balanced. Ok there were some nuttas on there, but both sides of the debate about processed or raw was presented quite well. In fact I think the people promoting processed foods were more reasoned than one of the raw food people, who insisted all the dogs in rescue with behaviour problems wouldn't have been handed in if they were on a raw diet.


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

There were a few bits that were just plain daft, and the bloke from Honeys drove me mad! - but on the whole, I was actually quite impressed with it.

I was worried it'd push raw feeding too hard and risk a surge of people rushing into it, so I'm glad they mention all those ''dangers'' at the end - how much, if any, of them I agreed with is a different matter, but it would hopefully deter those who'd rush in without thinking. Those who were genuinely interested in doing raw feeding properly can now go on to do their on research and make their own minds up on the ''risks'' they brought up.

I don't feel it was biased towards any food group - raw, tins and kibble all got equal exposure - I think it was a fairly good programme to be fair. Much better than I was expecting it to be.

Now off to walk my salmonella ridden, broken toothed, nutritionally unbalanced and raw bone impacted dogs before bed!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> How? All they've done, is got people to think about what is in their dog food. I thought it was fairly balanced. Ok there were some nuttas on there, but both sides of the debate about processed or raw was presented quite well. In fact I think the people promoting processed foods were more reasoned than one of the raw food people, who insisted all the dogs in rescue with behaviour problems wouldn't have been handed in if they were on a raw diet.


Where were the facts?

Just people mouthing off about their own personal preferences


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Where were the facts?
> 
> Just people mouthing off about their own personal preferences


But that is the problem, as they pointed out, there is very little scientific evidence for or against raw, and any of the research is done by dog food manufacturers who will, of course, be biased towards their own products.

Of course people are going to use their own personal experiences for form an opinion.


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

rona said:


> Where were the facts?
> 
> Just people mouthing off about their own personal preferences


the program was made to make people think about their decision on the dog food that they feed. It wanted people to actually look at what they are feeding their dogs and not just chuck it in their bowls.

also other peoples opinions is how most people decide on something, as without them how do you know what it is like?

i liked the fact it didn't push to hard on any one type of food, otherwise it would have put people off. they cant put down others too much either otherwise the program never would have been shown.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

The vegan women who "rescues" dogs and makes them "follow her philosophy" and the guy from Honey's just made me laugh. All throughout the show I was huffing and puffing and muttering whenever they said some nonsense... 
All in all I did like the program even if they didn't really point fingers at dry food brands and point out how rubbish some of them are. I think it will make some people (who watched the show with a genuine interest) think and do some research. For example my Oh now wants to go to his parents house and throw out all that Bakers out the window and buy decent food. However, it won't happen since the dog isn't his and it's his parents who will be continuing to buy the dog's food...:sad:


----------



## SpiderFX (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm more bloody confused than ever. What to feed 8 months young Rottie Bruno. Asleep in his pit. Any advice people?


----------



## bigdogworld (Sep 5, 2010)

Thank god for David Jackson from whichdogfood talking sense - "it's not rocket science, just read the ingredients". Meat (identified as lamb, chicken etc) should be the first ingredient and, as a rule of thumb, if it looks dodgy or unintelligible, then it's probably bad


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

I thought it was a good programme. Even my husband put his ipad down and watched it. Crikey, a TV programme we both watched together - unheard of!


----------



## ALouu (Jan 30, 2014)

SpiderFX said:


> I'm more bloody confused than ever. What to feed 8 months young Rottie Bruno. Asleep in his pit. Any advice people?


I feel the same!!

I've been looking into changing my pups food anyway and now I don't even know where too start! The whole raw thing doesn't appeal to me but I'm not about to be a vegan extremist. I wish they had given more details into what was actually in the processed food and biscuits though!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ALouu said:


> I feel the same!!
> 
> I've been looking into changing my pups food anyway and now I don't even know where too start! The whole raw thing doesn't appeal to me but I'm not about to be a vegan extremist. I wish they had given more details into what was actually in the processed food and biscuits though!


It's not difficult to research ingredients yourself, just look at the list of ingredients, and have search for what they *mean*. Foods with lots of grain, colourings and additives are pretty obvious to spot, as well as phrases like meat and animal derivatives, which doesn't tell you whether it's a chicken, donkey or gorilla!


----------



## jenny armour (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm in the same boat trying to find a food that wont bloat out my dog and give her soft poo.


----------



## jenny armour (Feb 28, 2010)

judging by this programme, everything has something wrong with it, I ended up confused what was good to give my dog


----------



## Pod2013 (Mar 30, 2013)

The only thing I found frustrating was that it seemed to put all kibbles in the same bracket, and didn't mention the good, high meat content, grain-free ones that are available (Eden, Simpsons, Millies etc). :confused1:


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

watching it now - on the vegans right now - sorry not read the thread will in a minute - what do you think about vegans feeding their dogs these diets? do you think a dog can be truly healthy on a vegan diet? 

I will be honest I would love to feed sophie vegetarian, but when I got her I knew she would need to eat meat - the woman even says the dog would choose the pork over the vegan diet

they say that some of the dogs become healthier but my opinion is that it's maybe because on the vege diet it's natural foods but before the dogs where maybe on something awful like pedigree 

just to add I have no intention of putting my dog on a vege diet lol


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in bone and raw food (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.

I have nothing against feeding raw food - my dogs do get the _occasional_ raw meal, BUT I would just like those who so strongly advocate this method of feeding explain how they know that the diet they are providing for their dogs is correctly balanced. Do you know the parameters for the essential nutrients? I've asked this question several times on this forum and for some reason never seem to get an answer  .

A shiny coat isn't necessarily a marker of good health - most overweight dogs have gloriously shiny coats as sebum production is increased with dietary fat. Faecal output can be equally small and odourless on a kibble diet, depending on quantity of feed and frequency of meals.

I know of someone who feeds all five of their dogs on Wagg - all the dogs are in stunning physical condition, produce a small faecal output, and have an abundance of useable energy. The eldest dog will soon be 12 years' old, and apart from some joint stiffness she hasn't had a day's illness. How can this be accounted for?


----------



## SpiderFX (Nov 12, 2013)

I bet Bruno would like a Gorilla leg to munch on.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2014)

When they first mention feeding raw mum shouted down to me, dogs can have raw bones? My reply was yes they can, how many dogs do you know that can use a cooker or just take themselves to pets at home to buy food. I'd been telling her since I got him they can be fed raw bones.


----------



## Jack Russell Terrorist (Sep 28, 2013)

dandogman said:


> I'll be tuning in - I do hope it's balenced and fair.
> 
> I still personally don't believe grain is the devil, even after changing my dogs to a half raw diet. I still feed them kibble with grain in.
> 
> I know of a Labrador (my old dog's sire in fact) who was fed on raw and budget kibble his whole life. He recently died aged 16 years.


I agree. Grains are great as long as its used as a genuine source of carbs and not in huge amounts as a protein filler etc. and as long as its good quality there is no reason to exclude it unless you have to.


----------



## kateh8888 (Aug 9, 2011)

This programme does seem to have got the dog world talking. I wonder if anyone will change their dog's food as a result? For us, we didn't really learn anything new but we would have preferred more insight into what is actually in kibble and less of the vegan/veg info.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

kateh8888 said:


> This programme does seem to have got the dog world talking. I wonder if anyone will change their dog's food as a result? For us, we didn't really learn anything new but we would have preferred more insight into what is actually in kibble and less of the vegan/veg info.


The members of the raw feeding groups on Fb have almost doubled overnight... i kid you not!

I just hope these folk actually do their research first before panic buying... the last thing i want is the blooming prices to double


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

All I saw was an advert for Lily's Kitchen. Wonder who sponsored that program?


----------



## Ian from the midlands (Jan 30, 2014)

well I shall continue with feeding buster with kibble and raw, and salmonella coming through there fur, what was that all about.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

shamykebab said:


> A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in bone and raw food (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.
> 
> I have nothing against feeding raw food - my dogs do get the _occasional_ raw meal, BUT I would just like those who so strongly advocate this method of feeding explain how they know that the diet they are providing for their dogs is correctly balanced. Do you know the parameters for the essential nutrients? I've asked this question several times on this forum and for some reason never seem to get an answer  .
> 
> ...


there is a faction within the "raw feeders" who are almost evangelical. They assert that commercial food is responsible for all the ills in the dog world-from constipation to cancer, including behaviour problems. There is also a crazy vet (I can't remember who) who stated that THE MAJORITY of the illnesses in dogs today are caused by commercial dog food. These people confuse anecdotes and blogs for "research" and if they ever quote research, the cherry pick results to suit their argument (though the vat is clearly just mental)

I am NOT saying raw feeding is particularly bad. But neither is it a cure for anything (except starvation).
Similarly, commercial food is not poison and is not responsible for illness ( unless the dog has a vet-diagnosed food sensitivity, which is quite rare) or any behaviour problems (there is actually no established link between behaviour and diet)

Those budget dog foods some people on here are so intent on trashing feed the vast majority of dogs in the UK. And the vast majority are doing OK.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in bone and raw food (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.


According to what? How are these "nutritional" standards actually set and how accurate are they?

Have a read of Does Raw Pet Food Warrant a Unique Set of Nutrient Requirements? for some interesting thoughts from a vet.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Goblin said:


> According to what? How are these "nutritional" standards actually set and how accurate are they?
> 
> Have a read of Does Raw Pet Food Warrant a Unique Set of Nutrient Requirements? for some interesting thoughts from a vet.


Page not found


----------



## Sarahferret (Apr 25, 2012)

Satori said:


> All I saw was an advert for Lily's Kitchen. Wonder who sponsored that program?


That's exactly what I thought! If I hadn't already researched dog food and made my own informed decision, I'd have watched that program and thought that the only safe and healthy options were Lilys and Honeys.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Sarahferret said:


> That's exactly what I thought! If I hadn't already researched dog food and made my own informed decision, I'd have watched that program and thought that the only safe and healthy options were Lilys and Honeys.


The founder of lilys - adamant salmonella is carried on the pet hair... why didn't they back that with science


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in bone and raw food (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.
> 
> *I have nothing against feeding raw food - my dogs do get the occasional raw meal, BUT I would just like those who so strongly advocate this method of feeding explain how they know that the diet they are providing for their dogs is correctly balanced. Do you know the parameters for the essential nutrients? I've asked this question several times on this forum and for some reason never seem to get an answer  .*
> A shiny coat isn't necessarily a marker of good health - most overweight dogs have gloriously shiny coats as sebum production is increased with dietary fat. Faecal output can be equally small and odourless on a kibble diet, depending on quantity of feed and frequency of meals.
> ...


I don't strongly advocate raw, nothing to do with me what someone feeds their dog, but how do you know your own diet is complete & balanced with 100% accuracy at every meal. If I can manage to feed my family a healthy & balanced diet (generally over a week or month not at every single meal!) then sure I can manage to feed a dog, its not the science its made out to be


----------



## Ian from the midlands (Jan 30, 2014)

same here, I have five kids and everyone is happy and healthy and done without the need for processed food, same with my dog. the only reason we are still using kibble is because it was what he was fed with kibble by his previous owners and we are weaning him off and onto raw.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

I didn't agree that the Greyhound loved its veggie food and was bolting it down .

I think it would have been better as a two part programme. 
I would have liked to have seen examples of how particular diets have improved health and appearance, or dogs that have suffered as a result of poor diet.
I also don't think all dry foods should have been classed as junk food.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

guyblaskey said:


> In the run up to this programme the Channel 5 PR machine seems to have gone into overdrive and in my view, although they have done well at promoting the show, the standards of the 'experts' and the journalistic fact-checking leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> I have written a bit of a lengthy article about it at:
> There is no Truth about Pet Food | Pooch and Mutt
> ...


A good article, nicely balanced.

A couple of things I must take issue with; at the beginning, you say 'excuse the pun' - there is no pun to excuse.

And the correct spelling of that steak is 'sirloin' not serloin.

(Once an English teacher.......)

On a professional website, these errors make you look unprofessional.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Expert scientists can 'prove' whatever they want depending on what they want to find - I used to work for a drug company. 

The bottom line is that processed dog food is either cheap crap or expensive crap. :Yawn:


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

Having now watched the program, I feel that it was just a load of conflicting opinions of people who think they know what they are talking about. I studied animal nutrition for 3 years as part of my degree and wouldn't call myself anywhere near an expert, whereas some of these people have created their own dog foods on a whim and think they know everything! Argh! This programme made me angry....

One thing I thought that they should have made more of was the few top companies that own pretty much all the commercial dog & cat foods. I know people who worked for 2 of them as nutritionists and wouldn't feed their own dogs the food they produced!

And yes, clearly sponsored by Lily's Kitchen 

My old JRT was fed wet and mixer for most of his life and lived to the ripe old age of 16 when blindness, dementia an immune disease eventually forced us ti make that very sad decision. My old collie x spaniel who is now 15 was fed the same. I've only changed her food as my new pup has a lot of skin problems caused by diet so is now on Millies Wolfheart and doing really well, so they're fed the same food to make it easier. 

It's not a black and white subject and I think if you really were concerned about your dogs food and had no nutritional knowledge this program won't have helped you make a decision. But it did at least make you think about looking at the ingredients on the packet.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

I like Lily's Kitchen food but its expensive especially for 2 larger dogs. I do buy them the odd can as the occasional treat as mine like the xmas dinner and the Chicken & Turkey casserole ones in their kongs.

I don't think JWB is bad especially as they now do a cereal free version and it's single protein for those that need that its one of the better ones ingredient wise. 

They make me laugh when they go on about a dog doesn't need grains in its diet...well people don't NEED chocolate and alcohol etc but I'm not gonna be cutting them out of my diet anytime soon!! .. 

If Inca likes a rich tea biscuit for supper she can have one..though I wouldn't go as far as feeding them an whole meal of fried chicken and chips from a takeaway as it showed someone doing on there! ..they might get boiled chicken and boiled sweet potato cut into chip shapes for a treat though!


----------



## DirtyGertie (Mar 12, 2011)

shamykebab said:


> A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in bone and raw food (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.
> 
> I have nothing against feeding raw food - my dogs do get the _occasional_ raw meal, *BUT I would just like those who so strongly advocate this method of feeding explain how they know that the diet they are providing for their dogs is correctly balanced. Do you know the parameters for the essential nutrients? I've asked this question several times on this forum and for some reason never seem to get an answer * .
> 
> ...


I don't strongly advocate raw feeding, I'm more the type of person who says "I do it this way but wouldn't impose my views on you".

During my research (and there are many other raw feeders who have done much more research than me) I found and bookmarked *this table* of vitamins and minerals in various meat/fish/etc that raw feeders generally use.

As already mentioned by other posters we mostly seem able to feed ourselves a healthy varied diet and by looking at the table I'm confident that with the variety I use then my dog is probably getting everything she needs.

I also have a table of the requirements for various minerals, vitamins, amino acids and fatty acids but unfortunately I didn't bookmark the site so can't retrieve it (I could scan if you're interested). However, unless everything I purchased had information about the breakdown of all nutrients it's not possible to work out how much would be in each meal or over a set length of time.

I had a delivery of some DAF chicken, salmon and tripe chunks yesterday. Only the chicken chunks had a breakdown of percentages of protein/oil/moisture, neither of the others did, and checking DAF's website there is no further information regarding any nutrients so it's not easy to get all the finite information.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Dingle said:


> Page not found


Unfortunately it looks as though that site has been completely redone. The basic theme of the page however was that the food nutrient profiles have been sponsored and designed for processed foods. The Association of American Feed Control Officials Do... [J Nutr. 1994] - PubMed - NCBI states


> Levels of nutrients are based on practical formulations of pet foods with adjustments to account for bioavailability of nutrients in commonly used ingredients


In reality, there's a huge amount of interactions between nutrients. One example is that the phytates in plant ingredients can actually bind zinc so only 20% within the food is absorbed by the dog. This means that more zinc is necessary in the food and the profiles reflect that. Now if the zinc isn't bound and the dog absorbs far more, is that high level of zinc beneficial in the long term? There were other examples. The conclusion, food nutrient profiles are a start, they are not the be all and end all which pet food manufacturers make them out to be as they are designed for a specific type of food. Is it any shock that a different type of food doesn't match a profile when that profile was designed for something specific?

NASA can't give precise nutritional details for all humans despite all their research. Are people saying commercial companies have really cracked it for all dogs or is it simply a best guess based on the information available? Isn't this just another case of "science" being used for marketing purposes without stating the limitations?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> They assert that commercial food is responsible for all the ills in the dog world-from constipation to cancer, including behaviour problems.


Yet I don't see any science being put forward to prove otherwise either  Only claims for marketing purposes. Where is the science that shows dogs do better on commercial food, as we know only commercial food is "balanced and complete"?

Just for interest.. let's look at a food manufacturer.. IAMS and Importance of Animal-Based Proteins in Dog Foods | Iams.com


> 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
> 
> ...


Interesting to note that no reference to study is shown other than "Data on file". Guess that one of the problems with science.. commercial interests can cause it not to be released into the open or prevent "peer review" if it could cause harm to long term prospects to the company in question. Still it's a fairly telling article on a commercial manufacturer's website, not an evangelical nutter that the primary source of protein should be animal based.

Does this mean all commercial food is bad? No, it does mean people need to be provided with the right information to make an informed choice though. When talking about food though, let's hold all sides up to the same standards.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

It was just dog food companies advertising their food. Some idiot from Honeys dog food saying all commercial is the same and rubbish. A woman from Honeys dog food, saying dogs with behaviour problems would be fixed by feeding their food? She deserved an oscar for them tears! If I wanted to feed my dog on honeys it would cost £3.10 a day. How many dogs would lose their home if that was what they cost to feed?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

shamykebab said:


> A paper titled "Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in 'bone and raw food' (BARF) rations" Dillitzer, N., Becker, N., Kienzle, E., presented at the University of Cambridge showed that 76% of raw diets showed at least one nutritional imbalance.
> 
> *I have nothing against feeding raw food - my dogs do get the occasional raw meal, BUT I would just like those who so strongly advocate this method of feeding explain how they know that the diet they are providing for their dogs is correctly balanced. Do you know the parameters for the essential nutrients? I've asked this question several times on this forum and for some reason never seem to get an answer  .
> *
> ...


I'd like to know what you think correctly balanced is.

I don't think the term even truthfully exists. Correctly balanced in who's opinion? Oh yes, those who manufacture dog foods. I think that argument is unstable. As humans, do we need to eat a 'complete' food? No, yet the majority of people manage to stay relatively healthy regardless of this.

I don't see why people think they are capable of feeding their children a varied diet which meets all of their nutritional requirements, yet feel the need to rely on a bag of biscuits with the word 'complete' on the front for their dog 

The mind boggles. Consumers are so sucked in by the word on a packet that they daren't feed anything different.

And no, I do not strongly advocate raw. I would far rather someone fed a high quality dry or wet food than a bad raw diet (ie. not giving 5% liver, 5% other secreting organ and regular green tripe). I don't have the time/inclination to type out what my dogs get in what, but, as an example, the phosphorous calcium ratio in bones is exactly what a dog needs and providing you feed enough bone, for starters that ratio will never be out. Liver is rich in vitamin A but other secreting organs like kidney are rich in other essentials but lower in vitamin A to ensure you do not overdose on that whilst trying to give enough of the other vitamins which secreting organs supply. This is why I have a hissy fit when people feed a bad raw diet, because they can't possibly provide even the staples a dog needs without the likes of secreting offal.

I do not think there is a proper 'complete' guide anywhere. I think all of it is vague guidelines just like for humans and as long as you are offering in the right region then all should be well, again, just like for humans.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

We enjoyed the programme though we did get a bit exasperated with a few of the main characters 

The woman at the rescue, for example, who stated that all commercial dog food was totally fine - and in the same sentence she acknowledged that the food she feeds the dogs there is donated by commercial food companies.

The woman from Honey's - were those genuine tears? We were a tad bemused.

What I mostly took away from the programme was that no two people on it agreed, and that it looked like the woman from Lilly's Kitchen cooks all the food herself in her own kitchen.....


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Just one thing, and more related to cat food really. I had a very old copy of Sherley's cat book, from the 1950s before commercial cat food was in common use (did it even exist?) and it said that kidney disease was very rare in cats. Now it seems to be very common - although possibly cats are living longer now and used to die from other things before their kidneys failed.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> Just one thing, and more related to cat food really. I had a very old copy of Sherley's cat book, from the 1950s before commercial cat food was in common use (did it even exist?) and it said that kidney disease was very rare in cats. Now it seems to be very common - although possibly cats are living longer now and used to die from other things before their kidneys failed.


Funnily enough I have a book about dog food which lists main ailments and makes no reference at all to cancer. That was written in 1955 originally.

Some could argue with dogs that they were dying before they got cancer, but certainly having a golden retriever, I have a constant fear of him getting cancer as a youngster because its really not unheard of.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

The idea that dogs are more healthy now rather than then is a falicy. 
People didn't have the money for Vets. In fact there were very few of them and you would have to travel miles, usually on a bus to see one. 
Dogs were fed whatever the family had left over plus, if they were lucky, raw bones from the butcher.
They were mainly mongrels (not even crossbreeds) because 'normal' families couldn't afford a pedigree dog as they were only bred by established kennels and were far too expensive for ordinary working families. I don't remember any cancers, skin trouble. Most died of old age in their sleep and were buried in the garden.
My family had a mongrel who never went to the Vet. 
My first dog was an Afghan who was reared on pet mince (all the waste and bits not fit for humans) from the butcher and wholemeal mixer with a spoonful of SA37 when I remembered. He went to the Vet once in his 10 years for an upset tummy that I couldn't sort but was right the following day before I'd had chance to give him his tablets!
Now there are 2 or 3 Vets in every town and everyone who owns a bitch thinks that they have enough knowledge to breed. Oh how things have changed. 

When I hear how much my friend pays her Vet each month for an annual check up and to keep her dog pumped full of drugs for worms and fleas I cringe.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Just one thing, and more related to cat food really. I had a very old copy of Sherley's cat book, from the 1950s before commercial cat food was in common use (did it even exist?) and it said that kidney disease was very rare in cats. Now it seems to be very common - although possibly cats are living longer now and used to die from other things before their kidneys failed.





GoldenShadow said:


> Funnily enough I have a book about dog food which lists main ailments and makes no reference at all to cancer. That was written in 1955 originally.
> 
> Some could argue with dogs that they were dying before they got cancer, but certainly having a golden retriever, I have a constant fear of him getting cancer as a youngster because its really not unheard of.


I think we also have to remember that vet treatment has come on leaps & bounds since then & IMHO they probably still did get things like cancer but they would've been highly unlikely to be diagnosed and the dog / cat probably just died

TBH people of that era didn't view dogs / cats the way we do now - yes, they may have had them as pets but there was none of the preventative treatment or long term treatment / surgery .... they went along fine, they got ill and they died...

Food wise - I know my mum says that when she was young, the dogs got whatever leftovers there were - if there was nothing, they got a slice of bread with butter / sugar on or porridge

Now .... that will fill many of us with horror BUT you certainly didn't see the issues with itching that you do now


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Having had dogs for over 40yrs I can vouch for the fed on scraps and what was in the cupboards!...supermarkets full of pet foods did not exist,i only remember chappie dog food,my dogs lived to good ages,never seen vets (no money back in the day!).I stick to what I,ve always fed my pets,lucy and molly are nearing 9 and 12, on basically a human diet(treats thrown in).really is a personal choice.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

It's the food manufacturers who have brainwashed everybody into thinking that you need a degree in nutrition to know how to feed dogs!
Very few parents know about nutrition when it comes to feeding their children but only a few fail.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

mollydog07 said:


> Having had dogs for over 40yrs I can vouch for the fed on scraps and what was in the cupboards!...supermarkets full of pet foods did not exist,i only remember chappie dog food,my dogs lived to good ages,never seen vets (no money back in the day!).I stick to what I,ve always fed my pets,lucy and molly are nearing 9 and 12, on basically a human diet(treats thrown in).really is a personal choice.


*I am seriously thinking of doing the same.*


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Westy said:


> The idea that dogs are more healthy now rather than then is a falicy.
> People didn't have the money for Vets. In fact there were very few of them and you would have to travel miles, usually on a bus to see one.
> Dogs were fed whatever the family had left over plus, if they were lucky, raw bones from the butcher.
> They were mainly mongrels (not even crossbreeds) because 'normal' families couldn't afford a pedigree dog as they were only bred by established kennels and were far too expensive for ordinary working families. I don't remember any cancers, skin trouble. Most died of old age in their sleep and were buried in the garden.
> ...


Probably one of throat sensible posts on this thread.

The upsurge in breeding of dogs from a restricted gene pool (ie "pedigree") has undoubtedly had an impact on their health over the last 30 years.

Feeding a dog is not rocket science,and I strongly believe the food manufacturers prey on folks desire to do their best for their dogs.

Since we are trading anecdotes, when I was young we had a dog who lived till she was 20. I don"t remember her very being taken to the vet apart from when she was spayed. We bought wormer from the pet shop occasionally and she was fed on Kennomeat tinned food with mixer.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

_I strongly believe the food manufacturers prey on folks desire to do their best for their dogs._
and
_I think we also have to remember that vet treatment has come on leaps & bounds since then & IMHO they probably still did get things like cancer but they would've been highly unlikely to be diagnosed and the dog / cat probably just died _

And as an ex-veterinary nurse, I feel that Vets do the same. To me just because we CAN do things doesn't mean that we should.

I would never subject my dogs to serious surgery. You can't explain to a dog why you are sending it away from it's warm loving home to a stark surgery to be isolated in a cage and be pulled about by strangers when it doesn't feel well in the first place.

My motto is always "painfree and comfortable". One of my daughter's dogs developed a mammary tumour at 7 years old - the size of a marrow fat pea. She asked my advice, knowing full well what I would say. We left it alone. She was pts at almost 15 years old, having never been to the Vet and having lead a full and happy life until the last 3 days. When she was taken to be pts the Vet confirmed that she had a tumour on her liver. Would removing the original tumour have helped her? Not in my opinion - and she never knew that she was ill. 

A different perception maybe.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Lilylass said:


> I think we also have to remember that vet treatment has come on leaps & bounds since then & IMHO they probably still did get things like cancer but they would've been highly unlikely to be diagnosed and the dog / cat probably just died
> 
> Now .... that will fill many of us with horror BUT you certainly didn't see the issues with itching that you do now


My post doesn't dispute that at all. As I suggested, dogs live longer nowadays and most likely died of another ailment before they got cancer decades ago. Life expectancy is up.

Lets be honest though, the popularity of dry dog food has increased phenomenally in recent years. I do feel that most likely correlates to skin conditions and the like. People moved away from giving leftovers/home cooking to purchasing dried food and I wouldn't be surprised if the type of skin disease we see is largely down to that, alongside as another poster says, various line/inbreeding.

Lets not forget how many terrible dog foods there are, how readily available these are, and how uneducated many pet owners are. The big five dry food companies probably provide for over 70% of the dog's who's owner purchases dry dog food. That's a lot of dogs and a lot of bad dry food.


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

In response to the person who wrote about not getting a tumour removed on his daughters dog then the dog later developing a liver tumour. I couldn't believe what I was reading to be honest !
My older Yorkie died in 2012 due to a vet not picking up on warning signs like this. It is totally irresponsible to write this stuff. If a dog is ill it is our duty by law to get them treatment.
I have been posting a thread about my nearly two year old Morkie who has been suffering with Meningitis since June last year and we have been taking him to the Liverpool Universities small animal hospital and I asked them whether we were putting Denzil through all the chemo for nothing and what they said sticks in my head, 'we would never make a dog suffer treatment they didn't need for the sake of it.' Also when I said I was worried about him being in the hospital they said it was scarier for him being at home, in pain , with us not knowing what to do for him!
I have lived with a throat tumour that wasn't taken out and because it was growing inside me and know one could see it but I could feel it, it nearly killed me! 
I have had so many people tell me that their dogs have died or are dying due to meningitis due to vets just prescribing steroids and not being referred to neurologists, waiting to see what happens DOES NOT WORK it makes thing s worse. Costing more money and your dogs life. Would you do the same with your child? No you wouldn't you'd be prosecuted for it and rightly so. It's just an excuse not to spend money.
I'm fifty and grow up on a farm in the Channel Islands and my best friend was a collie called Bessie and she was fed dog food, not Chappie, quite an expensive one at the time as my Dad would read the contents and say what he thought of it! Bessie was given a raw beef bone but not chicken bones as my Dad said they where too brittle and shatter when chewed. She would also have chicken or Turkey Sunday dinner but never lamb or pork as Dad said there was too much fat in them for her to digest. She also loved mixer biscuits but only the natural coloured ones. We had the vet once as she caught the flu off me LOL. I was taught to treat animals like family cos they are your family.
I'm sorry for sounding off like this but I just can't believe that it's better to leave an animal ill than get it seen too! Bye the way I haven't seen this tv show my husband has recorded for me as it's something I'm interested in. I tried my boys on Simpsons sensitive because the Royal Canin Yorkshire Terrier didn't get a good review in 'Which'. They hated it! Would lick the Natures diet pate off it I binned 2kg of it nearly, although I don't blame them it smelled of nothing and lolled like lumps of charcoal.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Why was fish not mentioned in the programme?

For instance a tin of sardines is a really healthy snack or part of a meal for a dog. My Labs adore fish, Dex especially; it's his favourite food. They get several tins a week of sardines, mackerel, tuna, pilchards. I also buy from Iceland the big bags of white fish, it's not expensive. I mix the fish with either some of their wet food, or with some vegetables or even wheat-free pasta, and they really enjoy it.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

One of my close friends has a dog who had a mass discovered on his spleen nearly four years ago. He was twelve years old. She decided to proceed with a splenectomy.

He was back on his feet after a few days and is still enjoying walks on the beach with his family four years later.

I doubt she regrets her decision, I wouldn't.

As you say, it's all about different perspectives.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Absolutely Shoshannah. We all have different experiences, many of mine being in veterinary surgeries, and we all make our own decisions accordingly.

I won't get into a discussion with you Yorkiemorkiemum - you are entitled to your opinion without being insulting to others who think differently - but as the dogs are the children in the family, I can assure you that money is the very last consideration.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I am seriously thinking of doing the same.*


Snap - and have been thinking about it more & more the past few days

I used to home cook / freeze in portions a mix of rice / chicken & turkey & veg for Ben - but he did get it mixed with kibble .......


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Why was fish not mentioned in the programme?
> 
> For instance a tin of sardines is a really healthy snack or part of a meal for a dog. My Labs adore fish, Dex especially; it's his favourite food. They get several tins a week of sardines, mackerel, tuna, pilchards. I also buy from Iceland the big bags of white fish, it's not expensive. I mix the fish with either some of their wet food, or with some vegetables or even wheat-free pasta, and they really enjoy it.


Another idea for the home cooked meals!

Really must do some serious thinking about this and clear some space in the freezer!

Maisie - being a typical Lab - loves her food  BUT I can still see a difference when she realises it's Sardine day!

They're wonderful things & so cheap!


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Westy said:


> The idea that dogs are more healthy now rather than then is a falicy.
> People didn't have the money for Vets. In fact there were very few of them and you would have to travel miles, usually on a bus to see one.
> Dogs were fed whatever the family had left over plus, if they were lucky, raw bones from the butcher.
> They were mainly mongrels (not even crossbreeds) because 'normal' families couldn't afford a pedigree dog as they were only bred by established kennels and were far too expensive for ordinary working families. I don't remember any cancers, skin trouble. Most died of old age in their sleep and were buried in the garden.
> ...


Yes, back in the day. I remember those times too. The days when dogs often spent the day roaming the streets, were not neutered (hence the mongrels) and unwanted puppies were drowned in a bucket.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> The days when dogs often spent the day roaming the streets, were not neutered (hence the mongrels) and unwanted puppies were drowned in a bucket.


Nothing much's changed then  - except now the pups are either dumped somewhere or flung out of cars Box of puppies thrown from moving car - Edinburgh Evening News


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I think the issue of how much treatment to give. A seriously ill dog is a very personal one.

A few years ago, I supported my friend when she went through 9 months of hell with her lurched who had some kind of rare auto immune disease.

Circumstances were that the local vet tried for a couple of months to find out what was wrong and treat accordingly- when this failed he was transferred to the vet school where they eventually established what was wrong and tried to treat him. But he did not respond to any of the treatments and ended up being kept in. Every week they thought they had the solution and every week it failed. He became a walking skeleton, totally miserable ( he was a rescue who had been badly treated and confined to a cage. He cannot be caged because he just freaks and actually causes himself physical damage trying to escape. He was so ill he just lay in the cage at the they school)

Every week it was " one last thing to try". It was a terrible experience for both my friend and her dog.

When we were visiting weekly, I met lots of people who were there with dogs, and although I would not criticise THEM for their decision, I decided I would not necessarily put a do through treatment for serious illness. It would very much depend on the dog and the circumstances.

My friends dog made a recovery, though not a full recovery.

She says if she knew what he was going to be put through, she would have had him pts at the beginning, but we don't have a crystal ball. Unfortunately.

I am not getting at the vets, hey did a mavllous job and were extremely kind and caring. They also don't have acces to crystal balls! 

For me, the watchwords would be " why am I doing this? Is it for me, or for him?"


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Years ago did people vaccinate their dogs religiously? I think vaccination is another potentional cause of ill health in dogs today.


----------



## victoria171168 (Apr 8, 2013)

All this programming really gave me is we all have different ideas, etc.

I did like the bit though were they said make informed choices and quality of the food.

All l can say is l do the best l can on the budget l have.


----------



## jenny armour (Feb 28, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Years ago did people vaccinate their dogs religiously? I think vaccination is another potentional cause of ill health in dogs today.


when I had my first collie in 1969, he only had his booster as a pup. then parvo came along in the eighties and it was rampant. my next two collies were vaccinated every year. the vet reckoned because dogs weren't vaccinated regularly, the disease takes over. must admit I had never heard of parvo until then.


----------



## Backlar (May 22, 2014)

Raw meat is actually the best for your dog. However this could become costly in a long run. So why not get juicy bones from your local butchery. People get confuse trying to find the best quality food for their dogs but the truth is if you want to feed your dog nutritious food, don't go for cheap staff and most importantly know which ingredients are healthy for your dog. Don't buy any commercial dog food before you do some research about it. For example some chemical preservatives like BHA, BHT, Zinc are bad for your dog. Zinc can lead to kidney failure. Don't by if not sure what's in your dog's food. More about  dog food here.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Backlar said:


> Raw meat is actually the best for your dog. However this could become costly in a long run. So why not get juicy bones from your local butchery. People get confuse trying to find the best quality food for their dogs but the truth is if you want to feed your dog nutritious food, don't go for cheap staff and most importantly know which ingredients are healthy for your dog. Don't buy any commercial dog food before you do some research about it. For example some chemical preservatives like BHA, BHT, Zinc are bad for your dog. Zinc can lead to kidney failure. Don't by if not sure what's in your dog's food. More about  dog food here.


Where have you got Zinc causes kidney failure from?


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

I do think its a fine line in treatment and I'm not being insulting by voicing my opinion. I totally agree that sometimes a poor animal can be put through allsorts of terrible treatments for nothing and they suffer. When our dog was initially diagnosed the first thing I asked was 'what was the likelihood that he would recover?' as I did not want him to go through all that for nothing. We also elected to cease his chemotherapy because it was making him sicker. I just feel an open mind is better than a closed one. 
On the topic of dog food I agree that sometimes 'experts' on these programmes are selected to support the argument being made than a balanced view and also certain people make statements on this forum without having knowledge in that area.


----------

