CockersOnline Forum
Cocker Specific Discussion => Feeding => Topic started by: piph on May 12, 2017, 03:06:09 PM
-
Just wondering whether anyone saw this weeks 'Trust Me, I'm a Vet on telly, and the very biased report on the so called 'dangers' of feeding your dog raw meat! Steve Leonard, who fronts the programme, is Ozzy's vet, (and a very good vet he is too) and I have to say that I'm very disappointed that he has allowed himself to be party to such a biased report, by one of the other vets who take part in the programme - and I shall be telling him so next time we see him with Ozzy!
-
I saw it too. I don't feed raw but I do sometimes give Ellie a raw bone. I was very surprised at how against raw feeding they were.
-
Have a look at this - https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1709499702413121&id=156400551056385 and, if you have time, read some of the many, many comments - it's certainly got a lot of people's backs up, including mine, although I hasten to add that I didn't comment as I thought everything had already been said. We started feeding Ozzy a commercially produced frozen raw diet late last year - it has helped him lose his excess weight and he's never looked better and more healthy, and he is no longer scrounging for food. We've also started our new golden retriever pup Jess on the puppy version of the food and she's doing very well on it too.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that vets don't sell raw food?
From previous experiences, I wouldn't trust a vet as far as I could throw them, especially when it comes to dog food.
-
Makes me wonder how any of us oldies managed to live so long in the company of dogs without catching bubonic plague. Maybe its because we've got what all these so called "experts" haven't got - its called Common Sense and despite their common belief, the vast majority of us "normal" people do actually clean the kitchen!! >:D
They're only against raw because the pet food industry is mega mega business and without them, the "poor" vets wouldn't a) have a little earner on the side and b) would lose business of pets with health problems caused by (some) poor quality manufactured food.
Rant over! 😉
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that vets don't sell raw food?
From previous experiences, I wouldn't trust a vet as far as I could throw them, especially when it comes to dog food.
If that was the only issue, then they could just start selling raw food. It would be very easy to profit from this now that it is so popular ;) But a vet has to be sure that what he/she recommends is safe for both animal and owner, they have a responsibillity to both animal and human health. I'm not taking any sides here because I have not researched too much and I have not seen the program. But there are some valid points to consider before choosing raw food. One being the potentiel health risks of uncooked meat to both the pet eating it and the humans sharing the house with said pet. Ignoring these risks would be short sighted. Again, not against raw feeding as a principle, but there are concerns that need to be taken seriously.
-
I didn't watch it but saw the clip, i left a comment! Lol
Looking forward to the more balanced investigation they will surely need to carry out now.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that vets don't sell raw food?
From previous experiences, I wouldn't trust a vet as far as I could throw them, especially when it comes to dog food.
If that was the only issue, then they could just start selling raw food. It would be very easy to profit from this now that it is so popular ;) But a vet has to be sure that what he/she recommends is safe for both animal and owner, they have a responsibillity to both animal and human health. I'm not taking any sides here because I have not researched too much and I have not seen the program. But there are some valid points to consider before choosing raw food. One being the potentiel health risks of uncooked meat to both the pet eating it and the humans sharing the house with said pet. Ignoring these risks would be short sighted. Again, not against raw feeding as a principle, but there are concerns that need to be taken seriously.
The thing that annoys me though, is that it is automatically assumed that none of us have the common sense to realize that there are potential risks and I get really really cross with these "experts" assuming we're all stupid! There are risks with preparing ANY raw food, whether its for pets or for humans, if normal hygiene procedures aren't followed, they might aswell say we should only feed our families pre cooked convenience foods incase we catch salmonella from the chicken etc.
There's a lot of rubbish talked about raw feeding, we get it here aswell but as I said before, pets are BIG business both for the pharmecutical and pet food industries and as pet owners we're constant targets. We just need to ask questions and not believe everything these sharks try to tell us.
-
I saw it too and thought what a load of patronising cobblers these 'experts' come up with.
Don't think the programme has done vets image any good at all tbh.
-
The thing that annoys me though, is that it is automatically assumed that none of us have the common sense to realize that there are potential risks and I get really really cross with these "experts" assuming we're all stupid! There are risks with preparing ANY raw food, whether its for pets or for humans, if normal hygiene procedures aren't followed, they might aswell say we should only feed our families pre cooked convenience foods incase we catch salmonella from the chicken etc.
There's a lot of rubbish talked about raw feeding, we get it here aswell but as I said before, pets are BIG business both for the pharmecutical and pet food industries and as pet owners we're constant targets. We just need to ask questions and not believe everything these sharks try to tell us.
Some people do lack common sense and it's the vets job to make sure that everyone is aware of the risks. It's not just while you prepare the food the risks are present. What about the dog licking a childs face after having eaten raw food? What if the dog gets a zoonotic infection from the raw meat and passes it on to humans in the household? There are many ways for bacteria and virus to spread.
And yes there are a lot of bias against raw feeding, but there is also alot of blind faith when it comes to "all that is natural is good".
I don't know how this program was presented, and if they were underestimating peoples intelligence then they made a mistake. But for every one of us dog owners that do our research and aquire knowledge there are probably 10 that don't educate themselves and believe everything they are told. So it is important to make people aware that the professional community is worried about potential dangers connected to raw feeding.
It is sad that so many assume a vets motive is all about money. If it was all about money they would make alot more money selling whatever the costumers want than to argue potential problems. They cannot recommend something until there are enough scientific facts for them to trust the product, whatever it is, that would be irresponsible for someone in their position.
As I didn't see the program it could very well be that I too would have found it ubalanced and patronising. But please don't throw away information because it was presented in a bad way. Both sides of the raw feeding "war" has valid points!
-
You do have a good point Mari, I accept your argument. I just find it irritating that we're increasingly being bullied in all aspects of our lives by self proclaimed "experts". ;)
-
I accept there are very different opinions on feeding pets and it's something I have been in turmoil with myself over the years. I just feel this program sent out a very damming message with no real investigation.
The only real argument to tell people on main stream TV that raw food is bad and don't feed it, was really down to poor hygiene practice. Dogs do not have impeccable hygiene! Reese being fed a complete raw food is probably the least of my worries with my little walking health hazard! :005:
This program failed as there was no balanced review from the growing number of vets that do support raw feeding, they didnt explain what raw food was fed, they didnt even give an explanation if the same test was carried out on dogs fed other type of food and the results (however, they have online and mentioned the percentage of levels found were higher in raw fed dogs not that the other ways of feeding results were clear)
I feel so sorry for the very good complete raw food companies we have in this country, who work to the strictest guidelines to produce probably some of the safest products in the raw food industry. They made no mention of the amount of kibble etc that have been recalled over the years due to bacteria contamination as well as other things! :o It was just very bad, biased reporting.
Last week the same program tested kibble and wet food and stated that most of them have a deficit in the nutrients content, they recommend to feed a wide range of this food in the hope everything needed would be covered. This is something I understand the manufacturers are in uproar over and questioning their testing results.
The pet food industry is a minefield of conflicting information, I saw a report on a kibble I have fed my dogs on in the past that has a 5 star rating on one site due to ingredients, but It gets a 1 star rating from the non profit clean lable project because of the very high amount of heavy metals found tested in the product!!!
I just hope all this will set off real non profit and no manufacturers funded investigations as to how best feed our beloved pets....which is all we really want to do.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that vets don't sell raw food?
From previous experiences, I wouldn't trust a vet as far as I could throw them, especially when it comes to dog food.
If that was the only issue, then they could just start selling raw food. It would be very easy to profit from this now that it is so popular ;) But a vet has to be sure that what he/she recommends is safe for both animal and owner, they have a responsibillity to both animal and human health. I'm not taking any sides here because I have not researched too much and I have not seen the program. But there are some valid points to consider before choosing raw food. One being the potentiel health risks of uncooked meat to both the pet eating it and the humans sharing the house with said pet. Ignoring these risks would be short sighted. Again, not against raw feeding as a principle, but there are concerns that need to be taken seriously.
My vets recommended the dog food they sold and told me it was very high quality, and being naive, I believed that they must have my dogs interest at heart. I fed it to my cavalier for 10 years.
Then, when Murphy arrived, they did exactly the same thing with the new 'wonder food' that they were, and still are, selling.
I became suspicious and did my research. And it turned out that I had been feeding crap to my little cav for his whole life and the new stuff they were selling was equally as bad.
I don't trust vets any more, profit is more important than dogs health. I do my own research and make up my own mind what is best to feed my dogs. Which in my opinion is raw.
-
I watched the programme last night, on player. The vet that presented this particular item could usefully take a look at her own nutritional input.
-
I watched the programme last night, on player. The vet that presented this particular item could usefully take a look at her own nutritional input.
you noticed that too, :lol2:
-
Really...? Someone with 5+ years of university education expresses an opinion on a subject well within her field and then her weight becomes the topic of discussion? :dunno: Am I misunderstanding something or is this really he direction the thread went?
-
Just my observation, that's all. I'm usually the one that blurts out what everyone else is thinking. I apologise if you're offended.
-
Really...? Someone with 5+ years of university education expresses an opinion on a subject well within her field and then her weight becomes the topic of discussion? :dunno: Am I misunderstanding something or is this really he direction the thread went?
Agreed. My husband's family are all very what we call 'pass-remarkable' - there is always a comment to be made on people's appearance and it really gets on my nerves. I DO find myself thinking it, but always check myself from saying it out loud because it's something society conditions us to do, to judge people by their appearance, and it's a habit I am keen to break.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YYOeQgaobPE&feature=youtu.be
I didn't watch the programme but obviously got the gist of it judging by the comments on various sites!
The link above (hopefully) is Dr Nick Thompson from holisticvet.co.uk giving his side of the argument.
-
Thanks for posting that lescef.
-
Thanks for posting that lescef.
Yep agreed, he certainly put the Raw Feeders points of view and I think had the Beeb done this (allowed both sides of the story) in the first place then there would not have been such a feeling of biased reporting.
There are lots of debates these days and available information about how we can/should treat our pets. Medical advances as well as the food we feed is a concern for all owners and vets alike, but it is not enough to say ' I'm a vet so I know best' however much training they have had, which to my mind is what the vets on these programmes seem to be saying.
-
Thanks for posting that lescef.
Yep agreed, he certainly put the Raw Feeders points of view and I think had the Beeb done this (allowed both sides of the story) in the first place then there would not have been such a feeling of biased reporting.
There are lots of debates these days and available information about how we can/should treat our pets. Medical advances as well as the food we feed is a concern for all owners and vets alike, but it is not enough to say ' I'm a vet so I know best' however much training they have had, which to my mind is what the vets on these programmes seem to be saying.
Absolutely agree but it was clear to me before the programme even started that it would be biased - when I read that they were going to discuss "the latest "craze" in feeding pets raw food"!! If they call what dogs have been fed for the 15,000 years "latest craze", then it doesn't say much for their understanding of dog nutrition! (O'h dear, I think I'm turning into Victor Mildrew!! :005:)
-
I sometimes think these programmes are deliberately produced to cause an outcry. But it's not what we expect from the BBC. Times are a changing!
-
Really...? Someone with 5+ years of university education expresses an opinion on a subject well within her field and then her weight becomes the topic of discussion? :dunno: Am I misunderstanding something or is this really he direction the thread went?
agree wholeheartedly with that ;)
FWIW - I have nothing against raw feeding but I don't like the zealous fervour and implication from some raw feeders that they are "doing their best for their dogs" which implies those that don't raw feed aren't.
If you're basing this diet on wolves and 15,000 years of eating than maybe you should look at this scientific study. It's on basic evolution of domestication and how the domestic dog evolved from the wolf because it could digest starch. Most raw feeders completely discount carbs/starch because dogs cannot digest them. It's just not true.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication)
My view is that we ALL do our best for our dogs so pushing one feeding model down everyones neck (excuse the pun) is un-necessary. If you feed raw and your dog is thriving, good on you. If you prefer to do otherwise and your dog is thriving you're just as good an owner ;)
-
Really...? Someone with 5+ years of university education expresses an opinion on a subject well within her field and then her weight becomes the topic of discussion? :dunno: Am I misunderstanding something or is this really he direction the thread went?
agree wholeheartedly with that ;)
FWIW - I have nothing against raw feeding but I don't like the zealous fervour and implication from some raw feeders that they are "doing their best for their dogs" which implies those that don't raw feed aren't.
If you're basing this diet on wolves and 15,000 years of eating than maybe you should look at this scientific study. It's on basic evolution of domestication and how the domestic dog evolved from the wolf because it could digest starch. Most raw feeders completely discount carbs/starch because dogs cannot digest them. It's just not true.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication)
My view is that we ALL do our best for our dogs so pushing one feeding model down everyones neck (excuse the pun) is un-necessary. If you feed raw and your dog is thriving, good on you. If you prefer to do otherwise and your dog is thriving you're just as good an owner ;)
I absolutely agree with you Helen, I feed raw now but my last two dogs were fed (horror of horrors) Pedigree dry and wet mixed together and they both did fine on it. My comment about the last 15,000 years really meant to point out that we've been feeding them all sorts if things over that time and the species has still survived so the inference of the "experts" that we're risking the health of our dogs and families by not feeding manufactured food or food prepared in sterile conditions, is ludicrous. It is also a fact that a good and healthy immune sytem is best achieved through exposure to bacteria which is why the rate of allergies and intolerances to certain substances is far far higher in our so-called developed societies, where we have mania for disinfecting everything, than in the third world.
Unfortunately a bit of a fanatical cultism has developed among some raw feeders which has probably given rise to a lot of the criticism and finger pointing, but at the end of the day, as you rightly say, we all want the best for out dogs and personal choices should be accepted and respected. .
-
I also watched the programme and it wasn't the vet that done the testing of the e-coli but a scientist that gave her the results and she then made her own mind up. I didn't think it was bias at all as the same testing was done on kibble fed dogs. I agree with what Helen has written and think its down to personal choice and dogs can and do thrive on different feeding.
-
I also watched the programme and it wasn't the vet that done the testing of the e-coli but a scientist that gave her the results and she then made her own mind up. I didn't think it was bias at all as the same testing was done on kibble fed dogs. I agree with what Helen has written and think its down to personal choice and dogs can and do thrive on different feeding.
I certainly agree with your last sentence, if the vet on this program had stated something like that and then if you feed raw to ensure you follow basic hygiene, then I doubt this thread would even have been started. ;)
-
I also watched the programme and it wasn't the vet that done the testing of the e-coli but a scientist that gave her the results and she then made her own mind up. I didn't think it was bias at all as the same testing was done on kibble fed dogs. I agree with what Helen has written and think its down to personal choice and dogs can and do thrive on different feeding.
I certainly agree with your last sentence, if the vet on this program had stated something like that and if you feed raw to ensure you follow basic hygiene, then I doubt this thread would even have been started. ;)
Agree totally with these sentiments and Helen's views :D
-
Has anyone followed Rodney Habib, he has done extensive research and makes sense...
-
Interesting discussion, which is what I hoped for when I started this thread. I too agree that we all do what we believe to be the best for our dogs, and what suits our pockets and the amount of time we have. I, for instance, wouldn't dream of feeding raw made from scratch at home - I'd be too worried that I hadn't got the proportions right, and I haven't got the time or the inclination to be mincing and chopping all that meat and fruit and veg. Commercially produced frozen raw is my chosen option.
We have fed some rubbish to our dogs over the years, including the dreaded 'Bakers' ph34r before we knew any better, and they have all done fine on whatever we were feeding. It was just Ozzy's grain intolerance that started me on the quest to find our more about raw feeding - after all the old adage 'fit as a butcher's dog' had to come from somewhere.
What got my back up was the bias - I loathe biased reporting, and I can't understand why there is so much of it done these days. Well, yes I can, it's almost always about money and profit and it makes me mad!
-
Just thought I'd throw this in as its rarely mentioned in the raw discussion and just occured to me yesterday, as I had a worm count done for Humphrey on Thursday, rather than automatically giving worming treatment. Taking in to account we live in the countryside and he picks up all sorts of left overs both from farm and wild animals, the result was negative for both worms and giarden. As a puppy fed on commercial food, we had constant problems with giarden, which have also disappeared since we went raw. Its maybe food for thought therefore (scuse pun ;)), how high is the risk of food contamination from feeding raw against the risk of parasites, and subsequent transmission to family members, in dogs fed on manufactured foods? (I'm referring particularly to the giarden which thrive on grains/carbs). The higher acid content of the digestive juices of raw fed dogs keep a lot of parasites/worms at bay.
There's always another side to every argument which only proves to me, yet again, that we need to be critical of everything told to us by the "experts"! ;)
-
Most of Teals meals are raw meat or cooked fish, her ladyship doesn't like raw fish, sometimes she may have a tin of whatever wet food from the shop when we are away, most Sundays she has a Sunday dinner of whatever me and the Mrs are having
Tonight she had a nice bit of cod from our local chippy I was silly enough to leave the table to get another beer the thieving little sodpot
I must admit to getting a bit annoyed by the extreme raw feeders who try to push their beliefs as much as I do with large pet food manufactures that advertise how wonderful their low quality kibbles are.
My personal belief is dogs need a varied diet just like us and that is what I try to do. Now I am off to make Teal and me a nice bowl of bananas and custard
-
I am sorry but it is only a business for many of vets. The commercial dog food is like McDonalds for human. Processed and low in natural nutrition. All kind of meat, skin, scraps, grains are cooked into the mass beyond the recognition. Then shapeed and sprayed with fat and synthetic vitamins and preservatives. The true is that human are not eating well and it is the same for dogs. Dogs and diabetes ? Dogs had no amylase in their saliva, enzym responsible for breaking carbohydrates like us or caws. A minimal amount is in their intestines to help them to get all needed nutritions from intestines of grass eating pray. Dog will live on kibble but not thrive. Food hygiene is a key to keep humans safe. According to many tests you are more likely to get salmonella from kibble. And ..'The gastric acidity (gastric PH) of the stomach of a dog or cat eating a diet predominantly made up of raw meat is very low (very acidic), with a PH of 2 or lower (relative to the level of meat protein). This highly acidic environment favours the breakdown of raw meats, and raw bones, into soft digestible material. The low PH also is highly effective at killing bacteria, particularly potentially pathogenic bacteria like salmonella spp, clostridia, campylobacter and E Coli. So the natural ‘wild” diet of dogs an cats has evolved a gastric environment that favours the breakdown of raw meats, raw bones, and a PH that kills potentially harmful bacteria – consistent with the requirements of carnivores, and in particular, the scavenging nature of dogs.'
The other issue is water, excessive drinking all day. Raw fed dogs drink very little due to getting fluid from the meat. And one more '. Some vets are cautious about raw feeding because very little nutritional advice is given whilst they're studying to become a vet. They simply don't know enough about raw food and diets to be able to make a judgement or give advice. Most of the education they do receive, is focused upon processed foods, because that's what most of their clients feed. Another reason why some vets might be cautious about raw feeding, is that many vets are sponsored by processed pet food companies and sell their products.' You are what you eat - and it applies to humans and dogs. If people are making millions why give it up ?
-
My personal belief is dogs need a varied diet just like us and that is what I try to do. Now I am off to make Teal and me a nice bowl of bananas and custard
Jeff: We thought that our Barnaby was a bit odd in his love of bananas........ its a relief to read that Teal has the same taste:-)
FWIW our cocker Betty lived to 16 1/2 years old and ate dry granulated food until the last year of her life. She was also a keen fruit thief, primarily raspberries, strawberries and blueberries. That cocktail seems to have been good for her anyway.
-
I must admit to getting a bit annoyed by the extreme raw feeders who try to push their beliefs as much as I do with large pet food manufactures that advertise how wonderful their low quality kibbles are.
This. A thousand times THIS. In capital letters with flashing lights and fireworks behind it. :shades:
"Commercial" does not mean "bad."
Raw does NOT suit all dogs.
There are good kibbles just as there are bad kibbles.
The majority of vets are animal loving, caring human beings with the best interests of your pet at heart.
Once again....If it suits YOUR dog and they are happy and healthy then it's the right food for YOUR dog.
(Archie too is partial to banana.....but only if it it just on the verge of being ripe. He's very particular about them! :005:)
-
"Commercial" does not mean "bad."
Raw does NOT suit all dogs.
There are good kibbles just as there are bad kibbles.
The majority of vets are animal loving, caring human beings with the best interests of your pet at heart.
Once again....If it suits YOUR dog and they are happy and healthy then it's the right food for YOUR dog.
Agree so much! This forum needs a like button for good posts :) My dog is on a veterinary diet and gets supplements for her joints. She gets vegetables, fruit, meat, fish and eggs as snacks. I know she's covered and gets good nutrition, she is healthy and happy, nothing is overly complicated. There are many ways to ensure balanced nutrition :) Raw, kibble, wet food, grain-free, vet diets, something for everyone :)
-
Lets not forget this thread was not started to attack ways of feeding dogs. It was started because it was felt that a BBC programme attacked one way of feeding with little evidence other than basic hygiene and no balanced opinion. Something this thread has certainly shown is needed! ;).
-
Which brings in my mind a discussion about the BBC personnel. I have a youthful nephew on Welsh speaking BBCTV, an instant expert on whatever his thrown his way. How much did it cost to send him to Argentina to interview the descendants of Welsh settlers? Every one seems so young! Now that most programmes are produced by outsourced companies, I suspect that the editorial and production people are all under 30yrs, with journalism/media qualifications. Enthusiastic, youthful, and unable to be experts at anything. (This applies to politicians too.........)
I have no respect for the Beeb, or what's left of it.
-
Which brings in my mind a discussion about the BBC personnel. I have a youthful nephew on Welsh speaking BBCTV, an instant expert on whatever his thrown his way. How much did it cost to send him to Argentina to interview the descendants of Welsh settlers? Every one seems so young! Now that most programmes are produced by outsourced companies, I suspect that the editorial and production people are all under 30yrs, with journalism/media qualifications. Enthusiastic, youthful, and unable to be experts at anything. (This applies to politicians too.........)
I have no respect for the Beeb, or what's left of it.
Absolutely agree! I also think if they would concentrate on picking their announcers, news readers etc for their competence and ability to be coherent instead of trying to tick all the pc boxes and fulfill a quota for employment of every single diversity in the human race, it would be in a better position to maintain the standards its always been famous for! Sorry, I know its off topic and I'm ranting again but I just feel its all very sad.......(I grew up with Daphne Oxenford's Listen with Mother! "Are you sitting comfortably? THen I'll begin.."... :005:)
-
Which brings in my mind a discussion about the BBC personnel. I have a youthful nephew on Welsh speaking BBCTV, an instant expert on whatever his thrown his way. How much did it cost to send him to Argentina to interview the descendants of Welsh settlers? Every one seems so young! Now that most programmes are produced by outsourced companies, I suspect that the editorial and production people are all under 30yrs, with journalism/media qualifications. Enthusiastic, youthful, and unable to be experts at anything. (This applies to politicians too.........)
I have no respect for the Beeb, or what's left of it.
Absolutely agree! I also think if they would concentrate on picking their announcers, news readers etc for their competence and ability to be coherent instead of trying to tick all the pc boxes and fulfill a quota for employment of every single diversity in the human race, it would be in a better position to maintain the standards its always been famous for! Sorry, I know its off topic and I'm ranting again but I just feel its all very sad.......(I grew up with Daphne Oxenford's Listen with Mother! "Are you sitting comfortably? THen I'll begin.."... :005:)
Oh I remember her too, but I think it's also true to say that there wasn't the need for such carefulness then, as there is now.
-
Which brings in my mind a discussion about the BBC personnel. I have a youthful nephew on Welsh speaking BBCTV, an instant expert on whatever his thrown his way. How much did it cost to send him to Argentina to interview the descendants of Welsh settlers? Every one seems so young! Now that most programmes are produced by outsourced companies, I suspect that the editorial and production people are all under 30yrs, with journalism/media qualifications. Enthusiastic, youthful, and unable to be experts at anything. (This applies to politicians too.........)
I have no respect for the Beeb, or what's left of it.
Absolutely agree! I also think if they would concentrate on picking their announcers, news readers etc for their competence and ability to be coherent instead of trying to tick all the pc boxes and fulfill a quota for employment of every single diversity in the human race, it would be in a better position to maintain the standards its always been famous for! Sorry, I know its off topic and I'm ranting again but I just feel its all very sad.......(I grew up with Daphne Oxenford's Listen with Mother! "Are you sitting comfortably? THen I'll begin.."... :005:)
Oh I remember her too, but I think it's also true to say that there wasn't the need for such carefulness then, as there is now.
That's true!
-
My personal belief is dogs need a varied diet just like us and that is what I try to do. Now I am off to make Teal and me a nice bowl of bananas and custard
Jeff: We thought that our Barnaby was a bit odd in his love of bananas........ its a relief to read that Teal has the same taste:-)
FWIW our cocker Betty lived to 16 1/2 years old and ate dry granulated food until the last year of her life. She was also a keen fruit thief, primarily raspberries, strawberries and blueberries. That cocktail seems to have been good for her anyway.
Teal likes most fruit, but banana is her fav, she can be upstairs and the moment someone down stairs starts to peel one she is there.
-
Now would that banana have to be organic , raw and picked by a maidens fair hand Jeff or would an ordinary Fyffes do from Tesco :P As others have said whatever suits our lifestyle and our dogs. I never worried or anyalsed my kids food as much and they grew up just fine ;)
-
I have never had a dog yet that doesn't salivate whenever fruit is about! Apples, oranges, bananas and all fruits in between! Grapes, they say, are bad for dogs so we don't allow them any, but when one has been dropped on the floor by accident and stolen by a dog before we could pick it up there have never been any ill effects, so maybe it's just the danger of choking that makes them bad.
-
My dogs have all loved fruit of all kinds. One of the Scotties liked blackberries, it was so funny watching her wrinkling back her lips,so,she could,delicately,get the fruit without getting a mouthful of thorns :lol2: :luv:
Lesley and Dylan
-
This is what I found by Googling - not sure how many the dog would need to be affected though, how many is a small amount I don't feed my dogs human food...for the simple reason all 3 would like some of what I've got and I would not get any peace at meal or snack times, so the rules are 'It's mine - go lie down'
Grapes and Raisins
What could seem more harmless than grapes? They're a perfect natural snack for children, and some dogs love them. Yet even small amounts can cause lethargy, depression, and kidney failure. Vomiting and hyperactivity are early signs of grape poisoning.
CREDIT: istockphoto
-
The difficulty with grapes and raisins is that it would seem that not all dogs have a problem with them. They are extremely poisonous to some dogs but harmless to others.....no one knows why. Safest option is to avoid them.
http://www.petful.com/pet-health/how-toxic-are-grapes-for-dogs/
-
Thanks for that - I wasn't quite sure why they were bad for dogs.
-
The difficulty with grapes and raisins is that it would seem that not all dogs have a problem with them. They are extremely poisonous to some dogs but harmless to others.....no one knows why. Safest option is to avoid them.
http://www.petful.com/pet-health/how-toxic-are-grapes-for-dogs/
and it costs £192 out of hours if your dog does eat a grape (or 3!). We were advised she may be ok but there were no guarantees hence taking her to the Vets.
My first dog loved grapes. He liked them sliced in half and would lie, nibbling the flesh off the skins, for hours if allowed. He never ate the skins which always amused us at the time (30 years ago) now it intrigues me. He was a big lad, GSD x Labrador - those grapes were tiny in comparison!