results of raw feeding

[J.E.S]

"There will be those who are open minded and listen and question and realize it sounds sensible and there will always be those who are skepticle,close minded and not open to a change for the better.Years ago I would have been one of the skepticle."

 

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Just because a person is skeptical of something does not make them closed minded. I have been thinking of trying the raw diet myself (for my dogs that is) yet would still like to see some thorough scientific study on it. I believe in things being natural and of course in nature dogs would be eating raw food. Although the raw food would be fresh kill and they would be eating other parts besides just backs, necks or wings. I'm not sure we could duplicate the diet in nature as the dog would be picking the parts it would eat to adjust its own system. They would be eating stomachs or intestines of herbivores to get the vegetable matter that they can't digest themselves. I did notice today my friend's dog who is around 5 yrs old had the cleanest teeth. When I asked her what she was feeding the dog she told me she was feeding him a raw diet.

I am not sure that kibble is all that bad tho. You state on your website, Sue, "You'll find the garbage going into the bags is the diseased,dieing or dead animals at the slaughterhouse not made for human consumption."

Well, dogs can eat things that humans cannot and thrive on them. I'm not sure I'd do to well on a raw chicken wing. You also state "On the Discovery channel they said the Vultures had the strongest immune system around-probably because they survive off of fresh dead animals"

Here is a quote on vultures "In reality, the bulk of vulture food comes from mortalites such as old age, diseased or broken limbed-animals and still-born young." So if this is true then I would think kibble eating dogs would have a better immune system from eating diseased animals. As my own dogs have always eaten kibble and lived good, healthy, long lives I can't see that kibble is all that bad. I am probably going to try the raw diet but I don't think that just because a person doesn't want to feed it that they are ignorant or closed minded.

JES.

[Eileen Stein]

www.barfworld.com or www.b-naturals.com >>

 

Well, I'm not really interested in testimonials or promotional material. You can find testimonials and promotions for just about anything. And you can find counter-testimonials and debunking for just about anything. You can find anecdotal evidence like the basset story and anecdotal evidence like Vicki's story, and there are reasons why both of them might not prove what they are advanced to prove.

 

That's why I asked about scientific studies because, if their methodology is sound, their results provide meaningful evidence -- or evidence that is meaningful to me, at least.

[Guest PrairieFire]

Geez, can you guys tell me if the dead cat my dogs ate (with great relish - after rolling in the viscera) last week was good or bad?

 

They did barf afterwards...

 

On the great food chain of life, I reckon my dogs are rated as "garbage-eating scavengers"...

[kajarrel]

Bill,

These were my thoughts exactly - but I was thinking of the deer that Gren found when the snow melted (and finds every year), or the dead lamb the PeeWee dragged out from the shrub where I had carefully hid it from passing cars because I was on my way to work, or the poop "de jour" and weeks-old placentas my guys relish . . .

 

Seriously, I have nothing against BARF (in its favor, it certainly allows you to control your dog's intake, which may be beneficial if a dog has food sensitivities or health problems that have dietary components), I just question the "hype" over it for "normal" dogs and would, like Eileen, like to see some scientific evidence for some of the claims.

 

Guess I'm basically a skeptic . . .

 

Kim

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

That's why I asked about scientific studies because, if their methodology is sound, their results provide meaningful evidence -- or evidence that is meaningful to me, at least.

Well, that's where you trip yourself up Eileen (no offense). In theory, the most literal, definitive scientific study in the world could fail to convince you if all you are looking for is evidence that is "meaningful" to you. Do you want evidence, or do you want someone to tell you something that changes your mind? They are two very different things.

 

The evidence I have seen in front of me, with my own eyes, is meaningful to me which is why I feed this diet. I have taken in scraggly, sick rescues and thrown away the medications they were on and turned them into healthy examples of their breed, and it's all done holistically. I am sure a lot of it has to do with a nurturing home evironment, stimulating activity and ease of stress as well, of course. But I also see my own dogs in superior physical condition - no more random runny stools, no hyperactivity, no indifference to their food, no more brushing their teeth etc. etc. etc. That's pretty meaningful to me.

 

Here is a reference that might be "meaningful" to you"

 

http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/food/cookorraw.html

 

 

RDM

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're suggesting that my mind is not open to scientific evidence on this point, I don't know what I could have said to give you that impression.

 

My dogs are healthy, energetic, glossy, plenty of stamina, etc., on a diet of commercial kibble, but if there were valid scientific evidence tending to prove that a BARF diet is superior, I would be very interested to know about it, and would be open to changing to that program. That's why I asked.

 

>

 

Yes, that's the problem. When you rescue a dog, you change many, many things in that dog's life. I would be surprised if there weren't other rescuers who have had the experience of "scraggly, sick rescues" becoming healthy on a diet of balanced commercial kibble. The point of a scientific study is to control for the variables, eliminate or at least reduce bias in perceptions, and include a very large number of subjects so as to minimize the possibility that the results were due to chance or coincidence.

 

>

 

My dogs don't have those problems either (well, one of them is indifferent to food compared to the others, but I don't perceive that as a problem -- she eats when she's hungry and she's in good weight and condition). But I don't regard that as meaningful evidence of anything except that some dogs thrive on kibbles. Interestingly enough, awhile back I had a dog who had chronic occasionally-recurring runny stools for a few years. Diagnostic tests showed nothing, but she just got better at some point and lived for many more years with healthy stools. No change in diet.

 

>

 

I appreciate the reference you provided. The cat study referred to in the article is interesting, and if it had been done on dogs, compared a current formulation of commercial kibble to a BARF (or other specific raw) diet, and provided a statistical assessment instead of overall impressions, I would consider it meaningful evidence. Even more so if it had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and had been replicated at least once in the 60 or 70 years since it was conducted. The more general arguments in the article, such as that cats evolved eating uncooked food, are not persuasive to me. I know there are people who believe shark cartilage extract prevents or cures cancer, based on the fact (if fact it be) that "sharks don't get cancer" and based on claims by its proponents and purveyors that that some who take it have been cured of cancer, and that many people have taken it for years and have not gotten cancer. That kind of "evidence" is apparently meaningful to those believers, but it isn't meaningful to me.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

<< The evidence I have seen in front of me, with my own eyes, is meaningful to me which is why I feed this diet. I have taken in scraggly, sick rescues and thrown away the medications they were on and turned them into healthy examples of their breed, and it's all done holistically. I am sure a lot of it has to do with a nurturing home evironment, stimulating activity and ease of stress as well, of course. >>

 

I have done rescue for a number of years. Many of the rescue dogs were unwell when I got them but I did not put them on a BARF diet but the same kibble diet as my own dogs. Their health improved so they were as healthy as my own dogs.

 

I would like to see scientific proof. I am always open to options.

 

Diane Pagel

[UpNatEm]

First of all I never insinuated anyone is ignorant just because they choose to feed "crap in a bag".I choose that choice of words just because to me it's humerous but true ONLY because I feed fresh foods.When I talked about close minded people I was referring to a recent experience at work this last few months with people I work around.Some are curious and open to listen and some were close minded and gave the typical excuse-too much work.To each his own.Yes being skepticle is good but to totally shut out without hearing is not.Feeding raw food is older then the hills.As far as scientific data I guess we all got our scientific data and proof when we changed the diet to raw and saw first hand the proof.When you read Dr.Billinghurst's first original book or Lonsdale's you read about the scientific proof and comparisons of doing both from the experts who did it for 20 some years.When you talk about scientific data or proof and not just going by "online testimonials" isn't it the same as when breeders advertise or promote their dogs online? I mean you don't go by heresay online but go by actual real life seeing the dogs and how they perform,right? So us who feed raw are saying the same-yes we write online our great progress of the dogs,their health and this diet but we also are trying to say that if you actually physiclly tried it you too would see the proof.This is why I was saying earlier that if you went to www.egroups.com and joined "rawfeeding" you would run into tons of stories of so many ailments in various breeds that went away.Oh and there is also a group on egroups called BCs4raw that has tons of Border Collie owners,kennels,breeders who feed raw.Feel free to go there,join and ask your skepticle questions.On egroups we are a friendly type so if you do get ornery,they kick you off.But anyways if anyone was really interested in researching and asking these two egroups would be great to ask those who have done it for years and years.

 

Sue Barta

Bartas Border Collies

[Guest PrairieFire]

Ok, so it seems like there is a continuum of belief...

 

On the bottom step is low quality kibble like Sam's club specials...

 

Next step, "mainline kibble" from name brand manufacturers.

 

Then Premium kibble.

 

Then, I assume, "cooked" food.

 

Next step, "raw" food.

 

In this progression it makes sense that the top step would be "Raw on the hoof".

 

Or, as I have sales marked the name, "RUF" or Raw Under Foot...please note this is a salesmarked name and requires permission to use it.

 

We will provide super premium, ultimate raw food to our special subscribers at rock bottom prices - by providing us with a credit card number we will deliver, monthly, weekly, or daily, a natural grass fed, naturally raised, lamb weighing around 100# "Raw Under Foot"...which your dog and you can participate together in hunting, catching, killing and eating...

 

A truly healthy activity that you can participate in with your dog...more exercise than agility, quieter (until the last climactic moment!) than flyball, more interactive than obedience, and truly a participative expereince for you and your dog!

 

The top of the line in healthy feeding and a fun thing to do with your "little angel".

 

We are soliciting dealerships around the western world currently (some other parts of the world see our target market as "RUF"), and would be happy to send you packets of information for a small shipping and handling charge directly to your credit or debit card.

[Smokjbc]

LOL Bill..

 

 

I think I'm coming from the same place Eileen is- my dogs are also extremely healthy, glossy, normal stools, active but not hyper, etc. on a quality kibble. My two older ones are getting pudgy, but the youngsters are just right. They eat about 1 1/2 of this kibble once a night (the pudgy ones are about to lose some of that LOL). They may get raw bones or cooked leftovers sometimes, as a special treat. When there isn't enough out there on the safety of an exclusively raw diet it is common sense to exercise caution about it. I would also want to see the two diets compared over long term before I give up my quality kibble that does have those studies that show how it affects dogs long term. I don't give any supplements, I do include some dental diet (it makes them fat, so they just get a few big kibbles a night) for their teeth. I was looking at my pup, who has been on this diet for three months, and she has hairs that are pure gloss, it was kinda weird- they aren't white, they are almost transparent with shine. And she's not on growth diet, but reg. adult. Also, at the vet, we see a problem with smaller dogs being put on the raw diet- maybe the people are doing it wrong but what we commonly see is that people don't give traditional treatment a chance (for whatever reason, usually not even a stomach/intestinal problem), go to the holistic vet who immediately puts little Foo Foo on a raw diet, little Foo Foo is back within the week with severe indigestion. Now maybe our dogs were meant to eat raw food, but little foo-foos have been mostly eating what their humans eat for hundreds of years LOL.

[UpNatEm]

Here's 3 links to both sides when you ask about scientific proof and studies.For raw the two interesting links are www.b-naturals.com and then click on Newsletter index.Read Feb.2003 and Spring 1999

For kibble and Iams go to www.peta.com and read "Big Fat Corporate Lies".

And of course everyone has a right to how they choose to feed.

 

Sue Barta

[swampthing]

The diet wars have been raging for years now. To each his own, but since I have to buy my meat in a grocery store, no way am I going to trust that it's not loaded with nasty organisms that need to be killed with cooking. The only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of BARFers have an attitude that says "If you feed commercial dogfood, you're lazy and don't care about your dog." That's too judgmental for my taste. And, a serious question---every person I know who feeds raw also supplements like crazy. It that really necessary?

[UpNatEm]

The only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of BARFers have an attitude that says "If you feed commercial dogfood, you're lazy and don't care about your dog." That's too judgmental for my taste."--We just call them as we see them.

 

"And, a serious question---every person I know who feeds raw also supplements like crazy. It that really necessary?"--No it isn't.How many people do you know who feed raw?

 

Sue Barta

[Eileen Stein]

Sue, I looked at the sites you posted. I don't expect you to agree with me, but do you at least understand the difference between the Lew Olson articles and an actual scientific study? The articles are no more than the theory/opinion of an individual entrepreneur (she invites questions "about my products"). While she makes a couple of vague references to "studies" (e.g., "Studies show dogs do best on animal protein . . ."), she includes no citations to any studies in her references, so we have no way of knowing where they were conducted, who conducted them, what the protocol was, how the conclusions were derived, etc. In most scientific writing, if studies are mentioned, they are included in the footnotes or reference section, so that they may be consulted by the reader.

 

I also went to the PETA site you referenced, which seemed to deal entirely with how dogs are treated in Iams research labs, rather than with nutrition. While I am probably more sympathetic to PETA than 99% of livestock/sheepdog people, I do not trust them not to distort, mislead or exaggerate in what they consider a good cause (i.e., fundraising and ending laboratory research with animal subjects).

[UpNatEm]

You asked for data or links and I gave them to you.And of course you typically picked the articles apart.Those of us who choose to feed fresh raw food as opposed to garbage crap in a bag already know we don't need to analyze the diet to death.And we don't need to prove it to the skepticle ones.We only educate the ones who are interested.

 

Sue Barta

[sea4th]

A lot of people don't consider changing to raw feeding if their dogs are already doing well on what they are currently being fed and that's fine. I would have fallen into that category 3 years ago. I always fed my dogs well, & I was only mildy curious about those who fed raw, nothing more.

 

Then, when my oldest dog crashed two years ago, (& I've talked about this before on these boards), with several things going on with him, such as the early stages of kidney failure, being diagnosed with a rare disorder, among other things, after months of vet visits, skyrocketing vet bills and to see this dog on a roller coaster ride, i.e., OK for a few days, then crashing again, in spite of medications, and finally when he couldn't even walk on his own, & I had to carry him into the vet's office, which wasn't a problem, because the dog that should have weighed 48 lbs., had gone down to 38 lbs., and had a sunken in look about him, only then, after I said "Screw this", and made up my mind he didn't have long on this earth, and the least I could do would be to allow him to enjoy his food, did I take the initiative to take him off the vet recommended diet and put him on the raw that I currently am feeding, (again, it's premade raw, Morigins, not the BARF diet), did raw feeding take on any significance for me. 2 1/2 months after feeding Morigins, this dog was working sheep again. Granted, not like when he was 6 years old, but he was 12, had arthritis of the spine and moved just a little slower. That's OK. I wasn't carrying him anymore. 9 months later, almost a year of feeding Morigins, I had another blood panel done on him. Kidney function was w/i normal range, & the disease he was to had died with & not from, no longer existed, much to the vet's surprise.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like a good quality kibble & most of my dogs are on kibble (Solid Gold) & doing well. It's only 2 of my dogs, who have had health problems, do I feed raw to. But it has impressed me so much, that I am looking into the whole system of BARFing the others. Cost is a factor, because I have multiple dogs.

 

My point is, is that sometimes out of desperation, as in my case, do people make the radical change to raw feeding.

 

Had my dog not gotten as sick as he did, I would probably still been feeding everyone kibble, and been very complacent in my choice.

 

Sometimes the decision to raw feed is a last ditch effort.

 

Vicki

[2 Devils]

I am very interested in BARF. If someone would talk to me like I was not a moron, I would probably listen. Trashing the dog food industry is not a way to get me or just about anyone else to listen about the benefits of BARF. When someone does that, it would automatically put me on the defensive.

 

Do I believe BARF is probably better than kibble? YES. But I agree with the others that I want actual written scientific proof from someone that has nothing to gain by telling the facts. And I until I get that, I will probably stick with kibble.

 

Seeing the outward appearance of a dog on BARF does not make me a believer.

 

Sorry, hard evidence is needed.

[UpNatEm]

"Seeing the outward appearance of a dog on BARF does not make me a believer."

 

Isn't the outward appearance of any animal the clue to any vet or vet tech on how the inside is functioning? It's a common fact if a dog is sick or even just wormy the coat is dull and flaky.Even having tartar on teeth indicates poor immune system.Your scientific data is right in front of your face-the thousands and thousands of people who do it and can show the proof.As far as trashing the dogfood company--the testimonials were heard in person from several vets at seminars who actually witnessed 5 differant dogfood companies and their process and a couple vets who actually worked at a slaughterhouse for years.Trashing the dogfood companies?-three major ones have lawsuits out right now,one for fraud and another type dogfood literally killed quite a few so they had to pull the bags.

And yes I am one of those who switched to raw because of 4 dogs dieing in one year at 5-6yrs. old-each with a typical common problem that can be associated by kibble.And it's like anything else in life if you want to continue to seek and believe "scientific data"-A long time ago they said Decaf was better then regular and Oleo was better then butter,,now it's opposite.So I'll keep on laughing at anyone who keeps squeeking they want scientific data or proof.You either believe or you don't.

 

Sue Barta

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by UpNatEm:

So I'll keep on laughing at anyone who keeps squeeking they want scientific data or proof.You either believe or you don't.

Sue Barta

Hmmmm...this is beginning to sound strangely like a discussion on religion....

 

J.

[SLJ]

I have been a lurker on this board but I feel I have to comment on this thread. I do not feed my dogs a raw diet but know alot of people who do and have no problem with it - I just do not choose it for my dogs.

However, if judging a dog's overall health was as simple as looking at outward appearance it would make veterinary medicine a much easier profession now wouldn't it? A friend recently lost her beautiful Doberman bitch - the dog was the picture of health until the day she had an apparant seizure and was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

I would not expect anyone who references PETA web sites to know anything about science and what consitutes proper scientific studies and protocols.

[blackacre]

"Isn't the outward appearance of any animal the clue to any vet or vet tech on how the inside is functioning?"

 

My dogs look amazing. Shiny coats, clean teeth, lean and mean machines. UK judges and my vet have commented on their apparent health and excellent condition.

I feed Eukanuba.

Does this mean BARF sucks?

Andrea

[MrSnappy]

What is ridiculous about this entire thread is the same thing that annoyed about people when I was a vegetarian for many years. People who ate meat could not resist making "look-at-me-I'm-eating-a-cow-MOOOO" jokes and trying to start arguments with me about my choice. And yet I never lectured anyone about their choice to eat meat, or even brought it up for that matter.

 

It's the same with the raw diet (and no I do not feed BARF, I don't happen to like Billinghurst or his diet or his copyrights very much). I have said several times in this thread alone that I do not preach the diet and also that I believe people should feed what works for them. I have offered MY opinion on kibble and was very clear that it was MY opinion.

 

And yet kibble feeders insist on harping on the subject, lump all all feeders in together ("The only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of BARFers have an attitude that says "If you feed commercial dogfood, you're lazy and don't care about your dog." That's too judgmental for my taste.") ignore what people tell them and insist that they are being continually insulted every time the topic comes up ("I am very interested in BARF. If someone would talk to me like I was not a moron, I would probably listen. ") and being sarcastic (I didnt really find Bill's post funny - it would be nice if he could have actually contributed to the discussion instead of belittling it). And let's not forget certain "newbies" who actually send you personal emails to question why you feed a raw diet to rescue dogs ... not because they are interested in it, but rather because they like to be a pain in the ass. Sad and so pathetic!

 

Let me turn the tables for a second and ask you this. Someone please provide me NON-PET FOOD INDUSTRY BASED studies on how kibble is at all superior; why feeding a commercial, cooked food is superior to a raw diet and how dogs managed to live long healthy lives long before the pet food industry saw a niche and took advantage in the mid 1900s and created KIBBLE.

 

Maybe you'll convince ME that kibble is the superior diet choice.

 

I have seen results that - I am so sorry to tell you Eileen - were not double blind done under neon lights in a lab and repeatedly tested on thousands of dogs for 54 straight years, and yet I believe them. And then there was thalidomide. I bet those women were just so pleased it had been so rigorously tested, hmmm?

 

I don't see why any raw feeder should HAVE to provide any of you kibble people with any kind of data. TO ME it intriniscally makes sense. But am I feeding it to YOUR dogs? Holding a gun to your head and forcing you to switch? Nope and nope.

 

Believe it, don't believe it, research it yourself, go have a picnic and forget all about it. It makes no difference to me. Honest. Talking to brick walls is about as fun as banging my head against them.

 

RDM

[Northof49]

"Do I believe BARF is probably better than kibble? YES. But I agree with the others that I want actual written scientific proof from someone that has nothing to gain by telling the facts. And I until I get that, I will probably stick with kibble."

 

I don't usually get involved in these discussions, as I believe each to their own, and I don't preach raw diet to anyone, but everyonce in a while I get the urge to hit the "reply" key.

 

I have two dogs that have been on a raw diet for 3 years, and for myself, yes I have noticed a change in them shortly after switching over. I have a puppy that is out of a bitch fed a raw diet and weaned to a raw diet, and like what I am seeing with her, as opposed to the other litters that were kibble raised.

 

For me, I don't worry so much about "scientific" proof of anything. I use a lot of holistic and homeopathic remedies for both myself and my pets -why - becuase my parents used them on me and they worked - they knew they worked because those "things", were used on them as kids, and back down through my family tree. (As an aside, it is interesting how Colloidal Silver is making a comeback - I remember it sitting in my grandparents medicine cabinet and my parents and used on me). Anecdotal (sp?) evidence has been used for hundreds of years before "double blind hey look as us go and skew evidence to fit our premise" was around. Therefore many of us still rely on this type of evidence as it has stood the test of time. The trouble with scientific studies, is that you always start with a premise that you are going to prove or disprove, and by manipulating the data collected, you can skew the results anyway you want them. I am not saying that they are not useful, however, they stil have to be taken with a grain of salt. There has been so many scientific studies that have come out, that have been proven to be totally inaccurate after the fact. It is interesting to watch someone take a bunch of data and just manipulate the results in several different ways to support a variety of premises, no matter what the study is - dog food, socio-economic studies, increase or decrease in criminal offenses, etc. etc.

 

For myself, I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my homemade cheese sauce and pasta is healthier for me than Kraft Dinner, or that the potatoes that I grow and eat are healthier for me than instant mashed potatoes. Common sense dictates that it is so.

 

I therefore don't need a scientific study to make me feel secure that fresh meat, eggs, etc. etc. are healthier for my dogs than grain that is too mouldy for human consumption, or rotting meat that is processed for my dogs. As an interesting note, I always get free-range, organic eggs from a local farmer for me and my dogs. I ran out a couple of weeks ago and ran to the grocery store and picked up a dozen to tide me over for a couple of days. All three dogs sniffed these eggs and looked at me to say - what the heck are these? They finally ate them, (left them to the very last) but they weren't happy about it.

[Eileen Stein]

Sue wrote:

 

>

 

Well, not really. If you look back you'll see that what I asked was: "Does anyone know of any scientific studies (as opposed to anecdote) comparing a sizable population of dogs fed BARF to dogs fed commercial dog food? Preferably double-blind and not sponsored by commercial interests on either side?"

 

>

 

Sounds like by "interested" you mean "will swallow anything they're told without question."

 

RDM wrote:

 

>

 

I don't understand your first sentence, I'm afraid, and your thalidomide example is ill-chosen. Thalidomide was not well-tested. For this reason the FDA would not approve its use in the US. AFAIK, all the thalidomide babies born in the US were to mothers who had acquired the drug in other countries where such rigorous scientific testing was not practiced. That's why there were so relatively few of them.

 

I'm a little surprised at the anti-science sentiments being expressed on this list, but I don't know why I should be. Someone is buying shark cartilage, colloidal silver, copper bracelets, etc., and there's no reason why those someones shouldn't be represented here. But I think a lot of what's being said, along the lines of "double blind hey look as us go and skew evidence to fit our premise" shows a real misunderstanding of the scientific method and what we owe to it.

 

If I had a dog who was dying before my eyes, and medication was not helping him, I would definitely try other measures, probably including raw food. The same is true if I had "4 dogs dieing in one year at 5-6yrs. old-each" (!), but I would tend to notice that this was happening to very, very few of the kibble-fed dogs I know, and I'd try to account for this fact before I adopted the conclusion that kibbles are crap or garbage or poison or whatever.

[Guest PrairieFire]

Hey RDM - my post wasn't meant to be funny...want to take a look at a franchise...only $49.95 for the membership packet?

 

Personally, I've no issues at all with anecdotal evidence and homeopathic, holistic, and alternative methods - in fact you can probably find many cases where some of the "barf nazis" have taken me to task for stating my views on those subjects - when I've defended the gamut from reduced vaccinations to veterinary acupuncture to Bach Flower Remedies...THAT I find funny...and discouraging about human nature...

 

I do find the typical ammurican fascination with dog food itself pretty funny as well...for animals that are garbage eating scavengers in most of the world - and for a breed that sprung from poor shepherds who could barely feed thier kids, and whose dogs were grateful for a bit of gruel...

 

Shiny coats mean scat all to me - although I guess my dogs have 'em - the ability to work hard, stay warm and dry, shed cockleburrs and manure, and come back from a hoof to the ribs are the standards I apply...and I ain't arguing with anybody about how to get there, food is a very minimal factor in what I ask my dogs to do - instinct, breeding, training, desire are the keynotes...

 

Some dogs get thier fuel by kibble, some by gruel, and some by barf, I imagine.

 

What's terribly amusing to me is that I don't have a dog on the place - over a year of age - that wouldn't leave a bowl of kibble or a slab of sirloin steak (or a bitch in season for that matter) for a shot at the livestock - any time, any place, any reason...

 

So about all I have to add is humour - perhaps you left your sense of it in the coffee grinder after drying eggshells for your little darling's brekkers - but I could send you information on purchasing a franchise for that as well...