August issue out July 8th

Sunday 13 December 2009

Housekeeping and first burning issue

I am a huge believer in free speech and I want this blog to be lively, but there are some things I want to stop it becoming - hence I quite brutally edited two posters a couple of blogs ago and both people posting deserve a fuller explanation.

I want this to be interesting, I don't want it to be somewhere where PR people in the petfood industry upload generic press releases about their food.
This needs to be like a conversation.

What Jonathan at Darlings said was very interesting but it didn't specifically address the points we were trying to debate.

Once we let one pet food manufacturer talk at great length off topic I will be defenceless to stop another company that wants to post a press release as we'll have precedent.

Claire M's post was a different kettle of fish! I love the fact that Claire was showing us a website that is obviously very interesting and I've let that stay. What I have removed is specific negative comments taken from that website about specific brands. The website in question is American and I guess they have their own libel laws, over here things are slightly different. Not stopping anyone from looking at that website, just saying they are obviously in the business of making claims about huge companies and they have their insurances in place, but I don't want to be repeating them here without seeing the evidence - plus then we'd need to give the manufacturer's the right to reply - and then doing this blog becomes a full time job and I don't have time to publish a magazine! And we'd move away from the title of the blog and become "What shouldn't I feed my dog!"

I want us to have frank and open discussions about petfood but we need to steer clear of libel to preserve our ability to debate.

Claire M asks why we were fearless in talking about bad breeding in pedigree dogs - why not name names in petfood?

The answer is simple, we have never named specific breeders and accused them of being bad - unless they've already been prosecuted. We have stimulated debate generally on that important topic with a view to there being a general improvement in standards and better education on the subject generally.

That is our wish for this subject, too!

Now back to the debate - lets take one subject at a time!

  • Why should we be trying to replicate the prey diet? Why feed dogs as if they are wild animals now they don't do nearly so much exercise? Hasn't the dog evolved over its substantial time with man to share and possibly favour our food? 

6 comments:

Claire M said...

Thanks for taking the time to respond Bevereley. I posted my comment immediately after viewing the website mentioned, and was very cross! Have calmed down somewhat now... sorry! x

Jonathan Self said...

I am nervous about saying too much! However, let's just take the evolution issue. Paleontologists (I am quoting here from a book called Dogs, Diet and Disease) estimate that a period of approximately 100,000 years is required before evolutionary changes occur within a whole species. The most accepted theories estimate that dogs began their association with humans between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. They haven’t, therefore, had time to adapt to eating cooked food let alone the other ingredients in processed food. There's an interesting article in New Scientist this week that covers this topic as well. Basically, the outside of dogs have changed, but not the insides. If you will let me I could answer all the questions about raw versus cooked using independent sources but that's what I did last time and you cut my copy down so that the only thing left looked like I was trying to promote my business - which I am not! I am a passionate advocate raw feeding and don't mind id you edit out all reference to what I do! Kind regards. Jonathan

Claire M said...

I've decided there's only one thing for it - I'm going raw! Am introducing my dogs to their new diet by feeding them chicken legs/wings for the first week...so far so good!

Anonymous said...

You surely only have to look at a dog's digestive system to realise he's a carnivore. Look at those teeth, designed to tear flesh and crunch bones, and the short length of the gut in comparison to ours. Dogs are not designed to digest grains - I understand they lack the enzyme amylase in their saliva which breaks down starches into sugars in humans - and one school of thought is that trying to process them puts an undue strain on their internal organs.
There are certainly a lot of dogs doing very well on a raw diet of simply meat, offal and bones!

Christine

Shelley Stubbington said...

Surely Jonathan Self just answered this question perfectly?! Dogs may have superficially evolved in appearance away from wolves, but they haven't been domesticated anywhere near long enough to have had their digestive system change. And how long have we had commercial foods for? A few decades? That's just the blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned!

Anonymous said...

I do still feel confused about raw diet and proteins content needed in a healthy diet. I asked three vets and a nutritionist and the confusione only soared, so many different opinions! When I buy dog biscuits I have the bad habit to look at the list of the ingredients instead of believing what is written in fancy colours and capital letters. This is why I stopped feeding biscuits and I have just started feeding raw. Am I doing the right things? No idea, but the raw diet is complete with veggies and bones and the meat is fit for human consumptions. We will see.