By: admin

admin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:05:12 +0000

Hi. Thank you for the excellent comment. I think part of the question has to do with just exactly what dogs need and how to properly define “natural diet.” It doesn’t necessarily follow that what dogs eat in the wild is best for them just because it is in the wild, or “natural.” At least, not without careful nutritional analysis of what a “natural diet” is. I’ll also add that our domestic dogs may not have the same nutritional requirements of their ancestors living in the wild. Having said that, you’ve obviously been getting great results with your diet, and that, in turn, makes me really curious about the nutritional breakdown of the diet. I’ll add, though I’m not a dog breeder, that I have fed my dogs a steady diet of kibble that I mix from two brand names found at most stores. I have had great results with this. The dogs are happy, healthy, energetic, have great coats, and their teeth are practically spotless. Dog’s appear to have certain flexibility with regard to diet. However, I think most nutritionists would argue that it doesn’t matter so much what you feed the dog as long as the nutrition is correct. Anyway, thank you again for your comment. Good food for thought, as it were.

By: martin

martin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:28:06 +0000

ive bred many dogs over the years and only feed my dogs raw meat fat and bone. i am amazed at the dog diet argument still goes on. people dont seem to realise that they need to feed their animal a natural diet wild animals are always more healthy than domestic, why, diet… come on a dog will always prefere a hotdog to a bone as its just easy carbs but just feed them what they need ie raw bone, raw meat,and a little fat and they will be happy and healthy end of.

Comments on: Cooking Food for Dogs–Good or Bad?

By: admin

By: martin