Hi, thanks for the response

im from Mexico and speak spanish, we referr to dogs with female/male
indication "el" or "la" the same generic specification used to persons, wi
don get domethink like "it" on english, but i dont know, we "humanize" a
lot our puppy that something i refer it using she on english jeje...



"cshenk" escribió en el mensaje
...
"Daniel Coronado" wrote
Hi Cshenk

i feed my schnauzer 3 times in the day, she had 3 months and 15 days...
is weigth is about 6.8 lb.

I'm not familar with schnauzers specifically but this is a mini version I
think? They arent real big dogs at full grown?

i use this time to feed it:
7:30 am
2:00 pm
and
7:30 pm

this because i wok from 8:00 am to 1:30 pm and 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm

That works. Logic of my own head says if I want to eat 3 times a day, my
pets to as well.

i eat in the same hours, i give it 1 1/4 cup, divided in 3 parts,
sometimes i use a little part of a can with the dry food.

That might be a bit much but she's growing. (language thiing, use she or
he that the puppy is here)

she like it,
what do you think about the food time? it is good, my vet say after 6
months she can eat 2 times in a day.

I think she can take 2 times a day but will 'like better' if fed in 3
feedings with the same amount just split over 3 feedings vice 2.

PS: I am not picking on our language there above but if you would
appreciate some tips from a friend who has experienced the same, i will
add a few. Your native language probably has no generic 'male/female'
association to dog so it came over in english. That or it's the fact that
English doenst have one. You referred to the dog as 'it' but in english
we use 'the dog' or 'she'. No biggie as you are perfectly understandable
to all.

On 2/20/2010 10:23 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:47 -0500,
wrote:

sighthounds& siberians wrote:

Dogs aren't carnivores. They're omnivores. If you had a dog, you
would know that.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Dogs have a
carnivorous mouth, carnivorous teeth and the total digestive system of a
carnivore.

We are omnivores. We have teeth that grind vegetable matter, not ones
that rip meat. We have a longer digestive system to break down what we
eat and our digestive juices are not as strong as that of dogs.

Boy, I feel like I'm back in school! These basics of anatomy were taught
in grade school for crying out loud.

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris,[2] pronounced /?ke?.n?s ?lu?p?s
f??m?li??r?s/) i

s a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the
order

Carnivora.

Do you understand what the order Carnivora contains? Carnivores! Very good!

I guess your dogs don't eat grass. Also, when my dogs eat squirrels
or rabbits, they eat whatever is in the squirrels or rabbits.

Your dogs are eating much smaller prey than most wild dogs and wolves
do. It is more natural for them to eat an elk or a deer than a squirrel.
They tend to eat such small prey only in midwinter when they can't find
anything better to eat.

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about them not eating the
stomach contents. You'd not know that though. You have a long way to go
before you think you can present a truly serious debate about feeding
raw. Your arguments are very elementary and not very sophisticated and
you seem to get most the details wrong. Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:16:27 -0500, Char
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 10:23 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:47 -0500,
wrote:

sighthounds& siberians wrote:

Dogs aren't carnivores. They're omnivores. If you had a dog, you
would know that.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Dogs have a
carnivorous mouth, carnivorous teeth and the total digestive system of a
carnivore.

We are omnivores. We have teeth that grind vegetable matter, not ones
that rip meat. We have a longer digestive system to break down what we
eat and our digestive juices are not as strong as that of dogs.

Boy, I feel like I'm back in school! These basics of anatomy were taught
in grade school for crying out loud.

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris,[2] pronounced /?ke?.n?s ?lu?p?s
f??m?li??r?s/) i

s a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the
order

Carnivora.

Do you understand what the order Carnivora contains? Carnivores! Very good!

I guess your dogs don't eat grass. Also, when my dogs eat squirrels
or rabbits, they eat whatever is in the squirrels or rabbits.

Your dogs are eating much smaller prey than most wild dogs and wolves
do. It is more natural for them to eat an elk or a deer than a squirrel.
They tend to eat such small prey only in midwinter when they can't find
anything better to eat.

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about them not eating the
stomach contents. You'd not know that though. You have a long way to go
before you think you can present a truly serious debate about feeding
raw. Your arguments are very elementary and not very sophisticated and
you seem to get most the details wrong. Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't. I have no
desire to "present a truly serious debate" about feeding raw, because
I have no interest in feeding raw. Luckly, when debating with you,
that's not necessary. You wrote the book on elementary, not to
mention inaccurate, arguments, so it's not at all difficult to refute
them.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:

you seem to get most the details wrong. Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't. I have no
desire to "present a truly serious debate" about feeding raw, because
I have no interest in feeding raw. Luckly, when debating with you,
that's not necessary. You wrote the book on elementary, not to
mention inaccurate, arguments, so it's not at all difficult to refute
them.

I am a little upset but a newbie here. The reason why I am upset is if you
track my inception to this area and this thread, it seemed to me an
inacceptance of anyone whom english was not the primary language. It wasnt
your part, but Char's.

Daniel is working well in english and if his grammer is still something he's
polishing up, it's nothing any native speaker cant figure out.

My apologies if I am both a newbie and asking a group to shift a bit. I do
ask we do the best at those who try english to make it work. I share the
mono-lingual trait so many USA folks have when it comes to more than basics
and thise alternative languages, I can't spell very well.

'Konnichiwa'! Domo arigato Gozaimas 'for listening' (Semnatic but not
literal: Hi there and thank you)

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:13:40 -0500, "cshenk" wrote:

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:

you seem to get most the details wrong. Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't. I have no
desire to "present a truly serious debate" about feeding raw, because
I have no interest in feeding raw. Luckly, when debating with you,
that's not necessary. You wrote the book on elementary, not to
mention inaccurate, arguments, so it's not at all difficult to refute
them.

I am a little upset but a newbie here. The reason why I am upset is if you
track my inception to this area and this thread, it seemed to me an
inacceptance of anyone whom english was not the primary language. It wasnt
your part, but Char's.

Daniel is working well in english and if his grammer is still something he's
polishing up, it's nothing any native speaker cant figure out.

My apologies if I am both a newbie and asking a group to shift a bit. I do
ask we do the best at those who try english to make it work. I share the
mono-lingual trait so many USA folks have when it comes to more than basics
and thise alternative languages, I can't spell very well.

'Konnichiwa'! Domo arigato Gozaimas 'for listening' (Semnatic but not
literal: Hi there and thank you)

I don't think anyone has criticized Daniel's English usage, grammar or
anything else. Or yours. My comment to Char has nothing to do with
lack of acceptance of people whose native language is not English. I
am not quite sure what you're talking about.

On 2/23/2010 9:00 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:16:27 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 10:23 AM, sighthounds& siberians wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:47 -0500,
wrote:

sighthounds& siberians wrote:

Dogs aren't carnivores. They're omnivores. If you had a dog, you
would know that.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Dogs have a
carnivorous mouth, carnivorous teeth and the total digestive system of a
carnivore.

We are omnivores. We have teeth that grind vegetable matter, not ones
that rip meat. We have a longer digestive system to break down what we
eat and our digestive juices are not as strong as that of dogs.

Boy, I feel like I'm back in school! These basics of anatomy were taught
in grade school for crying out loud.

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris,[2] pronounced /?ke?.n?s ?lu?p?s
f??m?li??r?s/) i

s a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the
order

Carnivora.

Do you understand what the order Carnivora contains? Carnivores! Very good!

I guess your dogs don't eat grass. Also, when my dogs eat squirrels
or rabbits, they eat whatever is in the squirrels or rabbits.

Your dogs are eating much smaller prey than most wild dogs and wolves
do. It is more natural for them to eat an elk or a deer than a squirrel.
They tend to eat such small prey only in midwinter when they can't find
anything better to eat.

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about them not eating the
stomach contents. You'd not know that though. You have a long way to go
before you think you can present a truly serious debate about feeding
raw. Your arguments are very elementary and not very sophisticated and
you seem to get most the details wrong. Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't. I have no
desire to "present a truly serious debate" about feeding raw, because
I have no interest in feeding raw.

Which means you don't know enough about feeding raw to make a decision
so I fail to see why you'd post here to begin with. If you have no
interest, don't post.


Luckly, when debating with you,
that's not necessary. You wrote the book on elementary, not to
mention inaccurate, arguments, so it's not at all difficult to refute
them.

You have no desire to educate yourself on nutrition, you post silly
statements that are false, you can't post anything that refutes what
I've posted yet you claim it's not difficult to do. If so, why not post
those easy to refute words? Because you can't.

On 2/23/2010 10:13 PM, cshenk wrote:


I am a little upset but a newbie here. The reason why I am upset is if
you track my inception to this area and this thread, it seemed to me an
inacceptance of anyone whom english was not the primary language. It
wasnt your part, but Char's.

Daniel is working well in english and if his grammer is still something
he's polishing up, it's nothing any native speaker cant figure out.


There was no reference implied or stated to Daniel and his grammar.
Indeed, your own grammar is not so great but I'm not into trashing
people for that like others have on this newsgroup. Carry on!

Char

On 2/23/2010 9:00 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't.

Exactly who is the one attacking grammar cshenk?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:19:17 -0500, Char
wrote:


Which means you don't know enough about feeding raw to make a decision
so I fail to see why you'd post here to begin with. If you have no
interest, don't post.

Note that I've never said raw feeding is a bad idea, nor attributed to
it any ridiculous claims such as those you make about commercial dog
food. I know enough about raw feeding to have made the decision that
it is not something I wish to do for my dogs at this time. Whether or
not I post here is not up to you. My only interest in responding to
you is in refuting your false, misleading statements so that new dog
owners and people who have not done much research aren't tempted to
swallow them hook, line and sinker.

Luckly, when debating with you,
that's not necessary. You wrote the book on elementary, not to
mention inaccurate, arguments, so it's not at all difficult to refute
them.

You have no desire to educate yourself on nutrition, you post silly
statements that are false, you can't post anything that refutes what
I've posted yet you claim it's not difficult to do. If so, why not post
those easy to refute words? Because you can't.

I've done research on canine nutrition and use that research when
deciding what to feed my dogs. Note that I've never said raw feeding
is a bad idea. Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

1) kibble fed dogs [all] have health problems that are caused by the
kibble

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

3) raw fed dogs do not have health problems

You've been asked countless times to provide evidence to back up these
statements, and yet you haven't. Why? Because you can't.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:16:27 -0500, Char
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 10:23 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:47 -0500,
wrote:

sighthounds& siberians wrote:

Dogs aren't carnivores. They're omnivores. If you had a dog, you
would know that.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Dogs have a
carnivorous mouth, carnivorous teeth and the total digestive system of a
carnivore.

We are omnivores. We have teeth that grind vegetable matter, not ones
that rip meat. We have a longer digestive system to break down what we
eat and our digestive juices are not as strong as that of dogs.

Boy, I feel like I'm back in school! These basics of anatomy were taught
in grade school for crying out loud.

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris,[2] pronounced /?ke?.n?s ?lu?p?s
f??m?li??r?s/) i

s a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the
order

Carnivora.

Do you understand what the order Carnivora contains? Carnivores! Very good!

I guess your dogs don't eat grass. Also, when my dogs eat squirrels
or rabbits, they eat whatever is in the squirrels or rabbits.

Your dogs are eating much smaller prey than most wild dogs and wolves
do. It is more natural for them to eat an elk or a deer than a squirrel.
They tend to eat such small prey only in midwinter when they can't find
anything better to eat.

Wolves are not domestic dogs. I am not sure what you mean by "wild
dogs", but they aren't domestic dogs either. If you think that
centuries of domestication doesn't change dogs' "natural diet", you
have some more reading to do.

Your arguments are very elementary and not very sophisticated and
you seem to get most the details wrong.

Heh. Pot, kettle, black.

Eventually you will learn
though. Even stupid people are capable of learning.

In order for me to feel insulted, I would have to value your opinion.
I just wanted to note this, though, before you ride off on your white
horse confident that it's everyone else and not you who criticizes
grammar, resorts to personal attacks, etc.