connollys redmill dry food ,how does it compare to the better dry food

[Officially Retired]

Yeah Limey, and Fat Bill once put out a keep that called for using Corn Flakes. He probably won more shows that me too, but that doesn't mean the guy knows anything about nutrition. Smith & Walton fed Ol' Roy when I got there, and he won a lot of shows too. Winning contests and making a profit on the kennel isn't a good measure of sound nutritional choices. In fact, if profitability is a key driver, poor nutrition likely will provide a much more attractive return on investment.

Generally dog people of any fancy are blind idiots following idiots with a little more, yet still limited vision. So these "knowledgable" Greyhound fanciers may not be knowledgeable whatsoever. In fact, I am supposing that because they keep hundreds and hundreds of dogs and cull a majority of them, that this feed choice has much more to do with economics than it does nutritional benefits.

Finally, a sensible post.

It's pretty much this simple: Mohammad Ali eating McDonald's french fries would probably have whipped 99% of humanity in a boxing match, even if those people ate great food, but that doesn't make french fries "good food."

Every "old timer" idiot out there thinks because his dog wins a match that his "feed keep" is what won the match

Wrong! All it means is the guy knows a "Mohammad Ali" when he sees one and can put him in decent shape. One thing old timers generally get right is what a good dog is, how to find its best weight, and how to keep him in good condition ... in fact a good dog at its best weight, right there, is hard to beat coming right off the chain fed kibble.

But that does NOT mean kibble is "optimal nutrition" nor that coming off the chain is "optimal condition."

Jack

PS: The only thing I disagree with is the long term economics of feeding poorly mean shorter lives, more vet bills, and more problems down the road. Long term, it is actually less costly to feed raw. Better stated, long term feeding raw is an investment into your dogs.

[Limey Kennels]

People eat dog food due to financial need, not choice. WE do know many things, it seems that in this forum, as in g-d and you talking high about Eukanuba, the majority is for raw feeding so , WE should be enough of an answer? I never used the majority factor in our conversations, I just tried repeatedly to give you an oportunity to present scientific facts, in my opinion you haven't.
Enough from me on feeding subject, if you ever decide to post a show preperation programme with training included, then I will bother you again.

there is a fip side to that coin!. one this post is about o connoly red milss/Gain .NOT about Eucanuba. 2 YOU ore ANOBODY ELS show me sientific facts that raw feeding is and works beter then quality kibble. 3 that the majorety on this forum feeds kibble is nothing more then spieces looking for spiecies. ore soulmates looking for another AND hasend bee proven at al. last time i chekt the POLL on raw meat vs kibble, then look at the amound of paying MEMBERS it thussend prove anyting... this thussend make you ore anybody els right!!...

[Limey Kennels]

Finally, a sensible post.

It's pretty much this simple: Mohammad Ali eating McDonald's french fries would probably have whipped 99% of humanity in a boxing match, even if those people ate great food, but that doesn't make french fries "good food."

Every "old timer" idiot out there thinks because his dog wins a match that his "feed keep" is what won the match

Wrong! All it means is the guy knows a "Mohammad Ali" when he sees one and can put him in decent shape. One thing old timers generally get right is what a good dog is, how to find its best weight, and how to keep him in good condition ... in fact a good dog at its best weight, right there, is hard to beat coming right off the chain fed kibble.

But that does NOT mean kibble is "optimal nutrition" nor that coming off the chain is "optimal condition."

Jack

PS: The only thing I disagree with is the long term economics of feeding poorly mean shorter lives, more vet bills, and more problems down the road. Long term, it is actually less costly to feed raw. Better stated, long term feeding raw is an investment into your dogs.

Jack dont you see how rediculees your post looks like??.. so al the idiot oldtimers DO KNOW how to reconize a good dog when they see one, but dont know and have no clue how to feed them and at the same time take a huge gamble of putting lots and lots of money on these dogs!!!. and are only able to put them in desend shape!!. and that the dogs kept on the chain at ideal weigh fed on kibble coming right of the chain is hard to beat!!!!!!!!!!. yet feeding kibble is not IDEAL.. you know how rediculess and trivializing that looks.....
And jack thuse that mean that people who feed raw have crap dogs in the first place to up the chanses of winning??.. last but not least YOU have NOT been feeding kibble long enoughf to know if they live longer on raw!!. and there is no sientific evidens that that is the case . nor have you been a sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that.... a long time ago a very wel respected dogman told me. that the diferense in feeding the right and bad kibble is that the dog in both cases wil grow just as old as the internal biologicel clock is tikking reguardless. But when feeding him better kibble is feeding him a more HEALTYER life. compeard to feeding him bad kibble. I know this line has its flaws as wel. but i gues you get the picture. and 90% of the dogs dont grow old in the first place REGURADLESS what your feeding them.. fact is you can trow and state everyting you can ore feel doing about Raw vs Kibble and there wil ALWAYS be a imidiat awnser to counter it and wave it of as BS..

[R2L]

the thing about these oldtimers is. yes they knew how to make the right weight. but knowledge and understanding about feeding has advanced trough all the years. so if they knew then what we know now they probably know some stuff they did was ridiculous. some people though, keep sticking in the past regardless.

[Limey Kennels]

R2L last time i chekt feeding raw WAS done bij the oltimers uptil the quality Kibbel arived!!. then both the kibbel and raw where mickst!!. and later raw in its intyer wassend used in a keep . but raw scraps where used to feed the dogs on the chain. are you telling me that feeding raw today was any diferend then feeding raw yesterday!!??.. i belive for one that the meat of yesterday was of SUPERIOR quality then the raw meat today same goze for vegies.. the 3 fold of the human population sins those days have put so mutch PRESSURE on food production that mankind had to geneticly manipulated vegies and yes life stock in order to produce more meat to keep up with the food demands today. not to mention the use of MASSIF chemicals in the likes of hormons and antibiotics to make sure that these animals who are packt and stackt together so tighly that diseases are iminend hensh the cemical treadmends. are you telling me thats a step forward!!!... one posted that there are kibble redraws do to mistakes being made producing poisions bags of dogfood. ignorense hase set in and they compleatly DISREGUARD the massif amounds of meat scadals there are the world over. in sutch a way that the couple of bad dogfood redraws are a non issiuew compeard to the meat industry fu.kups..Bij the way have you been actif enoughf to make sutch a commend in saying your lines above. ore is this a feeling and ore a belive that is not proven on facts...

[tasoschatz]

I asked repeatedly for some science that cooking or whatever other drying procedure destroys a considerable amount of antibiotics and / or hormones in the meat. It is either known for a fact or not, I assume that because of human consumption of all these meats, there should be some scientific papers at least, if it is a fact, that cooking destroys antibiotics. I am not aware of any.
Research can be first or second hand. First hand is in vivo or in vitro, so real life tests or experiments in a tube. Second hand is research already done and existing in data bases and also the opinion of experienced experts. I judge that the majority in every forum says, I mean the members whose posts I read not just everybody, that raw feeding is better, plain and simple. Many among them have tried both ways for years. The reasons for this, I assume that raw is better, may seems obvious to most and not taking into account antibiotics etc the way you do, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

[R2L]

Limey, i was aiming for stuff like cornflakes/carbohydrate loading in extension to what TFX said. Are you telling me knowledge/understanding about feeding dogs hasnt improved the last 30 years? Being able to find the right weight has nothing to do with that. What does my activity got to do with it? I been active enough to know the better dog will win regardless the dog was in worse shape then before the keep. Iv seen the other dog's "turbo start" and what happened after that. Grtz

[Officially Retired]

Jack dont you see how rediculees your post looks like??.. so al the idiot oldtimers DO KNOW how to reconize a good dog when they see one, but dont know and have no clue how to feed them and at the same time take a huge gamble of putting lots and lots of money on these dogs!!!. and are only able to put them in desend shape!!. and that the dogs kept on the chain at ideal weigh fed on kibble coming right of the chain is hard to beat!!!!!!!!!!. yet feeding kibble is not IDEAL.. you know how rediculess and trivializing that looks.....

My post is not as ridiculous as your spelling

Nor is it as ridiculous as your posture that, just because a man knows what a badass dog looks like, that this suddenly makes him an expert in either nutrition or in medicine. Many, if not MOST, old timers are utterly clueless in both regards. For example, I know an old timer who's been doing dogs since the mid-60s, who has matched into more legendary dogs than you've ever seen, who's gone into Mayfield, Burton, Indian Sonny, Hargrove, Crenshaw, ete., etc. ... and yet who STILL thinks "pennicillum" is the best antibiotic for wound care (and, like you, he can't even pronounce or spell the word right). And, as far as nutrition goes, this man's big "feed keep" was Diamond Dogfood, some liver, and a can of vegetables. That's it. Yet this man faced and made more Grand Champions throughout his 50 years of being in the fast lane than anyone you know.

So no, I don't think my position (that there are many old-timers, who know what a good dog looks like, but who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject of meds or nutrition) is ridiculous at all. It is pretty much right on the money.

jack thuse that mean that people who feed raw have crap dogs in the first place to up the chanses of winning??.. last but not least YOU have NOT been feeding kibble long enoughf to know if they live longer on raw!!. and there is no sientific evidens that that is the case . nor have you been a sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that....

Dude, you're really starting to sound foolish. You actually think you're in a position to know something about "me" or my feeding habits!

First of all, I have been into sporting dogs for 23 years.

Secondly, regarding "all raw feeders having crap dogs," this is simply an asinine statement ... especially coming from a man who just lost to a raw-fed dog (don't think I don't know )
Moreover, speaking of old timers compared to the newer generation, and regarding that same old man above, I stayed on a piece of property that guy owned for 6 years. Yet still, with all that experience, EVERY time I rolled one of my dogs into one of the old man's dogs "he" is the one who picked up. In short, the man knew how to "buy" a great match dog that he "saw" ... but he could never figure out how to breed them

Thirdly, I have fed a larger yard of dogs than you ever have (an average of 40-50 dogs at one time) ... and I have done so for 14 years BEFORE I ever fed raw. So I have plenty of experience feeding kibble. I have also exclusively fed ONE family of dogs during the entire time, comparing the results of "kibble versus raw" not to just dogs in general, but to the same line of dogs to boot. That means I have MORE experience feeding kibble to MORE dogs than you do.

Now then, I have only been feeding raw exclusively since 2006 ... to the same family of dogs ... and, when I started doing this, I had 85 dogs at the time ... ALL of whom had been fed kibble up to that point ... and ALL of whom immediately looked, felt, and acted better within 1-3 months of the change. Moreover, my line of dogs tends to have low fertility in a lot of the males (when fed kibble) and that problem UTTERLY disappeared when I fed raw. I also had many dogs die of cancer at 4-7 years of age, fed kibble, and NEVER had that happen when I fed raw. Sure, my dogs still die like anyone else's, but the difference in longevity, general health, and reproductive fertility was dramatically improved when I started feeding raw.

So please don't sit there in your little fantasy world of ZERO experience feeding raw and preach to "me" about what "you" know about feeding raw ... because it's next to nothing ...

Because, in the end, the truth is those experienced dog men ... who DO continuously learn about about meds, nutrition, etc. ... make THE most knowledgeable dogmen of today ... NOT the ones who may have learned what a good dog looks like "years ago" ... but who stay in the dark ages on these other critical subjects

sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that.... a long time ago a very wel respected dogman told me. that the diferense in feeding the right and bad kibble is that the dog in both cases wil grow just as old as the internal biologicel clock is tikking reguardless. But when feeding him better kibble is feeding him a more HEALTYER life. compeard to feeding him bad kibble.

I certainly agree that there is "good kibble" and "bad kibble" ... that is absolutely correct.

But what you cannot seem to fathom is NO kibble is EVER as good (after being cooked into a little brown pellet) as the raw, natural components it started out as BEFORE it was cooked into a pellet.

I know this line has its flaws as wel. but i gues you get the picture. and 90% of the dogs dont grow old in the first place REGURADLESS what your feeding them.. you fact is you can trow and state everyting can ore feel doing about Raw vs Kibble and there wil ALWAYS be a imidiat awnser to counter it and wave it of as BS..

There is no BS here except the inane notion that "little brown pellets" are more optimal in nutritional value than the natural, raw ingredients they started out as.

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

I can tell you this, I fed nature's variety instinct kibble for the past year, and it's the best kibble I ever fed. However, Machobear still locked his paws raw. I changed to the exact same feed but with freeze dried raw, and with just that tiny bit of raw, all food allergies disappeared. And the coats are fantastic. As far as fertility is concerned, with the kibble on its own, I took machobear to the clinic to freeze semen, and all I got was 10 straws. After 3 months of the same kibble with freeze dried raw, I took him to get drawn, and he gave me 17 straws. Just imagine if I gave complete raw? There is no argument here. The proof is in the pudding, NO KIBBLE CAN COMPETE WITH RAW. PERIOD. Like I've said though, if you must feed kibble, feed Natures Variety Instinct with Freeze dried boost.

[EWO]

Very good post. What people feed is driven by economics more so that what is the better nutrition. A guy that has 60-70 dogs would save money feeding RAW but if he has a full time job that is not the dogs, odds are he does not have the time to take advantage of the costs or the nutritional benefit, thus he feeds from a bag.
Secondly, lots of stuff in the dogs is the blind following the blind. If a guy is winning a bunch of matches feeding corn flakes there will be a ton of people following suit. These followers will never ask why or look for another way because if 'ol Joe is winning on corn flakes then it will be Kelloggs for me as well. Happens in lots of areas other than dogs. In kids baseball if the big kid hits one to the fence with a big bat then all the little kids want to hit with that same big bat on their next trip to the plate. So if people see someone winning on corn flakes they will be using corn flakes as well.
Thirdly, my brother in law hunts foxes/coyotes both in the pens and on the outside. His dogs consistently place and win hunts. He has some of the nicest looking hounds anywhere and they perform. 6-8 years ago he switched from cheap bag dog food to day old bread from the food bank. Wheat, white, rye, sour dough, you name it. He gets a pick up truck load for $20. He feeds all his dogs (maybe 40 or so) for about $40 to $60 a month. Straight bread. Deer carcass in the winter but bread is the staple year round. I told him 6-8 years ago his dogs would not hold up on bread. He is winning with the bread feed plan. His dogs are healthy looking. His older females ( are still throwing pups. His older males are doing the same. I have never used corn flakes myslef, but on the days when I spend hours cutting meat, juicing vegetables and packaging a weeks worth of food I often find myself thinking about the bread route myself. LOL EWO

Yeah Limey, and Fat Bill once put out a keep that called for using Corn Flakes. He probably won more shows that me too, but that doesn't mean the guy knows anything about nutrition. Smith & Walton fed Ol' Roy when I got there, and he won a lot of shows too. Winning contests and making a profit on the kennel isn't a good measure of sound nutritional choices. In fact, if profitability is a key driver, poor nutrition likely will provide a much more attractive return on investment.

Generally dog people of any fancy are blind idiots following idiots with a little more, yet still limited vision. So these "knowledgable" Greyhound fanciers may not be knowledgeable whatsoever. In fact, I am supposing that because they keep hundreds and hundreds of dogs and cull a majority of them, that this feed choice has much more to do with economics than it does nutritional benefits.