American Bulldog Rant setting them Straight

I would like to begin by pointing out your mentioning of the similarity between the DNA sequences between wolves and domesticated dogs. Since they are now classed as the same species, why would that not be true? Poodles are also in the same species as Mexican Hairless and St. Bernards. Are they very similar in appearance? It is said that approximately 95% of the genetic material is junk. It only separates the coding sequences that are used. And of the coding sequences used, many are repeated throughout nature, because they simply work. Over time, there can be mutations and things might vary, but not to a great degree. In The Biotic Message, on page 449, Walter ReMine noted that DNA is not always so important. There are two virtually identical species of fruit flies that share only 25 per cent of their DNA in common. If human and chimp DNA is 96 per cent similar, then the DNA of those fruit flies is "30 times more different than that between humans and chimpanzees." This is due to the fact that some genes are more crucial than others, acting as "switches" for certain traits. This is certainly something to keep in mind. In fact, evolutionists frequently fail to mention (except when it's convenient) that it also depends on which study you use as to what is our closest relative. If you compare eyes, it is the octopus. If you compare teeth and palates, we are more closely related to orangutans than chimps. If you compare hearts, we are closest to pigs (ever stop to wonder why they are cloning pigs for organ transplants rather than chimps?). Compare cytochrome C and our closest relatives are sunflowers!Although dogs are classed as Carnivora, they are omnivores. Same thing with poultry, Even in nature, they will feed upon animal matter, and some are even cannibalistic.Salivary Amylase does not have a huge impact on digestion, but more or less starts things along. The digestive tract of the canine may be shorter, but in proportion to body size, the difference is not that great. Also, what section makes up most of the difference? The large intestine. This makes some sense seeing that canines eat very little fiber. However, some species have somewhat flexible intestinal tracts, and morphology can change depending on diet, and can change again if the diet changes at another point. One example would be poultry. If fed a diet low in course feedstuffs, the gizzard (grinding stomach) will shrink, while the proventriculus will expand. If fed a diet with a lot of course material, the opposite is true. The pH of the human stomach s closer to 2, as may be the pH of the canine stomach. Maybe you saw references to the proximal duodenum? Actually, dogs do not have much of a problem digesting grains, as long as they are processed. Now, if you fed an intact kernel of corn to a dog, and it swallowed it whole, it might not get anything out of it. But if the fibrous cell walls are disrupted, the dog is able to get use out of it. Oh the wonders of modern feed milling technology. Also, the moist heat from extrusion is able to make more of the starch available, which is useful since you feel a dog is not able to break down starches well. See how easy commercial dog food makers make things for dogs? May complex carbohydrates pass through, but only in 'cheap' dog food, that contain a lot of fiber. Much of the starch is utilized. Carbohydrates are not really broken down in the stomach, but rather the small intestine. Proteins are broken down to some extent in the stomach, and lipids coalesce, but it is not a primary site for carbohydrate breakdown. You state 'dogs have a very difficult time digesting and utilizing protein from carbohydrates'. Actually, carbohydrates are a different class of nutrient than protein, so I would assume that to be very true. Though, animals can use ammonium molecules to add to the sugar molecules and make proteins if need be. If properly balanced (based on the amino acid profile), there is no difference between an animal protein and a plant protein based diet. Some companies may not balance things well, but that is not necessarily a shortcoming of the feedstuff itself. If the protein is a poorer quality, how does it become a stressor to the kidneys? If it is of poor quality, it would not be absorbed, and it can only pass through the kidneys if it is absorbed. I agree carbohydrates are not absolutely necessary in a canine diet, but they can be used as a quick energy source. The trick is just not to feed an excess, as this leads to deposition of adipose tissue. Cooking animal protein (or plant protein for that matter) does change many of the amino acids chains, BUT, this I for the better. It opens up the chains, making the amino acids more accessible to the proper enzymes in the stomach and intestines. The acidity of the stomach accomplishes the same thing, so it is not necessary, but it is not a bad thing. Sure, raw meat contains amino acids needed for good tissue health, immunity and good coat and skin for omnivores, but so do plant proteins. If commercial dog food contains as much indigestible complex carbohydrates as you say, its passage through the digestive tract should be more rapid than that of raw meat. Fiber tends to shorten gut passage time, while high fat tends to slow things down.You stated that raw food contains bacteria that aid in digestion? How is this so if as you state, the stomach acid kills all microbes? Are you meaning lactobacilli that attach to the upper part of the stomach (esophageal region) and guard against bad bacteria? Also, digestive enzymes are inactivated by stomach acid, so their only action is pre-ingestion. And as you pointed out, cooking helps open up these protein chains, so it helps out digestive enzymes of the stomach as well as those coming from the pancreas. I am not sure any nutritionists call bacteria or enzymes nutrients. If they are added to the diet, they are referred to as non-nutritive feed additives. Maybe the bacteria build stronger immune systems by triggering an immune response, but that may be a bad thing in a dog unable to handle it. True, dogs began to develop coat, skin and allergy conditions. Could this also be correlated to a boom in the number of animals allowed to breed, and the fact that lesser animals make it into the gene pool? Yes, nutrition helps, but is not the cause of everything. If dog's' teeth are not meant for chewing, then why is it a good thing to CHEW bones to clean teeth? I once had a dog that had strong jaws and clean teeth, and he liked to chew rocks and eat cow manure. Maybe I should market that? True, some fats used in processed foods can easily go rancid. But, these are essential, and the dogs requires them to function. If you only fed saturated fatty acids, the dog would not be able to synthesize these on their own. I am sure since you feel ethoxiquin, BHA and BHT are bad, you do not buy any processed meats for yourself? Actually, many of the quality kibbles include Omega-3 fatty acids. These are among the fatty acids you referred to as easily going rancid earlier.Fat in itself is not crucial to omnivores. They can be synthesized in the body. That is, all except the essential fatty acids. And why rely on fats to produce glucose, when feeding feedstuffs like corn or rice supply it in a readily available form? I notice you refer to Ian Billinghurst as both a Doctor and a DVM. He is Australian, so he has a B. V. Sc., not a DVM, and as you can see, it is not a doctorate. Also, he is possibly the worst source of nutritional information out there. His reasoning in wrong in many places in his books, and some things just can't happen the way he explains. Even if you just look at the dogs on the covers of his books, one knowledgeable in nutrition can point out several nutritional deficiencies just from the photos.Dr. Andrew Bateman

More dog food recalls

(CBS/AP) For owner Elizabeth Krottinger, it’s been a difficult week: All five of her dogs have been sickened.
"I’ve just been one big stress ball," she told CBS News.
Menu Foods, a Canadian company based out side Toronto that produces pet food, said Saturday it was recalling dog food sold throughout North America under 50 brands and cat food sold under 40 brands including Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba. The food was distributed by major retailers such as WalMart, Kroger and Safeway.
An unknown number of cats and dogs had suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, the company said.
Two other companies Nestle Purina PetCare Co. and Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. said Saturday that as a precaution they were voluntarily recalling some products made by Menu Foods.
Many stores that sold the affected brands frantically pulled packages off shelves.
Silviene Grzybowski’s cat, Smokey, hadn’t been eating for days.
"The vet told us to buy her her favorite food, but I’m going to call the vet right now," Grzybowski said.
"Acute renal (kidney) failure is a serious disease, and if not caught quickly will be fatal, says CBS News The Early Show veterinarian Dr. Debbye Turner. "Watch out for a change in urination (usually less urine output), vomiting, diarrhea, depression, listlessness, loss of appetite.
"If you fed your pet one of these brands and you see any signs, take them to the veterinarian right away. You can treat acute renal failure, but it has to be caught early," Turner adds.
Ron Finegold of Boynton Beach, Fla., said he noticed about a week or so ago that his family’s three–year–old cat — who was regularly fed a variety of Iams cat food — had stopped eating and did not appear well. He quickly took the animal to the veterinarian, who determined she was in renal failure.
He said he heard about the recall on the radio Friday night. He checked his trash, and found out he had given the cat some of the affected food.
"That’s when I realized (the illness) had to be related," Finegold said. "She won’t be eating that stuff anymore."
A complete list of the recalled products along with product codes, descriptions and production dates was available from the Menu Foods Web site. The company also designated a phone number that pet owners can call for information (866) 8952708.
Menu Foods’ chief executive and president Paul Henderson told the Associated Press on Friday that the company was still trying to figure out what happened.
He said that the company had received an undisclosed number of owner complaints that dogs and cats were vomiting and suffering kidney failure after eating its products. He estimated that the recall would cost the company, which is mostly owned by the Menu Foods Income Fund, an estimated $26 million to $34 million.
The recall involves all the cuts and gravy wet–style dog and cat food produced at Menu’s Emporia, Kan., facility between Dec. 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007, reports Turner. "What makes this recall so scary is it involves so many brands: 50 dog foods and 40 cat foods." The company said it makes pet food for 17 of the top 20 North American retailers. It is also a contract manufacturer for the top–branded pet food companies, including Procter & Gamble Co.
Sarah Tuite, a company spokeswoman, has said the recalled products were made using wheat gluten purchased from a new supplier, which has since been dropped for another source. Wheat gluten is a source of protein.
Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said it is still too early to determine what could have affected the food. Zawisza added that even if wheat gluten is the source "it doesn’t necessarily mean the wheat gluten per se. It could be another substance associated with the wheat gluten."
The recall covers the company’s cuts and gravy style food, which consists of chunks of meat in gravy, sold in cans and small foil pouches from Dec. 3 to March 6.
"We think dry food is just fine, it’s safe. If your pet is used to a wet food, you can soak it in chicken broth and they should eat it," advises Turner.
In Omaha, Neb., Susan Balvanz said she sometimes feeds her five cats packets of sliced meat and gravy sold by Nutro Products, one of the brands affected.
"I’ve done so much research on pet food. It didn’t surprise me but it scared me all the same," said Balvanz.
She said her nine–year–old cat, Boots, was especially fond of the food but seemed to have lost its appetite in the last few days.
At the Missouri Valley Veterinary Clinic in Bismarck, N.D., veterinarian Jacob Carlson has been referring worried pet owners to the Menu Foods Web site.
"We’ve had a lot of calls," Carlson said, although none of his patients were sick.
Recalled brandsCat Food
Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
Authority
Best Choice
Companion
Compliments
Demoulas Market Basket
Eukanuba
Fine Feline Cat
Food Lion
Foodtown
Giant Companion
Hannaford
Hill Country Fare
Hy–Vee
Iams
Laura Lynn
Li’l Red
Loving Meals
Meijer’s Main Choice
Nutriplan
Nutro Max Gourmet Classics
Nutro Natural Choice
Paws
Pet Pride
Presidents Choice
Price Chopper
Priority
Save–A–Lot
Schnucks
Science Diet Feline Savory Cuts Cans
Sophistacat
Special Kitty Canada
Special Kitty US
Springfield Prize
Sprout
Total Pet
Wegmans
Western Family
White Rose
Winn Dixie
Dog Food
Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
Authority
Award
Best Choice
Big Bet
Big Red
Bloom
Bruiser
Cadillac
Companion
Demoulas Market Basket
Eukanuba
Food Lion
Giant Companion
Great Choice
Hannaford
Hill Country Fare
Hy–Vee
Iams
Laura Lynn
Loving Meals
Meijers Main Choice
Mighty Dog Pouch
Mixables
Nutriplan
Nutro Max
Nutro Natural Choice
Nutro Ultra
Nutro
Ol’Roy Canada
Ol’Roy US
Paws
Pet Essentials
Pet Pride – Good n Meaty
Presidents Choice
Price Chopper
Priority
Publix
Roche Bros
Save–A–Lot
Schnucks
Shep Dog
Springsfield Prize
Sprout
Stater Bros
Total Pet
Western Family
White Rose
Winn Dixie
Your Pet

On March 23rd 2007 Judge Herman released her decision in the constitutional challenge of Ontario's breed specific ban.

She struck down portions of the law while upholding others.

Specifically, Judge Herman ruled in favour of the applicant on two key points. Agreeing that the ban captured dogs beyond the three purebred breeds that could be defined, she ruled that the terms "pit bull terriers" and "pit bull includes" were unconstitutionally vague. [In a very sad irony, this tightening excludes the dogs the Attorney General intended to ban.]

She also ruled that the portion of the law that required owners to prove their dogs were not "pit bulls" and that allowed the government to submit a certificate as proof that a dog was a "pit bull" contravened s 11(d) of the Charter that could not be justified under section 1.
She also ruled, however, that "... while the dangerousness of pit bulls is inconclusive and conflicting, the legislature had a "reasonable apprehension of harm" and that "... in the face of conflicting evidence, it was open to the legislature to choose to target all pit bulls."

Judge Herman has not stated what the "remedies" will be in response to her ruling. Both parties, Clayton Ruby and the Attorney General, need to go before her to argue what should be done to correct the unconstitutional parts of the law.

"Mr Bryant has got to try to convince her that she should rewrite the legislation in accordance with her judgement and sustain it in rewritten form," Clayton Ruby explained on a CFRB interview on March 26, 2007. "Realizing that she shouldn't do that, that she should send it back to the legislature and let them do it if they want to. At the moment ... the legislation is up in limbo."

Owners of affected dogs in the province should proceed with caution as there has been much confusion about the meaning of this ruling and it is difficult to say what individual animal control offices will do.

The full text of Judge Herman's ruling can be found online:http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii9230/2007canlii9230.html