TDG

science_dog, i'm glad you read the material. i'll always be first to admit that PETA is a two-edged sword and i definitely do [b]not[/b] support all their ideas and campaigns, but that whole IAMS thing was just disgusting and i'm glad they brought it up. i doubt there is a single person in the world who is "always right", but definitely not many who openly admit when they are wrong. it takes guts to step forward and say "i was wrong", so i commend you for doing that. there are certainly no hard feelings from my side, and i hope not from yours either. :) you are a reasonable person and love animals, and with your choice of career i hope you will have the possibilities to find many alternatives in research, so less animals have to suffer in the future.

i'm a huge fan of natural healing methods, so here is what i can recommend: keep some calendula tincture and some arnica tincture on hand and also some plain lotion or cream without any added scents or other ingredients. this will serve as a medium to apply remedies externally. calendula: external use on wounds, scrapes, cuts, bleeding, muscle pulls. stops bleeding from wounds and is excellent for preventing infection or to treat already inflamed wounds. speeds up wound healing, seals the edges, prevents scars. mix a few drops into cream or lotion, or apply the diluted tincture. arnica: external and internal use. internal: as a treatment for trauma and shock (e.g. from pain), 1 drop diluted with a bit of of water directly into the mouth. dilute well because it can irritate the stomach. can be given 1-3 times a day for several days. external: relieves pain, swelling and stiffness, for example from sprains etc. mix a few drops (not too much, the tincture is very concentrated) with a little bit of lotion or cream and apply to the area that hurts 2-4 times daily, but do not exceed 4 applications. do not use this on broken skin, that's what the calendula is for! :)

a friend of mine has 2 dogs with elbow dysplasia (both also had surgery recently). she has had good success with adequan. if you PM me an email contact, i will put her in touch with you.

the cheap products are something you definitely want to avoid. here's an example why you shouldn't use hartz products for example: [url]http://www.hartzvictims.org[/url] personally i use advantage, it has a very good product record with very few complications reported. it is a product that has been used pretty much world wide for over 15 years now. here's a little "secret" about saving money using advantage: an entire tube of advantage for each animal is not always necessary. per the bayer product information i have found that the minimum applied dosage is 0.1 ml per kilogram (2.2 lbs) of body weight. e.g. the smallest doses sold are 0.4 ml tubes, recommended for cats and dogs up to 4 kg. in my experience this minimum dosage is sufficient already to keep our household flea free, so i don't apply more than that. i have 5 cats and one dog, so one tube for dogs over 55 lbs (which contains enough to treat an animal of up to 40 kg/88 lbs with the minimum dosage) is enough for all of them. i use a small plastic syringe (without needle) to measure the appropriate doses and to apply it. [b]disclaimer:[/b] it's a "violation of federal law" :roll: :roll: to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling, which tells you to apply the entire tube. i am not suggesting you should break any laws, but personally i do not put any more chemicals on my pets than absolutely necessary. if that means i'm breaking the law, then i guess i'm guilty, but the health of my animals is more important to me than a law someone passed. fleas are absolutely nasty where i live and pretty much active all year round, so i put up with using the advantage because nothing else helps. you can order the advantage online for about $25 and up for a 4-pack, so for my 5 animals that's around $6.25 per month. not too bad, is it?

no matter how frustrating things are, you shouldn't be angry at your dog. he is still very young and easily distracted. think of him as an 8-year old kid, soooo interested in everything that's going on in the world, in checking out all the interesting things that he doesn't get to see every day. he will pick up your frustration and anger and reflect it in his behavior. "uh oh, we are at this place again where my person gets all tense. makes me feel weird." you might also need to work with him more around other dogs. does he have much of a chance to socialize? or are training classes one of the rare occasions where he can interact with dogs?

if he isn't used to all these things you are feeding him now, it might just be a mild case of tummy adjustment problems. another possiblity is the vitamin C, if you have fed lower doses in the past. there is a reaction called "bowel tolerance" which indicates by loose stools that the body has reached its capacity for vitamin C intake. any excess past that point has a laxative effect. another thing that could cause soft stools is the veggie mash. you can add a bit of plain, canned pumpkin (not the ready to use pie filling type!) which will normalize things pretty quickly. overall you are right on the money about the transition period. his body has to adjust to getting a much higher quality of food. :)

gspmom, which food is the "best" depends on the individual dog. i would definitely rate canidae as one of the very top-quality foods, but as you see it doesn't work out with your dog. the "best" food is the one that gives you the best results, regardless of the experiences of other dog owners. the ones you listed i would rate in the following order as far as ingredient quality goes (best to "worst", but they are all good brands!): nature's variety eagle pack (but only the 3 holistic varieties, the rest isn't so great) natural balance royal canin natural blend my personal top choice of all the dry foods is innova, other brands i trust are california natural, karma, healthwise, canidae (which doesn't apply in this discussion), artemis, azmira, blue buffalo and chicken soup.

that sounds like a yummy treat. unfortunately, living in L.A. i am somewhat limited in what i can buy, so lamb stuff is about as exotic as it gets for my dog. :lol: i did get beef tendon once tho, and he liked it a lot. they just don't last long, he's such an aggressive chewer!

well, there's nothing wrong with it in terms of being harmful or anything, but iceberg lettuce doesn't contain many nutrients. green leaf lettuce, butterhead and romaine are nutritionally much more valuable. red leaf lettuce isn't so great either.

you are on the right track. :) i would not stick to apples and carrots exclusively tho - give all kinds of fruit and vegetables so you cover the full range of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients the dog needs. short of onions and grapes you can feed pretty much everything, but go easy on cabbage-type veggies because they can cause gas. :oops: if i were you, i'd also email old mother hubbard and ask if the wellness kibble you feed includes enough calcium to balance out the phosphorus content of the fresh meat you add. it contains far more phosphorus than calcium and the growing body of your dog requires a specific balance and high enough amounts of both to develop properly. fruit and veggies are only nutritionally useful to dogs when they are either overripe, you finely grate/pulp them, or steam them lightly. dogs lack the enzymes to break down plant cell walls like humans or ruminants, so if you give fruit and veggies whole or just coarsely chopped, your dog doesn't get much out of it except the "entertainment factor". take a few different veggies and/or fruits, chop them into chunks and then toss it all into your blender. you might have to add a little water to process everything, or you can add a whole, raw egg. divide the batch into servings and freeze what you aren't going to use within the next 2 days. for that i use the yogurt and cottage cheese containers from the dairy products i buy for the dog. here are some combo exampless i use for veggie mash: * green beans, yellow squash, apple * parsley, red bell pepper, carrots * broccoli, sweet potato, zucchini * dark green lettuce (NOT iceberg), tomato, turnip you can be really creative, find out what your dog likes and dislikes and work from there. mine isn't very fond of kale and other fairly bitter greens, so i don't use them. it's a good idea to vary the meats too, beef does not have a complete amino acid profile. commecial diets are formulated to offer a sufficient amount of all the essential amino acids, but if you feed half kibble and half homemade food, you might risk an imbalance if you don't rotate your fresh protein source now and then. it doesn't even have to be meat - eggs, cottage cheese and fish are great too! :) home made diets are an excellent way to feed your pet, just don't fall into a routine of feeding just the same things all the time. especially during the growth period it is critical that your dog does not develop any deficiencies. i hope this helps! :)

could you name that ingredient? then i might be able to comment on it. you can find a lot of harmless compounds in various products, edible or not. that doesn't necessarily mean that they are harmful. personally i prefer to give my dog natural things to chew on. not only are they nutritionally more valuable, but also a lot less pricy. i can buy about 10 pounds of lamb shanks or 20 pounds of assorted beef bones for the price of an 8-pack "large size" greenies - and those bones come either from organically raised animals or at the very least from ones raised without hormones and antibiotics . :)

my dog sometimes does that with his compressed rawhide bone, usually just before he lies down and gets comfortable with it. oddly enough never with any of the "real" bones (lamb shanks, beef knuckle bones etc.) i give him. i've never tried greenies, he's a much too aggressive chewer for them. i don't think it has anything to do with discomfort and would compare it to a toddler babbling while getting ready to munch on a cookie or something.

[quote name='SexxieRacerChik']Until further information is revealed I will not contribute to this type behavior in dog food testing. But then again...HOW do you know that the dog food you are using isn't doing the same type thing..and you just haven't heard about it yet? This is all just confusing and repulsive.[/quote] i applaud your decision, SRC. cutting into the profits of a company is the only way to get them to change their ways. it has worked with science diet (to make them remove the synthetic preservatives at least from all the regular non-prescription diets) and while it is still a poor quality food too, at least one dangerous aspect of it has been removed. if you want to be on the safe side, you can feed a dog food made by a company that declared publicly that they do not do any animal testing that goes beyond regular feeding trials, or no testing at all. your best bet are smaller companies, they incidentally also use much higher quality ingredients for their products. not all the companies who don't do animal testing are on the PETA "do not test" list tho, since some do not want to be connected to them in any way - which is understandable. as i said in one of my otehr posts, i'm not a PETA supporter either, but they do take an important place in bringing issues to the eyes of the public, and not many other groups have the financial backing that PETA has. and that's what it boils down to: the corporate giants have enough money to cover up and spin anything that they don't quite like to appear in a better light, but the consumer has a right to know what's going on - so make use of that right. look before you buy, not just when it comes to pet food.

[quote]Where you aware that every U.S. federally funded study involving animals goes through a review process that involves the approval of not only vetrinarians, but also one non-science member of the local community? I can't speak for every company out there, but I have worked in the private sector as well as goverenment funded labs and the vast majority do everything possible to make their animals as comfortable as possible.[/quote] i am aware of what is going on, just like i am aware of the conditions in "USDA approved" commercial kennels that are actually puppy mills, pet shops, slaughter houses etc. - if i have to deduct the results of inspections of such places (that are still allowed to operate), i do not have much more faith in any inspections at labs that do animal testing. just the fact that the government is somehow regulating something doesn't mean that conditions are appropriate. [quote]Kendalyn hit it right on the head. You cannot do any valid scientific study with too many variables. For example, people often suggest we should test drugs on prison inmates instead of lab animals. Well if you stop to think about that, the results would be uniterpretable. Say 6 of 10 of your prisoners get cancer when you give them the drug, okay the drug causes cancer? Well what if I told you that 5 of those 6 prisoners smoked and 3 shot heroin. Now what caused the cancer, the drug, the heroin, or the cigarettes? You seen how even a couple variables make the study uniterpretable?[/quote] i'm perfectly aware of all this, and have repeatedly stated that in some clinical studies such procedures maight be required, but do not forget that we are talking about testing for [b]pet food[/b] here, which is absolutely ludicrous. saying this is necessary is just as much out of line as demanding that your breakfast cereal be tested on animals. [quote]A metabloic study would absolutely need to monitor the animals very closely for some fairly long periods of time, so I'm not surprised the animals were in small enclosures during the study. I would be surprised if they continously housed them that way. This is why pictures taken by animal activist could be VERY misleading.[/quote] no, it is [b]not[/b] necessary to confine animals like that for met testing. it is also not necessary that they live on a stainless steel cage floor 24 hours a day for extended periods of time. not for a pet food, and especially not for a company that touts "a total culture of care" as a slogan and denies that certain things are going on. [quote]As for bedding and toys not posing any harm, unfortuantely as far as I know no one makes autoclavable toys and bedding, the heat and intense pressure would destroy them. Without that type of cleaning treatment they would quickly become contaminated with bacteria and viruses and perhaps kill the poor animals.[/quote] it is completely beyond me how virii would be introduced into a closed, controlled, already sterile environment if toys or bedding were properly treated to begin with. have you ever seen how patients who are at a high risk for any kind of infection etc. are housed at hospitals? they aren't kept in stainless steel cages but in beds just like any other patient, and they also have items taken into and out of their controlled environment multiple times every single day. that kind of argument completely aside, we are [b]still[/b] talking about pet food here. pet food, that by other companies is tested by lab analysis, or feeding trials under circumstances you'd find in a normal kennel environment. [quote]As for P+G I believe they are breaking into the health care market as well as pet food, so some of the test you say were probably for human health products.[/quote] breaking into the health care market? i believe you don't have much of an idea about the procter & gamble company and their business practices at all. maybe you want to read up on that a bit before we debate this any further, because it's kind of a waste of time to try and discuss the topic with someone who claims he knows what's going on but isn't informed enough to know what a company is all about. i'm not trying to put you down, but from the few posts you made i don't think you are what you are trying to make people believe you are. procter & gamble have been making prescription drugs, health care products, household items, cosmetics, baby care items and other things for a long time, but just got into the pet food market by buying up the iams company in 09/99. since then, the quality of both iams and eukanuba pet foods has drastically declined, but i guess the profit margin increased quite a bit. other than that, it was expressly stated that the animals in question were used for iams testing, so no, they weren't used for anything else. if they had been used for other testing before or after the iams tests, it would have violated the voluntary restrictions that the iams company set for themselves - you can find them on their website if you are interested in actually following up on a topic. [quote]My point about the dog food is that I think it's hipocritical to pick and choose different companies to boycott becuase they all have directly used or benefited from animal research. I believe that very few people realize the amount of research that goes into the products they use.[/quote] again i have to ask, from a nutritional standpoint, why would you have to do this kind of testing? it's completely unnecessary because there [b]isn't[/b] anything that would really require any testing that goes further than simple feeding trials. i have studied over 750 pet food ingredients in detail in the past 3+ years and am pretty confident discussing all of them. out of those, maybe 100 or so are actually substances that would have required animal testing in the past, the majority of which you wouldn't even [b]want[/b] to have in a quality pet food to begin with. also, there are many pet food companies that have done research for far longer than iams who have never been targeted for this kind of cruelty. makes you think, doesn't it? fact is that P&G has a long history of very, very questionable business practices, spin-doctoring a lot of facts to look more appealing to the public, and making promises they still fail to keep. as an informed customer, i do not feel that it is hypocritical at all to boycott a company if i am not satisfied with their products or the way they do business. thank god there are many safer and healthier alternatives to their chemical laden, environment polluting products, and until they change their ways of doing business and eliminate unnecessary animal suffering, poor quality ingredients, pollutants and additives from their products, i will continue to boycot [b]any[/b] product that is somehow connected with their name.

[quote]Without reading a detailed description of the study I am guessing as to why the scientists didn't want toys in the cages? Perhaps they were afraid of the toys introducing a variable that would invalidate the study.[/quote] good grief. dogs kept in tiny cages for metabolic study, and not even a rubber chew toy or what. like a study under those circumstances is even remotely going to reflect a "real life" situation of an animal that is supposed to eat the food later on. [quote] Complex studies of nutrition, behavior, and growth can be adversely affected by the introduction of too many variables.[/quote] these folks are not behaviorists, they are testing a dog food, so let's leave out the behavior argument right away. i again have to question why "complex studies" would be necessary for a non-prescription food, and why healthy animals should suffer for it. per AAFCO regulations, either feeding trials or lab analysis are sufficient, and even those are of little significance considering the requirements. if you are not familiar with this topic, i suggest you order and read the yearly AAFCO publication. it's quite an interesting read, especially if you are feeding your pet a commercial food. [quote] This could be something as simple as the idea that the beagles frequently used in these studies are born and raised in specific pathogen free conditions, meaning that they don't ever have exposure to common viruses and bacteria(they are bred to be lab animals). A toy rolling around in the bottom of a cage becomes a sink for these bacteria making all the dogs sick and invalidating the study and perhaps killing the dogs?[/quote] that's just as good as saying let's not feed or water those lab animals because they could get sick and die from bacteria in their food and water bowls. if these animals are housed and taken care of properly, bedding and toys would not pose any risk at all. [quote]Really to get valuable data from these types of study the experienc/history of each test subject is usually as similar as possible. This is why I can never understand who in the world buys dogs from animal shelters for experimentation.......I don't understand how they can validate the data with all those variable genetic backgrounds, environmental exposures, etc.[/quote] that doesn't make any sense whatsoever - at least if we are still talking about dog food here. what good is for example a study done exclusively on beagles of a single bloodline (remember you said bred for testing?) going to do hundreds of thousands of dogs of [b]entirely[/b] different breeds with widely differing environmental, metabolic and nutritional requirements out there? if you wanted to create a product that is suitable to feed a wide range of animals, you would want to have as much variety in your test group as possible - not only in breeds (or non-breeds lol) but also in gender and age.

[quote]PETA and groups like them frequently lie about how animals are treated.[/quote] uh, yeah. and the photos are all fabricated, right? even if in the worst case [i]half[/i] of what they report is true, it's still bad enough. [quote] By United States law the dogs must be give play time out side of their cages and if they don't the USDA would shut them down.[/quote] yeah, just like the USDA shuts down licensed puppy mills, right? and of course pet stores. we all know this type of cruelty doesn't really happen, it's just animal rights organizations exaggerating. good grief. [quote]These types of facilites are constantly inspected, again I know this from personal experience.[/quote] yep, and the people who inspect them make decisions in the interest of whom? and who comes up with the guideslines as to what constitutes "adequate" living conditions for these animals? the same people who come up with the numbers for "adequate" nutrition, like the AAFCO? [quote]I honestly didn't even bother to look at the links provided, because that type of propaganda on the internet is usually a waste of time........most of the time it turns out to be completely untrue or at best 1/2 true. Unfortunately the people who sneak into these facilites and "report" what is going on most likely don't even understand the basics of the experiment.[/quote] as i said above, even if just half of what they report is true, it's still bad enough and the public has a right to hear about it, even if the companies conducting these tests would so much prefer to do it behind closed doors. and so what if those people who report don't understand what's going on? unacceptable living conditions are unacceptable living conditions, there is nothing to understand about that. there is absolitely no excuse for animals being shut away in dark rooms living sad, sad lives. if conditions were actually appropriate, why does iams not allow the media to report about it, for example a documentary about the so-called "retirement kennel" in alabama? [quote]One reason to cut a muscle and not stitch it up would be to test wound healing which is basically a study of how the immune system is doing.[/quote] and why should this be necessary for a [b]food product[/b]???? [quote]If you interfear too much with the natural healing, this would invalidate the study and then why bother doing it at all??????? The ability of the immune system to heal could be a direct reflection of the quality of a dogs/cats diet. We are trying to feed our pets the appropriate food, but without testing it's a total guess.[/quote] it does not require a scientist to feed a dog or cat, that is a well proven fact. i know, it's something all the big-shot dog food companies want to make people believe, and unfortunately with a big advertisement budget it's very easy to sway those consumers who are too lazy do do a bit of research. if you are feeding a quality product, and not something that would be better suited as cattle food or fertilizer, you don't have to worry about wound healing, because the animal's body will get all the nutrients it needs. it doesn't take a scientist at a dog food company to research that.

[quote]Everyone on this forum wants the best food and vetrinary care for their pets, but how would you propose to discover these things without some experimentation?[/quote] tests that sponsor animals who are [b]already[/b] suffering from a particular disease for example? why for example is it necessary that for example healthy dogs get one kidney removed surgically and one damaged beyond repair, just to test veterinary diets? i'm sure there are thousands of people who would happily participate in clinical trials with their pets in order to further research. after all kidney disease is one of the leading causes of death in domestic dogs. clinical issues aside, why would you do the cruel kind MET testing the iams company does? i doubt there are very many dog owners out there who keep their dog in little stainless steel cages 24/7 with no exercise or play, so why would it be necessary to test [b]any[/b] type of pet food under entirely artificial circumstances? there is absolutely [b]no[/b] excuse for the fact that these dogs don't at the very least get housed in proper kennels with runs, access to sunlight and fresh air, a soft bed to sleep on, some toys and a chance to socialize now and then. [quote]I would also like to point out that since P+G appears to publish their findings in scientific publications do you all think that all the other "no test" companies ignore the benefit of that research and don't read the article becuase they don't want to test on animals.[/quote] i do not oppose [b]all[/b] animal testing, for some medical purposes it is sadly required. this doesn't include pet food tho, and for many other non-medical things (like houshold stuff, cosmetics etc.) it isn't required anymore either. you only need to look past the borders of your own country, to europe for example - where many more alternative testing methods are already in place and unnecessary animal testing is banned. leave it to the corporate giants like P&G to attempt sidestepping such restrictions to get their products onto the european market. i'm glad they did not succeed and hope more people hereint he US will become aware of this kind of business practices. [quote]NO, the answer to that is they don't want to spend the money to make the best food possible[/quote] pardon me, but this is complete and utter BS. if a company uses quality ingredients for a pet food, there is no reason to do any testing that goes beyond regular feeding trials, which does not involve any pain and suffering. meats and meat meals aren't going to kill any pets, and neither are quality grains, vegetables, fruits and vitamin/mineral supplements. is the toast or cereal you eat for breakfast tested on animals? the hamburger you buy at mcdonald's (or some other grease pit) for lunch? i can tell you why all this "scientific research" is done by the corporate giants tho: to continually attempt to lower product cost for a larger profit margin, at the expense of including quality ingredients. just look at the crap in iams and science diet pert foods, and how much you pay per pound of what is little more than flavored corn or third-grade rice? [quote]Now for the other side of the coin....Where you aware that P+G sponsored(i.e. discovered, developed, and FUNDED) a major multi-center trial of an animal testing alternative to a barbaric test call the "Draize test".[/quote] and that's what they [b]should[/b] do, after all they are one of the giants who made and still make most of their profit at the expense of animals used in testing. [quote]EVERY component of anything you have ever bought in your entire life has been used in this test. IT MUST BE TESTED. That way when your 3 year old child pours his shampoo in his eyes it won't burn them right out of his head. I'm sorry, but everything is tested this way. Products that claim they were not animal tested simpley use a mix of previously tested components and then they can say "our formula was never tested on animals", but I can gaurantee you that every single ingredient WAS TESTED.[/quote] yep, and you are saying it's a bad thing if companies do that? why, should they do additional testing and cause even more suffering to prove something that has been proven already int he past? i don't see the point... [quote]So back to the Driaze test, basically they pour things into rabbit eyes and score the dammage on a scale of established chemicals from caustic agents to water. P+G was working with Kimberly Clark on this test about 5 years ago and I know because I was one of the scientist hired to test the alternative. You'll be happy to know the alternative used cultured cells rather than live animals. These types of test are being developed all the time, but we can't make the jump overnight as much as we would all like to.[/quote] yep, i'm aware of all that, but it still surprises me why the US are so far behind in this kind of thing, where for example cruelty-free alternatives hav been used for a large number of testing in european countries. also, the european union successfully passed a ban on cosmetics animal testing and a ban on the sale of new animal tested cosmetics in january 2003. in the US, sadly, lobbying has a huge impact on government decisions, so corporate giants continue to pull strings to get resolutions passed in their interest. [quote] Just so you know the costs of animal testing are absoultely astronomical so I can assure you that no one is doing these tests for fun their probably just trying to find the best food for your pets. As always I am more than willing to discuss this subject, but please be kind.[/quote] see the paragraph i wrote earlier in my post on testing animal feed. nothing more than standard feeding trials, which could even be done by private breeders sponsored by the pet food manufacturers (hey, what a novel idea? some smaller companies are already doing it that way!!) should be required to something that is not some kind of possibly deadly medication - it's [b]food[/b] for dog's sake!

if you want to feed rolls, try the natural balance ones. i use them as training treats. [url]http://www.naturalbalanceinc.com/products/DFRolls.html[/url]

no doubt that with nine dogs (including some with special needs) homemade-only isn't feasible. just don't be afraid to experiment. :)

here are a few links to give a general idea about what's going on. side note: i am by no means a PETA supporter and do not agree with all the stuff they do, but in some cases their campaigns have successfully forced corporate giants to comply and find less cruel alternatives for their common business practices. there are not many organizations that have the financial backing to step up and confront said corporate giants, so i do not discount everything PETA does. if it weren't for them, some things would remain hidden from the unknowing consumer's eyes for so much longer. [url]http://iamskills.com/the_horrors.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.uncaged.co.uk[/url] [url]http://www.iamscruelty.com[/url] [url]http://www.pginfo.net/facts.html[/url] [url]http://www.idausa.org/facts/pg.html[/url] [url]http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Societies/greensoc/archive/procterandgamble/[/url] [url]http://www.eden20.orcon.net.nz/BunNoName.html[/url] [url]http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0305/S00215.htm[/url] [url]http://www.pandgkills.com/pgfact.html[/url] [url]http://www.liberation-mag.org.uk/procter10.htm[/url]

the main problem with dogs eating cat food (mainly dry food though) is that cat food is much more nutrient dense than dog food, so if a dog eats too much of it, chances are he will get fat. also, if a dog eats cat food and is not drinking enough water or unable to process enough water, there is immense stress on the kidneys, since they have to process all the nitrogen from protein digestion. kidney disease is one of the leading causes of death in domestic dogs. it's not really appropriate to compare feeding a dog (protein richer) cat food and a raw ("BARF" or whatever) diet, since fresh food [b]always[/b] brings in plenty of moisture for the body to process it. ever noticed how animals eating fresh food (or even canned food without dry food added) have a much lower daily water intake? also, look at the calorie content of for example 1 cup of dry cat food, 1 cup of dry dog food and 1 cup of fresh food. chances are that the kibble is at least twice as concentrated as the raw, and the cat kibble is a lot more nutrient dense than the dog kibble. so basically you are pumping too much of a "good thing" into the dog's digestive system, and excess in any form is unhealthy. other than that, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients are "fine tuned" to meet a cats dietary needs, which are quite different from those of a dog. generally you could probably feed a dog on commercial cat food if you do not overfeed, but a cat will never be able to survive on dog food.

[quote name='Loulou']I think it's a good solution to have a choice between 2 or 3 different dry foods. What do you think about that: A friend of mine suggested me to rotate between 2-3 brands and to feed for example one for two days, the other one for one day etc. But I'm afraid to make my dog with this system more and more a "bad kibbles eater" :evil: I like the feeding solution you found for your dog, but I cannot do it the same, as I already told you, we travel a lot with the dog and kibbles are just the simplest way for me to feed my dog.[/quote] i would not recommend feeding different dry food on different days. you might indeed be creating a very difficult to feed dog and overall i really don't see any benefits that you wouldn't get if you just rotate foods every 3 or 4 months. i don't feed my dog exactly the same way as at home when travelling, since kibble is definitely more convenient "on the road". but with a little organizing you can also include fresh things in your dog's diet when you aren't home. little baby food glasses of pureed veggies or small cans of sardines in water for example work well and don't need to be refrigerated. one thing i really like for road trips, especially short weekend camping trips or day trips (hiking etc.) are the innova health bars (dog biscuits). they are formulated to be suitable as "replacement meals" and can even be fed exclusively if desired. very handy whenever you don't want to lug a bag or container of kibble around, and my dog really goes crazy for them.

yep, it's really sad - that's why i tell everyone who wants to hear about it (or not :wink: ) why i boycot procter & gamble in general and iams/eukanuba specifically.

i do it really simple too, because i'm not the most well organized person. and yes, whatever i feed out of the freezer is just thawed and not processed any further. 24 hours in the refrigerator is usually enough to completely defrost whatever is in my little containers. if you cook the meat before freezing, you don't really have to boil it again, tossing the vaccuum baggies into a pot or bowl of hot water should do nicely and won't be hot enough to affect the food. or just defrost in the refrigerator. personally i'm not really good at using up leftovers promptly enough, so i just freeze everything in the same portion-sized container, but i suppose you could do the meat and veggies separated too if it's more convenient. here's a description of my typical routine: [b]morning meal:[/b] kibble or grains with a good dollop of yogurt or cottage cheese, sometimes an egg, and (if on hand) some fruit. i try to keep this really simple, because i'm not a morning person but my dog dances allover the place awaiting his breakfast. the only reason i haven't eliminated kibble completely is that i don't want to put an unnecessary burden on anyone who might pet sit or board my dog in the future for whatever reason may come up, or on road trips when it might not be practical/possible to feed homemade stuff. thank god he is a little chow hound and will eat most anything i put in his bowl, regardless if kibble or fresh. [b]evening meal:[/b] i alternate (on no particular schedule) between raw meaty bones and prepared meat/veggie meals. * rmbs: lamb shanks, turkey necks, pork neck bones, beef rib bones and small beef bones (oxtail, chuck neck bones etc.) - i buy them fresh, chop the bigger ones into smaller pieces (6-8 oz) if needed and freeze them. sometimes if the bones are excessively "meaty" i trim off some meat and use those trimmings in my prepared meat/veggie meals. i feed bones right out of the freezer for the most part, except on the day i bring home a new supply. keeps my dog busy a little longer. * meat/veggie meals: prepared in batches, depending on how much stuff i come home with. i buy meat either ground (mostly beef and turkey) or in whatever pieces i can get cheap (chicken, lamb), which i cut into small chunks of about 1 inch. for the most part this is muscle meat, but i do try to organize my shopping to include enough organ meats to feed them 1-2 times a week. heart, liver, kidney etc. - if you mix them, stick with one species, e.g. beef liver/heart/kidney [i]or[/i] chicken hearts/liver etc. - supposedly the nutritional value is higher that way, which does make sense since different species have different levels and types of aminoacids, enzymes etc. which work together. vegetables, whatever is on hand, 2-4 different kinds go into each batch of veggie mash and i keep notes so i don't feed the same things all the time. e.g. one batch could be parsley, carrots and broccoli, next time squash, zucchini and bell pepper, the time after that green beans, sweet potato and turnips. [b]preparation:[/b] i get our my scales, set out my little yogurt containers and weigh about 4 oz of meat per container (mostly raw, but boiling anything i don't quite trust). once all that is divided up, i cut up my veggies and toss them in the blender, mixing them up until it's a smooth mash. sometimes a little water is needed to get everything blended properly. if you add eggs with shells instead of egg shell powder, toss them in first and blend them into a smooth mass before you add anything else. i learned from my mistakes. :roll: once the veggie mash is done, i spoon 2-3 tablespoons full into each container and put the lids on and off they go into the freezer, minus what i plan feeding the next 2 evenings. to keep organized, i bought little blank self-adhesive stickers to label the containers so i know what's in each one. makes it easier to pick out specific meals to keep variety in the schedule when you prepare large batches of different things, for example because you found some nice deal on a particular foodstuff. i haven't been doing this for very long yet, so some more experienced people may have more to contribute, but at least for one little dog it's really not a lot of work, especially if you enjoy cooking anyway.

horsefeathers, why not mix it up raw and just cook it as needed before feeding? each processing step contributes to losses and changes in the food ingredients, so if you could eliminate as much of that as possible, you'd be better off. personally i make up a big batch (usually around 8-10 servings for my little dog of 22 lbs) and store/freeze it in resealable 8 oz yogurt containers. they are very convenient for me because the size is exactly right for one meal. each evening when i feed one portion, i transfer one container from the freezer to the refrigerator so it will be thawed the next evening (morning meals are kibble or prepared grain mix with yogurt and fruit). but of course the vaccuum sealing method would work too! most of the time i am lucky enough to get organic or at least antibiotic/hormone free meats, which i do feed raw. anything i'm not completely satisfied with gets cooked for safety tho.