Purina Pro Plan

[SoloRiver]

Hi Miz,

 

For a long time, there were questions about where dogs came from, in particular whether or not they were descended from more than one species of wild canid. It was thought by many (including Konrad Lorenz) that dogs were so phenotypically diverse (drat, there's that phenotype thing again!) that they couldn't possibly have originated from a single wild species. Molecular studies showed that all this diversity did indeed arise from a single species ancestor, and that a significant ancestral contribution from other canids like coyotes or jackals wasn't necessary to explain the amount of diversity we see in domestic dogs.

 

There is no doubt that dogs are the same biological species as grey wolves, since the only criterion for distinguishing species according to the BSC (biological species concept) is whether individuals can produce fertile offspring. (A tweak to the concept adds the proviso that they "actually" produce fertile offspring, in that it's something they do as a matter of course -- which would then distinguish some species that the "straight" BSC wouldn't distinguish, but also adds the complication that populations of the same animals that are geographically isolated might not be considered the same species since there's no way they can reproduce with each other if they're not in the same place. But I digress.)

 

The question remains, however, as to whether or not the BSC is the "best" species concept to use. If you are interested in looking at adaptation, which species-specific diet is part of, then genetic differentiation is certainly an important thing to consider, but you can't study adaptation itself merely by looking at genes.

[kajarrel]

Chris, Melanie and Annette,

I want to thank you all for explaining and providing references for your viewpoints. This has been a really informative thread.

 

Kim

[SoloRiver]

Hi Chris,

 

The problem isn't the language you're using. Your language is quite clear. The problem is the logic, which is faulty.

 

There isn't really any reason to evoke an evolutionary argument for feeding dogs what wolves eat. If they should eat the same thing, they should eat the same thing, and this will be demonstrable in direct, concrete ways.

 

This discussion started when you made a long, detailed, rather arch, and unfortunately erroneous critique of my original post. Because I study evolution for a living, I feel like it is my responsibility to correct errors about evolution when they are promulgated to the general public. I would feel the same way if I were a lawyer and the discussion was about law, if I were a physician and the discussion was about medicine, etc.

 

You claim not to be a scientist and to not be good at all this "science stuff." Yet you make sweeping generalizations and impugn the work of researchers, who, well, ARE scientists and frankly, know much more than you do. You can attack me all you want, that's fine, Discovery Channel version of evolutionary theory and all, but when you start saying things like "his science doesn't hold up at all" about people like Ray and Lorna Coppinger (there are two of them, not just one), well, you should be able to back that kind of thing up. And no, I am not the president of the Coppinger fan club, nor do I swallow whole everything they've written, but you should give credit where credit is due. (Then again, raw diet proponents also like to wax poetic about how veterinarians "don't know anything," so I guess I'm not really all that surprised.)

 

Look, I know what I know. I also know what I don't know. I do not have years of experience feeding dogs a raw food diet. I will happily defer to you on that kind of thing. I generally think that talking out of one's ass is not a good practice. As Joel Fleischman once said, "A little bit of PBS is a dangerous thing."

 

If you are interested in sources, a basic text in evolutionary biology would be a good place to start. I like Futuyma personally.

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

Melanie,

 

So based on your background, how should humans eat?

I know really OT but I have many problems that are easily compounded by poor nutrition and I'm interested in how we evolved nutritionally as a species. I have of course consulted MDs and nutritionists but they tell you what and when, not necessarily historically why.

[SoloRiver]

Hi Annette,

 

There isn't a whole lot direct evidence about human paleodiets. In some cases we have bones that bear butchery marks, and there are isotopic analyses of bones (but they are fraught with problems), but that's about it. The best I can say (I don't study paleodiet myself) is that during our evolution we were obviously not eating processed foods, and not eating a whole lot of harvested grains, and that at least in the Pleistocene we were hunting and not scavenging our meat, but other than that, who knows. There's a book out called "The Paleolithic Prescription" that addresses the question you're asking, but I haven't read it and don't remember who wrote it and don't know if it's any good.

 

It's worth remembering that after 1.5 million years ago or so, humans (or our close relatives or our ancestors) were spread out over a large portion of the Old World. Local resources differed dramatically and undoubtedly diets also differed across our range. If you look at modern humans, the types of cuisines favored by different populations vary dramatically and demonstrate adaptation to the local resources. So it would be hard to say what one diet is "natural" for humans. This caveat may also apply to wolves, who (before we killed most of them off) enjoyed a geographic range almost as broad as ours, with different sorts of prey items available in different areas.

 

For what it's worth, there is little to no direct evidence about what paleodogs were eating during their evolution from wolves, either. The Coppinger "village hangers-on" scenario and the competing "let's go out and catch a wolf puppy and then start a breeding program with it" scenario are exactly that, scenarios. I personally find the Coppinger scenario to be plausible, but it's pretty much impossible to evaluate either one on the basis of the evidence.

[Powder Puff]

hey what do you guys know about royal canin or hills sicence diet?? are they better than purina pro plan?

[Christine]

Nutro just made an Ultra, I was going to try it out after I'm out of food. It sounds pretty good.

[tumblehome]

Originally posted by SoloRiver:

The problem is the logic, which is faulty.

**********

Yeah, but that's the fault of me, not the material to which I badly refer to. And I have no problem admitting that. But I do not believe the material I refer to is faulty. You can shoot the messenger, that's okay. If I so poorly represent sources I respect, I deserve to be shot. But it doesn't mean, at least to me, that the material reeks. Just the actor. Get the hook but leave the playwright out of it.

 

Yes, I know there are two Coppingers, but it seems that Ray's been the one catching the limelight. I'm sorry if I impugned the work of researchers in general, what I certainly meant was the work of some researchers appears when scrutinized to not hold up. In that regard, I am comfortable with my observation that Coppinger's due credit is minimal indeed.

 

 

I generally think that talking out of one's ass is not a good practice. As Joel Fleischman once said, "A little bit of PBS is a dangerous thing."

**********

I agree with both thoughts and I hold Dr. Fleischman in high regard...but I am certainly not a PBS scientist. Coppinger's appearance on PBS was disturbing I thought, in that an enormous amount of unwarranted credence was put on his theories. Additionally but from a different perspective, SA Frontiers' tacit acceptance of "dog as omnivore" in an oft-repeated episode was completely dishonest. I am not spouting PBS science, at least not intentionally. To date, I've been pretty chary of PBS science.

 

 

(Then again, raw diet proponents also like to wax poetic about how veterinarians "don't know anything," so I guess I'm not really all that surprised.)

**********

Raw diet proponents, believe it or not, really like giving credit where credit is due. I think you're indulging in a bit of sweeping generalization here (but giving credit where credit is due, you have every right to) when you imply that raw diet proponents think all vets are stupider than a rock. Only some think that way and only some vets are. However, I would wager the majority of vets have not taken the opportunity to unlearn all the nutritional propaganda they're provided in school and out directly and indirectly by dog food companies.

 

A good, honest, ethical vet is a valuable asset. I'm perfectly happy ignoring a vet's dietary mind set if the medical part of her practice works for me. Finding a vet that works with you and for you is just as difficult, sometimes, as finding a diet that works for you.

Chris O

[tumblehome]

Originally posted by donna frankland (uk):

oh chris! and here i was thinking you were the sciencey type!

**********

Donna, I have a BS degree.

In communications. There is nothing more apt than a BS in advertising.

 

I pitch. Sometimes I get a no-hitter, mostly I don't.

Chris O

[SoloRiver]

But I do not believe the material I refer to is faulty.

 

I never said it was. Let's not try to make it look as if I did, shall we?

 

But it doesn't mean, at least to me, that the material reeks. Just the actor. Get the hook but leave the playwright out of it.

 

I'd like to make it clear here (and thought that I had already made it quite clear) that I have nothing against your sources. The literature on dog evolution is not so vast, nor (compared to other fields, such as human evolution) is it really all that contentious. We are obviously reading the same things. I don't take issue with the sources, but with the interpretation, meaning your interpretation.

 

I'm sorry if I impugned the work of researchers in general, what I certainly meant was the work of some researchers appears when scrutinized to not hold up.

 

There's a lot of economic theory out there that sounds kind of whack to me, but I don't know anything about economic theory, so my judgment in this regard is certainly suspect. Some airplane designs look like they shouldn't be able to fly to me, but I'm not an aerospace engineer and I'm not really in a position to judge. It's one thing to be critical, it's another to be critical without having the background necessary to be critical. I have a tendency to respect people who have a greater expertise than I do in a given subject (that means I respect a lot of people). But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

I hold Dr. Fleischman in high regard...

 

Well, I can't really stay in an argument with a fellow Northern Exposure fan. May the Moose be with you.

 

By the way, my undergraduate degree is also in communications, with a concentration in marketing.

[tumblehome]

Originally posted by kajarrel:

[supposedly it's unsafe to give kibble and raw in the same meal.

Why is that, Melanie? Is this claim credible?

**********

I believe the theory is that because kibble digests much more slowly than raw meat, the two, if fed together, will cause digestive upset.

 

Now, as much as I endorse fully-raw diets, I have never seen a problem caused by feeding raw meat with kibble.

 

I think it's possible that a raw bone fed WITH kibble could produce some problems...but then, I've never seen any problems come from having fed a raw bone SOME HOURS AFTER a kibble meal.

Chris O

[ErinKate]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

(if the shoe fits, I am talking to you)

[Miztiki]

Who are you referring to?

 

Whether Chris or Melanie or both, I don't think your comment was in any way constructive or respectful.

[ErinKate]

This thread has gone on and on. I feel like there is a lot of heads thumping into walls. Very much here lately it seems things get too blown up, and people get excited. Way too sensitive. No one has to defend what they do. If you believe in it, do it. It is nice to share, but some people are starting to feel they REALLY have to defend their statements, on lots of things here. Back it up with direct quotes, scientific facts and so on. This is a fun loving place. Disagree, fine, discuss pros and cons, but come one. How long is it going to go on?

A few posts have been picked apart line by line. Is that really how it needs to be? This isn't the only thread that this has happened to recently either.

 

(Melanie thanks for posting a well written piece!)

 

Also, PowderPuff(OP)has come back AGAIN and is still trying to get more info. I just think the post has gone off track a bit.

 

Didn't mean it rude or disrespectful. Listen, I say what I mean, but I never really mean to be rude. Just honest. I could try and be a bit more silent. Maybe I'll just skip these posts in the future.

[Miztiki]

Originally posted by ErinKate:

This thread has gone on and on. I feel like there is a lot of heads thumping into walls. Very much here lately it seems things get too blown up, and people get excited. Way too sensitive. No one has to defend what they do...

I agree! That's why I dropped off this thread a long time ago.

 

PP emailed me privately, so I'm trying to help her find a good kibble in OZ.

 

I didn't mean what I said in a rude way either Erin. I saw your post and thought Oh no, someone's going to be offended and get snippy, then we'll have a full-blown flame war going on. I hate when that happens because I see people I like and respect saying some nasty things, and then I don't like or respect them anymore!

 

(I can't stop watching this Dennis coverage. Please, someone, make me turn off the TV.)

[ErinKate]

see people I like and respect saying some nasty things,

Good, glad you aren't ticked.

[kajarrel]

I think it's possible that a raw bone fed WITH kibble could produce some problems...but then, I've never seen any problems come from having fed a raw bone SOME HOURS AFTER a kibble meal.

Thanks, Chris. This has been my experience too (no problems) but it's something that's been repeated so many times . . . If you'd like, I'll let you know if I find anything in the literature one way or the other.

 

Powderpuff,

I don't have experience with either of the foods you mention although I do feed Purina Pro from time-to-time and have not had any problems (behavior, health or energy-wise). Edited 7/11: Went to the store last night and I realize I've fed "Purina One" not Purina Pro. Oops. So I guess I have nothing to add

 

Kim

[Denise Wall]

ErinKate wrote:

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

(if the shoe fits, I am talking to you)

I'm sorry but there are others here still reading this thread with interest. If you're finished with it, then you're free to stop reading it.

 

This is a fun loving place.

It is also a place where people serious about border collies sometimes share detailed, scientific and controversial information and opinions. I would appreciate it if you would allow us to do that without acting as the self-appointed moderator for threads you decide are too controversial for you.

 

PS Hope it's okay with you for me to also "say what I mean."

[ErinKate]

By all mean Denise, say whatever you wish. You don't bother me.

I love to read info that bounces from member to member. Especially when it is a topic I know nothing about. (so scientific) When it turns into someone waiting to point out someone else's mistakes, line by line, I think it is childish. It also losses it's effect. I enjoyed it for a while, but then it became tit for tat. If that is what you like to read, have at it. I will indeed take your advice and skip it. (as I had already stated)

Have a great day

[BigD]

I too am still reading AND enjoying this discussion. Some may think it's "blah blah blah", but personally, I'm finding it very educational.

 

Denise

[tessa_s212]

I, too, am reading this. It is very educational. I have just recently started researching nutrition because of my dog's seizures. I am glad that there are so many educated intelligent people on this message board! I am just a bit displease that so many rude things were being shoved around on this particular thread. But, am still very happy that I got to hear everyone's opinion!

[Cody's pop]

Up until 3 years ago I played in a Bluegrass band that was sponsored by ProPlan.We got free food for our dogs and lots of food and treats to give away at our concerts,heck our banjo player would even munch on pro plan biscuits on stage while we were plugging them.(tells ya a lot about banjo players)Now I wish I hadn't been involved,I see that it was not really in the dogs best interest but just a marketing vehicle.I fed my dogs the food and they seemed ok with it,but since I started with raw I am seeing a much better response.I will say that Purina is Very supportive of the canine community here in St. Louis.Our herding club and agility club both work out at Purina Farms and they have regular competitions for both as well as flyball and will be hosting the Border Collie Specialty Oct 10-16.They are very big on Border Collies.Also the finals of the Incredible Dog Challenge every fall here in Forest Park.Also Long Meadow rescue ranch.They do a lot,but they sell the whole time,so take it for what it is.

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by ErinKate:

When it turns into someone waiting to point out someone else's mistakes, line by line, I think it is childish. It also losses it's effect.

When erroneous information is posted in these forums and allowed to be perpetuated, soon people begin to believe they are fact. I'd rather see these errors corrected line-by-line with the supporting data before others take these errors as fact since it's much more difficult to correct the false perception later. I have at least one good example from this forum if you are interested.

 

Mark

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

You're right Mark! And when I'm wrong I expect and hope that someone more knowledgeable will correct me. This is the type of dialogue that I learn from - you and Renee have actually taught me quite a bit and I thank you for it.

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

I think we all fed substandard foods at some point in time. The argument made to me eons ago was by a vet that said that Ralston Purina put so much money into canine nutritional research that they could not possibly be wrong.

 

What he failed to realize is that they are a company working within broad guidelines of what is reasonably safe (ie. won't make the dog/cat drop dead over night) and will keep animals alive. So if they do the minimum they make money and if they do something a little better then it's "premium" and they charge more and they still make lots of money. The point is that as a company they need to make more money than they need to provide ideal nutrition because they couldn't make the same profit margin doing so. That's my take on the whole thing anyway.