[QUOTE=Guin;6762582]
A couple of times my dogs have been given leftovers where there has been some corn (kernels, not on the cob.) The next day those kernals got pooped out, intact. Absolutely not digestible nutrition for dogs![/QUOTE]
this happens with people too. When the corn is cooked and ground, it becomes more digestible
[QUOTE=threedogpack;6764385]
this has not been my experience, in fact, rice seems to cause loose stools more often than the commercial dog food.[/QUOTE]
Really? I can always tell when someone feeds a commercial food high in corn, just by looking at their dog’s stools.
I’ve never had rice cause a problem, though. In fact, I put rescues with tummy troubles on a little meat mixed with plain rice till I see normal stools.
Which is why, GLR, I said maybe you should just give corn a try for your own dogs to see how they do on it. Apparently some of us have had different experiences with it.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;6763783]
Dogs have molars.
Two molars on each side of the upper arcade, and 3 on each side of the lower arcade.
.[/QUOTE]
yes, you are right dogs have molars, I should have stated that they are not like our molars where they grind their food before swallowing. They crunch, crunch, swallow. We humans chew our food a lot longer than dogs do. (That was my point) I was tired when I wrote it.
if you’d like, I could probably find some dog poo to send you. :winkgrin:
but seriously, I’ve fed homemade (the dogs loved it but holy hell that was a lot of work to do right), raw (THAT was a disaster) and kibble/commercial/canned. The kibble poos are normal formed, dark brown poo unless the dog(s) have gotten into something that makes them have an upset tummy. Like when I went away for a long weekend, left the dogs with my Bestie. I live in town, she lives on a farm. By the time I got home, I had 2 dogs with bloody gastroenteritis. One dog got better with metronidazole, the other ended up at the vets as he got progressively looser and crampy. He came home with a pharmacy, got better and that was that.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;6763783]
should have had a pulse [/QUOTE]
A legume? :lol:
Sorry, I know you actually meant the heartbeat kind of pulse, not members of the Fabaceae family, but the agronomist in me kind of giggled at that.
Awesome. Thanks for the different views. So often I hear “corn is bad” and no one wants to discuss it further so it is really interesting seeing the different views about why individuals avoid corn and how people evaluate the starch source they use.
[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;6763741]
Corn is SUBSIDIZED and therefore cheap in the USA. Corn is so subsidized that buyers have to figure out ways to use it. That’s why HFCS is in almost all processed foods. There is even cat LITTER made out of corn now.[/QUOTE]
Just to clarify. Corn is currently $7 a bushel. That’s not exactly cheap feed. Farmers are selling off cattle and hogs because it is too costly to feed them. Ethenol plants are shutting down. Corn has to get down in the area of $1.50 before the government will give the farmer a subsidy. Everybody is well aware of the increase in the price of horse feed that has corn in it.
I have no opinion on whether dogs should or should not have it. Ours eat it all the time, sometimes they go pick their own right out of the field. Our dogs over the years have all had long healthy lives and have passed of old age.
The part about not needing dietary fiber is not true; wild dogs and cats will eat plant material to soothe the stomach and as a “scour”.
There is a good reason our dog club has a rule against discussing dog food.
Those discussions have been known to almost start WWIII.:eek:
Some of our club members are vets, one a specialist in nutrition.
They give a speech here and there in some monthly meeting on dog nutrition, where some nod their heads yes, others frown and don’t want to believe what an educated expert is saying.:lol:
[QUOTE=GraceLikeRain;6763534]
These responses are what I expected but
Kelliope: I don’t mean to be rude but I don’t feel like that is necessarily the most unbiased and factual article to be quoting. The website “grassfed beef” clearly has an agenda. The omega 6-3 levels are concerning if thats all your feeding but wouldn’t fish or flax added to kibble balance out these levels? Shouldn’t any reputable company test for aflatoxin or other toxins before adding it to kibble? Why use the example of Rickets in cows due to a farmer feeding straight corn as an example of why corn is bad to feed to cows in any amount? The “data” about omega 3s and inflammatory response is a link to a man’s personal experience and has no cited references that I could find.[/QUOTE]
No problem. I don’t take it as rude. I was in a hurry as I was running late to the barn and was just trying to link an article that listed the points. I figured you could research them further. Here is another quickly found article supporting that grass fed beef is higher in Omega 3 than corn fed beef: http://www.npr.org/2010/04/08/125722082/the-truth-about-grass-fed-beef
I thought the documentary “King Corn” was interesting though I am sure it had some bias as well.
Personally, I feed my dogs a home prepared diet using fresh foods (organic whenever possible) consisting mostly of meat and organs, with some steamed, pureed Vegetables added (something I must do to keep protein levels within my liver dog’s desired levels). I have included on occasion fresh, organic corn. I would not feed non-organic, processed corn. But then I am all about freshly prepared, minimally processed, organic food for my family whenever humanly possible. If I was feeding kibble, I wouldn’t want to have to supplement it because of inferior ingredients. That said, my dogs are chihuahuas and none of the 3 are over 6 lbs. so I am able to afford to feed them as I do. Although, as I said before, it is something I make a priority in my life.
Anyway, no worries. Hope you got your questions answered to your satisfaction by others on the board! 
[QUOTE=kelliope;6766253]
No problem. I don’t take it as rude. I was in a hurry as I was running late to the barn and was just trying to link an article that listed the points. I figured you could research them further. Here is another quickly found article supporting that grass fed beef is higher in Omega 3 than corn fed beef: http://www.npr.org/2010/04/08/125722082/the-truth-about-grass-fed-beef
I thought the documentary “King Corn” was interesting though I am sure it had some bias as well.
Personally, I feed my dogs a home prepared diet using fresh foods (organic whenever possible) consisting mostly of meat and organs, with some steamed, pureed Vegetables added (something I must do to keep protein levels within my liver dog’s desired levels). I have included on occasion fresh, organic corn. I would not feed non-organic, processed corn. But then I am all about freshly prepared, minimally processed, organic food for my family whenever humanly possible. If I was feeding kibble, I wouldn’t want to have to supplement it because of inferior ingredients. That said, my dogs are chihuahuas and none of the 3 are over 6 lbs. so I am able to afford to feed them as I do. Although, as I said before, it is something I make a priority in my life.
Anyway, no worries. Hope you got your questions answered to your satisfaction by others on the board! :)[/QUOTE]
You can make numbers say anything you want.
Yes, grass fed beef has a bit more Omega 3s than grain fed beef, but you would have to eat several lbs a day of it over grain fed to make any nutritional difference.:lol:
All that is just marketing talk, don’t quite believe just one and at that very biased source.
If you want Omega 3s in your diet in sufficient amount to be of use to you, eat the right fish.:yes:
On the other hand, grain fed beef has a statistically significant (THAT is the difference here) smaller carbon foot print, uses considerably less resources to produce than the more environmentally costly to produce grass fed beef does.
Yes, many have been surprised to hear that, when the latests studies, that finally compared apples to apples, conducted by universities, found that to be so.
Of course, you won’t see that bit of news listed in certain biased sources, or reflected in their publications, that spend years marketing their agendas against grain fed beef, a handy whipping boy.
Here is one good place to learn more and no, it is not biased for grain fed against grass fed, as it represents all beef producers:
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-grass-fed-beef-is-more-nutritious-than-corn-fed-beef.html
That is geared against MISINFORMATION, trying to clarify facts and data as we know today, for all beef, against agenda driven myths.
It really has been a bit disingenuous that a whole part of the business of raising beef gained market share by badmouthing the competition with misinformation, as so many grass fed producers have done.:no:
I was not going to say anything, but when you post the same twice, I expect you were asking for a response?
I believe that is a rather recent development due to demand and decreased supply because of weather. “Cheap” is a relative term. Corn is definitely cheap by comparison to ingredients with high nutritional value.
[QUOTE=Bluey;6766365]
You can make numbers say anything you want.
Yes, grass fed beef has a bit more Omega 3s than grain fed beef, but you would have to eat several lbs a day of it over grain fed to make any nutritional difference.:lol:
All that is just marketing talk, don’t quite believe just one and at that very biased source.
If you want Omega 3s in your diet in sufficient amount to be of use to you, eat the right fish.:yes:
On the other hand, grain fed beef has a statistically significant (THAT is the difference here) smaller carbon foot print, uses considerably less resources to produce than the more environmentally costly to produce grass fed beef does.
Yes, many have been surprised to hear that, when the latests studies, that finally compared apples to apples, conducted by universities, found that to be so.
Of course, you won’t see that bit of news listed in certain biased sources, or reflected in their publications, that spend years marketing their agendas against grain fed beef, a handy whipping boy.
Here is one good place to learn more and no, it is not biased for grain fed against grass fed, as it represents all beef producers:
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-grass-fed-beef-is-more-nutritious-than-corn-fed-beef.html
That is geared against MISINFORMATION, trying to clarify facts and data as we know today, for all beef, against agenda driven myths.
It really has been a bit disingenuous that a whole part of the business of raising beef gained market share by badmouthing the competition with misinformation, as so many grass fed producers have done.:no:
I was not going to say anything, but when you post the same twice, I expect you were asking for a response?:)[/QUOTE]
Eh, I am a live and let live kind of gal. You eat corn-fed beef and I will continue with my current diet.
I don’t have a huge issue with corn. If it’s just ground corn. The problem is they usually ingredient split, so you’ll see: corn gluten meal, ground corn, corn flour, etc…
And then usually a bunch of other cheap filler ingredients besides corn like wheat middlings (floor sweepings) and other yuck.
My friend had a dog on a cheap corn based diet that I guess didn’t agree with her. That dog smelled so bad I couldn’t stand to pet her. My hand would actually come away greasy, and she smelled like rancid corn oil. Her teeth were putrid too. Some dogs really don’t do we’ll on it. When I said something about it to my friend, she told me the dog had a nice shiny coat. Ugh.
That’s why the most objective sources state that it is BEEF (and all other meats for other reasons) that is bad for the environment, not just grain fed beef.
As a happily vegetarian human, I have no conflict with that.
Although I avoid wheat altogether in cat and dog diets, for herbivores, wheat mids are far from “floor sweepings”.
They’re pretty decent protein, and are by-products in the same way beet pulp is .
That dog smelled so bad I couldn’t stand to pet her. My hand would actually come away greasy, and she smelled like rancid corn oil. Her teeth were putrid too.
yeah, and there is this problem you frequently encounter in dogs fed low-quality corn-based diets. It’s quite clear by a quick glance n sniff that the dogs are NOT doing well on these diets. Their owners often don’t notice because they have never encountered a healthy dog- they think all dogs are stinky, gassy, have bad breath, and produce huge piles of poop.
I only know of two commerical foods that have corn in them that I would consider to be of “moderate quality”; every other commerical food with corn in it is really low-quality. So it does tend to be a marker for foods you really should reconsider feeding to your dog.
Because it is currently fashionable to diss corn. there are some facts you should consider, yes it is GMO ( and i genetically modified food bothers you, then corn is one of the most modified). When people say corn is not digestible by carnivores, they are considering two things, the stalks are only digestible by ruminants, and the kernels are best digested when chewed. So, ground corn is about 90 to 91 Percent digestible, and contains oils, lignins and carbohydrates.
People claim corn is not digestible, and then turn around and claim that HFCS is the cause of obesity. Sorry peeps, you cannot have it both ways, its mostly about efficiency of extraction, not the basic digestibility, because ever single thing you eat is broken down into a monosaccharide ( simple soluble sugar) because that is the only way a body can use energy, even fats and protiens.
There are good reasons to avoid corn, but do not believe every thing you read, most opinions are pseudoscience at best. ( even doubt me )
[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;6767916]
That’s why the most objective sources state that it is BEEF (and all other meats for other reasons) that is bad for the environment, not just grain fed beef.
As a happily vegetarian human, I have no conflict with that. ;)[/QUOTE]
You do realize that, if all humans would only eat a vegetarian diet, we would need so much more farming and so have even more of a carbon footprint?
Being able to produce very nutritious food from all sources, including domestic animals, is one reason we can get by with less use of our resources, contrary to what you indicate there.
—“Today, the average U.S. farmer feeds 155 people. That’s a far cry from the 26 people a single producer fed in 1960. Even so, more than 870 million people go to bed hungry every night—many of them children. At the same time, a growing information gap between the people who grow food and those who eat it is creating a general misunderstanding of agriculture.”—
Bolding mine for emphasis.
That is not a matter of opinion, the facts are out there, easy to learn more in today’s information age, if you know where to look.
Don’t follow other’s, anyone’s bandwagons, without careful thought first.
There is more to the topic, but maybe not for this thread.
Ok, sorry. I’m not disagreeing w/ your basic POV but your biochemistry is wrong.
Fats and amino acids (from proteins), for the most part funnel into the TCA (Krebs/Citric Acid) cycle as acetyl coA (fats) or as alpha keto acids (amino acids). The only way these would become a simple sugar is to be converted backwards up the gluconeogenesis pathway, which is possible and done to maintain blood sugar levels. But it is not necessary for use.
Again, sorry, but misinformation on this area bugs me as it is in your basic biochemistry textbook… The professor in me can’t let this go.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
