Iv fed the most expensive raw feed and kibbles. Since 6 months or so I feed a cheap yet very decent kibble. The dogs love it just the same, their shit is good, they feel good, they look good. So really couldn't give a f what anyone thinks. It's not like we eat the most healthy food ourselves, you find added crap in every product.
Who was saying they gave a shit what you feed? Not my dogs, feed what you want.Originally Posted by Nut
I know that's not what you are saying. I just disagree. Even crap chicken is better than kibble IMO. Hell, the truth is most chickens are pumped full of antibiotics and housed in poor conditions....whether they cost .39 lb or 1.50 lb. If people want chicken free of drugs they will have to do what you do and feed free range from a a small farm.....which isn't viable for most.
But we can agree to disagree.
Speak for yourself.
And the fact is, you haven't owned dogs long enough to have the first freaking clue about the LONG TERM affects of good nutrition vs. bad nutrition
Some people actually do eat healthy.
If you are a Dollar General buyer, and think Dollar General bologna is as good as choice meats, that is just your ignorance.
If you think that, because an 18 year old kid "looks the same" eating potato chips as a kid who eats healthy ... maybe you should revisit "how each looks" 30 years later, repeatedly-eating bad vs. good nutrition
Lazy fucken people (as well as critically-stupid people) try to downplay the importance of nutrition ... while successful, accomplished people never do
It's not about "how your dog's shit looks" ... it's about how long you can maintain their impeccable health and reproductive function.
That is where the importance of long-term good nutrition comes into play
Jack
This is a perfect example of the warm fuzzies and "YOU feed your and I will feed mine".
I feed the dogs they way that works for me, and what I think is working for them. Is it the absolute best plan out there? I doubt it. But it works for me.
The 18 year old and potato chips is a pretty good analogy but people who eat healthy and exercise and best use the medical advice available to them kick off early too. It is an odds game. Put things is your favor the best you can and then after that, "It is what it is".
Anyone here who has had dogs for any length of time have seen the next guy put half the effort with half the knowledge and have dogs live much longer still producing.
EWO
No, actually, it is merely a perfect example of self-justification for laziness and minimalism.
The difference between one owner trying his best for his dogs (as he expects his dogs to try their best for him), and another owner being a half-ass and only feeding what is necessary "to keep his dogs alive," but no more than that.
This is nonsense. What do you define as "working for you?" How to spend as little money as possible, just to ensure your dogs are "still alive" when you wake up?
To bury one's head in the freaking sand as to the difference between optimal nutrition, and 'barely passable' nutrition, is simply negligence. Laziness.
I doubt it is the best plan out there as well ...
Don't know what "works for you" means; it's a nonsensical statement.
You are confusing the FACT that optimal nutrition = optimal health with ANOTHER FACT that some people/dogs are born with genetic weaknesses to make them expire early. (But you, and people like you, argue this mixing of facts to justify feeding shit food.)
The FACT is, feeding one 18 year old nothing but potato chips will ALWAYS create a sad-looking, unhealthy, middle-aged adult.
The other FACT is, feeding another 18 years old optimal nutrition + exercise will make that person a healthy, vibrant middle-aged adult.
(Genetic predispositions for problems notwithstanding.)
In keeping with this, EVERY dogman I have ever known, who fed kibble to his dogs their whole lives, has fat/soft, fucked-up looking middle-aged/elderly dogs. EVERY one of them.
They ALL look the same "when they're young," no matter what you feed them ... just like an 18 year old eating potato chips looks the same as an 18 year old eating optimally ...
The difference is not in how they look young ... the difference becomes unmistakable as to how they age
That is EXACTLY the point: feeding an optimal raw diet *IS* putting things in your (dog's) favor ... not feeding shit-kibble.
Realize the difference.
Again, you're confusing genetic predisposition with one group of dogs for THE FACT optimal nutrition = optimal results, in ANY group.
And, genius, I *AM* a guy who fed a group of dogs (that were genetically pre-disposed to cancer) kibble for the first 10 years of my dogmanship ... and watched dog-after-dog die of cancer at ages 3-6 ... and watched that same group of dogs live and produced 2-3 TIMES as long, fed a raw diet.
Ultimately, this is a waste of my time.
Lazy foggen people are lazy foggen people. They will "look for a way OUT" of doing their best, every time.
Conscientious people are contientious people, and they will look for a way TO DO their best, every time.
It is pretty much as simple as that.
And I know which ones deserve the good dogs they get, and which ones do not.
The desire to do one's best (willingness) is an admirable trait, while the desire to avoid doing so (unwillingness) is a character defect.
The great irony is the fact that, in the dogs, we breed for the former, and cull the latter ... so it is difficult to observe the latter trait in those "dog owners" who try to call themselves dogmen.
Jack
I would like to see the studies other than what you believe to be "OPTIMUM". Show me the studies you have created
I bet MARS and PROCTOR/GAMBLE and PURINA have some studies and facts to differ/to say otherwise.
I feed an econo version of raw since the late 90's/early 2000's. I use chicken and a scrap box from a local butcher. I feed deer meat in the winter. I add different kinds of oils through out the year. In the few days of the year the temps stay in the 30's here I do make a chicken/dry food soup for the cheap calories on their second feeding for that day. And like I said, it works for me.
I don't look for organic this or range fed that. If leg quarters are on sale I take advantage. If that makes me a half-ass then so be it. If I get free collards right before they are plowed under and that too makes me a cheap ass, well again, then so be it.
So if free collard greens and leg quarters on sale reveal a character flaw, again so be it.
EWO
I thought you were agreeing with the "cheap kibble" post up top.
There is nothing wrong with the way you feed IMO ... it's the way dogs eat in nature: whatever they get (live food, dead food, etc.).
Nope. I was saying even the cheap raw chicken is better than dry food, comparable to high end dry food.
I read the first post as the dry food would be a better option than 'non organic/non-medicated/non-free range' chicken.
I think feeding raw chicken from a commercial chicken house is still a better option than the what is left from the kibbling process.
EWO
Okay, my bad then, we agree.
I also believe cheap raw chicken actually far better for a dog than ANY dry, kibbled food.
Apologies for the assumption.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
