Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Not double blind large studies, anecdotal evidence.
'Vegan diets are healthier and safer for dogs' says The Guardian about University of Winchester survey
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Not double blind large studies, anecdotal evidence.
souljacker
innit
My parents had King Charles Spaniels in the 80s/90s that were all fed on a non-meat diet. Not because of an ethical reason, but because the first one we had was a pedigree that we got from a breeder (who had won at crufts) and she swore by it. Sadly first dog died young from cancer (pedigrees 
) but the other four they had lived until their late teens. I can't remember what the brand name was but it was sort of like muesli.
Their poohs were far less rank than most dogs but the gas was shocking.
) but the other four they had lived until their late teens. I can't remember what the brand name was but it was sort of like muesli.Their poohs were far less rank than most dogs but the gas was shocking.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
That’s a good age for that breedMy parents had King Charles Spaniels in the 80s/90s that were all fed on a non-meat diet. Not because of an ethical reason, but because the first one we had was a pedigree that we got from a breeder (who had won at crufts) and she swore by it. Sadly first dog died young from cancer (pedigrees
Their poohs were far less rank than most dogs but the gas was shocking.
editor
hiraethified
More research needs to be done, but it's not all anecdotal:
The vegan diet and its effects on the dog’s health
The meat-based fed control group showed 11 deficiencies while the long-term vegan fed category presented only two deficiencies
vegan-dogfood.co.uk
souljacker
innit
All the dogs after the first one were rescues and weren't pure breeds (although they did come from the KCS Rescue Society). They were pretty decrepit once they got past about 15. One used to die on walks then come back to life a few minutes later
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
It was 326 dogs for a year. So yes, that is a lot more testing than you thought it was...
None of the dogs were tested, though (unless I’m misremembering the study). The owners were asked questions and they counted vet trips. Neither of those things seem to have good construct validity for the effect of diet on health, let alone long-term effect.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
increasingly, carrot tops
butcher
boner at the ready
Statistically significant in a test group that small? Really at least find some decent studies to bang your gourd to rather than some hokey nonsense published on a vegan site.More research needs to be done, but it's not all anecdotal:
The vegan diet and its effects on the dog’s health
The meat-based fed control group showed 11 deficiencies while the long-term vegan fed category presented only two deficiencies
It is hard to take any of your anti-meat posts seriously if you justify them with such dire research.
I respect your views but not the 'evidence' you choose to support them.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Not what I read. 2 studies 1 if 12 dogs and the other of 20 dogs making 32 in total. Then if course when you do a 'blind' trial half of them had the vegetarian diet the other half had meat based dog food. So only 16 dogs had the vegetarian diet.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Not sure that's much better plus there is bias in the reporting where it makes our that dogs with nutrient deficiency before the vegetarian diet began improved while on the diet yet then goes on to say that out of the 4 dogs, 1 ended up with higher than normal levels and 1 was still deficient. So only 50% if the dogs improved on the vegetarian diet, 25% had little or no effect and 25% ended up with higher than normal levels which can be just as bad as low levels.More research needs to be done, but it's not all anecdotal:
The vegan diet and its effects on the dog’s health
The meat-based fed control group showed 11 deficiencies while the long-term vegan fed category presented only two deficiencies
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
See the totally discredited so called 'research' quoted in the OP.
butcher
boner at the ready
Here is a nice reasonably balanced review of present research in the field:
The legal, ethical and welfare implications of feeding vegan diets to dogs and cats - The Veterinary Nurse
‘A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.’ .
www.theveterinarynurse.com
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
No, the study the whole thread is about. It's a study with some problems, definitely, but it's a fair bit bigger than the ones you're referencing, which barely seen worthwhile really.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
'Some problems', seriously?
It's not a scientific study, carried out by a self-confessed vegan professor, who basically admits it has not proven anything & more research is required, financed by 'pro-veg', which also paid for it to be published on a very questionable and largely unheard of website, that doesn't seem to explain how they 'peer review' what they are paid to publish.
That’s reminded me my brothers first dog was fed a vegetarian diet, like you say it looked like muesli, and he did shockingly stinky farts. He seemed to do alright on it though and lived til around 14.My parents had King Charles Spaniels in the 80s/90s that were all fed on a non-meat diet. Not because of an ethical reason, but because the first one we had was a pedigree that we got from a breeder (who had won at crufts) and she swore by it. Sadly first dog died young from cancer (pedigrees
Their poohs were far less rank than most dogs but the gas was shocking.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
'Some problems', seriously?
It's not a scientific study, carried out by a self-confessed vegan professor, who basically admits it has not proven anything & more research is required, financed by 'pro-veg', which also paid for it to be published on a very questionable and largely unheard of website, that doesn't seem to explain how they 'peer review' what they are paid to publish.
Like you say, the guy who carried it out says more research is required - it was a survey rather than a study. There are aren't any major problems with it looked at as a survey that doesn't make the claims the article reckons it does.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
I preferred this thread when it was pictures of posters dogs and not desperate attempts to justify the shittiest piece of research I've ever had the misfortune to read.
editor
hiraethified
So is that your reasoning for no reduction in meat consumption?
editor
hiraethified
Funny how just about every single fucking thread that starts with something positive to say about anything to do with veganism ends up with the exact same pro-meat fanatics doing their best to dismiss everything out of hand.
And I thought it was the vegans who were supposed to be obsessed ones who are always trying to push their lifestyle choices on to others...
And I thought it was the vegans who were supposed to be obsessed ones who are always trying to push their lifestyle choices on to others...
butcher
boner at the ready
I didn't state that anywhere. I am just pointing out that at least all of a resource is being used instead of part of one. No need for straw men.
I doubt that you remember, but my personal take is that those who eat meat would be better eating less, higher quality, higher welfare meat and that if you do eat meat eat everything that you buy.
We aren't going to agree on this as I am a butcher and you are a vegan. That does not preclude me from commenting as I see wish, unless you want to ban me for some unintended slight.
editor
hiraethified
Nope. Wrong.
Don't be so fucking melodramatic. I'm really fed up with people posting up bollocks like this. This has to be one of the most tolerant boards on the whole bloody internet and long term posters never, ever getting banned for such flippant reasons.
Gas, well I guess you can’t really avoid that indoors. But whose job was it to inspect how rank their faeces were?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Except it's not positive, it's suggestive and based on subjective rather than objective data. I don't see anyone dismissing it out of hand, as far as I can see everyone is saying more research needs to be done.
editor
hiraethified
Oh I do and it's almost exactly the same dismissive whataboutery that gets trotted out for every other vegan-related thread.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
My butcher sells portions of frozen stuff for dogs, two price bands, guessing one is lids and arseholes and the other a bit nicer. Both are gopping if we heat it up, but she can eat it raw. She also eats raw chicken hearts and cow trachea. But I guess it does use up bits that may otherwise get chucked away.
butcher
boner at the ready
I don't as (1) you need a separate license, (2) my waste goes to be used as fertilizer etc
I give away bones to paying customers.
butcher
boner at the ready
Are you saying you are not a vegan, that we will agree?
Similar threads
- Poll
