UKC Forums - southern states dog food

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show all 83 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- southern states dog food (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=394523)

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 04:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Buckshot
Yea, that is what I figured.........Just alot of ASSumptions of results of feed WITHOUT using it and seeing first hand the results of the feed in action.

Funny, I have personally known folks to feed their dogs those called 5 star dog food, 30 lb $50 bag only to have the dog crap pure liquid, lose weight, and look like crap......and know I am not talking cold switch of feed and just on it for a week.

UNLESS you have actually fed it and seen the results of the feed, I don't reckon your opinion is valid.

It's like these dog food analysis site that base these dog food reviews and rating system on the ingredients of the food.

Yet their disclaimers says it all:

Buckshot, I don't need to see anything in action to form an opinion. I tend to believe I am a little smarter than that. I have hunted with a number of dogs that have been fed various feeds with similar formulations and the results have all been the same. I watch thier dogs gas earlier, take longer to recover, and the water consumption required is through the roof. Yet I have to hear how great thier dogs did, yadda, yadda, yadda. I guess in these instances, it is the owner failing to see, or not wanting to see, thier dog go down hill. But, if they are content with thier dogs performance, who am I to say. But you, Southern States and nobody else will convince me that this feed is better than what it says on the label. I am sure that you have personally known folks who have fed a richer feed and the results are what you have outlined. This is generally as a result of them feeding garbage feed for years and then trying to feed a richer feed in the same quantities. The dogs will have liquid stools. There is a nutritional value that a dog can withstand and each dog is different. The greater demand placed on the dogs biochemistry, the more feed they can handle, the richer feed they can handle. If one doesn't hunt as hard, the demand isn't as great and they can get by with lesser feed or lesser quantities of richer feed. This stuff ain't rocket science yet the vast majority can't seem to wrap thier heads around it. If you hunt hard, they need the fuel. If you don't hunt hard, they can get by with less. It is rather simple. If you hunt harder than anyone 7 nights week and you feed junk, I am certain that your dog isn't as healthy and performing as good as it could be, or.......... maybe one doesn't hunt as hard as they want folks to believe. Either way, junk is junk. And Buckshot, I don't use these dog feed rating sites. I have been around performance dogs all of my life. I have seen and deduced most everything I say through experience.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by jamie stall on 12-26-2010 04:08 PM:

I have just started feeding diamond natuarals chicken and rice, when i first put them on it i didnt like it so much, now it has been a little while on it and it has been getting better. i dont know what is the best feed and i have been trying different feed for awhile now , i have 1 dog that is super hard to put weight on.the other 10 are fine

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 04:16 PM:

One other word on a dogs nutritional limit..........when this limit has been achieved, you will see minimal stool, once, maybe twice a day. The dog is absorbing and maximizing everything the feed has to offer. But, the dog can only process a certain volume of feed. Anything more and it fails to be processed adequately and ends up on your kennel floor. When a guy feeds a lesser quality feed, more of it is required to maintain. When the volume limit is hit with lesser quality feed, the dogs biochemistry will fail to maximize its absorption rate and it will pass through with minimal benefits. Thus requiring you to feed more to achieve half of what a richer feed may require. When you hear guys say that it may only take 2 cups of say Extreme Athlete to achieve what 4 cups of junk did, this is why. A savings is gleaned by feeding less volume, performance is elevated due to quality ingredients, and less water consumption is required due to a reduction in carbs. A win win all the way around.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by Buckshot on 12-26-2010 04:31 PM:

CSnowgren, read the quote again............my point is what is in that quote. Just like the last line states:

Finding the best food for your individual does, and always will, involve some amount of experimentation.

We can argue back and forth on our opinions -- I, that has actually fed it and you, that hasn't fed it but at the end of the day, our views will still be the same.

I feed them and hunt them and know what works and doesn't work for them.

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 04:36 PM:

I am not stating an opinon Buckshot. Just what I have seen as facts in over 20 years of performance dogs and being completely ridiculously interested in diet, nutrition, and performance. It is one thing to fall back on the cop-out of "what works for one may not the other" but its another thing to blindly promote garbage because of that cop-out.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by Lee Currens Jr. on 12-26-2010 04:49 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CSnowgren
One other word on a dogs nutritional limit..........when this limit has been achieved, you will see minimal stool, once, maybe twice a day. The dog is absorbing and maximizing everything the feed has to offer. But, the dog can only process a certain volume of feed. Anything more and it fails to be processed adequately and ends up on your kennel floor. When a guy feeds a lesser quality feed, more of it is required to maintain. When the volume limit is hit with lesser quality feed, the dogs biochemistry will fail to maximize its absorption rate and it will pass through with minimal benefits. Thus requiring you to feed more to achieve half of what a richer feed may require. When you hear guys say that it may only take 2 cups of say Extreme Athlete to achieve what 4 cups of junk did, this is why. A savings is gleaned by feeding less volume, performance is elevated due to quality ingredients, and less water consumption is required due to a reduction in carbs. A win win all the way around.

would a dog burn more fuel on a cold winter night or
hunting

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 04:57 PM:

Could be either, depends on the hunting conditions and the weather. Dogs will use an incredible amount of energy in cold climates to maintain warmth.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by Buckshot on 12-26-2010 05:02 PM:

Question for you CSnowgren since you haven't fed it first hand.

Opinion VS Results?

You have a growth that you go see a doctor about. He looks at and says that 80% of the time the growth is non-cancerous.

He opens a Medical Journal Magazine that just a couple months ago there was an article on it that also showed that 80% of those with that growth were found to be non-cancerous. Those that were cancerous had a 90% survival rate.

Now here is my question, do you leave the Doc's going by his OPINION?

Or do you have a biopsy done on the growth to see if the growth is cancerous or non-cancerous and go back to the Doc for the RESULTS?

Posted by Lee Currens Jr. on 12-26-2010 05:04 PM:

i agree with a lot you have said but if you come out
of the winter with hot spots are you feeding to much
protein or fat.

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 05:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Buckshot
Question for you CSnowgren since you haven't fed it first hand.

Opinion VS Results?

You have a growth that you go see a doctor about. He looks at and says that 80% of the time the growth is non-cancerous.

He opens a Medical Journal Magazine that just a couple months ago there was an article on it that also showed that 80% of those with that growth were found to be non-cancerous. Those that were cancerous had a 90% survival rate.

Now here is my question, do you leave the Doc's going by his OPINION?

Or do you have a biopsy done on the growth to see if the growth is cancerous or non-cancerous and go back to the Doc for the RESULTS?

You are reaching Buckshot. Put this much effort into learning about feed and what a dog needs/doesn't need and it will be time well spent. If you were as concerned as much about maximizing your dogs existence as you are this little back and forth about a grabage feed, you might actually have your eyes opened.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 05:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by blueticking: it
i agree with a lot you have said but if you come out
of the winter with hot spots are you feeding to much
protein or fat.

I haven't had to deal with hotspots for years, literally. Back in the 80's we did. Usually they appear from poor protein. It is near impossible to feed too much quality protein to a dog, especially a performance dog. The wives tail about burning a dog out with too much protein derives from poor protein, not the amount. But honestly, hot spots have been absent from my dogs for years so I am probably not the best source on the topic. blueticking: it, I watch what some of the folks promote on here as the "best " feed. Invariably a few of them always seem to make posts concerning wierd ailments that thier dogs have, lumps, hot spots, up and died, die prematurely, etc. I always review what feed they promote and it is an interesting point to note that many promote one of the various garbage feeds. Yet they still fail to see the connection. But don't tell them that, they feed the best, hunt the hardest, and have absolutely perfect dogs. Too bad that the owners of these feed companies aren't around to help them dig the hole for their hound(s). Especially when folks are such adamant cheerleaders. You'd think there would be some kind of payoff for them

Just unhealthy dogs with mysterious ailments chaulked up to other causes who never maximized thier performance.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by Todd M. on 12-26-2010 05:37 PM:

I bet the ingredients chart has a lot of hidden "ifs". Just like everything else.

__________________
X Factor Kennels
Todd

Posted by Buckshot on 12-26-2010 05:43 PM:

Not reaching, the difference is Opinion VS Results.

You have not tried the feed, there for have not seen the results first hand, thus it's only opinion.

Now legitimately feed the feed then share the results, then you have an opinion based on results.

Posted by Lee Currens Jr. on 12-26-2010 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by CSnowgren
I haven't had to deal with hotspots for years, literally. Back in the 80's we did. Usually they appear from poor protein. It is near impossible to feed too much quality protein to a dog, especially a performance dog. The wives tail about burning a dog out with too much protein derives from poor protein, not the amount. But honestly, hot spots have been absent from my dogs for years so I am probably not the best source on the topic. blueticking: it, I watch what some of the folks promote on here as the "best " feed. Invariably a few of them always seem to make posts concerning wierd ailments that thier dogs have, lumps, hot spots, up and died, die prematurely, etc. I always review what feed they promote and it is an interesting point to note that many promote one of the various garbage feeds. Yet they still fail to see the connection. But don't tell them that, they feed the best, hunt the hardest, and have absolutely perfect dogs. Too bad that the owners of these feed companies aren't around to help them dig the hole for their hound(s). Especially when folks are such adamant cheerleaders. You'd think there would be some kind of payoff for them Just unhealthy dogs with mysterious ailments chaulked up to other causes who never maximized thier performance.

so when i went to the ss brand i was getting better protein
even thow i cut both at 8.95 a bag

Posted by jamie stall on 12-26-2010 05:57 PM:

Iwas told hot spots come from corn, and when i went to naturals they all went away. havent had any more at all

Posted by Lee Currens Jr. on 12-26-2010 06:51 PM:

Jamie i dont know what it was.when you buy dog food
the protein and fat content seems to go together.
i do know the dog was running hot even laying in the
box at walker days.i do know people feed corn to cows
to fat them dont they wonder where it goes.

Posted by jamie stall on 12-26-2010 07:03 PM:

all i know is know that he is away from corn he is ok , so im going to stay away from it. and i notice the cows here at the house are not very ambitious lol

Posted by amazingcursouth on 12-26-2010 07:15 PM:

just about (not all) dog feed if fed consistantly will hold a dog pretty good. biggest problem is that to many people are quick to change feed brands. i have been feeding frm select during hunting season 24/18 and frm ration 21/12 in off season. this dog feed has worked really well for me and the dogs seem to hold good on it. but with hard hunting it is hard to hold weight. my advise is to feed a good feed consistantly and that should work.

__________________
Danny VunCannon
Home of :
Amazing Grace
Mossy Pond Modacious (MO)
Mossy Pond Amazing Gracie

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 09:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Buckshot
Not reaching, the difference is Opinion VS Results.

You have not tried the feed, there for have not seen the results first hand, thus it's only opinion.

Now legitimately feed the feed then share the results, then you have an opinion based on results.

I see nothing about the feed that makes me want to try it. What I feed now is much better and gives me the results that I am looking for. To feed SS would be a considerable downgrade.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 09:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by blueticking: it
so when i went to the ss brand i was getting better protein
even thow i cut both at 8.95 a bag

Like I said, I am not a good source for hotspots. Haven't had any in eons.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 09:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Todd M.
I bet the ingredients chart has a lot of hidden "ifs". Just like everything else.

Escpecially when the phrase "by-products" is included. Nobody can say for sure what "by-products" is, only that it is unfit for human consumption. And when you think about it, we eat chicken feet so I imagine that "by-products" is some pretty "select" pieces. lol And since nobody can say, how successful do you think the process is at duplicating the formula batch after batch so as not to throw the dogs way outta whack? No thanks, folks can keep the grain and the by-products.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 09:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by blueticking: it
Jamie i dont know what it was.when you buy dog food
the protein and fat content seems to go together.
i do know the dog was running hot even laying in the
box at walker days.i do know people feed corn to cows
to fat them dont they wonder where it goes.

You are getting there......if the protein and fat goes together as do many, then for an increase in protein, we should also see an increase in fat from the same source..........stay with me....... When there is an increase in protein yet the fat also includes vegetable fat, then be certain that the protein increase is from grain and not from meat. This is done simply to increase the levels they are allowed to print on the bag while providing next to nothing for energy. Given this.......you should also realize then that there is even less quality ingredients than you thought to begin with if a significant % is made up of grain protein and vegetable fat. Like I said, good stuff, just not for my dogs.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by jamie stall on 12-26-2010 11:04 PM:

csnowgren

did you say you are feeding diamond naturals?

Posted by CSnowgren on 12-26-2010 11:30 PM:

Yes, Extreme Athlete. I also supplement with a couple other things here and there depending on what the dogs are doing and time of year. I wouldn't give a nickel for any of the other Diamond formulas.

__________________
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

Posted by jamie stall on 12-27-2010 12:16 AM:

csnowgren

i am feeding diamond naturals, chicken and rice, i have been trying other feed to put weight on one of my dogs, what is the difference in the extreme athlete and what im feeding .maybe i should change?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show all 83 posts from this thread on one page