blacklabrador

I don't think there's a perfect answer. We can't change the type of meat we have access to but even at a lesser nutritional content, it's way more appropriate than anything else we have access to.

RIP Leo. So sorry Greytmate.

This is a serious discussion and you made no indication that you were attempting to make a joke. I've heard less logical justifications for feeding commercial food than that.

Wild dogs look like they do because they have to expend a lot of energy to catch their food, they live outdoors and are exposed to the elements and at certain times don't get enough food to keep themselves in good condition. Any hungry dog is "happy" with anything that resembles food - most 5 year olds are "happy" with Maccas for lunch too. A far cry from the average raw-fed show dog which struts around the showring with a beautifully groomed coat who gets enough calorie intake every day and doesn't have to hunt for food. My dogs are fed on raw and look nothing like wild dogs. They look like lean, healthy beautiful pedigree dogs.

What has evolution done to the digestion process of dogs now, compared to dogs then? I don't know the definitive answer, but evolution alters many things, not just the physical appearance. Dietary requirements of canines now I imagine would be different to what they were at the dawn of time. Many dogs nolonger require stamina and strength and many more breeds have been introduced along these lines as well. I see it similar to the human appendix. I have heard (although I haven't researched it) that the appendix is slowly becoming obsolete in the human body. This is, I assume, because the human is evolving too. I could be very wrong in my line of thought though. You can alter phyiscal appearance in one generation. You CANNOT alter anything on an internal functional level over even a few generations. Not on a noticable level anyway - it takes a lot longer and it a lot slower than that. The appendix theory actually relates to the question about whether it used to be a second stomach. This would have been utilised back before man ate meat and was eating only foliage and possibly grains and actually REQUIRED more than one stomach for that digestion like other Ruminants do. So how long ago was that? It wasn't 50 years, it was probably tens of thousands, yet the organ still exists in a non functioning form. Does that give you some idea of how long evolution takes? This theory is only theory and there are other schools of thought that say that the appendix exists for a whole other set of reasons. To propose that dogs digestive systems have been able to evolve to be able to utilise all this new food, when they've evolved to eat a diet of mostly raw meat for their whole existance through time, is one of the most misinformed theories that I've ever come across. The fact that dogs now look like very specific breeds does not alter their gut function because evolution just doesn't work that quickly.

Why interfere with nature? There is a lot of benefit to them eating them - they are full of good hormones and they eat them for reasons beyond just cleaning up the mess.

Yeah you don't have an idea Domestication has done many things to many breeds, let's not get into the flat faced breeds and any other breed that wouldn't be able to survive by itself in the wild . Many Dane owners bring up their Danes on Raw, it's just not advisable unless you actually know what you're doing, mind you people who don't know what they're doing do it too LOL Now nature may very well have intended raw for our wild friends, however our dogs have been domesticated for a very long time and you only have to look at what evolution has done to the digestion process of dogs now compared to dogs then. I put the article out there for opinion, I don't neccessarily back it, although I feel it brings up some interesting points. Yes, Sas - please describe how evolution has affected dogs digestion. Domestication has not = eating a grain based diet for very long. I didn't say that Dane breeders COULDN'T raise pups on raw but I was just challenging that article - if it's true and she seems to think it is, that it's a man-made problem. Changing the physical shape of a breed does not change its digestive process - evolution takes a hell of a lot longer than that! However it may change a dogs digestive requirements. Domestication is NOT evolution. The two terms are not interchangable.

I have a strong suspicion that this thread was started by somebody who is advertising. Didn't quite work out how you wanted huh Viddles!!

You have to make this funny noise to get them to do it... just ask Ashanali. It's a photography skill that she's refined over the years. She even made that noise when she did my photos. I didn't put my head on the side all cute though but I did laugh.

I haven't taken many (read any!) photos lately but got this one the other dayl. OH is currently taking my 40D to work until he decides which camera to buy to replace his stuff that was stolen recently. So I only have weekends and night time if I want to take photos. I saw this photo opportunity as Dash looked into the bathroom window (he always stands on his back legs to say hello when I'm in there brushing my teeth etc). I could see how the internal lights were illuminating his face and thought it might turn out well. I think it's turned out a bit overdone though - a bit orange maybe. It probably could be recitified further with good editing software.

Grain free diet does not automatically = BARF. Any good diet is balanced. Fortunately, most people with a good level of common sense can work out what is a balanced raw diet for their dogs. Interesting article but grain free kibble and her opinion on it has got nothing to do with a properly balanced raw food diet. In the same way that you can't apply the majority of dog nutritional logic to such an extreme breed, you cannot apply the logic used with such an extreme breed to the rest of the dog population. Perhaps Dane breeders have painted themselves into a corner by deliberately breeding a dog so big and fast growing that it can no longer be raised on the diet which nature intended for it. Just playing "devils advocate" as I really have no idea.

I don't believe so. Where in a dog's natural state have they ever consumed grains and cooked meat? They aren't designed for it and they've only been fed these in large amounts over such a short time that there hasn't been time for "evolution". The health problems for dogs have increased many times since kibble was introduced. In my opinion, to suggest that dogs will have more health problems eating what they evolved to eat than the dried, cooked meat, preservative filled manufactured food just doesn't make sense. It's akin to saying that our children would be healthier eating Cheesy Mac, 2 minute noodles and sausages for every meal (well they keep growing and they have "energy" don't they??) than they would be eating salads, lean meats and wholegrains. I don't care what people feed their dogs - whatever you reckon works. But I will challenge opinions such as these.

no doubt. If I really wanted him in the ring at this stage I'm sure I could find a handler but I think we're best off waiting.

Well done Aziah!!

I can't run. No I haven't shown him yet. He's still a skinny adolescent (very hard to keep weight on) and I'm guessing that, considering his colour, I am best to wait until he is a stunning and mature 3 year old before I show him. He is getting more handsome as he gets towards 2 years old and he moves beautifully.

Well done - it must be such a great feeling when you've done the breeding yourself! Here's to a successful show career for her.

I think it varies but big dogs seem to grow rapidly in height for the first 6 months and then it slows down. I don't think there is a given time that they will have a growth spurt in that time but they seem to reach about 80% of their adult height by 6 months of age. They then grow more slowly in height until their grown plates close - the general rule of thumb is that they will lose the knobbly knees on their front legs when they've reached full height. They then continue to grow but more out in width and depth and general muscle bulk gain for a couple more years but as far as I know they don't gain more height after the growth plates on their long bones close.

This is Zurhaan Pash n Dash. Known as Dash.

Just rememer Huski... it's not a Moodle. It's a Pootease.

What about this one?

It is 100% true, and part of the reason I would not argue the point to those that 'think' fresh meat is better. What they are really feeding there pet is mostly moisture, a large part of that being H20. I have spent years dealing with aquaculture foods and the very best ingredient you can use for really adding protein is fish meal, it is a scientifically proven fact. The commercial foods used for growing aqua-cultured Salmon and Trout, have extremely high levels of protein, this can only be provided by using fish and crustacea meal. The same is on offer for aquatic hobbyists who want high quality foods, although other ingredients such as the skin of shrimp and some fish are added to increase Omega fats and protein levels. To put it in simple terms, you are dealing with a concentrate. I could bore you with pages of data, but google will help you make your own mind up. There is a place for Kibble, as there is for fresh foods, it really comes down to personal preference and what your pet likes or is happy with. Personally I think a combination of kibble and fresh foods is the best option for feeding of my own pets, but as per above, personal preference is the key to this I just wanted to comment on that: There is so much more to food that a compilation of ingredients and nutrients. The form that the food takes is also very important. Cooking and dehydrating meat to make into kibble vastly changes the way it is handled during the digestive process. Food eaten the way that nature intended is the way that the body best deals with digestion to give the biggest benefits to the body. So "moisture" or not, fresh meaty bones are the way that nature intends for our carnivorous dogs to get their food. Whether people want to pay attention to that fact is a personal choice but it's an unavoidable fact.

Yep , end of story Which is something we assert should happen yet doesn't happen often enough amongst registered breeders. The "mature dogs" pages right here on DOL are like a shopping extravaganza for puppy farmers and back yard breeders (not a DOL responsibility but a breeder responsibility). I was stupid enough to think that every breed specific rescue also desexed every dog before rehoming but unfortunately it's not the case. What will it take for some registered breeders to "get" it?

I know someone with a "Moodle". He is a beautiful little dog - amazing nature and I am fond of him. Of course I refuse to call him a Moodle (Maltese X Poodle) and insist on calling him a "Pootease".

I'd have to look underneath to see if he has Gee do you think that would get in the way of him mating? Or would WD40 fix the situation?

I don't know details of the breed but I do know that I like them and that if I were ever to purchase one I would be enquiring keenly about a Skyehaven pup.