Phil L wrote:


no carnivores can live on just meat, or bones, offal etc - they have to have
stomach contents, IE grains, grasses and other vegetation, otherwise they
die.



MYTH: WOLVES EAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY.

This is false! Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a
rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get
consumed with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the
stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating
the stomach wall. Even on a common sense level this could be proven
false. Stomach acids have a pH near 1, which means they are incredibly
acidic and bitter. The acid attacking the plant matter is strong enough
to burn the enamel off teeth. Why would any self-respecting wolf
willingly stick its nose into something that will burn its skin, burn
the enamel of its teeth, and severely burn its lips and esophagus? No,
wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. The following
quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior,
Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this
book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is
a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and
careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The
Wolf as a Carnivore.
"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume
the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large
rumen [, which is the main stomach compartment in large herbivores
except horses,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents
spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the
wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and
their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)
"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the
major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the
digestive system." (pg.124, emphasis added).
From the mouths of the wolf experts themselves, who have observed
countless numbers of kills: wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of
their large prey, and are carnivorous animals.

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawd...hcontents.html

"Avid Fan" wrote
Char wrote:

One thing I do believe is that dogs that are feed purely on meat do not
fair well. I believe that a dog that is feed kibble is healthier than a
dog fed meat alone.

Mind if I jump in? Dogs in the wild will eat the stomach contents of their
herbivore kills which makes a bit of a difference I think. The kibble is
probably replacing that.

What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat, dry
in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a nooner
'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones and such,
put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before feeding). He gets
about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was on some pretty
expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken him off all of them
and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but it worked.

On 2/20/2010 7:53 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Avid Fan" wrote
Char wrote:

One thing I do believe is that dogs that are feed purely on meat do
not fair well. I believe that a dog that is feed kibble is healthier
than a dog fed meat alone.

Mind if I jump in? Dogs in the wild will eat the stomach contents of
their herbivore kills which makes a bit of a difference I think. The
kibble is probably replacing that.

Actually that has been disproven. They shake the stomach out and don't
eat the contents.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/1923S


What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat,
dry in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a
nooner 'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones
and such, put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before
feeding). He gets about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was
on some pretty expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken
him off all of them and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but
it worked.


It would work better and save you time by just feeding them the raw
bones. Cooking destroys the nutrients which is why kibble is garbage.
You see? Even you admit that their commercial food is causing medical
problems and that would not have happened if you were feeding raw bones
to begin with.

"Char" wrote
cshenk wrote:

What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat,
dry in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a
nooner 'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones
and such, put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before
feeding). He gets about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was
on some pretty expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken
him off all of them and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but
it worked.

It would work better and save you time by just feeding them the raw bones.
Cooking destroys the nutrients which is why kibble is garbage. You see?
Even you admit that their commercial food is causing medical problems and
that would not have happened if you were feeding raw bones to begin with.

I think I will go with my Vet on this instead of you. Raw bones (and
cooked) can splinter and cause many complications with domestically bred
types who aren't as hardy as wild wolves. The Vet's question on that was
critical. 'How many wild dogs die just like Domestics from that? No one
knows'.

This 'broth' is concentrated chondritin and gluosamine and a free side item
from my own cooking. Takes maybe 5 mins of my actual time to make. I would
hestitate to allow a pet in my home if I couldn't manage 5 mins every other
week. I do cautiuon any who wish to trey this, that pets are not as salt
tolerant so dont add any. They dont need it and in truth, we do not
either.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:19:47 -0500, Char
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 7:53 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Avid Fan" wrote
Char wrote:

One thing I do believe is that dogs that are feed purely on meat do
not fair well. I believe that a dog that is feed kibble is healthier
than a dog fed meat alone.

Mind if I jump in? Dogs in the wild will eat the stomach contents of
their herbivore kills which makes a bit of a difference I think. The
kibble is probably replacing that.

Actually that has been disproven. They shake the stomach out and don't
eat the contents.

Bullshit.

What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat,
dry in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a
nooner 'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones
and such, put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before
feeding). He gets about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was
on some pretty expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken
him off all of them and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but
it worked.


It would work better and save you time by just feeding them the raw
bones. Cooking destroys the nutrients which is why kibble is garbage.
You see? Even you admit that their commercial food is causing medical
problems and that would not have happened if you were feeding raw bones
to begin with.

Char, Char, Char. You've missed your calling. You ought to be a
fiction author, perhaps of children's books. Where do you see the OP
saying that commercial food was causing medical problems?

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:
cshenk wrote:

What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat,
dry in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a
nooner 'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones
and such, put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before
feeding). He gets about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was
on some pretty expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken
him off all of them and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but
it worked.

It would work better and save you time by just feeding them the raw
bones. Cooking destroys the nutrients which is why kibble is garbage.
You see? Even you admit that their commercial food is causing medical
problems and that would not have happened if you were feeding raw bones
to begin with.

Char, Char, Char. You've missed your calling. You ought to be a
fiction author, perhaps of children's books. Where do you see the OP
saying that commercial food was causing medical problems?

Char seems to believe that making broth of bones (thick conssome) and
feeding it to pets is not her version of 'raw' so must be bad? In fact
Cash-pup and Daisy-cat had joint issues that worked best with a cooked
broth. Char now says this is proof of her 'raw diet' deal. It's not. It's
about pure simple sense and using what they need for a simple added thing.

I have 2 rescue pets, both with 'issues'. Daisy-cat doenst have medical
ones so far but we know rhew broth mode which has her drink more works with
cats. I've had cats for 30 years. They generally develop health issues
from lack of water in their diet. As to Cash-pup, I figure if our home bone
broth helps me and my husband, it couldnt hurt the dog and it didnt.

Raw bones will not help Cash. A more natural version of chondritin and
glucosamine from cooked bones and the joint cartilage do. Besides, they
*like* it. Grin, I can spare 5 mins every 2 weeks or so to make it up for
them. Heck, we eat more of it than they do so it''s just as much for us as
them.

On 2/22/2010 6:12 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Char" wrote
cshenk wrote:

What i do is feed Daisy-cat and Cash-pup twice a day (wet both for cat,
dry in am for Cash then wet and dry for his dinner). They also get a
nooner 'noshe' of home made bone broth. I just save up the chicken bones
and such, put in crockpot and make broth (remove all bones before
feeding). He gets about 1/2 cup, Daisy gets 2-3 TB. Before this Cash was
on some pretty expensive arthritis meds and things. Now vet has taken
him off all of them and he's running about like a puppy. Took time but
it worked.

It would work better and save you time by just feeding them the raw
bones. Cooking destroys the nutrients which is why kibble is garbage.
You see? Even you admit that their commercial food is causing medical
problems and that would not have happened if you were feeding raw
bones to begin with.

I think I will go with my Vet on this instead of you. Raw bones (and
cooked) can splinter and cause many complications with domestically bred
types who aren't as hardy as wild wolves.

That isn't true at all. My dogs eat raw bones all the time. Raw ones
don't splinter like cooked ones do.

http://rawfed.com/myths/bones.html

There is no difference in the stomach of a wolf and that of a dog, none
at all.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html


The Vet's question on that was
critical. 'How many wild dogs die just like Domestics from that? No one
knows'.

Your vet is showing his lack of knowledge about nutrition.


This 'broth' is concentrated chondritin and gluosamine and a free side
item from my own cooking. Takes maybe 5 mins of my actual time to make.
I would hestitate to allow a pet in my home if I couldn't manage 5 mins
every other week. I do cautiuon any who wish to trey this, that pets are
not as salt tolerant so dont add any. They dont need it and in truth, we
do not either.

Actually we do need some salt in our diets and broth should cook for
many hours in order to extract everything from the bones.

On 2/22/2010 7:25 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:19:47 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 7:53 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Avid Fan" wrote
Char wrote:

One thing I do believe is that dogs that are feed purely on meat do
not fair well. I believe that a dog that is feed kibble is healthier
than a dog fed meat alone.

Mind if I jump in? Dogs in the wild will eat the stomach contents of
their herbivore kills which makes a bit of a difference I think. The
kibble is probably replacing that.

Actually that has been disproven. They shake the stomach out and don't
eat the contents.

Bullshit.

http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/1923S

On 2/22/2010 8:03 PM, cshenk wrote:

Char seems to believe that making broth of bones (thick conssome) and
feeding it to pets is not her version of 'raw' so must be bad? In fact
Cash-pup and Daisy-cat had joint issues that worked best with a cooked
broth. Char now says this is proof of her 'raw diet' deal. It's not.
It's about pure simple sense and using what they need for a simple added
thing.

You need to not assume what I believe. Your broth is way better than
commercial food alone for sure but it's only a halfway measure. No need
to stop halfway when you know better.


I have 2 rescue pets, both with 'issues'. Daisy-cat doenst have medical
ones so far but we know rhew broth mode which has her drink more works
with cats. I've had cats for 30 years. They generally develop health
issues from lack of water in their diet.


That is only half the story too. The lack of water is correct but it's
way more than that. Cats especially are obligate carnivores and feeding
grain based foods kill them in many ways.

As to Cash-pup, I figure if our
home bone broth helps me and my husband, it couldnt hurt the dog and it
didnt.

Raw bones will not help Cash. A more natural version of chondritin and
glucosamine from cooked bones and the joint cartilage do.

Raw bones will indeed help because it is in it's natural state so
nothing is cooked out.

Besides, they
*like* it. Grin, I can spare 5 mins every 2 weeks or so to make it up
for them. Heck, we eat more of it than they do so it''s just as much for
us as them.


No need to stop the broth, just go past that to even better feeding habits.

And remember that vets get almost no nutritional training and what they
do get is heaviliy sponsored by commercial pet food companies.