May 10th, 2007, 04:44 PM
I have a lot of calcium tablets I take myself. Is it possible to crush these up & put in dog's food, when bone is not used. For instance, I have only just begun with giving my poodle raw beef mince, so have not progressed to whole raw bones, or ground raw bones. I wonder if sometimes I could add a crushed calium tablet? Glad of any input.
May 10th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Try bonemeal instead of calcium. Even better, use egg shells. 1/2 tea spoon per pound of meat i believe is the ratio.
May 10th, 2007, 09:10 PM
If you were feeding a kibble, I would say, "NO," because most formulas are 'complete & balanced' with the right amount of Calcium (& other nutrients) within them. If people do introduce calcium supplements while feeding dry kibble, toxicity is likely to occur. One of the reasons for which high-calcium diets are dangerous for large-breed puppies is because the excess calcium inhibits the other nutrients within the food from working efficiently.
When feeding a raw diet, it is essential that dogs receive the correct amount of calcium (& other nutrients) within the diet, to avoid either a deficiency or toxicity of any one of them. If you are unsure about the correct % of protein, fat, vitamins, & minerals in the raw diet you are feeding, I would exercise extreme caution & seek consultating with someone who can assist you with the preparation of them to ensure that your dog is attaining the necessary nutrients & in the correct amounts. Providing a 'complete & balanced' raw diet is not as simple as some make it sound. There is an exact science to do it correctly.
May 10th, 2007, 09:14 PM
Calcium/phosphorus levels MUST be balanced, so adding without knowing the correct level is not indicated. Perhaps you can find someone who can look at your TOTAL diet, and then recommend theamount in terms of mg per body weight.
Somewhere here may be able to suggest a place????
May 10th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Calcium/phosphorus levels MUST be balanced, so adding without knowing the correct level is not indicated. Perhaps you can find someone who can look at your TOTAL diet.......
Didn't I just say that? :confused: :rolleyes:
May 10th, 2007, 11:07 PM
lol I think she was just responding to the OP and not you..:o:D
May 10th, 2007, 11:11 PM
lol I think she was just responding to the OP and not you..:o:D
Oh-that happens! :D
May 11th, 2007, 06:59 AM
I disagree with there being an exact amount thats specifically needed. Although I'm sure science(pet food companies) could come up with some magic number that dogs need though.
That said, when feeding raw, it is simple. Feed a variety of meats with and without bone. Feed some organs. Feed this variety over time. There, you have your complete and balanced ratios.
Feeding a variety is key. Too little or too much calicum, i agree is bad. But thats why you feed variety. Mother nature is the true scientist here.
But yeah, if you're feeding kibble too, dont bother with the calcium.
May 11th, 2007, 08:35 AM
I disagree with there being an exact amount thats specifically needed. Although I'm sure science(pet food companies) could come up with some magic number that dogs need though......Feeding a variety is key. Too little or too much calicum, i agree is bad. But thats why you feed variety. Mother nature is the true scientist here......
Based upon my understanding of the canine nutrition courses in which I am currently enrolled in, feeding raw or homecooked really is a science (or it should be, rather), because their bodies require a specific percentage of each vitamin/mineral/fat/protein, etc. every day in order to prohibit a deficiency or toxicity from occuring. Of course that can be obtained from feed a variety of food, which is great, but the meals need to be balanced & complete with everything that they need for the day. Simply feeding a little of this & a little of that is dangerous, based upon the knowledge that I've attained about this issue. Not all symptoms of a nutrient defiency or toxicity are immediately recognizable.....
Companion animal dogs are not 'wild dogs' anymore, so relying upon 'Mother Nature' to provide & sustain is neither practical nor wise. Through HORRIBLE experiements, scientists have been able to access how much of each nutrient dogs need at various life stages to maintain health. Of course, obtaining those nutrients from whole-foods, such as raw & homecooked diets, is wonderful; however, it needs to be done in such a way so that it is 'complete & balanced.'
May 11th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Again i disagree. Our "wild" dogs have the same digestive system as the Grey wolf. The whole balanced and complete is kibble talk from the pet food industry. As much as i hate drawing comparisons between human and dogs I'm gonna do just that...Since when as people do we have to make sure each meal is perfectly balanced? Never. Eat your veggies, eat your meat, eat your dairy, etc. But eat a balanced diet over time. Thats the keyto a healthy diet.
Same with dogs. Feed them a variety to achieve a balanced diet over time. Of course some dogs may need more or less of something. If you cant feed fish, suppliment with fish oil. etc
How is it that grey wolves do not die out not eating this "complete and balanced" meal they require each day? How is it dogs never died out 60 odd years ago before kibble was introduced? Surely if the diet needed to be specific they would be dieing in alarming rates from poor nutrition. 60 years is not a very long time to "evolve".
Again, by feeding a variety of meats, with and without bone, and organs, you can provide the nutrition they need.
I have no doubt they can tell how much of whatever dogs need. Too bad they never put it in dogs food. If they can call a bag of Iams "Balanced and Complete", that makes ya wonder eh!
May 11th, 2007, 06:46 PM
......I have no doubt they can tell how much of whatever dogs need. Too bad they never put it in dogs food. If they can call a bag of Iams "Balanced and Complete", that makes ya wonder eh!
This is a good discussion.
Even though the ingredients in commercial kibble are horrible, I am NOT referring to the ingredients that make a formula 'balanced & complete.' I am referring to the nutrients, which are derived from ingredients. There is a difference between the term 'ingredient' & 'nutrient.' Regardless if the brand is Timberwolf Organics or Purina, the formulas have to meet the nutrient levels established by AAFCO. This means that the formulas must contain all the vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids, etc. to be termed 'balanced & complete,' which means that those formulas meet or exceed all those nutrient levels. This is not about good versus bad dog food, it's solely about the nutrients, which can be derived from either high-quality or low-quality ingredients. But, the nutrients are the same in both.
May 11th, 2007, 07:11 PM
Thats fine and dandy, but i pretty much consider the whole AAFCO thing a joke. Iams is a ***** food. ..... so even if they have what the AAFCO considers a balanced and complete nutrional levels, it doesnt change the fact that its a low quality food.
May 11th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Thats fine and dandy, but i pretty much consider the whole AAFCO thing a joke. Iams is a ***** food. ... so even if they have what the AAFCO considers a balanced and complete nutrional levels, it doesnt change the fact that its a low quality food.
That's absolutely right, but again, this discussion is NOT about good versus bad dog foods. So, that's an irrelevant point. It's just about the nutrient levels (vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids, etc.) within formulas--that's all. They all have to possess a certain % of these nutrients, regardless if they're obtained from a high-quality or low-quality food.
May 12th, 2007, 06:42 AM
Yeah, its like a bare minimun that they all must have. And thats maybe why a dog can live to a ripe old age eating alpo. :yuck:
However, I stand by my thoughts that you don't have to be a scientist to feed raw. Feeding a variety over time will meet the nutrient levels required.