connollys redmill dry food ,how does it compare to the better dry food

[TFX]

OK the only thing THEY the greyhound people are doing WRONG is that they breed BEST TO BEST ONLY. and as WE KNOW the random out come of producing high quality animals is of a far less %%%... In what your saying about idiots fallowing Idiots . , is ACZACKLY THE REZEN ME being one of the few who questions raw feeding diets as being superior..
Feeding raw its being presented in sutch a way that if your making coments against it your a fool and dont know shijt and your doing your dogs wrong blablablabla. Al BS
as it isend al that great in the first place. As it has as many weak points and in my point of vieuw iven more to it as kibble feeding .. EVERYTING being claimed is hypt up with NO solid background . to put fear in people that Kibble is bad wrong and dangeres for your dogs.. compleatly disreguarding the many flaws in raw diets....

I still feed a quality kibble to my adult dogs, and my dogs live a long, long time. So please don't lump me in with the "raw only" feeders. I do start the pups on raw for the first few months, but I am very busy and have no time at this stage of my life to deal with raw food prep on an ongoing basis.

With that said, A) I think in most cases a raw diet is actually superior, and B) any kibble with "cereal" as it's top ingredient is certainly not a quality kibble.

[Officially Retired]

Yeah Limey, and Fat Bill once put out a keep that called for using Corn Flakes. He probably won more shows that me too, but that doesn't mean the guy knows anything about nutrition. Smith & Walton fed Ol' Roy when I got there, and he won a lot of shows too. Winning contests and making a profit on the kennel isn't a good measure of sound nutritional choices. In fact, if profitability is a key driver, poor nutrition likely will provide a much more attractive return on investment.

Generally dog people of any fancy are blind idiots following idiots with a little more, yet still limited vision. So these "knowledgable" Greyhound fanciers may not be knowledgeable whatsoever. In fact, I am supposing that because they keep hundreds and hundreds of dogs and cull a majority of them, that this feed choice has much more to do with economics than it does nutritional benefits.

Finally, a sensible post.

It's pretty much this simple: Mohammad Ali eating McDonald's french fries would probably have whipped 99% of humanity in a boxing match, even if those people ate great food, but that doesn't make french fries "good food."

Every "old timer" idiot out there thinks because his dog wins a match that his "feed keep" is what won the match

Wrong! All it means is the guy knows a "Mohammad Ali" when he sees one and can put him in decent shape. One thing old timers generally get right is what a good dog is, how to find its best weight, and how to keep him in good condition ... in fact a good dog at its best weight, right there, is hard to beat coming right off the chain fed kibble.

But that does NOT mean kibble is "optimal nutrition" nor that coming off the chain is "optimal condition."

Jack

PS: The only thing I disagree with is the long term economics of feeding poorly mean shorter lives, more vet bills, and more problems down the road. Long term, it is actually less costly to feed raw. Better stated, long term feeding raw is an investment into your dogs.

[Limey Kennels]

Finally, a sensible post.

It's pretty much this simple: Mohammad Ali eating McDonald's french fries would probably have whipped 99% of humanity in a boxing match, even if those people ate great food, but that doesn't make french fries "good food."

Every "old timer" idiot out there thinks because his dog wins a match that his "feed keep" is what won the match

Wrong! All it means is the guy knows a "Mohammad Ali" when he sees one and can put him in decent shape. One thing old timers generally get right is what a good dog is, how to find its best weight, and how to keep him in good condition ... in fact a good dog at its best weight, right there, is hard to beat coming right off the chain fed kibble.

But that does NOT mean kibble is "optimal nutrition" nor that coming off the chain is "optimal condition."

Jack

PS: The only thing I disagree with is the long term economics of feeding poorly mean shorter lives, more vet bills, and more problems down the road. Long term, it is actually less costly to feed raw. Better stated, long term feeding raw is an investment into your dogs.

Jack dont you see how rediculees your post looks like??.. so al the idiot oldtimers DO KNOW how to reconize a good dog when they see one, but dont know and have no clue how to feed them and at the same time take a huge gamble of putting lots and lots of money on these dogs!!!. and are only able to put them in desend shape!!. and that the dogs kept on the chain at ideal weigh fed on kibble coming right of the chain is hard to beat!!!!!!!!!!. yet feeding kibble is not IDEAL.. you know how rediculess and trivializing that looks.....
And jack thuse that mean that people who feed raw have crap dogs in the first place to up the chanses of winning??.. last but not least YOU have NOT been feeding kibble long enoughf to know if they live longer on raw!!. and there is no sientific evidens that that is the case . nor have you been a sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that.... a long time ago a very wel respected dogman told me. that the diferense in feeding the right and bad kibble is that the dog in both cases wil grow just as old as the internal biologicel clock is tikking reguardless. But when feeding him better kibble is feeding him a more HEALTYER life. compeard to feeding him bad kibble. I know this line has its flaws as wel. but i gues you get the picture. and 90% of the dogs dont grow old in the first place REGURADLESS what your feeding them.. fact is you can trow and state everyting you can ore feel doing about Raw vs Kibble and there wil ALWAYS be a imidiat awnser to counter it and wave it of as BS..

[Officially Retired]

Jack dont you see how rediculees your post looks like??.. so al the idiot oldtimers DO KNOW how to reconize a good dog when they see one, but dont know and have no clue how to feed them and at the same time take a huge gamble of putting lots and lots of money on these dogs!!!. and are only able to put them in desend shape!!. and that the dogs kept on the chain at ideal weigh fed on kibble coming right of the chain is hard to beat!!!!!!!!!!. yet feeding kibble is not IDEAL.. you know how rediculess and trivializing that looks.....

My post is not as ridiculous as your spelling

Nor is it as ridiculous as your posture that, just because a man knows what a badass dog looks like, that this suddenly makes him an expert in either nutrition or in medicine. Many, if not MOST, old timers are utterly clueless in both regards. For example, I know an old timer who's been doing dogs since the mid-60s, who has matched into more legendary dogs than you've ever seen, who's gone into Mayfield, Burton, Indian Sonny, Hargrove, Crenshaw, ete., etc. ... and yet who STILL thinks "pennicillum" is the best antibiotic for wound care (and, like you, he can't even pronounce or spell the word right). And, as far as nutrition goes, this man's big "feed keep" was Diamond Dogfood, some liver, and a can of vegetables. That's it. Yet this man faced and made more Grand Champions throughout his 50 years of being in the fast lane than anyone you know.

So no, I don't think my position (that there are many old-timers, who know what a good dog looks like, but who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject of meds or nutrition) is ridiculous at all. It is pretty much right on the money.

jack thuse that mean that people who feed raw have crap dogs in the first place to up the chanses of winning??.. last but not least YOU have NOT been feeding kibble long enoughf to know if they live longer on raw!!. and there is no sientific evidens that that is the case . nor have you been a sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that....

Dude, you're really starting to sound foolish. You actually think you're in a position to know something about "me" or my feeding habits!

First of all, I have been into sporting dogs for 23 years.

Secondly, regarding "all raw feeders having crap dogs," this is simply an asinine statement ... especially coming from a man who just lost to a raw-fed dog (don't think I don't know )
Moreover, speaking of old timers compared to the newer generation, and regarding that same old man above, I stayed on a piece of property that guy owned for 6 years. Yet still, with all that experience, EVERY time I rolled one of my dogs into one of the old man's dogs "he" is the one who picked up. In short, the man knew how to "buy" a great match dog that he "saw" ... but he could never figure out how to breed them

Thirdly, I have fed a larger yard of dogs than you ever have (an average of 40-50 dogs at one time) ... and I have done so for 14 years BEFORE I ever fed raw. So I have plenty of experience feeding kibble. I have also exclusively fed ONE family of dogs during the entire time, comparing the results of "kibble versus raw" not to just dogs in general, but to the same line of dogs to boot. That means I have MORE experience feeding kibble to MORE dogs than you do.

Now then, I have only been feeding raw exclusively since 2006 ... to the same family of dogs ... and, when I started doing this, I had 85 dogs at the time ... ALL of whom had been fed kibble up to that point ... and ALL of whom immediately looked, felt, and acted better within 1-3 months of the change. Moreover, my line of dogs tends to have low fertility in a lot of the males (when fed kibble) and that problem UTTERLY disappeared when I fed raw. I also had many dogs die of cancer at 4-7 years of age, fed kibble, and NEVER had that happen when I fed raw. Sure, my dogs still die like anyone else's, but the difference in longevity, general health, and reproductive fertility was dramatically improved when I started feeding raw.

So please don't sit there in your little fantasy world of ZERO experience feeding raw and preach to "me" about what "you" know about feeding raw ... because it's next to nothing ...

Because, in the end, the truth is those experienced dog men ... who DO continuously learn about about meds, nutrition, etc. ... make THE most knowledgeable dogmen of today ... NOT the ones who may have learned what a good dog looks like "years ago" ... but who stay in the dark ages on these other critical subjects

sporting dogman long enoughf yourself to be able to have tested that.... a long time ago a very wel respected dogman told me. that the diferense in feeding the right and bad kibble is that the dog in both cases wil grow just as old as the internal biologicel clock is tikking reguardless. But when feeding him better kibble is feeding him a more HEALTYER life. compeard to feeding him bad kibble.

I certainly agree that there is "good kibble" and "bad kibble" ... that is absolutely correct.

But what you cannot seem to fathom is NO kibble is EVER as good (after being cooked into a little brown pellet) as the raw, natural components it started out as BEFORE it was cooked into a pellet.

I know this line has its flaws as wel. but i gues you get the picture. and 90% of the dogs dont grow old in the first place REGURADLESS what your feeding them.. you fact is you can trow and state everyting can ore feel doing about Raw vs Kibble and there wil ALWAYS be a imidiat awnser to counter it and wave it of as BS..

There is no BS here except the inane notion that "little brown pellets" are more optimal in nutritional value than the natural, raw ingredients they started out as.

Jack

[tasoschatz]

There is also another multibillion industry that involves all the pro-athletes from every sport, they do indorse products, do you believe they use all of them?

[Limey Kennels]

There is also another multibillion industry that involves all the pro-athletes from every sport, they do indorse products, do you believe they use all of them?

Thats a silly question!!.

[R2L]

I bet the guys preparing the dogs for such races know a lot about feeding, but that doesnt mean some bag meant for a totally different sport is instantly most suitable for our dogs. Like if marathon walkers would eat the same feed as 50/100 meter sprinters.

I would like to see a well conditioned bulldog on red mills in real life. Cause im getting pretty bored again

[Limey Kennels]

I bet the guys preparing the dogs for such races know a lot about feeding, but that doesnt mean some bag meant for a totally different sport is instantly most suitable for our dogs. Like if marathon walkers would eat the same feed as 50/100 meter sprinters.

I would like to see a well conditioned bulldog on red mills in real life. Cause im getting pretty bored again

Buy some and start working one....

[OGDOGG]

R2L, when it comes to conditioning, it doesn't matter what you put in a bulldog. It's all about how knowledgeable and skillful a person is. A good conditioner could feed his dog ol'roy from Walmart and have that dog looking like a million bucks. But if an amateur use the same feed, that dog will look like shit and perform like shit.
The better you feed the dog, the less you need to work him. The shittier the feed the harder you have to push the dog to work. A dog's kidneys can only go through so many keeps and punishments.

[tasoschatz]

So, when some dog owners endorse whatever kibble they do, we have a serious comment, when we make the same talk about humans, it is silly... Well, I simply do not accept that there aren't financial interests involved through promotion etc in dog races, I guess it is a personal perception thing.
Seriously speaking although, and I mean it in a sincere manner, I haven't seen anywhere that heat procedure for lets say kibble preparation destroys hormones and antibiotics, doesn't mean it isn't true, but I would like to see some credible info source on that matter.
What I have seen is animal industrial food manufacturing, although not dog kibble, human athletes, 2004 olympic games menu, university studies, personally beeing a subject in some etc etc. In full honesty, if I was to be convinced that dog kibble is of such high level, maybe I would convince myself to feed on that and live for 100 years.