Raw Diet V's Canned Diet

[Zia's Nuthouse]

Barf, I guess thats the word isn't it.

My dogs are on a semi raw diet, but I don't go out and get them barf patties or anything of that nature.

Mine get dry food, vegies, eggs, mince, chicken carcasses, offal, lamb flaps etc. They also get fish as well.

Mind you all these foods are given at different times for variety and in appropriate portions.

I also combine a bit of canned food to mix with it sometimes. They do get table scraps as well.

I guess each to their own. As long as your pup is getting the nutrition he/she needs for her growing, and is happy and healthy then you are doing the right thing. You can take bits of advice, try new things, and learn as much as you can. In the end you will do what you think is best, and as long as pup is happy healthy then all is well. Don't stress or obsess yourself with worry about feeding her.

Dogs have managed for years before all this raw, barf stuff came out. I"m sure they will manage in the future too. I think we as owners obsess over our dogs diets way too much at times. In the wild they don't have Barf patties, or specially prepared foods. I know they don't take their pots and pans out there either to cook up a storm

[biker girl]

Question.............What did dogs/cats eat years & years ago before commercial food became so readliy available to the general public?

[zara]

Hi all. Firstly i would like to thank you all for all your advice and opinions, it has been a great help. I have started feeding my baby a combination of foods. She is still eating her chicken necks, bones and dry food. I have also started giving her mince and vegies combined with canned food. She gets the occasional egg and lactose free milk. Already i am seeing a difference with her, both appearance and behavioural. Her coat is much healthier and shinier and she is looking so much healthier. I am completely happy with it all at this stage and will continue with this while it is all going well.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Vets don't exactly spend much time on canine nutrition, in fact, the 'average' is a single lecture on the subject. Yep, a single lecture. That's around 1.5 hours.

Of course most motivated dog owners know how best to feed their dogs. But some vets still think we are incapable of making informed choices...hence the rather odd (and often patronising) 'advice' to fee this food or that, b/c we couldn't possibly know how to feed our dogs any other way.

If you are commited to feeding your dog a raw, whole foods diet, and you are motivated to research your choices thoroughly, and you are confident in your abilities to feed your dog appropriately, then you do not need the products offered by pet food manufacturers, nor do you need the often well-meaning but potentially misguided advice from a vet that you are doing the wrong thing in following a raw foods diet.

The comment I get from most vets about our dogs? "They're in excellent condition." Which is closely followed by, "Their teeth are in great shape, how do you clean them?". I always tell the truth: that my dogs are fed a raw, whole foods diet that I home prepare and I have done this for over three years now.

BTW - canned food is just not acceptable for most dogs or pups. It's full of stuff they do not need and very light on the ingredients that work best for the canine. JMHO.

[Greytmate]

BTW - canned food is just not acceptable for most dogs or pups. It's full of stuff they do not need and very light on the ingredients that work best for the canine. JMHO.

On what basis do you make the assumption that because food is canned, that it must contain ingredients that dogs do not need, and that it has a shortage of nutritious ingredients?

The can that I occasionally feed my dogs contains -

70% chicken

rice

vegetables

Why is this not acceptable for most dogs?

What is it full of that they do not need?

What ingredients that work best for the canine are 'light on'?

You cannot judge a product on the packaging, it is what is inside the packaging that counts.

The ingredients are always listed on the label, and it might be a good idea to read what they are before giving your opinion on their nutritional value.

[blacklabrador]

All other vets I have been to have pushed X - brand dog food and have pushed the use of Drontal. Why because unfortunately they do get kick backs which usually go towards equipment for the clinics.

The same thing applies for your local GP.

I can disagree with this from personal experience. I work for one of the major chain of GP surgeries on the east coast of Australia. I have contact with drug reps on a daily basis. They provide the Drs with a nice lunch while they try to push their product down the Dr's throats.... and the "equipment" they provide is tissues, tongue depressors, pens, sticky tape holders, rulers... etc etc. anything that will put their brand constantly in the face of the Dr. If the provided REAL equipment my job would be a whole lot easier.

In saying that I suspect that vets probably get DISCOUNTED stocks of food so they get more PROFIT when they sell it. That would be a benefit that would be impossible to detect

as a vet nurse unless you were doing the bookwork.

I know a guy who was a vet student a few years ago and he had all his dogs supplied with free science diet for the whole time he was studying. So they do start brainwashing early. There is a whole book all about the politics that goes on between dog food companies and vets - how the crappy food actually keeps the vets in business. VEEERRRY INTERESTING! If anyone wants the name of that book PM me and I will find out.

Like Drs I believe that vets get very little training in nutrition. I'd love to see "dieticians" for dogs the same way we have them for humans. The only people like that who exist work for dog food companies as far as I know. Wierd huh?? yeah totally.

[Erny]

Greytmate .... I did some studies on canned food labels. Admittedly, it was a narrow field of study (only compared about 3 different brands). It's not necessarily the food stuffs advertised as being in the can, it's what is left of the 'good stuff' after the processing is completed.

And the problem is, you really need to know how to read the labels properly. The nutritional value is given on a 'wet weight' basis. You need to be able to convert that to a 'dry weight' basis to ascertain true value.

In one of the labels I studied, it showed the salt content to be eleven times the optimum salt requirement of a dog, although first glance at the label and you might be forgiven to think it was only two times the optimum level (which is bad enough). Too much salt can irritate the digestive system and can cause a mineral imbalance because the salt itself can adversley impact on the calcium/potassium balance in the dog's system.

This is just one example.

The other problem is, commercial food labels often express the words "not more than" ... so, when you read the nutritional value, it isn't necessarily the amount stated, and in fact, the pet owner doesn't then really know how much is contained.

A further matter to consider is the affect of heat processing on the nutritional values in the product. As is commonly understood, cooking food destroys the natural enzymes and microbial content, preventing the natural process of decay. Unfortunately, it also destroys natural vitamins, essential fatty acids, amino acids and proteins contained in the food and renders many minerals unavailable for absorption from the gut. Apart from the food then becoming nutritionally deficient, the absence of valuable enzymes (which assist not only in slowing the aging processes but also the digestion of the food), forces the pancreas to work harder. This may result in a number of canine related diseases, including Pancreatititis, Pancreatic Insufficiency and Sugar Diabetes.

The characteristics of major nutrients such as fats, proteins and carbohydrates are altered by the 'cooking' process (the greater the heat, the greater the change) - so much so they become not only indigestible, but may be regarded by the body as foreign molecules which, in turn, can result in allergic reactions, including auto-immune diseases like arthritis. Some may also become carcinogenic.

I often wonder at the quality of the food substances contained in some can food brands. I do not know if the meat content is derived from high quality sources, or whether from dead, dying, diseased or disabled animals and/or whether the meat has been chemically treated to prohibit it from human consumption. If grains or vegetables etc. are used, I don't know if they are high grade quality, or whether they were deemed unfit for human use due to excessive chemical contamination in the fields or perhaps the production remains swept up off the manufacturing plant floor.

Also, by law, the labels only have to display "typical analysis" and not "guaranteed analysis" as they used to. Why the change, do you think?

Overall, this is why I prefer to feed a whole raw meal diet, comprising of human grade quality foods (which I think, sometimes, are bad enough given all the chemicals that are fed to the animals for fattening etc. etc.) ..... at least I know WHAT is really going in and that there are no additional additives included simply for preservative purposes (other than what might already be in the human grade fresh food ... but then, what better choices - short of growing and slaughtering my own stock - are there?)

Just my opinion based on the studies and research I've been able to do.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Erny

[Greytmate]

I feed a raw food diet too Erny, I only feed canned occasionally.

If we are to believe that the canning process destroys all nutritional value in food, we may as well empty our pantries of canned tuna, canned vegetables and other canned food and throw it all in the bin. If we believe that cooking food renders it unfit to be eaten, we could do away with stoves and cupboards full of pots and pans, and just eat the raw ingredients straight out of the fridge.

I don't believe that cooked food or canned food is nutritionally useless, for myself or my dog. I eat it regularly, it forms a large part of my diet, and I am not malnourished or suffering from any vitamin or mineral deficiencies.

The point of my post was merely to point out the inaccuracy of saying that canned food is not acceptable, that it contains unneccessary ingredients, and is short on neccessary ingredients.

Some canned food is very acceptable as a part of the diet of dogs or humans, as long as we are mindful of what is in the can.

We have plenty of healthy options for feeding our dogs whether we choose a commercial or home prepared diet or a combination of both. I think it is great that people are prepared to share their knowledge of what diets work well for their dogs, but it becomes zealotry when people continually make inaccurate claims in an effort to stop people feeding their dogs certain types of food.

Erny, you studied only three of the many varieties of canned food available, perhaps that was not enough for you to be able to comment on all varieties of canned food.

Fats, proteins and carbohydrates do not beome indigestable by the cooking process, and are not recognised by the body as foreign molecules. If only they were, then we would rarely see obesity in dogs and humans. How many people do you know that have become overweight purely by eating raw food? Perhaps if the food is burnt to black ashes it might become indigestible or carcenogenic.

Meat does come from dead animals, and not from dying ones. I can assure you of that. I am guessing from your terminology you are getting your information from an American website. (No doubt another Barf Zealotry website) The meat industry in America is completely different to the meat industry in Australia, and much higher standards apply here.

While different gradings of meat and vegetables do exist in Australia, much of it is in appearance only. We do not have 4 D meat here. Commercial dog food manufacturers buy in much larger quantities than could be collected from spillages swept up at at human food manufacturing plants. (As if those places would sell it off cheaply for dog food instead of sweeping it up and putting it back into production)

What chemical treatment is applied to prohibit meat from human consumption? What is the chemical contamination of vegetables in the 'fields'? (I thought that they were called paddocks in Australia). Why would preservatives be neccessary in any canned food, given that canning is a highly effective way of preserving food?

You ask why the change from guaranteed analysys to typical analysis, and I would have thought that the answer would lie in the natural variation of the raw ingredients that go into the production of commercially prepared dog food. Natural variation occurs seasonally with meat, and with vegetables it depends on the fertility of the soil that the plants are grown in. A guaranteed analysis could only be provided if all of the nutrients were artificially added.

You are going to have to do some more thorough research than quoting American Barf Zealotry websites to convince me that the nutrition derived from commercially available food is inadequate for a pet dog.

[Greytmate]

Like Drs I believe that vets get very little training in nutrition. I'd love to see "dieticians" for dogs the same way we have them for humans. The only people like that who exist work for dog food companies as far as I know. Wierd huh?? yeah totally.

There are canine nutritionists that give advice to racing dog trainers. They do not work for dog food companies. The nutrition that a racing greyhound can make use of is different to the nutrition that an endurance working dog can use, and both are different from the nutrition than a pet dog can use.

Think about the highly specialised and individualised diets given to the various types of athletes by the dieticians at the Institute of Sport. Same concept, but for dogs.

It is actually quite amazing to read what is involved with delivering top level canine nutrition. Complete waste on the average pet dog though, if nutrients are not used or stored, they just end up in the dog poo.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Greytmate

[Nadia]

Vets do not get a lot of Nutrition training, but since they are also expected to deal with many different species, it would have to be one hell of a nutrition course!!

We seem to forget that our Vets are GPs, they are not specialists.

Just a comment on the Vets and kickbacks from dog food and drug company's.

There are no wonderful kickbacks.

Some company's do offer like bonus points which accumulate and you can cash them in for things at the end of the year, but it is peanuts really.

You may get some freebies in the form of promotional items as Blacklab has already stated, the food is not purchased cheaper, and in all the clinics I have worked in has been purchased through the Vet suppliers like everything else at the same high prices that Vet supplies companys charge for everything else.

Vets deal with these companies for ease of supply and quick delivery.

Email your order through by 3/4pm and have it on the doorstep in the morning, and you can get just about everything you need from the one company.

Drontal is simply a good, effective all wormer that covers all intestinal worms in one easy dose and comes in convenient sizes.

Never seen any flash kickbacks from them.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Sorry, GM, I thought we were discussing canned food for canines?

And if that is still the case, my comments on a canned food diet, stand. Why? B/c I understood the OP's concern was that their vet recommended a canned food diet for their pup. That is simply not an acceptable diet for a pup IMO, but more importantly, most vets don't recommend soft foods either...and I have to wonder why this one did. It's just a very odd "recommendation" IMO.

[kaywoman68]

I feed my 2

cooked chicken breast mince

cooked beef mince

raw chicken wings and necks - I dont feed them carcass that often cos I think of them too big and i dont want to take the risk of them choking at all

eggs - they seem to like boiled ones better

sardines in oil and salmon (canned) - they do get fresh fish every now and then

rice and pasta

and dry food (royal canin)

I have recently introduced fish oil capsules into their diets for shiny coats

I do buy the small packets of Pal Puppy Food (chicken and lamb) just to give them a little bit of variety.

I keep a small bag of Pal Adult Dry Food in my pantry when I have my mum's dogs over (they're fed on Pal and I rather now change their diet since they've had it for so long. They do get raw chicken wings and cooked mince). Orson always pops his head in the bag and grab a few everytime I have the pantry open. I think he likes it because it's different from what he gets to eat.

I feed my 2 heaps of treats. I can only hope they wont turn into tubby cockers! (I do weigh them regularly and they are in the recommended weight range for male and female (I have 1 of each)

Edited April 2, 2006 by kaywoman68

[Greytmate]

Sorry, GM, I thought we were discussing canned food for canines?

And if that is still the case, my comments on a canned food diet, stand. Why? B/c I understood the OP's concern was that their vet recommended a canned food diet for their pup. That is simply not an acceptable diet for a pup IMO, but more importantly, most vets don't recommend soft foods either...and I have to wonder why this one did. It's just a very odd "recommendation" IMO.

In my reply to your post, I was discussing canned food for canines. Perhaps you are not aware of some of the more nutritious brands of canned dog food.

I would be interested in what hearing what type of canned food that the vet was recommending. There are some brands that I would happily feed my dog, there are some that I would not. There are some varieties of canned food that are sold by vets, and I am fairly sure that they would not stock them unless they were happy to recommend them. I do not find it odd at all that a vet would recommend a soft diet for a puppy.

If you are going to stand by your comments about canned food, would you please read my post again, and answer the specific questions that I asked you. Otherwise it would seem that your criticism is unfounded. How can you judge the nutritional content of a food, based on the type of packaging it comes in?

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

I don't, GM I read the labels and understand what it all means...b/c labels are often misleading,it's helpful to know what each ingredient really means. I also don't feel it necessary to repeat information given by another member when I had planned to say almost the same things.

And please don't get me started on "vet recommended" foods b/c my opinion on those is quite low.

[MonElite]

i mean she is a vet and trained in this area so why not listen.

its a vet a vaterinary SURGEON not a dog food nutritionist

JHMO

Barf fan

[KitKat]

I was chatting to a vet student the other day...apparently pet nutrition is becoming a larger part of what they have to know.

[Erny]

I feed a raw food diet too Erny, I only feed canned occasionally.

Fair enough, GM ... but I thought the topic was about a "canned food diet" which I interpret to mean "mainly (if not all) canned food".

If we are to believe that the canning process destroys all nutritional value in food, we may as well empty our pantries of canned tuna, canned vegetables and other canned food and throw it all in the bin.

Nutritional value has been proven and reported to have been considerably reduced by heating processess. I doubt that any nutritionalist would recommend a diet of mainly canned/processed foods.

If we believe that cooking food renders it unfit to be eaten, we could do away with stoves and cupboards full of pots and pans, and just eat the raw ingredients straight out of the fridge.

And nutritionally speaking, a raw diet would do us all a lot better. Although I personally couldn't come at raw meat and given that I'm not much in the way of a meat eater anyway, would probably find my stomach couldn't cop it.

I don't believe that cooked food or canned food is nutritionally useless, for myself or my dog. I eat it regularly, it forms a large part of my diet, and I am not malnourished or suffering from any vitamin or mineral deficiencies.

How do you know what the affect of the processing is really doing to you. Often, the results are not seen until it's too late. How do you know if you're living to your full potential on your significant canned food diet?

The point of my post was merely to point out the inaccuracy of saying that canned food is not acceptable, that it contains unneccessary ingredients, and is short on neccessary ingredients.

You suggest it isn't? How do you know?

Some canned food is very acceptable as a part of the diet of dogs or humans, as long as we are mindful of what is in the can.

But again, given the sometimes misleading information on the can label, how do you really know? I would like to expect that canned food for human consumption is carefully monitored as far as quality etc. is concerned, but is the same consideration given to pet food? If that were the case, why is "pet" food for pets and not for both humans and pets?

... but it becomes zealotry when people continually make inaccurate claims in an effort to stop people feeding their dogs certain types of food.

I don't think it's an effort to stop people feeding their dogs (in this case) canned food. I think it's about being uncertain as to what is really in the canned pet food, in relation to substance, nutrition and nutrients.

Erny, you studied only three of the many varieties of canned food available, perhaps that was not enough for you to be able to comment on all varieties of canned food.

I admitted that at the beginning of my post and I thought it was clear that my findings and thoughts were, for the most part, relative to those 3 brands.

Fats, proteins and carbohydrates do not beome indigestable by the cooking process, and are not recognised by the body as foreign molecules.

Wasn't there something fairly recently regarding the molecular change that occurred as a result of processing of margarine/spreadable butter variety items? And (although I go by memory) I'm sure it was reported as being carcinagenic. And I don't think that's the only variety of processed food that has been reported as being unhealthy for consumption.

If only they were, then we would rarely see obesity in dogs and humans.

I see plenty of obese, albeit unhealthy people and dogs. Fat does not mean "well nourished" in so far as it relates to well balanced nutritional values.

How many people do you know that have become overweight purely by eating raw food?

Being well balanced (provided the "right" balance of raw food is eaten) in nutrition, metabolic function would be optimal. This in turn does not lead to obesity. Do you think "overweight" means one is getting the best out of the food?

What chemical treatment is applied to prohibit meat from human consumption? What is the chemical contamination of vegetables in the 'fields'? (I thought that they were called paddocks in Australia).

Actually, I tend to refer to a "field of wheat" for example, rather than a "paddock of wheat". Chemicals are often sprayed over fields of grains etc. .... even for human consumption. But it is done at a reasonably controlled rate and at controlled times (eg. x days/weeks prior to harvest). Sometimes there can be excessive run off (exacerbated by inclement wet weather? I don't know, I'm not a farmer) to lower ends of the fields - or "paddocks" if you like. Excessive chemical saturation would render the produce unfit for human consumption. But not necessarily for pets.

Why would preservatives be neccessary in any canned food, given that canning is a highly effective way of preserving food?

You'd have to ask the manufacturers this. The labels usually suggest "no artificial preservatives". But why do you think (eg) salt is often added to processed food stuffs?

You ask why the change from guaranteed analysys to typical analysis, and I would have thought that the answer would lie in the natural variation of the raw ingredients that go into the production of commercially prepared dog food. Natural variation occurs seasonally with meat, and with vegetables it depends on the fertility of the soil that the plants are grown in. A guaranteed analysis could only be provided if all of the nutrients were artificially added.

Good point.

You are going to have to do some more thorough research than quoting American Barf Zealotry websites to convince me that the nutrition derived from commercially available food is inadequate for a pet dog.

I'm not writing here to convince anyone .... simply to put forward a view, based on the results of some research, for people to read and (pardon the pun) digest, so they can weigh up all the information given in the posts and make their own choices.

I guess more research into the increase of diseases (and what sort of diseases, including dental) compared to the decrease of diseases (and what sort of diseases) from the time commercial pet food was put on the market, compared to the period prior to commercial pet food, would be required to further determine the value or non-value of commercial pet food -vs- balance raw diet.

The only thing I can say is that IMO, by feeding a raw diet, I am more certain of the quality of what my dog is really getting, both in content and nutritional value.

ETA: I don't know why my quotes didn't work.

Edited April 2, 2006 by Erny

[Greytmate]

I don't, GM I read the labels and understand what it all means...b/c labels are often misleading,it's helpful to know what each ingredient really means. I also don't feel it necessary to repeat information given by another member when I had planned to say almost the same things.

Are you saying that the words chicken, rice and vegetables are misleading? In what way are they misleading? What do those words really mean?

No other member answered the questions that I asked you, so why can't you answer the questions?

It was you that made the statement

"It's full of stuff they do not need and very light on the ingredients that work best for the canine."

Why can't you explain how exactly a can of dog food containing 70% chicken, rice, and vegetables, is full of stuff they do not need? Why won't you explain why you think that the can is light on the ingedients that work best for the canine?

You are full of criticism of canned food, but can show no reasons to back up your harsh statements.

I am not surprised that you planned on saying the same things as 'another member'. You probably both get your 'research' from the same American Barf Zealotry websites.

And please don't get me started on "vet recommended" foods b/c my opinion on those is quite low.

I did not get you started on this. You started it yourself when you made the statement.

That is simply not an acceptable diet for a pup IMO, but more importantly, most vets don't recommend soft foods either...and I have to wonder why this one did. It's just a very odd "recommendation" IMO.

Some people should be less worried about what crap gets fed to their dog, and more worried about the crap that gets fed to their brain courtesy of certain American Barf Zealots

[Erny]

... Some people should be less worried about what crap gets fed to their dog, and more worried about the crap that gets fed to their brain courtesy of certain American Barf Zealots

Greytmate ..... or maybe we're working on the research which is at least available to us and erring on the side of caution. A balanced raw whole meal diet is surely more certain than a diet of canned processed food. If this is not the case, where are the studies/research to suggest a balanced raw whole meal diet is not good?

ETA: This is not intended as an "argument" and I've clearly expressed in my earlier posts my "narrow studies" and that my comments are "in my opinion". I'm finding your tone a bit more harsh than I would expect justified, or perhaps that's a trick of the written word and is unintended?

Edited April 2, 2006 by Erny

[Greytmate]

GM

I feed a raw food diet too Erny, I only feed canned occasionally.

Erny

Fair enough, GM ... but I thought the topic was about a "canned food diet" which I interpret to mean "mainly (if not all) canned food".

I only entered this topic when lillysmum made inaccurate claims about canned food.

GM

If we are to believe that the canning process destroys all nutritional value in food, we may as well empty our pantries of canned tuna, canned vegetables and other canned food and throw it all in the bin.

Erny

Nutritional value has been proven and reported to have been considerably reduced by heating processess. I doubt that any nutritionalist would recommend a diet of mainly canned/processed foods.

Reduced yes, but the food does not become nutritionally deficient as you claimed in your earlier post. It still contains plenty of nutrients.

GM

If we believe that cooking food renders it unfit to be eaten, we could do away with stoves and cupboards full of pots and pans, and just eat the raw ingredients straight out of the fridge.

Erny

And nutritionally speaking, a raw diet would do us all a lot better. Although I personally couldn't come at raw meat and given that I'm not much in the way of a meat eater anyway, would probably find my stomach couldn't cop it.

It might do us better, but that does not mean that cooking is bad.

Erny

The characteristics of major nutrients such as fats, proteins and carbohydrates are altered by the 'cooking' process (the greater the heat, the greater the change) - so much so they become not only indigestible, but may be regarded by the body as foreign molecules which, in turn, can result in allergic reactions, including auto-immune diseases like arthritis. Some may also become carcinogenic.

Sorry, that is just bullshit Erny. Think about it properly. If cooking really did render fats, proteins and carbs as indigestible, what would happen? We would shit all those foreign molecules out the other end, and die of malnutrition. Nobody would ever get fat. Nobody would ever have any energy. Except for those eating a purely raw diet. Does that make sense to you? It does not to me.

GM

I don't believe that cooked food or canned food is nutritionally useless, for myself or my dog. I eat it regularly, it forms a large part of my diet, and I am not malnourished or suffering from any vitamin or mineral deficiencies.

Erny

How do you know what the affect of the processing is really doing to you. Often, the results are not seen until it's too late. How do you know if you're living to your full potential on your significant canned food diet?

What processing Erny? I am talking about COOKED FOOD. You know, the stuff you eat at mealtimes.

BREAD - COOKED in the oven

STEAK - COOKED on a pan

VEGETABLES - COOKED in a steamer

RICE - COOKED in a rice cooker

TUNA - COOKED and (gasp) CANNED TOO.

Yes, that's right, much of my food is cooked.

I don't think that any nutritionist would have a problem with it. Why do you have a problem with it?

GM

The point of my post was merely to point out the inaccuracy of saying that canned food is not acceptable, that it contains unneccessary ingredients, and is short on neccessary ingredients.

Erny

You suggest it isn't? How do you know?

Because I used to work for a dog food manuafcturer. I saw all the ingredients, I saw the manufacturing, I fed the food to my dogs. Now you think I'm a liar if you like, and keep believing the American Barf Zealotry websites if you like, but don't expect me to sit back silently while all the apprentice zealots start bagging the healthy nutritious varieties of canned food along with the poorer varieties. Not because I have any loyalty to a pet food manufacturer, but because I do not like bullshit.

GM

Some canned food is very acceptable as a part of the diet of dogs or humans, as long as we are mindful of what is in the can.

Erny

But again, given the sometimes misleading information on the can label, how do you really know? I would like to expect that canned food for human consumption is carefully monitored as far as quality etc. is concerned, but is the same consideration given to pet food? If that were the case, why is "pet" food for pets and not for both humans and pets?

Because, in Australia, there is a surplus of good food. Pieces of chicken that are broken, bruised, a bit smashed up, or have a few feathers still attached, carrots that are a bit tough, a bit old, a funny shape, or broken in half. Grains of rice that are not whole. All the good food that is produced that Mr and Mrs Shop-at-coles would not touch with a barge pole. Yes the food for human consumption is monitored for quality, and the quality standards are so high that cosmetic faults are enough to get that food rejected into the pet food bin. Pet food is for pets, because a pet has different nutritional requirements than a human. Pet food is for pets, because if you bought a piece of chicken that had a few feathers stuck to it, you would take it back to coles for a refund. Pet food is for pets, because the market demands it.

This is not America. We have a large organic recycling industry, and much of what in America would be sold as 4D meat, is turned into fertiliser in this country.

GM

... but it becomes zealotry when people continually make inaccurate claims in an effort to stop people feeding their dogs certain types of food.

Erny

I don't think it's an effort to stop people feeding their dogs (in this case) canned food. I think it's about being uncertain as to what is really in the canned pet food, in relation to substance, nutrition and nutrients.

Oh yes I do think that it is an effort to stop people feeding their dogs canned food. That is the reason why I entered this topic. Who are you saying is uncertain about what is in canned food?

You? Lillysmum? Then perhaps you should not make comments on things that you are uncertain of.

Me? I know what is in some brands of canned food, no uncertainty here.

GM

Erny, you studied only three of the many varieties of canned food available, perhaps that was not enough for you to be able to comment on all varieties of canned food.

Erny

I admitted that at the beginning of my post and I thought it was clear that my findings and thoughts were, for the most part, relative to those 3 brands.

So why not say some brands of food in particular instead of saying canned foods in general?

GM

Fats, proteins and carbohydrates do not beome indigestable by the cooking process, and are not recognised by the body as foreign molecules.

Erny

Wasn't there something fairly recently regarding the molecular change that occurred as a result of processing of margarine/spreadable butter variety items? And (although I go by memory) I'm sure it was reported as being carcinagenic. And I don't think that's the only variety of processed food that has been reported as being unhealthy for consumption.

Give me an proven example of a food that when eaten in normal amounts causes cancer. And then tell me what that has to do with canned dog food.

GM

If only they were, then we would rarely see obesity in dogs and humans.

Erny

I see plenty of obese, albeit unhealthy people and dogs. Fat does not mean "well nourished" in so far as it relates to well balanced nutritional values.

Hang on a minute Erny, you have stated that "The characteristics of major nutrients such as fats, proteins and carbohydrates are altered by the 'cooking' process (the greater the heat, the greater the change) - so much so they become not only indigestible" . So make up your mind here. Does cooking make fat, proteins and carbs indigestible or not? The presence of obese dogs suggests to me that it does not make these substances indigestable. The only possible way that fat can be deposited in the body is if it is digested, or put there by a plastic surgeon. That is why I mentioned obesity, not because I think obesity is healthy, but because it is such an obvious indication that fat is being digested. Obesity is a form of overnourishment though.

GM

How many people do you know that have become overweight purely by eating raw food?

Erny

Being well balanced (provided the "right" balance of raw food is eaten) in nutrition, metabolic function would be optimal. This in turn does not lead to obesity. Do you think "overweight" means one is getting the best out of the food?

No, I did not mean that at all. Perhaps I did not make the point clearly enough. My point about obesity was to illustrate that your arguement that cooking food makes fat indigestable was bullshit. We see plenty of obese people and dogs, and most of them got that way from eating cooked foods not raw foods. If we were to believe you that cooking makes fat indigestable, then the only fat people that we would ever see would have had to digested that fat from the raw foods that they have eaten. According to your theory, we could eat chips and donuts and hamburgers all day, and never put on a gram of weight, because the fat contained in cooked food is indigestable.

GM

What chemical treatment is applied to prohibit meat from human consumption? What is the chemical contamination of vegetables in the 'fields'? (I thought that they were called paddocks in Australia).

Erny

Actually, I tend to refer to a "field of wheat" for example, rather than a "paddock of wheat". Chemicals are often sprayed over fields of grains etc. .... even for human consumption. But it is done at a reasonably controlled rate and at controlled times (eg. x days/weeks prior to harvest). Sometimes there can be excessive run off (exacerbated by inclement wet weather? I don't know, I'm not a farmer) to lower ends of the fields - or "paddocks" if you like. Excessive chemical saturation would render the produce unfit for human consumption. But not necessarily for pets.

Did you just make that up?

GM

Why would preservatives be neccessary in any canned food, given that canning is a highly effective way of preserving food?

Erny

You'd have to ask the manufacturers this. The labels usually suggest "no artificial preservatives". But why do you think (eg) salt is often added to processed food stuffs?

Preservatives are not added to canned food, because the process of canning is the preservative. It is the reason why food is canned. Why did you think that canning was invented in the first place?

Salt is sometimes added to some varieties canned food as a flavour enhancer, but I would not recommend those varieties of canned food, as there is enough naturally occurring salt in the ingedients of good quality canned food.

GM

You are going to have to do some more thorough research than quoting American Barf Zealotry websites to convince me that the nutrition derived from commercially available food is inadequate for a pet dog.

Erny

I'm not writing here to convince anyone .... simply to put forward a view, based on the results of some research, for people to read and (pardon the pun) digest, so they can weigh up all the information given in the posts and make their own choices.

I can only say that rehashing the information given on American Barf Zealotry websites is not research. As I said before, I only entered the topic to correct an inaccurate statement written about canned food. It could have been left at that if your intention was not to convince people of anything.

Erny

I guess more research into the increase of diseases (and what sort of diseases, including dental) compared to the decrease of diseases (and what sort of diseases) from the time commercial pet food was put on the market, compared to the period prior to commercial pet food, would be required to further determine the value or non-value of commercial pet food -vs- balance raw diet.

The only thing I can say is that IMO, by feeding a raw diet, I am more certain of the quality of what my dog is really getting, both in content and nutritional value.

And I am not saying that a canned diet is superior to a raw diet. I do not believe that it is.

All I am saying is that there are plenty of commercially available foods, canned or processed in other ways that contain adequate nutrition for a dog. Not all of them, but some of them. Despite what the American Barf Zealots would have us believe, cooking, canning or processed food can still be an excellent source of nutrition for a pet. There is such a thing as too much nutrition, if all the nutrition provided cannot be used by the dog.

I am tired of the "commercial food bad", "raw food good" mantra.

There is as much nutritional variation in raw food as there is in commercial food. Unless you are feeding your dog only prime cuts of the freshest steak, coming only from cattle that has been fed the best quality grain, and that grain was only grown in the most fertile and richest soil imaginable, then you too are guilty not giving your dog the most nutritious food available.

Edited to add -

Edited April 2, 2006 by Greytmate