Holistic Dog Food

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Anyone use the food these folk supply? The man appears to have the right idea.

 

http://holisticfeeds.co.uk

[skycat 6,173]

Looks like it's a mixer, but as they don't list any ingredients or protein content how are we to know?

[stabba 10,745]

Looks like it's a mixer, but as they don't list any ingredients or protein content how are we to know?

I'll second that

[irishnut 297]

dogs need meat, not pure unadulterated cereals. what a load of crap.

 

meat, bit veg, bones is perfect feck all the other shit

[Sirius 1,391]

Anyone use the food these folk supply? The man appears to have the right idea.

 

http://holisticfeeds.co.uk

 

It has been around a while and its a Mixer not a complete, met the man that owns the company a few times years ago.

As I understand it, its a hard baked wholemeal mixer biscuit with a few additions (made at the same place as Laughing dog in fact the same biscuit or it was at the time)

Personally I would use laughing dog Mixer as plain mixer, its as old as the hills and is what it is, never used this one.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Sirius

[sandymere 8,263]

LOL holistic dog biscuits "Yes the dog is primarily a meat eater, but often overlooked is that its physiology also evolved to utilise the plant nutrients from its prey, which had fed on lush pasture. Today, lush and extremely varied pastures have become all too rare – the huge variety of herbage has gone and as a result the meat part of diets is found lacking and far less nutritious." the meat part is lacking????

 

Lordy

"What a joy that was - all the words are English, and I can understand what each one means, but put together in that order they mean naff-all!"

Its dog biscuits likely as good or bad as any other. In general Holistic preceeds

Bullsh#t

as a sales pitch

Edited May 6, 2014 by sandymere

[Cliff Ray 185]

What about the..

 

lack of micro nutrients

 

Is that a problem for all dogs or just small ones?

[Cliff Ray 185]

Almost missed that it is made from.

 

natural unadulterated cereals and carefully calculated herbage.

 

Aren't they exactly the reason blamed for modern meat being short of micro nutrients in the first place?

[Sirius 1,391]

Basically it was a rehash/copy of a 'Wholemeal mixer biscuit' which was Laughing dog its been around since jesus was a boy lol The fellow just thought he would put some herbs in it call it holistic and be quids in :no: :laugh:

 

If you want a mixed get a plain mixer add the meat, veg etc

 

[sandymere 8,263]

Almost missed that it is made from.

 

natural unadulterated cereals and carefully calculated herbage.

 

Aren't they exactly the reason blamed for modern meat being short of micro nutrients in the first place?

The whole do about modern food lacking nutrients doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I've pinched this from the "Black Duck" of Quackometer fame as I'm in the middle of writing an awful fecking essay and my brain hurts so I'll let someone else expand on the subject for me.

 

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/

 

The news (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) has been full of reports about how our food in Britain is becoming less nutritious and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain a full set of minerals and vitamins through the food we buy in supermarkets. I have been told by several people that this is the reason why it is so important to take supplements. Can this be true? If so then it is truly shocking! We can no longer feed ourselves! What is going on here?

I’ve always thought that the best way to get your minerals and vitamins was to eat a varied and balanced diet, rather than take dietary supplements. I further believe that the major source of information about the need to take supplements comes only from the big business interests behind the ‘health fraud’ industry.

So I did some digging. The common source behind these allegations of Mineral Depleted Food appears to be a report issued by the Food Commission. Let’s take a look at this.

First, the Food Commission is a consumer lobby group involved in doing consumer surveys and publishing ‘thought leadership’. It does not in itself publish peer-reviewed research. Like all such groups, it has an agenda, and one that I probably broadly agree with. Nonetheless, given this, one should always be cautious in examining its claims.

The report in itself suggests that several foods (meat and dairy) have lower levels of minerals than the same foods had in the 1920s. There are several problems with this analysis:

• If this is indeed true, there is nothing in this report to suggest that the levels have fallen to dangerous levels. Is it still likely that a varied and balanced diet will supply most peoples’ needs? The report declines to comment.
• There have been several criticisms of the methodology of this research (comparing government tables, the best part of a century apart). Analytical methods have changes enormously over this time and there is no correction for biases that will have been introduced as a result. (Remember the famous iron-in-spinach myth?)
• The report goes on to show that 8% of women might be mineral deficient but (this is the important bit) the report does not say that this is a result of the (alleged) lower mineral levels in food. This could be down to these women just having very poor diets. This is to be expected, as we know some people do not eat well and there is no attempt to correct for this. This is either a little disingenuous or just plain not rigorous enough. The report allows the connection to be made in the readers mind – but does not state the connection itself.

So, not very convincing then. So what else does the Food Commission say on this subject then? Interestingly, it also publishes a report on vitamin and mineral fortification in diets (as promoted by many major brands, e.g. Nestle) and goes on to widely condemn the practice. One of the key findings in this report is that such practices are a subject of concern since it “promote[es] the concept of added nutrients as improving health, versus promotion of an overall healthy diet.” In other words, the Food Commission says that you should eat a healthy diet; don’t rely on added supplements.

It would appear to be case closed, but the story gets a lot better.

Why did the Food Commission publish this report? Who did the original research?

It is stated that the research was done by a Dr David Thomas. Now Dr Thomas was originally a geologist (alarm bells) and has “retrained as a chiropractor and nutritionist” (very loud sirens). Dr Thomas does not work at any academic institution doing research, as you might have thought given the seriousness of this report, but rather has been running a company that sells (drum roll) mineral supplements.

http://www.mineralresourcesint.co.uk/about.html (have a look what the quackometer has to say about this site.)

So, could it be that this report was originally just a piece of puff marketing released by a company that would directly profit from people believing it? I don’t know. If it is just marketing then it is a scandal.

Edited May 6, 2014 by sandymere

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Thanks for the feedback folks ? my conclusion via your scrutiny is that it's probably not worth £35 a bag. . I'll have a look at the laughing dog mixer. Thanks again