Brian wrote ...

When you got this recipe at your seminar-they didn't give you a weight this recipe was for? A dog's nutrient requirements aren't linear with body weight.

wrote ...
I would hope in your studies this semester they taught you about the NRC, how to calculate a dog BMR, etc?

wrote ...
This diet while it can't be analyzed completely given the ingredients and huge variables in it. Bone meal, it from cow or pig? Bone meal varies greatly in it's content and ratios of calcium and phosphorus.

wrote ...
The main protein source of the diet (rabbit) is like most meat sources (other than fish) high in omega 6's and low in omega 3's. Yet the diet calls for Canola Oil? While it provides both omega 6 and 3's it provides more of the former and not enough of the latter.

wrote ...
Did they mention why this was a "allergy and skin conditions" labeled diet?

wrote ...
The zinc to copper ratio this diet has that's out of whack would state otherwise.

wrote ...
This isn't a diet any Neapolitan owner should feed as it doesn't even meet half the energy requirement of a dog the size of a Neapolitan. If a person is wanting to feed a raw diet they should know; how to calculate their dogs BMR, know the recommended allowances put out by the NRC in 2006, etc. Would like to hear the thought process behind this diet though. Just seems a lot of it doesn't make sense for the conditions it's claiming to help. Too bad not detailed enough to run true numbers on it and we could see exactly what it provides and doesn't on the board. Even it it's really only for a 50lb ish dog.

Igmuska wrote ...

That was last year, again I am not formulating a recipe for a specific dog here, just sharing some home prepared options discussed in the book I have as opposed to some of the high dollar kibbles sold for allergy, Addisonian, Hypothyroid, Urinary Bladder stones, Pancreatitis, Hepatic, Cardiac, SBS, Diabetes Mellitus, IBD, Megaesophagus, Lactation, and Performance and other conditions which need lifelong management. Again, a lot of the kibbles made for these conditions are IMO not the best and until a high end feed company decides to design a medical diet, home prepared ones are very sufficient.
I am also aware that individual metabolic rates are quite varied as well. For instance, I have a 100# dog and a 60# dog, the larger dog eats far less, feed the dog, not the bowl or the calculations. Again this is why I posted a simple recipe and listed the kcalories it produces.

Igmuska wrote ...

This is under the assumption of the knowledge that you can buy bone meal supplement pre-formulated for dogs. Forgive me for not specifying, I would assume people would buy one for dogs, as I have. BTW, I have never seen species specifications in bone meals, just ratio differences.
Besides, physiological intake of Calcium and Phosphorus are self monitored in any healthy animal. What other "variables" make this insufficient to be analyzed, since they are designed by professionals with PHDs in nutrition and are anecdotally quite successful?
The reason the ratio needs to be monitored by us is because of a physiological abnormality, but that is another thread.

Igmuska wrote ...

There is nothing wrong with canola oil, especially in such a minute amount other than preference(which is better than soy based vegetable oils in many allergy or standard kibbles) if you feel another more expensive oil, such as coconut oil is more suitable, then adjust the recipe. Nothing is set in stone here. You clearly forgot about the quinoa, which is rich in Omega 3. This balances out the needs quite adequately.

Igmuska wrote ...

Again, read my last line. It states that you should be aware of the caloric intake of your dog. This is fine for any dog, and can be adapted for the dog's size, just like giving multiple cups, you multiply the recipe. Math is fun.
There is plenty of data about this recipe, as well as the rest of them. They have all been clinically feed trial tested for the lifestages and conditions listed. A lot of research as well as anecdotal evidence went into this data.
If you want when I have more time, I will list the nutrient analysis, it is a bit of a bother though, which is why I omitted it in the first place. The lack of tab function in the reply window makes it difficult to make proper tables and charts and can cause confusion and misinformation, which I do not want.

Brian wrote ...

They may be aware of their dogs caloric needs but that doesn't mean they have a clue as to what their dogs needs actually are. You can't double, triple, or half the recipe and have it work out for a dog. It doesn't work that way and with your studies you should be fully aware of that. As I've said previously diets are not linear to a dogs body weight. You can't compare this diet to kibble. That is like comparing apples to oranges. Kibble is designed to meet a very wide range of nutrient needs. It has to meet those of a 10lb dog and those of a 150lb dog. A raw diet isn't that way as it's specifically designed to meet the needs of only 1 dog.

wrote ...
Those are all special needs diets and not something to just throw up for anyone without insight to what it actually is and/or designed for. Given you said you studied it all last year, you should be well aware of that. While you might of studied it, doesn't mean other have. You probably couldn't find two individuals on this board or many that has even heard of the NRC or the book they published on dog and cat nutrition. Despite the fact it's been out for over 4 years. Odds are overwhelming majority has no clue what their dogs BMR is, why it matters, or even how to calculate it. Majority can't really read a dog food label, they have no clue what "X" percentage of protein really means. If a person doesn't know those simplistic things, no raw diet in the world would be better for their dogs than kibble. Much more to it than throwing something in a bowl and calling it a meal.

wrote ...
Metabolic do and can very but that is a given with any animal. Though the needs and daily/weekly requirements of the dog/s remain the same. Just because your 100lb dog doesn't eat as much as your 60lb dog...the former still has a 70.2 grams of fat weekly requirement more than the 60lb dog. Nor does it change the fact that 100lb dog requires 127.9 grams more protein per week.

wrote ...
Why assume or post something if you, yourself is unsure about the ingredients of it?

wrote ...
One would assume you studying the subject would find yourself more educated than the majority that don't. Yet if you don't even know about an ingredient in the diet-you honestly expect others to?

wrote ...
There is a huge variance in bone meal and the quality of it, reason any feeding it should know and have read the lab assay on it. A person should also make sure they're buying bone meal that's for consumption as the stuff made for gardens is toxic to dogs. Minerals are not self monitored!

wrote ...
Variables: Bone-meal the cal:phos ratio's vary dramatically also the amount of magnesium and iron in it. But mainly the number one issue is what size of dog was this diet designed for? That's a huge issue, given if we assume it's a 50lb dog. We can see the diet is lacking in about 7 vitamins, and about that in minerals. Maybe that kids vitamin and mineral tablet makes up, no one can say given we don't have a weight base-line? Maybe their under, maybe over, maybe it's a properly balanced diet...we don't know if such vital information missing.

wrote ...
I never once said their was something wrong with canola oil. Though if you say this diet is for dogs with IBD, etc like you did above...this is a horrible oil for such a dog. Please show me where quinoa is rich in omega 3's-it's not nor does it provide any of the fatty acids. That 1.5 cups (277.5 grams) called for in the recipe...barely provides 5 grams worth of fat. I'd hardly call that "rich". It's a carb, that provides calories, vitamins, and minerals to the diet...not fatty acids.

wrote ...
As I said nutrition doesn't work that way in regards to raw diets. You can't take a recipe for a 40lb dog and triple it and have a balanced diet for a 120lb dog. Doesn't remotely work that way. Just review your books and the NRC's "recommended allowances" again and you'll see it doesn't. You can't compare or even attempt to compare how you'd feed kibble to how you'd feed a raw diet. Not interested in the clinical trials as they're a joke for the most part. But if not able to post the information on here, I'd like it in an email if not too much trouble.