chicken bones

[Ness]

Hi there
Can anyone tell me if it is ok to feed dogs raw chicken necks and wings. I know you can't feed them cooked ones because they are dangerous but I'm pretty sure raw ones are okay. We feed our two Rottie's Eukanuba mixed with a little canned food for flavour. We have a 13-month old boy and a 4-month old girl. The boy has had marrow bones before as a treat but they give him the runs so we don't give them anymore. Was hoping chicken necks and wings might be okay.
Thanks Ness

[Roscoe's dad]

As long as they are raw they should be ok, you may want to search the archives for more info.:)

[Homerhomer]

Originally posted by Roscoe's dad
As long as they are raw they should be ok, you may want to search the archives for more info.:)

Yes already mentioned they are ok.

[RottiMomCT]

Chicken necks & wings are OK, but the Eukanueba could be improved upon.... :)

[Diamond Dog]

The consesus is that they are OK. I would still grind them up.

I definately would not feed any raw turkey bones.

See:



http://rottweiler.net/forums/showthr...threadid=15526

[rottnkidd]

Hello Ness - I see you're from Down Under! Then you must be familiar with the Australian, Dr Ian Billinghurst, DVM? He authored the books on feeding raw food and bones to dog's. The mainstay of the raw diet IS raw meaty bones, like the chicken necks, backs or wings.
Try to find a copy of his book "Give your Dog a Bone", or "Grow Your Pups on Bones". Another Australian, Dr Tom Lonsdale also has a good book titled "Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health". You'll learn alot about the why's and how-to's of feeding a species appropriate diet. If you're considering adding raw chicken bones to the diet, please consider omitting the kibble. The two should NOT be fed together as they digest differently and will more then likely cause an upset. Start by reading as much as you can about the raw diet, and we'll be here to answer any questions or concerns you may have.
Welcome to the forums!
kathy

[mark_sherry]

Ness,

Eukanuba is fine.

Mark;)

[Roscoe's dad]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
Ness,

Eukanuba is fine.

Mark;)

Yes it may keep your dog alive but there are much better alteratives. ;) And less expensive in the long run.:)

[mark_sherry]

Roscoe's dad,

I respect your opinion in this matter, and I know that we all want to think that we're feeding the best feed for our dogs. If we didn't think we're doing the best for our dogs, then we'd feel lousy about ourselves, wouldn't we?! That's why threads about dog food seem to get a bit lively every now and then.

I have several years experience in the animal nutrition field, and I can quantitatively say that the ingredient analysis and composition of Eukanuba is more than adequate for most dogs out there. Before I decided to use their food, I gathered a report of their raw materials, and they are the most digestible forms of each nutrient available, and they are at the correct percentages for each developmental stage of a puppy. I worked for a Ph.D. in Animal Nutrition from N.C. State University, which is one of the leaders in Animal Nutrition in the U.S., and his assessment of Eukanuba was that it was a good feed. Iams, Puppy Chow, Dog Chow, etc. -- no. Their raw materials were less digestible and the proteins were grain based.

In regards to Innova, Canidae, Nutro, etc., they are all fine feeds as well, but whether or not they are superior in grade and performance to Eukanuba is debateable. And when it comes down to the high-end feeds, marketing is where it's all at, and that's why so many people become supporters of a particular brand. Truth be told. My dog will do just as well on Eukanuba throughout her life as any other dog will on Canidae or Innova, and the research is out there to prove that.

Since the 1980s, the trend has been in bettering ones self through health food, natural foods, and vitamins. Look at the market that has developed as a result. And, as a result, the feed industry has taken advantage of it by convincing the consumer that mass-produced feeds cannot be any good. Only the small-time, organically grown, super-supplemented feed is good for your dog. Believe it or not, that's just marketing, and it's just their way of getting a share of the market.

My vet is certified in Animal Nutrition as well and is very published on the subject, and when I posed this question to her, one thing she said that stuck out is that dogs have survived for thousands of years on a very limited diet. Not only did they survive, but they worked very hard and lived very long. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that nutrition is the catch-all for everything that's right or wrong with our dog. A good, balanced feed that has readily digestible proteins, vitamins, and minerals in the correct quantities and proportions is all that is necessary.

[mark_sherry]

It would also be helpful to read Dr. Margaret Muns' article on canine nutrition where she gives an extensive scientific explanation as to how to analyze the effectiveness of your dog's feed as well as to validify the claims made by a certain dog food. She quantitatively addresses the issues at hand. The website is http://www.bestfriends.org/members/health/dognutr.htm

And Eukanuba has met the AAFCO requirements for a "complete and balanced nutrition for growth" as determined by independent laboratory tests which, by the way, is the highest rating the AAFCO gives.

[brunie's mom]

Mark;
Are you aware that Iams/Eukanuba was sold out to Proctor & Gamble about 3 years ago?? This is when Iams started showing up on grocery store shelves and department stores. P & G cheapened the food up ... the ingredients have gone down hill and many people have complained about the quality of the food:(

I would suggest you read "Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats" written by Dr. Robert Pitcairin DMV and he also has a PHD in Nutrition. This is a vet talking about what terrible things he sees day after day in his practice, and blames most of these health problems on pet foods and over vaccination.

You do not need a degree in nutrition to know that the body needs good wholesome ingredients to keep us and out animals healthy, most of us on this board feed our dogs the super premium diets or BARF . We do not need scientific studies to tell us that our dogs are in great health, with very few problems... we see it in our dogs coats, energy levels, immune systems and very few vet visits.

Please also read Food Pets Die For by Ann Martin, you will learn alot about the pet food industry.

Gina

[CarolineS]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
Ness,

Eukanuba is fine.

Mark;)

I don't have a bag of Euk handy to check the ingredients, so I went to the Dog Food Comparison Charts to see what was in it. Have no idea if this list was made before or after the buyout. The top four ingredients of the Adult Maintenance Formula are:

Chicken ByProduct
Corn Meal
Ground Whole Grain Sorghum
Ground Whole Grain Barley

It's pretty obvious that this food is made primarily of grain. If you were feeding this to a cow, it would be a pretty good food. ;) The biological value of most grains for dogs is 60%. The net utilization of a grain-based food (the amount of food used by the animal in relation to the amount provided) would be around 48%. It's pretty obvious from this that a dog would have to eat a whole bunch of Eukanuba to meet its protein requirements. Having to feed more can result in overnutrition (with the accompanying risk of unbalancing nutrient requirements) and obese animals.

Their raw materials were less digestible and the proteins were grain based.

Most of the other Euk formulas I saw were similar to the one I quoted above. They had either a whole meat or by-products as the first ingredient. At least three of the top five ingredients were grains. Their foods seem to be primarily grain-based, so it seems Euk falls into the category of being less digestible and grain based.

As far as by-products go, they are exceedingly variable in nature so you don't get a consistent amino acid profile, even though you're buying the same food every time. Canine and Feline Nutrition states on p 176, "Because of the inclusion of heads and feet, poultry byproduct meal may be lower in nutritional value than fresh poultry or poultry meal. Depending on the supplier and the type of refining process that the pet food manufacturer uses, byproducts can vary greatly in the amount of indigestible material they contain."

Let's not fool ourselves into believing that nutrition is the catch-all for everything that's right or wrong with our dog.

I don't think any rational person is going to say that a dog's diet is totally responsible for its health, but most rational people know that the diet can have an impact on existing health conditions, or even cause them in some cases. I have a dog with inflammatory bowel disease and another that had pano, so you'd better believe I've seen the impact of diet on their health.

And Eukanuba has met the AAFCO requirements for a "complete and balanced nutrition for growth" as determined by independent laboratory tests which, by the way, is the highest rating the AAFCO gives.

I can't say that an AAFCO stamp of approval gives me a whole bunch of confidence. AAFCO found the NRC requirements too restrictive, especially in the area of feeding trials, so adopted their own guidelines. The few feeding trials that they do do are so short as to be useless. Most dogs can go a couple of months on a totally inadequate diet without showing any side effects, so a feeding trial of 20 odd weeks doesn't tell you much about how the diet will affect the dog throughout its lifetime. The vast majority of nutrient analyses done by companies following the AAFCO standards are chemical analyses. The food may appear to be nutritionally complete on paper, but chemical analysis shows nothing about palatability, digestibility and the biological availability.

It would also be helpful to read Dr. Margaret Muns' article on canine nutrition where she gives an extensive scientific explanation as to how to analyze the effectiveness of your dog's feed as well as to validify the claims made by a certain dog food. She quantitatively addresses the issues at hand.

For an alternate view of what AAFCO regards as complete and balanced, one might wish to visit the website of the API and read their take. www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=79

One does not need to be a qualified veterinary nutritionist to research reputable sources to find out what goes into pet food. You don't need a degree in nutrtion to judge which are the better sources of nutrients for dogs. Vets are not always the best source of information. Usually their training includes very little in the way of nutritional info. I had one vet tell me I would kill my dog if I attempted to make her food myself. Three years later I'm still waiting for signs of her imminent demise.

I've mentioned Dr. Donald R. Strombeck, DVM. PhD more than once on this forum. He is Professor Emeritus at UC Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. He is very widely published in scientific journals and is a specialist in small animal gastroenterology. The man is no strident zealout, he is very, very well-respected in the veterinary community. He has no use for a lot of the commercial pet foods and explains why, with very well-documented scientific papers and sources, in his book Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets, The Healthful Alternative.

Dogs throughout the ages have shown themselves to be adaptable at utilizing whatever kind of food came their way, but just because they can live on a wide variety of foods (including grain-based commercial foods) does not mean that this is necessarily the optimum nutrition for them. People can live on fat-laden junk food for years, but their diet will catch up with them in the end.

I would urge everyone who has a question about pet foods to get out there and research it from a number of reputable sources backed up by well-researched evidence. Do not take the word of any one person on this forum, get proactive and make your own decision. :)

[mark_sherry]

To everyone concerned with Eukanuba,

I am very well aware that Iams was purchased by P & G, and I'm also aware that the Eukanuba brand was relatively left unchanged through that process. For each and every study, you will find a counterstudy that was funded by a competitor. You can list hundreds of studies that support any data that you'd like, but until you start giving me studies that are conducted by independent lab analysis, I cannot be convinced that your theorums are correct. In regards to your arguments about AAFCO standards and nutrient testing, test patients have urine and blood work done at regular intervals to determine to toxicity or deficiency of nutrients in their bodies. Read the article that I posted. It is an independent assessment of how to assess the diet and how to scientifically understand the relationship of nutrients and products in your feed. In many of the "super premim brands" that are discussed as being the best on this site, you'd be surprised at the amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins that pass right through the system because they were unneeded. That's right. Too much of a good thing is as bad as too little of a good thing. There is a relationship that exists between protein from chicken and grain proteins that are needed because each protein has its own chemical structure, thus breaking down at different rates. If you do not have that relationship, then your dog's system becomes overloaded with too much of one type of protein. Amino acids, as was related, come in many forms, and all avenues of aminos must be addressed.

An ingredient list only has to list the largest amount of an ingredient first, so forth and so on. Chicken is the first ingredient on Eukanuba's Large Breed puppy feed. In regards to how much per day I have to feed Brita, it is 4 cups per day. Innova requires 3 and 3/4 cups per day for her activity level. You can look all you want at the ingredients list, but until you know the exact proportions of ingredients, you'll never know what or how much you're feeding your dog. They only list them in descending order of amount per weight.

And by the way, I have never implied that anyone should listen to any one person in particular about how to feed their dog. In fact, the reason why I made such an ardent stance for Eukanuba is that everytime someone made mention of it, other people debunked it with enthusiasm with no scientific evidence for support. Yes, everyone should consult with all available sources of information, including their veterinarian, experts in animal nutrition, articles, these forums, other people's experiences, breeders, etc.

Oh, I went to Innova's website, and they won't compare their puppy food to Eukanuba's Large Breed Puppy feed. Why? They don't have anything that is designed to meet the growth requirements of a large breed dog. Yes, large breed dog's requirements (proportions of vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats) are diferent than other puppies.

[CarolineS]

This post will definitely be for the hard-core nutrition aficionados and may well hold the record for the longest post ever. ;) I think it is worth it though to provide a balanced picture of commercial dog foods.

You can list hundreds of studies that support any data that you'd like, but until you start giving me studies that are conducted by independent lab analysis, I cannot be convinced that your theorums are correct.

Lab analysis of the food? I think I mentioned above that lab analysis will show that the nutrients are there, I haven't denied that. A lab analysis will not tell you, however, how available those nutrients are for use by the dog. As an example, protein: "It is not possible to know the efficiency of use for a protein, or its biological value, from amino acid or protein analysis of food" Strombeck, D.R., Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets p. 34. Also, from Canine and Feline Nutrition p. 200, with reference to AAFCO, “It is a common misconception that every pet food that carries the complete and balanced label claim has been proven to provide optimum nutrition through rigorous animal testing. A pet food that has only been formulated on paper to meet the AAFCO’s standards may not actually be complete and balanced when fed. Animal testing of pet foods is currently the best way to assess nutrient availability. These tests are capable of detecting problems and inadequacies in products that could not be detected when only chemical analysis or calculations are used.”

In regards to your arguments about AAFCO standards and nutrient testing, test patients have urine and blood work done at regular intervals to determine to toxicity or deficiency of nutrients in their bodies. Read the article that I posted.

I did read the article, did you read the one I posted? ;) During feeding trials, blood chemistry panels are done. This statement was taken from the Ralston Purina website. Development of Pet Food, Ralston Purina. I assume this is what you're referring to by blood work? Blood chemistry panels tell you little about actual nutrients present in a diet. They can tell you if kidney, liver or pancreatic disease is present. They can tell you if electrolyte balances are correct. They can tell you if infection is present. The only measurements they give that are direct reflections of the diet fed are the sodium, potassium, phosphorus and cholesterol levels. Urinalysis is also a tool primarily used to look for disease, not to check for nutritional levels. These tests are done to check the health of the dogs, not to see what the nutrient levels in their bodies are.

In many of the "super premium brands" that are discussed as being the best on this site, you'd be surprised at the amount of vitamins, minerals, and proteins that pass right through the system because they were unneeded. That's right. Too much of a good thing is as bad as too little of a good thing.

Too much of a good thing is only bad if you're referring to vitamins and minerals that are retained in the body and not excreted. Those that pass right through aren't going to harm your pet. In any case, I have never seen any premium food claiming it was better because it offered excess levels of vitamins or minerals. Usually they claim to be premium because they offer human-grade ingredients (instead of beaks and heads) and they offer proteins with higher biological values. "In general, high-quality animal source proteins provide superior amino acid balances for companion animals when compared with the amino acid balances supplied by grain proteins" Canine and Feline Nutrition, p.175.

There is a relationship that exists between protein from chicken and grain proteins that are needed because each protein has its own chemical structure, thus breaking down at different rates. If you do not have that relationship, then your dog's system becomes overloaded with too much of one type of protein. Amino acids, as was related, come in many forms, and all avenues of amines must be addressed.

Most grains are limited in lysine, which is an essential amino acid for dogs. The amino acids present in grain are also very poorly utilized by dogs. There is no need to include grains to supply the amino acids a dog needs. "Most animal protein contains reasonable amounts of all the essential amino acids and many nonessential ones" Canine Nutrition and Feeding, p.45, Ackerman, L. In the better dog foods, grains are included as sources of carbohydrate energy for dogs, not as an attempt to meet protein requirements with cheaper ingredients. Dog foods that are primarily grain-based are driven by one thing and one thing only...profit margins.

An ingredient list only has to list the largest amount of an ingredient first, so forth and so on. Chicken is the first ingredient on Eukanuba's Large Breed puppy feed... You can look all you want at the
ingredients list, but until you know the exact proportions of ingredients, you'll never know what or how much you're feeding your dog. They only list them in descending order of amount per weight.

And isn't that just so handy for the pet food companies?:p You may not know exactly how much of an ingredient you're feeding your dog, but you sure can tell what percentage of the food each ingredient comprises. "Chicken" as the first ingredient means little if the next three or four ingredients are grains. "Chicken" is 75% water. When you remove the water content, there's not much left. If the next ingredients are all grains, you can correctly assume that the food is not mostly chicken, as you're meant to think, but mostly grain. Then we have "ingredient splitting" as some companies are prone to do. They’ll list the ubiquitous "chicken" as the first ingredient then list ground rice, rice bran, rice flour, and brewer’s rice as the next four. It’s a vain attempt to cover up the fact that this food is primarily rice and not chicken.

...why I made such an ardent stance for Eukanuba is that everytime someone made mention of it, other people debunked it with enthusiasm with no scientific evidence for support.

Have I quoted enough reference sources for you this time? ;)

Oh, I went to Innova's website, and they won't compare their puppy food to Eukanuba's Large Breed Puppy feed. Why? They don't have anything that is designed to meet the growth requirements of a large breed dog. Yes, large breed dog's requirements (proportions of vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats) are different than other puppies.

I think most of us on this forum are aware that large breed puppies need special dietary care. Why would Innova compare their puppy food to anyone else’s large breed puppy food? As you’ve pointed out, they don’t make a food specifically for large breed puppies so it would be like comparing apples to oranges. The fact they don’t carry this kind of food in their product line does not in any way negate the quality of the products they do make.

I recall from another post of yours that you worked in the commercial pet food industry (and I'm betting it wasn't for one of the premium pet food companies, LOL). There is usually a bias that comes with that, just as I have a bias against some commerical pet foods from the research I've done. I doubt I'll change your mind about the premium pet foods. That's okay, we can agree to disagree on it but I look forward to more nutrition debates with you. ;)

[mark_sherry]

CarolineS,

The debate goes on; however, I believe that you are doing some very good research to back up your theories. The only thing that I would rate you poorly on is your lack of sources from independent scientific studies. Obviously, you are drawing a lot of your ammunition from scientists who share your same belief about the petfood industry.

You do not need to convince me of any point that you're making in your post, because I can certainly see the validity of your point of view. In fact, I can almost relate to your argument.

You do leave yourself open in several quotes that you give. On one hand, you quote "Canine and Feline Nutrition" as saying . . . "Animal testing of pet foods is currently the best way to assess nutrient availability. These tests are capable of detecting problems and inadequacies in products that could not be tested when only chemical analysis or calculations are used."

However, then you go on to discuss how limited blood and urine tests are, using a paper posted by the Ralston Purina Company. You say, "These tests are done to check the health of the dogs, not to see what the nutrient levels in their bodies are."

So which is it? You're making an argument on one hand for chemical analysis of dog's bloodwork and urine, and a few paragraphs later, you're arguing that it doesn't mean anything.

We both know that we can go on and on and on with this friendly (I hope) debate. I do want to settle a few issues though that you did bring up:

1. Regarding the Ralston Purina Study: I never read it, and I have never used their studies for information.

2. The company that I worked for was the highest of the high in regards to super premium quality vitamin and mineral supplements for the thoroughbred racing industry. We did custom feeding programs for mulit-million dollar thoroughbred farms. Our competition was the cheaper feeding programs like Purina and Southern States.

3. Innova should make a large breed formula because there are special dietary requirements for large breed dogs. I met with an Innova rep two months ago, and he tried to convince me to feed Brita the Innova Dog Food (in the green bag). When I questioned his recommendation (she was only 7 months old), he said to just feed her more. This is rediculous! Feeding her more is not the answer. It's feeding her with a food that is balanced in the correct proportion to her needs at her life stage. Perhaps Innova should spend more time training their reps.

4. If your argument is true regarding the ingredients list, then Innova is just as guilty as Eukanuba. I have a bag of Innova sitting here, and their first two ingredients are turkey, chicken (could be 75% water too) then it goes to chicken meal (parts) and then into the grain products.

5. Finally, no you haven't quoted enough sources for me yet. You cannot expect me to be convinced that you're points are justifiable unless you pull away from sources that already support your point of view. You need to go to independent sources and draw from their conclusion to build your own argument.