Hi Hugex,

And to think you only said that raw chicken retains growth hormones! :-)  One would have thought that those who feed BARF might have said, wow ... from now on I will make sure either to either buy organically raised chicken or reduce the amount of chicken fed. 

Stacey

>One would have thought that those who feed BARF might have said, wow ... from now on I will make sure either to either buy organically raised chicken or reduce the amount of chicken fed.

Not at all. :)  If someone told you the earth was square you wouldn't automatically believe them would you? ;)  Whatever we feed we need the correct information to make our choices. I was genuinely interested in whether Hugex had anything to back up the claims made and could supply any other information. That's why, in my post, I politely asked... 

>"can you give us more details?... what sort of reproduction problems (infertility? mammary tumours?...) Have you any statistics for the percentage of raw and complete feeders whose dogs have these problems?  As a raw feeder I'd be interested in more info :) "

Infertility and other breeding problems don't affect me personally as I don't breed, but hormone related cancers/illnesses are a definate worry.  Without statistics though, I'm still not convinced that the problems are due to raw feeding.  I don't dismiss the idea out of hand but I won't blindly change what I feed either. :)

Kath.

Kath,

But the poster did NOT say that problems were due to raw feeding or BARF as a choice of diet for your dog.  The problems Hugex identified are due to growth hormones which are now only present in chickens and do not break down when chickens are fed as raw meat/bone.   That's why I do not understand the defensive reaction.    The solution is to buy organically raised chickens and continue to feed them uncooked, if that's what you choose to do. 

Maybe I am naive in thinking this was good and helpful advice to anyone that feeds raw.  

Stacey

Sorry Stacey, I mean't to say "I'm still not convinced that the problems are due to raw chicken" rather than "raw feeding" .... a slip of the tongue rather than a lack of understanding. :)

I, for one, did take Hugex's post as "good and helpful advice to anyone that feeds raw", but would still like hard evidence that hormones from chicken is the cause. 

Kath.

thanks for the link Jeangenie.   Very interesting.  However, do we know whether dogs were really healthy in the days of biscuits and early commercial feeding, as indeed do we know that dogs were in optimum health on the home prepared diets and table scraps of the past, before people could afford to give a diet based mainly on meat/bones/veg?

Wendy

>Hunting hounds ....... In this time the main constituent of their diet has been, and continues to be, fallen stock which is cut up and fed raw to the dogs.

If you read the link I posted in reply to Seddie, you will see that, contrary to this, traditionally hunting hounds were fed 'pudding', with meat only occasionally.

>Commercial feeding is a relatively new 'fad', and it has certainly only been used by the average dog owner for less than 100 years. Prior to this, the dogs in this country would have been fed on a diet very similar to that used by raw feeders today,

I'm not sure that this is correct. After all, it is only comparatively recently (within the last 100 years) that the majority of people could afford meat more than once or twice a week for their families. I can't imagine such a valuable foodstuff being given to a dog rather than the humans. The traditional food for dogs (especially pets) was what wasn't fit for human consumption.

I'm not saying that this was correct, by any means, but historically domestic dogs have not had access to meat in anything like the quantities they do nowadays.

JG - as you know this will just go round in circles - and yet again turn into a, to BARF or not to BARF debate.  I think it is fairly safe to say that a dog can live or even 'thrive' on most things.  I can list examples of people I know or are aware of that feed foods ranging from weetabix, cooked chicken, pasta to about 80% veggie!  My friends dog looks fabulous on a cheap supermarket dry food!  My mother in-laws saluki ran away and was living in the local park for over a week, in winter, obviously living off anything she could get her paws on!  There are working dog's in other countries who get nothing but carcass, strays in Spain who raid bins and eat leftovers - dogs are adaptable scavengers and in some countries a pest...I own a hunting dog and I know that she is capable of catching and eating her own rabbit ;)

I agree with you entirely, Rozzer. I was merely querying the post that stated that until very recently, dogs were only fed on a diet very similar to BARF. This is far from true.
:)

;) - Group hug :D :D

Oh dear, what have I started!  ;-)  I feel I should have my say too  :-D Interestingly I read just the other day (can't remeber where) that countries that have only recently started feeding commercial foods are reporting higher reproductive problems etc, the opposite to what Hugex claimed. I honestly don't know who is right.

I have a scientific background and after MANY hours of research vowed to never again feed the 'leading' commercial brands to my dogs. I would rather have my nails plucked out one by one and poked in my eyes. I will however keep one of my dogs on JWB and am quite happy to feed this or Burns or similar. Of course there are going to be pros and cons to whatever you feed, but in my humble opionion Pedigree and the like have far too many cons, chemicals, preservatives and fillers which are completely unnatural to a dog. Barf is not totally natural either, I agree, but it is FAR CLOSER to natural than commercial foods could ever hope to be, and about as humanly possible. Furthermore, barf offers the dog a greater degree of exercise of their whole body, from jaw, to neck to shoulders to haunches etc, which a kibble dog would not normally exercise. Raw food also offers a greater degree of dental hygiene, and barf dogs have far fewer (if any) dental problems.

If we left our dogs to their own devices they would no doubt seek out the appropriate nutrients they need from any available source. As the normal pet dog is not able to choose what to eat (we govern what it will be fed) then we throw in veg and the like to ensure that the proper vits and minerals are included. But this veg is mechanically broken down so as to be more readily digestible.

I honestly don't mind what other people feed their dogs, and if it works then great. But '4% meat derivatives, 96% crap' just doesn't cut the mustard with me, I'm afraid. I'd much rather take my chances on the slight possibility that raw chicken might possibly cause reproductive problems, until conclusive evidence is provided.

Hugex, if you have read scientific journals, then you will be aware that if somebody proposes that the earth is spherical, then there will be another 12 out there trying to convince you that the earth is in fact pear shaped ( ;-)  ) So until another 11 published proposals for your chicken theory come out, then I am inclined not to take too much notice.

There.. I've had my say  :-D  Thanks

<breathing sigh of relief>

p.s as this is a civilised discussion/debate, I really don't see the need to be so picky about spelling. This is hardly an assessed piece of work so there is no need to go over it with a fine toothcomb to make sure there are no errors.. grammatical or otherwise. As long as we all know what is meant...

"I have always understood that evolution takes place slowly over many hundreds if not thousands of years."

Hi Snomaes,

True, but at a minimum dogs have been thought to live with humans for 15,000 years and new evidence suggests it may be much longer.   Even at the minumum, 15,000 years equates to roughly 7,500 generations (if each dog first produces a litter at two years of age) which is certainly slow. 

I do not think anyone claims that many significant physiological difference exist in dogs today compared to only 100 years ago.  And I doubt that dog's digestive tracks would have needed to change much (if at all) over thousands of years.  Until the advent of commercial dog food, living with humans meant a mix of cooked and raw foods, rather than the elimination of raw foods. 

Stacey

Hm Dingoes have only been in Australia for a few hundred years & are the descendants of domestic dogs They flourish well on the same diet a wolf or fox or wild dog would have-care to explain that ?  They also cross breed with stray domestic dogs & the off spring flourish, An exception that proves you are right ?

Then there are Canaan dogs that can live wild or domesticated Anoth exception that proves you are right ?

I think its safe to say that evolution in every species (including man) takes place over millions of years and is determined by many more factors than just food.
HUGEX - You continue to avoid my question, in fact if all you can do is mention one spelling mistake in response to me then I'm amazed your still in practice, do you avoid your clients questions about their dogs?  I think I will stick to taking advice from Billinghurst and the like....He seems to know what he's talking about...

ditto Rozzer   :-)

I agree that evolution takes place over many thousands of years, that is why I continue to consider the claim that "we have changed a dogs insides" to be at best a pet theory and not a serious scientific fact.

For instance, the Giant Panda is from a group of mammals that can be traced back millions of years. They feed almost exclusively on bamboo (almost 99% of their diet) and are still classified as a carnivore, although they have an almost totally herbivorous diet.
They spend almost all the day eating because their digestive system cannot convert the bamboo into a useable  form of energy.

This has been the situation for hundreds of thousands of years yet they still retain the digestive physiology of a carnivore.
What has happened to evolutionary change in this example?

If dogs insides had been the subject of change from the original carnivorous model, surely they would have a problem digesting the now 'unnatural' diet based on raw meaty bones (don't forget we do not feed any vegetables).
In fact the opposite is true, their digestive system seems to convert more of the food than was ever the case on a commercial diet and the waste produced is miniscule in comparison to the foul-smelling 'puddings' that resulted from the commercial diet that we fed for many years. As an added benefit, the dental health of all our dogs is superb and we never experience any problems with anal glands due to the correct consistency of stool that is produced.

A dog with periodontal disease is at risk of all sorts of disease and the vet Tom Lonsdale considers that periodontal disease is at the root of many of the modern dogs problems. The sad thing is that periodontal disease is so common nowadays, from a very young age, that it is considered normal for dogs to require to have their teeth cleaned regularly. It is a disgrace that commercial manufacturers do not address this risk to dogs, which is in my opinion of far greater risk to our dogs than any perceived threat from GH.

Although we do not have any professional qualifications in canine nutrition, we have used both Commercial and raw diets for considerable periods of time so feel that we have the personal experience to make a valid judgement on the efficacy of both types of feeding.

Balancing all the above benefits against a non-proven theory that raw chicken containing growth hormone is a threat to our dogs health is a no-brainer, we will continue to feed the diet that we know is the best for the overall health of our dogs.

Snomaes

What a bunch of pompossity I read from numerous posters most of whom appear to not have a clue what they are talking about...no wonder Billingshurst, Dr Atkins and their ilk are (were) making a mint, you all are lining their pockets due to their theories at best and faddy diets in reality, are not they themselves commercialising the feeding of dogs and humans and you lot are all falling for it....FOOLS :-D
Having worked in the food industry for longer than I care to mention I know from reading these posts that most of you have no idea of food production or standards/labelling within the industry (pet and human) and you just obviously believe the first alternative idea....
My dogs have been fed on Pedigree for at least the last 8 years I visit the vet very rarely the dogs are healthy/Fit/well behaved/in Fantastic condition/Win at shows/Work in the field and range in ages from 15 years to 5 weeks (litter) all enjoy their food and do not ail anything the dogs have never experienced reproduction problems/digestive problems or cancer, prior to Pedigree they were fed on another complete food and again I had a similar experience. stop scare mongering and let people make up their own minds or maybe Im just lucky :-)

Absolutely couldn't agree more one(pedigree) sells a nutritious balanced diet that is scientifically proven to extend the healthy life of your dog backed by years of research and the other sells a book of spells? both making money why is one wrong and the other not? wheres the logic ..you'd be better off feeding the dog the book.

<one(pedigree) sells a nutritious balanced diet that is scientifically proven to extend the healthy life of your dog backed by years of research>

You are an advertising man's dream!

Snomaes

one(pedigree) sells a nutritious balanced diet that is scientifically proven to extend the healthy life of your dog backed by years of research and the other sells a book of spells? both making money why is one wrong and the other not?

Thats the full quote, please don't edit my quotes to suit yourself

<What a bunch of pompossity I read from numerous posters most of whom appear to not have a clue what they are talking about...no wonder Billingshurst, Dr Atkins and their ilk are (were) making a mint, you all are lining their pockets due to their theories at best and faddy diets in reality, are not they themselves commercialising the feeding of dogs and humans and you lot are all falling for it....FOOLS>

Pomposity?, certainly a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'!

Please explain how raw feeders are "lining their pockets"? We are using a diet for which the ingredients cost almost nothing and the only person to benefit financially is the butcher, hardly a recipe for financial success!

"Having worked in the food industry for longer than I care to mention I know from reading these posts that most of you have no idea of food production or standards/labelling within the industry" 

What relevance has the above statement to the feeding of a raw diet? Not having any idea of commercial food production does not disadvantage me in the feeding of a dog. If anyone is to be accused of being taken in by advertising, then I should look closer to home, "Top Breeders Recommend It" indeed.

"stop scare mongering and let people make up their own minds or maybe Im just lucky :-)"

The only scare-mongering that I have read in this thread has not been from the raw-feeders, we have nothing to be scared of.
Seemingly unlike yourself, we have fed both types of diet for a considerable period and can debate from personal experience rather than heresay and supposition.

I personally could not care less what you choose to feed your dogs, if it works for you, good luck. The more people that choose to feed a commercial diet, the more supplies of raw food are left for us at a reasonable price!

Did I name which posters I was talking about?
Bizarre you knew who I meant isn't it?

I wonder how many books have been sold and at what cost...that is what I mean by lining their pockets ... simple really

Scare mongering...lets see?......Posted by seddie.....resulting in commercially fed dogs getting not only GF but other chemical and possibly carcinogenic additives as well....just one example I agree but can give you more

and do Top breeders not recommend it then?

Pompous I don't think so but I am yet to have anyone prove to me that my dogs would be better or healthier feeding an unbalanced ill thought out diet

<Did I name which posters I was talking about? Bizarre you knew who I meant isn't it?>

Not only am I a pompous fool, I am also psychic!

Of course "Top Breeders Recommend It", it says it in the advert, so therefore it must be true.

As an advertising mans dream I have to agree                                            " Of course "Top Breeders Recommend It", it says it in the advert, so therefore it must be true."

Legally this must be able to be proven before such claims are made...shame the same doesnt have to be proven when spouting diatribe about barf diets.

What a shame you are CORRECT

ROFLMAO Two years ago the top GSD breeders "recommended" PC but strangely never fed there dogs on it They fed raw green tripe & a greyhound kibble

<Legally this must be able to be proven before such claims are made...shame the same doesnt have to be proven when spouting diatribe about barf diets.>

"Top Breeders RECOMMEND It" is certainly true, whether they actually USE it or not is another matter!

When a top win includes 'free' publicity by the means of a photo in the dog press and a voucher for product, it is quite easy to get people to recommend it.

As for the RAW diet (The term BARF is so last century!), as I have stated in an earlier post, I really couldn't care less what food people decide to feed. I have just questioned some of the claims of those who unquestioningly use commercial food and actually believe all the hype.

""Top Breeders RECOMMEND It" is certainly true, whether they actually USE it or not is another matter!

When a top win includes 'free' publicity by the means of a photo in the dog press and a voucher for product, it is quite easy to get people to recommend it. "

Obviously you have never done much winning or you would know how wrong you really are.

Purina/Royal Canin/Hills etc all sponsor individuals who are contracted to say they feed their products whether they do or not, however Pedigree have never sponsored individuals and only sponsor the whole event (try reading Trumpeter from Clarges Street in last weeks Dog World)
How often it is seen those contracted to say they feed exclusively Purina/R.Canin/Hills/etc leaving the showground laden with Pedigree products which they have bought not been given....so in fact in response to your statement above the opposite is in fact true.
By the way everyone has the chance of winning the same things from Pedigree , Not so the chosen few contracted to say they feed the others.

When and if you ever win you will find out that you will be asked if you feed Pedigree if you say no..end of story...if you say yes then you will be featured in the ad for that show that is it, no contracts, no ties, no spurious claims of exclusivity.

How wrong is it possible to be?? see the above post!!

By the way are you sure your name is correct?   SNOMAES have you not missed the T out if that....SNOMATES sounds far more appropriate.

Without prejudice (just a question)

Is it true that Pedigree will not allow another food sponsor in the
best in show ring at Crufts when the winner is/has been announced??

No that is not correct...it is the kennel club who decides who is and is not allowed in the main ring at Crufts..Pedigree have no control over that at all, other than they are the Principal supporter of Crufts and pay a lot more than any other sponsor.

again.. this is supposed to be civilised, no need for name calling!

I didn't call anyone anything I merely asked a question?

Whats a Snomates??

I feed commercial food myself,but dogbody you sound like you quoted straight of the tele advert

No need for childishness - please keep the debate sensible!
:)

Well I don't know what shows you go to Dogsbody but when my dogs have won Challenge Certificates or Best of Breed at All Breed Championship Shows, I have always been offered a BOB Bag/Towel etc and a voucher for free Pedigree food!  If they've won Best Puppy in Breed, then a voucher for free Pedigree Puppy Food is always offered.

The photo's are only in the dog press for group winners, you must never have won one, and at that point are you asked if you feed pedigree or not..
As pedigree supports the whole show then every BOS/BOB get a winners card to collect a prize and some food from pedigree along with a sticker for the car, BP winners get a sticker and some food, puppy winners get some food.
The only exception to that is at Crufts where BOB winners get asked if they feed pedigree (you must never have won one of those either), if they say no then they will not appear in the glossy supplement in the following weeks dog press, end of story.

<<Obviously you have never done much winning or you would know how wrong you really are.>>

As the owner of a Champion and other successful dogs/bitches in a numerically very strong breed I think I could say we have done a fair bit of winning, including a group win at a Championship where one of the first people to congratulate us was a Pedigree Chum rep, we politely declined his offers.

<<When and if you ever win >>
We have also been awarded Pedigree Chum Top Dog in breed, perhaps you wouldn't class this as a big win, but I know an awuful lot of people who would!

Snomaes (correctly spelt)

LOLOLOL When Callaghan won BIS at Crufts Wendy was offered virtually a blank cheque by Pedigree(I was there so I do know)when she turned it down they were very very upset. At the time Wendy was the sole UK Agent  for another dog food firm & told Pedigree she never fed PC-their reply was it doesn't matter just say you do !!!! & we'll pay you

Whenever my Beardie Bitch won a CC or BOB Pedigree contacted me asking me for a photo shoot for PC I never replied as I never fed her PC & would never get involved advertising a food that actually made my dog ill when someone else gave her some

Maybe Dogsbody would like to tell us what winning hes/shes done to be so sure of how pedigree do things
Archer

Many tickets and BOB's, group wins over the last twenty years and BOB at Crufts,is that enough?

I merely asked a question.
Why are you so aggressive?
Archer

Apologies to Val I see that you are only pointing out the obvious and sorry Archer that was not directed at you, I get a little infuriated at people who had 1 champion in 1998 and think they know it all, I have been around the block long enough to appreciate what pedigree does for the show world, perhaps if they pulled out and entry fees were £40 instead of £20 these people would be happier?
As a top breeder I have to say I do recommend pedigree but I am not so green that I think everyone does...the fact is the pedigree stand and lorry are the busiest on the showground by a country mile so it is no wonder so many of the top winning dogs are fed on it, no one that I know of has ever had their arm twisted to say they feed pedigree, unlike the bribery that seems to go on at the other companies....I was offered two full page ads a year and 16 bags of dog food for each dog by Purina in return for saying I feed exclusively their food, (they werent bothered even if I didnt feed it as long as I said I did)
I politely declined

No problems Dogsbody ...and BTW welcome to CD :D
Archer

The only offers made to group winners are they are asked if they feed pedigree, if they do they will appear in the advert for the show in the next issue of the dog press...if not then they will not, so what offer did you decline?
Congratulations on winning top dog in breed, did you decline the prizes for that too? or did your morals not stretch that far

Not had BIS at Crufts Dogsbody ? It is more than a free bag or picture offered by PC if your dog wins BIS at Crufts,Bossy Boots never ate PC & to get the Advert to look as if he did they put his normal food behind the PC He was never fed PC

You must be very concerned about this boards affect on there sales to post 11 times on the same subject

I'm certainly not a Johnny come lately to dogs & dog shows been around them successfully since 1958 & I don't think PC sponsor shows to the £20 per dog thats £20,000 per 1,000 dogs, However as Mars make billions of pounds profit each year a million or so invested in dogs show is small change & <Purina/Royal Canin/Hills etc all sponsor individuals .........> don't Mars own RC as well ?

I really don't care what other people feed their dogs on & I certainly don't leap into to defend what I feed my dogs on I don't have to it must agree with them as they are fit & healthy & only see the Vet for an anual check up

We declined the offer of the 'free' photograph and passed on the food vouchers to a friend. We did not feel comfortable appearing in an advertisement which could be seen as an endorsement of the companies products, which we did not use.
We did gratefully accept the Pedigree/Dog World Crystal paperweight as a momento of a wonderful year and it is a very treasured possesion.

On this note I will bow out of this discussion, the thread was originally started by someone who said they were going to take the plunge into raw feeding, my posts were to offer support and to try and counter some of the very negative posts that this topic seems to propogate.

This thread has become far too personal and I am not prepared to continue in a slanging match.

Snomaes