korean breeders use a ton of rice and pasta ground together with a lesser degree of whole raw chicken(minus the feet)...in a uncooked hamburger type consistency....all the breeders i visited use the same mix...and their dogs are HUGE im curious to know what part of rice or pasta is meat?
i SMOKE some GRASS, then VOMIT ,at the thought of phil naked
O Dosa, you got to remember that in Korea meat is scarce and expensive. Makes since to fill up a dog with pasta and rice.
heres a real fly in the ointment.....heheheh plants that eat insects are defined as Carnivores
modern day southern korea is thriving...and is a very westernized country...if it wasnt for all the asians id swear i was in america...prices were actually cheaper...and meat plentiful...so gonna have to nix ya on that one
Omnivore Omnivores (from Latin: omne all, everything; vorare to devour) are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. They are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to eat and digest either meat or plant material exclusively.[1] Pigs are one well-known example of an omnivore.[2] Crows are another example of an omnivore that many people see every day.[3] Humans ourselves are omnivores. Although there are reported cases of herbivores eating meat matter as well as examples of carnivores eating plants, the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores. Most bear species are considered omnivores, but individuals' diets can range from almost exclusively herbivorous to almost exclusively carnivorous depending on what food sources are available locally and seasonally. Polar bears can be classified as carnivores while pandas almost exclusively eat bamboo and are therefore herbivores. Species considered omnivorous o Bears o Coatis o Canines like gray wolves or dingos eat meat and some vegetable manner o Hedgehogs o Opossums o Pigs o Some primates including chimpanzees and humans o Raccoons o Rodents, including Chipmunks, Mice, Rats and Squirrels o Skunks o Sloths • Various birds (whose prey can consist of berries and nectar to insects, worms, fish, small rodents and snakes) o Cassowarys o Chickens o Corvids, including Crows, Magpies, Ravens and Rooks o Keas o Rails o Rheas • Some fish such as Piranhas • Some lizards and turtles
but now in defense of Latti... if you find the definition of a carnivore...in each sorce...the canine is included
heres a real fly in the ointment.....heheheh plants that eat insects are defined as Carnivores
modern day southern korea is thriving...and is a very westernized country...if it wasnt for all the asians id swear i was in america...prices were actually cheaper...and meat plentiful...so gonna have to nix ya on that one
Yup very true i was there in 05 and trust me things are good in South Korea! Doc Allevamento Del Vincenzo Click me
Dogs have been reclassified as Canis Lupus as supported in the following excerpts. I provided the link at the end of each quote for anyone interested in reading the entire text.
"Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.)." Click me
"Biologists have debated over the history and evolution of the domestic dog for hundreds of years. Most Scientists now agree that dogs are directly descended from Canis Lupus - the Grey Wolf. Dr. Robert K. Wayne, canid biologist and molecular geneticist at UCLA, has shown, through DNA research, that dogs are more closely related to the Grey Wolf than Biologists had previously suspected. In fact, due in large part to Dr. Robert K. Wayne's genetic research, the authors of the "Mammal Species of the World" the internationally accepted reference source on mammal species, reclassified the dog in 1993 from Canis Familiaris to Canis Lupus." Click me
Where this debate is over is in actual applied nutrition of the dog. We're talking about the diets that make it to the bowl, things people feed their pets. Not a generalized theory about what could be fed/what the dog and/or wolf ate originally.
If dogs truly could survive only on meat LONG TERM, wouldn't it make more sense for those companies to create an entirely meat based diet and sell it at premium?? It would be cheaper to formulate than importing organic this-and-that. They'd make more money, and the marketers would be able to claim being the only company to truly feed the dog what it needs (big bonus points on the PR front)
That's not what happens. Nobody has ever come out with a 100% animal product diet for dogs. Even wolves in captivity are fed dog food (corn based dog food at that) -- the only animals given all meat are the big cats. This is a billion dollar a year industry, do you really think that all of the thousands of nutritionists and canine physiologists are intentionally misleading you so that they can spend more to create a diet with a variety of nutrient sources? Money is the bottom line, I assure you there are serious deficiencies with the all meat "wild" diet. Here's a few examples:
Without veggies, fruits, grains in commercial and home made diets dogs are deficient in fiber, iodine, magnesium, vitamin E, and to an extent vitamin K. I suppose you could supplement, but you'd want to buy the chelated varieties to assure the dog was actually absorbing what it needed without accidental overdose (magnesium can cause kidney failure) and those get very expensive very quickly. -- without supplementing (ie: the wild wolf) you are developing goiters and thyroid malfunction, constipation, nerve damage (vit. E), and probably most alarming is vitamin K deficiency which causes anemia and death.
Another key consideration is that wolves, often classified in the wild as carnivores (we've already established that in captivity they are omnivorous-- hence the dog food.) don't live very long. Wolves, like dogs have the potential to live 20 years, but in the wild often don't make it past 5. The main purpose of the pet food industry is to extend longevity and quality of life. Any animal (human or otherwise) can survive on an inappropriate diet for a short time, but they cannot thrive and they will not live out a full lives.
All of that is why BARFers add pasta and veggies, why home cookers add supplements, and why the pet food companies spend more to bring your dog nutrients from enough varied sources that he might surpass his wild counterpart in potential. The nature of domestication is a trade in benefits. Consider dogs being fed an omnivorous but more nutritious diet one of the few sheer benefits they get from putting up with us. "Mais tu ne dois pas l’oublier. Tu deviens responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as apprivoisé." - Le Petit Prince
WOW… all this coming from someone finishing a degree in animal nutrition…
So you think the dog food companies add all that extra stuff because it is better for the dog? They add that to FILL the bag and make it cheaper. A dog food compnay is NOT out for the well being of the dog. They exsist because they need to SELL. Money is the object of the game. If a company actually made an all meat dog food, I would feed it to my dog. But that dog food will cost me an arm and a leg. A dog food company is NOT going to sell it self to millionaires that love their dogs. If that was the case they would only have a hand full of people and how are they going to make money? There is plenty of people that just feed their dogs meat. Dogs can thrieve on that diet. People that add rice and pasta to a raw diet. Are doing it to fill the dog. I dont know about you but I dont have money to feed my dog(s) 5 pounds of meat a day.
Wolves may live a short life in the wild, and that is because like ALL animals in the wild. Only the strong survive in the wild. ALL animals in the wild live a shorter life. Wolves are feed dog food along with raw meat in captivity because… like I said before.. it’s cheaper. (Information taken from same site)
Dogs are living longer today because of improved social status and advances in medical care. "Back in the day" dogs were not considered the valuable family members and companions they are now. Dogs were left outside to brave the elements. They were guardians of house, possessions, and livestock. Dogs had a purpose, a job, and when they could not do that job, they were retired or disposed of. Medical care for dogs was scant and typically unimportant, as more prestige was gained from being a livestock vet than a canine vet. Very little notice was given to the dog's health as long as it could still do what was asked of it.
Nowadays, dogs enjoy a better life, one that is easier and less taxing (except for the great injustices that are kibble and excessive vaccination). They sleep inside with their owners. They enjoy the social status of family companions. People care more about their welfare. They receive the benefits of improved health care—much of which has evolved in the last 50 years because of the ailments caused by processed foods—and the added bonus of people caring about them receiving that care. For example, 100 years ago people would have never paid thousands of dollars to give their dog a hip replacement, or hundreds of dollars to get routine dentals performed on their pets. Nutrition has had a very negligible role to play in increased longevity other than the fact that dogs are no longer starving and do not have to hunt or scavenge (both of which are energetically costly). Instead of contributing to longevity, these "nutritional advances" have contributed to more and more health problems previously unheard of in dogs—diabetes, various cancers, inflammatory bowel syndrome, and bloat, for example. Veterinary medicine has evolved into 'modern veterinary medicine' because of the increasing prevalence of processed food-related diseases and the need to treat and fix them (which often involves switching your dog onto a higher-priced "therapeutic" processed diet). Granted, these diseases are diagnosed more frequently today because people actually know what to be looking for, but the amount of dogs suffering from these ailments today as opposed to earlier dogs indicates a VERY strong link to the foods they eat, links that have been proven to exist between humans in developed countries and processed foods.
What about increased longevity? Dogs' longevity has only recently been determined by 'research' performed by the pet food companies. They use these estimates to "show" that their food helps animals live longer. But longer compared to what? No one cared about canine longevity in the earlier days (except the select few concerned with breeding canines), so no one kept records or performed surveys. So this longevity estimate is only valid from when the surveys started. Indeed, kibbled food has been improving from the early prototypes that created a variety of nutritional deficiences (like overgrowth and bone malformations in puppies; this STILL is a problem.), but this "nutrition" has not contributed to longevity in nearly the same manner that increased social status has.
In reality, canine longevity and quality of life has been decreasing for many breeds since the advent of processed food. People who remember the 'old days' when dogs were fed raw meaty bones often report their dogs living well through their late teens. Nowadays it is a "miracle" and a testament to the "excellent nutriton" the dog must have received, and vets and pet food companies claim this "miracle" as occurring often enough to become 'commonplace'. Too bad most of the vets who remember the good old days have now retired or even moved on. It seems this new generation of veterinarians will know nothing but kibbled, processed food and the ailments induced by it.
So they say dogs are living longer. And indeed people can step forward and say they have 16-year-old Golden Retrievers and 14-year-old German Shepherds and 11-year-old Great Danes. But what about the quality of life for these old dogs? They have horrible teeth and rancid breath, severe arthritis or degenerative joint disease, cancerous or benign tumors, diabetes, kidney failure, nasty greasy coats, and soft fatty bodies lacking muscle tone. People say this is just "old age" and that we see this more often nowadays because dogs are living longer. But is this really true? Many of these ailments are caused by or heavily influenced by a lifetime of eating processed food and developing periodontal disease and bacteria-laden teeth.Those who remember the 'early days' remember long-lived dogs enjoying better quality lives until one day they just did not wake up. This slow, accumulating progression of disease is invariably linked with processed foods—something that has been proven time and again in human medicine and is being proven daily by the amount of processed food-fed pets suffering from a variety of these ailments and sitting in vets' waiting rooms. If pets are living longer, then why are they being considered "old" at younger and younger ages? A dog is now a senior by the age of 7 or 8; some even say a dog is "old" at 5 or 6. Cats are considered seniors by the ripe old age of 7 (tell that to raw fed cats still going strong at the age of 20!). This premature aging is caused in large part by processed foods. Cancer, diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, heart problems, and arthritis (among other things) are being seen in younger and younger dogs. Dogs 3 years of age are being euthanized for malignant, systemic cancers! What happened to this "dogs are living longer" claim? It is high time we stop slowly poisoning our beloved friends through commercial diets and excessive "preventative" health care measures!
Now a company called Pedigree sells dog food. It’s main ingredient is CORN, which a dog cannot digest. There slogan “Really good for Dogs”. Now Pedigree MAKES MILLIONS of dollars… do you really think they care about your dog?
TIDBIT: The oldest living dog is a raw-fed dog. Jerry, an Australian cattle dog-bull terrier mix. He is 27 and lives with his owner in Australia (Outback Mongrel Could Be Oldest Dog. USA Today. 7-13-2004.).
Colour Key:
[/url]
