Feeding My Dogs A Vegan Diet

[Guest Swifthounds]

We might need a new poll for that

[Batmom]

Nah, I already know the answer in most cases.

[PatricksMom]

Xan, I won't try to deal with the multiple quotes since I always mess them up, but to answer your question about omega 3s.

 

The research I did on humans and omega 3s strongly suggested (even in the books I read on veganism) that flax seed is a significantly inferior source, not to mention the link to prostate cancer in men (no idea if that is true in dogs).

 

Part of what I observed from changing back to a high omega 3 diet (3 servings of fish a week on average, and taking supplements) was a significant improvement in cholesterol levels, as well as pyschological improvements that were very important. You are correct that there is no test (that I know of) for omega 3 levels, but they are very important in the body for controlling inflamation, thus limiting, among other things, heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers.

 

I have recently done a fair bit of research on omega 3s and arthritis in canines and humans, and the connection is definitly there in terms of academic papers. Personally I choose fish oil supplements for Patrick to avoid having to add an NSAID to his med. regime because it is certainly seemed much safer. And of course, from an ethical perspective, any NSAID he took would have been tested on animals--hard choices. Both of us consume the human grade stuff.

 

As for my side effects, they were mainly psychological, showing up in bloodwork and poor energy levels. I did do my homework, and ate a well balanced diet high in produce, mostly protein from unprocessed sources (i.e. beans), and soy that was largely fermented (tofu, miso, etc., since the American fascination with soy meat substitutes seems to be bad for one's health). I took a woman's multi-vitamin, and flax oil supplements, but those didn't seem to cut it. I gave it a real try for over a year, but my health seemed to be deteriorating, not stabilizing or improving.

 

Anyway, that's why I was curious about how you were handling the Omega 3s and the B complex vitamins, and why I think that while some dogs may do just fine on a vegan diet that doesn't mean all or even most necessarily will, particularly in the long run.

[Guest Swifthounds]

Xan, I won't try to deal with the multiple quotes since I always mess them up, but to answer your question about omega 3s.

 

The research I did on humans and omega 3s strongly suggested (even in the books I read on veganism) that flax seed is a significantly inferior source, not to mention the link to prostate cancer in men (no idea if that is true in dogs).

 

Part of what I observed from changing back to a high omega 3 diet (3 servings of fish a week on average, and taking supplements) was a significant improvement in cholesterol levels, as well as pyschological improvements that were very important. You are correct that there is no test (that I know of) for omega 3 levels, but they are very important in the body for controlling inflamation, thus limiting, among other things, heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers.

 

I have recently done a fair bit of research on omega 3s and arthritis in canines and humans, and the connection is definitly there in terms of academic papers. Personally I choose fish oil supplements for Patrick to avoid having to add an NSAID to his med. regime because it is certainly seemed much safer. And of course, from an ethical perspective, any NSAID he took would have been tested on animals--hard choices. Both of us consume the human grade stuff.

 

As for my side effects, they were mainly psychological, showing up in bloodwork and poor energy levels. I did do my homework, and ate a well balanced diet high in produce, mostly protein from unprocessed sources (i.e. beans), and soy that was largely fermented (tofu, miso, etc., since the American fascination with soy meat substitutes seems to be bad for one's health). I took a woman's multi-vitamin, and flax oil supplements, but those didn't seem to cut it. I gave it a real try for over a year, but my health seemed to be deteriorating, not stabilizing or improving.

 

Anyway, that's why I was curious about how you were handling the Omega 3s and the B complex vitamins, and why I think that while some dogs may do just fine on a vegan diet that doesn't mean all or even most necessarily will, particularly in the long run.

 

[MerlinsMum]

The research I did on humans and omega 3s strongly suggested (even in the books I read on veganism) that flax seed is a significantly inferior source, not to mention the link to prostate cancer in men (no idea if that is true in dogs).

 

For what it's worth, I switched my two away from Grizzly Salmon oil and started giving them flaxseed oil quite some time ago - and their coat is better than ever, plus they don't fart as much. I won't be going back. My decision is based on ethical considerations - the oceans are dying and fish aren't our property - and also safety. Levels of mercury in fish are ubiquitous.

 

As for your statement about prostate cancer, I think it's irresponsible to throw around statements about flaxseed oil and cancer without clarifying or backing them up. The fact remains that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence of a link between flaxseed oil and prostate cancer. Several studies have been conducted, and they all offered contradictory results. However, a 2006 study involving 29,000 men showed no correlation between ALAs and prostate cancer. Not one study has been published proving a link between flaxseed oil and prostate cancer or any other kind of cancer. Additionally, some of the lab results that have shown a positive correlation did not take into account diet. These men were consuming ALA from fatty meat sources and consuming dairy, both of which are packed with trans-fatty acids and correlate with an increased risk of cancer anyway, including prostate cancer. Interestingly, the studies conducted on men on a low-fat diet showed that flaxseed oil was reducing the growth rate of prostate cancer cells and acting as a preventive for the development of prostate cancer by lowering men's blood prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.

 

In any event, if anyone is worried, there is no need to go back to fish oil - use ground flax seed instead of flaxseed oil.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for taking precautions. However, with respect, I do think that statements should really be put in their proper context.

[greyhoundlady]

You sound like a very caring person about all living things. I commend you for that. Honestly, though, some animals were created to eat meat - including dogs. If left to their own devices I doubt they would run in a field and graze on grain. Some animals are created for that. You most likely won't harm your dogs since you are obviously doing tons of research and making sure they are healthy. But what would your dogs do, if given a choice?

Just my view. My guys love their meat - also eggs, fish, etc.

Edited July 31, 2010 by greyhoundlady

[Guest hblackburn]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I know Xan well and she is interested in a serious discussion, and input.

[Guest hblackburn]

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.

You are wrong on this one. I know Xan well, and this is a very serious discussion for here, the humorous bits notwithstanding.

[Trudy]

But what would your dogs do, if given a choice?

 

Sit by the door at a fast food joint looking for hand outs of whatever

[MerlinsMum]

.... and I think this thread IS generating an interesting discussion. Whenever people have disagreed, Xan has been incredibly gracious, even when ignorant and offensive statements have been thrown at her. There is no doubt at all in my mind that she started this thread to create a good, constructive debate on this issue. So, thanks!

 

greyhoundlady - my two greys have never been as excited about food as when I started to feed them vegan kibble. They danced around like crazy whenever I went near the bag. They much preferred it to their meat kibble. And they LOVE their fruit and veggies. So yes, given the choice, they would opt for that every time.

[greyhoundlady]

But what would your dogs do, if given a choice?

 

Sit by the door at a fast food joint looking for hand outs of whatever

 

 

.... and I think this thread IS generating an interesting discussion. Whenever people have disagreed, Xan has been incredibly gracious, even when ignorant and offensive statements have been thrown at her. There is no doubt at all in my mind that she started this thread to create a good, constructive debate on this issue. So, thanks!

 

greyhoundlady - my two greys have never been as excited about food as when I started to feed them vegan kibble. They danced around like crazy whenever I went near the bag. They much preferred it to their meat kibble. And they LOVE their fruit and veggies. So yes, given the choice, they would opt for that every time.

 

 

 

Yes, Trudy, fast food would be high on the list for my two. In fact, while on vacation we stopped at an Arby's and they decided on the roast beef - minus the bun.

 

Merlins Mum - I really don't mean to imply that vegan is wrong. Whatever your guys enjoy, that is fantastic because they are healthy. I have a really good friend who is also a vegan and feeds her grey non-meat kibble. But it is fish based, so I am not sure if that is pure vegan or not.

 

At any rate good discussion on all topics here is fantastic so that everyone can get different perspectives. What works for some, doesn't work for others. I am so glad these greyhounds have such good caring people. That is what really counts.

[silverfish]

I'm afraid I'm one of the 'what, are you crazy' voters. Yep, dogs are carnivores, alright, just look at their teeth. NO grinding surfaces, just tearing and chopping. They are certainly opportunists who will eat what they can find - cats aren't, as you know - but their preference will be for meat first (lean or greasy) then whatever else is offered. Their metabolism is geared up to digest that balance of food. Cats are even more 'animal' oriented, with a metabolism that digests fats best of all, followed by meat. They don't cope well with large quantities of cereal/vegetable matter. They can exist on it, but they're not adapted for it, and wouldn't choose a vegetarian diet (let alone a vegan one) in a hundred years.

 

I appreciate your ethics and the time and care you're taking over this, but personally I think you're wrong to try. Your aim is to 'do no harm to any creature' and that is the highest ideal of all - much kudos to you for this, I am seriously full of admiration. But my own personal opinion is that by trying to feed dogs and (especially) cats a vegan diet you are probably going to do them some harm.

 

Even if you achieve your goal of making them food they are actually going to eat (and good luck with that, especially with the cats), and manage to maintain them longterm on a nutritionally balanced diet, there is going to be something missing in their lives, to do with quality of life. If you think this isn't going to be so, put them on your vegan diet for six months or so, and have someone throw them a single sausage. By watching their behaviour, I'm willing to be that it will be 100% clear to you that they are unhappy with a meat/animal product-free diet.

 

To put it bluntly, I wouldn't do it to a dog.

[Guest mcsheltie]

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.

Probably no one else but me. But what I found out was surprising. There were several glaring deficiencies and most homemade diets are lacking in the same areas. Just because people aren't doing it doesn't mean it ought not be done.

 

I posted because I saw Xan used AAFCO numbers to formulate her diet. And I was sharing info on the NRC and why those guidelines are better to follow. I also added some information people should know when formulating a diet. Especially when you are not using animal products in the diet. I believe both are relevant to this topic.

[Burpdog]

So yes, given the choice, they would opt for that every time

 

I have not read the entire thread which I plan on doing. My dogs would eat milk bones or candy if given a choice. Does that mean it's good for them?

 

I understand a person's right to choose for themselves, however, I don't believe switching what it is a natural meat eater to a vegan is appropriate.

 

I'll post again after I read the entire thread. I sincerely hope your animals long term do not suffer.

[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.

Probably no one else but me. But what I found out was surprising. There were several glaring deficiencies and most homemade diets are lacking in the same areas. Just because people aren't doing it doesn't mean it ought not be done.

 

I posted because I saw Xan used AAFCO numbers to formulate her diet. And I was sharing info on the NRC and why those guidelines are better to follow. I also added some information people should know when formulating a diet. Especially when you are not using animal products in the diet. I believe both are relevant to this topic.

 

Absolutely -- and I'm glad you did bring it up.

 

Not sure about "especially when you are not using animal products," though. As an example, most of the raw diets described by members of this board also have glaring deficiencies, some of which are potentially dangerous to bone health among other things.

 

Feeding a vegan diet to my dogs isn't something I've personally considered. But I'm not sure that a carefully tabulated vegan diet is inferior to most of the other homeprepped (including raw) diets fed, which are usually not tabulated/nutritionally evaluated at all. And it might turn out to be far superior.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Batmom

[Xan]

I'm going to respond in stages, since so much is here to respond to! I'm going to skip stuff if I feel I've already addressed it, so if you think I've missed your post, maybe look back at what I've already said for your answer.

 

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

Visual aid:

These young cows show up in early spring, ratty and scabby, tagged and skinny. They live in these meadows for the summer, and are moved on to their dairy/breeding/feedlot lives in the fall. They show a great deal of interest in us as we walk by, often following us along the fence, and approaching its electric wires carefully to check us out. This is the high point of their sad, short lives.

We do hear the cows crying for their babies in the summer and fall, and it's heartbreaking. Their calls echo all through our little valley.

The point that we can love what's familiar, and disassociate from strangers is an important one. Doesn't it seem important to be aware of this if you are an animal lover?

 

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.

Well, yes. I did want attention. Why would I post if I wanted everyone to ignore this discussion or if I didn't want any input? I do! I find it stimulating, for sure, but also useful. There has been some nutritional advice that has sent me off looking in areas I hadn't found yet, and I hope some people have also had a chance to consider reducing their pets' impact on the world in a new way because of this conversation. I hope there is more of all this!

 

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.

I addressed my choice about pets earlier, so I'll leave that, and congratulate you on taking this level of responsibility for your pets' food! I do remember now that you said that elsewhere. Thanks for putting it here in this conversation for those who may have missed it.

 

Sure there is [{an} ethical distinction whatsoever between someone taking a cow's life and someone taking your dog's life]. 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.

Trudy, thanks. I appreciate your vote of confidence in my concern for my dogs. But, your point about cows being bred for food making it alright to eat them, whereas dogs were bred to become pets, so it would not be alright to eat them, puzzles me, honestly. Is that really how you feel? Does it make a difference to the animal why it was bred when it comes time to get out of the truck either to the slaughterhouse or a new home? The dog certainly lucks out, but how is it for the cow? Should s/he be philosophical, knowing (somehow) that s/he is only meat on the hoof, after all? Will it make it all less scary or painful?

 

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.[...]

Wow! Thanks for all this info, seriously! I looked around a bit last night after reading this, and if this is what you're referring to, the report costs a low, low sale price of $265.50. Do you have access to the content of this report in some way that a lay person could get? I do find a chart or two that summarizes the differences in the AAFCO requirements and the NRC's, but I'm sure there's a lot more than that in all those pages.

 

Contrary to what you expect, I started this thread to hear what people think. This, for instance, is valuable information, and I'm glad you shared it! When people are being constructive or expressing strong feelings with the intent of actually communicating, making a difference, encouraging thought and rationality, that's when we can all learn! So, again, thanks for all this.

[Guest hblackburn]

So yes, given the choice, they would opt for that every time

 

I have not read the entire thread which I plan on doing. My dogs would eat milk bones or candy if given a choice. Does that mean it's good for them?

 

I understand a person's right to choose for themselves, however, I don't believe switching what it is a natural meat eater to a vegan is appropriate.

 

I'll post again after I read the entire thread. I sincerely hope your animals long term do not suffer.

Just reiterating, if dogs were obligate carnivores, they would not thrive in the streets of South America, Asia, Mayan indian villages in Mexico, etc. Why? because meat is a rare and valuable commodity for people in those places, let alone dogs. And yet, the dogs thrive and reproduce on their varied diet of catch as can rodents and whatever people leave around for them. It's not like we are talking northern Canadian wolves here, which are carnivores, as are the people who live there.

[Xan]

Alright, next bunch. Again, I'll edit to keep things a little more compact, and pass over things I've already addressed.

[...]

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.

As in, keeping dogs from hunting on their own?

Well, okay. This is logic, and I agree with what you have here, except to quibble about the term "carnivore". Canids are in the order Carnivore, which is a big group including bears, raccoons and the giant panda. In other words, there is a lot of variation in the diets of carnivores. Pandas famously live only on bamboo shoots! Dogs have evolved to live off whatever is available, selecting for high-protein food sources wherever possible, which of course includes animal sources. Agreed?

 

You do put the ethics at the door of humans and their choices correctly, and we already agree on that.

 

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.

Agreed and agreed. I do hope and will do whatever I can to make sure that my choices do NOT come under even the most elastic definition of violence.

 

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.

We're mostly referring to life in the States in this conversation, and I assume most of western Europe is probably much the same, but elsewhere life is different for dogs and humans. DH was telling me again about his observations in Cusco, Peru, of the dogs living alongside humans in the city streets, observing traffic and crossing when safe. I saw a fascinating documentary about stray dogs in urban settings who even learned the subway systems, and rode along for free on regular routes. Life is a compromise, or a lot of opportunities to adapt in new ways.

 

I don't get what you mean about carnivores not getting beat up or worm-ridden while living au naturale. Wild carnivores have a rough life. They get parasites, they get kicked, bitten, scratched and run ragged by their prey and their fellow hunters. Eventually, the injuries and insults to their tough bodies is too much, they can't hunt anymore, and they starve to death, or die of infection or whatever. Is this not what you were referring to?

 

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?

Let's say ground up cooked vegetable matter.

 

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.

Well, right. We assume we don't have to if the bag says it's complete nutrition, right?

 

Xan, I won't try to deal with the multiple quotes since I always mess them up, but to answer your question about omega 3s.[...]

Excellent stuff. So glad you were able to track down what worked for you.

Yes, I'm still studying the Omegas question. It's a fuzzy area with lots of conflicting research, but I'm very interested to find out what I can, especially as my Wabi has had arthritis since she was a year old. I read recently some promising stuff about celery seed which I plan to find out more about, specifically for arthritis. The Omegas question is still, as I say, open for me.

 

For what it's worth, I switched my two away from Grizzly Salmon oil and started giving them flaxseed oil quite some time ago - and their coat is better than ever, plus they don't fart as much. [...]

 

In any event, if anyone is worried, there is no need to go back to fish oil - use ground flax seed instead of flaxseed oil.[...]

I've read this in many places, which I find encouraging despite some lingering doubt about the bioavailability. The repeated stories of skin and coat improvement on a vegan diet may be as much about simplicity and quality of ingredients, freshness, stuff like that, since most traditionally available commercial diets are not probably as minimally processed nor as fresh, generally, nor sourced from consistently high-quality sources, nor produced in small batches which can be controlled more easily. I'm looking forward to seeing improvements in my crew, though none of them currently has much of a problem (Brilly has a few flakes from time to time).

 

But, why flax meal over flax oil?

[NeylasMom]

Xan, when you look into celery seed, look into it's nitrate content. No idea about the seeds, but celery juice is high in nitrates and is often used to cure "uncured" bacon, hot dogs, etc. often leaving them with a higher nitrate content than similar products cured the traditional way with a nitrate solution.

[Xan]

Okay, last bunch, then I'm moving on for the day!

 

You sound like a very caring person about all living things. I commend you for that. Honestly, though, some animals were created to eat meat - including dogs. If left to their own devices I doubt they would run in a field and graze on grain. Some animals are created for that. You most likely won't harm your dogs since you are obviously doing tons of research and making sure they are healthy. But what would your dogs do, if given a choice?

Just my view. My guys love their meat - also eggs, fish, etc.

We already discussed dogs' being evolved or created to eat meat, so I'll pass over that.

 

You bring up the choice question, which I haven't really gone into. (I had to laugh a little because I had to interrupt responding because DH was eating a carrot, and all three dogs jumped up and banged to be let out of my studio so they could go beg for some of the carrot! They do the same thing if they hear me cutting up an apple. How they can tell an apple over an onion from the other room I don't know, but they know! )

 

As others mention, dogs (being omnivores) would choose to eat poop, grass, fast food, ripe garbage, long dead carrion, candy, alcohol, even socks (ahem, WABI, I'm looking at YOU! ) They would also show evident enjoyment over any of these things, and you can add your list of animal products.

 

I choose for their health and the health of my bank account (the vet is so expensive!) not to allow them to eat a lot of the things on their long list of favorites. They honestly don't seem to pine over them. Dogs like what they're eating NOW. That's the beauty of being in the moment, right?

 

.... and I think this thread IS generating an interesting discussion. Whenever people have disagreed, Xan has been incredibly gracious, even when ignorant and offensive statements have been thrown at her. There is no doubt at all in my mind that she started this thread to create a good, constructive debate on this issue. So, thanks!

 

greyhoundlady - my two greys have never been as excited about food as when I started to feed them vegan kibble. They danced around like crazy whenever I went near the bag. They much preferred it to their meat kibble. And they LOVE their fruit and veggies. So yes, given the choice, they would opt for that every time.

Thanks, MerlinsMum.

 

I made my first batch of kibble last night. I can tell you now, I won't be doing that again any time soon! Whew!! It might be fine if I had 3 Italian greyhounds, but the quantities required to feed 3 regular greys is truly impressive when you're the one mixing whole bags of flour, quarts of water, cups of oil and supplements, then rolling, cutting, baking, flipping and baking, then breaking up and drying, then figuring out what to do with the finished kibble! It took me about 5 hours, plus more clean-up this morning, to do TWO DAYS worth of food! So, fresh food plus maybe commercial kibble for them!

 

They loved it, though, so that's good. Even though that's no measure of whether it's good for them in itself, at least I didn't have to force them to eat it. They picked it out of their regular kibble after lapping up the veggie soup, however, so I take it as a good pass on the palatability test.

 

[...]

Even if you achieve your goal of making them food they are actually going to eat (and good luck with that, especially with the cats), and manage to maintain them longterm on a nutritionally balanced diet, there is going to be something missing in their lives, to do with quality of life. If you think this isn't going to be so, put them on your vegan diet for six months or so, and have someone throw them a single sausage. By watching their behaviour, I'm willing to be that it will be 100% clear to you that they are unhappy with a meat/animal product-free diet.

 

To put it bluntly, I wouldn't do it to a dog.

Thanks for the confidence in my good intent, anyway. See above for palatability and choice discussion.

 

I tried another experimental recipe this morning. I made an amount of seitan, mixed with supplements, to equal the crude protein needs for the three dogs for one day. Seitan is 75% protein (though not complete, especially for dogs), so I knew it would be a lot less volume than the kibble. AND a lot easier! In an hour and a half (most of that simmer time on the stove), I had a bunch of spongy blobs of protein that the dogs love, and I can use to boost the protein in my recipes. It can be frozen, too, which is nice.

 

I am retracting my offer to share my spreadsheet for now, since it needs some re-work, and I'd like to take more of a look at the NRC info, if I can find it. I see I actually did use some of what I did run across, but not the basic nutritional needs list. I'm bothered that the available list only refers to growth levels, not maintenance, which is a big difference. Even so, it's much lower than than the AAFCO's lists. Lots to learn!

 

Xan, when you look into celery seed, look into it's nitrate content. No idea about the seeds, but celery juice is high in nitrates and is often used to cure "uncured" bacon, hot dogs, etc. often leaving them with a higher nitrate content than similar products cured the traditional way with a nitrate solution.

Interesting! Thanks. Will do!

[silverfish]

OK, I've now read through the entire thread.

 

Round 2 *ding*

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Dogs and cats are our prisoners. It's another way to look at our relationship. We're their gods. Their friends. Their guardians. Their prison keepers. We keep them locked up in houses, yards, on leashes. We only let them eat what we want them to. We make them sleep where we want them to. Some of us even keep them off the kitchen counters if you can believe that! You could even go so far as to say that the only reason they like us at all is because of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Or, you could say that we're symbiotes. We mutually give and receive the best we can for each other given the environment we are all in together. That's a lot nicer picture, but it's really a matter of perspective. I'm going for symbiosis, myself.

 

The better answer is that they are both prisoners and 'symbiotes' (not true symbiotes, and for those who don't know why not, there are dictionaries ). They offered themselves for domestication all that time ago, and have been very successful as a species on the strength of living with people. They have sacrificed a lot. Some individuals have sacrificed their lives - you only have to think of the cruelty and the callous euthanising that goes on to realise that not all dogs are benefitting individually from our special relationship.

 

But yes, they are definitely prisoners, unless you allow your dogs a choice of staying with you or leaving. Personally, I don't feel a new dog is truly 'mine' until we have got to that stage. I can leave my front door open while I talk with someone and not one of my dogs has ever taken the opportunity to escape. I also allow my dogs off lead in areas which are safe (by my standards) but not totally 100% secure, and I rely on their willingness to do my bidding for them to stay with me.

 

If you never allow your dog/s the opportunity to leave you, they are prisoners in the true sense of the word. They might be loved to death, cossetted, cared for, and no expense may be spared on their care, but they are still technically prisoners.

 

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?

 

The life of a pet is a compromise made for them by their forebears, yes. Would the forebears have made the choice to throw in their lot with humans if 1) they'd had the knowledge that their descendents would be imprisoned and made to eat a vegetarian diet (among many, many other things those wild dogs would have run screaming from) or 2) had the intelligence to think things through?

 

Incidentally, did you know there's a school of thought that says that a big contributor to the current epidemic of cancers and allergies and sensitivities among humans and animals is that we no longer carry parasites? Quite seriously, yes there is, and it seems to be gaining credibility. It's not too big a stretch if you think about it. Our immune systems used to be challenged on a regular basis by things our species had been challenged by for millennia. Without them, the animal's immune system can turn on itself - that's the theory in a nutshell. Then it responds to things it shouldn't respond to, and fails to respond to things that it should deal with.

 

 

I'm not sure how this is doing violence to my pets. It's not like I'm sticking them in a restraint, tilting their heads back and forcing vegetables down their throats. (That reminds me of something ... oh, right. Fois gras!) They LIKE it. They haven't even FARTED since I started this process, and oh, believe me, that's an improvement! So, you can relax about that, alright? It's really okay!

 

I wouldn't have put it in quite those terms, but while you're not sticking them in a restraint and force feeding them a la paté de foie gras (which by the way, even as a carnivore I have never, and will never touch), you aren't giving them a choice. If by that choice they suffer, then I suppose, in the very loosest sense, you would be doing them violence.

 

As to your statement about the bioavailability of nutrients, this had me concerned as well. It seems that as long as the food is broken up so there's time for the short digestive tract to get at the stuff, and perhaps with the help of some enzymes, this is not the issue I was worried it might be.

 

I am still concerned about that. How many sources have you read, and from where? And when you say 'broken up', how are you going to do that? It's true that we too are 'short digestive tract' animals and we manage, but scientific data supports most people's belief that we are omnivores, and we've had a long, long, time to adapt to eating cooked food. Dogs have only been eating cooked food since ... I dunno, but it can't be before the beginning of the 19th century, not to any degree. Commerical pet foods surely haven't been around that long? I know my own grandparents had no access to it.

 

 

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

 

Which could be due to so many factors - my favourite theory being that meat is so full of chemicals; antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides etc. Which is why I buy organic where possible - even for my dogs.

 

I'm not even going to try to suggest they "have suddenly become herbivores". They aren't herbivores. They're omnivores, similar to us (though more adapted to a primarily meat diet than we are). You can look it up, and you'll find quite a bit about dogs (and wild canids) adapting to a huge variety of food sources. You can see where humans have adapted to a nearly purely meat-based diet, and of course a purely vegan diet. It's our adaptability that makes us so ... ubiquitous!

 

But humans start off from the basis of being omnivores to start with. Dogs do not. You will not convince me that they aren't primarily carnivores. Sure, they need other things in their diet, but that doesn't mean a vegetarian diet is good for them either.

 

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.

 

Yep, cats are obligate carnivores and dogs are not. Dogs naturally choose meat as the lion's share of their diet, but cats can quickly become very, very ill without it. Feeding a cat a non-meat diet will - at best - make his whole system work a lot harder to deal with it. That means extra loading on all his organs, and on his musculo-skeletal system too. Not to mention the psychological aspect.

 

 

 

I'm still working on being the dog's God and holding them captive let alone HSUS I though this was on feeding vegan diet thread I never that I was holding them CAPTIVE, I thought it was the other way around,,,,let's see,, "Mom get up,,, I don't care if it's 2a.m. I want to go see who is in the backyard",,,, "No I don't want that to eat,,,put cheese on it"...."who says this is your side of the bed",,, "Gee I'm sorry I got sick and had to go to the vet,,, and now you can't go on vacation, cause you spent all you saved for vacation at the vet this week and I'm NOT taking those pills the vet gave you even if they cost $120.00""......."sorry I threw up on the new rug",,,,, "You really didn't want to watch T.V.,,, did you?,, I need to go out now" "What food?, on what plate?, where?" YES, yes,, I see the new bed,, but I want the old ragged one back, I don't care if it left stuffing all over the floor" "I don't care if you have to go to work,, I'm not getting up to go out to pee, right now,,,, call me later" "Mom ,,,do you remember those new flowers you planted ,,, well I moved them,,, to middle of the yard" "Dad are you drinking beer,,, I'll have one too" WHO HOLDS WHO CAPTIVE?

 

:lol

 

Well, sorry, but you are holding them captive, unless (as I said earlier in my answer) you are allowing them the opportunity to take themselves off and leave home. I'm betting you don't. Therefore, in terms of diet choices, you have a captive audience, so to speak. They have to try to exist on whatever you feed them, whether it's the highest quality commercial dog food, raw prey-model, or beans and rice, or chocolate cake, or cornflakes or whatever. In terms of nutrition, they are completely at your mercy.

 

 

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.

 

Not so fast as to be able to keep up on this one. Evolution happens slowly. If we try to rush it, we usually pay the price - as with BSE. Sheep and cows were never meant to eat meat. We (meaning irresponsible people somewhere in the meat/farming industry) forced them to eat meat. Therefore we all ended up screwed and serve us right. Who's to say what happens when you deny a carnivore the right to make meat the main part of his diet and give him vegetable matter only - and some of it, vegetable matter he will never naturally have come across?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yep, what she said. Also contaminants in the food chain. Also other factors holding true in households which feed traditional dog food diets vs households which do not. Also, also, also ... until a proper controlled study has been done, you could be talking about false positives, or you could be talking simply trade offs. You might reduce cancer, but increase heart disease - as with the low taurine levels, even in vegetarian animals who receive supplements.

 

All stuff to think about and JMHO.

[Guest hblackburn]

Regarding the slow evolution thing. That is in question lately. There is a lengthy study of island bound finches that shows they could evolve changes in their bills to adjust to climate change (types of seeds available) in as little as two generations- that's only 2 years. I suspect domestic dogs have certainly evolved to adjust to co-existing with us and our dietary habits over the last few thousand years.

[Guest Swifthounds]

As in, keeping dogs from hunting on their own?

Well, okay. This is logic, and I agree with what you have here, except to quibble about the term "carnivore". Canids are in the order Carnivore, which is a big group including bears, raccoons and the giant panda. In other words, there is a lot of variation in the diets of carnivores. Pandas famously live only on bamboo shoots! Dogs have evolved to live off whatever is available, selecting for high-protein food sources wherever possible, which of course includes animal sources. Agreed?

 

You do put the ethics at the door of humans and their choices correctly, and we already agree on that.

 

Not only are dogs in the order carnivora, but then the family Canidae (along with coyotes, foxes, jackals, and wolves), and genus Canis (dogs, jackals, and wolves). Wolves are Canis Lupus. Dogs are Canis Lupus familiaris. A dog is genetically more similar to a gray wolf than humans are to other primates, and genetically widely different from , say, a giant panda, which has evolved to have some grinding teeth (whereas dogs have none). If Pandas live on bamboo shoots, it's a perfect example of "subsisting" without thriving.

 

Dogs evolved to be able to subsist on a wide variety of items, and they did so long, long ago. It's a basic survival skill that is found to some degree in all predators. In any carnivore's life, there are periods where food is scarce. There are sometimes long periods where food is scarce. In these times of famine, if their bodies could glean no nutrition from non-meat sources they would simply perish. In those times they consume everything from plant matter to dirt to feces of other animals and more.

 

The birth of kibble in America dates back to about the 1860s. The large scale practice of feeding vegetation based kibble diets to dogs dates back less than a century. They are and have been a convenient method of using meat industry by products and cheaply grown, often genetically modified grains and vegetables. Even where "Real Meat is the#1 ingredient" there's not a lot of meat in that bag. On a dry matter basis, 5 pounds of chicken is far less volume than 5 pounds of wheat or corn. The Comemrcial dog food industry has made a lot of money selling people dog food they don't need to think about, manipulated AFCO to give their product credibility, and sold consumers the waste products of the human food industry - at a hefty profit to boot.

 

That people, for convenience sake, choose to feed large portions of vegetation to dogs for a century or two (or three or four even) doesn't mean that the dog has evolved to live on such a diet. Dogs have always had the ability to survive and subsist on plants for survival, but they cannot and do not thrive on a diet devoid of meat.

 

Agreed and agreed. I do hope and will do whatever I can to make sure that my choices do NOT come under even the most elastic definition of violence.{/quote]

 

I will say that although I don't believe that a dog can/will thrive on a diet devoid of meat, I don't doubt that if one can manage to adequately cover the baseline of nutrients as well as a bag of kibble, the quality of the ingredients will undoubtedly be better than the crap-in-a-bag and that will show in the health of the dog. I just don't see "better" as thriving, but I wish you the best.

 

I don't get what you mean about carnivores not getting beat up or worm-ridden while living au naturale. Wild carnivores have a rough life. They get parasites, they get kicked, bitten, scratched and run ragged by their prey and their fellow hunters. Eventually, the injuries and insults to their tough bodies is too much, they can't hunt anymore, and they starve to death, or die of infection or whatever. Is this not what you were referring to?

 

Wild canids do have parasite loads, but then again so do pet dogs. Certainly pet dogs should have the benefit of better veterinary care and that makes a tremendous difference. Often that care, for illness and injuries does prolong the life of a domesticated dog. On the other hand, while the wild canid is exposed to the dangers of hunting, they also have a natural outlet for energy and exercise, both physical and mental - exercise that is blatantly lacking for most American dogs. Do wild canids suffer from stresses and die of injuries? Of course. Do they get old an die? OF course. Wild canids like dogs and gray wolves, however, are social animals and live in packs. In those packs, all of the animals hunt and all of the animals share in the spoils. No dog starves because it is feeble. The feeble dog may eventually not be able to outrun a predator of it's own, but that's true for all animals.

 

Let's say ground up cooked vegetable matter.

 

I've not only not seen credible evidence of that, I can't imagine feeding more of a lower quality item saves any energy at all.

 

I've read this in many places, which I find encouraging despite some lingering doubt about the bioavailability. The repeated stories of skin and coat improvement on a vegan diet may be as much about simplicity and quality of ingredients, freshness, stuff like that, since most traditionally available commercial diets are not probably as minimally processed nor as fresh, generally, nor sourced from consistently high-quality sources, nor produced in small batches which can be controlled more easily. I'm looking forward to seeing improvements in my crew, though none of them currently has much of a problem (Brilly has a few flakes from time to time).

 

Flax would not be my choice for omegas for several reasons. The first is that they contain significant levels of Omega 6s and Omega 9s, which dogs have not real use for and certainly get plenty of in most diets. The simple version is that canine diets, unless they contain high contents of fish or grass fed meats, are usually high in Omega 6s and low in Omega 3s. When the ratio of 3s/6s is Omega 6 heavy, symptoms like increased skin and joint inflammation and itchiness appear. Supplementing with Omega 3s helps correct this balance and the resulting issues. Although flax contains Omega 3s, they contain them in the form of Alpha-Linolenic Acid, a precursor which humans and dogs must convert in order to utilize. Common estimates are that 80% is lost in the conversion. The Omegas that are beneficial to human and dogs are DHA and EPA, found in adequate quantities certain fishes and fish body oils.

[Guest eaglflyt]

I'm going to respond in stages, since so much is here to respond to! I'm going to skip stuff if I feel I've already addressed it, so if you think I've missed your post, maybe look back at what I've already said for your answer.

 

Visual aid:

These young cows show up in early spring, ratty and scabby, tagged and skinny. They live in these meadows for the summer, and are moved on to their dairy/breeding/feedlot lives in the fall. They show a great deal of interest in us as we walk by, often following us along the fence, and approaching its electric wires carefully to check us out. This is the high point of their sad, short lives.

We do hear the cows crying for their babies in the summer and fall, and it's heartbreaking. Their calls echo all through our little valley.

The point that we can love what's familiar, and disassociate from strangers is an important one. Doesn't it seem important to be aware of this if you are an animal lover?

 

 

Well, yes. I did want attention. Why would I post if I wanted everyone to ignore this discussion or if I didn't want any input? I do! I find it stimulating, for sure, but also useful. There has been some nutritional advice that has sent me off looking in areas I hadn't found yet, and I hope some people have also had a chance to consider reducing their pets' impact on the world in a new way because of this conversation. I hope there is more of all this!

 

 

Trudy, thanks. I appreciate your vote of confidence in my concern for my dogs. But, your point about cows being bred for food making it alright to eat them, whereas dogs were bred to become pets, so it would not be alright to eat them, puzzles me, honestly. Is that really how you feel? Does it make a difference to the animal why it was bred when it comes time to get out of the truck either to the slaughterhouse or a new home? The dog certainly lucks out, but how is it for the cow? Should s/he be philosophical, knowing (somehow) that s/he is only meat on the hoof, after all? Will it make it all less scary or painful?

 

 

Contrary to what you expect, I started this thread to hear what people think. This, for instance, is valuable information, and I'm glad you shared it! When people are being constructive or expressing strong feelings with the intent of actually communicating, making a difference, encouraging thought and rationality, that's when we can all learn! So, again, thanks for all this.

 

I've attempted to just contribute with linking beneficial articles. Then I did some googling on my own to check out some facts. But, as I read the thread further, I just needed to respond beyond the dietary fact discussion and on to the opinion being repeatedly expressed. I hate to say it, but much of this is beginning to sound like the PR and AR debate. It's taking on an air of opinion that goes far beyond nutritional benefit or detriment ... and into judgment based on incomplete facts or assumptions.

 

Xan has shared the pictures of the young cows above and the story of their plight. This may be *one* example in Xan's area. Maybe her observations are correct, but if she isn't directly involved in the farm on a daily basis, maybe not. It's this opinion of *knowing* about *cruelty* that you perceive that is bothersome. You have shared this opinion of *cruelty as fact*. Are you sure? Could you be wrongly accusing or assuming?

 

I am not saying that all cattle, sheep, horses, etc. are treated with kindness and respect. However, you cannot put every person that engages in farm animal husbandry in the same lot. Not every person that has eaten meat, bought a leather item, worn a scarf made from wool, or owned cattle has been an uneducated or compassionless person without a conscience. Your opinion becomes a slippery slope of judgment if you are not very careful. You may be condemning in entirety many that are not guilty of this.

 

We have owned cattle ... and they ALL became pets. Very expensive pets, I might add. None were slaughtered. When they left it was due to old age, natural causes, relocation, or humane euthanasia for illness or injury when veterinary treatment could not solve the problem. We have horses that are also very expensive pets. The expense of our dogs pales in comparison to our large, hooved animals.

 

Weaning time for calves is necessary for the benefit of both the mother cow and the calf. If left with the cow longer, the mother's health will decline. Most cows will naturally wean their young at the same time farmers aid in separating the young from their mothers. The cows that do not wean their calves themselves will be increasingly losing weight and have increasing health problems. The same holds true for horses. So, what you see as cruel, is of benefit to both cow and calf ... and this would be happening naturally if out on the prairie without a human in sight. If the calves come to this pasture as thin, then that is a separate problem of husbandry. Possibly this farmer may feel that lighter weight cattle are actually healthier? Cattle do suffer from arthritis, weight related problems, etc. And, your assumption they are improperly cared for may be right ... but how can you be *certain*?

 

Ear tags? Cruel? OK, this one is a bit surprising. Many of the ear tags you see are a cow's ID. This does not make all cattle just a number! If you own a sizable herd, it is necessary to identify which animal is due for vet exams, supplements, pasture rotation, vaccinations, deworming, etc. The option is to put a chain and tag around their neck ... which can be VERY hazardous. The ear tag placement is equivalent to human ear piercing. This is not much different at all from having your hound microchipped ... except it is on a very external body part and not between the shoulder blades! Also, many ear tags are to prevent pests and parasites ... like horse flies, ticks, etc. It's the cow form of *Frontline Plus* or similar. Until you've seen a cow bleeding from the bites of horse flies or covered in ticks, you have no idea how beneficial some of those ear tags might be. It is rare that even the most experienced cattle person could relay information to their vet about *which* cow to treat without the benefit of ID! They may recognize their cows individually, but if you aren't outside with the help or vet, how would they know which cow to treat? If a cow escapes its pasture, how can it be identified and be returned to its home without ID? If you have a herd of Herefords, Angus, Limousine .... to most people, the members of the same herd all *look alike*. Also, every numbered cow usually has a registration with a proper name. The number ID simply keeps the tracking method simpler for everyday care. This is the same method used for your dog's rabies tag, or microchip tag.

 

And, about electrical fencing ... this is off base. In your pictures, it shows barbed wire. Being a horse and previous cow owner, I am NOT a fan of barbed wire. If you've ever seen a frightened horse that met with a barbed wire fence, you'd understand my feelings. However, for cattle, it will keep them off a busy road as the smooth wire will not. Their skin is MUCH different than a horse's skin. (Think naugahyde vinyl vs. greyhound skin.) However a *hot wire* or electric wire is NOT cruel for either. Actually, they sense the electric current via the hairs around their muzzles. It is not painful, but rather startling if they come in contact with it. I DO know, I've repaired our hot wire fencing more times than I can count and it's not as bothersome as a mosquito bite. However, it provides a great safety barrier for our horses. They do not challenge the fencing since they can sense it from feet away. And, mechanical fencing barriers, when challenged by ANY farm animal, can result in horrific injuries and death.

 

Each season, our state has a deer hunting season based on the deer population at that time. Is this cruel? Is it better to let them overpopulate and slowly starve in winter? And yes, in the absence of some natural disease or disaster, deer will routinely overpopulate. Is it better to let those hunted deer just go to waste? Is it more cruel to hunt (could be considered humane euthanasia, possibly) or to allow slow and painful starving in winter? I don't know ... you tell me.

 

I applaud your research. I applaud your caring for animals. However, I do not understand your feelings of having more *compassion or education* when making some of your statements of assumption. It comes across as condescending (although I do not feel that is what you truly intend) and judgmental, which you would see as *enlightening others*.

 

For all those that feel keeping farm animals is cruel, I challenge them to step up and take in some of their own to keep or rehome. You may find it necessary to add ear tags for ID and parasite/pest control help. Yes, animal cruelty exists ... just NOT everywhere you look, or may think it exists, in your opinion.

 

Many are opposed to using animals to research medical advances or benefits to animal or human kind. Isn't that what this diet change/trial is doing??? Could you be possibly attempting to help one species at the expense of another? You say you want to improve your dog's diet, but yet admit it is not specifically proven to be the answer to improved canine nutrition. What is the difference here?

 

Go for the very best diet you can give your pets, but do not base it on *assumed* blanket cruelty. Also, do not place yourself as being the one that truly has more compassion for all species. Everything you read on the internet is not true and differences in carrying out *animal care* does not always equal animal cruelty. Just as we all agree the FW dogs suffered extreme cruelty, that's not the case in every farm animal husbandry situation and not all those that eat meat based protein lack conscience or education.

 

Now, back to discussing nutrition.

Edited July 31, 2010 by eaglflyt

[Xan]

OK, I've now read through the entire thread.[...]

I applaud you! Quite a ride, no?

I've done a lot of trimming on your considered and thorough response in areas I have already responded to, but you make some new points we haven't quite got to:

Incidentally, did you know there's a school of thought that says that a big contributor to the current epidemic of cancers and allergies and sensitivities among humans and animals is that we no longer carry parasites? Quite seriously, yes there is, and it seems to be gaining credibility. It's not too big a stretch if you think about it. Our immune systems used to be challenged on a regular basis by things our species had been challenged by for millennia. Without them, the animal's immune system can turn on itself - that's the theory in a nutshell. Then it responds to things it shouldn't respond to, and fails to respond to things that it should deal with.

Hm! That's interesting. I had read years and years ago in one of my goat care books that a goat with absolutely no worms is not a healthy goat, which was along these lines. I hadn't heard anything about it being extended to humans yet.

[...]

I am still concerned about {bioavailability}. How many sources have you read, and from where? And when you say 'broken up', how are you going to do that? It's true that we too are 'short digestive tract' animals and we manage, but scientific data supports most people's belief that we are omnivores, and we've had a long, long, time to adapt to eating cooked food. Dogs have only been eating cooked food since ... I dunno, but it can't be before the beginning of the 19th century, not to any degree. Commerical pet foods surely haven't been around that long? I know my own grandparents had no access to it.

How many sources: I can't say because I didn't count, but lots, and from various sources from anecdotal to surveys of research studies. Which is not to say I'm done looking. It's still a concern, and I want specifics about the various ingredients I might add to their diet.

By "broken up" I mean either cooked to soft-soft (in the case of beans and grains, and some veg) and/or chopped finely, and/or put in a blender or food processor. For instance in the case of tiny seeds like sesame or quinoa, I don't see them having a chance of being accessed on their ride through the system unless they have been broken down to a paste (think tahini and hummus).

 

[...] Not so fast as to be able to keep up on this one. Evolution happens slowly. If we try to rush it, we usually pay the price - as with BSE. Sheep and cows were never meant to eat meat. We (meaning irresponsible people somewhere in the meat/farming industry) forced them to eat meat. Therefore we all ended up screwed and serve us right.

Your point about the ability of evolution to keep up with the rapid changes in their environment is a good one. Again, as opportunistic feeders, domestic dogs have thrown in their lot with humans, probably before we learned to cook much anyway. DH just came in to say he'd already responded to this point. We were talking about it, and realized that even if dogs had only been with us since early Egyptian times, which is clearly not the case, they would have had at least 5 generations to our 1 to evolve along with us. An interesting point. Another way to see their genetic mutability and adaptability is to look at the different shapes humans have been able to coax out of dogs' genes. Just thought of that in this context.

 

Who's to say what happens when you deny a carnivore the right to make meat the main part of his diet and give him vegetable matter only - and some of it, vegetable matter he will never naturally have come across?

[...]

Well, you could ask people who have done so successfully for years, and years, and years. Or ask the dogs of those people. And their vets. It turns out that it can be not only a successful diet, but a beneficial one, and an enjoyable one, as MerlinsMum has pointed out a few times, and as I've found with my bunch so far.

 

I do not assume we all have a "right" to choose what we eat, and by "we all" I mean all of us animals. I think that's a fond cultural illusion of our time and our place on the planet right now.

 

There are many other factors which do come into the decision-making process though: availability of a given resource, immediate cost to attain the resource, cost in the long-run of a given resource, availability of comparable resources, and their costs, long and short-term. As humans, with our mighty brains, we can look into the future based on the trends of the past and present. We can calculate the long-term costs (if we try) of taking whatever we want. We can also do that for our pets, in this culture of many choices. We can choose to feed them meat, with its unsustainably high and cascading environmental cost, and the cost to the meat-animals, and eventually to us all, or we can choose to feed them and ourselves lower on the food chain, where there is less damage, lower cost, and everyone still gets the necessary nutrition to survive and thrive. Happily. For a lot longer.