Re: New dog - what to feed?

[Guest guest]

since i change my family's diet over to pastured animals 'n such i've also

change our dog's diet to raw. he gets most of the offal, bones, chicken

heads 'n feet 'n stomachs, soured milk, eggs, whey soaked grains, liver,

chicken stock cooked rice, old sourdough, seaweed, pureed veggies 'n fruit,

etc.

i think he's in better shape and certainly has more fun with his food! as

with us i feel a lot better since i know very much more about what it is

that he's eating.

dog's really do seem to have the answers to most of the tagged discussions

on this list. they're smart enough not to fully brief us though <g>.

oliver...

On 6/28/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

>

> We just got a new dog from a rescue group. She's a mostly Australian

> Shepherd mix about 6 months old with reddish brown coat. The food

> they were giving her is " Nature's Variety " .

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I fed homemade raw for years, but when I got sick with Mercury poisoning it

got difficult to do all the prep work.

So, I switched to the next best thing: commercial raw. (If you have the

time, do the prep work yourself - very few of these commercial raw brands

source grass fed meats.) If you're going to use Nature's Variety,

definately go with their raw frozen (for an Aussie, you probably want the

patties, not the medallions) - I did keep the kibble around for when I

occasionally forget to thaw the raw, but it isn't close to the raw in terms

of what it does to her health. Dry foods in general really seem to overtax

the system since they need to drink so much water to digest them. So I'm

switching to canned foods for the forgot to thaw incidents: I don't like

nature's variety canned foods at all - they're gross. When I do canned, I

use merrick's canned foods because they come out of the can looking and

smelling like they were meant for humans (I can't help but to think " yum "

when I open them) and they are moist so she doesn't hang around the water

bowl after eating. I would never consider feeding canned food as her only

food though.

Other pre-made raw brands include Oma's Pride ( http://www.omaspride.com/),

Steve's real food ( http://www.stevesrealfood.com/) and Billinghurst's BARF

diet ( http://www.barfworld.com/). I've fed them all and I tend to prefer

the Nature's Variety nowadays simply because of the variety of eggs and how

it comes in the smaller medallions which is more convenient than patties for

a small dog. I used to do Oma's pride a lot, (they're good because you can

get RMBs, organs, ground RMBs, ground organs, ground veg and make your own

diet - or you can get mixes) but I don't have a real supplier near me - only

a co-op and she despises doing it so I got sick of her attitude. Steve's

real food is okay - is is very bland smelling and Jez wasn't thrilled about

it, but it is pelletized so it " feels " a lot like feeding kibble for those

who are new to the raw thing.

Congrats on the new puppy!

-Lana

On 6/28/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

>

> We just got a new dog from a rescue group. She's a mostly Australian

> Shepherd mix about 6 months old with reddish brown coat. The food

> they were giving her is " Nature's Variety " .

>

>

[Guest guest]

>since i change my family's diet over to pastured animals 'n

>such i've also change our dog's diet to raw. he gets most of

>the offal, bones, chicken heads 'n feet 'n stomachs, soured

>milk, eggs, whey soaked grains, liver, chicken stock cooked

>rice, old sourdough, seaweed, pureed veggies 'n fruit, etc.

Does he get meat? IMO, meat should be prominent in a raw diet as dogs

require a good deal of protein. And I've never seen any raw diet

recommendations from vets or nutritionists or experienced raw feeders that

didn't have meat as a prominent component.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> Anyway...fed her all raw

>meat with the raw/egg, soaked oats occasionally and she came

>to life in no time. I am a huge fan of the all raw diet for pets.

Are you feeding any calcium source? Bones, supplements? It's critical to

make sure dogs on homemade diets are getting adequate calcium. And this is

where most people who don't do the necessary reading on the subject usually

create health problems for their dogs. The best approach, IMO, is variety

and balance over time. But some things are necessary on a regular basis and

that's meat, organ meats and *edible* bone. These are not optional, IMO. If

one is home *cooking* then a calcium supplement is necessary.

Suze

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ - too much muscle meat can be bad for a dog. The whole

" dogs need lots of protein " thing is perpetuated by the pet food industry.

Most pet foods are too high in protein and too low in fat, IMHO. Dogs

don't have nearly the amount of kidney problems on raw as they do on pet

food because there's a better balance of fat and protein.

Most raw diets are not based on muscle meats, but on raw meaty bones. (With

50% or more of the cut being bone.) If extra meat is needed over RMBs,

organs are a far more ideal form of meat than muscle meat due to nutrient

density. Organs, especially liver, have plenty of saturated fats for the

dog's energy requirements.

I have never seen a raw diet reccomend just raw meat without the bones or

organs. Most reccomend some form of animal frames, necks or backs - all of

which are less than 25% meat. I think Oliver's list sounds quite excellent

- much like what my dog thrived on when I was still doing the prep work (and

I went through several macronutrient balances before I ended up there).

She's marginally less healthy since her organ consumption dropped (IMHO,

commercial raw diets don't supply enough) and I am planning on adding in

some more seperately as soon as I get my own diet ironed out.

-Lana

Does he get meat? IMO, meat should be prominent in a raw diet as dogs

> require a good deal of protein. And I've never seen any raw diet

> recommendations from vets or nutritionists or experienced raw feeders that

> didn't have meat as a prominent component.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

I've been feeding raw of one form or another to my dogs for about 16 years. I

also work for a holistic veterinarian.

We refer our clients to this wonderful website for answers to dog feeding

questions: www.dogaware.com. This site is well-researched and documented, and

even covers feeding dogs with certain health problems. I found it invaluable

when I was feeding a dog with chronic renal failure a few years ago.

ee Meade

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

>I beg to differ - too much muscle meat can be bad for a dog.

>The whole " dogs need lots of protein " thing is perpetuated by

>the pet food industry.

Huh? Then why are their foods mostly grains?

I'm not sure why you're saying " too much " muscle meat as I didn't recommend

any particular amount. But I'm on several dog nutrition lists where most raw

feeders are feeding meat, organs, bone and various add-ons - many of them

outlined on dogaware.com (which ee just posted). I've also never seen a

raw feeder have a problem with " too much muslce meat " . I've been feeding a

diet of muscle meat, bones and organs for 8 years. Both dogs will be 17 in

Aug. One is thought to have kidney disease yet she eats mostly muslce meat

(due to her IBD and not tolerating other things) and there's no sign of it

doing any harm to her.

Most raw feeders are trying to mimic the evolutionary diet of the dog. This

diet was not just organ meats and meaty bones but *meat* itself as well.

> Most pet foods are too high in protein and too low in fat,

The major source of protein those is the poor quality protein in grains.

>IMHO. Dogs don't have nearly the amount of kidney problems on

>raw as they do on pet food because there's a better balance of

>fat and protein.

I agree, but from what I see on the dog lists, everyone's feeding

meat/bones/organs.

>

>Most raw diets are not based on muscle meats, but on raw meaty

>bones. (With 50% or more of the cut being bone.)

Not any more. Many folks are moving away from the heavy bone a la

Billinghurst diets and toward less bone. From what I've read, it looks like

most folks are feeding from 30-50% *meaty* bones and the balance being

meats/organ meats and various add-ons.

Dog's ancestors - grey wolves get about 10% bone in their diet. The rest is

protein and fat. Meat and organ meats.

If extra

>meat is needed over RMBs, organs are a far more ideal form of

>meat than muscle meat due to nutrient density.

The problem here is that you can cause mineral imbalances and excesses, as

well as diarrhea if you give too much organ meats. Don't get me wrong, I'm a

big fan of organ meats and I often suggest people feed them more than they

do, but too much can be problematic.

Organs,

>especially liver, have plenty of saturated fats for the dog's

>energy requirements.

I've actually never seen a *fatty* liver, ever. Both kidneys and heart have

fat wrapped in or around them, but liver usually has no visible fat

whatsoever, IME.

>

>I have never seen a raw diet reccomend just raw meat without

>the bones or organs.

Neither have I and I'd be appalled if I did.

>I think Oliver's list sounds quite excellent

>- much like what my dog thrived on when I was still doing the

>prep work (and I went through several macronutrient balances

>before I ended up there).

IF he's not feeding any muscle meat, then I'd have to disagree as I think

there could be a protein deficiency. He didn't say " meaty " bones in his

list, but " bones " . The only protein sources I saw in his list were offal,

stock and eggs. Of course he can clarify this, if he wants.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>Does he get meat? IMO, meat should be prominent in a raw diet as dogs

>> require a good deal of protein.

BTW, let me clarifly here that I wasn't saying that meat should be the

*only* food when I said " prominent " . What I meant was that it should be a

regular part of a raw diet, just as bones and organ meats should. These are

the three foundational foods, IMO, in a healthy raw diet. They are, after

all, what a prey animal is composed of a and what dogs have evolved on for

millenia prior to domestication and the subsequent human interference with

their diet.

Suze

[Guest guest]

One further clarification, when I say " meat/organs/bone, that includes the

fat!

Suze

[Guest guest]

yes, principally in the form of meaty bones from goat, cow and pig. i also

feed him sardines and other canned fish on occasion.

one thing i do need to do is research why other folks are adding so many

supplicments. my goal is to not have any supplements but i don't really

understand things like vitamin c as i believe dogs can make all the vitamin

c they need (as opposed to humans who cannot and therefore must eat it).

again, liver has lots of vitamin c so why supplement? wolves don't <g>.

thanks!

oliver...

On 6/29/07, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

>

> >since i change my family's diet over to pastured animals 'n

> >such i've also change our dog's diet to raw. he gets most of

> >the offal, bones, chicken heads 'n feet 'n stomachs, soured

> >milk, eggs, whey soaked grains, liver, chicken stock cooked

> >rice, old sourdough, seaweed, pureed veggies 'n fruit, etc.

>

> Does he get meat? IMO, meat should be prominent in a raw diet as dogs

> require a good deal of protein. And I've never seen any raw diet

> recommendations from vets or nutritionists or experienced raw feeders that

> didn't have meat as a prominent component.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ugh! Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm in a hurry so forgot to include some

things.

>Most raw diets are not based on muscle meats, but on raw meaty

>bones. (With 50% or more of the cut being bone.)

Lana,

Take a look at Christie 's post here:

http://onibasu.com/archives/kn/132296.html She's been feeding raw for over

20 years to multiple generations.

Excerpts:

" A wolf would get less than 10 percent bone in their diet. This would be

around the amount of bone in a whole rabbit, and in the edible portion of

the body of a large ungulate.

If you feed one pound of meaty bones that are 25 percent bone, and one pound

of meat, and nothing else, you are feeding 12.5 percent bone. Not bad, this

would be IMO fine.

If you feed one pound of meaty bones that are 50 percent bone, such as a

chicken back, and one pound of meat, then you'd be feeding a diet that is 25

percent bone. Only the very largest land mammal, the elephant, has that much

bone. The prey of a wolf doesn't even come close to that. So that is too

much. "

<Snip>

" These are the cuts I do know:

Whole rabbit, about 9 percent bone

Chicken wing, about 30-31 percent bone

Chicken breast, about 15 percent bone

Chicken legs, about 18-19 percent bone

Chicken backs, about 50 percent bone "

Suze

[Guest guest]

Oliver,

<snip>

one thing i do need to do is research why other folks are adding so

many

supplicments. my goal is to not have any supplements but i don't

really

understand things like vitamin c as i believe dogs can make all the

vitamin

c they need (as opposed to humans who cannot and therefore must eat

it).

again, liver has lots of vitamin c so why supplement? wolves don't

<g>.

Dogs do make their own vitamin C. Some whose dogs have cancer give them

high doses of vitamin C but I'm not sure that a healthy dog would need

extra.

My dog is fighting bone cancer (14 mths past dx) and I'm on a bonecancerdogs

list. We give supplements with thought out intent, as opposed to

throwing everything in the bowl and hoping something works. One thing I buy

that I would give to future healthy dogs, is the green blend and

immune-blend from Berte's B-Naturals (www.b-naturals.com). I also give

salmon oil for the Omega 3s and Alpha Sun from CellTech for algae; I give

several other specifically to fight the cancer but these four I would give

to a healthy dog.

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/876 - Release Date: 6/28/2007

10:56 AM

[Guest guest]

IMHO, bones and organs should be the prominant part of the diet and the only

meat that should be fed is that which is attached to the bones the dog is

getting. The meat near the bone gets lots more blood and is far more

nutritious than the meat closer to the skin. If you want to give more meat,

give meatier bones - don't add extra meats from the outside of the animal

which are less nutritious. The dog always has the choice to leave bones if

they are full. Jez would occasionally leave some, but often consumed what

was offered - (and yet even more occasionally she'd leave the bone and ask

for another piece, which I would happily oblige.)

If you look at whole quail or whole guinea pigs: You'll quickly notice there

is very little meat on them compared to the amount of bones, organs and

fats. This used to be the same for chickens and turkeys until they were

bred to produce larger amounts of meat (and even the cow to some degree has

been bred to produce more meat and less organs than wild ruminents do). The

percentages you posted are for the modern chicken which has substantially

more meat than heritage chickens do.

I don't think rabbits are a good example because you can starve a dog by

feeding just rabbit - they have far too little fat, despite having adequate

protein so looking at their meat:bone ratio can be misleading. My

experience with rabbit was that I could give Jez a meal twice as big as

usual of rabbit and she's still be hungry afterwards. I gave up after I

went through a few whole rabbits because I always had to give her a whole

'nother meal afterwards.

You won't see the fat content of a liver because the fats are emulsified

into the meat thanks to the high cholesterol content. Just because there is

no marbeling, doesn't mean there is no fat. Organ meats have never given my

dog diarrhea, and she has gotten up to 50% of her diet from them at times (a

chunk of that being heart). There are plenty of organs other than kidney,

liver and heart that can provide sufficient variety to avoid excessive

nutrients.

Dog food is mostly grain because that is the cheapest protein available - I

agree that it isn't the best protein. Maybe because the industry has been

using such poor proteins - the protein requirements are set artifically

high: but that is no reason to keep giving high amounts of protein once the

quality of the protein has been repaired. Actually, if anything, that would

make the case for giving *less* protein.

dogaware.com's site does not reccomend meat as the prominent part of the

diet - quite the contrary! They reccomend 30-50% from those high-bone RMBs

like necks, backs, riblets, wings and legs, 5-10% heart and 5-10%

liver/kidney. This makes high-bone RMBs and organs the prominent part of

the diet at a total of 50-70%. They lump muscle meats into the " remaining "

category which also includes: dairy, eggs and vegetables. I guess if you

skipped the dairy, eggs and veggies and fed the lower end of each percentage

range you could get a diet where muscle meats were half the diet - but that

still doesn't make them the prominent part of the diet, and that diet

doesn't include other important organs like lungs, spleen, stomach, etc.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

<<I beg to differ - too much muscle meat can be bad for a dog. The whole

" dogs need lots of protein " thing is perpetuated by the pet food industry.>>

I'm sputtering just a little but how do you figure ?? Dogs eat meat and they

really can't get " too much protein " .

<<Most raw diets are not based on muscle meats, but on raw meaty bones. (With

50% or more of the cut being bone.) If extra meat is needed over RMBs,

organs are a far more ideal form of meat than muscle meat due to nutrient

density. Organs, especially liver, have plenty of saturated fats for the

dog's energy requirements.>>

And many people feed to much bone. Up to 1/2 the diet can be RMB and this means

MEATY- not bones. Something like chicken thighs as a good example. Organ meat

is essential, but liver is also really rich and gives dogs the squirts if your

not careful, A general guideline is to feed at up to 10% of the diet. My dogs

are getting an organ blend right now that they really like. It has tripe, heart,

lung, liver, spleen and pancreas.

Kathy A.

[Guest guest]

i think i've read that typically predators will go for the stomach first.

this provides them with loads of enzymes 'n such to assist with the

digestion of the organs and meat that follows. in butchering the offal of a

goat recently it was fascinating to see the various stages of the green

grass fodder in the goat's stomachs and digestive tract. great stuff. are

there any good ways to partially digest / ferment the vegatables to more

closely emmulate stomach contents?

however, this article http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html seems to

contradict all this. thoughts?

also, what are folks thoughts re/ feeding schedule? my impression is that

wolves more typically gorge themselves every couple of days with fasting

between due to hunt patterns / success rate. is feeding every day " normal "

for a dog?

thanks,

oliver...

[Guest guest]

The amount of enzymes in the rumen contents are minimal compared to what is

in the pancreas, so they would just need to eat the pancreas to achieve the

enzyme loading effect you describe.

As for " normal " feeding schedules - I find my dog is happiest with 2 meals

per day, but I think that is more because she sees *me* eat 2 meals per day

(the third is not in her presence) than anything else. I tried going to 1

meal, but she was too jealous and begged too much so I went back to 2. I do

still do the occasional gorge day though. She loves that!

-Lana

On 6/29/07, Oliver Griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

>

> i think i've read that typically predators will go for the stomach

> first.

> this provides them with loads of enzymes 'n such to assist with the

> digestion of the organs and meat that follows. in butchering the offal of

> a

> goat recently it was fascinating to see the various stages of the green

> grass fodder in the goat's stomachs and digestive tract. great stuff. are

> there any good ways to partially digest / ferment the vegatables to more

> closely emmulate stomach contents?

>

> however, this article http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html seems

> to

> contradict all this. thoughts?

>

> also, what are folks thoughts re/ feeding schedule? my impression is that

> wolves more typically gorge themselves every couple of days with fasting

> between due to hunt patterns / success rate. is feeding every day " normal "

> for a dog?

>

> thanks,

>

> oliver...

>

[Guest guest]

Oliver,

I again recommend Straus's website: dogaware.com. You'll find all the

information you are seeking about whether or not to supplement, based on what

you are feeding.

It was long thought that, because dogs make some Vitamin C that they must surely

make enough, but that may not be true. After all, humans don't make any, so

does that mean we don't need any?

I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but Straus is, so I defer to

her advice.

I recognize that wolves and dogs share nearly identical DNA, but that doesn't

mean that all dogs should eat exactly what wolves eat, nor, IMO, that all dogs

should eat exactly the same things. I don't feed my Doberman puppy exactly the

same things I feed my elderly Boston terriers who can no longer handle much in

the way of bones.

I don't think there are absolutes in feeding dogs or humans. Even though we on

this list all share the NT approach to eating, we don't all eat exactly the same

things.

YMMV,

ee Meade

Burke, VA

---- Oliver Griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

> one thing i do need to do is research why other folks are adding so many

> supplicments. my goal is to not have any supplements but i don't really

> understand things like vitamin c as i believe dogs can make all the vitamin

> c they need (as opposed to humans who cannot and therefore must eat it).

> again, liver has lots of vitamin c so why supplement? wolves don't <g>.

[Guest guest]

i'll definitely spend more time on dogaware.com and very much appreciate the

reference. i need to learn way more than i know that's fer sure!

my point on the vitamin C was more along the lines that both dogs and humans

do need it. the difference is that while humans can not create vitamin c and

thus must obtain it via diet, dogs can manufacture all the vitamin c they

need internally presupposing adequate diet needs being met. they don't need

to ingest vitamin c as they manufacture it. so, yes, they do need it but

they don't need to get it from external sources. i believe this holds true

for the vast majority of animals out there with respect to vitamin C. the

orange growers association is apparently behind humans inability to produce

vitamin C <g> .

thanks,

oliver...

On 6/29/07, ee <scottee1@...> wrote:

>

> Oliver,

>

> I again recommend Straus's website: dogaware.com. You'll find all the

> information you are seeking about whether or not to supplement, based on

> what you are feeding.

>

> It was long thought that, because dogs make some Vitamin C that they must

> surely make enough, but that may not be true. After all, humans don't make

> any, so does that mean we don't need any? ...

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

very good point on the " jealousy " factor. as my fam is my dog's pack it does

seem rather unjust for him not to feed when we do.

however, i do wonder as to the health effects of eating so frequently for an

animal not really designed to do so.

thanks!

oliver...

On 6/29/07, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

>

> The amount of enzymes in the rumen contents are minimal compared to what

> is

> in the pancreas, so they would just need to eat the pancreas to achieve

> the

> enzyme loading effect you describe.

>

> As for " normal " feeding schedules - I find my dog is happiest with 2 meals

> per day, but I think that is more because she sees *me* eat 2 meals per

> day

> (the third is not in her presence) than anything else. I tried going to 1

> meal, but she was too jealous and begged too much so I went back to 2. I

> do

> still do the occasional gorge day though. She loves that!

>

> -Lana

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

<<IMHO, bones and organs should be the prominant part of the diet and the only

meat that should be fed is that which is attached to the bones the dog is

getting. The meat near the bone gets lots more blood and is far more

nutritious than the meat closer to the skin. If you want to give more meat,>>

>>>>>>>>>>I think that this is inaccurate. Dogs (wolves) eat things such as elk

as the mainstay of the diet. They will get mostly meat, most of the bones are to

big/hard to be consumable. Organ meats will go to whoever the highest ranking

member that wants them and so forth.

<<If you look at whole quail or whole guinea pigs: You'll quickly notice there

is very little meat on them compared to the amount of bones, organs and

fats. This used to be the same for chickens and turkeys until they were>>

>>>>>>>>>> Quail, guinea pigs etc. are not something that would be on the diet

of a wolf. Chicken would not be either, it is just easy/cheap and fits in OK. I

do use it but then I am not a fan of it either. Poultry was not in the wolf diet

<shrug>

<<dogaware.com's site does not recommend meat as the prominent part of the

diet - quite the contrary! They recommend 30-50% from those high-bone RMBs

like necks, backs, riblets, wings and legs, 5-10% heart and 5-10%

liver/kidney. This makes high-bone RMBs and organs the prominent part of

the diet at a total of 50-70%. They lump muscle meats into the " remaining "

category which also includes: dairy, eggs and vegetables. >>

>>>She also mentions leg quarters, lamb breast and necks and pork necks and

riblets. Also canned mackerel and salmon. These are all meaty- not -bone

meals.

<<Dog food is mostly grain because that is the cheapest protein available - I

agree that it isn't the best protein. >>

>>>>>Grain isn't protein- it's carbohydrate. None of which are complete proteins

that meat provides

<<Maybe because the industry has been

using such poor proteins - the protein requirements are set artifically

high: but that is no reason to keep giving high amounts of protein once the

quality of the protein has been repaired. Actually, if anything, that would

make the case for giving *less* protein.>>

Again, they are not using protein they are using really bad quality grains. I'm

curious if feeding less protein is strictly an opinion or do you have any

studies that show that less protein is better? I can site studies by companies

such as Purina that senior dogs and even dogs in kidney failure- do better with

more protein, not less, and still they market special low protein kidney diets!!

Blech!

I would suggest reading some of Mechs work.

Kathy A.

[Guest guest]

Something that i meant to add and pushed the send button to quik is that you

can't compare kibble and raw protein percents. Or at least not until they are

compared in the same context. Example: kibble protein might be 35% while a

canned food that actually has more meat may be around 12% - You need to do some

calculations and get them both on a dry matter basis.

Kathy A.

[Guest guest]

>yes, principally in the form of meaty bones from goat, cow and

>pig. i also feed him sardines and other canned fish on occasion.

I'd still be concerned he may not be getting enough meat depending on how

meaty the goat and cow bones are.

>

>one thing i do need to do is research why other folks are

>adding so many supplicments. my goal is to not have any

>supplements

For many of the same reasons that people take supplements themselves:

1) the food supply in this day and age is woefully nutrient-deficient

2) certain health issues that require various supplements

3) bioindividuality - dogs nutrient needs can vary widely depending on the

individual

Further, unless you are feeding WHOLE wild prey, then there will be some

nutrients missing or in smaller amounts than what grey wolves consumed

historically. For instance, basically all the meat we get today has been

drained of blood whereas wolves consumed the prey's blood. One cup of summer

bovine or pork blood contains 4,000 IU's of vitamin D! So, in order to put

back in what was taken out, some of us feed CLO and some feed fish that are

high in vit. D like canned jack mackeral or canned pink salmon. Of course

these are fed within limits. I mean, people do go by dosing recommendations

to some extent with CLO, which I think is wise.

but i don't really understand things like vitamin

>c as i believe dogs can make all the vitamin c they need (as

>opposed to humans who cannot and therefore must eat it).

>again, liver has lots of vitamin c so why supplement? wolves don't <g>.

Dogs can make vitamin C but whether your individual dog can synthesize

enough to meet his uniqure requirements is something you don't know. Wolves

do eat berries and adrenals which are also rich in vitamin C.

Suze

[Guest guest]

think i've read that typically predators will go for the

>stomach first.

Not usually first, but they do eat the stomach itself, but not the contents

unless the prey is small and it would be hard to avoid eating the contents.

But dogs' ancestors are *grey* wolves, whose preferred prey is large

ungulates (deer, elk, moose, etc).

are there any good

>ways to partially digest / ferment the vegatables to more

>closely emmulate stomach contents?

There's really no point in emulating it since dogs' ancestors didn't eat it.

But, I'm not saying that feeding fermented veggies is bad. I think it's fine

and I've done it from time to time.

>

>however, this article

>http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html seems to

>contradict all this. thoughts?

This is true, according to Mech. They don't eat the contents, but do eat the

stomach itself. And most dogs go gaga over green tripe (raw rumen), FWIW.

>

>also, what are folks thoughts re/ feeding schedule? my

>impression is that wolves more typically gorge themselves

>every couple of days with fasting between due to hunt patterns

>/ success rate. is feeding every day " normal "

>for a dog?

Absolutely. I would NOT try to emulate the wolf's feeding schedule,

especially for small dogs who need more frequent feeding. Wolves were forced

to have such a feeding schedule due to availability of prey and other

factors not in their control. It doesn't mean such a schedule is really

optimal for them or for our domesticatd wolves. Generally people find that

feeding one to two meals a day works best. I have small dogs and normally

feed two meals a day, although I now feed three meals a day to my

underweight dog with IBD.

Please don't try to feed your dog every few days or so, I think it's cruel

and can be unhealthy.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>IMHO, bones and organs should be the prominant part of the

>diet and the only meat that should be fed is that which is

>attached to the bones the dog is getting.

This doesn't have a basis in the evolutionary diet of the dog though, and

those of us feeding raw are trying, to some degree, to use that as a

foundation of our dogs' diets.

The meat near the

>bone gets lots more blood and is far more nutritious than the

>meat closer to the skin. If you want to give more meat, give

>meatier bones - don't add extra meats from the outside of the

>animal which are less nutritious.

Do you have some nutrient analysis showing that the meat closer to bone is

more nutrititious? And does it really matter? I mean, dogs' ancestors ate

meat from all parts of the animal. Whether it's more or less nutritious, it

provides protein.

>

>If you look at whole quail or whole guinea pigs: You'll

>quickly notice there is very little meat on them compared to

>the amount of bones, organs and fats.

<snip>

>I don't think rabbits are a good example because you can

>starve a dog by feeding just rabbit - they have far too little

>fat, despite having adequate protein so looking at their

>meat:bone ratio can be misleading.

None of these animals represents what wild wolves choose to eat, although in

some cases, when they can't get larger prey they do eat rabbits. Here's an

excerpt from a post I wrote to this list last year:

" My information about the dietary habits of wolves (which I should've

qualified in my previous post) comes from Mech, who is probably the

most respected wolf biologist in the world and has studied wolves for over

well over 20 years and has probably published more about their behavior and

ecology than any other human being. (see his extensive biography here:

http://www.davemech.org/biography.html) I don't meant o appeal to authority

in stating this, but rather to provide a citation from a source with

extensive experience with and knowledge of the habits of wild wolves.

In one of his books on wovles titled " The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an

Endangered Species " he writes in the section " Prey Species " :

" It seems logical that the wolf would prey mainly on large animals, because

of its size, its habit of traveling in packs, and its ability to consume and

digest great quantities of food in short periods. Predators that feed

consistetly on small animals usually are much smaller, and they hunt alone.

Many studies of wolf food habits support this conclusion. In the seven most

complete investigations of the contents of large numbers of wolf droppings,

animals the size of beaver or larger composed from 59 to 96% of the food

items (Table 19). In all but one of these studies, animals larger than

beavers comprised from 59 to 88% of the items. The prey most represented

were: white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, caribou, elk, Dall sheep, bighorn

sheep, and beaver. " (pp. 172-73). "

Since the edible bone of large ungulates is no more than 10%, then that is

what they had to work with. Of course the alpha pair could select what

portions of the animal they wanted, and did consume quite a bit of organ

meats, but I've not read anything about them hoarding bones. Mech would've

written about this behavior had he observed it.

>

>You won't see the fat content of a liver because the fats are

>emulsified into the meat thanks to the high cholesterol

>content. Just because there is no marbeling, doesn't mean

>there is no fat.

Ok, well let's take a look. According to the USDA database:

Beef liver: 20% protein, 3.6% fat, 3.8% carbohydrate.

Lamb liver: 20% protein, 5% fat, 1.8% carbohydrate.

Chicken liver: 17% protein, 4.8% fat, 0% carbohydrate.

I wouldn't consider this a good source of fat, it's mostly protein.

Organ meats have never given my dog

>diarrhea, and she has gotten up to 50% of her diet from them

>at times (a chunk of that being heart). There are plenty of

>organs other than kidney, liver and heart that can provide

>sufficient variety to avoid excessive nutrients.

But they are hard for most people to procure so most folks end up feeding

just heart, liver and kidney. I definitely agree, though, that it's better

to feed a wider variety of organ meats if possible.

>

>Dog food is mostly grain because that is the cheapest protein

>available - I agree that it isn't the best protein. Maybe

>because the industry has been using such poor proteins - the

>protein requirements are set artifically

>high: but that is no reason to keep giving high amounts of

>protein once the quality of the protein has been repaired.

>Actually, if anything, that would make the case for giving

>*less* protein.

Again, that's just not the case when using the evolutionary diet as the

foundation.

>

>dogaware.com's site does not reccomend meat as the prominent

>part of the diet - quite the contrary! They reccomend 30-50%

>from those high-bone RMBs like necks, backs, riblets, wings

>and legs, 5-10% heart and 5-10% liver/kidney. This makes

>high-bone RMBs and organs the prominent part of the diet at a

>total of 50-70%.

To be clear, there is no " they " , this is one person's website and her own

opinion. Having said that, I have a great deal of respect for (who owns

the site) but it doesn't change the fact that anything about 10% bone is not

in alignment with the diet dogs evolved on. She also recommends no more than

10% organ meats, and I assume you don't agree with that? I personally don't,

but again, I find most of 's info to be excellent. She's helped me a

great deal with my own dogs and I could never speak ill of her. We just

disagree on certain things.

Suze

[Guest guest]

This doesn't have a basis in the evolutionary diet of the dog though, and

those of us feeding raw are trying, to some degree, to use that as a

foundation of our dogs' diets.

I too was following a prey model diet (and this discussion is doing a great

job of kicking my butt into getting back to it). There is a lot of debate

as to what exactly that is and you are right, Mech is probably the

foremost expert. But, I am also feeding a 13 lb dog, not a wolf and I have

to rely on her food instincts to tell me what is good.

But they are hard for most people to procure so most folks end up feeding

just heart, liver and kidney. I definitely agree, though, that it's better

to feed a wider variety of organ meats if possible.

Anyone feeding only heart, liver and kidney is not following a full

prey-model. Sure, they're difficult to get - that's one of the reasons I've

been focusing on getting smaller, whole prey with all the organs intact when

I can't get the larger prey organs. (Although, thanks to Kathy pointing out

that poultry is inappropriate, I will be focusing more on rodents.) The

other reason pertains to another of your comments:

Predators that feed consistetly on small animals usually are much smaller,

and they hunt alone.

The fact is: our dogs haven't been pack animals (in terms of hunting and

taking down an elk or deer) in years so I think to some degree, if it wern't

for humans, they would eat a good deal more rodents (including beaver) than

prey-model raw people are typically feeding.

Not to say the instinct isn't there - I'll never forget the look on my

Jezebel's face when she saw a live white tailed deer for the first time and

busted her collar bouncing off after it leaving me to wait until reality hit

her. Not like she'd have much luck catching the thing, being 13 lbs - LOL!

Do you have some nutrient analysis showing that the meat closer to bone is

more nutrititious?

I don't have a nutrient analysis, but I have read in several places that the

meat is richer in blood and therefore has the blood nutrients as well as the

meat nutrients. I guess this wouldn't matter if you had a source of blood

though. (I like how that raw food brand you posted uses blood in the

recipe, btw.)

And does it really matter? I mean, dogs' ancestors ate

meat from all parts of the animal. Whether it's more or less nutritious, it

provides protein.

Not all protein is created equal (see my other post) and not all of the dogs

had access to the whole animal - that depends on pack status.

Of course the alpha pair could select what

portions of the animal they wanted, and did consume quite a bit of organ

meats, but I've not read anything about them hoarding bones

She also recommends no more than

10% organ meats, and I assume you don't agree with that? I personally don't,

but again, I find most of 's info to be excellent.

Technically, we should only be looking at the top of the pack for nutrition

information, but I haven't seen anyone do that yet. This is a good part of

why I feed more than 10-20% organs. I have an intact female in reproductive

age and she just needs that much in the way of organs. Although, I have

noticed when she gets too much organs during her heat, she'll have milk

after her heat - like one of those wolf wet nurses I have heard about.

That's about the only " bad " effect I get from feeding her 50% organs and in

the wild, that would be a *very* desireable thing. (Which I can prevent as

long as I remember to bring her back towards 30-35% organs before her heat.)

Beef liver: 20% protein, 3.6% fat, 3.8% carbohydrate.

Lamb liver: 20% protein, 5% fat, 1.8% carbohydrate.

Chicken liver: 17% protein, 4.8% fat, 0% carbohydrate.

I wouldn't consider this a good source of fat, it's mostly protein.

I don't understand the math you're using - is this percent calories? Fat is

worth twice what protein is, calorie wise.

Raw chicken liver has 12 calories out of 32 from fat for 1 oz. (

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20Ak.html) That's 37.5% of the

calories from fat...

Raw beef liver is 9/32 (23%) and lamb liver is 51/157 (32%). What percentage

of calories would you consider a good source of fat?

it doesn't change the fact that anything about 10% bone is not

in alignment with the diet dogs evolved on.

If an ungulate has 10% edible bone, and I'm feeding a RMB with 50% total

bone, I'm only actually giving her 5% of edible bone. That's far less than

what you are advising to give. This is why I said this in my last post:

" ...a balance of RMB sources is as important, if not more important than the

percentage of bone in each RMB. Perhaps we should set seperate guidelines

for small prey (10-15% bone) and large prey (50% bone)? That would

definately give a more accurate picture, since smaller prey have more edible

bone than large prey. "

-Lana