Feeding My Dogs A Vegan Diet

[Guest Jubilee251]

But meat tastes so good.

[Guest hblackburn]

Regarding the "prisoner" thing. I haven't seen anyone suggest that our relationship with dogs particularly, but other animals as well, is co-evolutionary. That they have evolved to coexist with us for mutually beneficial reasons. We give them a sense of security, and they give us back. We hedge against their extinction which gives them a huge advantage over other critters in the world. Dogs ride our coat-tails to evolutionary success. It makes sense that they could be omnivores to easily coexist with us.

[Guest Bang_o_rama]

But meat tastes so good.

 

And of course there is this to consider:

http://www.mushycat.com/shirts/rg-vtb-2.html

~D~

[Guest Tes623]

I think it's ridiculous and pure human ego to thrust your own personal world views on animals that nature has made predators (if you are unwilling to accept that dogs are hunters and meat eaters, there's really no point in further discussion. You can't discuss this topic with someone who is unwilling to suspend reality and insert their own fantasy world). Dogs eat meat. Dogs in Mexico and India aren't pets like US dogs are pets. Most are free-roaming street dogs and pretty much expected to fend for themselves. I promise you, they DO hunt. The ones who don't, probably die.

 

I think using a supplement takes it out of the realm of cruelty. But otherwise, I think it is cruel to essentially make a dog your prisoner (take away their ability to supplement their diet with species appropriate foods - MEAT) and feed them a vegan diet. JMO.

 

Veganism doesn't seem to me to be "lifestyle choice"... apparently it's really no different than any other fundamentalist religion that believes its adherents are 1) superior to everyone else and 2) they should force their world views on other people and animals because of believed superiority.

 

And now that I've indulged *my* ego to respond. Enjoy your day and good luck to your dogs. You've inspired me to give our crew some big meaty raw bones to gnaw on today.

 

Wow. Such vitriol. As for veganism being a "lifestyle choice". I don't know any vegan who calls it, or would ever call it, a lifestyle choice. It's not about choice.

 

So, are you saying you were born a vegan?

[Guest hblackburn]

OK, let's try environmental economies for the vegitarian/vegan choice (one of my arguments). It takes 300 liters of water to make a liter of ale. it takes 16,000 liters of water to make a kg of beef. If you ain't got the water (and we don't) beef makes no sense. Ale on the other hand...

[NeylasMom]

Yes! Cancer seems to be much reduced in vegetarian pets. That's a major point of interest.

Oh, this has been bugging me too since it's been mentioned several times. Reduced rates of cancer in vegetarian pets does not equal meat causes cancer in pets. So many factors involved and I would suspect that something as obvious as the fact that CAFO meat, which is what is used in meat based kibbles, has much lower levels of omega-3's, which have been strongly linked to cancer prevention is at least one likely cause for such a thing, if it is true. Hello run on sentence, but at least I got that out.

[Xan]

...You could even go so far as to say that the only reason they like us at all is because of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Sorry to be off topic, but this statement makes me feel horrible about having pets.. I suppose I can tell myself that at least I love them and make sure their needs are taken care of, even if I impose my wants over theirs..

NOT off-topic! The choice of feeding vegan is a choice based on compassion. It's simply true that the animals we live with, however they came to be here, are under our control (well, supposedly! See kydie's hilarious post!) We all hope and try to be good care-takers, right?

 

Until there are no more pets, until a time when we can look at animals not as food or property, but as friends and neighbors with their own lives to live, until we can share the world with them with respect for habitat and some restraint on our own whims and desires, adopting animals is the higher good. What we feed them then becomes a worthwhile question in the larger context of that respect for life. Including our own, I want to keep adding! We're all in this together!

 

You and I totally agree on the ethical scale: "My scale is based on what is ideal, not what is doable." Your ideal seems to be to feed the meat diet you feel your dogs evolved to eat. My ideal is to feed them a diet they will thrive on, which I hope to remove animal products from entirely. We're really not so far apart in our bottom line of wanting the best health for our pets. I'm just choosing to include the welfare of lots of other animals (including us humans) in the equation. It does complicate things for me, but I'm already such a complicated person!

Absolutely. Very well put. I might take issue with the bolded statement as it implies that my choices do NOT take the welfare of other animals into account and I would disagree with that statement, but I am certain our definitions of how one does that are quite different.

Can you put your definition into words here? I am interested. Honestly.

 

Totally unscientific experiment I performed this morning.

 

Sadie loves salad, she is a lettuce FIEND. So I offered at the same time a piece of lettuce and a smaller piece of roast beef. She ate the roast beef without hesitation first. Then she ate the lettuce.

 

I don't agree with feeding a dog a vegan diet. I have a dog who does not respond well to grains, carbohydrates, fruits, or veggies, but does fantastically on a raw diet. Since being in school they have been put on a mainly kibble diet but still get a raw dinner a few times a week. (I'm in school not the dogs )...

 

I think every person has the right to decide what to eat, whether for health reasons, ethical reasons, or both. I don't think it's wise to push our ethical choices on dogs though. Dogs don't live by the morality that we do and naturally eat meat. Yes, they'll eat other foods but it's not optimal.

 

While I have toyed with the idea of being a vegetarian, I would not force that choice on my dog.

Love your "experiment"!

You know, I keep reading these stories about pets with this or that health issue that cleared up on a vegan diet. They're surprising ones, too, specifically digestive issues. Even UTIs, which makes me wonder about what we think we understand about them. More on that below.

 

As for forcing a vegetarian diet on my dogs, I'll just say again that I'm not doing anything to them that they don't enjoy. I just let them lick out the pot I prepared their dinner in, and you should have seen them, Brilly and Wabi both trying to stick their heads in at the same time, getting gloop on their eyebrows! Pushing and forcing are not happening in the sense of doing something against their will. I am choosing for them, like some choose to feed kibble, or canned, or even all meat. Again, it's important to be aware that you are choosing for your pets every bit as much as I am, based on your own beliefs (researched or assumed).

 

...{trimming because I had more than the allowable quote blocks, but lots of good points in here MerlinsMum}

 

This, sadly, is a point that cannot be emphasized enough. Dogs are not like cats, who are obligate carnivores. My vet is fully supportive of my efforts to transition my dogs to a vegan diet as long as I feed a balanced diet. The thing is, people tend to equate "balanced" with "meat-based", but this is a false equation - one that is based on a misunderstanding of the basic principles of nutrition.

 

Xan, I have nothing but admiration for your efforts to feed your animal companions a home-cooked diet. I have only tried kibble brands so far, as I am always rushing and never have time to do a thing, but since your efforts seem to have been so successful thus far, I'm inclined to ask, nay beg for details of the meal chart you came up with! I will give anything a go, and I'll just have to set aside more time, then that's what I'll do. The inconvenience that may cause to me is not comparable to the suffering endured by the 10 billion animals we slaughter for food (and that's just land animals) every year in the United States alone.

 

My dogs LOVE their veggies and their fruit. They whine if they don't get them with their meals. I add all sorts of stuff to their food.

 

Xan - this is a podcast Prof. Francione created a while ago on non-vegan cats. When I get home I'll dig out an old podcast by the VeganFreak folks during which they talked about how they transitioned their companions - I seem to recall that one of their cats is not vegan because he is prone to UTIs as it is and a vegan diet in male cats in that condition is not advisable.

Yes, cats, especially neutered male cats of the senior persuasion (like two of mine) need a diet low in carbs, high in protein, and of course all the other stuff in the right balance. A vegan diet might seem hard to get that right, and I have not started that area of research yet, but in my research for the dogs, I have repeatedly come across discussions of cats being successfully fed vegan diets, including those who were former sufferers of UTIs. I'm anxious to get more into this area.

Thanks for the podcast link. I'll check it out!

Email me, and I'll send you my spreadsheet.

 

Power brings with it a responsibility to use it wisely, which often means NOT using it just because we can and feel like it.

 

 

That's the Natural issue.

 

No, despite my deification, there is a definite difference between me immersing my pet goldfish in a large tank of water for several weeks and immersing my dog in one. One is "naturally" aquatic. the other fears lawn sprinklers. As a responsible God I try not to ignore the physiology of my worshippers.

 

Okay, what's next?

 

Only my sincere hope that this experiment turns out well for the pupper. Gods and doctors bury their mistakes

 

~D~

This feels like a pretty aggressive post. I'm wondering why it is you feel so ... angry? Do I strike you as being whimsical about this? Off-hand or shallow? Do I seem to be cavalier about the needs of my pets?

 

Read back. I know I certainly have written a LOT. Hopefully, you'll see that I take this very seriously. I have no intention, for instance, of making my dogs breathe under water, or even eat anything they can't digest. Okay?

 

I just wanted to throw in this bit from Natural Health for Pets, by Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D. & Susan Hubble Pitcairn. In a discussion about vegetarianism, he offers a long list of statistics showing the health benefits to humans. He asks himself,

Why these differences? For one thing, research indicates that meat fat favors the production of certain carcinogens in the intestines. But perhaps even more critical are the toxins that accumulate in animal tissues. The chemical pollution of breast milk in American women averages 35 times higher than that of complete vegetarians.

He then goes into a discussion of how a vegetarian diet for cats and dogs compares to a meat-centered diet.

Although the dog prefers meat, both is physiology and behavior indicate that it is better classes as an opportunistic omnivore - an animal that can meet its needs from a wide variety of sources. [...] In fact, a three-generation test found that dogs fed meat as a sole source of protein, along with other essential elements, had difficulties producing adequate milk for their young, as compared with dogs fed a diet that included milk and vegetables.

 

[...] Yet, such a diet may not be best for today's domesticated pets. Their needs may differ from those of their hunting ancestors who got more exercise, lived in purer environments and often, by necessity, fasted between large meals. Thus their bodies could cleanse themselves more easily, eliminating uric acid and other waste products of meat metabolism.

 

Our primary health concern about feeding meat to dogs and cats, however, is that meat is now the most polluted food source on the market. [...]

 

The long-term effect of all this toxic material - particularly the pesticides and heavy metals - may be increased cancer rates, allergies, infections, kidney and liver problems, irritabiity and hyperactivity for our pets.

His bottom line is not a resounding support for vegetarianism in dogs, but accepts it can be done. He's not thrilled about veganism. Cats he is even more skeptical about. This book, however, was published in 1995, and a lot of the research regarding animal nutrition I've found has been more recent.

[Xan]

Regarding the "prisoner" thing. I haven't seen anyone suggest that our relationship with dogs particularly, but other animals as well, is co-evolutionary. That they have evolved to coexist with us for mutually beneficial reasons. We give them a sense of security, and they give us back. We hedge against their extinction which gives them a huge advantage over other critters in the world. Dogs ride our coat-tails to evolutionary success. It makes sense that they could be omnivores to easily coexist with us.

Oh yeah! This is such an interesting concept. It kind of messed with my head the first time we talked about it, but it's grown on me, as it makes the most sense, evolutionarily.

 

OK, let's try environmental economies for the vegitarian/vegan choice (one of my arguments). It takes 300 liters of water to make a liter of ale. it takes 16,000 liters of water to make a kg of beef. If you ain't got the water (and we don't) beef makes no sense. Ale on the other hand...

BTW, DH here is a water treatment guy, and has seen close-up-and-personal the water issues of the world. He knows whereof he speaks!

[MaryJane]

I love that you are so "informed" about your choice that you have been able to counter with plausible arguments to objections and do it in a friendly manner ....

 

I've been a vegetarian for years and within the past year moved to a vegan diet. But, I've never had the time to fully investigate moving my dogs to a vegetarian diet so I would be very interested in research that you have done for any diets that you formulate and the results (if you care to share).

[Guest scfilby]

I love that you are so "informed" about your choice that you have been able to counter with plausible arguments to objections and do it in a friendly manner ....

 

[Guest sheila]

Just for the record I have a friend who actually spoon feeds her three dogs. They line up in front of her while she gives each one a spoonful and they all take their turn. I also think this is nuts and I've told her so to her face. She laughs when I say it and I laugh with her. Whatever floats your boat baby is our motto.

[Xan]

Thanks MaryJane and scfilby. I've been a vegan/vegetarian long enough to know this is a really touchy subject for so many people. I want to draw back the veil, or make it non-threatening as much as I can, so people can have a serious discussion, with logic, rationality, and respect. Humor even! When rocks start flying, everyone just hunkers down behind their respective fortifications, and no discussion is possible. I'm glad this has remained as calm as it has!

 

If you'd like to download a copy of the spreadsheet, and my bookmarked research (some of it, anyway - what I remembered to bookmark), email me. If you're a newbie and can't use the system yet, quick go post a bunch, then email me!

[Guest Bang_o_rama]

 

Power brings with it a responsibility to use it wisely, which often means NOT using it just because we can and feel like it.

 

That's the Natural issue.

 

No, despite my deification, there is a definite difference between me immersing my pet goldfish in a large tank of water for several weeks and immersing my dog in one. One is "naturally" aquatic. the other fears lawn sprinklers. As a responsible God I try not to ignore the physiology of my worshippers.

 

Okay, what's next?

 

Only my sincere hope that this experiment turns out well for the pupper. Gods and doctors bury their mistakes

 

~D~

This feels like a pretty aggressive post. I'm wondering why it is you feel so ... angry? Do I strike you as being whimsical about this? Off-hand or shallow? Do I seem to be cavalier about the needs of my pets?

 

Xan,

 

Not even a smidge of anger. Aggression only in the sense that I wished to express myself on the topic. Anything else is just me being my usual NY/NJ self (without the blackjack and cement overshoes) and my preference for a bit of humor in all things. I express actual anger in ALL CAPS. For aggression I add MULTIPLE EXCLAMATIONS!!! And profanity. Hey, I'm from Bayonne!

 

Also, as an atheist, I have a habit of cracking wise whenever the word "God" appears. For which I will surely burn in hell for all eternity.

 

Do I think you are being:

Whimsical? No.

Offhand or Shallow: No.

Cavalier? No.

Mistaken? Yes.

 

Again, my sincere hope is that, if you persist in this course, all goes very well for the carnivorous mammals under your care. I wish harm to none*.

 

Dave

 

*Unless I plan on eating them.

[Guest kydie]

I too understand the theory of diet and cancer,,,, but and I say,,, but,,,, as a long time nurse,,, I beleive cancer is genetic,,, and follows blood lines,,,, no debate here,,, in all living things,,,, oseto in our grey friends is due to the continued breeding of dogs that carry this gene from one generation to the next,,,, O.K.,, now all of you out there that have siblings will write "well my dog didn't get it,,, but others in this litter did" statisticaly 1 out of 7 is not good odds,, It is admeriable we are looking for ways to help our pups live a longer better life,, and this is quite interesting,,, but reality will tell you you CAN NOT BEAT THE ODDS,,, thanks Xan,,, for some interesting thoughts

[Guest Bang_o_rama]

I too understand the theory of diet and cancer,,,, but and I say,,, but,,,, as a long time nurse,,, I beleive cancer is genetic,,, and follows blood lines,,,, no debate here,,, in all living things,,,, oseto in our grey friends is due to the continued breeding of dogs that carry this gene from one generation to the next,,,, O.K.,, now all of you out there that have siblings will write "well my dog didn't get it,,, but others in this litter did" statisticaly 1 out of 7 is not good odds,, It is admeriable we are looking for ways to help our pups live a longer better life,, and this is quite interesting,,, but reality will tell you you CAN NOT BEAT THE ODDS,,, thanks Xan,,, for some interesting thoughts

 

But 6/7 = approx. 87% do "beat the odds", so the odds are not THAT bad....

~D~

[MerlinsMum]

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things for those who have expressed perplexity about why an ethical vegan would choose to switch his or her companions to a cruelty-free diet too. This is a dog-centered forum, so it is natural for everyone to be looking at this only from a dog's perspective. But look at this from the perspective of a cow or a pig for a moment. As an ethical vegan, my commitment is not just to the dogs in my care, but to other sentient beings as well. Cows are sentient beings, just like dogs. They are perceptually aware, experience panic & fear, grief and joy, just like your dogs do. Both can suffer. There is absolutely no ethical distinction whatsoever between someone taking a cow's life and someone taking your dog's life. The only difference is that the cow is a stranger to you, and your dog is not - you love him or her very much. Because you got to know her - her personality, her fixations, her good days and bad days. But we are so isolated from the animals that are brought to life just to killed and turned into meat. We rarely see them. We're not there to watch when dairy cows cry in grief at being separated from their babies, so we don't see that reality. Everything happens behind hidden doors, and most of our ideas about them are based on pretty (and pretty misleading) fancy commercials where "happy cows" are mooing, happy to give up the milk intended for their calves to humans who don't actually need it. But these cows - these numbers with a pierced tag in their ears - are all individuals. We just choose to ignore that fact.

 

So this is the dilemma for vegans. How can we say that we reject the commodification of non-human animals, if we do so only where it concerns our own food, but not our companion animals' food? How can we reject violence in the consumption of our daily meals, yet condone violence when ti comes to our dogs' meals? The answer is that we can't. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that canis familiaris does very well on a balanced vegan diet. So no, the reason we feel compelled to feed our dogs a vegan diet is not because we are 'akin to religious fundamentalists' (a baseless and really rather unfortunate statement by someone earlier in this thread) - it is because there is value in consistency.

 

Someone else put this more eloquently than I could: Strangely enough, if one is consistent in defending all animals, one is called an extremist. If, on the other hand, one is not morally consistent, and defends only some animals one is criticized for being inconsistent. So apparently, the choice is between either being morally inconsistent or being seen as an 'extremist'. I’d rather choose the latter, since justice requires moral consistency, and I am a strong believer in truth and justice. (Kenneth Cassar)

 

Hope that helps to explain our reasoning a bit more.

[Hubcitypam]

I am not vegan, though I live with a vegan (Xan). At home I eat vegetarian- no meat in the house, for health reasons. Xan's veganism doesn't threaten me in the least, and I am puzzled why it gets such heat here.

I think it is getting such heat here for exactly why this thread was posted in the first place -- as an attention getter.

[NeylasMom]

Has anyone expressed perplexity? I think most if not all of us just disagree. You know, there is another option, which is to not have pets that are designed to eat meat as companion animals if your ethics don't allow you to feed them accordingly. I'm not necessarily saying this should be your choice, just that it is one, just as your decision to be vegan is a choice.

 

Absolutely. Very well put. I might take issue with the bolded statement as it implies that my choices do NOT take the welfare of other animals into account and I would disagree with that statement, but I am certain our definitions of how one does that are quite different.

Can you put your definition into words here? I am interested. Honestly.

The brief answer is that I source the meat I eat and the meat I feed my dogs as much as possible from local farms where they are raised humanely and naturally (there's that word again ;P) ), not CAFO meat, which in addition to being raised inhumanely raises a lot of health and environmental concerns for me.

[Trudy]

There is absolutely no ethical distinction whatsoever between someone taking a cow's life and someone taking your dog's life. The only difference is that the cow is a stranger to you, and your dog is not - you love him or her very much.

 

But these cows - these numbers with a pierced tag in their ears - are all individuals. We just choose to ignore that fact.

 

 

Sure there is. My greys were bred and raised for a purpose, just like those dairy cows. When they were done with their first purpose, their second was to live life as a pet. Distinction - both bred for a purpose, but only the cow was bred to be dinner for somebody/something.

How many cows do you know are just bred as pets? Very few. Dogs are around typically as pets, some with a working purpose. If we were a society where dogs were bred for food instead of pets, well, things would probably be a bit different.

 

Some people choose to ignore that fact, but not everybody. I eat beef now and then. I am aware of what happened to that cow before it showed up in my refrigerator/grill/plate/belly. I know the chicken in my freezer didn't lead the happiest life around. Just because I don't choose to NOT eat them doesn't mean I ignore that they are "individuals"

 

 

 

As for Xan feeding her dogs a vegan diet. If she can make it work and her dogs do as well as they were before, more power to her. I don't agree with it and it isn't something I'd personally choose, but I know that if it doesn't work for any of her dogs, she'll change to something that will.

[Wonder]

I don't really care, just stopped in to see if fists were flying yet

Edited July 31, 2010 by Wonder

[Guest mcsheltie]

I have read one page of this thread and am a bit dismayed. But decided to reply anyway because I doubt anyone has contributed this information. I will leave out my thoughts on this particular diet, I am sure you don't want to hear them!

 

What I want to comment on is creating a homemade recipe. You DO NOT want to go by AAFCO guidelines. You want to use the NRC guidelines.

 

AAFCO was established by the pet food industry. It is not an independent organization. It is run by representatives of the pet food manufactures. Their numbers were established 25 years ago and other than the calcium/phosphorous ratio they give only minimal regard to the relationships of different nutrients to each other and how they affect and interact with each other. Their numbers are way above the current daily recommended allowances for two reasons.

-First, when they established their guidelines all kibble contained a high amount of grain. Grains contain phytates which bind minerals, so their numbers are higher to compensate for that. That isn't something we want to calculate into a homemade diet. The numbers are antiquated and have not changed, even with the advent of grain free pet food.

-Second, AAFCO amounts are higher because kibble has to be correct for more than one dog. The manufacturers walk a fine line between ensuring there are enough nutrients for a dog with a less than normal appetite but are not so excessive as to harm a dog who eats more than normal.

 

NRC is an independent body. They came up with their numbers by reviewing research done worldwide on each nutrient by universities, independent research agencies, government agencies, pet food companies, etc. The NRC looks at the entire body of work and is constantly reviewing their guidelines. They have established ratios for the correct interaction of vitamins and minerals. You will find the NRC numbers are far lower.

 

NRC amounts are tailored to the individual. If you've got a dog who eats more, you can still keep vitamins/minerals where they need to be and add more calories through fat or by manipulating food amounts so they don't have a negative impact on the overall balance of the diet. (Excel spreadsheets are invaluable here) Using the NRC numbers also works in your favor if you are feeding a number of dogs. You can figure a base diet that covers the nutrient requirements for dogs 60-70 lbs. And then add or subtract calories for the hard or easy keepers.

 

Like AAFCO, NRC does provide a table for minimum values. But also has a completely separately a table that lets you calculate daily nutrient requirements based on a dog's individual body weight. The reason why this is so important is that dog's nutrient needs do not increase linearly - meaning a 150 pound Great Dame doesn't need 10 times the amount of nutrients as 15 pound Jack Russell Terrier. But the Jack needs far more calories per pound than the Dane. Another example, my Breeze (65 lb GH female) needs about 2,600 kcal per day to maintain a good weight, where a 65 pound dog with an average metabolism is usually somewhere in a range between 825 to 1,625 kcal. Yet we have to deliver the same amounts of vitamins, minerals, etc., to both dogs. If I am feeding a diet based on the AFFCO numbers in order to get the calories she needs she would be consuming at least double the amount of the other nutrients. Not good!

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Be very sure of your research. Here are some things that might help you. I am sure there are more, this is all I can think of right now. Amino acids found in plants are incomplete, they do not contain the complete profile that dogs & cats require. There is a difference between preformed Vitamin A (found in animal sources) and Beta Carotene. The amount needed to fulfill the nutritional requires is very different. Make sure you check that out. If the only Vitamin K supplement you can find is synthetic, do not use it. It causes toxic reactions in dogs and several research bodies have been trying to get it taken off the market. If you use synthetic or plant based Vit E you need to provide 2x the daily requirement as it is not bioavailable to the dog. The easiest (and less expensive) source of a Vit/Min supplement would be to find a good human product that meets your ethical requirement and dose from there. Human supps are based on a 180 lb person. You can easily figure your dogs requirements from the NRC chart. It takes a calculator and about 20 minutes to completely do it. If you need more info on this or Vit K let me know.

Edited July 31, 2010 by mcsheltie

[Guest babyphoenix]

Xan, this is really interesting! hadn't put much thought into it until this thread. As a borderline vegetarian (mostly because of, what i feel is, lack of commitment to food safety in this country) I can empathize with your reasoning and wish you the best!

 

on a side note, i happened to be at the meat counter in the grocery store today (we usually buy our meat from a local farmer where the cows are all grass-fed, but we were out and i needed it tonite) and on the big sign behind the counter they were bragging about the fact that the black angus beef was "corn fed". um, isn't that the first problem with meat production these days? bleh. if my husband weren't depending on the gr beef i would've skipped it altogether.

 

Good luck with this. I'll be interested to hear how it all goes for both you (preparation and cost-wise) and the dogs!

[Guest Swifthounds]

Not a door slam, Xan, but until you can convince me that canines did not evolve (or were created 6000 or so years ago) to be carnivores or have suddenly become herbivores, no thanks. It seems at best pointless and at worst unhealthy for the dog. Unless you propose that carnivory is inherently immoral, in which case all sorts of animals are deluded or evil beasts. Including whales. And I am fond of marine mammals.

Dave (unethical omnivore)

 

 

You seem to be saying that domestic herbivores were designed by nature to live in pens, eat commercially prepared foods full of chemicals, and to walk calmly into abattoirs to be naturally shot or thumped in the head to be parted out by machine-wielding humans for various uses. I know that's not what you meant, exactly. I just can't be reassured by this argument that it's alright to sacrifice my fellow creatures. I just can't do it, or be responsible for it.

 

I am absolutely saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that carnivores are designed/evolved/created/whatever to consume other living things, just as herbivores like horses and rabbits and ruminants were designed/evolved/created/whatever to survive on vegetation. The implications associated with the American food industry in which animals (chickens, cattle, hogs, ducks, turkeys, lambs and sheep) are raised and killed, largely after having been raised on factory farms under inhumane conditions is a separate issue. A dog is neither complicit because he is a carnivore, nor unethical because the American food industry is inhumane. Biology makes the dog a carnivore. The only reason that that carnivore has reason to have involvement in the American food industry is the complicity of the dog's human keepers in supporting such and industry, if they so choose, and the actions of those humans to stifle the natural food procurement of a carnivore.

 

Violence takes many forms, not all of them readily apparent in the short term. Here's hoping there are no ill effects down the line.

 

I already have these pets, and have had them, and cared for them, for many years (my oldest cat is 14, for instance, and still running around taking pot shots at humans and dogs alike! ). I'm not going to do anything to them to hurt them. It's going to be okay. I sacrifice a lot for my pets, and they in turn sacrifice for me, though they don't know it. They sacrifice running freely (until they get hit by cars), and hunting for their own food ('til they get too worm-ridden or beat up), and they don't get to breed, either. Luckily, they seem pretty happy to eat out of a bowl, sleep on the couch, and have the occasional air-hump. The life of a pet is a compromise. That really can't be sustainably denied, can it?

 

Life is a compromise. Certainly dogs don't get to run freely without risk of being hit by a car, but that's not by virtue of their being pets, but rather because that's the compromise we strike so that we can have cars and dogs. There are, however, lots of dogs breeding and not a whole lot of carnivores getting beat up or worm-ridden hunting for their food - quite the opposite.

 

Older pets can certainly benefit from a vegan diet. Meat is hard to digest, though high in the nutrients that dogs need.

 

Hard to digest as compared to what?

 

How did you figure out your omegas were off? I never even heard of them before a few years ago, and I've been eating flax ever since, but I can't say I've noticed much of a difference I could pin to that specifically. What did you notice? How did your vegetarian diet make you sick?

 

This was not directed at me, but Omega 3s (and the proper balancing of omega 3s and 6s) are a particular concern both for dogs and people. Whether vegetarian, vegan, or the average American eating corn fed beef, omega 6s in the diet will be high without sources high in omega 6s, causing an imbalance. The Omega 3s in flax, for example, are not as bioavailable for a dog as the omega 3s in fish oils - and then there's the issue of all the omega 6s....

 

 

Not a door slam, Xan, but until you can convince me that canines did not evolve (or were created 6000 or so years ago) to be carnivores or have suddenly become herbivores, no thanks. It seems at best pointless and at worst unhealthy for the dog. Unless you propose that carnivory is inherently immoral, in which case all sorts of animals are deluded or evil beasts. Including whales. And I am fond of marine mammals.

Dave (unethical omnivore)

 

 

The point about dogs' wild relatives and what they eat is really ON topic, in that it demonstrates (if you actually do look into the wide sea of literature) that canids are omnivores, and adapt their diet to what's available. If they can eat meat, they will. If they can't, they'll work it out or go somewhere else, but it's amazing how adaptable they truly are.

 

That description fits almost all carnivores, though it's less applicable to obligate carnivores. All carnivores can and will eat things other than animals to survive.

 

Until there are no more pets, until a time when we can look at animals not as food or property, but as friends and neighbors with their own lives to live, until we can share the world with them with respect for habitat and some restraint on our own whims and desires, adopting animals is the higher good. What we feed them then becomes a worthwhile question in the larger context of that respect for life. Including our own, I want to keep adding! We're all in this together!

 

We could look at them as friends and neighbors rather than imposing our will on them, but then they'd be hunting prey and being hit by cars...

 

I think every person has the right to decide what to eat, whether for health reasons, ethical reasons, or both. I don't think it's wise to push our ethical choices on dogs though. Dogs don't live by the morality that we do and naturally eat meat. Yes, they'll eat other foods but it's not optimal.

 

While I have toyed with the idea of being a vegetarian, I would not force that choice on my dog.

 

 

No, despite my deification, there is a definite difference between me immersing my pet goldfish in a large tank of water for several weeks and immersing my dog in one. One is "naturally" aquatic. the other fears lawn sprinklers. As a responsible God I try not to ignore the physiology of my worshippers.

 

 

I have read one page of this thread and am a bit dismayed. But decided to reply anyway because I doubt anyone has contributed this information. I will leave out my thoughts on this particular diet, I am sure you don't want to hear them!

 

What I want to comment on is creating a homemade recipe. You DO NOT want to go by AAFCO guidelines. You want to use the NRC guidelines.

 

AAFCO was established by the pet food industry. It is not an independent organization. It is run by representatives of the pet food manufactures. Their numbers were established 25 years ago and other than the calcium/phosphorous ratio they give only minimal regard to the relationships of different nutrients to each other and how they affect and interact with each other. Their numbers are way above the current daily recommended allowances for two reasons.

 

[Guest kydie]

No they do not beat the odds,,, they develope cancer,, and pet owners, treat the cancer,,, as best they can,,,, 6/7 still develope cancer,,, we are not talking intervention with treatment here

[Batmom]

How many people here calculate out that their dog is getting the appropriate nutrients? Either by AAFCO or NRC, you don't have to specify.