Veg Dog Discussions
This page is a reconstruction of various discussions on vegdogs. Some of the more recent posts were irrecoverable and therefore are not present, but these number less than 10.
Each post is marked with a color sidebar which indicates the level of reply so as to provide a convenient means by which one can figure out who is talking to whom since not everyone bothers to make this clear.
There are many excellent posts by several people on each side of the argument so this discussion is really worth going through in detail.
Here are some specific highlights:
- The ethical issues are primarily handled here
- The interesting question of "if dogs are healthy with veg, shouldn't humans be healthy eating meat?" is answered here
- The survey is discussed here with an addendum
- Here is a link to the statement from the Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats as well as their pdf document (2.5M download).
- Vegan Poet's 100 vegan dogs Dogumentary!
There may be additions to this page in the future.
Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental and fictitious since many of the individuals really are too.
MOTH on May 8, 2009 at 4:11am INITIAL POST
Hey everyone,
I'm considering turning my dog (who has been eating raw meat for almost 3 years) into a vegan.
I'm hesitant because I've seen him eat meat and it seems like he is made for it. He has huge jaws. I don't want his health to suffer so I need to research this vegan dog thing all I can. He also eats some fruit during the day in between his raw meaty bone meals.
What do you guys think about this? I want to do it because the other day at the grocery store I was picking out his meat, and I got hit with a powerful wave of sadness , like I was feeling the suffering of the animals who died to be his "meat."
Bliss aka Wildchild on May 8, 2009 at 4:15am
Hi Moth, I'm not sure what the "right" answer is for your dog, BUT I am quarter Indian and lived in India for 6 years and my strict vegetarian family there had lots of dogs...and they were all strict vegetarian. Not sure of their exact diets, but they were healthy, big dogs, shiny coats, always playful and affectionate. They lived to old ages and to the best of my memory didn't seem to have old age issues except for 1 or 2 dogs I can think of.
I have no idea what they actually ate, just that it was vegetarian, not vegan. This doggie vegetarianmism is common in India, not just within my family.
MOTH on May 8, 2009 at 4:27am
Wow, thank you so much, that's amazing! Exactly the type of stuff I wanted to hear about. Yeah, I think vegetarian would be okay with me too. I really want him to be healthy and happy and enjoy his meals but I do feel uncomfortable feeding him animal flesh and I know that dogs are omnivores so I want to search for the best way...
chelsea on May 8, 2009 at 1:18pm
you could feed it eggs. as a substitute for meat. Its cruelty free if the chickens were not harmed.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 4:21am
i don't think it's a good idea to force any animal to eat against their species type and anatomical blueprint
as complete care provider, i understand the whole process is hard......sorry
lady on May 12, 2009 at 5:18am
I do agree with you on this. A cat in the wild isn't going to go foraging for berries, it wants birds and other small creatures.
Michele on May 14, 2009 at 4:18pm
Loved it. Thanks BigG. You ever read "Little Tyke"?
BigG. on May 14, 2009 at 4:20pm
Michelle,
:-)
no what is little tykes about?
Michele on May 14, 2009 at 4:23pm
A vegetarian pet lion who refused to eat meat. I ordered it on Amazon. She was rescued from the mom at a zoo when the mother tried to eat her cubs and when they tried to sneak meat into her diet, she wouldn't eat it. Just like the cat in your story. :)
BigG. on May 14, 2009 at 4:31pm
Michelle,
Cool thanks would be nice if more people knew about this.
Then maybe just maybe people might see other possibilities.
Michele on May 14, 2009 at 4:34pm
I agree. Via on this site told me about it and Sharon posted another thread about another lion that was vegetarian too. Evidently this argument that cats will go blind, etc, without taurine hasn't held true in these three examples.
I bet there are a lot more out there, too.
BigG. on May 14, 2009 at 4:37pm
Michelle and Prad,
Thanks I love reading this kind of stuff.
Strawberry Babe on May 14, 2009 at 6:15am
I agree. You only have to look at the fangs and claws on dogs to realise that they were built to attack prey and tear flesh off them for food.
Doug compares the anatomy of the meat eating species in his book. Apparently they also have tails ;-)
C. Dove on May 8, 2009 at 4:29am
My Sheltie is completely vegan for over a year,he is two. He does just fine. I haven't bathed him for a year and he has no doggie smell at all. His coat practically takes care of itself. His skin is impeccable and he gets lot of compliments on his coat. Dogs are omnivores and can thrive on a vegan diet.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 4:36am
i thought the jury is still out on the omnivore thing....my bad
MOTH on May 8, 2009 at 4:38am
Is it?? I'm not sure. I want to find out for sure though. I heard that cats are 100% carnivores but that dogs are opportunistic eaters and can thrive on many different diets, which makes them omnivores. I could be wrong though. His teeth look like a meat-eaters teeth so I'm not sure. He does love fruit but I'm not sure he likes vegetables.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 4:44am
teeth give it away for me...intestines???? panting ??? all those carnivore things
i know you know the distinction between survive and thrive so that covers that
i think, to some extent, all animals are opportunistic eaters if hungry enough....the thing about cats is they are hyper independant and will go out and get what you don't give whereas the dog will just wait for your input
we used to have a dog that devoured oranges ...was really funny to watch...but i still am not convinced they should be deprived of animal protein
good luck in your research
veganmama18 on May 8, 2009 at 5:02am
yes, that's right. for us personally, our dog (or should i say, the dog to whom we belong, ha ha) has not been able to manage a vegan diet. we've tried 4 times (she is 6 years old now). she has a number of allergies and digestive issues and is now on a special hypoallergenic diet. however, we've known a number of people who have successfully raised veg*n dogs. i think this just points out that different dogs may respond differently to a vegan diet. i'd say give it a shot and see how he responds.
Joyful on May 8, 2009 at 11:05am
Sharon has a post about a vegetarian lion. And there's a book "little tyke" about a vegetarian lion too. Cats are not necessarily carnivores.
myra on May 8, 2009 at 5:37am
C. Dove, would you mind sharing what this veg diet consists of? Thanks.
C. Dove on May 8, 2009 at 5:45am
Myra, I hope I disappoint you,but I don't feed him a raw diet. I feed him a commercial brand that I believe will not harm him. The brand is "Nature's Recipe" vegetarian formula. It is free of all animal products,corn,and wheat. And he loves it. I would consider a more raw vegan diet,but I can barely afford a high fruit diet for us. Hope this helps...Petsmart carries it.
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:01am
Thanks C. Dove for your response. Oh gosh, I am not disappointed at all. I am just trying to learn and process through this issue. I really do appreciate your commitment to veganism.
C. Dove on May 8, 2009 at 6:12am
The big difference between felines and canines is that cats can't convert short chain omega 6 fats to longer ones. Dogs can. Cats can't convert beta-carotene into retinol. Dogs can. And the amino acid taurine is essential to cats. I'm not saying cats can't do well on a vegan diet,those nutrients must be fortified.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:09am
cdove,
even in the meatiest, commercial foods there is fortification, because eating meat alone just doesn't cut it. no carnivore eats meat alone in the wild anyway.
we tried nature's recipe too, but found the evolution was much more appealing ... to our dogs (and us). it was difficult bringing it in from the us, but now there is a canadian distributor.
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 5:00am
moth,
dogs (and cats) do better on a vegan diet than a meat based one. they don't get the same ailments that are a result of corpse eating. just because you are a carnivore (or omnivore) doesn't mean that you have to eat flesh - and domesticated dogs certainly don't go around eating cows (they may eat lambs and smaller creatures, but that's usually only if they are hungry).
there are plenty of companies who provide veg dog food - here are 2 that provide a high quality:
http://www.petfoodshop.com/
http://www.vegepet.com/
that's the nutrition part in brief.
the ethics part goes as simply as this. when there are other options available, why should another sentient lifeform be sacrificed just so ones dog can eat what is not an optimal diet anyway. even if it were optimal, you'd still have problems accounting for slaughtering others when there are alternatives. it would be different if a dog had the freedom to go and do the dirty work himself, but he doesn't so his guardian become an accomplice.
both our dogs have been veg for more than a decade - people who encounter them often think they are still in puppy stage. ... and they certainly act like it! they are a complete nuisance and i almost traded them in for some furbies, but wasn't allowed to do so.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:11am
we must maybe be careful not to impose our ethics on animals that have no choice...ethics is a human thing and i feel it unethical to force an animal to live against its anatomical design
http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id51.html
for all the reasons that my own anatomy suggests frugivore, dogs anatomies scream carnivore
p.s.....of course it should be raw....
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:14am
p.p.s....
in the same way as i feel that mother nature provided everything for humans , she did the same for dogs...there should never be any need for products
i do understand the predicament you are in and understand the conflict but it seems quite clear to me
Bliss aka Wildchild on May 8, 2009 at 5:59am
I find it hard to believe that vegetarianism is not ok for dogs. I have seen lots and lots and LOTs of veggie dogs and lots of non-veggie dogs and I would say overall, the veggie dogs have ALWAYS been healthier, looked healthier, and not had those weird diseases the non veggie doggies in the West do.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:41am
but are you comparing raw-meat eating dogs to veg dogs....same rules apply...cooking produces chemical changes in the food so as to render it harmful
i absolutely agree....faced with the choice i would feed my dog a vegetarian diet over a cooked meat diet...
kelly on May 8, 2009 at 10:42am
hi bliss. what are the non veggie dogs being fed that you see? if they're being fed dry food and canned wet food then that is not what you should be comparing to veggie dogs. commercial dog food is so unhealthy. i have a carnivore and it's my responsibility to feed him what he is biologically designed to eat. i feed him raw meat and he loves it. he has an amazing coat, he's super healthy and he's never been sick. people can survive eating meat and grains and everything they're bodies are not designed for but they CANNOT THRIVE. Dog's that are biologically designed to eat meat can eat veggie but they CANNOT THRIVE just the same. I always buy organic grass fed meat from free ranging animals.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 10:59am
kelly,
the word thrive is being thrown around a lot on this thread.
exactly what is being meant by it?
in friendship,
prad
kelly on May 8, 2009 at 11:47am
have you felt the difference between eating cooked sad foods and eating raw low-fat vegan? i know i felt a HUGE difference. i know now what health is like because i am eating what i am biologically designed to eat, fruit! by eating what i was eating before (sad vegetarian, not what i was biologically designed to eat) i was putting stress on my system, i was always tired, i was always sick, etc. now that i am eating what i'm designed to eat i have lots of energy, i don't get sick, and i feel amazing. now put that in perspective of our dogs.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 12:31pm
kelly that is a good description.
the key points regarding 'thrive' seem to be
1. not getting sick
2. feeling amazing
so if a veg dog doesn't get sick and feels amazing (i think we can see that from various behaviors exhibited by the dog, since he or she can't very well verbally articulate it, as well as specific things like coat quality etc), would you be able to acknowledge that the dog is thriving?
in friendship,
prad
kelly on May 8, 2009 at 12:54pm
those are just a few examples. you don't have to take it word for word. if you feel that your dog(s) are flourishing on a vegan diet than that's what you feel, i can't change that. personally i do not feel that my carnivorous dog can eat all this and be healthy:
Whole Oat Groats, Corn Gluten Meal, Soybean Meal, Soybean Oil, Carrots, Dried Tomato Pomace, Dried Potato Product, Dried Molasses, Deflourinated Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Nutritional Yeast, Arginine, DL-Methionine, Kelp Meal, Taurine, Garlic, Enzyme Bromelain from Pineapple Stem and Fruit, Enzyme Papain from Papaya, Dried Lactobacillus Acidophilus, Fermentation Product, Dried Bifidobacterium Bifidum fermentation product, Lysine, Choline Chloride, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Vitamin A Acetate, Vitamin D2 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Ascorbic Acid, Calcium Pantothenate, Manganous Oxide, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Thiamin Mononitrate, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite complex, Folic acid, Riboflavin Supplement (Vitamin B-2), Inositol, Biotin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite, Zinc Methionine Complex, Copper Lysine Complex, Manganese, Methionine Complex, L-Carnitine, Arachidonic Acid, Rosemary Extract, Cobalt Glucoheptonate.
i made the decision to get a dog before i became a vegan. i feel it's my responsibility to feed him what he needs and wants. i do the best i can to get humane organic, free range meat. i know slaughterhouses are not humane but i know that some slaughterhouse are more humane than others. i love dogs more than anything but they are a lot of responsibility. so if i ever have to make the decision to get a dog again i will probably only do so if i live somewhere where it can hunt it's own food.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 1:11pm
kelly,
regarding:
if you feel that your dog(s) are flourishing on a vegan diet than that's what you feel, i can't change that. personally i do not feel that my carnivorous dog can eat all this and be healthy
i am replying to my own post because i can't reply to yours - no more indentations :D
i'm familiar with ingredients in dog and cat food.
nor am i making any judgement about what you feed your dog.
what i am saying is that the arguments presented don't seem to address the fact that dogs are healthy and happy on every criteria you want to introduce (not just the few examples) for thriviness.
so i'm only trying to understand what your objection is to feeding dogs veg diets if
1. they demonstrate the same behaviors based on your criteria
2. you haven't tried a veg diet in the first place
3. many others have and with success
let's be clear about this: i am not suggesting you get your dog to go veg. i am only interested in dealing with the arguments you have presented in objection (some of which i find valid).
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 5:16am
el-bo,
this isn't a matter of imposing our ethics.
it is, however, in part a matter of acting ethically.
there are 2 issues here:
1. the first is whether a veg diet is good for dogs (since dogs are what is primarily being talked about here). the answer to that is a uncontested yes. not only are veg dogs healthy, they don't experience the same problems that meat fed dogs experience (worms, allergies etc etc) for 3 primary reasons:
1.1 dogs are omnivores which essentially means that they have the equipment to eat all sorts of things (including veg)
1.2 veg dogs don't have to consume the corpse junk that is in meat based foods (and there is an abundant supply - check out the airing of a dog's breakfast:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/dogsbreakfast.html
1.3 most domestic dogs really just don't go around hunting down cattle and lambs etc, so exactly why should they be fed those carcasses? (do people think that all meat is equal for some reason?)
2. the second is whether it is ethical to kill another animal so your pet can have meat because for some reason you may think that dogs have to eat meat. here are the 2 possibilities:
2.1 if you really believe your dog must eat meat to survive, then you are faced with coming up with a rationale for why your dog should live and a cow should be slaughtered just so your dog can survive.
2.2 if you really don't think your dog must have meat to survive (which is the case going by years of evidence), then you might as well turn yourself in as willing accomplice to murder because you are supporting the very industry you are supposedly, as vegfolk, shunning.
you are not doing your dog a favor by feeding him or her corpse parts. veg dog diets have been encouraged by well-known vets like pitcairns for a long time, tons of stuff about this on the net and there are lots of veg dogfoods on the market. even commercial meat dogfood producing companies like avoderm, natural balance and natural life provide vegetarian stuff, not because of their high standard of ethics, but because some dogs get allergic reactions (or worse) to the ridiculous dead pieces of formerly living creatures that go into the non-veg staple.
once again, being an omnivore only means you have the equipment to eat all kinds of things - it doesn't mean you have to eat meat or even should eat meat.
(edit: the link you provide is well-written and documented. however, it is 'biologically biased' and doesn't address the reality that healthy vegan dogs have been around for more than 2 decades - it appears that the jeannie is 'imposing' her research upon dogs, without taking several other matters into account.)
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:25am
as far as i can see, from what i have read, dogs aren't equipped to eat veg..they can , just as we can eat meat but survive is not thrive
much , if not all of the problems that are attributed to meat eating in animals is due to the fact that it usually isn't raw meat...sound familiar ??? add to that the myriad additives , bulkers that are added to keep us buying 'products'...again....familiar
domestic dogs don't hunt because they have been domesticated
and 2.1....no rationale...as with much of the animal kingdom, carnivores must kill to survive....if we domesticate our carnivores then i guess we must do that for them....nothing to do with vegfolk or ethics just the animals natural biology..this is just nature which is , more often than not, brutally un-human
i must absolutely clarify.....i am not talking about products....much of what you say is true of any product that has been engineered to feed your dog/generate sales
think of the world before products (even vegetarian ones) and take an objective look at the biological design of your dog without the human ethics and emotion
in peace
elliot
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 5:50am
elliot,
domesticated dogs, whether you call them carnivores or omnivores do not kill anything to survive - neither do their guardians (usually) because they get others to do the dirty work instead. the biology argument you adhere to is invalid simply because so many veg dogs live long lives and in excellent health - without incurring ailments of meat-eating dogs (raw or otherwise).
let's look at the 'natural' argument.
if you have domesticated your dog, then there is little point in arguing about being 'natural' in the first place. in the wild, natural state, a dog would likely join a pack, would likely hunt down other creatures, would mate to his hearts content.
we don't allow our dogs to run amuck, we don't allow them to attack the neighbour's cat or small child, we spay and neuter them. so it's not like we're feeding their natural frenzy (which really doesn't exist the way some seem to think).
we have products because we live a different way - and therefore our dogs are also forced to live a different way. if you were out in nature yourself, it is likely you wouldn't even have a dog ... you'd likely be running from one.
so the question isn't what's natural anymore, but what is reasonably optimal in these 'unnatural' circumstances we have chosen to be in - for yourself, for your dog, and for other creatures.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:20am
just because you domesticate something and remove it from it's instinctive behaviours doesn't justify any of the 'choices' that we impose on them
also i didn't believe you can have "reasonably optimal"...optimal is quite the definite statement..anything less is a compromise...is that really good enough for you, your dog or any other creature especially when it can have everything it needed if it weren't for you having to compromise your ethics
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:25am
elliot,
the point is that we impose all sorts of things on dogs. since the evidence over more than 2 decades clearly shows that veg dogs are happy, healthy (and probably wise, too), on what basis does your physiological argument standing?
by reasonably optimal i mean optimal for all parties concerned. eating a cow may be thought by some to be optimal for the dog, but it certainly isn't for the cow.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:42am
"biologically biased" ????
biology IS......
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:27am
the argument is biologically biased in that it looks at the situation from a slanted perpective the author has about dog biology. dogs have plenty of other 'tools' with which to consume non-meat items.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 7:34pm
well even if you shove the greens in their ears they must pass through their short (carnivore) intestines
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:47pm
that's true and perhaps some dogs would benefit from a bit of all spectrum enzymes. others may not have a problem. as you can see from the posts, some feed veg raw, some veg cooked, some both.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:16pm
what the flip is "all spectrum enzymes" ??
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:49pm
you buy products to allow your dog to do something it isn't supposed to do
interesting
what products do you buy yourself to allow you to consume raw food ????
i don't digest bread very well...apparently it is not a food for human consumption...maybe you could point me to a website that has an enzyme i could take so that i may be able to continue enjoying bread
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:58pm
i also have my dogs neutered, elliot.
so they don't get to do things that they are supposed to do.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 9:05pm
interesting point to bring up in the defense of anything
obviously, i'm replying to yo
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 9:10pm
i'm not sure what your point is, elliot.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 9:18pm
you seemed to be suggesting that there are many things as a dog owner one might do to not allow a dog be able to live naturally so why not buy enzymes also
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 4:29am
elliot,
i see what you are saying now.
the entire dog-as-pet thing is not natural ... in fact, all your biology aside, domesticated dogs aren't particularly natural. so if some enzymes help with digestion (with dogs, or people for that matter), i don't have a problem using it.
in friendship,
prad
C. Dove on May 8, 2009 at 5:48am
The ethics angle satisfies me....I don't want to purchase animal products. My dog only cares about filling the hole.
myra on May 8, 2009 at 5:15am
Oh Moth, thank you so much for initiating this thread. And what timing for me.
My dog has been fed raw meaty bones for the past 7 years. Once every few months or so I go through a period of just not being able to buy a piece of another animal for my dog to eat. Like you, I become overwhelmed with sadness for the farm animals.
But every time I simply keep on feeding her the meaty bones because she has the teeth, intestines, inclination of a carnivore. She is thriving - lean, muscular, athletic with beautiful teeth and she is 9 years old. I say to myself, I will continue to feed her a species specific diet, but Heidi will be my last meat eating animal companion.
And now again, beginning this morning I got hit with "oh my god, I just can't be part of this animal abuse any longer." And next week I will be staying on an Farm Animal Sanctuary, helping to care for the animals. I think this is why I am feeling this way at this time.
So, I WANT to be convinced that feeding my dog vegan will allow my dog to thrive.
I also would like to know HOW to feed a dog vegan/vegetarian, eg is it all raw, include some cooked, any foods to avoid, etc.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:28am
sounds iike you know what you should be doing
myra on May 8, 2009 at 5:35am
Yes, el-bo, I believe Nature set it up for dogs (cousins of the grey wolf) to hunt and eat animals.
But I have such inner turmoil. It's cow's death vs. my my dog thriving.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:42am
i bet....
if i had a dog i coldn't imagine feeding it anything but what it was designed to eat .....cow death vs dog death is our ethical struggle......the dog needs what it needs
myra on May 8, 2009 at 5:52am
I really do know what you are saying.
One clarification though, it is not cow death vs dog death. Its cow death vs. whether a dog thrives or survives. The dog is not being murdered.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 5:59am
myra,
you dog will thrive without cow flesh. it is absurd to think you are being unethical towards your dog, by not feeding him/her cow flesh. in fact, many of the larger companies offer veg alternatives simply because dogs get problems eating the meat-based stuff.
your dog may prefer raw or may not. certainly i'd try the two links i have on one of my earlier posts since both companies have been around for more than 2 decades and have quite a following. there are others as well.
ecocentric has some excellent stuff just a couple of posts below!
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:12am
prad, it's not that I feel I would be unethical towards my dog if I fed her vegan. Heck, the ethical dilemma would be alleviated by excluding meat!!
It's more that I absolutely love Heidi, she is an amazing part of my family and I am coming from the fear that her health could go downhill from the exceptional health she is experiencing now and I would be responsible for this change.
However, I am really "listening" to what you and others who feed their companions vegan have to say. So, many thanks.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:25am
that your dog has exceptional health is quite the indicator and once again demonstrating that we aren't talking about cooked meat.....and 'products' of any sort are just unnecessary for everyone but those who sell them
i'm gonna bow out because i really understand both sides of the argument (kinda) and your dilemma..don't wanna make it any harder
peace and good luck
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:29am
Thanks. And I'm glad you were a part of this discussion too. I needed your perspective --hard and strong....
and may peace be with you too.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:17am
myra,
i fully understand your concern. it's the if it works, don't fix it!
however, there is no reason to think that heidi's health will go downhill.
here's why:
1. you haven't tried it
2. there are as you've noted plenty of people here who have healthy veg dogs
3. there are plenty more beyond this forum who have healthy veg dogs
4. many vets recommend veg diets
5. veg dogs have been commonly around for more than 2 decades - the health issue really isn't debatable given the evidence
some times when something works, one might find it can work even better.
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 8, 2009 at 7:29am
Thanks for this Prad. I really am considering trying veg diet.
You know, I do share my ripe sweet fruit with her. She asks for it by sitting by my legs and looking up at me with those eyes.....And true to my mono eating perspective, I keep the fruit separate from her meat!!! Boy, would I love to chuck that meat though....
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:13pm
myra,
trying veg isn't going to hurt your dog and you'll be monitoring it anyway so you can always change back if that is what you feel is right.
i read somewhere, i think, that your dog has been on raw meat for 7 yrs and is doing superbly. our 2 guys have been veg for more than a decade and we say the same about them.
the funny thing is that we'd both be shot down by the scientific studies that say iams puts out or the myriads of commercial dog food feeders who would be shocked by our treatment of dogs :D
here's something which presents a summary of the different position of the raw meat debate (note that the vegetarian diet is reluctantly acknowledged in the begining :D ):
http://www.petplace.com/dogs/raw-meat-debate-should-you-feed-it-to-...
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 9, 2009 at 6:31am
prad, I had to smile while reading the article. All these counter arguments --so similar to what goes on in human nutrition, yes? Also, the point about dogs not handling bacteria in raw meat. Heidi has been drinking from streams, lakes, etc (along with all the wild animals) for years and also eats meat that she buried days prior. And farm animal meat is certainly not the real thing for dogs, eg not wild animal meat but many of us are not eating the real stuff off the trees in tropical lands.
You see I am feeding my dog the diet based on the same premises that I feed myself the fruit diet. Species specific, physiology/biology, etc etc.
But I certainly get your point that both our dogs are doing very well. Heck, there are dogs eating the worst of the worse meat kibble and are doing fine. Just like there are humans who live long robust lives on SAD.
And we all know that it is not diet alone that yields health. My dog runs around lots every day off leash and gets plenty of lovin. Perhaps that is what is keeping her so young!
I am rambling a bit here, but I am processing all this and this is good. Based on these thoughts, plus my HUGE pull away from being involved with the farm animal abuse/murder, I am becoming more and more inclined to try (as you pointed out) vege diet for Heidi. And, after getting to know and work with the animals at the Farm Animal Sanctuary next week I am quite certain I will return wanting no part in their cousin's horrific abuse at the farm factories.
Thanks everybody.
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 6:56am
myra,
it's the exact same story as with human nutrition. in fact, discussing veg dogs here is quite reminiscent of discussing veg humans on other forums i've been on - except the people here are politer and have better self-discipline.
i don't think we have anyway to resolve whether raw meat or veg (cooked or raw) is optimal. the biology argument is admittedly a good one, but i think it is not conclusive - as you say, "one does not live by diet alone" :D
those opposing veg diets, really can't deny the success of veg dogs (apparently a vegan dog bramble holds the guiness record for age at 27, in 2002), so the concept of 'thrive' is introduced. it seems to me, though, that if a veg dog matches the same criteria required for thriving as a raw meat dog, and has the added benefit of not risking meat-related diseases, then we're doing may be a bit better than just thriving.
as far as the ethics go, it's really pretty simple. since a veg diet isn't hurting your dog (and by pretty well all accounts is helping them to thrive), just why should other animals be sacrificed? i wonder how many people who feed meat to their dogs, would be willing to give up their pet rabbit in order to maintain this 'purity' of presumed naturalness.
it's great you're doing stuff at farm animal sanctuary! they are a real force for animals and a reflection of conscience that lies buried, but alive within humanity.
in friendship,
prad
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 5:18am
i have two dogs, vinny is 12yo and stella is 1.5yo. stella has been raw vegan her whole life, vinny for 2 years. i fed vinny a raw meat-based diet for 3 years prior to switching to a raw vegan diet. i made the switch for the same reason you're considering it - buying meat makes me feel unbelievably sad and goes against my own long-term veg*nism. i too had a difficult time arriving at my decision, and had to tweak things along the way to get their diet right.
they are both extremely healthy and vibrant. i don't have any regrets or concerns. below is the diet that works for *them* with seasonal variation. wishing you all the best for your doggie :)
mixed in food processor til chunky:
nuts/seeds soaked (usually brazil nuts, pumpkin & sunflower seeds), carrots, red pepper, cucumber or zucchini, celery, avocado, watermelon w/rind or apple, parsley & other fresh herbs (dill, cilantro, basil, mint), greens (lettuce, dandelion), taurine (amino acid that dogs supposedly need if vegan - i buy capsules & empty contents into food processor. may be unnecessary...)
treats:
sweet potatoes (cut thick - they adore these), carrots, red peppers, cucumbers, watermelon with rind, apples. they'll eat most any fruit/veg!
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:32am
wow...never did i ever think i'd be in shock about a dog combo abombo....:o)
i definitely believe that a dog fed any kind of raw is better than any kind of product that can be bought
but i can't comprehend any animals digestive system being able to make sense of that food combination especially given the animals biology
i appreciate this is a real tough thing for vegan dog-owners
good luck and no offence :o)
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 5:38am
Conventional dog food is omnivorous, and certainly the type of animal flesh that is contained in it isn't what dogs would eat without human interference, is it? I guess in an ideal situation, a person would take their dog out to "hunt" whatever the dog chose.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:48am
but surely conventional dog food is bad, right...i don't understand what you are saying :o(
and yes, allowing the dog to hunt is , in one sense, ideal...
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 5:45am
i have no evidence of food combining issues with my dogs. they don't have gas. they don't have stinky stools. they don't have bad breath. they're tummies don't bloat after eating. they're high energy.
they don't have winding intestines and their stomachs are more acidic to digest stuff differently than humans. does that mean they should eat meat, just because they're physiologically capable of doing so? i don't think so. i completely turned vinny's health around with this diet. questioning his diet is like questioning 811 vs. gourmet raw vs. cooked vegan, etc. the proof is in the results.
not trying to convince anyone of anything. just sharing results with moth cuz she asked :)
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:54am
actually it is not the same...811 , gourmet raw and cooked vegan are variations on a theme...they are all plant-based and as such, are in line with our basic physiology
dogs physiology isn't by accident...i'm suggesting that you feed them raw meat not because they are physiologically capable but because it is physiological necessity
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 6:06am
elliot,
it is obviously not a physiological necessity because ecocentric's dogs are in no way experiencing any issues as a result of the diet.
your argument is of this form: i have a gun, therefore i must shoot it.
dogs do have a certain omnivoric physiology. however, since they thrive without eating meat (raw or otherwise) and since they live as long or longer than dogs fed meat, just what are you basing your physiological necessity argument upon?
in friendship,
prad
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 6:40am
true that 811, gourmet raw & cooked vegan are variations on a theme. my dogs' diet reference was intended to be a theme too - raw meat vs. raw vegan.
my point is that i was cooked vegan for a long time. when i told people about transitioning to gourmet raw, many (other veg*ns) were "concerned" about my health and actually thought i had an eating disorder. triple that sentiment when i decided on 811. i think we've all been there - encountering other raw foodists who think we can't live on fruits and greens alone. we not only survive, we thrive.
so the proof is in the results, which are genuine and obvious. it's true for me and it's true for my doggie children.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:53am
ecocentric,
that proof has a very wide following and over many years.
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 8, 2009 at 5:55am
Ecocentric, because I am struggling with this issue too I am really grateful you outlined the diet. I would be much more inclined to feed my dog RAW veg than a kibble product.
So thanks for sharing this.
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 5:34am
My sister's dog had health problems at age 5, including a bad hip. She was fed omnivorous food (conventional dog food). Now, on a strict vegetarian food (the food is plant-based except for D3), she has no hip problems. She has more energy.
My friend has four dogs. One is still transitioning to the household and her old food, but the other three are on a plant-based diet. The 8 year old one fools people into thinking he's a puppy; his fur is amazing.
Some cats do okay on a plant-based diet.....I think cats are trickier and should go on a case-by-case basis.
I probably would only adjectify a dog as a vegan if he/she spoke and told us that he didn't want to use any animal products whatever. ;)
I think it's good to be mindful of our imposition on non-human animals, choosing for them our home, filling them with our stresses, subjecting them to work schedules, etc., but in my opinion, due to animal overpopulation (yes, too many of us, too! :), I think it's awesome that people are responsible and willingly take non-human animals as members of their family, and with that, just like our children, we try to make the best choices for their diet. What that is is up to the individual, and I wouldn't think less of a person for feeding their dog meat (and I think raw is healthiest, too).
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:39am
conventional dog food is like conventional human food...any move away from it is bound to bring about positive health gains
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 5:40am
But the strict vegetarian dog food is conventional/commercial/processed as well.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 5:46am
for sure...i would be inclined to think that the vegetarian food is of a much higher quality but who knows....could be many other factors...
i'm not presenting anything as definite for anyone else...but for me, when i consider the anatomy of the dog it seems quite clear to me
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 5:54am
Yeah, due to accumulation, I'm guessing plant-based will at least have less chemicals/toxins/pesticide residue, etc.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:27am
we would hope...:o)
sure is a complicated and sensitive issue
little violet on May 8, 2009 at 5:54am
my 2 dog friends have been vegan for 3 years now & they are healthy & happy! :)
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:06am
Oh, this is good to hear....May I ask what vegan foods you feed your doggie friends? Just want to learn all the options. Thanks so much.
Eric D. on May 8, 2009 at 6:28am
pradtf I highly doubt you have any kind of worthwhile study regarding how healthy dogs or better yet, a few generation of dogs are on a vegan vs. vegetarian vs. carniverous diet. Then you could make it even better by determining the raw factor.
Also, all you people feeding dogs meaty bones, consider the fact that when a pack of K9 take out an animal they take turns, the top dog getting the best eating, which is usually ORGAN MEATS. I think that organ meat is important for your dogs health....not just the regular muscle and fat on a leg with the bone. Also make sure they get plenty of fat.
MY raw vegan friend has a few dogs. Waht he did was set out traps for gophers (which were eating up his garden) and then fed those to his dogs.
Oh and my domesticated dogs who never bite people but like to chase cats (to play with, not biting them) hunt regularly and would often catch rabbits, birds and other creatures. I should probably reason with them as this is unethical right? Wrong. If dogs were aloud to go feral and live in a pack I am sure they would become like the wild dogs in Australia or wherever. They would probably hunt bigger animals too.
I am completely shocked that anyone here would think that dogs should not be eating a WHOLE FOOD based diet from the source they are naturally inclined too. ANIMALS! Should humans domesticate all animals and train them to live off of plant soups we make for them.
Moth, dogs (and even more so cats) do NOT do better on a vegan diet. Mabye they can survive.....but so can we on a meat based diet (there is vit. C in raw meat, esspecially adrenal glands).
The dogs dont need changing to an unnatural diet. The humans need the changing. Either stop buying dogs and feeding them what ever your fancy is, or take proper care of them and feed them their natural diet. IF you cant feed meat, then RAWWWWWW full fat milk is second best. NOT VEGAN. The reason the Indian dogs lived well was probably because of the healthy raw milk, but even that is not perfect food for dogs.....although it may make us feel better about ourselves.
I personally think, as humans are meant to live off fruits and possibly veggies too, then we should allow our domesticated carnivores to feed on the animals which would eat all our food before we got to it (rats, gophers, certain birds...eatin by cats... etc. ) This is essentially what my friend did. OF course we should only do so within reason.
Eric D. on May 8, 2009 at 6:32am
Rememebr you two posters above me........
MANY humans look healthy and seem to thrive eating a meat diet and a cooked food diet. Does that mean that these diets are healthy? Should I go eat lamb stew and BBQ cow???? NO! Why? because that does not prove anything. You have to take a large amount of people and test on them to see what is best......
2 dogs on a vegan diet for 3 years is not enough proof to go against physiological design.....
All these vegans on this forum say things like...oh humans are so arrogant. Yet at the same time you will walk up to a carnivore and say, um excuse me, come with me I have something better for you....no what you are doing is wrong and gross, let me make you a better animal......give me a break....that jsut seems so hipocritical.
PS: forgive my misspelling lol.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:38am
eric,
your missssspelling is forgiven, but where are you getting this 2 dogs on a vegan diet for 3 years bit?
in friendship,
prad
Drακοnεία on May 8, 2009 at 11:39am
I agree with Eric. I think humans need to stop interfering with nature as much as possible. It's important to add dogs and cats should be fed raw wild or organic, free-ranged, grass-fed meat (organs, blood or even better to offer the whole animal if its a small size). Definitely not any commercial meat or kibble.
If the human species thrived and were physiologically developed to consume blood (you know, just like the vampire bat! :o).. I would be sourcing out my crimson meal as we speak. :P
Mon on May 8, 2009 at 11:42am
Much agreed.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 11:45am
hi drac!
can you explain how it is not interfering with nature by paying someone to kill an imprisoned animal that a dog wouldn't hunt in the first place, cutting it up into pieces and serving this 'natural' concoction to a dog?
since most people can't get this 'natural' meat, should a new industry be started up for the production of 'natural' dog meals?
is your concern that the dog will get sick on a veg diet?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 7:36pm
if we don't interfere by domesticating the animal then the dog WOULD kill
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:41pm
i agree!
but we do interfere and many domesticated dogs don't even know how to kill.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:19pm
having just read through the later posts, i know that you have been given many reasons as to why domesticated animals may have a few problems killing from a much better source than myself, so let us not go there :o)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:27pm
i suppose you mean laurie?
i find her posts to be very good and informative.
i appreciate talking to you too, elliot.
domesticated animals would likely have a difficult time in the wild.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:57pm
"domesticated animals would likely have a difficult time in the wild"
fo' sure......such is human intervention
yeah, i do mean laurie :o)
p.s we aint ever gonna see eye to eye on this and the non-chronological nature of these types of forum make this impossible to follow...so, with respect, i bow out
it is a hard argument for me to defend because ultimately you cannot be faulted for your motives to do what you do....i just hope it is the win-win that you believe it to be
peace
elliot :o)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 9:04pm
it is a hard argument for you to defend, but it is also a difficult one for me to win since i won't refute your statements about biology - only your application of them.
also i only can provide anecdotal evidence (admittedly quite a bit of it), but you do not seem to find that valid.
i appreciate that you are sincere about your stance and genuinely feel you are doing the best for your dogs.
in friendship,
prad
ps don't be sure we won't ever see eye to eye on this ... ever is a long time ;)
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 9:07pm
i'm replying to you ...
i don't own dogs....i don't want to....
your anecdotal evidence is just what it is ..anecdotal......valid or not, you are making a choice for something that can't chose for itself and i'm happy that you feel it the right one
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:37am
eric,
you don't always need 'studies' to justify something. long-term anecdotal evidence is quite sufficient.
you may be shocked, but you haven't provided reasons as to why. exactly what is the basis of your shock? is it "The dogs dont need changing to an unnatural diet." so are you really going to let your dog run amuck?
i have already explained why dogs and cats do better on a veg diet - they don't get hit with many of the same ailments that carnivores experience.
until you can provide evidence to the effect that veg diets are bad for dogs, it seems a bit pre-mature to admonish those of us who are finding exactly the opposite.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 7:38pm
i thought you were talking about cooked products....
and no , anecdotal studies aren't enough...especially considering you can't get the dogs opinion
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:45pm
they'd better be, because it may be difficult to find a study which shows that raw meat is good for dogs or even 811 is good for humans.
what sort of study do you think would suffice elliot?
are observations by veg dog owners here not worth anything?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:28pm
811 is just a gelling together of thousands of studies related to natural hygiene that are based entirely on us as humans/frugivores......so yes, the studies are there
if you have accepted 811 based on the fact that it makes sense (as does natural hygiene) that our health is dependant on all of our natural internal systems and how they interact with the 'natural' external world then there clearly is no other choice......
observations are all well and good.....
but controlled studies that introduce all the factors we are talking about on a large number of dogs over a cross reference of breeds would be a good start
based on everything you have said i would summise that the improvements that your dogs have seen in their health is as a result of moving to a much better quality food source and removing the element of cooked meat....kinda like how health can be improved not so much by what we add but by what we exclude (think 'tree of life)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:35pm
elliot,
that's good the studies are being prepared - there may be problems having them accepted as it usually takes considerable effort to overcome inertia.
i didn't ever say i saw improvements in my dogs. we got them from the spca at a fairly young age and they've been vegan for more than a decade. they eat evolution diet primarily. they were healthy initially and remain that way - much to the chagrin of some who know they are veg.
(also, controlled studies can be quite deceptive - because of the controls. doesn't the bottom line have to be how's your dog?)
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:59pm
"doesn't the bottom line have to be how's your dog?"
sure thing...and when he gives you an answer be sure to let me know
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 9:06pm
both dogs have given us "an answer" for more than a decade, elliot.
and i have let you know.
in friendship,
prad
veganchris on May 8, 2009 at 6:31am
our dog snoopy now is vegan for 4 years, and healthier than before - he's now 12 years old, and everybody thinks he is a "she" and 1-3 years old. he was very old before, and you could tell, that he was old, but after the switch he's got back his youth, his endurance and his speed.
at first though he didn't really liked the new food, but know he really loves it, more than any other food before :)
if he finds some thrown away meat on the streets and eats it, he gets problems with his digestion (he farts, he stinks overall, and most of the time gets diarrhea).
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:40pm
chris,
we hear the same comments. our guys have been vegan for 10+ yrs and people are surprised to hear that they are not puppies :D
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 6:32am
I'm with el-bo and myra on this one.
Fact: Domestic Dogs are descendants of The Grey Wolf/Wild Dogs.
Question: Where do you see a Grey Wolf climbing up a tree for an apple or digging in the ground for a carrot?
Answer: You don't. Why? Simple. They are carnivorous. As much as it breaks our vegan-animal-loving hearts, evolutionary blueprints are evolutionary blueprints are evolutionary blueprints. (Was it just me or was that a tongue-twister?!)
Question: Why, then, do our domestic dogs consume the fruits and veggies that we offer them? (or perhaps that they steal off our plates, from the garbage, etc... )
Answer: Dogs, like cats, are opportunistic eaters. Offer food, whether it's healthy for them or not, and they will consume it. Take cats as an example.. a lot, if not most, of them love dairy. Naturally, they should never consume this.. it's toxic to a cat, just as it is to us. No species should consume the dairy of another species, ever. Such is a contradiction to nature. However, cats express an inert love and passion for things like milk and cheese... Does this mean they should consume it? No. Just because they haven't keeled over from it yet, does not mean that nature has provided it for them to consume.
A domestic dog, left to it's own defenses... will (like pradtf mentioned) join a pack, travel, mate and hunt. They don't hunt vegetables.. they hunt other animals.
Simply because our beloved family member is no longer living in the wild or considered a "wild" animal.. does not mean one should treat or feed it as anything other than wild.
If we were to apply this theory to our own diet, it holds true.
We are all here at 30BAD consuming a diet that nature intended for us... despite our not being so "natural" and "wild" any longer.
What do we do? We observe the eating habits of our closest relatives and conclude that this is how we should still be eating, that we've lost "touch".
Concurrently, this would mean one couldn't dismiss the "wild relatives" to the domestic dog and it's eating habits.
We have all unanimously agreed that mimicking the eating habits of wild carnivorous animals, though we can still live doing so, is not at all what we were designed for. We can live through it, yes, but it kills us terribly and slowly in the end.
A vegetable here and there, some greens here and there.. never hurt a carnivore. But to base this as the main diet is simple ignorance in my mind. (No offense here, please!!! Not trying to insult anyone! Just being honest!)
Take the Deer as an example. Strict Vegetarians. However, also known to occasionally consume the bone-marrow from animal corpses found in the forests.
Eric D. on May 8, 2009 at 6:38am
Right on Cassandra.....
But, I've heard that bears will eat the udders of an animal, herefore eating the milk.......but I suppose this is not a common thing and I've not heard of dogs doing this, although if a bear could surely a dog too. But ya, of course it shouldnt would never make up the majority or even a relativly small minority of a carnivores diet (milk).
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:42am
casandra,
i appreciate you are being honest, but you are not being accurate.
the reality is that we've had plenty of veg dogs for over 2 decades.
isn't that a bit difficult to argue against with 'dogs are carnivores' line?
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 9:07am
In terms of accuracy, pradtf... we've had carnivorous and omnivorous humans for decades.
Does this hold argument to our being intended as carnivores or omnivores ?
Not at all. Again, something we all agree on.
Because something has been practiced for extended periods of time, does not make it right. This is not justification for the actions. If it were, rape and murder would be accepted.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 10:55am
that's a good point casandra - certainly usage should not be confused with correctness.
however, i not arguing that dogs aren't carnivore. they are. what i'm saying is that there is a misunderstanding and misapplication of those terms. specifically, a carnivorous animal has the capability of eating meat which is not the same thing as concluding that it has to eat meat.
if you want to use the line of reason you introduce (and quite well too) above, you also need to contend with this sort of thing:
"because people have been compassionate towards other people for extended periods of time, does not make it right. This is not justification for the actions."
so what is at issue here is
1. can you show that a veg diet is bad for dogs? (i can show that it is good for dogs)
2. can you show that raw meat is sufficiently better for dogs (just all of us agreeing that raw rawks, isn't enough), in order to justify the imprisonment, exploitation and murder of other sentient beings.
in friendship,
prad
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 3:18pm
pradtf, my question to you is this:
Why does it have to be an imprisoned and exploited case?
One can find wild-caught meat. No imprisonment, no exploitation, and not necessarily murder when it's something the dog would do naturally to survive.
Look around, do some research. It's out there.
It's our responsibility, as an intelligent species, to recognize our duties as humans and animal keepers.. and either come to grips with the idea of having to provide proper food (meat) to our carnivore family members.. or find someone else who can.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... it isn't fair to either party if the owner has conflicting morals with the animal's requirements that simply can not be disregarded.
It hurts on both sides.
Thus, the animal should be given to one who can properly provide for it without any conflicting morals... and without the need to bend their natural requirements at to coincide with your own ethics.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 3:29pm
casandra,
please tell me where you are going to find "wild-caught" meat. who is going to find it? if it is your dog, then you may have a point and your statement of no imprisonment or exploitation is valid. how many dog guardians have access to wild-caught meat? (in the other thread, you are trying to figure out how to get access to wild-caught veggies, as am i btw, and it isn't too easy for us).
you say "It's our responsibility, as an intelligent species, to recognize our duties as humans and animal keepers". so does this mean that our responsibility ends with our dog? do we have no responsibility for the cow or lamb that is going to be killed because we've drawn this conclusion about "proper food (meat)"?
you say "It hurts both sides" by which i presume you mean owner and dog. hey, but aren't we forgetting the third party here? the unfortunate sentient being who is going to be sacrificed at the altar just so someone's dog can eat his or her body parts, because someone has decided meat is it, even though evidence to the contrary. doesn't that sentient being count at all?
you didn't address the 2 questions i asked - so here they are again a bit abbreviated:
1. can you show that a veg diet is bad for dogs? (i can show that it is good for dogs)
2. can you show that raw meat is sufficiently better for dogs?
are you able to answer these 2 questions with any kind of evidence at all?
in friendship,
prad
rebeccaj on May 8, 2009 at 6:38am
Hey Moth -
this sounds like a tough issue to deal with for you. I skimmed over the responses (they got kinda confrontational, so I didn't read in-depth), but the impression that I have is that dogs DO have an omnivorous digestive system. They are opportunists in the wild. And they are mighty hunters who kill their prey (and eat large animals, including cattle) in packs, as well as opportunistic scavengers who compete with vultures and other scavengers. I understand your human ethical challenge, I went through it with my cat.
I guess I would apply the ol' Natural Hygiene joke to your dog: put your dog in the kitchen with some lamb meat (or depending on the size of the dog, some mice or similar small prey; choose something your sized dog could actually get on his own without a pack), some eggs (ever heard of an "egg-suck dog?" they scavenge eggs from nests), some fruit, and some veg. Put it all out there for the dog to choose from. See what he eats and what he plays with. I know dogs that will eat anything you (literally) throw at them, and other dogs that will only eat their brand of food. Talk to your dog about it - ask him if he wants/needs a bone, or would he be fine with carrots. Let him know about your ethical challenges, see what he says back to you. He's the only one who can really tell you what's best for him.
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 6:38am
shoulda realised what i was getting into.....peoples pets are like their children, often moreso
for me the anatomy of the dog suggests it's diet type as clearly as ours does to our natural diet......
what is it that i see that others here don't......anyway, never mind
human ethics are for humans and it is clear that it is the fact that we have to play a part in the death that seems to be the overriding factor for the naysayers, here.....right or wrong, you are making your choices based on how this affects you, the owner, not necesarily the animal in question
so what we are really arguing about is not what is best for the dog (the original intent of the thread) but what is right for the owner...or at least , what is less difficult
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 6:43am
I think if you read most of the responses, you'll find that the decision to move a dog to a plant-based diet resulted in health improvements.
The dog I mentioned with hip problems comes from an omnivorous family; they are not even close to vegan. Are you saying an omnivorous family feeding a dog a plant-based diet is forcing "ethics" on the dog?
I think there's an assumption that it's for ethics, but largely, the health improvements are hard to ignore.
(I have no dogs but I did have info on dogs eating plant-based, and I realize Moth's question was more brought on by ethical consideration, but so is the ethical consideration on what is best ASSUMING YOU HAVE A DOG INSIDE A HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE health-wise for the dog as well.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:55am
utopia,
i think vegans sometimes get zapped with the 'ethical' argument even when there is plenty to show that what's good for the soul is also good for the body.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 7:53pm
i think you know i have read all of the responses :o)
and both the original poster and a few others are having problems with this choice solely beacuse it brings them face to face with something they find, for good reason, totally disagreeable
no, not your friends....and i thought we agreed that in your friends case, it may have been the many factors involved in the dogs change in health when excluding cooked meat products
you do raise , quite unintentionally , some points that kinda clarify some confusions...you call your friends an omnivorous family...if this is the case then you should have them examined for they are truly a rarety...humans aren't omnivores...i'm sure you agree..the point is that just because people eat everything it doesn't mean they should
if carnivores need razor teeth, short intestines and really acidic stomachs and plant eaters the opposite then neither dog nor human is an omnivore....in fact which MAMMALS truly are omnivore ???
and for what it's worth , i don't think it's ethical to keep pets....a better alternative to human killing intervention but still wrong...cats, are the only exception...you don't keep cats, they keep you :o)
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:49am
el-bo,
Yes, what is best for the dog (which I believe is raw meaty bones/organs) should take priority over what is best for the person.
But, what about the farm animals, the cows, pigs, chickens that are fed to the dogs? What is best for them?
And this is my dilemma.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:49am
elliot,
we are arguing about what is best for the dog - and what is best for the dog, also turns out to be best for the cow or whatever.
that is the whole point of being reasonably optimal too.
your entire argument seems therefore to hinge on providing raw meat instead of cooked meat. therefore, you need to show that raw meat fed dogs are actually healthier than dogs fed otherwise. i'm not sure this can be done, since it is not a good idea to feed a dog raw meat exclusively and nothing else, is it?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 7:46pm
"and what is best for the dog, also turns out to be best for the cow or whatever"
at best, speculation...at worst, speculation
i don't need to show anything....the point is we aren't talking about what the dog wants needs, it is your wants and needs
if you were a meat eater we wouldn't be having this conversation...i would suggest that raw meat is better and you would probably say that it sounded a little logical and that you might give it a try...the point is it causes you discomfort to partake in the meat industry...nothing wrong with that except that this is now compelling you to look to extending this to your pet....
sure , just because you can feed it meat it doesn't mean you have to...what does that prove....it's teeth are designed for ripping flesh....does it also have extra teeth for grinding veg....it has short intestines to expel the meat rapidly so as not to toxify it's body....does it also have another set of intestines for the plant matter that are much longer to allow suitable time for absorbtion ???
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:56pm
i'm talking about what's good for the dog too, elliot.
there are meat eaters who feed their dogs veg not from some ethical impetus but because their dog has problems with meat.
your description of the dog's anatomy confirms that it has the tools to eat meat. it doesn't prove that dogs shouldn't eat veg.
you seem to think that i'm running a purely personal and ethics-based campaign here, but if you go back to my earlier post you'll see quite clearly that there is a both an ethics and a health component. i'm trying to stick to the latter, which is why i asked if you can demonstrate whether raw meat fed dogs are actually healthier than dogs fed otherwise. can that be done either through a study or anecdotally?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:39pm
i find anecdotes better when coming 1st hand...how unfortunate for me that i'm yet to find a dog who will tell me what they prefer
for cases where we can't ask someone how they are feeling, studies would help a little...thing is , would you be willing to try it ???
your anecdotal evidence would be far more important to me if you spent the next few months feeding your dog raw meat and noted any changes you saw....the fact that i know you won't do this is why i believe that while you say it is not ethically or emotionally driven (yours, not the dogs) , it really is the motivation behind you seeking to find and defend other alternatives.....i do appreciate this, really, but the fact that we are even having this conversation at all is because it causes you a big problem to deal with giving your carnivore pet some meat
and...a humans anatomy confirms , to me that we are frugivore...as a cows biology screams grass...and as a dogs should eat meat...
by all means, give your dog veg.......but as long as you are confident that depriving the carnivore of meat is ok then go for it...after all, it's your choice , huh ???? you own the animal
peace
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:47pm
elliot,
the anecdotal evidence is coming first hand - it has to do with the dog's health ... and we have 20+ yrs of it between the 2 dogs. others have plenty more.
is what a dog prefers to take priority? some like excrement. some children like candy. i don't think that you are seriously suggesting we adopt that policy are you?
as for motivation, you are not quite correct. the first diet i looked into for the first dog was barf. i rejected it for various reasons including a vet's reprimand - i was a bit unsure back then about these things ... it was our first dog after all.
i don't just think that depriving the carnivore of meat is ok - i think it is the best thing to do for the carnivore ... and i have quite a few sources who agree with me.
in friendship,
prad
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 6:44am
Just FYI, none of my posts were meant to be confrontational, and I didn't see any that were. Lets all hold paws. :)
myra on May 8, 2009 at 6:51am
Hehe. agreed. I did not read nor feel confrontation, just some passion!! Here's my paw......
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 6:50am
I think most people living in cities can't do this. We have to make the best choice we can, given the circumstances. It's not like we can take away all of these roads, sidewalks, our neighbors (though some might wish. :p))
And I do think it's best to keep a dog/adopt (one that already exists, NEVER from a breeder) rather than for the dogs to be euthanized or hit by a car.
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 6:59am
Maybe, if the shark wanted to try it out.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:58am
those are very cute bow-bows!!
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:57am
ben,
our dogs love almond butter, yams and zucchini.
one of them used to love carrots.
if you want to pursue this, i can provide you with lots of links on veg dogs.
in friendship,
prad
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 8:13am
they're sweet kids for sure. sounds like you have some happy pups too. thanks for your support :)
☮
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:26am
there is a very large community who are willing to support the veg dog diet. they speak as do you from personal experience, vet support and documentation as well as decades of results.
the dietary argument is solid.
the ethical rational is irrefutable.
tell me though - are your dogs 'attack dogs'? i don't mean that in a bad way, btw. i've just found that the smaller the dog, the bigger the bark :D i think i've found only one small dog who wasn't like that out of many, many!
in friendship,
prad
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 8:59am
lol! not attack dogs. quite laid back and friendly....unless you're the mail carrier :)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:51am
ben,
just why would free range raw meat be the next best thing to letting your dog run in the wild?
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 7:00am
Great point, Ben!
I think what some are missing here is the fact that the majority of these domestic dogs who regained health through a vegetarian diet... were fed conventional, bone dry, devoid-of-all-nutrient, pumped-with-fillers and chems, food.
Just as we all became immensely healthier through switching from cooked meat to cooked vegetarian/vegan (Beans, legumes, wheat, soya milks, agave nectar, cacao, etc)... doesn't mean it's the diet that one should stick with. Or could even thrive with, for that matter.
We all improved from this because we dropped serious toxins from our daily diet. Does this mean that cooked vegetarian is good for us? Of course not, and we all know this. We all know the science and nature behind why.
Likewise, simply because a dog's health shows improvement through a vegetarian diet, does not give one any means to assume that this should be the base diet. All that has happened is that the dog is no longer consuming mass quantities of fillers like rice and vegetables and unnatural chemical-binding agents... which are all toxic .
myra on May 8, 2009 at 7:23am
Yes, agreed. I adopted my dog at the age of 2 and put her immediately on a raw meat diet. She went through detox for about a week....mucous from her eyes and nose, thick gunk from her ears, bad breath, runny poo. Now, at age 9 she is in superior health on the same raw diet.
Still, like Moth, I think about the farm animals I feed to her....
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:21am
casandra,
you write:
simply because a dog's health shows improvement through a vegetarian diet, does not give one any means to assume that this should be the base diet.
the other side of that is to ask why shouldn't it be the base diet. can it be shown that dogs do better on raw meat diets than those on veg diets?
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 8:51am
Personal experiences have shown me it is better. Arthritis has vanished, kidneys have cleared up of stones, coats grow stronger, shinier, and shedding is minimal. Vast improvements in digestion and health of teeth.
Detoxification from the transition of a traditional "dry" diet to a raw diet can be severe and last years, depending on levels of toxemia. A slower transition is always best.
I used to work at an alternative Veterinarian Clinic.
In terms of scientific data or reported studies. I know of none. However, I don't believe any are required to justify common sense.
It was only when our species became formidably unhealthy and diseased, that the required studies were conducted and the steps to proper health and nutrition were taken.
Frankly, because no studies (that i know of) have been done on Raw meat versus Raw Vegetable diets for Dogs... does not denote the concept that Raw Vegetables must be the answer.
Would it be fair to feed a Dog the exact opposite of what it's wild relatives consume? No. This would be a harshly unfair assumption.
Do we really have to wait until our canine friends suffer from a pandemic of treacherous disease and decline.. for us to conduct studies and conclude that the diet their wild-cousins thrive on is the way to go?
If we are keeping our diets as close to nature as possible... why would we try so hard to steer our animal-friends from that very same diet that they've rights to... for sake of our own morals?
Don't like feeding meat to your pet? Don't have a carnivorous pet :) It's very simple!
To change their diet and risk harming the richness of their lives simply because you don't like the concept of killing an animal to feed your Dog... is selfish. Again, by no means am I trying to be mean or confrontational! But it's not fair to the animal or the owner if they both live with conflicting diets and morals that just can not be disregarded. The owner is at a constant battle with themselves over moral issues and the health of the animal they so dearly love... likewise, the animal is confused as to why one day they're eating meat and the next there is none to be found.
It isn't fair to both parties and giving the animal a new home where someone can handle the ethical problems, should be taken into very serious consideration.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 10:40am
casandra,
it's quite ok if you want to be confrontational. you obviously feel very strongly about this to say something like "Don't like feeding meat to your pet? Don't have a carnivorous pet :) It's very simple!". you are sincere about this and sincerity counts for a lot.
however, if you read the various posts here, you'll see that many of us have found our dogs get healthier on a veg diet and its not the ethics that are driving them. all veg folks aren't ethical vegetarians - they do what is best for their bodies and for those of their dogs.
in answer to my question "can it be shown that dogs do better on raw meat diets than those on veg diets?"
you write,
"Personal experiences have shown me it is better. Arthritis has vanished, kidneys have cleared up of stones, coats grow stronger, shinier, and shedding is minimal. Vast improvements in digestion and health of teeth."
now does this mean you've brought up dogs on veg diets and then switched them to meat and found these developments to occur? is something you've done which you are calling your personal experience? because if not, then your statement doesn't pertain to my question.
you write:
"Frankly, because no studies (that i know of) have been done on Raw meat versus Raw Vegetable diets for Dogs... does not denote the concept that Raw Vegetables must be the answer."
well that goes both ways doesn't it. if there are no studies then there is also no reason for you to conclude that raw meat is the answer. however, what does exist are innumerable veg dog owners who have found their dogs do very well on veg as well as vets who are supportive of this diet.
you write:
"Would it be fair to feed a Dog the exact opposite of what it's wild relatives consume? No. This would be a harshly unfair assumption."
the assumption here is that a veg diet is the exact opposite of a meat diet. this assumes that a veg diet is somehow bad for dogs even though dogs do eat vegetable matter in the wild and they are also all these veg dogs running around these days.
you write:
"Do we really have to wait until our canine friends suffer from a pandemic of treacherous disease and decline.. for us to conduct studies and conclude that the diet their wild-cousins thrive on is the way to go?"
casandra, really! we've had veg dogs for more than 2 decades on a commercial basis and who knows how long otherwise. can you tell me just what sorts of treacherous disease and decline we should be expecting?
you write:
"why would we try so hard to steer our animal-friends from that very same diet that they've rights to..."
but casandra, feeding dogs parts of cow is not the natural diet they have a right to. if you let your dog run wild and hunt, your assertion has merit. however, people just don't do that and it's probably just as well because domesticated dogs aren't going to do too well in the wild.
you write:
"It isn't fair to both parties and giving the animal a new home where someone can handle the ethical problems, should be taken into very serious consideration."
i think what should be given very serious consideration is whether one would oppose a dog going to a veg household or stay in a shelter or 'out in the wild' just so this dogs-must-eat-meat mantra is satisfied for some.
in friendship,
prad
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 3:49pm
I don't want to be confrontational, just simply stating my honesty :)
You asked:
now does this mean you've brought up dogs on veg diets and then switched them to meat and found these developments to occur? is something you've done which you are calling your personal experience? because if not, then your statement doesn't pertain to my question.
Yes, from first-hand personal experience. Not from having raised dogs, but rather from having nursed dogs back to health that their owners had raised on long-term vegetarian diets. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly pertaining to this topic. Time and time again, all physical evidence points back to their natural diet - Meat.
You stated:
well that goes both ways doesn't it. if there are no studies then there is also no reason for you to conclude that raw meat is the answer. however, what does exist are innumerable veg dog owners who have found their dogs do very well on veg as well as vets who are supportive of this diet.
I disagree. There are hundreds of studies (google a bit) regarding raw-meat diets in dogs. Just nothing regarding raw-meat VERSUS raw-veg. Not only that, but studies honestly haven't a need when it comes to raw-meat.. as this is the natural diet that they and their wild brothers consume. Vegetables have never been a part of this diet.
You stated:
the assumption here is that a veg diet is the exact opposite of a meat diet. this assumes that a veg diet is somehow bad for dogs even though dogs do eat vegetable matter in the wild and they are also all these veg dogs running around these days.
Yes, dogs do consume small amounts, if any, of vegetation-matter in the wild. I never said they didn't. I said this shouldn't be the base of their diet, as it is unnatural. Dogs, cats and many other carnivores consume small amounts of half-un-digested vegetable matter from the stomachs of their prey. If one wants to be a stickler for labels.. I suppose this would make them all part "Omnivore".
However, you can't dismiss the fact that although some vegetable matter is consumed.. as is the rest of the prey's body. Which is meat. The ratio of meat to veg is staggering.
You said:
casandra, really! we've had veg dogs for more than 2 decades on a commercial basis and who knows how long otherwise. can you tell me just what sorts of treacherous disease and decline we should be expecting?
lol. To ask one to predict the diseases to be expected is ludicrous! Nobody predicted our own. Perhaps the powers-that-be, but not us.. the consumers. Our pets are basically our consumers, and we are "the powers that be". It is, again, our responsibility.
You wrote:
but casandra, feeding dogs parts of cow is not the natural diet they have a right to. if you let your dog run wild and hunt, your assertion has merit. however, people just don't do that and it's probably just as well because domesticated dogs aren't going to do too well in the wild.
I agree, domesticated dogs may not do that well in the wild. However, many a species still possess crucial instincts that can quickly turn your favorite pet into a vicious and wild hunter.
Nobody said to feed a dog cow parts. That's a big of a jump of the gun. Dogs naturally would consume animals a wee bit smaller than that ;)
you stated:
i think what should be given very serious consideration is whether one would oppose a dog going to a veg household or stay in a shelter or 'out in the wild' just so this dogs-must-eat-meat mantra is satisfied for some.
Who said the dog must go to a shelter or "out in the wild" ? I don't believe I ever said, nor indicated, anything of the sort.
I suggested one give the dog to someone who can meet their natural requirements. Someone, a friend, a half-way house, etc.. etc... There are dozens of organizations in the world that are there for this very reason (not the diet reason, just in general). When a dog needs a new home, there are people who can help.
This entire thread has lost it's way. Moth wants our opinions on dogs eating veg or meat... we all expressed our opinions. Why must there be nit-picks regarding those opinions?
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 4:16pm
casandra,
thank you for your response and i don't find it confrontational and indeed honest.
i can't argue against your first-hand experience. however, i can suggest that may be there were other deficiencies in the diet which would not have required meat. furthermore, i can provide studies which show dogs doing really rather well the longer they are veg.
nor will i 'nitpick' on several of the points you make ... (though i thought questioning statements is part of the discussion)
except these:
1. To ask one to predict the diseases to be expected is ludicrous!
agreed! then why did you write:
"Do we really have to wait until our canine friends suffer from a pandemic of treacherous disease and decline."
this would seem to suggest you think the veg dog movement is going to cause widespread suffering for dogs.
2. Nobody said to feed a dog cow parts. That's a big of a jump of the gun. Dogs naturally would consume animals a wee bit smaller than that ;)
good, so what are we talking about here and what is the plan for getting it? are you suggesting we let the dog out for lunch or are you suggesting we get the dog lunch?
3. Who said the dog must go to a shelter or "out in the wild" ? I don't believe I ever said, nor indicated, anything of the sort.
well, it's hard enough to find homes for dogs from shelters. so if someone like me offers to give a dog a home announcing that the dog will be veg, should the shelter refuse?
4. When a dog needs a new home, there are people who can help.
that's really not the reality for many, many dogs, casandra. no-kill shelters are far and few. should the shelter refuse due to a dietary assumption which has been demostrated to be false?
enough nitpicking for now! :D
in friendship,
prad
Swayze on May 8, 2009 at 6:49am
I'm sure that switching a dog or cat from a commercial dry or wet food to a raw vegan diet would result in improvements. Just as a switch from a SAD diet to a raw meat diet for humans results in improvements. However, "improvements" does not mean thriving. I'm sure no one here will argue that humans thrive on raw meat...
My dog and 3 cats have been eating a raw meat, bone, and organ diet as long as I have been eating high-fruit raw (1.5 years).
A great resource is here:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawfeeding/?yguid=329236134
Casandra Willis on May 8, 2009 at 7:01am
Nice one! Funny I just posted the same thing in response at the same time as you did lol!!
ecocentric on May 8, 2009 at 7:30am
i fed my older dog commercial dog food for several years, thinking i was doing the right thing. never corn, wheat, soy, or rendered factory-farm crap - but still not the proper diet. i started feeding him raw flesh, organs & bones and continued on this diet for 3 years. he did a lot better than on commercial stuff, of course, but his chronic conditions (ear infections, seasonal allergies & dry skin) did not go away .... and he developed osteoarthritis.
i started feeding him the raw vegan diet as i outlined previously, and within a few months his chronic and degenerative conditions were a thing of the past. no recurrences.
sure, ethically i didn't like buying him meat, but i would not keep my kids on a vegan diet if they weren't thriving.
these are real-life experiences. obviously many of you disagree, and that's fine. just pointing out what's possible :)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:59am
swayze,
part of the point here is that veg dogs do thrive.
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 8, 2009 at 7:58am
Hi Moth & All,
I have 2 Boston Terriers. I know the dilemma and it's hard to be a vegetarian and animal lover and decide what to do. The information was very overwhelming for me, in favor of raw meat/bones, and I've been feeding them this way for 7 yrs. I have a few things to add:
Not that this is the be-all, end-all, but just to clarify, dogs are scientifically classified as carnivores. You can also watch them try to chew veggies/leaves--their jaws really only move up and down, not side to side. If you give them a whole carrot, it will come out in big bits in their poop. Same with nuts. This is why most people puree or cook plant foods for dogs. Soft fruit is better, but I can't see dogs being frugivores like us. And I see dogs being omnivore the same way people say we're omnivore. We can eat meat, but it doesn't digest very well.
I wonder if the dogs in India hunted rodents at all? Even if they didn't, though, maybe they are like some of the old people who seem to do well on cooked foods. Maybe they have good genetics and they aren't overeating on processed foods, so they do fine, but they could've had better health. But yes, people scraps (of whole foods) are better than most (if not all) commercial dog foods.
That domestic dogs don't kill cows doesn't mean anything. We have bred dogs down to be smaller, and, well...domesticated. But they are very close to wolves (sharing 99.8% of their dna), who hunt in packs and kill and eat large animals.
There are subtleties which could explain why going from a raw meat diet to a raw vegan diet for dogs could show improvements in health (not sure if this would last long-term). Many people feed prepared mixes which can be high in fat or high in bone (it's hard to know the proportions of these mixes and they sometimes use more of the cheaper ingredients--skin/fat/bone). Many people feed mostly chicken, as it is convenient and cheap, but it would probably be better to feed more of what dogs/wolves would eat naturally (red meats with some smaller rodents, some seasonal fowl, and maybe salmon). Most commercial meats are also much higher in fat, and grain-fed, resulting in unhealthy fat profiles (wild or grass-fed vs. grain-fed are completely different). We know the importance of fat levels/types here!
The dog who gets gas/diarrhea from rotting meat on the street doesn't prove much--sorry. Is it cooked? Is it actually rotten? Is it interacting with the fruit/veg in his system? My dogs eat raw meat, bones, and organs, except for the occasional treat of fruit, or something with grains. If they have eaten their meat meal recently, and I give them fruit/grains, they get gas. If I give them only meat, bones, and organs, and not a real fatty meal, no gas.
Also, when my dog was on a mostly ground chicken and pureed raw veggies diet, he had some minor digestive symptoms and a few minor pancreatitis episodes, as well as chronic yeasty ears. Once I eliminated the veggies, his ears cleared up. Since I switched to mostly grass-fed meats, lots of red meat, and leaner cuts, 2.5 yrs. ago, he has not had any more digestive/pancreatic symptoms or problems. Oh, and I also went from feeding him 3x/day to once a day or even every other day sometimes. Dogs are actually built to eat more at once, rather than eating frequently. It gives the pancreas/digestive system more of a rest. It is best to gradually increase meal size, just like we do with 811, and there will probably be individual tweaking along the way, but I think it's probably the ideal.
So, there are many types of raw diets for people and dogs, and it's hard to lump them together and know all the variables. We could easily say a raw vegan diet isn't best for us if we didn't do it right, didn't understand the subtleties, didn't understand detox, etc. If we eat the wrong fruits for us at the wrong times, combine things improperly, eat only apples, eat mostly sprouts, eat unripe fruit, eat too much fat, etc.
And it's hard to know exactly what's going on inside our pets who can't talk. I have tried to pay very close attention to my dog's symptoms (the same way we notice we feel better with a little less or a little more food, or mangoes aren't the best thing right now, or mixing our greens with our fruit makes our stool a little softer, or whatever) and moved closer and closer to what I feel is his most natural diet, and while he has always been healthy (white teeth, no smell, great skin/coat, etc.) he has done nothing but improve the past 2.5 yrs.
Thanks for the discussion.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:16am
laurie,
yours is a very substantial post with lots of interesting information.
however, if a dog doesn't kill a cow to eat it, then why would you feed raw cow to the dog?
is all meat equal?
also, if a veg dog shows the same healthy symptoms as a raw meat dog, on what basis can you say that the 'natural' meat-based diet is better?
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 8, 2009 at 8:47am
Well, basically most domesticated dogs 1) have been bred to have unnatural physical characteristics that would make hunting large animals difficult (they are too small, have small/short jaws, etc.), 2) no longer have all of their natural hunting instincts, and 3) do not live in packs who have taught them how to work cooperatively to take down a cow. But they are still physiologically meat-eaters. Kind of like if we bred people to have super-short arms, so they couldn't reach fruit to pick it, so we said, well, they shouldn't eat fruit.
I don't understand your question about all meat being equal--can you elaborate or reword that?
As to your last question, I find it hard to separate out what seems so natural to me. It's kind of like saying, well, human babies seem as healthy on raw goat's milk as human breast milk, so how can we say human breast milk is better? The human breast milk just seems more natural. It just does not make sense to me to feed my dogs the same diet as me. All animals in the wild have their own, individual diet. Would we feed a wolf in a zoo fruit and veggies?
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 10:19am
laurie,
dogs can physiologically eat meat - that doesn't mean that they must eat meat or are even healthy on it.
there is a difference between meat from a rat, lamb, cow, and elephant. where as a dog may be able to handle a rat or a lamb, it may have a bit more difficulty with the large animals even if someone were to kill and give it to them.
the argument presented starts with the axiom that because dogs have carnivorous abilities they must eat meat to survive. this is obviously not true otherwise all of us veg dog folks would have dead or unhealthy dogs.
then the argument attempts to inject the 'what is natural' element. since we are not allowing dogs to be 'natural' in the first place for reasons that both you and i have cited in this thread, it makes little sense to try to use 'naturalness' as a rationale for feeding meat.
i don't think a dog should necessarily be fed the same diet as you, but that doesn't mean a dog can't be as healthy or healthier not eating meat. wolves shouldn't be in zoos in the first place because zoos shouldn't exist. however, there is no reason to think that a wolf fed a veg diet would do any worse than one given raw meat - you may know of little tyke, the lioness who wouldn't touch meat - there is a thread about it on 30bad, i'll find it for you if you want.
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 8, 2009 at 3:20pm
Prad,
I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this one... :-)
I'm not sure why you're bringing up the differences in meat (rats, lambs, cows...). ?? Obviously rats are different from cows and I do think carnivores have ideal prey animals, but there is some latitude. Just like we can eat a variety of fruits, but the bulk of our diet should probably be tropical fruits.
I don't believe dogs must eat meat to survive. But I believe their physiology does indicate what their natural/ideal diet is.
Yes, dogs are raised unnaturally. So are we. Do we throw out all ideas about natural diet then?
As far as wolves in zoos, well, I wasn't arguing about whether zoos should exist at all (sigh...)...I simply meant that if you take an animal out of its natural environment, you would still try to feed it a somewhat natural diet. You don't change it from herbivore to carnivore or vice-versa. How would you feel about feeding meat to a horse or cow? Why would that be any more wrong than feeding a dog vegan? Again, dogs do not have the physiology of an omnivore, herbivore, or frugivore. Do you think there are no natural carnivores? All creatures should be vegan? That would be interesting for Arctic wolves in the tundra, big cats in the desert, all the whales and fish in the sea that eat other fishes, birds of prey, etc.
So if you don't think a dog should necessarily eat the same diet as us, what diet do you recommend for dogs and why?
As far as Little Tyke, I don't know the details of that story, but there are many reasons why a person or animal wouldn't eat their natural diet. If children have been raised on sugar and salt, they may not touch fruits and veggies if given the option. Cats strongly imprint on the texture of the food they are given when young and they can be difficult to switch between any types of food.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 3:54pm
laurie,
i didn't mean to make you sigh
we don't have to see eye to eye
but we can pry
and then try
:D
the reason i brought up the other little creatures was that a natural diet for dogs wouldn't include animals that it can't hunt. therefore, if the argument is we want to be 'natural', then you need to get the dog a diet of things it would normally hunt. the fact that your dog isn't hunting in the first place also isn't natural, so the 'natural' argument is somewhat without merit.
the horses and cows to meat argument is also not as simple as you state it to be. horses, cows and humans don't do well on meat (at least not after awhile), but carnivores can and do eat veggies and quite naturally (in the wild they go for the gut!). being a natural carnivore doesn't mean you can't eat veg.
i'm not arguing all creatures should be vegan.
(i guess it's my turn to sigh ... but i won't!! :D )
as far as dog diets, we've found evolution is what our dogs like best, even though i would like them to enjoy some of the hoana stuff which they do, but not as much.
i can give you links to little tyke if you want them.
so here's what this boils down to:
if a dog can eat veg, be healthy, happy and wise for the duration of his or her long life (btw, in 2002 a vegan dog Bramble lived to 27yrs and held the guiness record for longest doglife:
http://www.paw-rescue.org/PAW/PETTIPS/DogTip_VegetarianDiets.php)
and
we have plenty of documented and anecdotal evidence over 2 decades that veg dogs do great ... doesn't that count for something, laurie?
doesn't it put into some question notions of what the natural/ideal diet must be?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:07pm
the argument for them going for the gut of the dead animal is because
a) it has the most water
and to further demonstrate a point
b) because the herbivore/frugivore has done all the chewing and digesting that the 'said' carnivore cannot......
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:16pm
so elliot,
you are saying that the veggie stuff has to be pre-digested or there will be problems?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:42pm
if you chose to ignore what i am saying, then yes
why bother going through all that effort to chase down an animal if , by your assertion, they don't eat meat and they would do just as well chewing the plants themselves
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:50pm
having just read another of your posts i realise that they can't digest the plants unless you buy them some extra enzymes...silly me :o)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:50pm
elliot,
there seem to be no problems with feeding them evolution diet - we don't even give them enzymes. some as you know feed them raw veg - where are the problems if it is being done?
i'm am not ignoring you at all - i'm all ears.
but i will shortly be ignoring you because it's nearly 3am here and i think i'll go to sleep.
in friendship,
prad
Utopia on May 8, 2009 at 8:43am
RE: the taurine for cats - this is added to omnivorous cat food as well, not just supplemented for the plant-based cat foods.
Kind of like how people say they want to "naturally" get B12 from eggs....but you look at the chickens' feed and - yep - it's got supplemented B12 in it.
Noriko on May 8, 2009 at 8:57am
Hi Moth, I think it is possible for your dog to become vegan as dogs are made capable of doing so, not cats! (I heard that cats will go crazy if they do not eat meat.)
I used to know a woman who run a vegan restaurant in Sydney feeding her dogs vegie left overs from the restaurant. She told me that her dogs were vegan.
If I have a dog, s/he will be vegan.
Lolita on May 8, 2009 at 9:43am
Hi Moth - I haven't read anyone else's posts yet. I recommend reading Obligate Carnivore. I switched a regular dog to a vegan dog diet with zero problems, the only side effects were probably increased energy and faster, less-smelly pooing. She was happy and looked amazing for two more years (then sadly ran away! I was devastated!) I read the book, did some research and was convinced she didn't need meat to live well. The book references studies which have shown veg dogs live longer. Something about dogs needing creatine and cats needing creatine and taurine also.
Once in awhile my dog had some chopped wheatgrass on her food, and brewers yeast, and she loooooved organic carrots (she wouldn't eat conventional ones). I learned from a friend how to make lentil-millet-vegetable type cooked dishes. Sometimes I would give my dog nut butter as a treat too. I wasn't raw then, but I would do some research on it.
Dogs might have originally been carnivores, but they have also been domesticated, so their dietary requirements are not black and white. I guarantee you whatever diet you come up with for a dog (given that you are on this forum) is going to be healthier than the nasty commercial dog food out there. That stuff has euthanized dogs and cats in it - collars and chemicals and all! And rotten styrofoamed grocery meat, and road kill, and anything else render-able that they add to commercial pet foods... ew.
(I reluctantly let her eat roadkill though, and dead things she would find in the woods or out in fields - I think dogs are naturally opportunistic scavengers.)
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:12pm
domestication hasn't changed digestive biology or is there something you know that i don't ??? :o)
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:19pm
you are correct elliot that domestication hasn't changed the digestive biology (depending upon when you want to compare it from), but that digestive biology is quite capable of handling veg matter - for some with a bit of help.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 8:44pm
what help ???.. what help do you need to consume your natural diet ???
i mean, i got a lot of time on your hands if you need some bananas peeling lol :o)
and "handling" is not what i'm talking about...i can handle a few drinks of an evening...is drinking healthy for me ????
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 8:57pm
depending on the dog, some enzymes may be beneficial.
some recommend enzymes for anything raw or not.
dogs can get worms, arthritis, cancer etc from eating meat - i don't think they need to handle that.
later on let's explore this idea of 'natural' - it leads to an interesting fallacy Argumentum ad Naturam
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 8, 2009 at 9:02pm
"some recommend enzymes for anything"
yeah people will try and tell you that you need anything if it will make 'em more money
and all those those diseases that dogs get from meat(cooked) are mirrored in the human world....as with humans who dare to eat raw meat and don't suffer the same things, so, i'm sure you would find would be dogs
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 9:08pm
enzymes are actually a good thing we've found for digestion.
our dogs don't seem to require it though.
in friendship,
prad
Lolita on May 9, 2009 at 7:59am
As opportunistic scavengers, dogs often eat plant foods, including the semi-digested vegetables in smaller animals' entrails, so this is probably why my dog, and many others, loved unmixed, unflavored cooked veggies and grains as well as fresh things.
I also don't understand why everyone keeps calling dogs carnivores, when they aren't. That's like saying people are vegetarians, which, according to Dr. D, we are not.
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 3:52pm
lolita,
dogs and wolves are carnivore only in taxonomy. they are dietary omnivores as you correctly point out.
the reason some people here are calling dogs carnivores is because they want to.
meat eating humans like to call people omnivores (some even point to our canine tooth and insist we are carnivores - i'm sure that tooth is very handy at ripping open the cellophane as we hunt down a package of steak), just so they can feel some sense of 'scientific' goodness when they are eating corpse parts.
in friendship,
prad
kelly on May 8, 2009 at 10:50am
i'm addressing all the comments i've read:
we here all eat how we are biologically designed to eat. how is it fair to feed your dog something that it is not biologically designed to eat? i know everyone here that feeds their dogs are worried about ethics, but either way it's not right (feeding your dog meat, i know meat isn't ethical or feeding your dog something it doesn't thrive on because it is vegan). i guess the most ethical thing to do is to not have a carnivore in your life if you refuse to feed it meat. i'm not telling you to get rid of your dog if you refuse to feed it meat but it's something we all need to think about before having carnivores in our lives.
moth, here are some good websites:
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html
http://www.vetbalance.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=art...
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 11:00am
why is that kelly?
if a carnivore does well on a veg diet, what is so wrong with that?
in friendship,
prad
kelly on May 8, 2009 at 11:40am
hi prad,
like i said, a veggie dog can survive just like sad people do on whatever they are putting in their bodies but they will not thrive. their bodies are designed to eat meat. they have teeth that are designed for tearing and ripping flesh, and crunching bones (sorry i know it's graphic but it's what they do and they love to do it). they don't need teeth like that to rip open veggies or fruit or grains. every vegan dog food recipe i've seen is a mixture of a lot of different things. this is needed to make it palatable to dogs, (just like omnivorous people that need to cook meat to make it palatable). it's not natural. a dog in nature would not go after fruit or veggies as it would animals. if a puppy that no longer needed it's mothers milk was put in front of prepared vegan dog food or veggies or fruit or whatever and also put in front of some sort of meat or dead animal, it would choose the meat, why? because it is a carnivore. you can have a dog survive and be what seems to be well on a veggie diet but why would you not want what is the best optimal diet for your dog?
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 12:51pm
kelly,
i acknowledge many things you write above to be correct.
however, the dogs we are talking about aren't 'in nature'.
nor do they get the opportunity to just go after things naturally.
nor do the breed naturally - in fact, responsible owners spay and neuter.
nor do they choose meat if they have a chance (i can tell you about little tyke the lioness who refused to eat meat - or even one of my own dogs who wouldn't touch a fresh dead rabbit in our yard)
nor would they refuse veggies as many of the posters here have attested to.
your last question is a very good one:
why would you not want what is the best optimal diet for your dog?
the problem is that there seems to be this assumption that a veg diet isn't optimal.
most people here at least acknowledge that commercial meat diets are not good and so they push for raw meat (grass fed etc). however, none of them seem to go beyond the "it's not natural" phrase when it comes to explaining why they think that veg diets are bad for a dog.
though i don't think studies are the be and end all:
are there any studies showing that raw meat is better for dogs than a veg diet?
are there any studies showing that raw meat is even better for dogs than the commercial stuff that is produced?
can you even give me anecdotal evidence that raw meat significantly improved your dog's health as compared to a veg diet?
how many people advocating meat have actually tried a veg diet for their dogs?
(please note that i'm purposely leaving ethical considerations out of this, but am happy to bring those in, should you wish to do so)
being a carnivore means you have the equipment to eat meat - it doesn't mean that you can't eat other things or that you have to eat meat.
so once again, on what basis are you concluding that a raw meat diet arrived at by paying someone to kill a cow, cutting it up and giving it to your dog, is in anyway better than veg diets which has been shown for more than 2 decades to produce healthy dogs?
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 8, 2009 at 3:36pm
Prad,
Your dog has a history with food and he may not have seen the rabbit in the yard as food. Most dogs, even on raw meat diets, have not encountered much "whole prey"--prey animals in their natural, furry, whole states. Many are confused when presented with food this way. A child may not know what to do with a whole banana if he's never seen one before. If you slice into the animal to show him what's inside, your dog may want it. Or he may not like rabbit. I keep trying to like celery, but just really don't yet. Or it may have been unhealthy (poisoned, really rotten, etc.) and he knew he shouldn't eat it.
I have gone beyond the "natural" explanation when I addressed the physiology (digestive tract, enzymes, etc.). Dogs do not produce much salivary amylase like we do, for digesting starches. There is more info in the rawfeeding myths link provided earlier by someone else. I also mentioned my dog is personally doing better without veggies.
The Pottenger's cats studies showed that raw meat was much better than cooked, so that is in reply to your question about studies. There aren't many studies on this because there's no money in it.
As to your last question, I could ask the same question of you: On what basis are you concluding that a vegan diet is better than a raw meat diet? You haven't tried raw meat with your dog, have you? There are about 15,000 rawfeeders (meat) on one single Yahoo group (the Rawfeeding list linked by someone else), feeding thousands of healthy dogs, with thousands of testimonials to health improvements. And that's just a small segment of the rawfeeding population.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 6:45pm
laurie,
i agree with you regarding the rabbit. dogs don't usually have the opportunity to hunt and many have never been taught to do so. therefore, what is 'natural' is no longer 'natural'.
you write:
On what basis are you concluding that a vegan diet is better than a raw meat diet?
and that is a good question.
my answer would be that meat raw or cooked carries potential hazards with it especially if it is from the usual sources: carnivores do get things like worms, arthritis, cancer etc. (i'll be posting one such survey later on). there are also various diseases that can appear in even 'organic' meat. for instance, here is but one
link along those lines.
i acknowledge that there are many raw meat feeders who claim their dogs are doing great and i wouldn't argue it. i also know that there are many veg feeders who will claim the same thing. we both know there are far, far greater numbers of dog owners who will swear by iams or natural life because it has been scientifically tested etc etc.
i am not arguing physiology with you beyond the reality that dogs can and do quite happily eat non-meat items. their physiology doesn't restrict them from doing so.
therefore in summary:
1. there are hazards with meat, raw or cooked
2. a dog physiology is quite capable of handling non-meat items
3. there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that dogs do fine on veg, raw and even cooked foods
items 2 & 1 would form the basis of my answer to your turning the question around on me.
with you, i am maintaining that a veg diet is healthy as evidenced by the results accummulated, since you are the one who asked
"why would you not want what is the best optimal diet for your dog?"
so now that i've answered your question, please answer mine:
what makes you think a raw meat diet "is in anyway better than veg diets which has been shown for more than 2 decades to produce healthy dogs?"
how is it better?
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 9, 2009 at 8:18am
Prad,
It seems you are unable to distinguish the differences between dogs and humans. Or unwilling to acknowledge them. There may be hazards in meat for humans, but dogs are perfectly suited to digest it and can handle much more bacteria than we can, because their digestive tracts are shorter and more acidic than ours.
How have you come to believe in the high-fruit/low-fat raw diet for humans? What would you say to those who say there are people who live to 100 eating meat and smoking?
As to dogs being able to eat veggies, well, of course--we CAN eat just about anything, as well.
Dogs do not get worms from eating meat. The only time 1 of my dogs had worms was when I adopted him from the shelter and he was stressed, flea-ridden, and eating kibble. Not sure where you're getting your info that meat causes arthritis and cancer. In people? Yes. In dogs when it's in the form of cooked kibble also containing grains, chemicals, and preservatives? Yes.
Your last question might be directed at Kelly since that was her original question you put in italics, but if you're asking me, I'll repeat that I look to an animal's physiology, instincts, and results, to determine its optimal diet. If you want more scientific specifics, the wolf research of David Mech showed that domestic dogs are almost wolves (sharing at least 99.8% of dna). I could possibly believe that there may be small differences in domestic dog diets and wolf diets, but not that one is a carnivore and one is not. If you want more anecdotal evidence, as I mentioned, there are thousands upon thousands of rawfeeders who've fed multiple dogs raw meat for generations.
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 2:39pm
laurie,
i don't think i have a difficulty distinguishing between dogs and humans, but i did have difficulty distinguishing between what i cut and paste :D i meant to copy your question instead of kelly's, so thank you for so gently pointing out my slip-up. but i did nevertheless ask it at the bottom of the post and i'm not sure you've answered it (though you gave an answer to kelly's question) other than by repeating the physiology.
How have you come to believe in the high-fruit/low-fat raw diet for humans?
i don't "believe in" it, but that doesn't mean i think it's not a good idea. i think the biological argument comes afterwards to back up the anecdotal evidence. people get healthy and then understand why ... though there are detractors despite what seem to be very sound arguments (as you are no doubt thinking i am).
dogs are perfectly suited to digest it and can handle much more bacteria than we can, because their digestive tracts are shorter and more acidic than ours.
i agree they are better suited, but perfectly may be stretching it a bit far. certainly there are some very strong opponents to a raw meat diet (you have already argued that cooked meat isn't a good thing).
Dogs do not get worms from eating meat. The only time 1 of my dogs had worms was when I adopted him from the shelter and he was stressed, flea-ridden, and eating kibble.
was there not meat in the kibble? did the worms come from the meat or something else in the kibble? if you meant to say "Dogs do not get worms from eating RAW meat", then there seem to be some who think otherwise:
"Fleas are the most common carriers of tapeworm, although they can also be transmitted in small rodents or raw meat. So be careful in handling raw meat, and never feed your dog raw or undercooked meat or animal parts."
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/home-remedies-for-dogs-ga9.htm
"Dr. Michael Harrington, a Veterinary Neurologist reported that he treated a dog with thousands of parasites from a raw meat diet"
http://www.secondchanceranch.org/rawmyth.htm
"Dogs cannot and do not acquire tapeworms by eating the segments or the tiny egg packets; rather, a dog must ingest fleas or raw meat from birds, rodents, fish or other mammals."
http://www.familyvet.com/Dogs/ParasiIN.html
"In multiple scientific studies, raw meat (beef or chicken) has been shown to contain high parasite counts and bacterial contamination. Salmonella, Shigella, Cryptosporidium, and other bacteria and parasites can be found in high numbers in raw meat."
http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-information/dog-vet-geller-dvm/does-r...
"A raw meat diet is environmentally less friendly, more expensive, and more likely to contain pathogenic bacteria or parasites."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_r_m_070505_are_dogs_ca...
and this one on samonella which says a lot, but doesn't seem to substantiate it:
http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/tags/raw-meat/
i'm not sure i believe it all (for instance, i don't see why a raw meat diet would be environmentally less friendly), it seems pretty unlikely that eating stuff in the wild wouldn't contain parasites and other squigly things. however, i have come to respect your opinion, so i am curious to know what you have to say about this.
Not sure where you're getting your info that meat causes arthritis and cancer. In people? Yes. In dogs when it's in the form of cooked kibble also containing grains, chemicals, and preservatives? Yes.
i'm not sure what you are getting at here. are you suggesting that the cancer and arthritis are a result of the grains, chemical and preservatives? i realize some sites say that grains cause cancer in dogs, but the survey posted above showed an inverse correlation between duration of veg diet and cancer which would seem to dispute that idea.
arthritis is an inflammatory condition often created by an over-enthusiastic immune system engaged in protein antigeneity activity. this is because large animal proteins appear as invaders (you no doubt know all this). so in dogs, who are better equipped to handle this stuff the assumption is that we won't get inflammatory issues. however, arthritis in dogs is a common problem. possibly the large proteins (from raw or cooked) aren't being broken up because some places sell enzymes for dogs railing at the commercial dog food market in the usual way.
Red meat forms the major part of the dog's diet. It is rich in uric acid and acts as the main contributing factor for the development of arthritis.
http://www.dog-arthritis-relief.com/glucosamineindogs.html
the above is also re-stated in james peden's book "vegetarian dogs and cats" with the added:
"Perhaps this is one reason that by eliminating meat in the diet that rejuvenation results." (p. 103)
dr. richard pitcairn in "natural health for dogs and cats" also questions nutrition and as a treatment for arthritic dogs suggests:
"[in italics] Use as little meat and yeast as possible. Emphasize the vegetarian diet in chapter 5 and substitute a B complex tablet for nutritional yeast ..."
(p. 182 in the 1982 edition - if i recall correctly he was even more proveg later)
you may argue that raw meat solves all these issues (as do many websites), but i'm not sure that it's all as simple as that.
i accept dogs and wolves are related, but wolves are not strict carnivores according to this study posted on veghaven by a friend of mine:
"This is just the first falsehood: "wolves, who are strictly carnivorous"
PROOF OF WHY IT IS FALSE: e.g. #1 see
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110485545/abstract?CRETR... for wolves compared to dogs, and notes that wolves in zoos are being fed too much meat, i.e. their not "strictly" carnivores. Note that wolves also benefited by actually being fed MORE dogfood and LESS prey: That's basically the opposite of the diet Melissa says she feeds her dog and is 'healthier' 'because wolves would eat that' instead of processed/fortified dogfood; I'll also link below to the largest group of veterinarians agreeing, and they add the well-documented early deaths (from both acute and chronic poisoning) of DOMESTICATED dogs, that they've observed from people giving their dogs home-prepared natural meats)"
(
http://www.veghaven.org/forum/topics/1350827:Topic:25906?x=1&id...)
here is a sample from the abstract of the journal:
"Captive maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) often consume diets high in prey and meat items even though they are omnivorous in the wild. These soft, high protein diets may exacerbate conditions of gingivitis and cystinuria in this species. ... Dietary management of maned wolves should minimize excess protein intake by limiting prey consumption and acclimating animals to extruded diets for domestic dogs."
(
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110485545/abstract?CRETR...)
If you want more anecdotal evidence ...
i accept your anecdotal evidence - just as i accept the same for veg dogs.
in friendship,
prad
Lolita on May 8, 2009 at 11:03am
Right - and the book explains about opportunistic scavengers vs. carnivores, and had a considerable argument as to why dogs fit in the former category. To me, this is sort of like figuring out people as fruitarians, vegetarians, granivores, omnivores, etc. and then trying to eat an appropriate diet given all the facts. This way, as a scavenger, a dog would still get plenty of meat sources, but I wouldn't have to support the neighborhood butcher to support my domesticated friend.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 2:40pm
some may find this interesting.
(btw, i'm not an advocate of iq testing)
it seems that veg folk on average have a 5pt iq advantage over the meaters:
http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-20070110-veg.html
(this came out in the bbc even though that's not the source here).
interestingly enough, it seems there is also a similar finding with dogs:
"the results showed that the diet-enriched, cognitively-enriched group scored the highest."
http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0202/articles/020224a.htm
(these were not necessarily veg dogs, but probably dogs on regular commercial diets with plenty of veg enrichments as per article).
what was also interesting was this acknowledgement:
"It has been widely accepted that these findings also apply to people, since dogs and humans share very close pathological patterns in the brain."
(this is particularly significant in that it is an admission that dogs and people are not that different when it comes to brain activity and a direct assault on anthropomorphic attacks that people who abuse and exploit dogs try to justify their actions with.)
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 8, 2009 at 3:48pm
Prad,
Not sure of the relevance of any of this...
From the first study:
"There was no difference in IQ between strict vegetarians and those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken.
However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10."
I don't think those are helping prove your points.
And the second one is a comparison of supermarket dog food (which is the worst of the worst in ingredient quality) with a dog food that had fruits and veggies and supplements added (probably made by Hill's, who was the sponsor of the conference where these "results" were presented). And they didn't even state that the diet was the only factor--they simply concluded that the dogs who had the enriched diet AND the cognitive enrichment scored the highest.
I was considering your final quote and wondering who the author of the article is, but it's not listed on the site. I'm not going to put much stock in something I don't even know the author of. I kinda doubt the similarities between dog and human brains will convince me we should have the same diet.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 4:23pm
i wasn't trying to prove my veg dog point laurie with this.
that's why i introduced this with
"some may find this interesting."
if i wanted to make a point i would say so.
what i did find interesting is the acknowledgement that brainpatterns in humans and dogs were more similar than some like to think. it was not an attempt to convince you or anyone else that dogs should have the same diet as humans.
the reason i posted it in this thread was just to show that the results of this study correlates some iq findings with high veg consumption - for dogs and humans.
it was only a point of interest, not a point of argument.
i apologize if i misled you.
in friendship,
prad
Ravi S. Raman on May 8, 2009 at 4:02pm
In India there are a many people (often Hindus) who have dogs, and they are often vegetarian (though not vegan). My uncle has a chocolate lab in delhi...incredibly healthy and proper weight - who is a vegetarian! He eats dal, rice and raw veggies with some yogurt/milk as well.
pradtf on May 8, 2009 at 7:30pm
moth and others doing the vegdog thing:
this survey may answer some questions you have about veg dogs. i think it was done or sponsored by peta since it seems to be coming from a 'peta' site:
Dog Health Survey summary
(or the
survey itself)
here are
some intro points about it:
the data is from a one year period involving 300 dogs and is descriptive rather than conclusive. there was no control group of meat-eating dogs.
specific health problems monitored showed an inverse correlation with duration of time as veg (meaning longer vegan - less problem) in some issues listed:
infections
skin problems
arthritis
benign growths
heart problems
overweight
digestive problems
hypothyroidism
sensory loss
cancer
here is the
summary:
the longer a dog remains on a vegetarian or vegan diet, the greater the likelihood of overall good to excellent health;
the longer a dog remains on a vegetarian or vegan diet, the less likely he or she is to get infections, cancer, and hypothyroidism; [vegan did better here than vegetarian]
a vegetarian diet may increase the alkalinity of a dog's urine, promoting susceptibility to urinary tract infections, which can be prevented using cranberry capsules;
the longer a dog remains on a vegetarian or vegan diet without supplementation of L-carnitine or taurine, the greater the likelihood is that he or she could come down with dilated cardiomyopathy;
veganism is more beneficial than vegetarianism;
dogs without soy foods in their diet appear to be in better health than those who eat soy;
and nutritional yeast and garlic appear to be beneficial to overall health and to coat condition.
here is
part of the conclusion:
Overall, the results of this study favor the proposition that dogs can live healthfully on a vegan or vegetarian diet. The tendency was for health problems to decrease with length of time on a meatless diet, with the exception of dilated cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented with a simple amino acid supplement. [DCM seem to be a problem for processed meat-eating dogs too and is apparently not causes solely by veg diets and affects about 2% of dogs]
there is also a large section with comments from the dog owners.
in friendship,
prad
[addendum 10/04/04: a more recent study done on veg dogs can be found Research by UNE scientist shows dogs thrive as vegetarians]
Laurie on May 9, 2009 at 8:21am
If a vegan diet is ideal for dogs, they shouldn't need supplements to prevent uti's or heart problems!
kelly on May 9, 2009 at 10:04am
i agree. people can't assimilate vitamins and minerals from supplements because they are inorganic vitamins and minerals. we can only use organic minerals and vitamins from whole foods. why should it be any different for animals? they need to be getting their nutrition from whole foods, not a huge mixture of grains, veggies, supplements, preservatives, etc.
nature has let us know what canines need for their nutrition...animal meat. i know domesticating animals and keeping them as pets is not natural but why go even further and separate them from their natural diet?
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 3:31pm
i agree with both of you kelly and laurie, i don't recall ever saying that a vegan diet is ideal - the study above certainly doesn't either.
instead, i've asked several times why advocates of the raw meat diet consider that to be ideal. the answers invariably are
(a) the physiological argument that dogs were made to eat meat
(b) anecdotal success
i have plenty of (b) for veg dogs and while i agree that dogs have a better system for handling meat (a) than humans, they also do pretty well on other stuff. in fact, if you look at the study you'll see that inverse correlations were found for certain ailment and duration of veg diet, suggesting that veg diets have a pretty good shot in the scheme of things.
optimal is somewhat an intangible word and there are certainly some very strong opponents to the raw meat diet. it is really considered to be very radical - and far from optimal by many as well as downright dangerous by others.
what i've found interesting during this thread are similarity of arguments. one person here (possibly after getting frustrated with me) insisted that i'm advocating veg because of my ethical stance (even though i made it quite clear that i was arguing purely on a nutritional basis). similarly, i would imagine the two of you (who possibly find me frustrating also, but are considerate enough to hear me out and respond genuinely), would also be hit by the commercial dog food contingent and their army of vets, with the you're advocating raw meat because you are raw even though that is not the basis of your rationale.
kelly writes:
nature has let us know what canines need for their nutrition...animal meat. i know domesticating animals and keeping them as pets is not natural but why go even further and separate them from their natural diet?
well i'm not so sure the first sentence is correct. dogs and wolves are carnivores only by taxonomy. dietarily they are omnivores. keeping dogs as pets is certainly not natural and that's probably a good reason to separate them from their natural diet which isn't their natural diet in the first place ... it is simply raw meat, because of the assumption in the first sentence. for instance, if you take a wolf into captivity, you may want to alter its diet to some extent because the requirements will no longer be the same. it is natural for dogs to want to mate, but it is considered a good idea for their health to neuter or spay them, because as a pet they no longer have that option.
laurie writes:
If a vegan diet is ideal for dogs, they shouldn't need supplements to prevent uti's or heart problems!
so are you saying that raw meat dogs don't have any ailments, don't need any medicines, never need to see the vet? the DCM btw, affects about 5.5 dogs in 1000 (according to james peden's veg dogs and cats). were you expecting the veg diet to cure this illness? would a raw meat diet be able to?
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 9, 2009 at 7:38pm
if you are referring to me, my only reason (once we had spoken at greater length and i realised you are interested in nutrition) for claiming ethics is that the whole process came from an initial motivation of ethics
IF you were a meat eater we wouldn't be having this conversation
a question.....what if you found out that you were wrong and became convinced that depriving your animal of (okay, i concede) part of what it needs as a complete diet was actually setting your pet up for some real health problems......would you give in and buy some raw meat ???? would you just ignore the evidence ?? would you give up owning dogs beacuse you didn't want to be part of the whole meat thing ???
i still can't get you when you think that buying enzymes to aid your dog to digest something that maybe it shouldn't be...kinda arse about face, to me but what do i know
i also still don't get why you think biology to be so much the afterthought...it is the blueprint by which we all physically interact with the world.....it is a fundamental not an afterthought used to back up arguments
"keeping dogs as pets is certainly not natural and that's probably a good reason to separate them from their natural diet which isn't their natural diet in the first place"
so, two wrongs do make a right...i must tell my parents :o)
pradtf on May 10, 2009 at 5:14am
elliot,
i was referring to you and i really do appreciate that you read these posts so carefully! and thank you for emphasizing your motives for initially making the statement you did (i was only referring to the 'past' you not the 'present' you). the quality of participants here is so much higher than in most forums i have been active in! it must be the diet!! :D
the what-if you propose is a bit meaningless given the present state of things. it ranks along side of asking "what if you found out 811 was actually setting up you and your children for some real health problems......would you give in and buy some meat or cooked food?" there are people who do ask this sort of question about human veg diets, for instance, even though you literally have centuries of veg folk as well as documented evidence in this country since the 1920s of how much better veg is than non-veg (in fact, some groups distort or even falsify research because there is big money in keeping people unhealthy). since we have plenty of evidence that veg diets are good for dogs (you can look at the survey i posted if you want to), asking the question is a bit late and pointless now.
still, i will answer you, because i do have an answer ... but not now. you'll see it in a later post.
biology is not an afterthought for me as you are assuming. i am just maintaining that you (and some others here) are misinterpreting it.
as far as enzymes go, you are assuming enzymes are a wrong. the basis of your assumption seems to be coming from some idea that they aren't 'natural' and than what is not 'natural' is not good. in other words, you confuse natural with good. i'll elaborate on this fallacy later, but for now consider this:
1. you break a leg (not natural since it is natural for legs to be in one piece)
2. someone sets it (not natural and it certainly doesn't happen in the wild)
so we have 2 unnatural events (which you mistakenly call 'wrongs'), hopefully making a right. i think your parents may appreciate the discussion with you.
in friendship,
prad
el-bo on May 10, 2009 at 7:23pm
maybe i have given you the wrong impression about the enzyme thing
whether it's natural or not, to me, isn't the point......it is the fact that everything in nature is given the tools it needs (birth defects aside) to process the food and non-food substances it needs for survival
having to by enzymes to allow an animal to do something that maybe it shouldn't be doing is like having to buy a microwave to cook potatoes when maybe they are too starchy for human consumption in the first place...
"1. you break a leg (not natural since it is natural for legs to be in one piece)"
it may not be natural but it is an unfortunate side effect of living a natural life (for some)
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 5:05am
elliot,
i don't think helping the body along by reasonable means is a bad idea. enzymes aren't a drug, they are simply certain extracts from plantforms (eg papaya) that act as a catalyst to breakdown foods. the reason some people (even rawfolks) recommend enzymes is because they prevent your own enzyme sources from being used (and in the case of cooked foods, depleted). some people (and animals) really benefit from using them.
nature does provide for everything, but to different degrees. one of the things nature has provided to pretty well all sentient beings is some ability to optimize their existence to some extent (humans aren't the only ones that create and use tools). therefore, being able to work with nature (instead of against it or just laying back and expecting all will be given), is probably a good idea.
that is why 2 'wrongs' as you put it, can make a 'right'.
here's another example more direct than what you call the unfortunate side effect one:
these dogs we are talking about aren't leading a natural life by any means. they aren't in the wild, they are fed foods that they wouldn't normally eat (and i'm talking about the raw meat fed dogs), they don't fast (dogs in the wild don't eat everyday because hunting is low probability prospect), they even associate with creatures they normally wouldn't (like their owners). so dog owners try to help them out by doing even more unnatural things like taking them for walks, giving them shots (a really, really dumb idea, imho, btw), going for vet exams, providing them with medicines, teaching them tricks.
we don't do some of the unnatural things lists, but some people do in order to compensate for the other unnatural things they subject their dogs to and their dogs survive and even thrive.
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 29, 2009 at 3:16pm
elliot wrote:
a question.....what if you found out that you were wrong and became convinced that depriving your animal of (okay, i concede) part of what it needs as a complete diet was actually setting your pet up for some real health problems......would you give in and buy some raw meat ???? would you just ignore the evidence ?? would you give up owning dogs beacuse you didn't want to be part of the whole meat thing ???
elliot,
i'd only partially answered your questions in the may 10th post and felt it deserves a much better response especially since you and i have talked long about the veg dog topic. i have enjoyed our discussion so far. i acknowledge your sincerity regarding the views you hold and emphasize that when i use the word 'you' it is mostly in the general sense and not directed at you specifically.
first let's be completely clear on something. the question of 'finding out that we are wrong' is pragmatically pointless. it's too late and the only people "ignoring the evidence" are those who insist on feeding meat to their dogs. the issue of whether veg dogs can be healthy is not something that is debatable in the present day and age. i have provided numerous reasons why as well as a survey which clearly shows various benefits to being veg. (so perhaps, it is i who should be asking you the same questions with appropriate substitutions :D).
still i do want to answer your question for a different reason. i have focussed almost exclusively on the health argument in this thread, because the attacks on veg dog diet are really just based on the 'survive, but not thrive' assertion. that assertion has not been validated by anyone here beyond the 'they are carnivores and therefore must eat meat' mantra (which imho, really merits closer scrutiny). your question, however, has ventured into the realm of ethics and i think that is worth exploring.
let us for argument's sake go with your veg diet is "setting your pet up for some real health problems". let's even play out the mantra to an extreme and insist that your pet would die if it didn't eat meat. furthermore, let's take the hunting option away because your dog is too domesticated to know how to hunt. also, let's take away the possibility of any alternate solution such as scientifically conjured nutrients or even enzymes ;), so that we are reduced to something as black and white as you must get the meat for your dog or your dog dies. (i don't think we can stack things any further in favor of this scenario).
what to do?
in this situation, one has to make a decision as to whether the survival of your dog is justified over the survival of say a number of lambs or pigs. people are occasionally faced with this situation in certain areas of the world - they can't eat the vegetation, so they kill a creature who can and eat that. some would say killing for one's own survival is ethically justifiable. presumably, some would kill a lamb if their child's life depended on it, so why not do the same for your dog?
we do get into some problems though if we are talking about your own sanctuary lambs who you rescued from just such a fate. in fact, let's get back to the child that we are so willing to kill a lamb for. suppose there wasn't a lamb, but another child? would it be ethically justifiable to kill someone else's child so that yours could survive? or suppose the other was your child and not someone elses. it starts getting messy when things are closer to home, doesn't it?
back to the dog. it seems ok to kill someone else's lamb for your dog, but now we don't have a lamb anymore, but another dog - say your other dog. would you kill one for the other? in nature, one dog would likely kill the other in order to survive, but how easy is it now to make the decision yourself?
and that's just it, elliot. people usually don't do the killing themselves. in fact, they don't even have to make the decision, because all you do is pay someone else to do the dirty work and pick-up the slab of meat that came from a sentient being that you never have to face.
scenario over - back to the real world.
we don't have to worry about the dilemmas generated by the scenario. we know veg dogs are healthy and will stay healthy. we don't have to be concerned with this issue as you yourself 'partially' conceded (albeit with some discomfort i think). given this unarguable reality, let's look at the morality a bit further.
some people here have adamantly stated that we not impose our ethics on our dogs. by what reasoning, do we have an ethical basis to impose our ethics on the victims? do they not count? were they sent here by the creator to be dog food?
while i appreciate these people love their dogs as they would they own children (and quite rightly so), it is inappropriate to use that 'love' to justify certain attitudes.
you see this sort of comment (i have intentionally avoided specifics from this thread) attempting to intimidate veg dog owners:
"I don't believe in cruelty to animals, and I think it would be cruel to force a dog to be vegan."
but it's ok to force a pig to be dog food?
or this concern:
"Trying to make a carnivore vegan is a very UNVEGAN thing to do, because you're potentially harming an animal."
where does the potential of harming an animal outweigh killing a lot of them?
or this bit of bravado:
"people who don't want to feed meat to their dogs, shouldn't be allowed to have them"
according to various sources, the number of animals a human corpse-eater kills is about 100/yr. consider a dog who is a quarter the weight of a human. this dog would likely eat 25 animals/yr. over just a 10 year period feeding your dog a meat diet would cost the lives of 250 sentient beings! exactly how do those who feed their dogs animal parts, justify the murder of 250 sentient beings just so they can feel good about their dog's diet?
perhaps what we really need to ask is "if you are going to kill sentient beings to feed your dog, should you be allowed to have a dog in the first place".
so just whose ethics need a closer examination?
is it the person who through a veg diet helps their dog thrive, backed by years of anecdotal evidence, vet examination and approval, even studies that show the longer a dog is vegan the less likely are they to succumb to certain illnesses, does not require the slaughter of any sentient beings?
or is it the person clinging to the 'carnivores must eat meat' mantra, who has been refuted conclusively over and over again just as surely as those clinging to their flat-earth delusions?
whose ethics, elliot, are in need of an overhaul?
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 31, 2009 at 6:31am
Prad, your post contains the words/thoughts I was looking for. I personally believe you addressed the ethical issue head on.
As for my dog's update, she is now on day 5 of vegan diet (after 7 years of raw meaty bones) and so far thriving. Poops are odorless, no gas, energy high.
I will not continue to contribute to the torture and slaughter of innocent animals.
As a side note, Heidi has chased after other animals: Once she cornered a rabbit and began licking her, then lay down beside her. Once she chased after a doe. When the doe stopped running, Heidi stopped running, tail wagging. Once she scooped up a mouse in her mouth and released her after a few moments unharmed. Many other such encounters have occurred in the seven years we have hiked and run together.
Thanks everybody for this discussion. I think every one of you had great thoughts to contribute.
pradtf on June 1, 2009 at 5:37am
myra,
heidi is quite a soul indeed! i think the world is her friend.
one of our cats, ophelia, has to be everyone's friend (whether they want to be or not :D ). when she's with the rabbits she is a rabbit, when she's with the dogs, she is a dog, she was that way with the chicken that we took in, and she calls upon us to lie down and snuggle. the only one who still tries to avoid her is grizu cat, who seems to get along with everyone to some extent as long as it is not another cat, though he's coming out of this slowly after 3+ years.
people unfortunately play the category game too easily with animal behaviour. in other words, dog is a category, therefore all dogs must behave as dogs are supposed to. this is most unfortunate because it neglects the individuality of the particular being.
this is one of the points masson brought out in his "when elephants weep" book - that all these creatures, of whatever species, are individuals and have their own way to deal with and experience the world ... just as people do.
we found the dog smelliness went after riky and jumpr went veg (they were from the spca where they had been fed a meat-based diet) and there is a post by c.dove somewhere in this thread indicating similar observations.
in friendship,
prad
ednshell on June 1, 2009 at 3:44pm
5 days raw vegan for my 4 yr. old dog, we fasted him on water day 1, did bananas day 2, bananas, watermelon and mango day 3, watermelon day 4 and now we are doing an extended water fast to help him with his heart worm. Nora Lenz has written a paper on water fasting your dog, I know her dog/s have gone at least 8 days on water only and Dr.Priticairn says 6-8 weeks is not unusual in the wild for a sick animal. I hope to get her paper soon, I told her she may want to turn it into an e-book. I found it hard to find much on vegan dogs, (which she is not opposed to but doesn't think it's ideal), nor natural hygiene for dogs. Anyway, I am soooo glad for the info. and support for raw vegan dogs. Thanks! :)
pradtf on June 1, 2009 at 3:56pm
ednshell,
there seems to be a fair bit on vegan dogs, but not raw vegan dogs. fasting is a good idea anyway and pitcairns has suggested fasting dogs a day or so in the week anyway to simulate conditions in the wild.
someone who imho is very knowledgeable about vegan dogs is james peden of
http://www.vegepet.com/ though i don't know what his feelings are regarding raw vegan. he will likely emphasize making sure they get the proper nutrients either through supplementation or through variety of foods.
in friendship,
prad
RAWONE on May 9, 2009 at 7:06am
I used to feed my dog dry organic dog food and then did reserach on the raw diet as well. He has been doing really well with eating raw meat, like raw turkey backs and necks and chicken, necks and backs. He loves it. In my opinion, if your dog is loving the raw meat diet, why switch him to something he may not like. Just like your body, go with you intuition on this one.
RAWONE on May 9, 2009 at 7:09am
I also feed him raw organic chicken eggs too. But for the suffering of animals, just think when there cousins the wolves are out in the wild what do they eat? Do they eat plants and fruits? No, they go out and kill there food. They have a way different diet than we has humans do so this is very important to consider when you are feeding your dog just the right diet. My dog just loves the raw meat diet but we also have to remember they are carnivoures not fruitivoures like we are.
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 7:14am
greetings rawone!
wolves hunt their own food. domesticated dogs don't.
veg diets for dogs have a pretty good history (see survey above for instance), so what is designated to be 'natural' may not always be good and vis versa.
in friendship,
prad
Bliss aka Wildchild on May 10, 2009 at 11:56am
I agree, dogs in India raised on veg diets are extremely healthy.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 5:11am
and they're doing pretty well here too, bliss!
in friendship,
prad
Rawgreengoddess on June 1, 2009 at 4:08pm
mmm,i beg to differ here Prad..when i was growing up,we had dogs...and a couple started killing sheep to feed on...and they were domesticated?
ps i just discovered 10 week old lab puppies like bananas he he
pradtf on June 1, 2009 at 4:13pm
not sure what you are disagreeing with, rgg since i can't put the your response to the post in question. i'm guessing that you mean domesticated dogs can kill and that is quite true, but it depends on the dogs - some just don't and some do (usually when a pack mentality sets in).
in friendship,
prad
myra on June 2, 2009 at 12:50am
rgg, I know of several dogs who have gone after and killed either wild or other domesticated animals, but in not one instance did these dogs go on and feed on the killed animal. Just the other day my friend relayed how her dog killed a doe and then just left her there. (Oh, so sad.) The dog's instinct for chase and kill was there but then didn't know what to do next. Wondering if your childhood dogs were actually going to eat the sheep? Perhaps this is what prad meant in her post?
I feel grateful that Heidi's instinct for kill is not there as we go out hiking together all the time.
Ah, yes, my Heidi loves bananas, actually most ripe sweet fruit. Her sense of smell relays to her if the fruit is not ripe and she turns away from it!! Love this, she's my ripeness detector!!
Your puppies must be sooo sweet.....Give them an extra cuddle for me please.
RAWONE on May 9, 2009 at 7:23am
Well, I guess I won't post another one on here. But with my dog the raw meat diet has been very beneficial. There is no way, I would give my dog any supplements. He is doing amazingly well on the diet. Just do your research and you will find out what it he best diet for you dog.
pradtf on May 9, 2009 at 7:32am
rawone,
you post is appreciated. as you'll see there are many differing experiences here - and your perspective has a large following. there are some excellent discussions here too and i have no doubt that people on both sides will be interested in hearing all opinions. so please continue to post if you wish.
btw, i have done the research and have 2 dogs who are veg for more than a decade.
in friendship,
prad
RAWONE on May 9, 2009 at 7:24am
Also, when I made replied about there cousins the wolves. Well, domesticated dogs will always have that wild animal instinct in them so why not feed them raw meat?
Utopia on May 10, 2009 at 6:02am
Presumably, this is questioned by anyone who doesn't like to intimate by their choice of foods that a dog is more important than a cow or a pig or a chicken. That's "why," and sounds like a good thing to question to me. I'd be more concerned if someone didn't consider this question (regardless of the answer they finally come to).
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 5:17am
utopia,
indeed that is something which should be questioned a lot more! i mentioned it in one of my earlier posts, but didn't pursue it in subsequent discussions, so i'm glad you brought it to the forefront again. it leads to some very curious revelations.
in friendship,
prad
Mark on May 10, 2009 at 5:10pm
I'm not sure if a dog's diet was intended to be entirely plant based. We kill plants, dogs kill animal. A more compassionate diet would be all fruit.
Audrey Walker on May 11, 2009 at 1:47pm
Okay, warning, I'm coming across a little strong, but you asked. :-)
I am HIGHLY opposed to feeding dogs a vegan diet. I'll be honest since you asked. I think it is VERY irresponsible and selfish and slightly deluded to impose our morals on an animal that is a carnivore and that didn't ask to be "owned" by us and kept in an unnatural environment and fed food that is not their natural diet. Phew... it felt good to get that out. This is a big pet peeve of mine! As you can probably tell. It is so silly. If you can't stand to feed meat, then don't get a damn dog or cat or ferret and whatever other obligate carnivores people "keep" as pets!! Some will argue with me that dogs aren't truly obligate carnivores, but I believe that they are. Look at their freakin' anatomy for heavens sake!!! They are wolves people!!!! They are have been bred to look different and retain puppy-ish characteristics, but they are essentially wolves.
Seriously, I've been an ethical vegan for a long time. I understand and sympathize with your sensibilties as a vegan, but the reality is that many animals are natural meat eaters. If you want to share your life with a carnivore you have to face reality and feed it what it is designed to eat. I have seriously considered only adopting companion animals that can be vegan and be really healthy in the future. But while my dear carnivores are still around, they are getting the absolute best diet for them: raw meat.
I promise you that dogs are not as healthy on vegan diet. I tried it once a long time ago, granted it wasn't a raw diet, but still. There is no substitute for a species' natural diet. It's just like us. Sure, we can survive on meat, but we really suffer for it.
Blessings,
Audrey
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:24pm
audrey,
perhaps you aren't aware of several things regarding dogs and vegan diets: you may want to look at the survey a few posts up and you may want to look at some of the other posts in this thread - you'll see several people have dogs doing really great ("thriving" in fact) on a veg diet and you'll find a lot more if you look around on the internet.
their "freaking anatomy" doesn't mean that they must eat meat nor should it be assumed that they are unhealthy for not eating meat.
veg dogs have been around for quite a while now and there really isn't an issue regarding their health or well-being. this reality is backed up by numerous testimonials as well as vet confirmations.
i'd be happy to continue this discussion (nutritional or ethical) with you should you wish to do so.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 2:31pm
Does anyone know if dinosaurs were vegan or meat eaters?
Mark on May 11, 2009 at 2:33pm
Both. Some were plant eaters, some were flesh eaters.
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 2:34pm
did the plant eaters have those long sharp teeth? And claws?
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:37pm
no but the trachanodon (can't remember the correct spelling) i think had 3000 little teeth if i recall correctly.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 2:43pm
Sharp teeth?
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:53pm
ya! but they were for munching on plants.
actually i found something in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachodon
but it seems there is no reference to 3000 teeth, so possibly that was something i'd heard way back in my dinosaur enamor days and never checked out.
in friendship,
prad
Rawgreengoddess on May 11, 2009 at 2:44pm
oh i would like to have 3000little teeth,grrrr he he
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:55pm
i must admit, rgg, i am having a difficult time imagining you with them.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 3:04pm
I love these tangents we get on. I've often wondered what the original poster thinks when they read these. Hi Moth! :)
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 2:57pm
Oh that's funny. You should photo shop them into a pic of yours. :)
Rawgreengoddess on May 11, 2009 at 3:00pm
he he but why Pradtf,i have a wide smile i could fit em for sure...Mich you can do it if you like,i dont know anything about photo shop lol ;)
Rawgreengoddess on May 11, 2009 at 3:08pm
ha ha sorry i started the random tangent...thats me...i love a good seguay(sp?)cant find my dictionary doh!
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 3:15pm
do tangents strike a chord? :D :D
in fiendship,
prad
Mark on May 11, 2009 at 2:40pm
Lots of cool documentaries and movies on them. Jurassic Park was pretty cool.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:45pm
mark,
i don't watch movies (except very rarely and only on tv), but i have to say that jurassic park was done very well indeed with a beautiful score. even though they really didn't follow the book it was a good movie.
the book, btw had a fantastic line in uttered by the mathematician - something like "we humans aren't going to destroy the earth and we aren't going to save it ... but we can save ourselves."
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 2:35pm
do either of you have any specific dinosaurs you wish to discuss? :D
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 2:58pm
I was just wondering about this whole "biologically designed" thing and if there were vegetarian/vegan animals that had sharp teeth/claws?
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 3:13pm
michele,
i don't think plant eaters had sharp teeth, because they had no use for them. usually, plants don't move so there isn't much need to hunt them down and rip out their guts.
plant eaters don't usually eat carnivorously, though chimps and other primates occasionally do eat some form of flesh and even or rare occasion may eat other primates - this should not come as a surprise since cannibalism is a dietary reality in human history.
dogs and wolves are dietary omnivores (they are carnivores only by taxonomy). what that means is they can eat pretty much anything. the mistake people make is to think that carnivores can't eat other things, because they can and they do (as you are well aware having cats).
all the 'tools' (teeth, tract, ph content of digestive juices etc) mean is that the creature has the ability to process a certain type of food more efficiently. it doesn't mean that they can't process other sorts of food or that it is even bad for them to do so.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 3:19pm
Oh I agree totally, Prad. I'm just questioning the whole "they have sharp teeth and nails so they MUST be designed to eat meat" theory. I mean, we have molars and hands, but we shove meat down our throats. Could it be that animals strayed from their original diets, too?
I mean how many times have we read about humans becoming cannibals when starving? Could it be that some animals had to do this due to circumstances and then just never went back? I read this somewhere. My cats take a couple days to readjust to new food when i feed it to them but they eventually eat it. Could it be that even animals develop appetites to certain things just because they are taught by their parents to eat it?
I've been shocked by what my cats have the "instinct" to eat. Fruit, veggies, etc. Could it be that I've been wrong all along?
I realize people's strong feelings on this, but I'd like a well-rounded discussion on this without the emotion in it. Emotion clouds judgement in my opinion.
Just like when a detective is trying to solve a murder mystery, we need to look at all the suspects. Oh, I so didn't want to respond to this thread since I know it's an emotional one for some people, but I do want to examine all sides. I've been blown away at the reactions from some people on this topic. You'd think that this would be the most open-minded group to approach this topic to.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 3:52pm
michele,
i have found the people here to be generally of very high quality - and i've been in a lot of discussions on this sort of topic. some do handle shock better than others though :D
unfortunately, some may feel strongly about it, but don't always understand the physiological realities or the ethical ramifications which amount to speciesism (that's why utopia's questioning the question above, was such a good post).
i don't think animals strayed from their original diets necessarily (though many obviously did adapt depending on circumstances - that's actually a very interesting matter i hadn't thought about!). i don't think there was an original diet, but a continually varying one (i can show you some references supporting this to some extent, if you want, regarding early humans).
eating certain things that you have the tools for is easier and possibly tastier (though your cats are showing you otherwise :D, as do mine: today they were eating the veg kibble dough raw - i had to ask my son to pull them away :D ), but we must remember that we are making a judgement (scientific and all that) saying this is what the creature is meant to eat.
the other thing that is not often considered is that plant food is relatively simple to get and digest because of its molecular make-up. animal proteins are awkward and complicated and fat.
simpler compositions can be managed more easily and by a large population, than complex ones. this is why it is easier for a dog to eat yams (our dogs like it a lot), than it is for a cow to eat a dog.
in friendship,
prad
Laurie on May 11, 2009 at 5:16pm
Prad,
I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion, but I will try to respond to your long posts soon. For now, I just wanted to say that if dogs and wolves are dietary omnivores, then we are too, right? And then there should be no argument as to what is healthier--dogs and humans can thrive on any type of food? Dogs can be just as healthy eating vegan and we can be just as healthy eating meat?
Laurie
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 6:47pm
hi laurie!
i do apologize for some of the long posts and sincerely appreciate your taking the time to work through them. the writer sometimes forgets the reader's comfort.
your reasoning here appears to have logically validity by virtue of the classification omnivore, but it is not quite correct. belonging to the same class, doesn't necessarily mean you have the same abilities. for instance, a man and a woman are classified as humans, but only one of them is able to have a baby.
dogs and wolves are dietary omnivores (as per the links provided in other posts). humans are omnivores more by undisciplined choice, at least these days.
australopithecus primarily lived on fruit, nuts, seeds, but homo habilis did seem to indulge in a more hunter-oriented lifestyle (it is incorrectly concluded by some, btw, that meat-eating gave homo and later, the larger brain - there are various theories as to why). the hunter part of hunter/gatherer is really a bit of a myth according to sussman's
work because early hominids spent most of their time running rather than chasing. still, they and many primates did occasionally eat some meat - and occasionally other primates too.
despite this on an evolutionary scale, humans didn't have time to develop particularly good mechanisms for handling animal proteins and sad diet followers usually pay a price for it - so most people aren't "just as healthy eating meat" as just a look in mcdonalds will prove.
wolves and dogs while they have more efficient mechanisms for handling animal proteins than humans, can and do eat omnivorously. in fact, caniforms due to a much longer existence on the evolutionary calendar (over 50 million years as opposed to may be only 2 million years for homo), did develop their omnivore repetoire rather well.
they are certainly not harmed by an omnivorous diet as are humans. nor are they harmed when the animal proteins are removed as long as the veg diet is not grotesquely put together. (the post just above yours explains a bit more of the why).
so in answer to
Dogs can be just as healthy eating vegan - yes
we can be just as healthy eating meat? - no
even though both dogs and humans can be dietary omnivores.
in friendship,
prad
Mark on May 11, 2009 at 4:20pm
I don't think the vegetarians had sharp teeth or claws. Look at the brontosaurus.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 4:24pm
but mark, some vegetarians do have sharp teeth and claws. i see them in internet forums! and some even have horns! :D
in fiendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 4:37pm
Yeah, but you don't use them.
Audrey Walker on May 12, 2009 at 1:32am
Hi Prad, I appreciate the offer, but no, I don't wish to continue this discussion. Frankly I feel its ridiculous. It is so obvious that dogs are natural meat eaters that I can't believe that anyone who says they love their dogs would want to mess around with anything else just because of their own ideals and morals (risking their dogs long term health in the process). They shouldn't have adopted dogs. If you have an animal you have a moral responsibility to give it the best possible care and that includes feeding dogs a raw meat and bones diet. That's all I have to say about it.
Blessings,
Audrey
pradtf on May 12, 2009 at 4:42am
audrey,
not continuing this discussion is certainly one sure way of keeping it as 'being ridiculous'.
sometimes, it's not a bad idea to take a second look at the obvious.
and as michele puts it in a later post, "Since there is evidence to the contrary, we better be looking at that."
some people here extend their moral responsibility to sentient beings beyond just their dogs - i do not think you have justification to criticize their 'morality' as you do, question their love for their dogs or insist they shouldn't be adopting dogs.
some of us have researched (that's the second, third and beyond look) the matter and have considerable evidence showing that the long-term health of dogs improves on a meat-free diet (see survey for instance).
if you do not wish to discuss these things now, you may change your mind later.
i'd be happy to talk about it whenever you wish to.
in friendship,
prad
Utopia on May 12, 2009 at 4:58am
She also seemed to forget that an omnivorous family (and I'm sure plural but at least one that I know of) is feeding their dog vegetarian food. There is no imposition of morals; just feeding their dog the best diet they know of, which is commendable.
pradtf on May 12, 2009 at 7:20am
that's a good point utopia!
many omni families do feed their dogs veg as evidenced by the fact that most major dog food companies these days have a veg line.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 3:58pm
Nobody's questioning the quality of people here, just want to keep things focused on seeking the truth and not just accepting what "science" has handed down. I mean, they're wrong about vaccines, their wrong about a lot of things. If a lion can survive and prefer eating vegetarian which there are examples of, then this peaks my curiosity about whether or not they are true carnivores. The argument always handed down is about taurine, but if that's true, then they wouldn't be able to thrive without it and there's been examples of some that have. Science is observation of facts and must be able to be duplicated EVERY TIME.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 4:08pm
michele,
i only meant in terms of quality of discussion (sorry i should have been more precise). i have just been on many discussions where there is a lot of yelling and ad hominem attacks, accompanied with very little substance.
it's easy to accept what 'science' hands down because we are usually brainwashed into the science = god equation through our education system. it is also comforting to not take responsibility and let the 'expert' figure things out for us.
however, proper science is always learning and adapting to what it discovers to be reality. that means changing the tools, changing the perspective, and changing yourself. this is why the truly great scientists like newton and einstein were so humble (of course, they were veg too :D ).
i wonder if there is such a thing as a true carnivore (in mammals) - it's only a taxonomy classification anyway. for instance the panda is a carnivore, but spends its time eating leaves.
you are right in your last statement. the fact that there is an exception means that the theory needs to be revised.
in friendship,
prad
Michele on May 11, 2009 at 4:11pm
EXACTLY my point. The book Iconoclast shows that great advances were by people who saw things differently. They often weren't accepted at first.
If you are starting with the premise that the earth is FLAT, you are going to be looking for evidence to support your theory and could very possibly overlook evidence to the contrary.
Since there is evidence to the contrary, we better be looking at that.
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 4:17pm
michele,
that's often how things are discovered too. the pertubations of uranus' orbit were what led to the discovery of neptune, for instance.
it's a daring step from accepting what is, to exploring why it ain't the way i thought it's supposed to be.
but the rewards can be immensely lucrative!
in friendship,
prad
ednshell on May 11, 2009 at 5:28pm
Well it took a while but I finally read through all the posts! :) Our dog is 4 and has been on Newman's dry organic dog food always with an organic raw meat every few months and lots of bananas and watermelon rinds and soft apples, he also likes to eat grass every day. I have been thinking of how to get him on a raw diet, I thought I must have a brood of hens and do the killing myself if he is going to eat the meat, it seems the moral way to go and most economical. But I decided there is no way I could do that. So I have been looking for just one person with personal success with their dogs eating raw vegan. So thank you for that. I would love more detailed weekly fat intake for dogs or anything else pertinent. I posted a topic with an article on vaccine damage specifically on dogs and cats which of course translates into human problems with them too. So I am switching to a vet that advocates not vaccinating my dog. I am planning on mostly bananas for him since it's most economical. Did you all get your info. from a vet or other source or did you experiment to find the right blend, for those of you feeding raw vegan? Thanks!
pradtf on May 11, 2009 at 7:07pm
wow ednshell!
you read through all the posts! great stamina indeed!
people i know who feed raw vegan to their dogs are ecocentric and bigG (if he ever shows up in this thread - he told me he's doing a 30bananas posting fast :D ). they both have extremely cute dogs!
we don't vaccinate either and that's a good article! for anyone reading here,
this is the
link to it.
in friendship,
prad
myra on May 11, 2009 at 11:50pm
I posted waaay back in the beginning of this thread that I feed my dog raw meaty bones but am considering feeding vegan.
Well, I've made my decision --I will begin a trial of vegan, mostly raw if possible, next week (when I return from a trip) and monitor very carefully. Perhaps those of us feeding vegan can help and support one another? I have to admit I am a bit fearful of heading into this direction.
My dog has not been vaccinated in 7 years. Perhaps not vaccinating is one of the keys of why some of us are talking about our dogs thriving, whether on meat or veg diet.
I am so grateful for this discussion......thanks to all who have participated, including those with more emotional posts. After all we love our furry animal companions :)
love, myra
TreeOfLife on May 13, 2009 at 2:59am
Think about it edn... If you had lots of cock and hens, you wouldn't have to do the killing yourself. I've seen plenty of dogs hunt rabbits, fox, even deer- let alone hens. I would be worried that after your dog ate your friendly helpers (cock/hens) then you would have a tough time keeping him away- especially not feeding him meat yourself.
ednshell on May 13, 2009 at 1:02pm
That would be so weird! I don't think he would, we have had a chick and he was very gentle with it. If it was necessary, I would figure it out AND deal with it. I'll try the vegan raw, I know many Vets who say it's totally not a a worry to feed vegetarian so if you can do it cooked why not raw? I guess I was just sold on the packaging and didn't think too much about how I could feed him better myself. My biggest concern is the money or cost.
BigG. on May 12, 2009 at 4:35pm
Moth,
My buddy is a veg head. He is cute and has such a wonderful nature many comment on his qualities.
I tell people "he is cute because he eats fruit" and this opens up a whole conversation.
A conversation that allows for the the possibility that people maybe just maybe start to question some of the hand me down beliefs they have.
myra on May 13, 2009 at 1:35am
Hi BigG,
Would you mind sharing exactly what you feed your cute buddy? I think it was mentioned that you feed him all raw. I plan on transitioning my friend to vege diet next week (after I return from a trip). I am definitely one of those people who is open to questioning....I am wide open...
Thanks!
BigG. on May 13, 2009 at 11:20am
No Problem.
cucumbers, tomatoes, avacados, watermelon, mandarins, blue berries, his Mom's home made soup, some cottage cheese (this is his Mom's thing ;-) probably some other fruits and veggies.
He loves it and enjoys the life.
He doesn't need the meat and bones he is in great health without it.
I love this little guy.
TreeOfLife on May 13, 2009 at 2:56am
Sweet Moth! Please DONT turn your dog into a vegan! I understand that you hate to feel for the suffering of the animals he consumes, but this is life. It is how the food chain works.
Dogs are omnivores so he will gladly consume greens, fruits AND meat. They need the meat and bones to have a healthy diet.
You can find local butchers, or better yet farms, and get the meat from them. Usually meat with some free range love suffer a lot less, but still it is your "responsibility" to feed him meat. Not feeding your lovely friend meat would just be a sure sign of abuse.
Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear!
pradtf on May 13, 2009 at 4:06am
treeoflife,
dogs don't need meat and bones to have a healthy diet. there is plenty of evidence over 2 decades supporting that. in fact, if you look at the survey posted on this site, you'll see that they actually do better the longer they've been veg.
there is no love in free range.
surely we have a responsibility towards all sentient beings.
it is inappropriate to suggest that not feeding one's dog meat is a "sure sign of abuse".
if you wish to discuss these matters further, i'd be happy to. however, you may want to take a look through this thread first.
in friendship,
prad
pradtf on May 13, 2009 at 4:23am
this is an article by a former colleague of sangeeta (who is on 30bad). she used to assist in the production of worldfest, which for many years (under sangeeta's supervision) was the largest veg festival in the world.
the article provides some ideas and resources for people with veg pets. it is somewhat dated, but nevertheless may be useful for many:
http://www.vegparadise.com/otherbirds410.html
in friendship,
prad
Kacie on May 13, 2009 at 5:30am
I met a couple who had 3 raw vegan dogs. They looked healthy and ate whatever their owners ate. Your dog may suffer detox symptoms like humans do. Maybe start slowly and definitely research it. Good Luck:) See you at the VIBES!
Apple-Man on May 14, 2009 at 1:26am
A dog who eats fruit is like a human who eats meat. Neither is designed for what they're eating. Carnivores thrive on flesh. Humans thrive on fruit. It's nature's way, and the more we twist nature's laws, the more we pay with our health. Whether we be a human, a dog, or a fish.
I understand that you're feeling sad about the animals dying to be your dog's food, but carnivores are part of our planet. They need to obtain their own natural foods, too. If your dog was in charge of what both of you eat, and fed you raw meat and organs, would you feel blessed? There is also another side to this issue:
First of all, this may offend some people, but I strongly believe in what I'm about to say:
I personally do not eat meat, and other animal products, but the primary reason I choose not to is because I belive humans are designed to thrive on fruit. I think that, emotional Principle-wise, the whole vegetarian-vegan thing is flawed. It is absolutely true that these choices are healthier and that they benefit our lovely planet, but not because we're not choosing to kill or torture animals, but becuase we're obeying nature's laws.
You can't say you're not killing others for your nutrition. None of us can say that now that we're vegan, we're not responsible for the deaths of any creatures. How can you say you're not killing plants when you eat them?
Just because what we eat doesn't have a face, or doesn't move by itself, or doesn't make sounds and doesn't have a soft fur or a warm body, it doesn't mean it's not alive.
Nature intended carnivoes to kill and eat other animals. Just as it has intended humans to pick and eat (kill) fruit. Both fruits and animals have metabolic actions. Both are alive. And when you consume them, both die.
It IS a law of nature to "kill and eat." It's just about not killing and eating the wrong thing. Don't you agree?
We have an inner feeling of love and friendship with other animals, because they are not things for us to kill and consume. How do you know if dogs don't look at the bananas I eat, and go "aww, poor banana, this human just peeled it's skin alive and bit it's poor head! It was so cute! It didn't deserve to die just to be fuel for his pathetic body!"
People say, "but fruits don't have souls, or personalities". Well, can you prove that humans do? How can you prove that humans posess souls, or that an apple doesn't have a personality that it keeps to itself? It cannot be observed!
Feed him the meat or let him run free if you love him. Or you can feed him bananas and see how tragic that'll end up. Thanks for reading guys.
pradtf on 1 day ago
greetings am!
dtg answered this post of yours, but the reply has disappeared, so i thought i'd respond. (i recognize that this is something you wrote more than a month ago, addressed to moth and possibly you are not as firmly attached to it as you may have been back then.)
your words are in italics.
A dog who eats fruit is like a human who eats meat. Neither is designed for what they're eating.
there is a misconception here that creatures were specifically designed to eat certain things. humans aren't designed to eat fruit - they simply have certain mechanisms which process fruit more efficiently than say meat. dogs process fruit quite nicely (because of the nature of fruit), but they also have some mechanisms which allow them to process meat more efficiently than say humans.
Carnivores thrive on flesh.
actually they don't. eating flesh can produce similar strains on the system that it does for humans.
for instance, regarding arthritis:
=======
Red meat forms the major part of the dog's diet. It is rich in uric acid and acts as the main contributing factor for the development of arthritis.
http://www.dog-arthritis-relief.com/glucosamineindogs.html
the above is also re-stated in james peden's book "vegetarian dogs and cats" with the added:
"Perhaps this is one reason that by eliminating meat in the diet that rejuvenation results." (p. 103)
dr. richard pitcairn in "natural health for dogs and cats" also questions nutrition and as a treatment for arthritic dogs suggests:
"[in italics] Use as little meat and yeast as possible. Emphasize the vegetarian diet in chapter 5 and substitute a B complex tablet for nutritional yeast ..."
=======
or regarding gingivitis and cystinuria (this is actually about captive wolves);
=======
"Captive maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) often consume diets high in prey and meat items even though they are omnivorous in the wild. These soft, high protein diets may exacerbate conditions of gingivitis and cystinuria in this species. ... Dietary management of maned wolves should minimize excess protein intake by limiting prey consumption and acclimating animals to extruded diets for domestic dogs."
interscience journal
=======
or if you look at the survey post on page 16, you'll see plenty of other animal protein related issues for dogs.
It's nature's way, and the more we twist nature's laws, the more we pay with our health. Whether we be a human, a dog, or a fish.
there are various misunderstandings regarding what nature's way really is. people sometimes conclude that because a carnivore has the equipment to eat meat, that is nature's way that they eat meat. that's sort of like saying if a man is big, strong and mean-looking, it is nature's way to have him go around pulverizing weaker individuals. this is linked to the appeal to nature fallacy which you can read about in this
thread (which i think you will likely find interesting anyway).
I think that, emotional Principle-wise, the whole vegetarian-vegan thing is flawed.
let's re-examine both your conjecture as well as the whole veg thing.
first, you assume that just because some people feel sad about slaughtering other animals that this is purely an emotional issue. it's not. there is a very solid basis for feeding dogs veg which is backed up with more than 2 decades of anecdotal evidence as well as vet confirmations and studies.
second, even if the matter were emotional, on what basis should it be concluded that the argument is wrong? you may have a case if it were a matter of sacrificing your dog for a cow, but that's not the situation - rather the situation is that you are sacrificing not one but many cows for your dog. this is sort of ridiculous anyway because dogs don't eat cows, not do they get humans to butcher them, so nature's laws really aren't being obeyed here at all.
third, you attempt to bring up the "you are killing plants" argument which i find surprising (admittedly you did this a month ago), because that's the same line that corpse eaters attempt to justify themselves with. there are many refutations to this effort, but the most obvious one is that to the best of our understanding, plants are not sentient in the same way that animals are, nor is it impossible to eat plant foods without killing the plant (fruits being a primary example). besides, the thrust of your argument seems to be something like well you're killing plants anyway so why not kill some animals which really is a non sequitor.
Nature intended carnivoes to kill and eat other animals. Just as it has intended humans to pick and eat (kill) fruit. Both fruits and animals have metabolic actions. Both are alive. And when you consume them, both die.
surely you realize that there is a difference between a sentient being being imprisoned, exploited, abused and murdered vs a fruit being 'killed' (whatever that means). to reduce it all to some metabolic reaction is like equating a star to a candle because they both emit light.
It IS a law of nature to "kill and eat." It's just about not killing and eating the wrong thing. Don't you agree?
no.
again there is that 'law of nature'! obviously this law needs to be re-examined because it is constantly being broken. veg dogs thrive, there are cats who won't touch meat, some primates are cannibalistic. so the law of nature likely doesn't exist at least in the form some people think ... besides, it sounds too much like nature's law which i think was something david wolfe had going?
We have an inner feeling of love and friendship with other animals, because they are not things for us to kill and consume. How do you know if dogs don't look at the bananas I eat, and go "aww, poor banana, this human just peeled it's skin alive and bit it's poor head! It was so cute! It didn't deserve to die just to be fuel for his pathetic body!"
since when do bananas have heads?
People say, "but fruits don't have souls, or personalities". Well, can you prove that humans do? How can you prove that humans posess souls, or that an apple doesn't have a personality that it keeps to itself? It cannot be observed!
ok so this is the appeal to ignorance fallacy or suggesting that something could be true because it has not been observed to be false. if you want to argue that an apple has a soul or even a personality, the onus is on you to do so, not leave it at we can't see that it doesn't and therefore should act as if it might. it's a bit like saying since we haven't seen the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, we can't be sure it is not there, so let's tell our bank manager to be prepared for a massive desposit someday.
Feed him the meat or let him run free if you love him. Or you can feed him bananas and see how tragic that'll end up.
i agree that an exclusive diet of bananas will not be a good thing for dogs. however, if you look into several properly supplemented veg diets that are available for dogs and examine the results (some of which you'll see in this thread), you may find that there is more to this 'law of nature' than some people realize.
you don't have to feed a dog meat and it's quite likely that the dog will do better on a veg diet (see survey on page 16).
and if you love your dog, you most certainly don't want to let him or her run free either on the streets or in the forests - both can be dangerous depending on the situation. we don't let our children run amuck and there is no reason to let one's dog do this either.
am, as you know i very much like your contributions to this forum (even this particular post of yours though i'm disputing much of what you've written). i'd be happy to continue the discussion with you if you so wish.
in friendship,
prad
Apple-Man on 1 day ago
Very interesting points you have there indeed.
Well, let us examine them:
First of all, I will start by stating that I have not seen data about dogs thriving on a plant-based diet before, so I can neither confirm nor deny your comments about that aspect of the issue.
Second, when I say dogs (or other carnivores) are designed to eat other animals, I don't only adress their digestive system. Surely their digestive system handles flesh, organs and bones much more efficiently then other creatures, but also their anatomy fits the requirements of meat eating and catching prey, too.
If you observe a lion or a wolf hunting animals in the wild, you will see how efficiently the creature hunts its prey, consuming almost the entire animal with gusto, leaving minimal waste.
But try imagining a lion eating bananas. It doesn't have the required hand structure to hold and peel the banana efficiently, nor does it have the teeth to utilize it effectively. The digestive system of the carnivore is not long enough for the banana to be completely digested and assimilated, and the carnivore's digestive juices are not a close match to the requirements of fruit.
About meat eating causing acidic reactions: It is known that carnivores need much greater amounts of alkaline minerals, primarily calcium, in their diets. This can be of ample supply in their diets by their eating of small bones of their prey. Animals who are raised by humans usually don't hunt, they eat prepared food, sometimes, only flesh.
When I said carnivores thrive on flesh, what I meant was "a flesh based diet". That would be like me saying that humans thrive on fruit, yet we also know that they probably need some greens in their diet to truly thrive.
Putting a carnivore on a diet of only meats and no -or very little- bones will be like putting a human on a fruit juice diet and then claiming that fruits don't suit humans, or like putting the human on a fruit-only diet without greens and after a period of time, declaring the fruit diet unsuitable or unsustainable for humans.
The extra calcium provided by the consumtion of small, relatively soft bone tissue is a requirement of the carnivore's diet. If it is excluded, it is normal for the flesh-based diet to cause an acidic environment in the carnivore's system.
surely you realize that there is a difference between a sentient being being imprisoned, exploited, abused and murdered vs a fruit being 'killed' I do. And of course I wasn't talking about the meat that comes from there. I was simply stating that carnivores in the wild kill and eat other animals, and no doubt, thrive; and similiarly, humans pick and eat fruit, and thrive.
again there is that 'law of nature'! obviously this law needs to be re-examined because it is constantly being broken. veg dogs thrive, there are cats who won't touch meat, some primates are cannibalistic. so the law of nature likely doesn't exist at least in the form some people think ... besides, it sounds too much like nature's law which i think was something david wolfe had going?
So is it right to say that humans can indeed smoke and be healthy because there are some people who smoke and seem to do fine? Does that indicate that the person would NOT be healthier if they didn't smoke? Obviously not. A fine structured carnivore diet, in my opinion (again I have not experienced this as much as I'd like to have, therefore my opinion may be disregarded) supplies carnivorous creatures with the elements they require to thrive, while harming them as little as possible. Lastly, I have nothing to do with David Wolfe's agenda, if that's what you're saying.
since when do bananas have heads?
Obviously I was giving an example of how another animal might be thinking up there.
The other points you have made which I haven't taken into consideration here, are the ones I already agree with.
Your friendly neighborhood,
-Apple-Man
pradtf on 22 hours ago
am,
thx for this detailed reply which i'll respond to after apologizing for the wolfe comment. i was only joking because nature's law sounds like nature's first law (which i have a vague recollection was his group?). in no way was i implying any connection with you at all.
since you acknowledge not seeing any data about veg dogs, i can understand your reluctance to accept the idea. three decades ago, i would have likely done the same thing because the data was not accessible and because the initial conclusions based on physiology does suggest eating meat. plus i was a stubborn sort of creature back then ... though not nearly as much as i am these days :D
however, there is plenty of info available now and that survey is on page 16 of this thread. note that alison who recently joined the thread says she has "read a heap of info on this over the years" and there are several people throughout the thread reporting significant successes with veg dogs.
carnivores aren't really 'designed' to eat other animals. that idea is too restrictive since for example, the canine family are actually dietary omnivores (even though they are classified as carnivores by taxonomy). what is more accurate is to say carnivores have the tools to process flesh with a certain amount of efficiency (more than say herbivores).
i'm not talking about just the digestive system either and since you bring up lions you may be interested in
little tyke or the miniature version
dante. it's not that they can't, it's that they won't.
you seem to think that carnivores hunt efficiently. they really don't. wolves for example have an 8% success rate (see the natural=good? thread). this is one of the reasons why many carnivores resort to team work and even then they can take out only the weakest and sickest individuals.
to some extent you are correct that certain carnivores may not process certain items because of their digestive tract and that they have certain dietary requirements. this is why supplementation is likely a good idea (though this is not conclusive). the interesting thing is that supplementation is provided even on flesh based diets of the best quality dog foods. therefore i certainly agree with you to the extent that it is not a good idea to put a carnivore on a diet of only meat. in the wild, of course carnivores eat the veg matter inside the stomachs of the prey, as well as other things and that helps the supplementation to some extent.
you write:
"I was simply stating that carnivores in the wild kill and eat other animals, and no doubt, thrive"
i think that appears to be the consensus of many people, but i wonder how true it is. life out in nature is not easy. the prey may be diseased and there may not be enough of it. lifespans are also much shorter.
for example, consider the
red wolf which has a lifespan of 7 yrs in the wild and 15 yrs in captivity. or the
coyote 4 years in the wild, up to 22 years in captivity. or the
lion, 16 yrs in the wild vs 26 yrs in captivity.
these are pretty staggering figures, so i would question exactly what is meant by this concept of 'thrive'. it would seem to me that part of it should include the greatly increased lifespan that they enjoy as a result of not having to hunt because they are fed reasonably well-balanced meals and not subjected to the usual hazards of nature part of which is to die if you just don't make the grade.
of course, i'm not suggesting that the longevity is due to veg diets, but you may be surprised to know that the guiness book records vegdog brambles as being the longest lived dog (at least in 2002). i have a link somewhere in this thread, but blueberry blossom has provided one a few posts down
here.
you write:
"So is it right to say that humans can indeed smoke and be healthy because there are some people who smoke and seem to do fine? ..."
no not at all. what i said was the the 'law of nature' that many people keep stating needs to be re-examined carefully as a result of the exceptions.
for instance, if you find that a large portion of humans who smoke remain healthy, then it could follow that the law of nature supports smoking - since that is not the case, it would seem that the law of nature doesn't support smoking. since a large portion of veg dogs (you'd be surprised at how large that portion is from the survey on page 16), do remain healthy (again you'd be surprised how healthy), it would suggest that there is a new law of nature which runs counter to the old one that insists dogs need to eat meat to remain healthy. that is what is meant by re-examining this law of nature.
you write:
"A fine structured carnivore diet ... supplies carnivorous creatures with the elements they require to thrive, while harming them as little as possible."
i don't disagree with you in principle here, but the key is really "a fine structured diet".
if you provide a diet which meets the requirements, your dog will thrive regardless of whether there is meat in it or not. however, considering that even major commercial dog food companies offer a veg alternative because of various ailments such as allergies, obesity, arthritis etc (similar to human problems actually), one does have to wonder whether putting the meat in was such a good idea. it seems we don't have these issues on a properly balanced veg diet.
btw, if you want to read about our 2 dogs who have been veg for more than a decade, just see
the rikster
then
the pig dog
i'm glad we are in agreement about the other points and you are indeed "our friendly neighborhood Apple-Man"!
in friendship,
prad
Apple-Man on 21 hours ago
This is very interesting... Thanks for all the links you've given, I'm going to check them out and do some of my own research and get back to ya!
ednshell on 21 hours ago
Wow! I read the links to little tyke, Dante, oldest dog , rikster, pig dog. That is really neat to read about pig dog's total recovery of hip problem. What might you do if your dog was diagnosed with heartworm?
pradtf on 20 hours ago
ednshell,
the heartworm issue seems to be enwrapped in a continuous process of drug administration from what i could find on the net. when the condition is there, they want to give drugs. when it isn't there, they want to give drugs to prevent it from appearing. there seems to be this assumption on every site i went to that it's all inevitable.
our dogs don't go to vets, because we don't go to doctors.
i've seen too often that the cure is worse than the disease and i am suspect of the reasoning capabilities of many members of the medical professions (and i do have considerable firsthand knowledge of this having fought it out with several including my own father who was actually a world-renowned opthalmologist).
however, the medical profession can provide a good source of information which is often helpful. so if a vet says, your dog has heartworm it is prudent to find out just how much he knows about what this is, how it got there, what resources the body has to fight it, how his approach intends to deal with it, what side-effects are expected etc. generally, you'll get a good idea about what the vet knows because the pieces either will or won't fit together. in any case, it is a good idea to get a second opinion for comparison.
now, the above was for the standard medical route. there are alternatives which may not have medical or statistical validity, but are often more intelligent. pitcairns, for example, reluctantly recommended (in his 1982 book natural health for dogs & cats) using the preventative drug, but added several paragraphs on how it is so important to build up a strong immune system through diet and environment. amongst the ideas he suggested was the use of garlic and yeast (to repel mosquitoes).
he also suggested other ideas for dogs whose systems have been severely compromised (a few heartworms are likely not a problem according to him - though the internet sites would have you think otherwise), such as going to someone who uses natural herbs, homeopathy, acupunture and imho the most sensible idea being "fasting and a wholesome diet with plenty of raw foods" - large quantities of raw garlic is in there as well and the book he recommends is donald ogden's natural care of pets.
it's important to recognize the essential difference between the 2 scenarios. the first wants to fix the problem, while the second makes the body healthy so it can deal with issues itself. imho, the clear benefit of a veg diet (not necessarily raw and definitely properly supplemented with mostly whole foods eg blue green algae etc) is that you are not stressing the body which all animal proteins do, but you are getting high amounts of nutrients in there preferrably in chelated form (in an organic base which the body processes better or we could get our calcium chewing chalk or iron licking rusty nails).
these 2 components go hand in hand as you may deduce from jumpr the pig dog's recovery. the diet was strict veg (but we didn't just throw carrots at him) and he got plenty of rest amongst the trees. minimize stress (that's why animals fast when ill) and provide good nutrients (they eat variety).
i also have pitcairn's newer edition 10 yrs later i think somewhere around here where he is even more pro-veg and if you want, i'll look up his thoughts on heartworm there.
i hope this was of some help, but let me know if you have any specifics you wish to discuss and i'll do what i can.
in friendship,
prad
ednshell on 20 hours ago
Thanks so much! The medical treatment for heartworm reminds me of chemo, hoping the drugs kill the heartworm before it kills the dog. It just doesn't make sense. I was quite surprised by Dr. D's response on vegsource asking me why I would think a water fast would help my dog get rid of heartworm. Nora Lenz, a natural hygienist who has dogs seemed to think just a water fast plus change of diet would build his immune system enough to get rid of the heart worm on his own. I wonder if the world's oldest living dog gets heart worm meds. I have Picairn's book waiting at the library for me, thanks for offering though. My dog refuses any garlic. I might try the herbs a week after reintroducing food. I am wondering if it's worthwhile to get him tested again after treating him myself. He is doing very well on a water fast, full of energy, happy. The advice I have gotten is to keep him on until a few days after no more symptoms and his only symptom is a minor ear infection, we're taking it day by day to see how he's doing on it.
Anything you come across that you think may be helpful, I would much appreciate. Thank so much, it really helps! :)
pradtf on 10 hours ago
ya it is just like chemo isn't it!
the way i see it, one should examine the state of the dog instead of the state of what's in the tests. for instance, if your dog is not showing any adverse effects from having heartworm, then may be it really doesn't matter what the tests show.
vets will argue this by saying animals cover up illnesses because they have to in the wild etc, but the point is that if you have a dog that is behaving healthy and happy, there is probably a good reason. quite possibly the body and the parasite have reached an understanding - may be even a state of symbiosis.
you may also like to take a look at the article i posted about alternative therapies by dr bernarr. it has nothing to do with dogs, but it may help strengthen certain perspectives i think you already have.
in friendship,
prad
ednshell on 9 hours ago
Thanks, I did read it with my dog in mind! :) Very nice article, I may call him!
Laurie on May 15, 2009 at 5:25am
Prad,
I have given a lot of thought to responding to this discussion but I realize I just am not interested in continuing with you at this time.
I think we've just about covered everything, but if anyone else has concerns about bacteria, parasites, or any other issues with feeding raw meat to dogs, feel free to send me a message.
pradtf on May 15, 2009 at 5:46am
thank you for letting me know, laurie.
i enjoyed discussing this with you because you are not only knowledgeable, but also express things clearly and calmly.
i look forward to another encounter with you - perhaps we'll be on the same side of the argument next time.
in friendship,
prad
Rawgreengoddess on June 1, 2009 at 3:50pm
i know,i feel the same MOTH....i have two 10 week old puppies,they are just beautiful...
I personally believe dogs and cats are designed to eat meat,they have sharp teeth for tearing and have a short bowel,for quick exit....i wanted to raise them raw vegan...but im not the only 'parent' in this case,lol...
so everytime i feed them i feel a sadness too....
but know that when harley and Free house sat they had to feed a cat,so went down to the local shop and bought it raw meat,its natural diet....this doesnt make me feel quite so hideous!
i feed them raw meat
raw eggs
raw vegs
Alison Andrews on 1 day ago
I'm planning to adopt a dog later this year, and it will definitely be vegan. I have read a heap of info on this over the years and it can definitely be done with huge success.
pradtf on 1 day ago
fantastic alison!!
i look forward to seen the info!
welcome to this thread!!
in friendship
prad
Blueberry on 1 day ago
The oldest vegan dog and made the guiness book of records was 27 years and still alive at the time
http://www.fruitnut.net/index2.htm?PAG=64brambles,REF
I honestly think it is possible to eat whatever, my dogs were brought up veggie when I was a child and had no illnesses, they all died around age 18 and they were pedigrees that had shorter life spans in general.
I do give my present dog a little meat as she really likes it and I try to get wild meat rather than something slaughtered in a slaughter house. I still feel bad about it and won't be getting any more pets after her, but I tend to take on rescue animals anyway.
Michele on 9 hours ago
This is awesome, Blueberry, thanks for posting.
Ryan on 9 hours ago
there's this new animated show on tv called 'the goode family' about this family of eco-conscious vegans and their struggles.. it's made by the same guy who created 'beavis and butthead' and 'king of the hill'
anyway, they feed their dog, che, vegan and it's reflected in his emaciated appearance.. he is so meat-crazed that he goes around the neighborhood hunting squirrels and other family's pets
not saying that it conveys reality at all (the show mainly reinforces stereotypes), just bringing this up because it's pretty humorous and applies to this thread.. i think if a dog is brought up from birth vegan you got a good shot, but it would be tough to transition a pet this way
el-bo on 9 hours ago
that's funny :o)
pradtf on 9 hours ago
ryan,
i don't think dogs really make much of an issue between kibbles with meat and kibbles without meat.
a lot depends on the dog of course - some take to different food quickly, some are more reluctant. you'll see one of myra's post in this thread where her heidi slurped up a raw veg meal quite happily after being on raw meat for 7 yrs. our veg dogs are actually far more finicky than our veg cats - the former stick with their standard diet of kibbles, almond butter, chapatti and steamed yam, whereas all but one of the 4 cats like exploring all sorts of food. jumpr dog though will eat the cat's oat-tvp preparation quite happily if he can steal it - but not if you give it to him :D
in friendship,
prad
Ryan on 7 hours ago
i'm sure you have more experience with this than i do pradtf.. i just know that my family's dogs have been carnivores since we had them as puppies and that i cannot get them to eat nearly anything vegan.. only thing that i can think of is nuts.. but my friend's dogs hop all over lettuce, fruit, etc.. avocados they go crazy for.. i tried to feed my dogs avocado the other day and after a lick or two they were over it
don't get me wrong though.. if it wasn't such a tremendous battle with my parents i would have them eating so much healthier.. if i ever have a pet of my own you can count on them being in peak health
also, anytime during my trip through asia that i would try to feed a stray dog or cat what i was eating (and sometimes they were begging for) such as banana, mango, sapodilla, etc, they didn't want it
kudos on being so dedicated with your animals, tho
your cat's are doing well on a vegan diet? my 811rv friend wanted to try this recently but after much research concluded that it was too dangerous for her kitten.. she saw warnings (not sure how valid) that it could result in blindness, death, etc.
Apple-Man on 7 hours ago
Well I saw many warnings that told me I'd die of protein deficiency on a raw vegan diet.
Ryan on 7 hours ago
lol.. my point in being skeptical of her sources' validity
Michele on 7 hours ago
Ryan,
Via gave me a book suggestion about a vegetarian cat name "Little Tyke" (that's the name of the book) that turned up her nose to meat and was vegetarian her whole life.She never went blind and died in old age..
Ryan on 7 hours ago
cool, thanks michele.. i'll be sure to mention it to her
ednshell on 56 minutes ago
One interesting thing about little tyke is she was never given the supplement of taurine and she was fine, they aren't sure why. Otherwise all your cat needs is taurine added to her vegan food.
Michele on 49 minutes ago
Ednshell,
This is exactly why I don't agree with these vets crying foul about cats not eating meat. From what I understand, taurine is ONLY in meat, and yet I've heard of two vegetarian lions who did not eat meat and were fine.
In science, in order for something to be proved, it needs to be able to be duplicated EVERY TIME. If not, then there is no conclusive proof. The fact that there are two, and probably a lot more that we don't know of, tells me that this theory about taurine has flaws..
A cooked vegan diet of grains and beans is better than the SAD diet, but creates deficiencies in humans. So, it stands to reason that some of these people who have put their cats on cooked vegan diets of grains and legumes may have had problems (urinary is the prime one) because of imbalance of minerals that could be recitified by trying other vegan foods. I don't know this for sure, but due to the prevailing bias, I don't think there are any studies to show this.
Michele on 20 minutes ago
For those who haven't seen this article yet:
A cat in Tasburgh, England, has become relatively famous for his peculiar cuisine choices; he refuses to eat meat. Since his owner Becky Page rescued the starved kitten from an alley two years ago, she has only been able to get him to eat fruits and vegetables. Cat experts are befuddled by this vegetarian feline, but kitty Dante may not be so strange after all. Perhaps Dante is simply a genetic throwback to the days before the Flood and a precursor to what carnivores will be like in the Millennium.
After Becky Page, 21, brought home little Dante two years ago, she proceeded to try to fatten him on chicken and fish and tuna. Dante just turned up his nose at the stuff. Instead, he chowed down on a dish of leftover vegetables he found near her kitchen garbage. Now Dante only eats fruits and vegetables, which Page raises herself. He won't touch canned cat food.
Dante's tastes go beyond mere finicky feline syndrome; he simply should not exist. Cats do not usually have the choice to go vegan because they are obligate carnivores. That is, they must eat meat to survive. Felines have a high protein requirement, and they need certain nutrients like taurine and cobalamin (Vitamin B12) which come from meat. Cats are the only mammals incapable of synthesizing the organic acid taurine and must obtain it from animal flesh or supplements. Without sufficient taurine, cats can eventually lose hair and teeth, develop heart disease, and go blind. While meat is its best source, Vitamin B12 can also be found in eggs and milk, and is necessary for the healthy functioning of the brain and nervous system. A cat simply cannot thrive on a vegan diet.
Dante is therefore an aberration in the Cat Family. "I admit he has a very, very unique appetite," Page acknowledged, "but he's certainly healthy."
Sarah Medway, who runs a web site dedicated to cat behavior, said "I have never heard of a purely vegetarian cat. Nutritionally cats need to eat meat to survive.”
Yet, Dante is not absolutely alone. Many years ago, Georges and Margaret Westbeau of western Washington adopted a newborn lioness they named Little Tyke. When it was time to wean her, the Westbeaus were surprised that the growing cub refused to eat meat. She'd reject milk if it had even a drop of blood in it
At first, the Westbeaus were deeply concerned because Little Tyke absolutely would not touch meat. For four years they tried every which way to get protein down her in the form of flesh, and she would not accept it. Then one day somebody said to them, "Don't you read your Bible? Read Genisis 1:30, and you will get your answer."
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." -Gen 1:30
That verse helped the Westbeaus to stop worrying. They fed Little Tyke various grains, milk and eggs – a diet she thrived on. The milk and eggs would have provided Little Tyke with some of the B12 she needed, but not the taurine. Yet, Little Tyke lived strong and healthy for years. She would go out into the field and chew on grass stalks every day to condition her stomach. She also had no predatory nature, and lived in peace with the chickens and sheep and peafowl and kittens on the Westbeaus' ranch. A famous picture was taken one day when a lamb, Becky, curled up between Little Tyke's front paws, bringing to mind the picture from Isaiah 11:6-7:
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." - Isaiah 11:6-7
Dante and Little Tyke are not freaks of nature; they are reminders of how nature was meant to be. The world at the Creation looked quite a bit different than it does today. Thousands of years of genetic deterioration have left all creatures with bodies prone to illness and disease and early death. It isn't the same world in which Adam died a young man at 930 years. The Flood apparently changed a lot of things. Lifespans split in half after the Flood, and after the Flood God gave man permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:2-3). We don't know all that changed and weakened during that time, between animal bodies and the nutrients found in plant life.
Cats may not have originally needed meat to survive. Certainly saber-toothed tigers used their massive teeth to rip through the flesh of their prey, yet God's original purpose for those sabers might have been something far more peaceful, like splitting open melons. (If your cat adores cantaloupe, you know what I mean.)
The picture Isaiah 11 paints of the Millennium is of a world that has returned to Eden. Jesus will be ruling, and things will be as they should. The wolves and lions will dwell peacefully with lambs. No wild animals will do damage. Humans will once again live to be great ages (Isaiah 65:20-25).
We are not there, yet, but kitties like Little Tyke and Dante give us the tiniest breath of that fresh air, a whiff of the loveliness that will once again fill the earth once the Son of David takes the throne. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
pradtf on 14 minutes ago
michele,
your points are quite relevant.
part of the problem with the application of the scientific method is that it tends to work better in the 'hard' sciences (physics, chemistry etc), but it's not as straightforward in the 'soft' sciences (biology, medicine etc). there seems to be a bit more 'fuzziness' with the human body than there is with heavenly ones (at least from our present perspective). one has to make appropriate allowances for various factors in order to formulate a working theory that is more inclusive.
unfortunately, this is too much trouble for some and so 'myths' propagate along with their mantras (eg carnivores must eat meat). cats and dogs that won't do well on veg diets don't, not because of the 'veg', but because of the 'diet'.
it's the same sort of stuff with humans who enthusiastically jump on the veg bandwagon by living on tofu and pasta. then they get sick and blame the veg instead of realizing that you aren't going to do too well on just tofu and pasta.
from what i recall, the funny thing about taurine is that it is synthetically produced and added to meat-based cat (and dog) foods because it is cheaper than to get it out of the meat it seems. the concern appears to be there isn't enough :D
also, 'deficiency data' is usually generated in controlled lab situations which often have no bearing to reality and are often at the whim of the pharma industries. for instance, the daily requirements of vitamins or proteins are intentionally inflated so that if someone is detected with a certain deficiency, they can't go and sue the system - the fact that someone following the requirements may overdose doesn't matter because other factors can usually be conjured up to take the blame for that and it's a much harder thing to prove anyway.
in friendship,
prad
myra on 7 hours ago
My Heidi dog ate 6 ripe bananas this morning after her morning run!! It was so funny when she sniffed then refused one of the bananas --I then tasted it and lo and behold it was not quite as ripe as the other ones she gulped down!!
My friend's childhood dog used to jump up and grab from the tree low hanging avos with her mouth. Heidi doesn't particularly care for avos.
pradtf on 4 hours ago
ryan,
jumpr loves almonds, but riky won't touch them. on the other hand, riky used to eat plenty of raw stuff when he first arrived here, but jumpr had to see riky eat it before he would make an effort. they both used to love watermelon rinds, but now they don't. we really think this is all jumpr's fault because he's a bad influence on everybody as you'll see if you read the rikster and pig dog stories.
so individuality and change of taste does come into play a fair bit.
james peden from hoana found he could get his dogs and cats to eat things by sprinkling nutritional yeast over it. this certainly works for our cats who love the stuff, but our dogs couldn't careless - though they seem to like olive oil over some things (apparently safflower oil is supposed to be even better for dogs, though we didn't notice anything special).
we have 4 cats all of whom like the oats-tvp creation (i find it smells very appealing myself actually), though one of them prefers the evolution kibbles. our first cat, ooocheeee died last october after being veg for 8 yrs and at the age of 14+ (we don't know how much older she really was but the vet confirmed through her teeth that she was more than 6 yrs old when she found us - we do go to vets for spaying and neutering).
your friend's research is likely correct in that there are plenty of sources which will tell you cats need stuff like taurine which if they don't get they will go blind. however, the good stuff is rarely on the first page of google :D it is understandable though that she'd be worried because there isn't as much info about veg cats yet as there is about veg dogs.
if you want to find out about veg cats, there is little point in going to sites that talk about non-veg cats. as our friendly neighbor apple-man says, he was told he'd die of protein deficiency. i'm sure we've all heard that sort of thing - so there is little point in going to a doctor or nutritionist about veg diets, if they don't understand the thing or are opposed to it.
if one wants to understand veg for animals or humans, it's best to go to those people who know what they are doing (eg peden, weissman, pitcairns etc or vets who've studied up on it) and those who've been doing it. btw, you can find out a bit more about little tyke and dante from the links in one of my earlier replies to apple-man for your friend if she is interested.
thank you for the kudos and i'm sure any animal companion you eventually hook up with will be very happy.
in friendship,
prad
duriandriver on 5 minutes ago
Someday I will take a week off 'everything else' to read this thread!!