Food For Giant Breeds

[cassie]

Most giant breeds were probably kept by people who could give them at least a proportion of game or meat on the bone. The giants tended to be hunters or protectors of estates or livestock. They certainly weren't an "everyman's breed".

Seems nothing's changed, they're still relatively expensive to feed! :laugh: And certainly not for everyone :) Only those of us crazy enough to enjoy living with dogs who outweigh us, who more often than not come with the added bonus of drool!

Ahhhh :)

[Yonjuro]

Most giant breeds were probably kept by people who could give them at least a proportion of game or meat on the bone. The giants tended to be hunters or protectors of estates or livestock. They certainly weren't an "everyman's breed".

Seems nothing's changed, they're still relatively expensive to feed! :laugh: And certainly not for everyone :) Only those of us crazy enough to enjoy living with dogs who outweigh us, who more often than not come with the added bonus of drool!

Ahhhh :)

I do love the giant breeds, but I would shudder at what it must cost to feed one. I imagine kibble would be expensive but raw would be astronomical? Hat's off to you and those that can keep these majestic dogs around so people like me can still admire them even when ownership is not feasible.

My brother-in-law has a giant breed; an Ovcharka called Vinnie Poo :laugh: he is Russian!

Edited July 3, 2013 by Yonjuro

[minyvlz]

Having lived in several countries, I can tell you that raw meat in Australia is really very cheap compared to many places, and feeding PMR in Australia cost me less than top quality kibble (back then I tried brands like Artemis, Nutro, Canidae, Natural Balance, Holistic Select, Earthborn Holistic etc).

Who's to say what those dogs with rickets in the Tudor period were fed exactly? Sure, some might have rickets, others might have died of starvation or of old age. Others might prefere to feed their dogs cheaper foods like aforementioned grain gruel, while the humans feast on meats. We're not trying to recreate the menu of what dogs were fed by humans in the past (which, btw, is far better than kibble), but rather what dogs eat naturally in times of abundance. So a Yorkie might not be able to take down a cow, but his digestive tract is exactly the same as that of a Great Dane's, proportionate to his size. A "proportion of game or meat" does not tell you that a PMR diet causes an imbalance of Ca:P. In fact, Ca:P is a ratio used only in man-made, artificial, 'scientifically formulated' diets . Kibble is cooked food with nutrients added back in. Are these nutrients more bioavailable to the dog than raw, natural nutrients that were not depleted in the cooking process? Who determines what Ca:P ratio a dog requires? A scientist? A breeder? Or a pet food researcher getting ideas from a dog's natural diet in the wild? (And then adding things like carbs and veggies to cut costs of course...but at whose cost?)

All those people feeding kibble which supposedly has the ideal Ca:P then upset said ratio by feeding raw bones in addition to kibble. Yet people come up with their own versions of barf, and then claim their versions are most accurate because their dog grows slowly and perfectly? Feeding a proper PMR diet allows dogs to grow the way they are supposed to - naturally.

Feedback from a majority of owners of large and giant breed puppies state that raw-fed pups grow slower than kibble-fed littermates. They reach their genetic adult size with a reduced risk of developing joint diseases like panosteitis, hip dysplasia, & hypertrophic osteodystrophy, with more lean muscle mass & less heavy subcutaneous body fat. Also, they recommend that giant pups be fed smaller but more frequent meals a day, so that they can digest and assimilate all that they eat, without overloading the digestive system.

RSA, yes, indeed they require the correct amount of nutrients! Not carbs that lay down fat instead of muscle, not meat that has been rendered and processed out of all their nutrients with artificial ones added to them, and not vegetables that a carnivore does not need. BTW, similarly, if you feed kibble and it has the 'gold ratio' of 'correct amount of nutrients' then by adding things like roo mince, aren't you upsetting the balance?

The 80-10-5-5 ratio is by weight, and while I am not Yonjuro, yes I am suggesting that a proper PMR diet is good and safe for all breeds and ages of dogs and cats, tweaked of course to the dog. I would choose to feed a Dally low purine meats such as chicken and pork but still feed organs since it's only 10% of the diet. It does not take a scientist to feed your dog the best quality diet. There are values of how many % bone a chicken, beef, etc has online. For example, "Chicken, broilers or fryers, meat and skin and giblets and neck, raw" has 31% bone. The ratio is a guideline and balance is achieved over time, not in a meal. I can't speak for barf diets or any other form of raw, but I firmly believe in a good PMR diet.

http://k9joy.com/dogarticles/dogfood01cap.pdf

http://www.kirj.ee/public/Ecology/2009/issue_2/ecol-2009-2-141-152.pdf

http://www.kaossiberians.com/old%20kaos%20pages/health/Nutrients.pdf

http://rawfed.com/myths/balance.html

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309034965&page=44

Royal Canin Giant Puppy ingredients from http://www.royalcanin.com.au/products/products/dog-products/size-health-nutrition/giant-dogs-45kg/giant-puppy :

COMPOSITION: dehydrated poultry protein, rice, vegetable protein isolate*, maize, animal fats, hydrolysed animal proteins, beet pulp, minerals, soya oil, yeasts, fish oil, fructo-oligo-saccharides, psyllium husks and seeds, hydrolysed yeas (source of manno-oligo-saccharides), hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine), marigold extract (source of lutein), hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin). ADDITIVES (per kg): Nutritional additives: Vitamin A: 17100 IU, Vitamin D3: 1100 IU, E1(Iron):48 mg, E2 (Iodine): 4.8 mg, E4(Copper): 8 mg, E5 (Manganese): 63 mg, E6 (Zinc):189 mg, E8 (Selenium): 0.08 mg -Preservatives - Antioxidants. ANALYTICAL CONSTITUENTS: Protein: 34% - Fat content: 14% - Crude ash: 7.2% - Crude fibres: 1.3% - Per kg: Calcium: 10 g - Phosphorus: 8.5 g - Fructo-oligo saccharides: 3.4 g - Manno-oligo-saccharides: 0.5 g. *L.I.P.: protein selected for its very high assimilation.

There is one semi-named protein as first ingredient, and the rest of the ingredients seem to be largely carbs and veggies. Plus why anyone would feed 34% protein to a large breed puppy is beyond me. Let's say 34% + 14% is all from meat (which is obviously not the case), so that makes 48% meat (with nutrients removed) and 52% ingredients that seem to be detrimental to any dog.

[Yonjuro]

Well thought out post Minyvlz!

[RiverStar-Aura]

RSA, yes, indeed they require the correct amount of nutrients! Not carbs that lay down fat instead of muscle, not meat that has been rendered and processed out of all their nutrients with artificial ones added to them, and not vegetables that a carnivore does not need. BTW, similarly, if you feed kibble and it has the 'gold ratio' of 'correct amount of nutrients' then by adding things like roo mince, aren't you upsetting the balance?

How I could I be upsetting the balance by feeding the roo mince? That'd be like saying humans are upsetting the balance of their perfect diets by eating the occasional chocolate.

I've yet to see any disastrous results with my feeding regime so I'll leave it at that since my dogs' diets aren't what this thread is about

[raineth]

I don't know about other giants but Danes' conformation seems to have changed significantly over the last 150 years or so. Or at least it seems to me to have done so from the searches I've done for historical photos and drawings. Danes seemed to not be nearly as tall as they are now. In fact many of them seemed to look closer to what Dane x mastiffs look like today. Maybe the increased height has means they generally require a more careful puppy diet than they used to?

[Rebanne]

I don't know about other giants but Danes' conformation seems to have changed significantly over the last 150 years or so. Or at least it seems to me to have done so from the searches I've done for historical photos and drawings. Danes seemed to not be nearly as tall as they are now. In fact many of them seemed to look closer to what Dane x mastiffs look like today. Maybe the increased height has means they generally require a more careful puppy diet than they used to?

Human's height etc has changed due to better nutrition, no reason animals wouldn't be the same. Times on the racetrack have improved, people have got better at training but the feed has also got better.

[raineth]

I don't know about other giants but Danes' conformation seems to have changed significantly over the last 150 years or so. Or at least it seems to me to have done so from the searches I've done for historical photos and drawings. Danes seemed to not be nearly as tall as they are now. In fact many of them seemed to look closer to what Dane x mastiffs look like today. Maybe the increased height has means they generally require a more careful puppy diet than they used to?

Human's height etc has changed due to better nutrition, no reason animals wouldn't be the same. Times on the racetrack have improved, people have got better at training but the feed has also got better.

yes I'm not wondering why they have changed, just responding to the previous posts' discussion about how breeders of giants grew their puppies before good quality kibbles were developed :)

[sas]

Love to know how a raw feeder gets the calcium:phosphorous ratio needed for a growing giant breed right! It is not all about protein: fat.

I am curious to know how breeders got the ratios right prior to the advent of commercial food? Giant breeds like Great Danes have been around for many centuries and commercial dog food for less than two (and that was by no means a balanced product). Please note - I am genuinely curious to hear peoples opinions, I am not trying to suggest one way of feeding is better than another.

By watching them carefully, knowing what to look for. Many a breeder had many problems and Danes today are bigger than they were. The original Great Dane is very different to today's.

Edited July 6, 2013 by sas

[sas]

Posts like this really serve to confuse the poster. It doesn't need to become a debate about raw vs kibble.

Here's the facts: The phos:calc ratios are the all important factor and we have known this since clinical trials from the 1970's, it's not new information. It's not at all about the Protein %.

There are some very well educated and researched RAW feedings and I think they're pretty awesome in their dedication and many are found in the USA for giant breeders.

Here in Australia there isn't that same experience in raw feeding Danes. The people I know (pet people) who have raised their Danes on raw I can confidently say none of them have turned out as I would have liked - now that could have just been confirmation - I don't know, but watching them grow, I didn't believe they grew slowly or evenly.

Being involved in rescue we see the 'side effects' of incorrectly fed Danes so yeah we do have a concept about it all.

Eagle Pack Holistic and Eukanuba are the most commonly fed kibbles for Great Dane puppies, however any adult formula that has the right phos:calc ratios will do just fine. I have raised one show Dane on ProPlan Adult and she grew lovely.