DOGS ARE CARNIVORES

December 27, 2008

*http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id51.html*

*Dogs are Carnivores*

by Jeannie Thomason

Thomason and The Whole Dog Store.

I feel this bears repeating these days as so many people are thinking and

treating their dogs like they are humans. I too love my dogs like they

are my children but we need to remember they are not humans. Nor do they

think like humans nor eat like humans. God created dogs to be carnivores

to help keep nature in balance.

The assumption that dogs are omnivores remains to be proven, whereas the

truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the

evidence available to us.

Like humans, dogs have two sets of teeth in their lives. The 28 baby teeth

erupt through the gums between the third and sixth weeks of age. Puppies

molars. Puppy teeth begin to shed and be replaced by permanent adult teeth

at about four months of age. Although there is some variation in breeds,

most adult dogs have 42 teeth, with the premolars coming last, at about six

or seven months.

Look into your dog mouth. Those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp

teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing

meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology.

McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for

grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a

scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes

of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of

teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper

premolar and first lower molar.

Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred, crunch and

swallow.

Canine teeth or as some people call them, Fangs for grabbing and puncturing,

incisors for nibbling, premolars for tearing, and molars for crushing (not

chewing or masticating) bone -- although the family dog may appear to be far

more civilized than his wild relatives, he still has the same equipment for

eating, grooming, greeting, and defense.

Four premolars line each side of the upper and lower jaws in back of the

canines. These are the shearing teeth, used to rip great hunks of flesh from

prey animals. Although they no longer hunt for survival, dogs can still eat

in the manner of wolves - by grabbing meat with the premolars and ripping it

off the bone.

The top jaw has two molars on each side, and the bottom jaw has three. These

are the crushing teeth, use by wolves to crack caribou bones.

Their jaws hinge open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and

bone. The skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and C-shaped

mandibular fossa prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is

necessary for eating plant matter). Yes, I emphasize the " gulp " . Dogs do

not " chew " their food. In the wild resources are scarce, they are designed

to be able to gorge and fast for this purpose; as they are hard wired for

this no amount of thinking " he knows he gets fed twice a day " etc will

change the dog's perspective. He may crunch down once or twice but is just

not designed to " chew " his/her food. Many people new to raw feeding freak

out that their dog might swallow the meat and/or bones whole. YES, they

will pretty much do that. They will tear large chunks of meat off the bone

and then if the bone is smaller such as a chicken or turkey bone, they will

crush the bone by chomping down once or twice and swallow. God designed the

dog's stomach acids to be much stronger than ours and they are designed for

digesting large lumps of meat and even good size pieces of RAW bone.

However much we humans have done to tinker with and change theirs body

design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing

to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines.

Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore (Feldhamer,

G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg

260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities

of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an

undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity,

and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and

a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly.

Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This

equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines,

and occasionally the presence of a caecum. *Dogs have none of these*, but

have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals.

This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was

no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People

know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be

preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then,

feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly

questionable practice.

You see, dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva

(amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and

starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals

possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the

pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the

starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Neither does the

carnivore's pancreas secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose

molecules, nor have dogs become efficient at digesting and assimilating and

utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores do

those sorts of things *Canine and Feline Nutrition *Case, Carey and Hirakawa

Published by Mosby, 1995

Thus, feeding dogs as though they were humans (omnivores) taxes the pancreas

and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest

the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal

amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed

raw, begin to " self-digest " when the cells are crushed through crushing and

tearing and their enzymes are released).

Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose

and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant

matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why

dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins

and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals

and thus creates the need for supplementation aside) to their dog foods. If

a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be

receiving 40-60% (ideally!) of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To

compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of

vitamins and minerals than the dog actually needs. The result of feeding

dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and

the underproduction of the enzymes necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty

bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones).

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used

in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D.

2003. *Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation*). Additionally, dogs and

wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. *Molecular

Evolution of the Dog Family*). This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne,

Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from

www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

" The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing

from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence... "

Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the

Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. " What is a Wolfdog? "

www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the

gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by

evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. *Mammology:

Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology*. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist

dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific

evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have

already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal

physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and

nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, " need to

ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in

the digestive system " to " grow and maintain their own bodies " (Mech, L.D.

2003. *Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation*.).

Some people are under the impression that the bacteria in raw meat may hurt

the dog. IF your dog has an innunocompromised system or some underlying

health problem then the bacteria may cause a problem.

Sadly, Raw diets have also been blamed for causing things like pancreatitis

and kidney disease, when in reality the underlying disease was already there

and is was simply brought to light by the change in diet. Dogs are

surprisingly well-equipped to deal with bacteria. Their saliva has

antibacterial properties; it contains lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and

destroys harmful bacteria. Their short digestive tract is designed to push

through food and bacteria quickly without giving bacteria time to colonize.

The extremely acidic environment in the gut is also a good bacteria

colonization deterrent. People often point to the fact that dogs shed

salmonella in their feces, (but, then again, even kibble-fed dogs do this)

without showing any ill effects as proof that the dog is infected with

salmonella. In reality, all this proves is that the dog has effectively

passed the salmonella through its system with no problems. Yes, the dog can

act as a salmonella carrier, but the solution is simple—do not eat dog poop

and wash your hands after picking up after your dog.

As mentioned above, even kibble-fed dogs can and do regularly shed

salmonella and other bacteria. Most of the documented cases of severe

bacterial septicemia though are from kibble-fed animals or animals suffering

from reactions to vaccines. Commercial pet foods have been pulled off

shelves more than once because of bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly

toxin. The solution? Use common sense. Clean up well and wash your hands.

And think about your dog—this is an animal that can lick itself, lick other

dogs, eat a variety of disgusting rotting things, and ingest its own feces

or those of other animals with no ill effects. The dog, plain and simple,

can handle greater bacterial loads than we can.

Let's face it, a healthy dog will not suffer from bacterial infections or

bacterial septicemia. it is just common sense. A dog suffering from

" salmonella poisoning " is obviously* not* healthy, especially when compared

to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is

perfectly healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a 'breakdown'

in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem; if one is

talking in homeopathic medicine terminology, this is simply one more symptom

that shows the dog is suffering from chronic disease.

I believe that it is the kibble, not the raw meat, that causes bacterial

problems. Kibble in the pet's intestine not only irritates the lining of

the bowels but also provides the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty

of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why

thousands of processed food-fed animals suffer from a condition called Small

Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, or SIBO (Lonsdale, T. 2001. *Raw Meaty

Bones*. pg 85). Raw meaty bones, however, create a very inhospitable

environment for bacteria, as RMBs are easily digestible and have no

carbohydrates, starches, or sugars to feed the bacteria.

What about Cooked diets?

" There are several aspects of cooked diets that pose problems. Tom Lonsdale

deals with this in depth in Chapter 4 of his book *Raw Meaty Bones. *

Okay, now to the effects of heat. If you burn your finger, what happens? The

skin tissue dies. Overly apply heat to food and the nutrients are

progressively killed/destroyed.

First of all, the act of cooking alters the proteins, vitamins, fats, and

minerals in a food. This alteration can make some nutrients more readily

available and others less available. Cooking can alter fats to the point of

being toxic and carcinogenic (The American Society for Nutritional Sciences.

April 2004. Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation, Genetic Variants of

Metabolic Enzymes, and Their Association with Rectal Cancer in Men and

Women. *Journal of Nutrition*. 134:776-784.), and cooked proteins can be

altered to the point where they cause allergic reactions whereas raw

proteins do not (Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, *in* *At

War Within: The double edged sword of immunity*, Oxford University Press,

New York. pg 88.). If an animal has an " allergy " to chicken or beef, it may

very often be cooked chicken or beef and not the raw form.

It should be well understood and recognized in scientific literature that

heat breaks down vitamins, amino acids and produces undesirable

cross-linkages in proteins, particularly in meat.

*At 110 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 43 degrees Centigrade) two of the

8 essential amino acids, tryptophan and lysine, are destroyed. *

**

*When food is cooked above 117 degrees F for three minutes or longer, the

following deleterious changes begin, and progressively cause increased

nutritional damage as higher temperatures are applied over prolonged periods

of time:*

*proteins coagulate

*high temperatures denature protein molecular structure, leading to

deficiency of some essential amino acids

*carbohydrates caramelize

*overly heated fats generate numerous carcinogens including acrolein,

nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene (one of the most potent

cancer-causing agents known)

*natural fibers break down, cellulose is completely changed from its

natural condition: it loses its ability to sweep the alimentary canal clean

* 30% to 50% of vitamins and minerals are destroyed

*100% of enzymes are damaged, the body's enzyme potential is depleted which

drains energy needed to maintain and repair tissue and organ systems,

thereby shortening the life span.

Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland conducted over 300 detailed experiments, which

pinpointed the pathogenic nature of cooked and processed foods. Food heated

to temperatures of just 120 to 190 degrees F (a range usually relegated to

warming rather than cooking which, nevertheless destroys all enzymes),

causes leukocytosis in the body. Leukocytosis is a term applied to an

abnormally high white corpuscle count.

Second, cooked food lacks all the benefits of raw food. Cooked food is

deficient in vitamins, minerals, and enzymes, because the very act of

cooking destroys or alters much of them (exceptions to this are things like

lightly steamed broccoli or tomatoes, but these are not appropriate foods

for carnivores!). This decreases the bioavailability of these valuable

chemicals and makes them less available to the animal. This is why these

things have to be added back into pet foods and why a variety of supplements

need to be added to home-cooked pet food—and why a variety of species

inappropriate items are utilized as ingredients in these meals!

Vitamins and minerals can be added back into cooked food, but finding the

appropriate balance is incredibly difficult. Synthetic vitamins and minerals

do not always exhibit the same chirality (three dimensional structure) that

the natural forms had, which means their efficiency and use to the body are

substantially decreased. This is compensated by oversupplementation, which

then results in the inhibited uptake of other necessary vitamins and

minerals. For example, excess inorganic calcium reduces the availability of

iron, copper, iodine, and zinc (Lonsdale, T. 2001. *Raw Meaty Bones*. pg

88). If you are feeding a cooked, home-made diet, how can you be sure that

your pet's needs are being sufficiently met if the very act of cooking

destroys much of what is beneficial to your pet? Essentially, once you cook

your pet's food you are now guessing which vitamins or minerals have been

destroyed, how much of these might have been destroyed (which means you

would have to know how much was present in the food in the first place), and

how much supplementation your pet needs. Then you run into another problem:

no one really knows what our pets REALLY need and use in terms of vitamins

and minerals. We only know what amounts are too much and what amounts are

too little OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, not over a period of years.

Additionally, how can we be sure that researchers have discovered all the

nutrients necessary for our pets? This still is an on-going process (such as

Eukanuba adding DHA to their foods; DHA is found in raw prey, so any dog or

canid eating raw prey has been receiving appropriate levels of DHA), and

since cooking food destroys minerals and vitamins and enzymes, researchers

may be missing some very important nutrients. Feeding cooked food also

causes pets to miss out on these 'unknown' nutrients, whereas raw food

contains them in appropriate amounts.

People try to compensate for vitamin and mineral deficiencies without

resorting to supplements. Instead, they simply add vegetables, grains, and

dairy products to their carnivores' diets. Complex recipes are developed

that create a wide range of foods for the dog (or cat) that must be cooked,

steamed, blended, etc. in order for the dog to receive proper nutrition. Our

carnivores once again have an omnivorous diet forced upon them in order to

help them obtain all the appropriate nutrition that could simply be had by

feeding a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats. Simplicity and

perfection are traded for complexity and imperfection. Raw food, however,

has the perfect balance of vitamins and minerals if fed as a part of a

prey-model diet (i.e. a whole rabbit) (Lonsdale, T. 2001. *Raw Meaty Bones*.

Chapter 4.)

Raw food also has unaltered proteins and nutrients, and the bioavailability

of these nutrients is very high. And raw food—particularly whole carcasses

and raw meaty bones—provide the NECESSARY teeth-cleaning effects that are

lacking in any cooked diet. Periodontal disease-causing bacteria are scraped

away at each feeding, whereas a cooked food-fed dog has that bacteria

remaining, which are then coated over by a sticky plaque resulting from the

cooked grains, vegetables, and meat proteins.

*Cooking denatures protein*. According to Encyclopedia Britannica,

denaturation is a modification of the molecular structure of protein by heat

or by an acid, an alkali, or ultraviolet radiation that *destroys or

diminishes* its original properties and biological activity.

Denaturation alters protein and makes it unusable or less usable. According

to Britannica, protein molecules are readily altered by heat:. Unlike simple

organic molecules, the physical and chemical properties of protein are

markedly altered when the substance is just boiled in water. Further: All of

the agents able to cause denaturat-ion are able to break the secondary bonds

that hold the chains in place. Once these weak bonds are broken, the

molecule falls into a disorganized tangle devoid of biological function.

Again, according to Britannica the *most significant effect of protein

denaturation is the loss of the its biological function*. For example,

enzymes lose their catalytic powers and hemoglobin loses its capacity to

carry oxygen. The changes that accompany denaturation have been shown to

result from destruction of the specific pattern in which the amino acid

chains are folded in the native protein. In Britannica is the

acknowledgement that * " cooking destroys protein to make it practically

useless " *

There are two ways to denature the proteins: chemically using digestive

enzymes, or through the *use of heat.* Via heat, the body does not have the

recombinant ability to utilize damaged denatured protein components (amino

acids) and rebuild them once again into viable protein molecules.

Some Physiologists claim that cooking and digestion are virtually the same:

that cooking is a form of predigestion where heat is used to hydrolyze

nutrients that would otherwise be hydrolyzed at body temperature through

digestion. This due to the enormous heat exposure during cooking, that

denatures the protein molecule past a point of being bioactive, however, *body

heat is too low* to effect the protein molecule so adversely.

When proteins are subjected to high heat during cooking, enzyme resistant

linkages are formed between the amino acid chains. The body cannot separate

these amino acids. What the body cannot use, it must eliminate. Cooked

proteins become a source of toxicity: dead organic waste material acted upon

and elaborated by bacterial flora.

When wholesome protein foods are eaten raw, the body makes maximum use of

all amino acids without the accompanying toxins of cooked food.

According to the textbook Nutritional Value of Food Processing, 3rd Edition,

(by Karmas, Harris, published by Van Nostrand Reinhold) which is written for

food chemists in the industrial processed food industry: changes that occur

during processing either result in nutrient loss or destruction. Heat

processing has a detrimental effect on nutrients since thermal degradation

of nutrients can and does occur. Reduction in nutrient content depends on

the severity of the thermal processing.

Protein molecules under ideal eating and digestive conditions are broken

down into amino acids by gastric enzymes. Every protein molecule in the body

is synthesized from these amino acids. Protein you consume IS NOT used as

protein: it is first recycled or broken down into its constituent amino

acids AND THEN used to build protein molecules the body needs.

There are 23 different amino acids. These link together in different

combinations in extremely long chains to create protein molecules, like

individual rail cars form a train. The amino group gives each amino acid its

specific identifying characteristic that differentiates it from the others.

*Excessive heat sloughs off or decapitates the amino group. Without this

amino group, the amino acid is rendered useless and is toxic.*

I am often berated for recommending a raw diet as being best for our

carnivorous pets but after all my research and feeding my own pets this way

for years now, I can not help but believe that our pet dogs and cats would

be much healthier in the long run if fed live whole foods.

For more information on cooked food versus raw food, please check out the

famous Pottenger cat study:

www.Nutritionreallyworks.net/Pottengers-cats.html<http://www.nutritionreallywork\

s.net/Pottengers-cats.html>

*www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/index.htm<http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/index.htm>

*

************************

References:

Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI, Cert.

Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM.,

B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N P A

Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD

Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland

Dr. Weston A. Price

Dr Tom Lonsdale

****

Carissa Kuehn

Thomason and The Whole Dog Store.

December 28, 2008

Jeanette Thomason's article is typical of junk science. It is interesting

because the writer makes many good scientifically supported points but she

cannot see the wood for the trees and comes to an incorrect conclusion. The

phenomenon goes back a long way - James 6th of Scotland (James 1st of England)

was known as the " wisest fool in christendom " . He knew all there was to be known

(it was possible in those days), yet he made many foolish decisions.

Just because we evolved as omnivores does not mean we have to eat

everything. Just because dogs evolved as carnivores doesn't mean they have to

eat meat. Provided sufficient of the necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals,

etc are ingested, their origin doesn't matter to the body - human, canine,

feline, etc.

I believe that we have a moral duty to do as little harm and as much good as we

can while on this earth. Therefore we should consider the suffering that goes

into producing our companions' food.

There are many issues to be taken into consideration when deciding what to feed

our companions - but their evolutionary history is not relevant in this modern

world. What animals in zoos are given to eat is also not relevant to this

discussion.

John.

>

> aapn [aapn ] On

> Behalf Of

> 27 December, 2008 9:45 PM

> AAPN List

> DOGS ARE CARNIVORES

>

> *http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id51.html*

> *Dogs are Carnivores*

> by Jeannie Thomason

December 28, 2008

If nothing else, this whole debate underscores how conflicted animal

advocates are (or should be) about keeping animals as pets at all.

Marianne

December 29, 2008

John, I am not sure I can agree with u on 100% on this, but perhaps that¹s

not even important. What is important is that the facts - and good science

- is given to pet owners so they can make healthy decisions for their loved

ones. I just don¹t see where u have made it clear that Jeanette Thomson¹s

article is ³junk science.² I guess to complete the argument, someone needs

to take on the argument from the other side. I have yet to see any hard

science supporting the idea that dogs can be healthy vegetarians. I want to

believe, as do so many other vegetarian humans in the world, but where is

the beef, so to speak? Are surviving canines who live as vegetarians

(injected with dietary supplements that mimic a carnivore diet) enough of a

role model to assure and prove to pet owners that all will be happy and

well?

Let¹s first look at the hypothesis that a food¹s ³origin doesn't matter to

the body - human, canine, feline, etc.² That sounds like a stretch to me. If

this is so, then why do we need to eat at all - why not just inject

ourselves with the necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. and then

call it a day? Is there more to eating then the chemical breakdown of what¹s

digested? And if so, how does that ³extra² eating factor effect the

wellbeing of an animal, if not physically but mentally. I¹ve seen many a

pooch ³shake² it¹s food first, and I assume that¹s to simulate the kill and

not just to shake off dirt or vegetable matter. But I am not an animal

behavioural scientist, so I can¹t say. I just know I want an answer.

With all the animal research being done in zoos and other places of animal

³conservation,² can¹t these scientists answer the simple question ³what

should I feed my dog?² Evolutionary history may not be relevant [as I

don¹t believe we know what that is] but data from zoos would have to be

relevant, as we must assume they have data on what to feed each class of

captive animal that provides the best nutrition on the lowest budget, no?

Yet on the emotionally empirical side, just seeing vegetarian dogs over

decades may be enough ³scientific fact² for pet owners. Perhaps owners of

vegetarian pets can be of service to the community at large by collating the

historical data of carnivores who don¹t eat meat and publish that on the

web, with photographic proof that canines don¹t need meat to be happy and

healthy. It would also be helpful to find scientists whom we can trust to

support & confirm these observations with some sorta experiments that don¹t

involve the dissection of dog tissue to come up with the conclusion. So

here is a suggestion for a ImVegitarianAndImADog.com

I would love to cut meat and bone from Krypto¹s diet (he¹s a 60kg Alsatian)

if I knew it was not going to make him crazy and start chasing all the

chickens in yard (which for now, he respectfully leaves alone). Like most

pet owners, I just want to be assured that all will be well in the diet that

is provided, and I want some one that really knows about these things to be

clear and concise in their explanations. Common sense tells me that kibbles

is junk food, but rotting carcass intestines is another story (looks good to

Krypto). I took Jeanette¹s advice and examined Krypto¹s teeth. They don¹t

look equipped to handle grains or beans or carrots at all. They look like

they want to rip the fur off something and get to the guts of the matter,

pronto.

One last consideration: I don¹t agree there are ³many² issues to be taken

into consideration when deciding what to feed our companions. Most

(rational) pet owners would agree there is only one issue what is best for

my pet, and how do I make it so. If at the end of this discussion we have

come up with that, we have done due service.

Jigs in Nepal

On 12/28/08 4:21 PM, " jwed " <john wrote:

>

> Jeanette Thomason's article is typical of junk science. It is interesting

> because the writer makes many good scientifically supported points but she

> cannot see the wood for the trees and comes to an incorrect conclusion. The

> phenomenon goes back a long way - James 6th of Scotland (James 1st of England)

> was known as the " wisest fool in christendom " . He knew all there was to be

> known (it was possible in those days), yet he made many foolish decisions.

>

> Just because we evolved as omnivores does not mean we have to eat

> everything. Just because dogs evolved as carnivores doesn't mean they have to

> eat meat. Provided sufficient of the necessary amino acids, vitamins,

> minerals, etc are ingested, their origin doesn't matter to the body - human,

> canine, feline, etc.

>

> I believe that we have a moral duty to do as little harm and as much good as

> we can while on this earth. Therefore we should consider the suffering that

> goes into producing our companions' food.

>

> There are many issues to be taken into consideration when deciding what to

> feed our companions - but their evolutionary history is not relevant in this

> modern world. What animals in zoos are given to eat is also not relevant to

> this discussion.

> John.

>

>> >

>> > aapn <aapn%40>

>> [aapn <aapn%40> ] On

>> > Behalf Of

>> > 27 December, 2008 9:45 PM

>> > AAPN List

>> > DOGS ARE CARNIVORES

>> >

>> > *http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id51.html*

>> > *Dogs are Carnivores*

>> > by Jeannie Thomason

>

-- Paul Reitman, CEO

Phoenix Studios Nepal

Mobile: 9841589797

www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

December 29, 2008

> Believe me, I am willing to accept this as truth and fact (that dogs can and

> should live healthy and happy as vegetarians) but I have yet to see any proof

> from a personal, historical, or scientific perspective. U say it¹s out on the

> web - but where? Googling this topic just results in jamble of gunk. I would

> expect there to be prominent people in the know with long lists of degrees

> decrying it¹s true, if this is in fact is true. I would also expect to see top

> vets urging all to move in this direction if this is in fact better for ur dog

> then some home-concocted raw & rotting intestine diet. Where are they? Do I

> want to trust a ³tentative conclusion² that it¹s all going to be ok with my

> first born? Not really. Perhaps we should just get rabbits like Merritt

> suggests, at least we will know we are doing no harm, mentally or physically.

> But seriously, what most of us need is evidence stuck under our noses that

> smells like the truth - everyone that I know who is contemplating a pet dog

> or who is feeding a pet dog is looking for an answer. So why don¹t we produce

> one, if possible?

> Jigs in Nepal

>

> On 12/29/08 5:39 PM, " jwed " <jwed wrote:

>

>>> > I just don¹t see where u have made it clear that Jeanette Thomson¹s

>>> article is " junk science. "

>>

>> I call it junk science when scientific arguments are twisted to prove a point

>> instead of being looked at logically. Of course this is exactly what Shubho

>> is accusing me of!

>>

>>> > I guess to complete the argument, someone needs to take on the argument

>>> from the other side. I have yet to see any hard science supporting the idea

>>> that dogs can be healthy vegetarians. I want to believe, as do so many other

>>> vegetarian humans in the world, but where is the beef, so to speak? Are

>>> surviving canines who live as vegetarians (injected with dietary supplements

>>> that mimic a carnivore diet) enough of a role model to assure and prove to

>>> pet owners that all will be happy and well?

>>

>> I think there is enough evidence out there now to come to at least a

>> tentative conclusion that a vegetarian diet for dogs is healthy, provided

>> care is taken to make sure that the correct amino acids, etc are in there.

>>

>> Let¹s first look at the hypothesis that a food¹s " origin doesn't matter to

>> the body - human, canine, feline, etc. " That sounds like a stretch to me. If

>> this is so, then why do we need to eat at all - why not just inject ourselves

>> with the necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. and then call it a

>> day? Is there more to eating then the chemical breakdown of what¹s digested?

>> And if so, how does that " extra " eating factor effect the wellbeing of an

>> animal, if not physically but mentally.

>>

>> Physically, bulk and fibre are needed as well. Mentally, taste and texture

>> are important.

>>

>>> > With all the animal research being done in zoos and other places of animal

>>> " conservation, " can¹t these scientists answer the simple question " what

>>> should I feed my dog? "

>>

>> I think they can and have.

>>

>>> > Evolutionary history may not be relevant [as I don¹t believe we know what

>>> that is] but data from zoos would have to be relevant, as we must assume

>>> they have data on what to feed each class of captive animal that provides

>>> the best nutrition on the lowest budget, no?

>>

>> Yes.

>>

>> Yet on the emotionally empirical side, just seeing vegetarian dogs over

>> decades may be enough " scientific fact " for pet owners. Perhaps owners of

>> vegetarian pets can be of service to the community at large by collating the

>> historical data of carnivores who don¹t eat meat and publish that on the web,

>> with photographic proof that canines don¹t need meat to be happy and healthy.

>> It would also be helpful to find scientists whom we can trust to support &

>> confirm these observations with some sorta experiments that don¹t involve the

>> dissection of dog tissue to come up with the conclusion. So here is a

>> suggestion for a ImVegitarianAndImADog.com

>>

>> There are already websites giving this kind of information.

>>

>>> > I would love to cut meat and bone from Krypto¹s diet (he¹s a 60kg

>>> Alsatian) if I knew it was not going to make him crazy and start chasing all

>>> the chickens in yard (which for now, he respectfully leaves alone).

>>

>> His behaviour pattern will not change. Enough dogs have been changed to a

>> vegetarian diet to know this. He may not like the taste and texture of his

>> new diet but that is a matter of habit.

>>

>>> > Like most pet owners, I just want to be assured that all will be well in

>>> the diet that is provided, and I want some one that really knows about these

>>> things to be clear and concise in their explanations.

>>

>> I think you can find that reassurance if you read the websites and follow the

>> links.

>>

>>> > Common sense tells me that kibbles is junk food, but rotting carcass

>>> intestines is another story (looks good to Krypto). I took Jeanette¹s advice

>>> and examined Krypto¹s teeth. They don¹t look equipped to handle grains or

>>> beans or carrots at all. They look like they want to rip the fur off

>>> something and get to the guts of the matter, pronto.

>>

>> There is no doubting the evolutionary history.

>>

>>> > One last consideration: I don¹t agree there are " many " issues to be taken

>>> into consideration when deciding what to feed our companions. Most

>>> (rational) pet owners would agree there is only one issue what is best for

>>> my pet, and how do I make it so. If at the end of this discussion we have

>>> come up with that, we have done due service.

>>

>> I think there are many issues to be taken into consideration - but each one

>> should have the proviso that it is not harming the dog in any way.

>>

>> Our companion dogs are not living a natural life and cannot - so I think the

>> wolf arguments are specious.

>>

>> John.

>>

>> PS: I will be away for 36 hours so there will be a pause in this debate!

>>

>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

>> database 3714 (20081223) __________

>>

>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

>>

>> http://www.eset.com

>>

>

> -- Paul Reitman, CEO

> Phoenix Studios Nepal

> Mobile: 9841589797

>

> www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

>

-- Paul Reitman, CEO

Phoenix Studios Nepal

Mobile: 9841589797

www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

December 29, 2008

I definitely agree. There doesnt seem to be any science. There are plenty

of animal " owners " who can personally vouch for their pets' health on a

veggie diet - but this isnt quantative is it? I keep thinking of people who

smoke who say " My Grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 85 and she smoked

20 a day " . How do we know how old she would have been without smoke? (I do

realise this is an extreme example........)

Also as a veggie I know my diet might be lacking in some areas so I take

certain supplements and I accept the fact that this is less than ideal for

my system. Can I make that sort of decision for my dog? I dont believe so.

I have to say that I dont believe Merritt ever posts things that he doesnt

have evidence for, and I very much enjoyed reading his posts about the meat

industry. So for now, I am happy to keep feeding my dog the remnants of a

meat industry that is enormous with or without pet food. I believe this is

true. If indeed we do start to influence humans to eat less meat then I

will be more than happy to revisit the case of whether dogs can be healthy

without meat. Hopefully by then Jigs will have orchestrated a worldwide

study of dog diets

2008/12/29 Herojig <herojig

> > Believe me, I am willing to accept this as truth and fact (that dogs

> can and

> > should live healthy and happy as vegetarians) but I have yet to see any

> proof

> > from a personal, historical, or scientific perspective. U say it¹s out on

> the

> > web - but where? Googling this topic just results in jamble of gunk. I

> would

> > expect there to be prominent people in the know with long lists of

> degrees

> > decrying it¹s true, if this is in fact is true. I would also expect to

> see top

> > vets urging all to move in this direction if this is in fact better for

> ur dog

> > then some home-concocted raw & rotting intestine diet. Where are they? Do

> I

> > want to trust a ³tentative conclusion² that it¹s all going to be ok with

> my

> > first born? Not really. Perhaps we should just get rabbits like Merritt

> > suggests, at least we will know we are doing no harm, mentally or

> physically.

> > But seriously, what most of us need is evidence stuck under our noses

> that

> > smells like the truth - everyone that I know who is contemplating a pet

> dog

> > or who is feeding a pet dog is looking for an answer. So why don¹t we

> produce

> > one, if possible?

> > Jigs in Nepal

>

> >

> > On 12/29/08 5:39 PM, " jwed " <jwed <jwed%40hkstar.com>> wrote:

> >

> >>> > I just don¹t see where u have made it clear that Jeanette Thomson¹s

> >>> article is " junk science. "

> >>

> >> I call it junk science when scientific arguments are twisted to prove a

> point

> >> instead of being looked at logically. Of course this is exactly what

> Shubho

> >> is accusing me of!

> >>

> >>> > I guess to complete the argument, someone needs to take on the

> argument

> >>> from the other side. I have yet to see any hard science supporting the

> idea

> >>> that dogs can be healthy vegetarians. I want to believe, as do so many

> other

> >>> vegetarian humans in the world, but where is the beef, so to speak? Are

> >>> surviving canines who live as vegetarians (injected with dietary

> supplements

> >>> that mimic a carnivore diet) enough of a role model to assure and prove

> to

> >>> pet owners that all will be happy and well?

> >>

> >> I think there is enough evidence out there now to come to at least a

> >> tentative conclusion that a vegetarian diet for dogs is healthy,

> provided

> >> care is taken to make sure that the correct amino acids, etc are in

> there.

> >>

> >> Let¹s first look at the hypothesis that a food¹s " origin doesn't matter

> to

> >> the body - human, canine, feline, etc. " That sounds like a stretch to

> me. If

> >> this is so, then why do we need to eat at all - why not just inject

> ourselves

> >> with the necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. and then call

> it a

> >> day? Is there more to eating then the chemical breakdown of what¹s

> digested?

> >> And if so, how does that " extra " eating factor effect the wellbeing of

> an

> >> animal, if not physically but mentally.

> >>

> >> Physically, bulk and fibre are needed as well. Mentally, taste and

> texture

> >> are important.

> >>

> >>> > With all the animal research being done in zoos and other places of

> animal

> >>> " conservation, " can¹t these scientists answer the simple question " what

> >>> should I feed my dog? "

> >>

> >> I think they can and have.

> >>

> >>> > Evolutionary history may not be relevant [as I don¹t believe we know

> what

> >>> that is] but data from zoos would have to be relevant, as we must

> assume

> >>> they have data on what to feed each class of captive animal that

> provides

> >>> the best nutrition on the lowest budget, no?

> >>

> >> Yes.

> >>

> >> Yet on the emotionally empirical side, just seeing vegetarian dogs over

> >> decades may be enough " scientific fact " for pet owners. Perhaps owners

> of

> >> vegetarian pets can be of service to the community at large by collating

> the

> >> historical data of carnivores who don¹t eat meat and publish that on the

> web,

> >> with photographic proof that canines don¹t need meat to be happy and

> healthy.

> >> It would also be helpful to find scientists whom we can trust to support

> &

> >> confirm these observations with some sorta experiments that don¹t

> involve the

> >> dissection of dog tissue to come up with the conclusion. So here is a

> >> suggestion for a ImVegitarianAndImADog.com

> >>

> >> There are already websites giving this kind of information.

> >>

> >>> > I would love to cut meat and bone from Krypto¹s diet (he¹s a 60kg

> >>> Alsatian) if I knew it was not going to make him crazy and start

> chasing all

> >>> the chickens in yard (which for now, he respectfully leaves alone).

> >>

> >> His behaviour pattern will not change. Enough dogs have been changed to

> a

> >> vegetarian diet to know this. He may not like the taste and texture of

> his

> >> new diet but that is a matter of habit.

> >>

> >>> > Like most pet owners, I just want to be assured that all will be well

> in

> >>> the diet that is provided, and I want some one that really knows about

> these

> >>> things to be clear and concise in their explanations.

> >>

> >> I think you can find that reassurance if you read the websites and

> follow the

> >> links.

> >>

> >>> > Common sense tells me that kibbles is junk food, but rotting carcass

> >>> intestines is another story (looks good to Krypto). I took Jeanette¹s

> advice

> >>> and examined Krypto¹s teeth. They don¹t look equipped to handle grains

> or

> >>> beans or carrots at all. They look like they want to rip the fur off

> >>> something and get to the guts of the matter, pronto.

> >>

> >> There is no doubting the evolutionary history.

> >>

> >>> > One last consideration: I don¹t agree there are " many " issues to be

> taken

> >>> into consideration when deciding what to feed our companions. Most

> >>> (rational) pet owners would agree there is only one issue what is

> best for

> >>> my pet, and how do I make it so. If at the end of this discussion we

> have

> >>> come up with that, we have done due service.

> >>

> >> I think there are many issues to be taken into consideration - but each

> one

> >> should have the proviso that it is not harming the dog in any way.

> >>

> >> Our companion dogs are not living a natural life and cannot - so I think

> the

> >> wolf arguments are specious.

> >>

> >> John.

> >>

> >> PS: I will be away for 36 hours so there will be a pause in this debate!

> >>

> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus

> signature

> >> database 3714 (20081223) __________

> >>

> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

> >>

> >> http://www.eset.com

> >>

> >

> > -- Paul Reitman, CEO

> > Phoenix Studios Nepal

> > Mobile: 9841589797

> >

> > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

> >

>

> -- Paul Reitman, CEO

> Phoenix Studios Nepal

> Mobile: 9841589797

>

> www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

>

December 30, 2008

Sonia, that¹s a perfect example! My parents actually believed smoking was

good for u when they started because that¹s what the media told them to

believe. Dad died of heart attacks at 65.

Merritt, where is the evidence one way or another? Surely we can dig that

out and publish no? The rotting rat-infested corpse diets on the web are

very compelling and detailed. The vegan new-age flute-music-for-dog sites

are not.

If we can dig out the good data on this issue, I will create an area on

www.animalnepal.org to hold this info that can be replicated anywhere by

anyone interested. We already have a small ³how-to-care-for-pets² area that

will be expanded.

This assumes that we can answer this (seemingly) simple question: What to

feed your dog or cat -->WITHOUT the hype, book, t-shirt & CD sales, and

emotional or political rhetoric.

Even if the question is unanswerable, we should publish that observation, in

hopes it will be answered by smarter people in the next lifetime.

Jigs in Nepal

On 12/30/08 2:55 AM, " Sonia Gibbon " <sonia.gibbon wrote:

> I definitely agree. There doesnt seem to be any science. There are plenty

> of animal " owners " who can personally vouch for their pets' health on a veggie

> diet - but this isnt quantative is it? I keep thinking of people who smoke

> who say " My Grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 85 and she smoked 20 a

> day " . How do we know how old she would have been without smoke? (I do

> realise this is an extreme example........)

>

> Also as a veggie I know my diet might be lacking in some areas so I take

> certain supplements and I accept the fact that this is less than ideal for my

> system. Can I make that sort of decision for my dog? I dont believe so.

>

> I have to say that I dont believe Merritt ever posts things that he doesnt

> have evidence for, and I very much enjoyed reading his posts about the meat

> industry. So for now, I am happy to keep feeding my dog the remnants of a

> meat industry that is enormous with or without pet food. I believe this is

> true. If indeed we do start to influence humans to eat less meat then I will

> be more than happy to revisit the case of whether dogs can be healthy without

> meat. Hopefully by then Jigs will have orchestrated a worldwide study of dog

> diets

December 31, 2008

Great idea! What value are these discussions if nothing comes of them? If we

can put together some info that details with certainty (or at least what we

can all agree on as being) what is good and bad for our dogs, cats, lions,

leaf-eating monkeys, etc., then this forum would serve its purpose even

better. An online resource for different diets is an excellent suggestion,

and one very close to all our hearts, apparently.

It seems we all agree that highly processed waste unfit for human

consumption and expensively marketed as 'pet foods' isn't the best thing for

our dogs and cats. Perhaps for other matters, such as vegan v. vegetarian v.

omnivore v. carnivore v. rat-infested carcasses, we could present concise,

cohesive arguments for each and add supportive data, then we can let the

reader decide which diet makes more sense. If the info can be updated

occasionally, hopefully with more concrete evidence as it arises, we might

provide a very comprehensive, thorough, and accurate guide to the pros and

cons of certain diets.

I think we may need to accept that some people will want to feed what suits

their personal philosophies, regardless of which diet is shown to be better

or worse; but by providing the benefits and downfalls of each diet, and

suggesting optional additions or workarounds, we'll be helping make sure

that animals will be getting the healthiest food possible for the diet that

dog and cat carers feel is the one they want to provide.

When people adopt animals from me, I give them all the info I can about the

diet we feed; if they decide to go the 'safe' route ( . . . sigh . . .) of

feeding dry food, then I point out why I wouldn't do that, but I provide a

list of supplements that will help make the diet healthier for the animal. I

accept some will believe the pet-food marketing, and I do what I can to

compensate for this.

Anyway, I'm really enjoying these discussions. I feed meaty bones, but I am

very keen to read more about vegan and vegetarian diets. Like others (who

also may not be convinced by the diet I feed), I just need to see more

empirical arguments before I switch or amend what I'm already feeding.

Happy New Year to you all. Remember that we in the East will be leading the

way into 2009. ;-)

Sean

2008/12/30 Herojig <herojig

> Sonia, that¹s a perfect example! My parents actually believed smoking

> was

> good for u when they started because that¹s what the media told them to

> believe. Dad died of heart attacks at 65.

>

> Merritt, where is the evidence one way or another? Surely we can dig that

> out and publish no? The rotting rat-infested corpse diets on the web are

> very compelling and detailed. The vegan new-age flute-music-for-dog sites

> are not.

>

> If we can dig out the good data on this issue, I will create an area on

> www.animalnepal.org to hold this info that can be replicated anywhere by

> anyone interested. We already have a small ³how-to-care-for-pets² area that

> will be expanded.

>

> This assumes that we can answer this (seemingly) simple question: What to

> feed your dog or cat -->WITHOUT the hype, book, t-shirt & CD sales, and

> emotional or political rhetoric.

>

> Even if the question is unanswerable, we should publish that observation,

> in

> hopes it will be answered by smarter people in the next lifetime.

>

> Jigs in Nepal

>

> On 12/30/08 2:55 AM, " Sonia Gibbon "

<sonia.gibbon<sonia.gibbon%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > I definitely agree. There doesnt seem to be any science. There are plenty

> > of animal " owners " who can personally vouch for their pets' health on a

> veggie

> > diet - but this isnt quantative is it? I keep thinking of people who

> smoke

> > who say " My Grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 85 and she smoked 20

> a

> > day " . How do we know how old she would have been without smoke? (I do

> > realise this is an extreme example........)

> >

> > Also as a veggie I know my diet might be lacking in some areas so I take

> > certain supplements and I accept the fact that this is less than ideal

> for my

> > system. Can I make that sort of decision for my dog? I dont believe so.

> >

> > I have to say that I dont believe Merritt ever posts things that he

> doesnt

> > have evidence for, and I very much enjoyed reading his posts about the

> meat

> > industry. So for now, I am happy to keep feeding my dog the remnants of a

> > meat industry that is enormous with or without pet food. I believe this

> is

> > true. If indeed we do start to influence humans to eat less meat then I

> will

> > be more than happy to revisit the case of whether dogs can be healthy

> without

> > meat. Hopefully by then Jigs will have orchestrated a worldwide study of

> dog

> > diets

>

December 31, 2008

>Also as a veggie I know my diet might be lacking in some areas so I take

certain supplements and I accept the fact that this is less than ideal for

my system. Can I make that sort of decision for my dog?<

December 31, 2008

I think thats a bit of a crazy statement Azam - does it have any foundation

anywhere?

There are large foundations that say that we are omnivores and therefore

genetically designed to consume meat. Dogs are also omnivores - probably

much more on the carnivorous side than we are. I am not *scared* of being

vegetarian, I just plan to look after my health thats all.

I was very pleased to see a debate on AAPN again that was not only

interesting but discussed calmly and openly from both sides. Please do not

let it degrade into the usual fighting about who's opinion is the better.

We should all be enriched by discussions such as these, no matter which side

we agree with. More information can only make us stronger.

2008/12/31 azam24x7 <azam24x7

> >Also as a veggie I know my diet might be lacking in some areas so I take

> certain supplements and I accept the fact that this is less than ideal for

> my system. Can I make that sort of decision for my dog?<

>

December 31, 2008

>It seems we all agree that highly processed waste unfit for human

>consumption and expensively marketed as 'pet foods' isn't the best

>thing for our dogs and cats.

This suggests that the poster has not read anything I have posted.

" Waste unfit for human consumption " is the basic natural diet

of dogs; canned or kibbled waste unfit for human consumption is the

next best thing.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 1, 2009

>Then it must be the processing that makes this feed so unsuccessful.

Inasmuch as approximately 1.7 billion dogs have survived and

often reproduced on diets of canned or bagged dog food during the

past 50 years, the weight of evidence does not admit the suggestion

that it is " unsuccessful. "

One bogus argument often advanced by dog food faddists is

that canine cancers have increased over the past 50 years.

First of all, cancer rates depend upon detecting the

cancers, and rates of detecting cancers of all kinds, in all

species, have increased exponentially during the past couple of

decades, chiefly because of improvements in diagnostic techniques

and equipment.

Second, most cancers are primarily conditions of age, or

that emerge later in life, even if starting sooner. Only in

societies where relatively large numbers of dogs live past their

natural middle age are enough likely to live long enough to get

cancer, as opposed to being killed by disease, traffic, poisoning,

other animals, etc. These tend to be societies where dogs are fed

canned or bagged food, instead of having to forage.

Third, relatively few cancers in any species are

attributable to diet, and even gastrointestinal cancers appear to be

heavily influenced by heredity.

Fourth, since nobody was looking to find out, nobody really

knows just what the background level of cancer was among older dogs

in earlier times -- but we do have some idea how often cancers occur

in street dogs, and it is often enough that the occurrence of

incurable tumors is one of the most frequent reasons why street dog

rescue organizations euthanize dogs.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 1, 2009

Thank you for all your replies. If you didn't know, I was the one who posted

the original query on behalf of a friend. I'm sure your discussions will

help her greatly.

Personally, I am vegan and I do not aim to keep any pets. I'd prefer for

them to stay out look for their own food, whether it's avocados fallen under

trees or a rat dead by the road.

Seelan

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Merritt Clifton <anmlpeplwrote:

> >Then it must be the processing that makes this feed so unsuccessful.

>

> Inasmuch as approximately 1.7 billion dogs have survived and

> often reproduced on diets of canned or bagged dog food during the

> past 50 years, the weight of evidence does not admit the suggestion

> that it is " unsuccessful. "

>

> One bogus argument often advanced by dog food faddists is

> that canine cancers have increased over the past 50 years.

>

> First of all, cancer rates depend upon detecting the

> cancers, and rates of detecting cancers of all kinds, in all

> species, have increased exponentially during the past couple of

> decades, chiefly because of improvements in diagnostic techniques

> and equipment.

>

> Second, most cancers are primarily conditions of age, or

> that emerge later in life, even if starting sooner. Only in

> societies where relatively large numbers of dogs live past their

> natural middle age are enough likely to live long enough to get

> cancer, as opposed to being killed by disease, traffic, poisoning,

> other animals, etc. These tend to be societies where dogs are fed

> canned or bagged food, instead of having to forage.

>

> Third, relatively few cancers in any species are

> attributable to diet, and even gastrointestinal cancers appear to be

> heavily influenced by heredity.

>

> Fourth, since nobody was looking to find out, nobody really

> knows just what the background level of cancer was among older dogs

> in earlier times -- but we do have some idea how often cancers occur

> in street dogs, and it is often enough that the occurrence of

> incurable tumors is one of the most frequent reasons why street dog

> rescue organizations euthanize dogs.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

January 1, 2009

>DOGS ARE OMNIVORES

I don't think anyone is disputing that dogs have an

omnivorous diet. This is why, on balance, canned or kibbled dog

meat contains at least as much grain gluten and other material

derived from plant food as actual protein of animal origin.

However, dogs are among the major branches of the carnivore

order, which also includes the cats, foxes, and bears. Among the

carnivores, only the cats are normally exclusively meat-eaters, but

adaptations to a meat diet, especially visible in dentition, are

among the most definitive evolutionary traits of this order.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 5, 2009

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=829502 & lang=eng_news

Questionable dog food will be recalled: COA

Central News Agency

2009-01-05 01:47 PM

Taipei, Jan. 5 (CNA) All the dog food from a batch that is believed to

have poisoned over 1,000 stray dogs nationwide recently will be recalled and

turned into organic fertilizer, the Council of Agriculture (COA) said

Monday.

The COA confirmed that about 400 stray dogs at two animal shelters in Taipei

County had died last month of acute liver damage caused by a high

concentration of cancer-causing aflatoxin in dog food supplied by Ji-Tai

Forage Co. in the south-central county of Yunlin.

As of Sunday, Ji-Tai Forage had recalled 29.3 tons of suspect dog food,

officials from the COA's National Institute for Animal Health said.

A corporate spokeswoman offered an apology Monday and said that Ji-Tai was

also a victim in the matter, as the company had no idea why the imported

soybeans used to make the dog food contained aflatoxin.

COA officials said that all questionable dog food will be recalled

nationwide and sent to a COA-authorized processing company in Yunlin to be

processed into compost.

According to a United Daily News report Monday, nearly 1,000 stray dogs have

died suddenly at several animal shelters in southern Taiwan in recent

months, in what is believed to be a case of food poisoning from the Ji-Tai

product.

(By Deborah Kuo)

2009/1/2 Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl

> >DOGS ARE OMNIVORES

>

> I don't think anyone is disputing that dogs have an

> omnivorous diet. This is why, on balance, canned or kibbled dog

> meat contains at least as much grain gluten and other material

> derived from plant food as actual protein of animal origin.

>

> However, dogs are among the major branches of the carnivore

> order, which also includes the cats, foxes, and bears. Among the

> carnivores, only the cats are normally exclusively meat-eaters, but

> adaptations to a meat diet, especially visible in dentition, are

> among the most definitive evolutionary traits of this order.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

January 5, 2009

So Merritt, based on this science (sheer statistics) do u think we

can/should recommend canned and dry foods for dogs? Krypto, our dog, won¹t

touch the stuff even if he is starving (tested during this recent vacation)

where we wound up ordering him sizzlers along with our meals at Pokhara

restaurants. Btw, Pokhara Nepal is a very dog-friendly resort town for

travellers looking for that, restaurants will even make a place setting at

the table for your pet and all hotels we surveyed had no problem letting

dogs in. But back on topic, what to do? Dry and canned foods from Thailand

and India are hitting the grocery stores here now and I think people would

like to know about that. Currently prices make it prohibitive for all but

the wealthy pet owner, but there is no reason not to help those dogs as

well. It seems to me the dry gorp is probably okay just based on it¹s

history in the marketplace, but if a dog is already eating BARF or something

home-made, there is no compelling reason to switch - right? One thing I¹ve

noticed, and it could be my imagination, is that many dogs in the USA -

which I am assuming for the most part eat dry or canned food look far more

obese then Asian dogs. Are there any stats on that? Obesity would be a

problem to avoid yes? I¹ve also seen commercial lean diet preparations,

which at first glance seemed insane, but perhaps there is a reason for the

need...

Thx,

Jigs in Nepal

On 1/1/09 4:03 PM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl wrote:

>

>> >Then it must be the processing that makes this feed so unsuccessful.

>

> Inasmuch as approximately 1.7 billion dogs have survived and

> often reproduced on diets of canned or bagged dog food during the

> past 50 years, the weight of evidence does not admit the suggestion

> that it is " unsuccessful. "

>

> One bogus argument often advanced by dog food faddists is

> that canine cancers have increased over the past 50 years.

>

> First of all, cancer rates depend upon detecting the

> cancers, and rates of detecting cancers of all kinds, in all

> species, have increased exponentially during the past couple of

> decades, chiefly because of improvements in diagnostic techniques

> and equipment.

>

> Second, most cancers are primarily conditions of age, or

> that emerge later in life, even if starting sooner. Only in

> societies where relatively large numbers of dogs live past their

> natural middle age are enough likely to live long enough to get

> cancer, as opposed to being killed by disease, traffic, poisoning,

> other animals, etc. These tend to be societies where dogs are fed

> canned or bagged food, instead of having to forage.

>

> Third, relatively few cancers in any species are

> attributable to diet, and even gastrointestinal cancers appear to be

> heavily influenced by heredity.

>

> Fourth, since nobody was looking to find out, nobody really

> knows just what the background level of cancer was among older dogs

> in earlier times -- but we do have some idea how often cancers occur

> in street dogs, and it is often enough that the occurrence of

> incurable tumors is one of the most frequent reasons why street dog

> rescue organizations euthanize dogs.

-- Paul Reitman, CEO

Phoenix Studios Nepal

Mobile: 9841589797

www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

January 6, 2009

>So Merritt, based on this science (sheer statistics) do u think we

>can/should recommend canned and dry foods for dogs?

Yes. The more like rats & garbage it is, the better.

>Krypto, our dog, won't touch the stuff even if he is starving

>(tested during this recent vacation)

Street dogs tend to become quite astute at learning to

recognize poisons and food that might be poisoned -- which often

means kibble, or sometimes canned food. Then they retain that

knowledge even after adoption as pets.

Just yesterday I was told of cases in Honduras and Belize

where streets dogs refuse handouts of kibble in the aftermath of

poisonings in which kibble was apparently used as the poisoning

medium. I am also aware of many similar cases in Mexico, Sri Lanka,

Greece, Egypt, etc.

If one dog sees another dog eat something and die in

convulsions, the second dog will sniff whatever the other dog was

eating, learn to identify it, and avoid it for the rest of his/her

life.

Thus the most frequent victims of poisoning campaigns, after

the first few days, tend to be owned pets and community dogs with

regular feeders -- the very dogs who are most easily captured for

vaccination.

The wildest dogs, who are hardest to vaccinate, survive,

and raise equally wary offspring.

>It seems to me the dry gorp is probably okay just based on it's

>history in the marketplace, but if a dog is already eating BARF or

>something home-made, there is no compelling reason to switch - right?

No. A dog will eat almost anything & thrive -- but people

who home-brew their own dog foods should be aware that they are doing

it for their own satisfaction, not the dog's, and the dog would be

just as happy with a pile of desiccated cat turds.

>One thing I've noticed, and it could be my imagination, is that many

>dogs in the USA - which I am assuming for the most part eat dry or

>canned food - look far more obese then Asian dogs. Are there any

>stats on that? Obesity would be a problem to avoid yes? I've also

>seen commercial lean diet preparations, which at first glance seemed

>insane, but perhaps there is a reason for the need...

I have some British stats on obesity among pet dogs, but not

anything really sound from the U.S.

But diet isn't the big problem. Dogs in developed nations

tend to be indoors most of the them, getting all the food they can

eat & not having to work much for it.

Accordingly, we have a lot of sedentary lazy dogs, who tend

to be the companions of people leading sedentary lives.

Some are lazier than others. I run three miles almost every

day, but only one of my dogs voluntarily joins me, and that one

only chooses to run by daylight. She did run with me at night when

younger.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 6, 2009

Thx Merritt for that. Btw, Krypto is not a street dog but a Nepali German

Sheppard. Maybe it¹s in his blood to prefer rotting chicken Dhal Bhat over

Purina, which they are trying to sell here now.

On fat dogs and humans, Krypto can out-walk me any day and he only gets

about 5-15 km of walking per week outta me and he is pretty lean. I, on the

other hand, am getting mote by the day.

Still, let¹s be clear. Dry, canned, or homemade? Which is better, ranked

in order...let¹s assume homemade contains as much desiccated cat turds as

possible. Or are u saying it¹s all irrelevant, and does not really matter?

Cheers,

Jigs in Nepal

On 1/6/09 7:28 AM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl wrote:

>> So Merritt, based on this science (sheer statistics) do u think we can/should

>> recommend canned and dry foods for dogs?

>

> Yes. The more like rats & garbage it is, the better.

>

>> Krypto, our dog, won't touch the stuff even if he is starving (tested during

>> this recent vacation)

>

> Street dogs tend to become quite astute at learning to recognize

> poisons and food that might be poisoned -- which often means kibble, or

> sometimes canned food. Then they retain that knowledge even after adoption as

> pets.

>

> Just yesterday I was told of cases in Honduras and Belize where

> streets dogs refuse handouts of kibble in the aftermath of poisonings in which

> kibble was apparently used as the poisoning medium. I am also aware of many

> similar cases in Mexico, Sri Lanka, Greece, Egypt, etc.

>

> If one dog sees another dog eat something and die in convulsions, the second

> dog will sniff whatever the other dog was eating, learn to identify it, and

> avoid it for the rest of his/her life.

>

> Thus the most frequent victims of poisoning campaigns, after the first

> few days, tend to be owned pets and community dogs with regular feeders -- the

> very dogs who are most easily captured for vaccination.

> The wildest dogs, who are hardest to vaccinate, survive, and raise

> equally wary offspring.

>

>> It seems to me the dry gorp is probably okay just based on it's history in

>> the marketplace, but if a dog is already eating BARF or something home-made,

>> there is no compelling reason to switch - right?

>

> No. A dog will eat almost anything & thrive -- but people who

> home-brew their own dog foods should be aware that they are doing it for their

> own satisfaction, not the dog's, and the dog would be just as happy with a

> pile of desiccated cat turds.

>

>> One thing I've noticed, and it could be my imagination, is that many dogs in

>> the USA - which I am assuming for the most part eat dry or canned food -

>> look far more obese then Asian dogs. Are there any stats on that? Obesity

>> would be a problem to avoid yes? I've also seen commercial lean diet

>> preparations, which at first glance seemed insane, but perhaps there is a

>> reason for the need...

>

> I have some British stats on obesity among pet dogs, but not anything

> really sound from the U.S.

>

> But diet isn't the big problem. Dogs in developed nations tend to be

> indoors most of the them, getting all the food they can eat & not having to

> work much for it.

>

> Accordingly, we have a lot of sedentary lazy dogs, who tend to be the

> companions of people leading sedentary lives.

>

> Some are lazier than others. I run three miles almost every day, but

> only one of my dogs voluntarily joins me, and that one only chooses to run by

> daylight. She did run with me at night when younger.

>

-- Paul Reitman, CEO

Phoenix Studios Nepal

Mobile: 9841589797

www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

January 6, 2009

One of our vets explained that the reason for the rise in obesity in dogs in

Taiwan is that the omega oils added to dry food become rancid very quickly,

this transforming from an essential nutrient to a fat that is very unhealthy

for dogs.

Merritt, do you have any data on the bioavailability of protein in dry and

canned foods compared to other more natural sources? I remember reading that

in eggs and raw meat, the bioavailability is 100 percent and 95 percent

respectively, but in dry food only 40 percent, because it has been cooked to

such a degree. This would mean that, while the label shows the food as

containing about 30 percent (crude) protein, the dog would only likely

receive about 40 percent of it (protein now making up less than 12 percent

of the diet), which would make the protein levels dangerously low (dogs need

between 20 and 35 percent protein in their diet to thrive).

This is how I understand it, and it certainly coincides with what we're told

about processed foods being unhealthy for humans. But I'm keen to learn

more. Is processed food is now deemed to be healthier than raw?

2009/1/6 Herojig <herojig

> Thx Merritt for that. Btw, Krypto is not a street dog but a Nepali

> German

> Sheppard. Maybe it¹s in his blood to prefer rotting chicken Dhal Bhat over

> Purina, which they are trying to sell here now.

>

> On fat dogs and humans, Krypto can out-walk me any day and he only gets

> about 5-15 km of walking per week outta me and he is pretty lean. I, on the

> other hand, am getting mote by the day.

>

> Still, let¹s be clear. Dry, canned, or homemade? Which is better, ranked

> in order...let¹s assume homemade contains as much desiccated cat turds as

> possible. Or are u saying it¹s all irrelevant, and does not really matter?

>

> Cheers,

> Jigs in Nepal

>

> On 1/6/09 7:28 AM, " Merritt Clifton "

<anmlpepl<anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>>

> wrote:

>

> >> So Merritt, based on this science (sheer statistics) do u think we

> can/should

> >> recommend canned and dry foods for dogs?

> >

> > Yes. The more like rats & garbage it is, the better.

> >

> >> Krypto, our dog, won't touch the stuff even if he is starving (tested

> during

> >> this recent vacation)

> >

> > Street dogs tend to become quite astute at learning to recognize

> > poisons and food that might be poisoned -- which often means kibble, or

> > sometimes canned food. Then they retain that knowledge even after

> adoption as

> > pets.

> >

> > Just yesterday I was told of cases in Honduras and Belize where

> > streets dogs refuse handouts of kibble in the aftermath of poisonings in

> which

> > kibble was apparently used as the poisoning medium. I am also aware of

> many

> > similar cases in Mexico, Sri Lanka, Greece, Egypt, etc.

> >

> > If one dog sees another dog eat something and die in convulsions, the

> second

> > dog will sniff whatever the other dog was eating, learn to identify it,

> and

> > avoid it for the rest of his/her life.

> >

> > Thus the most frequent victims of poisoning campaigns, after the first

> > few days, tend to be owned pets and community dogs with regular feeders

> -- the

> > very dogs who are most easily captured for vaccination.

> > The wildest dogs, who are hardest to vaccinate, survive, and raise

> > equally wary offspring.

> >

> >> It seems to me the dry gorp is probably okay just based on it's history

> in

> >> the marketplace, but if a dog is already eating BARF or something

> home-made,

> >> there is no compelling reason to switch - right?

> >

> > No. A dog will eat almost anything & thrive -- but people who

> > home-brew their own dog foods should be aware that they are doing it for

> their

> > own satisfaction, not the dog's, and the dog would be just as happy with

> a

> > pile of desiccated cat turds.

> >

> >> One thing I've noticed, and it could be my imagination, is that many

> dogs in

> >> the USA - which I am assuming for the most part eat dry or canned food -

> >> look far more obese then Asian dogs. Are there any stats on that?

> Obesity

> >> would be a problem to avoid yes? I've also seen commercial lean diet

> >> preparations, which at first glance seemed insane, but perhaps there is

> a

> >> reason for the need...

> >

> > I have some British stats on obesity among pet dogs, but not anything

> > really sound from the U.S.

> >

> > But diet isn't the big problem. Dogs in developed nations tend to be

> > indoors most of the them, getting all the food they can eat & not having

> to

> > work much for it.

> >

> > Accordingly, we have a lot of sedentary lazy dogs, who tend to be the

> > companions of people leading sedentary lives.

> >

> > Some are lazier than others. I run three miles almost every day, but

> > only one of my dogs voluntarily joins me, and that one only chooses to

> run by

> > daylight. She did run with me at night when younger.

> >

>

> -- Paul Reitman, CEO

> Phoenix Studios Nepal

> Mobile: 9841589797

>

> www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

January 6, 2009

>One of our vets explained that the reason for the rise in obesity in

>dogs in Taiwan is that the omega oils added to dry food become

>rancid very quickly, this transforming from an essential nutrient to

>a fat that is very unhealthy for dogs.

Sounds like nut stuff to me, not least because the whole

purpose of manufacturing dry kibble is that it can be stored for long

periods of time without the expense of canning and without

refrigeration.

>Merritt, do you have any data on the bioavailability of protein in

>dry and canned foods compared to other more natural sources?

There is an annual publication that publishes detailed

nutritional analyses of just about every pet food on the market. The

publisher advertised it in ANIMAL PEOPLE throughout 1995, but I

don't remember the name of it now. I do recall reading it &

wondering how desiccated cat turds, rats, roadkills, refuse, etc.

would compare.

It was full of this sort of thing --

> I remember reading that in eggs and raw meat, the bioavailability

>is 100 percent and 95 percent respectively, but in dry food only 40

>percent, because it has been cooked to such a degree. This would

>mean that, while the label shows the food as containing about 30

>percent (crude) protein, the dog would only likely receive about 40

>percent of it (protein now making up less than 12 percent of the

>diet), which would make the protein levels dangerously low (dogs

>need between 20 and 35 percent protein in their diet to thrive).

Which sounds to me like complete crap, because probably the

only way that most of the dogs in the world get between 20 & 35%

protein in their diets is if they live near a slaughterhouse or are

exceptionally good at catching rats.

And not all of a rat is protein, for that matter. On the

other hand, there is some protein in grain.

Dogs, fortunately, seem to have done quite well for

themselves throughout history, regardless of whatever humans feed or

neglect to feed them.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 6, 2009

You're right about the purpose of dry kibble, Merritt: it was manufactured

that way for convenience and profit rather than a dog's health. Omega oils

will turn rancid very quickly, unless refrigerated or at least stored in a

cool, closed environment. Unfortunately, cooking will speed up the

rancidification, as will storing at room temperature.

I thought this was an interesting link about protein levels for dogs:

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/pic/article.cfm?dept_id=0 & siteid=12 & acatid=284 & aid\

=459

It has some interesting remarks about grain as a source of protein.

2009/1/6 Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl

> One of our vets explained that the reason for the rise in obesity in dogs

>> in Taiwan is that the omega oils added to dry food become rancid very

>> quickly, this transforming from an essential nutrient to a fat that is very

>> unhealthy for dogs.

>>

>

> Sounds like nut stuff to me, not least because the whole purpose of

> manufacturing dry kibble is that it can be stored for long periods of time

> without the expense of canning and without refrigeration.

>

> Merritt, do you have any data on the bioavailability of protein in dry and

>> canned foods compared to other more natural sources?

>>

>

> There is an annual publication that publishes detailed nutritional

> analyses of just about every pet food on the market. The publisher

> advertised it in ANIMAL PEOPLE throughout 1995, but I don't remember the

> name of it now. I do recall reading it & wondering how desiccated cat

> turds, rats, roadkills, refuse, etc. would compare.

>

> It was full of this sort of thing --

>

> I remember reading that in eggs and raw meat, the bioavailability is 100

>> percent and 95 percent respectively, but in dry food only 40 percent,

>> because it has been cooked to such a degree. This would mean that, while the

>> label shows the food as containing about 30 percent (crude) protein, the dog

>> would only likely receive about 40 percent of it (protein now making up less

>> than 12 percent of the diet), which would make the protein levels

>> dangerously low (dogs need between 20 and 35 percent protein in their diet

>> to thrive).

>>

>

> Which sounds to me like complete crap, because probably the only

> way that most of the dogs in the world get between 20 & 35% protein in their

> diets is if they live near a slaughterhouse or are exceptionally good at

> catching rats.

>

> And not all of a rat is protein, for that matter. On the other

> hand, there is some protein in grain.

>

> Dogs, fortunately, seem to have done quite well for themselves

> throughout history, regardless of whatever humans feed or neglect to feed

> them.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original

> investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our

> readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000

> animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with

> any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.]

DOGS ARE CARNIVORES

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads