Dog Owner Chat V. 5

[cornspurrd.]

do a google search. Im not in the mood to do it myself.

Lol.

Im at my friends house and she has a boxer :)

[.Kira Nightblade.]

^
Boxers are adorable! (My aunt has one, I might see if I can get a pic sometime)

[Crossflare]

...

[Fishcat]

I need some advice
So I have a 9yr old Pomeranian (male)
And a 2yr old mixed breed (female(
Both have been done
So Jasper (Male) And Daisy (Female) Fight Alot， jasper is a small bean , and daisy is probs 2or 3x his size
Daisy thinks she is top dog and gets extremely jealous if we pay attention to jasper, and Goes after him for no reason, if jasper runs into the kitchen,daisy will jump in with a growl
What the hey should I do
(Keep in mind jasper is technically my grandpas dog, and jasper has been living with us since November)
The first month or two, daisy was scared of jasper (lol) but not daisy understands she is bigger and is stronger
Advicceeeee
I already pay much more attention to daisy because I can’t get alone time with jasper oof
but jasper needs love too ;-;

[Imzadi83]

well yes, dehydrated food lacks moisture.. thats the point. I'd probably soak it before feeding .

Im still a highschool student, And a unemployed one at that. My parents wouldn't be too happy with me preparing raw meat so frequently in their kitchen + Its expensive. If somebody sold freeze dried for a decent price I'd be very happy! Not just like treats, but the full meal. Add some bone and egg to that and it would be perfect!

Deacon sometimes gets rice and raw egg with his food. I try and get him raw meat sometimes too because he loves it and it cleans his teeth. I almost always soak his dry food in water too because he sucks at regularly drinking water.. with how active he is he really needs the water in his food 🙄😂

As much as raw has its benifits, it also has things that aren't so good.. but that also applies with every single thing you let your dog consume. In my opinion raw has more pros for my dog than cons.

.. but everybody has their own opinion.

Any studies that prove it's benefits?

I have seen far more studies that prove raw is just far more rusky then it is worth meanwhile nothing proving it even helps your dog just the "Evidence is sort of because I can see a change in my dog type anecdotal stuff" Whuch I might add is not scientific proof of anything. So to the person who refuses to feed raw I agree with them.

I used to be all into feeding it When I get my own pets and my own place but upon finding out that people have no studies proving it's good I said nope I am not doing it.

I agree that more studies need to be done, but to me feeding a natural species appropriate diet is better then feeding something designed in a lab. The lab studies done on commercial pet foods are done by the companies themselves, and only for a limited amount of time based on one small factor (like improving coat quality for example). There are no lifetime studies done proving commercial diets of kibble (or even wet food for that matter) are good for dog, let alone "better" than raw.

I haven't seen any well done studies proving raw is more dangerous then kibble. The studies I have seen show that kibble fed dogs are also shedding bacteria in their feces that could potentially be dangerous, just different kinds. It's hard to say too because the studies done on raw have often not been on a balanced raw diet, which skews the results. Obviously if you feed an unbalanced diet you're going to have problems. Unfortunately most studies are done by big pet food companies so I don't expect any studies on properly fed raw diets by an independent body anytime soon.

Considering how many recalls of kibble happen all the time, how many dogs have died, and how many people got sick because, I feel far safer feeding my dog raw. So I feel the way about kibble you feel about raw. If I had a dog who could handle it I might use a high end kibble as a training treat or a little in a puzzle toy, but I would never use it as my dog's main diet. I hope one day that companies are held to higher standers and that kibble continues to improve over time.

Saying that there are no studies supporting the benefits of raw means that raw is bad and has no scientific support is false. There is no science proving that kibble is better than raw either and ignoring that and the problems that have been linked to kibble is also problematic. Raw diets are natural and supported by biology and evolution, kibble is not. Kibble is an invention of food companies that wanted to make profit on leftovers that were unsuitable and sometimes illegal to be sold to humans. Not saying that they haven't come a long way, but kibble is hardly a natural way to feed a dog. It's like saying that if you're eating a cereal that is fortified with all the vitamins, minerals, protein, etc. that you don't have to eat anything else.

Raw does have it's downside if done improperly, everyone I know who feeds raw acknowledges that. Raw feeders are often very knowledgeable about canine nutrition and very careful about feeding their dog a properly balanced diet. I can't say the same for many kibble feeding owners I know, who just take someone else recommendation without doing their own research, or even checking figuring out what ingredients are really in their dog's food.

If you're not comfortable or can't feed raw have you considered a homemade cooked diet? Obviously what you will need to feed will be different than if you were feeding raw because cooked food does not have the same nutrient profile as raw does.

[Crossflare]

....

[Imzadi83]

I need some advice
So I have a 9yr old Pomeranian (male)
And a 2yr old mixed breed (female(
Both have been done
So Jasper (Male) And Daisy (Female) Fight Alot， jasper is a small bean , and daisy is probs 2or 3x his size
Daisy thinks she is top dog and gets extremely jealous if we pay attention to jasper, and Goes after him for no reason, if jasper runs into the kitchen,daisy will jump in with a growl
What the hey should I do
(Keep in mind jasper is technically my grandpas dog, and jasper has been living with us since November)
The first month or two, daisy was scared of jasper (lol) but not daisy understands she is bigger and is stronger
Advicceeeee
I already pay much more attention to daisy because I can’t get alone time with jasper oof
but jasper needs love too ;-;

Daisy isn't going after Jasper for no reason, you said yourself you think she's jealous. It's hard to say without seeing the behavior what exactly is happening. It could be like you said and Daisy is bullying Jasper because she doesn't like sharing attention, or she could be trying to play, or she could just be bored and using him as a toy to play with without any ill intention.

Either way the first way of dealing with this is management. Separate them when you can't supervise (if you're not already). If you know a particular situation is going to cause problems separate them to prevent. This can mean putting a leash on Daisy so she can't chase him into the kitchen, putting her away like in another room or crate, or getting a gate with a pass through (look for ones designed for cats) that Jasper can get through into the kitchen but Daisy can't fit through. There are things that go on doors which keeps them open a crack for a cat to get through but a larger dog can't, that might be worth looking into as well.

When you do pay attention to Jasper you can give her a high value chewy or treat in a puzzle toy in a crate or a separate room so that you paying attention to Jasper means something great comes her way. Also when she does go after him ignore her and put her away so she can't get to Jasper anymore. Do this as unemotionally as possible, negative attention is still attention, and consistently.

I'd advise feeding desperately, if you're not already, if there's any worry about Jasper taking her food going on Daisy's mind (even if he never has she could still worry about it) this will help quash it and give everyone a peaceful meal time.

And last but not least I highly advise increasing Daisy's exercise. Leash walks, games, training, etc. If she's tired she's not going to have the energy to go after Jasper.

At some point you could train/exercise them together, but not at first and not until you've already exercised Daisy well. Also look at Jasper's confidence level. Is he walking around like all is right with the world, or is he sneaking around avoiding Daisy? If it's the latter try to work on making him feel more confident, once Daisy see's he's not intimidated by her she may back off. This can be done by playing and training with Jasper in various places of the house (especially hot spots where Daisy has gone after him) ultimate though the main thing is to prevent her from going after him in the first place. And while we'er talking about training, teach and work on proofing a "leave-it" for Daisy.

Not every kibble fed dog owner takes things,st face value in fact I don't my pets are fed kibble thr cats get wet food as well. All Science diet. Which I might add is not bad, it's healthier then most of the other junk out on the market these days. I'll continue feeding science diet when I get my own place and pets. Because I refuse to go raw. Never had a pet get sick from science diet at all.

I know people who cook homemade foid fir their dogs,who do just fine as well.

I never said every kibble owner...I said many kibble feeding owners I know. I was responding to what you said "everyone ignores the risks based on quote personal experience." which is simply not true. Many owners who feed raw are very aware of risks and do their best to mitigate them as mush as possible.

I disagree that Science Diet isn't "that bad" but it does depend on what you're comparing it too. We feed it to my late dog and I thought I was so smart for doing so, not that I've grown up and been able to do research I'd never feed it to a dog again.

[Taiger Lilly]

Plenty of dogs get sick from a raw diet. It's a cop out to just say "oh that was poorly done raw" because the whole point is there is no established "properly done" raw feeding. There is a ton of debate within the raw feeding community itself, and there are no set standards backed by evidence. Sure there are more popular methods, and some are much better than others, but its largely based on whatever the individual "thinks" is more "natural" (which is garbage, because natural does not mean better, and without knowing the WHY behind certain requirements it's all just opinion). Raw food manufacturers are still dog food companies, and the onus is on them to actually research and study their product. I see no reason why they shouldn't do their own studies. And the established nutrient requirements for dogs (that many raw recipies try to follow) are mostly based on research by... kibble companies !

I don't buy the argument of raw being natural and supported by biology or evolution.
Natural is not always better, wild animals are not automatically healthier than pets. Tons of animals die young, get sick, are riddled with parasites and diseases, suffer from injuries, broken teeth etc. I want better than that for my pets.
Evolution is not a perfect process. It can only work on what is available, it does not necessarily select for the most perfect solution, just one that is good enough for the animals to continue to reproduce successfully. Saying something is "supported by evolution" doesn't really make sense, unless you just mean it as " it's what wild animals eat". They eat it because they have no choice, and it keeps them alive, this doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. And guess what, they were drawn to humans and human food scraps at some point, which was an advantage because we now have dogs.

What I'm trying to say is you can't KNOW something is good or bad just because it occurs in nature. You can use nature to give you some ideas and help form your hypothesis but if you just stop there (which many people do) you could be severely mistaken. There has to be some sort of follow up, otherwise it's all conjecture. Different people use the same information to draw different conclusions, hence all the different schools of thought in the raw feeding community.

[Imzadi83]

Plenty of dogs get sick from a raw diet. It's a cop out to just say "oh that was poorly done raw" because the whole point is there is no established "properly done" raw feeding. There is a ton of debate within the raw feeding community itself, and there are no set standards backed by evidence. Sure there are more popular methods, and some are much better than others, but its largely based on whatever the individual "thinks" is more "natural" (which is garbage, because natural does not mean better, and without knowing the WHY behind certain requirements it's all just opinion). Raw food manufacturers are still dog food companies, and the onus is on them to actually research and study their product. I see no reason why they shouldn't do their own studies. And the established nutrient requirements for dogs (that many raw recipies try to follow) are mostly based on research by... kibble companies !

I don't buy the argument of raw being natural and supported by biology or evolution.
Natural is not always better, wild animals are not automatically healthier than pets. Tons of animals die young, get sick, are riddled with parasites and diseases, suffer from injuries, broken teeth etc. I want better than that for my pets.
Evolution is not a perfect process. It can only work on what is available, it does not necessarily select for the most perfect solution, just one that is good enough for the animals to continue to reproduce successfully. Saying something is "supported by evolution" doesn't really make sense, unless you just mean it as " it's what wild animals eat". They eat it because they have to no choice, and it keeps them alive, this doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. And guess what, they were drawn to humans and human food scraps at some point, which was an advantage because we now have dogs.

What I'm trying to say is you can't KNOW something is good or bad just because it occurs in nature. You can use nature to give you some ideas and help form your hypothesis but if you just stop there (which many people do) you could be severely mistaken. There has to be some sort of follow up, otherwise it's all conjecture. Different people use the same information to draw different conclusions, hence all the different schools of thought in the raw feeding community.

Plenty of dogs get sick from kibble too, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

I'm not saying all dogs who do poorly on raw are just because it was poorly done, but it is something to take into account. Most kibble feeders usually feed a specific brand, or avoid a certain brand. Isn't that opinion as well? There hardly seems to be a scientific consensus on kibble quality either, or what even should be in it, how is that any different?

And no natural does not automatically mean better. But neither is kibble that has been improved via science. For example, nature did not intend dogs to eat corn. Their teeth and digestive track are not optimized to process it, nor are there any independent long term studies proving that corn based diets are superior. Still many feel corn based kibbles are good for dogs, that is also opinion.

And yes, raw is natural for canines and supported by evolution (it is what they evolved to eat). It's not an argument, it's fact, canines do not naturally eat kibble and have not over the course of history. Kibble hasn't been around that long.

I don't want a sick dog riddled with parasites and diseases, suffering from injuries, having broken teeth etc. either. I too want better for my pets, that's why I feed raw and take precautions to lower the risk of those things happening both in how I feed raw and in other ways. Dogs who eat kibble also get sick, they are riddled with parasites and diseases, suffer from injuries including broken teeth (ask any canine dentist how many broken teeth they see being caused by Nylabone and similar toys). I'm not trying to blame all the ills of dog kind of kibble, the same is true of raw.

Raw feeders that I know and have spoken to do their best to give their dog and optimum diet. And your right there is room for improvement! That's why a dog should be feed a balanced raw diet (I agree there isn't a consensus, and would like to see more studies) and not just be thrown scraps or allowed to pick through the trash like their ancestors had to do.

I would like to see raw food companies do research as well, but I'm sure it would just be dismissed as being biased. Honestly what is needed is independent research, but I don't see anyone ponying up the kind of money that would be needed for a broad long term study and anything less would be dismissed. Multiple studies have to be done as well because for results to be accurate they have to be repeatable.

You're right that you can't KNOW something is good or bad just because it's occurs in nature. By the same logic however you can't KNOW something is better just because it has been enhanced by science either. Just because I feed and support raw doesn't mean I'm anti-science or unwilling to believe in scientific progress. But I also understand that as science evolves and we learn more we may learn that things which science supported in the past turn out to be detrimental in the long run.

[Taiger Lilly]

Any concerns with kibble (in terms of manufacturers,
quality control, trust issues) could be alleviated by a home cooked diet. No need for it to be raw.

I'd say the scientific consensus currently promotes food that has been tested through feeding trials, as well as being formulated by a veterinary nutritionist and meeting AAFCO guidelines.

It is irrelevant if a dog could naturally process corn fed raw and whole in a natural environment. Of course they can't, as they didn't evolve to fit that niche. The facts are that processed corn is highly digestible, and provides nutrients and energy (it is way more efficient to get energy from carbs compared to protein) when incorporated in food. Is it needed, No. Is it a useful ingredient to be able to use when creating a food? Yes. Living things need nutrients, not ingredients. As long as they are being absorbed (which the blood tests during feeding trials confirm) the source is not a major factor.

Again not sure why you keep insisting on kibble being unnatural, that's irrelevant. And again being "supported by evolution" just means the same thing as it being "natural" which again doesn't have any bearing on it being good, bad, or best.

Even if research is funded by a company with an interest in the results, it can still be done well and have valid information. I really don't think that "everybody would dismiss it" is a valid excuse, they should still want that information even if it's just for their own purposes. Many kibble brands continue to support research into canine nutrition even though they are also being dismissed as biased.

We know (though science) that we can make kibble diets that are complete and balanced, safe to consume, and healthy. Ingredients and their nutritional values and bioavailability have been studied.

Raw feeding has proven risks that in the eyes of most experts (including the FDA, CVMA, AMVA, AAHA, BVA..etc ) outweigh any supposed benefits.

If you choose to go against that based on your own opinions, that's fine, but I don't see how you can say that dogs should be fed a balanced raw diet and then immediately admit that theres no consensus on what that is.