I think in the course of this debate we have had opinions from people across the spectrum of dog ownership and activity and we have also had the opinions of people that have tried different things

yes, and very open and honest opinions too, but only from a total of 14 people. Hardly the general opinons of the larger dog owning population. Your 'summing up' on your post makes it sound far more than that, and more slanted towards feeding than all the other things that make up a dogs health and long life.

There are some breeds subject to bloat and torsion for example, that fare far better from diets that are not so grainy and more meat based. Foods that digest eaiser and pass through the system faster. There are foods designed to feed hard working dogs, young dogs, old dogs, dogs prone to kidney or urine infections, dogs that find it difficult to process the many additives that go in some of the comercial foods around today. if all commercial food is equally good, and designed to be adequate to keep the dog alive, then we should all be able to feed the £5.99 a 15kg bag, and not have to pay £40 plus for the same size bag. if all commercial food is so good, then why are there the premium foods around, made for specific purposes, such as breeding when the dam needs a more nutricious food, or dogs that work hard all day. If the food experts that make these foods didnt see a good reason for producing them, then they wouldnt.

I would like to know how many more incidents of skin allergies, torsion, and other food related illness have come about since the dog owning population has been using commercial dog food.

It is an interesting subject, dogs living longer, I'd like to know in what time scale this is being based on, and would think that advanced medical care, together with better breeding policies (health testing, only breeding from the best etc) and better keeping of dogs has something to do with this. Feeding has to play a big part, and for that it would be good to know how the figures are with what type of food is fed across the whole spectrum of dogs, which would take a heck of a long time but the results would be interesting.

>If the food experts that make these foods didnt see a good reason for producing them, then they wouldnt.

That's what marketing departments are for! ;) If you convince people they 'need' something, they'll buy it. If advertisements didn't work, they wouldn't be made ... :)

>If the food experts that make these foods didnt see a good reason for producing them, then they wouldnt. <

Of course there's a good reason for producing them ......its called the profit factor :D

Margot

Let's face it, all this breed related nutrition is just to make money. I can see the reason for needing smaller pieces of food for toy dogs (certainly I cannot feed my Papillons on some types of food as the pieces are just too big for them), and likewise different ages -but different foods for different breeds? Take one relatively new food as an example, made for GSDs. It says on it is is also suitable for BSDs. Yet the two breeds are totally different. Different size, different body type, different coats, different temperament, VERY different health problems -in fact anyone who thinks the two are similar clearly don't know much about them, so if each breed has to have its own food, how can two such different breeds be given the same?

>Hardly the general opinons of the larger dog owning population. Your 'summing up' on your post makes it sound far more than that

No it doesn't, I haven't gone remotely near linking the larger dog owning population on how I saw the debate going

>and more slanted towards feeding than all the other things that make up a dogs health and long life

hardly :)

>the debate appears to have concluded to most peoples satisfaction that many other factors govern a dogs health and wellbeing
>I think just about everyone in this debate has agreed that there are multiple factors involved

how many more times would you like me to support that point.
I really can't be bothered going over things I have not said.  I am sure you can find plenty grist to your mill on what I have.

Of course nutritional requirements vary during a dogs life be it working, breeding, young or elderly and you buy or prepare accordingly.  That doesn't make that food "better" because for a dog outside the appropriate group it will not be.

>if all commercial food is equally good, and designed to be adequate to keep the dog alive, then we should all be able to feed the £5.99 a 15kg bag, and not have to pay £40 plus for the same size bag

Apart from the few specifics we have mentioned, and there are usually economical versions of them, I agree :)  I guess they fall for the hype both from the manufacturers and message board posters that you have to pay more to do something better for your dog.

>I would like to know how many more incidents of skin allergies, torsion, and other food related illness have come about since the dog owning population has been using commercial dog food.

and if they was any increase wouldn't you like the evidence to exclude all other factors and confirm the link?  :)

No it doesn't, I haven't gone remotely near linking the larger dog owning population on how I saw the debate going

Then perhaps you should, rather than just quoting the food manu's sites, who themselves appear to only be in it for the money.

more slanted towards feeding than all the other things that make up a dogs health and long life
hardly

Well, I would say so yes, because you have that little bit at the end of your summing up where once again there is the little food related piece.

bothered going over things I have not said

No, but as often is the case Isabel, the implication is there. :)

I am sure you can find plenty grist to your mill on what I have.

Oh dear, resorting to micky taking again. This is not what one would expect of a healthy debate? :P

Apart from the few specifics we have mentioned, and there are usually economical versions of them, I agree   I guess they fall for the hype both from the manufacturers and message board posters that you have to pay more to do something better for your dog.

You only have to pay more for better quality ingrediants, less grain, less by products, less of the bits you don't want. I can't see a problem with that. if someone does not want to feed preservatives, colours, lots of cereal, because they don't believe in it, so be it. if dogs do better on a higher quality food, which will be more expensive because of whats put in, then feed whats best for them. but, when you compare Beta, pedigree, for example, with some of the much lower priced similar foods, I cannot see much if any difference in their makeup or list of ingrediants.

Oh. believe me, if it could be confirmed that complete food was the best possible food to give, I would want to know which one it was, and buy it! I wouldn't want to see any other type of complete made! I would want this to be a totally independant survey not related or funded by any dog food company, scientist or whatever. I may even want to eat it myself :P :P :P :D :D :D

Can't remember ever quoting a food manufacturers site.

>Oh dear, resorting to micky taking again.

I think it is it is better to be light hearted than kick up a huge fuss about your continuing to read things that aren't there and stating "it is often the case" that I imply things.  I absolutely deny this.  I think people will know me well enough to know that if I what to make a point I will make it, there is nothing sneaky about me.

>if someone does not want to feed preservatives, colours, lots of cereal, because they don't believe in it, so be it.

Absolutely  :)  I defend the right of anyone to feed what they want and what suits their dog and for that reason, personally, I would not want just one complete to be made.

And don't forget, the bigger the name, the more money has been spent on promotion & advertising ..........so you could be paying for all the glossy cards at shows, not to mention the stands and advertising ........

Margot

Possibly, but then they will sell very much more units to cover that cost.  A smaller outfit might actually need to spend more per unit to push themselves forward.   As long as I can afford the product and it is what suits my dogs I am not going to resent that too much because it is just part and parcel of the free market.

I was just trying to emphasise that "most expensive" does not necessarily equate with "best" :)

Personally, I prefer to feed what mine prefer, and which suits their digestions best. :)

Margot

Yes, and for my three dogs that means three different feeding regimes. One size does not fit all, even in so tiny a sample! And if there are two foods that suit a dog equally well, I'll buy the cheaper one. :)

Yes, Margot :) agree on both points.

I think it is it is better to be light hearted

of course, especially when you cannot make your point any other way. You discredit katees links and posts, without even reading them, because the person writing what she links to does not have the letters after their name. Which is really not disputing that the link may be what has been found from respected and 'lettered' people. You have said yourself you have never investigated what goes into dog food, you are simply happy to accept that the 'powers that be' are right, you dispute that anyone has had problems with food outside the internet, yet even though I am only one person I have known this, and experienced it myself. but then, I too am 'only a person on the internet'. :D

I don't tell people what to feed, I go with what suits the dog. Only the owner knows how their dogs fare. However, many people don't want to eat colours or all the other stuff that goes in our processed food, especially as colours and preservitives have been found to cause health problems especially in children, and it does sometimes follow they don't wish to feed it to their dogs. it has made for very interesting reading here, over time, to find what actually goes in, and what it means, following sites and seeing what many of the ingrediants actually are. makes you think, £ for £ that much of what is being paid for in some foods is actually quite expensive even though the price of the food is lower to those that don't contain it.

I would want the complete made that does not cause health problems, and gives a healthy long life from a nutrition point of view. i doubt that has yet been made, but it would be good, and as I say, (joking) I may want to eat it myself! :D

it would seem, in the terms of a long life for dogs, that advanced medical knowledge and practice has more to do with this than complete foods. it is such a huge, wide subject, but like us, dogs do seem to be living longer. Which is good :D

You discredit katees links and posts, without even reading them, because the person writing what she links to does not have the letters after their name.

You don't think some of it it could be because at least two of us in the past have been accused by Ktee of causing our dogs cancer by feeding what she personally considers to be the wrong food........?

I havent seen those posts, and wouldnt support any post like that, any more than I would support a post which supported health officials who by wrong diagnosis caused the death of someone.

I do think, before any link is dismissed, it needs to have at least been read, regardless of who writes it, to see what content it contains? And where this comes from, who backs it up, etc. How is it possible to dismiss something that has never been read.

I will leave katee to explain the dog cancer/food related thing, I have no knowledge of any food causing cancer, apart from many of the food scares (which if you followed every health official or whatever reports on food and its dangers you would starve to death) I personally only know of smoking and passive smoking, and coal miners, more enviroment/substance causes of cancer. And the lady type ones....I guess by thinking there are a few, but not food related.

>I will leave katee to explain the dog cancer/food related thing, I have no knowledge of any food causing cancer

Her rationale is that because we didn't feed her latest favourite food we caused our dogs' illnesses.

>Her rationale is that because we didn't feed her latest favourite food :D :D :rolleyes:  we caused our dogs' illnesses.

> in the past have been accused by Ktee of causing our dogs cancer by feeding

What a total crock of crap! :rolleyes:

I dont remember exactly what it was i said,but i know i wouldnt have said,your dogs are dead/sick because of the food you are feeding.That would mean i would have to be 100% certain thats what did it.
I dont doubt however that i would have said something like,do not totally discount the food you are feeding,which so many conveniently do,it's much easier on the concience.What owner wants to think that the food they have been feeding their dog forever somehow helped cause the death or illness of their pooch?? What we put into our dogs body for every single meal can not be flippantly tossed aside and not even considered...

No-one can say for sure that a life time of a less than appropriate food didnt play some part in their dogs ill health,just as they can not say it was the total cause of it.IMO if these dogs are fed these foods from puppyhood onward than they have started behind the eight ball from day 1 and will never enjoy optimum health.

Go ahead and read into this whatever you like,but please dont put words into my mouth!

I do however stand by my opinion that these cereal based,preservative filled junk food type dog foods(just have a look at Bakers) play a large part in the ill health of our dogs,and i still say we do not at all have a healthy population of dogs!

The ironic thing is that the people who give me the hardest times on the feeding board are the ones who from what i can deduce have done no or next to nix research on canine nutrition,and feed what would be considered by canine nutritionists as poor foods

>I dont remember exactly what it was i said,but i know i wouldnt have said,your dogs are dead/sick because of the food you are feeding.

I'm afraid that's exactly what you said Ktee, and you expressed surprise at the outcry that resulted.

The foods you consider poor are made by canine nutritionists :D and please don't assume because people have not chosen to frequent your sources of information that they have not bothered to investigate the subject of whether we are well served in this area.

Isabel i hate to say it,but if you are so well served in this area why are you feeding Beta?

>The foods you consider poor are made by canine nutritionists

And you think they are paid to make a nutritional food?? :rolleyes: They are there to make the best out of what is given to them....

I have also recently found out that to become a qualified canine nutritionist one also has to be a vet,so i have to wonder how many of these canine nutritionists or consultants actually have these qualifications?

>feed what would be considered by canine nutritionists as poor foods 
>And you think they [canine nutritionists] are paid to make a nutritional food??

Come on, Ktee, you can't extol them in one post and condemn them in the next! :rolleyes:

>Come on, Ktee, you can't extol them in one post and condemn them in the next!

I see your point :)

But personally i have to question the scruples of a canine nutritionist who makes up a food like Bakers :(   And as i said i'm still not sure if every pet food manufacture has an actual canine nutritionist on their books or simply a 'consultant' in the field.

>I'm not aware that canine nutritionists have to qualify as veterinary surgeons.

As far as i know they do.Not 100% certain,but pretty sure.

You are probably right, they probably do use consultants.  After all you only really have to commission research or opinion when you are considering a new formula.

I feed Beta because everything is there to meet my dogs needs, it suits them and I understand what I read about the regulations and safety about all UK dog foods.
All manufacturers, big or little, general or niche, are there to make a profit but they are also there to maintain their market with a satisfied clientelle and could not operate if they did not meet the requirements of safety and trading laws.
I'm not aware that canine nutritionists have to qualify as veterinary surgeons.  I would be surprised as human nutritionists do not have to have a Bachelor of Medicine and veterinary surgeons would have considerable excess skills to just work in nutrition.
I wonder if you have got that from one of your American forums Ktee because they do seem to have very different veterinary qualifications there.  They seem to have a level that might be described as nurse practitioner here.

I think you need a better diet Ktee because your memory is failing!

>regardless of who writes it, to see what content it contains? And where this comes from, who backs it up, etc.

It's not as simply as that.  The authors credentials is how the layperson gains reassurance that the author is suitably capable of properly evaluating the data they are presenting.  Without that they may be no better that any other amateur "researcher" who can so often trawl the net gathering data in support of their hypothesis and disguarding all that fails it regardless of any sense of proportion.
If you like links have a go at this one :) or maybe try to catch Professor Richard Dawkins programme next week.  I believe he is largely looking at health next week but what he has to say about evidence, as opposed to faith and superstition, could equally apply to any science subject I'm sure.  Or maybe you caught this weeks programme, regrettable I didn't :(

If someone is putting up a link, regardless of who the author is, you can not discuss it to any degree when you do not know what it contains. I see your link is very science minded, and completly the oposite to those eco people who may well disagree, with suitably qualified people in their ranks also. But of course, it is suitable reading to see the other side of things. :) We have to remember though, that scientists will keep us like mushrooms, and sometimes things aint always as they seem :D :D (remember BSE? and CJD....and food, the food that was considered 'safe' to feed to cattle actually contained infected cow meat? I didnt think cows ate meat....but the food had been considered 'safe' by the powers that be) :rolleyes:

As to 'catching programs'....if only time allowed for me to catch the soaps, BB and all the Pc research :D...this is my little skive on here :D :D....usually when I'm supposed to be ironing.....:D

Ecology is a science.

>regardless of who the author is, you can not discuss it to any degree when you do not know what it contains.

I don't think you have read my link or you would not still be suggesting it is worthwhile ;)
I iron in front of the telly :)

>You discredit katees links and posts, without even reading them, because the person writing what she links to does not have the letters after their name.

Yes I do.  The quality of the reference is important to me.  Without that reference we have nothing to say we are not all wasting our time.

>You have said yourself you have never investigated what goes into dog food

No, I have never said that.  I just don't bother with the same sources.  I prefer to look at what what is permitted in this country and what sort of protection we have that the product is safe and fit for purpose

>I don't tell people what to feed, I go with what suits the dog.

Then we are in total agreement :)

>I would want the complete made that does not cause health problems, and gives a healthy long life from a nutrition point of view. i doubt that has yet been made

That seems rather a contradict on what you are stating in the above quote and I would disagree with it.  I think all complete foods marketed in the UK are safe to use without health problems providing they suit the dog of course.  We have a generally healthy population the majority of which are fed on the common foods.  Repeating myself again, I would offer the support of that in the insurance companies survey and the extensive one conducted recently by the KC.

>it would seem, in the terms of a long life for dogs, that advanced medical knowledge and practice has more to do with this than complete foods.

I agree but what we can also say is complete foods are doing nothing to inhibit that so if people are finding that the best way to meet their dogs needs I don't have any problem in them utilising whatever food suits them.

Does anyone have any links as to why dental disease is a fairly common occurrence in today's dogs?

It is one of the conditions which many insurance policies don't provide cover for so was wondering if the insurance companies have found a large number of dogs to be suffering dental problems.

>Does anyone have any links as to why dental disease is a fairly common occurrence in today's dogs?

Harley you should read Dr. Tom Lonsdales book,he goes into detail about dental disease,from what he and others say one of the main causes of dental disease are the high carb,grain based pet foods.Ask any dentist and he will tell you carby foods stick to teeth and gums like super glue.
Also most pets dont get raw chunks of meat and bones like they used to,which go a long way in keeping their mouths healthy.
I have never had a dog at the vet for a dental,it's much easier and cheaper keeping their teeth and gums in shape with raw meat and bones.

Ktee - I have read his book - I feed my dogs raw :)

Was just wondering if anyone knew any links to any indepth research on dental problems in dogs. Insurance companies usually cover their bases rather well so was trying to find some links that might refer back to their reasons for excluding cover for dental problems. I have found some sites regarding specialst dental work for dogs (mainly American sites) but was trying to find out why there is  insurance exclusion.

At the end of the day Isabel, you will believe what 'the powers that be' say, in whatever field that may be, without question. if that works for you, fine, :rolleyes: but there are others who actually like to know what all the things in a dog food are, and what side effects they may have, etc. The things the dog food manus would prefere the GP not to know. keep us a bit like mushrooms. :D  I do remember a post where you say you have never researched dog food, maybe when I'm waiting for the ceiling to dry (I'm decorating) I'll find it. :D

I agree but what we can also say is complete foods are doing nothing to inhibit that 

And your proof for that statement is........

with better medical care (As described in the more than survey which gives better vet care and advances as the reason for dogs surviving longer) I think this has more to do with it, than feeding. Whatever you feed.

I think you are confusing my lack of interest into what has specifically been used to make up the nutrition in dog food. I have never said I am not interested enough to check that what we give them is devised to be safe and meet all their requirements and in the closer to home sense I would always check a food has sufficient fibre for instance to meet my specific dogs needs.
I don't understand what you are referring to in "powers that be"  this work is done by scientists not politicians.  I'm sure it's possible manufacturers might keep us in the dark that is why the Food Standards Agency was brought into being.

>I agree but what we can also say is complete foods are doing nothing to inhibit that 
>And your proof for that statement is........

The surveys that have been already mentioned.

>with better medical care (As described in the more than survey which gives better vet care and advances as the reason for dogs surviving longer) I think this has more to do with it, than feeding. Whatever you feed.

Quite possibly.  Who knows.

> would want this to be a totally independant survey not related or funded by any dog food company, scientist or whatever.

Why not start one? Write to all the dog magazines, the dog papers, the BVA, the KC, the Breed Clubs, training clubs etc etc. As long as your questions aren't loaded (very difficult to word questions in a non-leading way) then you'll know you've got an unbiased study. :)

Take your point JG......but all the time needed, and expense for all those letters, follow up letters, phone calls, etc etc, and the majority of people who would not reply, or not reply in a sensible manner.....then to have it all discredited because I have no letters after my name, to have some say 'it wasnt a clinical study' etc etc......sadly not worth the effort. :rolleyes: it would need to be done by a reputable group of people with far more knowledge than I :)

Unless it's done by someone with independent means, then all that expense would require sponsorship. When you have outside funding you'll get accusations of bias.

From what I hear from my parents and family they too had dogs who lived well into their teens, usually 16 and over so I'm actually not so sure that things have changed.

How do the KC or anybody else know how long dogs lived before or now?  I for one have never been asked how old my dogs are etc. from the KC or any other body so how they can state that dogs are living longer these days I just don't know/

Did you not get the KC/AHT pedigree dog survery to complete from your breed club?

I can go back over 50 years, to dogs who lived well into their teens, fed - for the first 20 years or so - on the equivalent of winalot/spillers mixer + PAL/Pedigree Chum ...

Genetics may well come into it - (we did keep the same line of labs going for about 40 years) but feeding our dogs on whatever + whatever - as I described in my first post Ktee - has resulted in none of our dogs dying prematurely, all living out their lives with good health.

Margot

My mother's childhood spaniel was 15 when she died, having gone through wartime rationing (no posh dog food then - dogs were fed whatever could be spared!) and unspayed (no pyo or unwanted litters either).

I have a few friends with different breeds who are breed club members who didnt get this form. Wonder if they just sent to a few, rather than all members? depending on club, of course :)

It was several years ago that the questionnaire was issued.

The main breed club in each breed sent it to all members, or were supposed to. Like JG says, years ago -was it 2002? It wasn't possible to compile results for all breeds because the KC did not get enough forms returned from certain breeds, which is very sad.

No never rec'd that form from our breed club.  Not a member of the Pomeranian one so wouldn't have rec'd that either.

2004, Marianne :)  Information on over 36000 dogs was collated.