Can't get lurcher on dried food

[skellyb 8]

ALL MY DOGS BEEN ON COMPLETE MEAL SINCE COULD PLUS RAW MEAT COOKED MEAT AND ALSORTS BUT NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY OF MY DOGS AND MOST THE TIME THEY FED ON COMPLETE MEAL £10 AND ONDER A BAG 15KG ALL MY DOGS IN GOOD ORDER CHECK PICS OF THEM ON MY GALLERY

I'd agree there are differences between feeds but price is not a guide. I also use cheaper brands as the nutrient content is appropriate to the dogs needs which to my mind is what is important rather than some hippy idea of whats natural.

A study in Norway where there are similer brands compared the digestibility of six expensive dry dog food brands [high price (HP)3] with six low price dog food brands [low price (LP)] sold in the Norwegian market. They found

"For all foods, digestible amino acids covered requirements for growing dogs established by the National Research Council".

and concluded,

This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market

Why bother quoting crap like this so called study.

Although they were testing DOG food they didn't even feed to dogs, they tested on MINK.

 

And your point?

What are the differences in digestive tract?

They highlight this in the study and suggest that dogs will have better digestion than mink for the carb part of the diet.

What makes it invalid as a study of nutritional value comparison of expensive versus cheap brands?

The mink lacks a cecum and has a short digestive tract with very limited bacterial activity in the colon. Dogs have little cecal capacity and an unsacculated colon, but some bacterial fermentation takes place in the cecum and colon.

 

Maybe its invalid because it was a study of digestibility NOT nutritional value.

 

The variences of the digestive tracts are small in comparison to the similarities and those variences are as the paper states likely to increase the dogs capibilities in digesting this type of food. Nutritonal value depends on digestibility, as stated a lump of wood has nutritional value bit is useless to dogs as it isn't digestable. Nutritional value is on the lables so it's down to the owner to buy one suitable to their dogs needs and as the peice states this is not dependent on price.

Have you ever thought that if you didn't try to be a smart arse and "cite" bad science you could save a lot of time in typing and trying to cover up YOUR mistakes?

[sandymere 8,263]

All this talk about such a simple problem. If the dog won't eat dry food, just let it go hungry until it does. For heavens sake, it's not a child. Dogs eat whatever you put in front of them or they are leading you not the other way around.

Cheers.

I agree, think my first post says that but I do like to bate the born agaim barfists and their evengelical belief which brings me back to skellybs' post.

"Have you ever thought that if you didn't try to be a smart arse and "cite" bad science you could save a lot of time in typing and trying to cover up YOUR mistakes?" (Skellyb)

 

What mistake? and why is it bad science? I'd agree it is a small sample but otherwise it seems a viable study, it might not suit the born again barfists but then what science does? The “smart arse†bit is a little childish, please try and be adult and discuss in an adult way even if it’s frustrating when your wrong.

I think I've answered the two points you made, first you must agree the digestive tracts have much more in common than not. The reduced bacterial activity in the colon of mink could be argued to give greater validity to the results as there is likely to be less intense intraluminal bacterial metabolism than in dogs, so absorption and secretion of nitrogen taking place in the colon (on the assumption fecal samples rather than breath tests that were used to evaluate the results). Second nutrition and digestibility go hand in hand as I stated nutrition is pointless without digestion but if you feel not then please explain.

I would be interested in the studies you have that invalidate this one.

At the end of the day there is no reason why the fella shouldn't use dried and no real evidence that expensive feeds are going to give better results than a cheaper alternative as long as it meets the needs of the particuler dog.

Again please give evidence if you know otherwise.

[skellyb 8]

All this talk about such a simple problem. If the dog won't eat dry food, just let it go hungry until it does. For heavens sake, it's not a child. Dogs eat whatever you put in front of them or they are leading you not the other way around.

Cheers.

I agree, think my first post says that but I do like to bate the born agaim barfists and their evengelical belief which brings me back to skellybs' post.

"Have you ever thought that if you didn't try to be a smart arse and "cite" bad science you could save a lot of time in typing and trying to cover up YOUR mistakes?" (Skellyb)

 

What mistake? and why is it bad science? I'd agree it is a small sample but otherwise it seems a viable study, it might not suit the born again barfists but then what science does? The smart arse bit is a little childish, please try and be adult and discuss in an adult way even if its frustrating when your wrong.

I think I've answered the two points you made, first you must agree the digestive tracts have much more in common than not. The reduced bacterial activity in the colon of mink could be argued to give greater validity to the results as there is likely to be less intense intraluminal bacterial metabolism than in dogs, so absorption and secretion of nitrogen taking place in the colon (on the assumption fecal samples rather than breath tests that were used to evaluate the results). Second nutrition and digestibility go hand in hand as I stated nutrition is pointless without digestion but if you feel not then please explain.

I would be interested in the studies you have that invalidate this one.

At the end of the day there is no reason why the fella shouldn't use dried and no real evidence that expensive feeds are going to give better results than a cheaper alternative as long as it meets the needs of the particuler dog.

Again please give evidence if you know otherwise.

Once again you show your holier than thou attitude.

1. Bad science as it would be quite simple to test on dogs rather than mink.

2. The conclusion is actually contradictary but you only choose to mention the "bit" that suits you. Actual conclusions "Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market."

3. As already pointed out the test was for digestability NOT nutritional value and for you to continue labouring the point is, if you have any leaning towards science, rather childish.

4. The digestability tests show that a large part of the food given is in fact NOT digested.

5. You assume that Norwegian food has the same value as UK food.

6. I have not even suggested any alternative diet, barfist or otherwise.

7. If dry foods are as good as you continue to preach, why do you not feed your dogs exclusively on dry food?

Edited January 4, 2010 by skellyb

[sandymere 8,263]

Lordy, ok skellyb well do it point by point.

 

 

1. Bad science as it would be quite simple to test on dogs rather than mink.

No mink are farmed and so easily available in Norway, their diet and fecal matter can be closely controlled where as dogs would need a large investment or pets would have less well controlable diets.

2. The conclusion is actually contradictary but you only choose to mention the "bit" that suits you. Actual conclusions "Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market."

I answered in reply the idea that expensive feeds were better than cheaper alternative and the conclusion concludes that so not sure were your coming from on this one.

3. As already pointed out the test was for digestability NOT nutritional value and for you to continue labouring the point is, if you have any leaning towards science, rather childish.

Answered this one twice already please explain what you are trying to say as they are inderdependent, again a lump of wood has nutritional value but dogs lack the digestive systems to utilise the nutrients so nutrients are only as usful as they are digestable.

4. The digestability tests show that a large part of the food given is in fact NOT digested.

As with all food a percentage, not large but a percentage, is not absorbed if you know of a 100% absorbed food please let me know.

5. You assume that Norwegian food has the same value as UK food.

Yes

6. I have not even suggested any alternative diet, barfist or otherwise.

Do you feed a BARF type diet?

7. If dry foods are as good as you continue to preach, why do you not feed your dogs exclusively on dry food?

I promote a diet based on the needs of the individual dog and feed accordinaly. I don't preach completes are good just that they are not the killer feeds that many RAW feeder websites claim as there is no evidence to show this on the contary dogs live longer than ever before and the great majority of owners use comercial feeds.

 

I still await your alternative research.

[skellyb 8]

Lordy, ok skellyb well do it point by point.

 

 

1. Bad science as it would be quite simple to test on dogs rather than mink.

No mink are farmed and so easily available in Norway, their diet and fecal matter can be closely controlled where as dogs would need a large investment or pets would have less well controlable diets.

2. The conclusion is actually contradictary but you only choose to mention the "bit" that suits you. Actual conclusions "Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market."

I answered in reply the idea that expensive feeds were better than cheaper alternative and the conclusion concludes that so not sure were your coming from on this one.

3. As already pointed out the test was for digestability NOT nutritional value and for you to continue labouring the point is, if you have any leaning towards science, rather childish.

Answered this one twice already please explain what you are trying to say as they are inderdependent, again a lump of wood has nutritional value but dogs lack the digestive systems to utilise the nutrients so nutrients are only as usful as they are digestable.

4. The digestability tests show that a large part of the food given is in fact NOT digested.

As with all food a percentage, not large but a percentage, is not absorbed if you know of a 100% absorbed food please let me know.

5. You assume that Norwegian food has the same value as UK food.

Yes

6. I have not even suggested any alternative diet, barfist or otherwise.

Do you feed a BARF type diet?

7. If dry foods are as good as you continue to preach, why do you not feed your dogs exclusively on dry food?

I promote a diet based on the needs of the individual dog and feed accordinaly. I don't preach completes are good just that they are not the killer feeds that many RAW feeder websites claim as there is no evidence to show this on the contary dogs live longer than ever before and the great majority of owners use comercial feeds.

 

I still await your alternative research.

Sandymere, we can argue till the cows come home and the reason for that is quite simply your pompous attitude whereby everyone who disagrees with you, you view as a hippy faddist barfist.

I don't care what people feed their dogs, at the end of the day it is up to them, what I do disagree with is folk like yourself who use so called studies like this and hold them up to show that this way is right.

You attack anything which does not have "science" behind it but are happy to use anecdotes yourself or have you got any actual "scientific" proof that dogs now live longer than ever before and how, if true, that is down to commercial food?.

Edited January 4, 2010 by skellyb

[sandymere 8,263]

Lordy, ok skellyb well do it point by point.

 

 

1. Bad science as it would be quite simple to test on dogs rather than mink.

No mink are farmed and so easily available in Norway, their diet and fecal matter can be closely controlled where as dogs would need a large investment or pets would have less well controlable diets.

2. The conclusion is actually contradictary but you only choose to mention the "bit" that suits you. Actual conclusions "Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market."

I answered in reply the idea that expensive feeds were better than cheaper alternative and the conclusion concludes that so not sure were your coming from on this one.

3. As already pointed out the test was for digestability NOT nutritional value and for you to continue labouring the point is, if you have any leaning towards science, rather childish.

Answered this one twice already please explain what you are trying to say as they are inderdependent, again a lump of wood has nutritional value but dogs lack the digestive systems to utilise the nutrients so nutrients are only as usful as they are digestable.

4. The digestability tests show that a large part of the food given is in fact NOT digested.

As with all food a percentage, not large but a percentage, is not absorbed if you know of a 100% absorbed food please let me know.

5. You assume that Norwegian food has the same value as UK food.

Yes

6. I have not even suggested any alternative diet, barfist or otherwise.

Do you feed a BARF type diet?

7. If dry foods are as good as you continue to preach, why do you not feed your dogs exclusively on dry food?

I promote a diet based on the needs of the individual dog and feed accordinaly. I don't preach completes are good just that they are not the killer feeds that many RAW feeder websites claim as there is no evidence to show this on the contary dogs live longer than ever before and the great majority of owners use comercial feeds.

 

I still await your alternative research.

Sandymere, we can argue till the cows come home and the reason for that is quite simply your pompous attitude whereby everyone who disagrees with you, you view as a hippy faddist barfist.

I don't care what people feed their dogs, at the end of the day it is up to them, what I do disagree with is folk like yourself who use so called studies like this and hold them up to show that this way is right.

You attack anything which does not have "science" behind it but are happy to use anecdotes yourself or have you got any actual "scientific" proof that dogs now live longer than ever before and how, if true, that is down to commercial food?.

No I can't prove it's down to commercial foods and would not try, in fact it likely from a number of reasons but at least I answer when asked please have the curtesy to do like wise or are you to pompous. DO you use, in your own words, a "hippy faddist barfist diet"? If you dont care what others feed why did you post your first comment? and still awaiting your good science.

Basically I post as I got sick of reading attacks on people feeding dog food and continue as people post asking for dietry advice and get BARF shoved down their throat. A recent example when someone one gave a description that could have been taken from a text book for lack of absortion of dietry fats, which is quite serious, and they were promted to feed barf.

So i will continue to promote a balenced diet untill such time as there is evidence to the contary. If my post seem pompous then perhaps it's more your perception than the content. Now if you have a problem with a balenced diet please start your own post as I did so that people can consider your ideas rather than highjacking others. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from the, again your own words "hippy faddist barfist".

Edited January 4, 2010 by sandymere

[skellyb 8]

Lordy, ok skellyb well do it point by point.

 

 

1. Bad science as it would be quite simple to test on dogs rather than mink.

No mink are farmed and so easily available in Norway, their diet and fecal matter can be closely controlled where as dogs would need a large investment or pets would have less well controlable diets.

2. The conclusion is actually contradictary but you only choose to mention the "bit" that suits you. Actual conclusions "Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market."

I answered in reply the idea that expensive feeds were better than cheaper alternative and the conclusion concludes that so not sure were your coming from on this one.

3. As already pointed out the test was for digestability NOT nutritional value and for you to continue labouring the point is, if you have any leaning towards science, rather childish.

Answered this one twice already please explain what you are trying to say as they are inderdependent, again a lump of wood has nutritional value but dogs lack the digestive systems to utilise the nutrients so nutrients are only as usful as they are digestable.

4. The digestability tests show that a large part of the food given is in fact NOT digested.

As with all food a percentage, not large but a percentage, is not absorbed if you know of a 100% absorbed food please let me know.

5. You assume that Norwegian food has the same value as UK food.

Yes

6. I have not even suggested any alternative diet, barfist or otherwise.

Do you feed a BARF type diet?

7. If dry foods are as good as you continue to preach, why do you not feed your dogs exclusively on dry food?

I promote a diet based on the needs of the individual dog and feed accordinaly. I don't preach completes are good just that they are not the killer feeds that many RAW feeder websites claim as there is no evidence to show this on the contary dogs live longer than ever before and the great majority of owners use comercial feeds.

 

I still await your alternative research.

Sandymere, we can argue till the cows come home and the reason for that is quite simply your pompous attitude whereby everyone who disagrees with you, you view as a hippy faddist barfist.

I don't care what people feed their dogs, at the end of the day it is up to them, what I do disagree with is folk like yourself who use so called studies like this and hold them up to show that this way is right.

You attack anything which does not have "science" behind it but are happy to use anecdotes yourself or have you got any actual "scientific" proof that dogs now live longer than ever before and how, if true, that is down to commercial food?.

No I can't prove it's down to commercial foods and would not try, in fact it likely from a number of reasons but at least I answer when asked please have the curtesy to do like wise or are you to pompous. DO use, in your own words, a "hippy faddist barfist diet"? If you dont care what others feed why did you post your first comment? and still awaiting your good science.

Basically I post as I got sick of reading attacks on people feeding dog food and continue as people post asking for dietry advice and get BARF shoved down their throat. A recent example when someone one gave a description that could have been taken from a text book for lack of absortion of dietry fats, which is quite serious, and they were promted to feed barf.

So i will continue to promote a balenced diet untill such time as there is evidence to the contary. If my post seem pompous then perhaps it's more your perception than the content. Now if you have a problem with a balenced diet please start your own post as I did so that people can consider your ideas rather than highjacking others. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from the, again your own words "hippy faddist barfist".

There you go again no proof offered as to dogs living longer LOL

The oldest dog on record was an Australian Cattle Dog named Bluey put to sleep at the age of 29 years and 5 months in 1939.1939, way before these hippy faddist commercial foods.