1. Pet food is NEVER mostly meat.

Many ads suggest that it is... In order to list a meat source first on the bag label pet food companies resort to a variety of gimmicks. Here are a few to get you thinking.

First, listing a "wet" ingredient in what ends up being an essentially dry finished product. Wet meat gets a lot lighter when the moisture is cooked out. This labeling loophole is blatantly deceptive to the general public. All ingredients should be weighed and listed in dry weight equivalents for you to know truly how much of each makes up the ration. If the label lists, "chicken" it means chicken weighed when wet. Drop 75% of the value. If, on the other hand, it says, "chicken meal" they play fairly. If it says, "meat (any type) by-product meal" or "meat (any type) by-products" it was never meat to begin with. Find another food. Another gimmick is to "split carbohydrates" (grains) into multiple parts to get the "meat" to list first. Label ingredients are listed in descending order by weight. So, If you have 10 lbs. of chicken meal and 25 lbs. of rice, which should appear first on the label? Chicken of course! (if you want people to buy the stuff). Here's how it's done...

1st- CHICKEN MEAL, 2nd- GROUND RICE, 3rd- RICE BRAN, 4th- RICE GLUTEN. Pretty sneaky and obviously deceptive unless you know the trick. Rice Flour, Brewer's Rice and Rice ala Ronny could also have been listed if they really wanted to be fancy. A related tactic is to use a variety of grains with different names to get meat listed first. This is slightly more valid since they have different amino acid profiles and are truly different ingredients. Grains cost a lot less than meat. Meat "by-products" cost a lot less than meat. Both also have considerably less food value. The last gimmick for now is the campaign to convince the public that meat by-products and meat are just about the same thing.

Hmm... "Honey, I'm having a ribeye steak tonight and you're having a nice pile of by-products, ok?"
"Would you like the chicken breast or the intestine-cartilage-beak medley with your rice, Bob?"
"Well gee Dear, doesn't really make any difference to me, they all sound equally delicious, nutritious and healthy!"

By definition, by-products may contain anything from the specified animal except, (in the case of chicken), feathers and feces and, (in the case of beef), hoof, hide and feces. Meat and fat are separated out first because they are costlier and are therefore not present in any appreciable quantity. What's left is the bones, tendons, cartilage, beaks, feet and innards. Proudly displayed and masqueraded as meat. A pet food bag is not a place for dumping stuff of unknown nutritional value. Some foods even use the term, "SELECT by-products". All these contortions serve one purpose; To make you think that you're getting more meat than you really are in your bag of pet food. After all, who'd pay $35 for a bushel of corn?! Well, keep reading!

2. The cooking process used in pet foods KILLS off a vital component: enzymes.

In order to eliminate bacteria and make cutesy shapes that pets care nothing about, processing temperatures in excess of 160 degress F are used to extrude or bake your pet's food. So what? Well, glad you asked. This places the entire burden for digestion on your pet's pancreas to supply the enzymes necessary for breaking down nutrients for absorption. In nature, this is far from the case. Animals naturally follow the path of "least digestive resistance" in the wild. Consider the fox who catches a rabbit. First item on the menu is the contents of the gut. Let the rabbit do the digesting and enjoy! The rabbit spent hours nibbling grasses and grains readying them for the fox's easy absorption of carbohydrates. Quick and cheap fuel. Next the fox buries or hides the rest to stew a spell. What we call, "turning rancid" the fox calls, "just getting better". In a couple days, the live enzymes in the rabbit meat have broken it down into easily digested protein. Notice how no fire was used in this process? For dessert, a little bone gnawing for the marrow, the calcium, and the teeth cleaning, and it's naptime. Left for the lower animals in the hierarchy are most of the by-products and the hide. Let's get back to your pet.

In puppies and kittens, the pancreas is usually robust and up to the task of supplying sufficient digestive enzymes to make dead food somewhat useable and fulfill it's other vital functions. With age, however, pancreatic function is weakened and often can't keep up with this undue burden. If the pet food fed day in and day out is of low nutritional value to begin with, the taxing effect on the system will be all the greater and the pancreas will most likely give up that much sooner. The consequences to your pet's health are too broad in scope to cover here.

3. Giving "real food" aka "table scraps" is the RIGHT thing to do!

Stepping on a lot of toes here to smash the myth that you should only feed the stuff from the bag and nothing else ever, PERIOD. What is it they are afraid of anyway? That your pet will learn to beg? Unlearn that. That your pet won't eat the chaff they call "food" after tasting the real deal? Probably. Or that it will throw the delicate balance of their finely tuned "nutrition" out of whack somehow? He He Hoo, hardly. Here's the scoop... Providing real food (not potato chips or other junk food) in its raw form counteracts some of the deficit that can be caused by only feeding commercially prepared pet food. It can provide the living enzymes to make digestion an easy rather than burdensome process. But, don't just go wild and throw everything in the feeding trough. Good bets for pets are raw carrots, broccoli, yogurt, cheese, garlic and meats. Cooked oatmeal, rice, corn, squash and the like are fine too. Don't feed raw grains, legumes, potatoes, onions, celery or chocolate which are either unusable or unhealthy. If you aren't comfortable with raw meat and fish, don't do it. Keep in mind, they aren't people and have an entirely different gastro-intestinal system than we do. Introduce new foods a little at a time about three times a week to start and give your pet's pancreas a much needed break.

4. Most "vet recommended" foods pay mightily for the "honor".

Does it matter that the majority of vets know very little about pet nutrition? The public is told to, "Ask your vet". The vet is told by the pet food companies, "we'll send you to Hawaii for a week of golf if you sell and endorse XYZ brand pet food". In school, vets-to-be could ELECT to take an overview course in animal nutrition. Or not. There have been changes of late to make this required study. AS IT WELL SHOULD BE! You are miles ahead if you understand the pet food label yourself and take the time to learn some basic nutritional concepts. It's not that complicated! Find out for yourself, trust your own judgement and ignore what people say who are getting paid to say it.

5. The #1 vet recommended brand is probably the #1 worst pet food value.

Without mentioning any names, if it lists corn as the first ingredient on the label and gets blasted by the competition for it, you know the company. Read the label! Compare it to the cheapest stuff you can find. There isn't a dimes worth of difference in most cases. How much does it cost them to make a 40 lb. bag of this stuff you may wonder? Right? Sit down. How about less than $3 including the cost of the bag? How much does the duped public shell out for the bushel of corn and peanut shells most recommended by vets? About $35. "Have a nice flight to Maui, Dr. Cutter and thanks again for your support".

6. Feeding "Soft-Moist" diets will cut your pet's life expectancy in half.

Thankfully, these foods are on the steep decline but aren't gone yet. Perhaps killing your customers isn't a good way to develop long term brand loyalty. These toxic morsels are so loaded with chemicals to stay soft and prevent molding and so laden with sugar to cover the harsh chemical taste, they rip a pet's insides out. The sweetness is addictive and you'll hear owners say, "Fifi just won't eat anything else". Well, then better buy the small bag because who knows how long Fifi will be eating at all? Anybody feeding this garbage should stop at once and the manufacturers of it should be faced with a class action.

7. Many companies have "slithered" away from using ETHOXYQUIN.

The once popular, and staunchly defended as safe, preservative (antioxidant) called "Ethoxyquin" has been mostly abandoned because of "hushed" litigation and settlements with professional breeders. It formerly was championed by pet food manufacturers (and others) as an advanced and healthy inclusion in pet food in an attempt to hide the fact that it was never intended to be eaten, much less on a daily basis. It was originally formulated as a rubber stabilizer and a color retention agent. Tires stayed pliable and spices stayed red. Despite efforts to get it approved as a food stabilizing agent in people food, it is only allowed for extremely limited application with colored spices. The people who know the devastating truth about this ingredient when eaten daily by pets have been paid off and forced to never tell their stories. There are innumerable instances of stillbirth, sudden liver failure, kidney dysfunction, permanent pigment changes, tumors and death thought to be caused by the addition of this wonder substance to pet food starting in about 1987. Much of the talk about ethoxyquin has quieted since the major pet food companies jumped off the bandwagon and switched to safer (and less legally troublesome) preservatives like forms of vitamins E and C. If they want the trust of the public, they should own up to their mistakes and come clean. Fat chance. All you'll get is denial.

8. Nature didn't intend for pets to eat dry food devoid of enzymes.

Convenience is paid for in reduced pet health. Where is it written that your pet's bowl has to be filled with chalk dry nuggets of quasi-nutritious ground up brown stuff? We've been sold on a bad idea. We bought it because it made life easier. Until the real bill comes, that is. But doesn't kibbled food make their teeth shiny and their breath fresh? Won't their teeth fall out if they eat soft stuff? Yeah, right. Ever watch your dog eat? Does it look like some kind of teeth cleaning exercise? How about the cat? Really getting the old gum line clean huh? The truth about teeth cleaning is this... sticks, rocks, yarn, bones, toys and saliva primarily accomplish this task, not food. Commercial pet food has to be flavor enhanced with digest and sprayed-on fat to be even remotely attractive to your pet. Without these palatability modifications, the old dry kibble would just sit there and get dusty. People get paid big money to invent coatings to make your pet dive headfirst into the food bowl. Because then you smile and feel like it must be healthy and that Fifi loves the food and you too so you'll buy it again. Right? Remember, the fox didn't go in search of a crunchy rabbit. It ate the soft one and it has a dazzling smile and a fully charged pancreas.

9. Some companies sneak sugar into pet food to hook your pet.

Watch out for these guys! They call it other things of course... (cane molasses, corn syrup) but it absolutely does not belong in your pet's food bowl. Processed sugars are foreign to dogs and cats and over the long term can result in obesity, tooth decay and diabetes (along with other maladies). Until 2 years ago, propylene glycol was being used as a sweet tasting preservative by those who must have cared much more about shelf life than about pet health. Thankfully, it has finally been banned. Pet food companies will tell you that the industry is tightly regulated and that your pet's health is being fastidiously protected. Do you buy that one? The FDA can't even keep up with human food and didn't lift a finger on behalf of the pet owners during the ethoxyquin debate. The regulating body for pet food ingredients is AAFCO. The American Association of Feed Control Officials. The rules and definitions they adopt are made by those with vested interests and are enforced through "voluntary compliance". The fox guards the rabbit hutch here.

10. Almost all manufacturers use stool hardening agents in pet food.

Convenience again triumphs over pet health. Stool modifiers make clean up easier and mask the effects of nutrient malabsorption. Who's going to buy a pet food if you've got to SCRAPE up after your dog? It's easier to just stack those little bricks into a pile or kick them elsewhere. Consider however the strain on your pet's innards. Would you put concrete mix in your pancake batter? How about sawdust? If you were dieting, would you mix ground peanut shells into your breakfast cereal? Well, they do all that and more for your beloved pet. See if any of these made it into your pet food bag: sodium bentonite, powdered cellulose, beet pulp, tomato (or any other) pomace, ground peanut shells? The explanation for including these usually is that they are fiber sources for your pet's well being. Maybe a little truth there but not the real reason they are added. Whole grains provide great fiber content. A bit of bran would do well too. The real goal is to make you buy the food again because clean up time is so easy and enjoyable with brand XYZ's designer stools. Before you do this to your pet, try it yourself for a few days. One question to ask a company representative is this, "Aren't there times when my pet needs to evacuate it's system rapidly such as when a toxin is ingested or when the kitty or doggy flu comes around? Is having a cork in there at all times really a good idea? You'll then likely hear mumbling about "Our research..." and "regulating intestinal transit time for optimal nutrient absorption". Do you buy that one? If the food is good and fed properly, stools will be fine without forcing your pet to work a brick through their digestive and excretory systems.

Author's Note:

First, the obligatory disclaimer. These are my opinions formed over a period of 15 years inside the pet food industry. If there are any errors in the above article, they are mine. Nobody paid me a penny to express any of this. It was written because it needed to be said to enlighten and alert the pet loving Public and to act as a minute counterbalance to the daily barrage of pet food hype foisted on us.

Your pets depend on you to make the right choice when it comes to feeding them a nutritious diet. Their quality of life is at stake. Become a label reader! Take the time to bone up on nutrition. Call the Company if you have questions. Most have a toll free number on their bag. Ask to speak to a Nutritionist or the person who formulated the food you are using. Dig until you are satisfied or until you know it's time to switch to another food (or manner of feeding). You might look into the B.A.R.F. movement that is growing rapidly. That's a rather graphic acronym for "Bones And Raw Food". The next step in pet food (beyond "kibble") is already in the works. For your pet's sake, don't be content with the miserable status quo.

Not all currently available pet foods are totally rotten and not all companies engage in the above practices. Some are much better and more ethical than others. It is far beyond the scope of this ditty to list them or to make specific recommendations. You are the boss. Now, you're the boss with the inside track on what to watch out for. Please take your pet's diet seriously. It's the right thing to do. Feel free to pass this article along to interested parties. An informed public will generate changes.

Received anonymously 2/01/00 via email with permission to distribute.

Feel free to pass this article along to interested parties. An informed public will generate changes.

Received anonymously 2/01/00 via email with permission to distribute.

What's the source? It's hard to evaluate the testimony from an anonymous source. What evidence do we have that this person's claims are accurate?

What evidence do we have that this person's claims are accurate?

None.

Some of the things I have read before...but I still wish that there was actually a source and not just something sent through e-mail. But like I said, some of the information is good.

Some of it sounds good to me, but the lack of source makes me feel like I can't take it as seriously.

What's the source? It's hard to evaluate the testimony from an anonymous source. What evidence do we have that this person's claims are accurate?

Good questions. It may harder to evaluate some of these claims since we can't go back to that source to find the proprietary company documents that provide evidence to support those claims.

But we can easily evaluate most of these claims by looking to other sources. For example, #4. Most "vet recommended" foods pay mightily for the "honor" or #9. Some companies sneak sugar into pet food to hook your pet. Not too hard to find independent evidence to support or refute these claims.

So overall does this pass the "smell test" based on those claims that are more easily verified and our own common sense?

But we can easily evaluate most of these claims by looking to other sources. For example, #4. Most "vet recommended" foods pay mightily for the "honor" or #9. Some companies sneak sugar into pet food to hook your pet. Not too hard to find independent evidence to support or refute these claims.

Sounds like a lovely idea. Can you track some down for us? There's got to be some evidence on what soft food does to dogs, for instance.

So overall does this pass the "smell test" based on those claims that are more easily verified and our own common sense?

No, not for me, as I know that human common sense is notoriously flawed.

There is lots of research in psychology and education finding that people have a number of strong biases in how they seek out information to evaluate, and how they evaluate that information.

People are very good at trying to find information that CONFIRMS their preexisting beliefs without seeking out alternative evidence. Their standards to require them to change their preexisting beliefs are extremely strict, even if the evidence they required for their initial beliefs was practically nonexistant.

People are also very good at accepting arguments that provide causal information that "sound good", even if they aren't backed up with evidence. And there is often little correlation between a statement "sounding good" and a statement actually being valid.

My sources for the above are pretty much any social or cognitive psychology textbook.

So, given all of that, no, this does not pass the smell test yet, but I can see that it has potential.

I know for sure Beneful adds sugar, among numerous other brands.

Thanks Candicism. Good post. I learned something here.

I'd still like to see some reasonable arguments for or against these specific claims even with those built in bias' that each of us have. These claims are not based on soft science (e.g., psychology) so they should be able to be objectively verified.

In other words, you may "believe" that you can leave thawed-out fish in the refridgerator for two weeks but most people would be willing to admit that it does not pass the "smell test" when opening the refridgerator door after 2 days.

No, not for me, as I know that human common sense is notoriously flawed.

There is lots of research in psychology and education finding that people have a number of strong biases in how they seek out information to evaluate, and how they evaluate that information.

People are very good at trying to find information that CONFIRMS their preexisting beliefs without seeking out alternative evidence. Their standards to require them to change their preexisting beliefs are extremely strict, even if the evidence they required for their initial beliefs was practically nonexistant.

People are also very good at accepting arguments that provide causal information that "sound good", even if they aren't backed up with evidence. And there is often little correlation between a statement "sounding good" and a statement actually being valid.

My sources for the above are pretty much any social or cognitive psychology textbook.

So, given all of that, no, this does not pass the smell test yet, but I can see that it has potential.

Luc-Luca-Lucas - Thanks for posting. That's the type of information that adds value to the discussion. I appreciate it.

I know for sure Beneful adds sugar, among numerous other brands.

I took animal nutrition as well as human nutrition in college (oh so long ago) and know that #1 is something we were taught in both classes.

Honestly, I worked for a vet for three years and we sold both science diet and eukanuba. In fact I was in charge of the food ordering and invoices. There were no BLATANT kickbacks (definately nothing as gradiose as vacations that is for sure or any gift giving for that matter) and neither vet pushed the food. Eukanuba used to come in and speak to us about their foods so we could educate our clientsregarding certain aspects but that was about it. Hills has a Science Diet Warehouse for the vet students. It is where the vet students can come and buy food at a considerable discount and I believe it is there were they become indoctrinated.

jlab

You keep finding different ways to tell us kibble isn't good for our dogs and we should feed raw.

The more you come at it from different directions isn't making me less to try raw but it is lowering my opinion of you.

If I do raw, it will be because of Lisa, Whit, ZenCat and others I'm forgetting to mention here. THEY come across as helpful and supportive. You are not. Your posts and tone are (in my opinion) very condescending and in some cased dangerous to the newbies on this forum.

In my opinion...your posts on alpha rolls and the worst raw diet is better than kibble are dangerous in the way they might impact a dog from someone just glancing thru this forum will briefly read those words and possibly do serious harm to their dog or themselves.

Even

jlab

You keep finding different ways to tell us kibble isn't good for our dogs and we should feed raw.

The more you come at it from different directions isn't making me less to try raw but it is lowering my opinion of you.

If I do raw, it will be because of Lisa, Whit, ZenCat and others I'm forgetting to mention here. THEY come across as helpful and supportive. You are not. Your posts and tone are (in my opinion) very condescending and in some cased dangerous to the newbies on this forum.

In my opinion...your posts on alpha rolls and the worst raw diet is better than kibble are dangerous in the way they might impact a dog from someone just glancing thru this forum will briefly read those words and possibly do serious harm to their dog or themselves.

Even

DITTO:) I am amazed that someone would even post a email that is dated 2000 (Received anonymously 2/01/00) This CRAP has been around for years. It is same old type of crap that is posted from "some" that can not do their own talking, or that are new to RAW and think they need to "spread the word"..:rolleyes: PLEASE..

jlab..You lost a LOT of credibility with me due to your first post on the kibble cut down. Then in the "natural diet section" you make yet another "quote post" :rolleyes: from a science per say forum, that was yet another pathetic post.

I am going to a RAW diet with "most" of my gang...There are a few on this forum that I have considered talking with privately on RAW diet, even though I am currently working with friends that are also RAW feeders. The more input the better IMHO..However your post are so crapping disturbing to me, that I have had second thoughts on talking with some others here.

I personally will not even pacify YOU, with a response "in regards" to your 2000 email crap post. Hey perhaps get some "updated" info for your next "quote" post..LOL

Jen

Thanks for the list. It does give food for thought, but I'm not sure if they are all valid for all non-raw foods.

1. I don't think it's fair to clump all kibble the same. Yes, there are inferior kibble which are mostly fillers, but the quality kibble's amount of meat isn't all that bad--for example, the first 2 ingredients for Canidae is meat meal, the 3 and 4 is grain-but 2 different grains and the 5th is once again meat. No meat by-products, no split carbo's.
Also, I'm just wondering about how by-products are bad, as far as raw feeders are concerned. Don't you advocate whole carcass feeding? Wouldn't that include all the by-products that you consider such a no-no in kibble?

2. Enzymes are always good--but the animal naturally produces it's own enzymes and are not dependent on the food for digestion. That's what salivaty glands, liver and pancrease do. I'm not saying enzymes in foods are bad. They are certainly good things and anything that facilitates the digestive tract is welcome. So, don't know about inferior kibble, but quality kibbles do add the enzymes back in as they are aware of the denaturing process.

3. I am of the school of variety is best. So adding non-kibble items for a pet is good as long as it's not junk food as you said. One q, though...I thought that garlic is one of those items that are considered dangerous for dogs.

4. Don't know about other vets, but our vets do not recommend any type of kibble. They do specify quality kibble. One thing they do caution is the raw diet. They don't say don't do it, but they are wary of it -- my vet has personal experience treating dogs that have gotten sick from dogs eating raw---by owners who didn't know what they were doing.

5. Again, my vet doesn't recommend a specific brand--they did ask me what I was planning on using and was satisfied with Canidae.

6 & 7--thanks for the info--I didn't know about these things

8. Kibble is definitely more convenient. I personally don't see a problem paying for such convenience. I suppose the teeth cleaning claims made by kibble makers are a bit of a stretch, but if you compare it to what wet and semi-wet foods do, wouldn't it be better? I don't like to let my pups chew on sticks, rocks, and yarn (cloths) as I'm afraid of obstructions. I also have to be careful with certain bones as well as my dogs have thrown it up after ingesting them. I do give my dogs raw bones and veggies and personally, their breath smells worse after bone gnawing than after eating kibble.

9. I guess the message here is to read the ingredients very carefully.

10. thank you for the ingredients that you red flagged here. I didn't know about that either--will keep an eye out. Happy to say Canidae doesn't have them. I'm not sure how I can evaluate the quality of stool though. Since in my dogs, the stools are much harder and rocky after eating raw stuff than after eating kibble--I just figured it was the boney matter that they eat from raw that causes their stool to be so rock hard - and that such consistency isn't bad.

I'm in no way trying to give any credit or take it away from this article, I just want to clear up some questions.


Also, I'm just wondering about how by-products are bad, as far as raw feeders are concerned. Don't you advocate whole carcass feeding? Wouldn't that include all the by-products that you consider such a no-no in kibble?

The difference between by-products in kibble and by-products in raw feeding is we know exactly what we are feeding our dogs whereas in kibbles you have no idea if any of it is actual meat or if it is all beaks and feathers. By-products in their whole form are excellent sources of food, but as I said we know if we are feeding beaks, backs, feet, feathers, etc and how much whereas in kibble you could be feeding pieces that have no real nutritional value. It's also not their only source of nutrients.


One q, though...I thought that garlic is one of those items that are considered dangerous for dogs.


Garlic is toxic in large amounts, but small amounts are good. Mine get garlic everyday for their flea and tick treatment.

I Googled this and there is no source, the author is anonymous, for some reason, maybe because he/she says this These are my opinions formed over a period of 15 years inside the pet food industry.
LOL, at first I thought jlab wrote it, so I Googled it and it's all over the net. Here's just one place where it is:
http://www.petextras.com/10petfoodsec.html

Guess what, the author wrote 5 more reasons:
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/petextras/morePFS.txt

I agree with some of what the author wrote, but not all of it.

Please remember that this is THIS author's opinion, you need to draw your own conclusions. IMO, for someone who is *thinking* about going RAW, this article is rather overwhelming, and scary, so to those in this boat, take it slow and ask your questions if you have any.

Yes, much of that information is certainly correct, and I abhor the practice of putting sugars, artificial sweeteners, colors, preservatives etc. in pet food (dry cat food is particularly monsterous, considering a cat's need for meat is even greater than a dog's). I also abhor the practice in human food and medicine manufacturing. Do you know that you can't buy a chewable children's OTC medication of any kind that doesn't contain aspartame? But I digress...

The problem I have with documents like these is the hysterical tone, and the absoluteisms. NEVER!! Pet food is NEVER mostly meat? You pretty much lost me right there, since I've spent a lot of time researching pet foods (mostly with the aim to find the meatiest ones on the market). A few brands that come to mind are EVO, Neura, Nature's Variety Raw, Primal, Timberwolf... there are plenty more.

The commercial pet food industry is indeed deeply flawed. But there are choices. Not all of it is poison in a bag, as this document appears to claim.

Do you know that you can't buy a chewable children's OTC medication of any kind that doesn't contain aspartame? But I digress...


My mom is severely allergic to aspartame, so she was always careful not to let us have it in the house. It's hard to find chewing gum and other mints that don't have it either. Wrigley's and Trident used to be good, but they could have it now for all I know now.

My mom is severely allergic to aspartame, so she was always careful not to let us have it in the house. It's hard to find chewing gum and other mints that don't have it either. Wrigley's and Trident used to be good, but they could have it now for all I know now.

Yeah, aspartame is public food enemy #1 in my book...

All "mainstream" gum now contains either aspartame or asulfame-K (close cousin) except Chicklets (which do contain BHT). Trader Joes sells "Glee" gum which is real old fashioned gum made with sugar ;)

By the way, prescription children's chewables also contain aspartame. I found this out as I waited 1 hour at a pharmacy while 3 pharmasists researched a chewable medication for my son at my request. Since this medication was for hives, and one of the side effects of aspartame is hives... I declined the medication and had them contact my doctor for an alternative.

LabDog - thanks for a well thought out post. Lots of good comments and questions. I intentionally made the original post without injecting my own opinion because I wanted to get viewpoints such as your own discussing each of these claims.

As Lisa indicated, these are not my words (didn't mean to imply they were). I had come accross this a few years ago and thought it would useful to consider for members of the forum.

Each of your comments, observations and questions to me deserve a serious response. But as you can see, my viewpoint here is not welcome from the majority of members. Posting them here would only result in a flame war that detracts/distracts from the original topic. I haven't even posted my viewpoint on the topic itself and yet there's already two members that have posted personal attacks towards me in this thread.

In light of this, if you or others still want to see my response to the comments and questions you posted here, let me know and I'll PM you offline.

Thanks for the list. It does give food for thought, but I'm not sure if they are all valid for all non-raw foods.

1. I don't think it's fair to clump all kibble the same. Yes, there are inferior kibble which are mostly fillers, but the quality kibble's amount of meat isn't all that bad--for example, the first 2 ingredients for Canidae is meat meal, the 3 and 4 is grain-but 2 different grains and the 5th is once again meat. No meat by-products, no split carbo's.
Also, I'm just wondering about how by-products are bad, as far as raw feeders are concerned. Don't you advocate whole carcass feeding? Wouldn't that include all the by-products that you consider such a no-no in kibble?

2. Enzymes are always good--but the animal naturally produces it's own enzymes and are not dependent on the food for digestion. That's what salivaty glands, liver and pancrease do. I'm not saying enzymes in foods are bad. They are certainly good things and anything that facilitates the digestive tract is welcome. So, don't know about inferior kibble, but quality kibbles do add the enzymes back in as they are aware of the denaturing process.

3. I am of the school of variety is best. So adding non-kibble items for a pet is good as long as it's not junk food as you said. One q, though...I thought that garlic is one of those items that are considered dangerous for dogs.

4. Don't know about other vets, but our vets do not recommend any type of kibble. They do specify quality kibble. One thing they do caution is the raw diet. They don't say don't do it, but they are wary of it -- my vet has personal experience treating dogs that have gotten sick from dogs eating raw---by owners who didn't know what they were doing.

5. Again, my vet doesn't recommend a specific brand--they did ask me what I was planning on using and was satisfied with Canidae.

6 & 7--thanks for the info--I didn't know about these things

8. Kibble is definitely more convenient. I personally don't see a problem paying for such convenience. I suppose the teeth cleaning claims made by kibble makers are a bit of a stretch, but if you compare it to what wet and semi-wet foods do, wouldn't it be better? I don't like to let my pups chew on sticks, rocks, and yarn (cloths) as I'm afraid of obstructions. I also have to be careful with certain bones as well as my dogs have thrown it up after ingesting them. I do give my dogs raw bones and veggies and personally, their breath smells worse after bone gnawing than after eating kibble.

9. I guess the message here is to read the ingredients very carefully.

10. thank you for the ingredients that you red flagged here. I didn't know about that either--will keep an eye out. Happy to say Canidae doesn't have them. I'm not sure how I can evaluate the quality of stool though. Since in my dogs, the stools are much harder and rocky after eating raw stuff than after eating kibble--I just figured it was the boney matter that they eat from raw that causes their stool to be so rock hard - and that such consistency isn't bad.

I had come accross this a few years ago and thought it would useful to consider for members of the forum.

But as you can see, my viewpoint here is not welcome from the majority of members. Posting them here would only result in a flame war that detracts/distracts from the original topic.

Please know that I mean this gently, but I think its less your viewpoint than the unforgiving absoluteism of how you present it might be causing friction with some of us. Nobody likes to be told they are killing their dogs when they are trying to the best of their ability to care for their pets. The best of someone's ability may be a changing thing, too. Circumstances often occur where people may not be able to do as much for their dogs - or themselves or their children - as they might wish.

This board has had stickies in both Diet & Nutrition and Natural Diets as long as I've been here. Clearly the flaws within the pet food industry are many and often terrible, but from my experience a temperate and objective tone in reporting them results in more people being receptive to the information you're trying to impart.

Sorry, left out a few key words. My post should read:

This board has had stickies in both Diet & Nutrition and Natural Diets with documents addressing the flaws in commercial pet food and the manufacturing process as long as I've been here.

Each of your comments, observations and questions to me deserve a serious response. But as you can see, my viewpoint here is not welcome from the majority of members.

I agree with ZenCat: If you are willing to provide evidence from objective sources, your viewpoint is CERTAINLY welcome.

I hope SOMEONE will be able to respond to these questions/comments, at least to say that they actually do not know of real evidence that relates.

I don't want to hijack this thread so this is the last time I'll address this issue here.

Each of us come from different cultures, backgrounds, etc.. The way we think, the way we present something, is who we are. Just because someone doesn't present something in the manner you want it or has a different viewpoint from yours is no reason for personal attacks on the poster. Diversity in thought should be embraced not forced into a mold of your own personal beliefs.

Don't you realize that by attacking me for how I say something or who I am, discourages others with valuable information from posting? They have good reason to beleive that no matter how good the information they may have to provide, they may be personally attacked because you don't like how they present it or because their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours.

Please PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.

BTW, I have never said that people are "killing their dogs".

Please know that I mean this gently, but I think its less your viewpoint than the unforgiving absoluteism of how you present it might be causing friction with some of us. Nobody likes to be told they are killing their dogs when they are trying to the best of their ability to care for their pets. The best of someone's ability may be a changing thing, too. Circumstances often occur where people may not be able to do as much for their dogs - or themselves or their children - as they might wish.

This board has had stickies in both Diet & Nutrition and Natural Diets as long as I've been here. Clearly the flaws within the pet food industry are many and often terrible, but from my experience a temperate and objective tone in reporting them results in more people being receptive to the information you're trying to impart.

I will post my reply here, because I think its important for others to understand.

jlab, I did not here, nor anywhere else attack you as a person in any way. I have no knowledge whatsoever, nor would it ever matter to me, what your culture, background or otherwise personal beliefs or lifestyle are.

I have always tried to make it clear in my posts that I find some of the opinions you have been stating as fact to be just that: opinions. In certain cases those opinions stated as fact struck me as potentially dangerous to others, as they were presented in an instructive way. I felt compelled to point that out. The way we think and speak (or type) is, I agree, indicative of who we are. And hopefully we are always learning from the results of how we choose to communicate.

In each case I have pointed to your statements, not you as a person, when dissenting.

I am truly sorry that you feel that you have been attacked, but I reiterate that I have never attacked you in any personal way, nor will I ever.

The way we think, the way we present something, is who we are. Just because someone doesn't present something in the manner you want it or has a different viewpoint from yours is no reason for personal attacks on the poster. Diversity in thought should be embraced not forced into a mold of your own personal beliefs.

Don't you realize that by attacking me for how I say something or who I am, discourages others with valuable information from posting?

I looked back through this thread and there were two people who said that they felt your posts were condescending and may have used a negative tone.

But what about the rest of us? I truly want to understand this issue and the different perspectives, and it hurts ME to have this moved off the boards and into private messages where I cannot be educated. It hurts those of us who really want to have an educated discussion about this.

Please people, share evidence! And try to follow a few simple guidelines for being a good debater:
-present evidence
-do not use personal attacks--talk about the issue if you have disagreements, not the person
-don't take personal attacks personally

I'll be really disappointed if this fades away without further discussion...

I don't want to hijack this thread so this is the last time I'll address this issue here.

Each of us come from different cultures, backgrounds, etc.. The way we think, the way we present something, is who we are. Just because someone doesn't present something in the manner you want it or has a different viewpoint from yours is no reason for personal attacks on the poster. Diversity in thought should be embraced not forced into a mold of your own personal beliefs.

Don't you realize that by attacking me for how I say something or who I am, discourages others with valuable information from posting? They have good reason to beleive that no matter how good the information they may have to provide, they may be personally attacked because you don't like how they present it or because their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours.

Please PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.

BTW, I have never said that people are "killing their dogs".

No you did not say it, however you sure "implied" it..Just refreshing your memory on your statement of.."Kibble - worst of all canine diets, long term harmful effects"...Need I say more:eek:

I'm puzzled on how you can make such statements in a kibble forum and think that some will not respond back negatively to you.:confused: If you want to feel that my post was a personal attack on you, so be it. As I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over it. But for the record, I also have my own views, and I don't think kindly to anyone remotely suggesting that I'm harming my dogs, because I feed kibble. I have a number of good friends that feed RAW diet, and they never once tried to suggest that I'm harming my dogs with the diet I feed. I guess you call it "respect"..:D That respect, is why I now go to them for advise on going all RAW with a few of my gang. It's sad that your views, attitude, your suggesting ways that kibble feeders are harming your dogs, have a impact of detouring some away, or I should say "me" away from wanting to even ask a question in regards to RAW diet. Thank goodness for those that "respect" others in regards to feeding ... and see that hey at least my kibble fed dogs are happy, safe, healthy and loved...

Jen

Each of us come from different cultures, backgrounds, etc.. The way we think, the way we present something, is who we are. Just because someone doesn't present something in the manner you want it or has a different viewpoint from yours is no reason for personal attacks on the poster. Diversity in thought should be embraced not forced into a mold of your own personal beliefs.EXACTLY!!! We all have our own thoughts and opinions as to what's best for our dogs/cats, but more importantly, before taking to mind and heart what is posted on this Lab board, is what YOU AND YOUR VET decide is best for your dog/cat. Having read this thread and the many others regarding kibble verse RAW/Homemade foods for our pets, you are now armed with wonderful information so that you and your vet can discuss diet and nutrition without questioning what YOU, as the pet's owners, should or should not feed your pet(s).

As for the mentions of "personal attacks". I don't think that [quoting] someone is necessarily a personal attack, it's just re-using ones words to either continue the discussion, or to agree or disagree with the [quoter].

Where in life do we ALWAYS agree with each other? And if I may boldly say this "lighten up, life is too short!!"