Natura (Innova) and Animal Testing
- Thread starter lakotasong
- Start date
Define "good breeder", please. If the dogs are health tested, that means the dogs are healthy--it doesn't mean the breeder is "good". Same with if the dogs excel at a certain task--they are great performers, but that says nothing about the people that breed them.
Canis Lupis Familiaris is different than Canis Lupis due to their ability to associate with humans. They are taking away the very reason that the dogs are domesticated. Yeah, 50 of them get to interact with 4 people, but for how long? A couple of minutes per day?
Canis Lupis Familiaris is different than Canis Lupis due to their ability to associate with humans. They are taking away the very reason that the dogs are domesticated. Yeah, 50 of them get to interact with 4 people, but for how long? A couple of minutes per day?
You'd be quite surprised at how much attention one person can give to a large amount of dogs. I do this every single day and granted I'm just a daycare person so the dogs go home at night/some point if they're boarding, but it's still a ratio that can be anywhere from 30:1 to 75:1. And I can tell you what every single dog did that day and that I spent solo time with each of them. It can be done, you just have to try at it. Does it beat being only a couple of dogs in one of our homes? No. Does it beat being in a shelter or in an apathetic "pet" home? You betcha.
Does this information make me raise my eyebrows a little? well, honestly yes. Is it going to make me boycott the food? No. And I would ask them where they get their puppies before running around saying they are supporting puppymills.
Does this information make me raise my eyebrows a little? well, honestly yes. Is it going to make me boycott the food? No. And I would ask them where they get their puppies before running around saying they are supporting puppymills.
Many of the top JRT breeders dogs live in kennels because JRTs are for the most part are DA/DR. Same sex JRTs some times cannot be left loose together, even supervised. They often will rotate through the house. I am sure there are other breeds that have the same issues.
"Jack Russells can be very aggressive with other dogs, and in fact more than two should never be kept together unattended. There have been many instances of terriers being hurt, even killed, by their fellow terriers; even young pups over the age of eight weeks must be carefully monitored. It is imperative that prospective Jack Russell owners understand this part of the terrier's nature. Special facilities and handing are absolutely necessary when owning a Jack Russell, and especially when owning two or more Jack Russells."
Taken from the american breed club site.
"Jack Russells can be very aggressive with other dogs, and in fact more than two should never be kept together unattended. There have been many instances of terriers being hurt, even killed, by their fellow terriers; even young pups over the age of eight weeks must be carefully monitored. It is imperative that prospective Jack Russell owners understand this part of the terrier's nature. Special facilities and handing are absolutely necessary when owning a Jack Russell, and especially when owning two or more Jack Russells."
Taken from the american breed club site.
My father knows all of his hounds by name. He can describe each one's personality in detail. Each gets personal attention and a look over every day. Ratio? At one point, 80:1. Now I think its like 40:2, since he's hired help as he's gotten older. In fact, the personal attention is vital to what he does. He needs to know which hounds can hunt (those that don't go to pet homes) who the leaders are, who the best followers are, who the trouble-makers are . . . he has one of the best beagle packs in the country for a number of reasons, but one of them is that each dog is known and valued as an individual. Just supporting Zoom's statement here.
I agree, and I have not stated that they do. Only that with the information about how the facility is run, puppy mills would be the only deal breaker for me. I have stated that it is an issue that concerns me, though. Saje says that they have been asked and said they were rescues. I think we need more info to judge. But puppy mills would be my only issue . . IF it is an issue. Which we don't know, because other than Saje, no one has asked.
I don't feed Innova to my dog, ATM, but I do to my cats. Which, come to think of it, makes me wonder how they test their cat food . . . again, rescues would be fine with me.
I agree, and I have not stated that they do. Only that with the information about how the facility is run, puppy mills would be the only deal breaker for me. I have stated that it is an issue that concerns me, though. Saje says that they have been asked and said they were rescues. I think we need more info to judge. But puppy mills would be my only issue . . IF it is an issue. Which we don't know, because other than Saje, no one has asked.
I don't feed Innova to my dog, ATM, but I do to my cats. Which, come to think of it, makes me wonder how they test their cat food . . . again, rescues would be fine with me.
I am an Innova feeder and have highly recommended the brand in the past. I think it is an excellent food for a number of reasons. However, because of this, I will now be switching. Count me as one Innova feeder that does NOT support this facility.
Bottom line is, no ethical breeder would sell to a place like this. This is not a home. This is a testing facility. The dogs they admit to acquiring rather than rescuing are coming from someone unethical.
IMO, despite all the show ribbons, all the trial wins, all the titles, all the health testing - a truly ethical breeder does not kennel their dogs as a primary method of containment. Show mills and working mills do. Regardless of all the other hoopla and whatnot, if you don't value your dogs as individual family members, then you aren't a "good" breeder or owner at all in my book.
A note on real working dogs: In her younger days, Haluna (one of my retirees) raced in the midwest US, eastern US, Canada, Alaska and Italy. She was an exceptional sled dog (a leader, at that) and has a great pedigree. Keeping her in the house and treating her the way she deserves to be treated didn't diminish ("soften") her drive at all (a major excuse of working kennels for not keeping dogs in the house). If you have too many dogs to keep them inside as part of the family, then you have too many dogs.
Bottom line is, no ethical breeder would sell to a place like this. This is not a home. This is a testing facility. The dogs they admit to acquiring rather than rescuing are coming from someone unethical.
IMO, despite all the show ribbons, all the trial wins, all the titles, all the health testing - a truly ethical breeder does not kennel their dogs as a primary method of containment. Show mills and working mills do. Regardless of all the other hoopla and whatnot, if you don't value your dogs as individual family members, then you aren't a "good" breeder or owner at all in my book.
A note on real working dogs: In her younger days, Haluna (one of my retirees) raced in the midwest US, eastern US, Canada, Alaska and Italy. She was an exceptional sled dog (a leader, at that) and has a great pedigree. Keeping her in the house and treating her the way she deserves to be treated didn't diminish ("soften") her drive at all (a major excuse of working kennels for not keeping dogs in the house). If you have too many dogs to keep them inside as part of the family, then you have too many dogs.
Then the question simply is . . .which breeders? Were they sold? Donated? Were the breeders puppy mills or those who breed specially for research? We still don't know much. Its entirely possible they picked up the unsold puppies from commerical breeders when they got too old . . . I'd have to think on the morality of that one.
I don't know a dang thing about sled dogs. Nothing, zilch. They are big, hairy, and gorgeous, and that is the extent of my knowledge. But I do know hounds. I've never been into them like my father, but I know them, I could hardly avoid it.
I can not concieve of keeping a pack of beagles in the house. Let alone a pack of fox hounds. You couldn't do it, not unless those dogs would be the focus of your life, and my father, like the rest of us, has to earn a living. Working hounds are independent, willful, single-minded and frankly, make lousy house pets. My mother would never have allowed him to keep them in the house even if he had been crazy enough to try. The reason the hounds that can't hunt are given away as house pets is because they are the ones who actually MAKE good house pets: they are people focused and laid back. The traits of the working hounds has nothing to do with living in a kennel to toughen them up . . . its what they are bred for, they are very, very good at it. They are also happy doing it . . . these dogs LOVE to hunt.
Maybe you have missed the fact that until recently, for thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years, most dogs lived outside, unless they were toy breeds. Now, there are many things people have done for thousands of years that we now know better than to do, but it strikes me as absurd that an animal should HAVE to be kept in the house. In the kennel the hounds have a clean enviroment, food, water, daily excercise, vet care, the company of each other, the company of my father and his kennel assistant, and heat lamps when it gets cold. These are not outdoor dogs in the sense that they are put out there an ignored. My father's pack of beagles is not a mill, he has one or two litters a year, enough to keep up with deaths and retirement. And yes, retired animals are cared for until age either kills them or necessitates them being PTS. Almost none of his hounds are sold except those that can't hunt and those that are traded to other working packs for blood stock.
I disapprove, strongly, of pet dogs being placed out in a kennel and kept there. What kind of pet is that? If you are going to lock your dog away, why have one? If you have just a couple of dogs, why not bring them inside? But that's not the situation we have, and to match your desired result, everyone engaged in beagling or fox hunting would either have to live in a kennel themselves, or give up the sport. Perhaps you don't approve of hunting . . . but that is another arguement.
I am almost militant about animal welfare, but having grown up with working animals, including dogs, horses and barn cats, I find myself very annoyed when people suggest that animals can not live healthy, happy lives outside. Do I keep my cats inside? yes, I live in a city, and they are not allowed outside, because it is far too dangerous. Do I lecture my mom on the cats that are there to keep the mice out of the barn? No. They are feed, petted, spayed and neutered, taken to the vet regularly and given access to a climate controlled area in the attic when it gets cold. They live far from the road. They catch mice, and that is what cats were domesticated to do. Note, I'm not advocating people letting their cats wander around the suburbs and the city . . . that's dangerous. But the idea that no cat should ever be an outdoor cat strikes me as silly. Just as silly as saying anyone who keeps their dogs in a kennel is running a mill.
I can not concieve of keeping a pack of beagles in the house. Let alone a pack of fox hounds. You couldn't do it, not unless those dogs would be the focus of your life, and my father, like the rest of us, has to earn a living. Working hounds are independent, willful, single-minded and frankly, make lousy house pets. My mother would never have allowed him to keep them in the house even if he had been crazy enough to try. The reason the hounds that can't hunt are given away as house pets is because they are the ones who actually MAKE good house pets: they are people focused and laid back. The traits of the working hounds has nothing to do with living in a kennel to toughen them up . . . its what they are bred for, they are very, very good at it. They are also happy doing it . . . these dogs LOVE to hunt.
Maybe you have missed the fact that until recently, for thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years, most dogs lived outside, unless they were toy breeds. Now, there are many things people have done for thousands of years that we now know better than to do, but it strikes me as absurd that an animal should HAVE to be kept in the house. In the kennel the hounds have a clean enviroment, food, water, daily excercise, vet care, the company of each other, the company of my father and his kennel assistant, and heat lamps when it gets cold. These are not outdoor dogs in the sense that they are put out there an ignored. My father's pack of beagles is not a mill, he has one or two litters a year, enough to keep up with deaths and retirement. And yes, retired animals are cared for until age either kills them or necessitates them being PTS. Almost none of his hounds are sold except those that can't hunt and those that are traded to other working packs for blood stock.
I disapprove, strongly, of pet dogs being placed out in a kennel and kept there. What kind of pet is that? If you are going to lock your dog away, why have one? If you have just a couple of dogs, why not bring them inside? But that's not the situation we have, and to match your desired result, everyone engaged in beagling or fox hunting would either have to live in a kennel themselves, or give up the sport. Perhaps you don't approve of hunting . . . but that is another arguement.
I am almost militant about animal welfare, but having grown up with working animals, including dogs, horses and barn cats, I find myself very annoyed when people suggest that animals can not live healthy, happy lives outside. Do I keep my cats inside? yes, I live in a city, and they are not allowed outside, because it is far too dangerous. Do I lecture my mom on the cats that are there to keep the mice out of the barn? No. They are feed, petted, spayed and neutered, taken to the vet regularly and given access to a climate controlled area in the attic when it gets cold. They live far from the road. They catch mice, and that is what cats were domesticated to do. Note, I'm not advocating people letting their cats wander around the suburbs and the city . . . that's dangerous. But the idea that no cat should ever be an outdoor cat strikes me as silly. Just as silly as saying anyone who keeps their dogs in a kennel is running a mill.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2004
- Messages
- 170
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
I will say this - a food can be formulated by a company without doing feed testing. If the company is using great, fresh ingredients that we know are digested and utilized well, use sources of vitamins and minerals that are absorbed and utilized well, and the diet is created in accordance to AAFCO's nutrient requirements, it can be done without testing.
Or, a company can choose to do independent testing prior to marketing a food, without the need to be as stringent as required by AAFCO, for their own reference, but, they then cannot state that their foods are complete and balanced in accordance to feeding tests using AAFCO procedures. As a matter of fact, no statement can be made on the label about the level of nutrition provided according to feeding trials unless they are in accordance to AAFCO procedures. If a manufacturer wants to call their food balanced and complete, that has to be established by feeding trials or laboratory analysis for all nutrients required according to AAFCO standards.
There are many companies that do not do feeding trials - and most that do rely upon feeding trials sub the testing out to a company that already has the facilities and animals to utilize.
I'm not crazy about the idea, personally. I do think it's important to know the food works, not just according to a lab's analysis, but, I think more manufacturers should conduct feeding trials on dogs that are living in a home, not under a lab's care, and in the real world and not just for the sake of being able to say feeding trials prove their food is OK - more for the benefit of them personally seeing the effect, good or bad, their food has on dogs in the real world. Not to mention the fact that if you have a nutritionist creating the diets, and the company is using the best of the best of ingredients, there wouldn't be much question as to whether the food is OK.
In all honestly, feeding trials in accordance to AAFCO procedures aren't impressive and I'd rather go by the ingredients used and the complete nutritional analysis, which Natura does not provide on their packaging.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Natura, I like Natura products, but, don't necessarily agree with everything they do.
Just my few cents.
Or, a company can choose to do independent testing prior to marketing a food, without the need to be as stringent as required by AAFCO, for their own reference, but, they then cannot state that their foods are complete and balanced in accordance to feeding tests using AAFCO procedures. As a matter of fact, no statement can be made on the label about the level of nutrition provided according to feeding trials unless they are in accordance to AAFCO procedures. If a manufacturer wants to call their food balanced and complete, that has to be established by feeding trials or laboratory analysis for all nutrients required according to AAFCO standards.
There are many companies that do not do feeding trials - and most that do rely upon feeding trials sub the testing out to a company that already has the facilities and animals to utilize.
I'm not crazy about the idea, personally. I do think it's important to know the food works, not just according to a lab's analysis, but, I think more manufacturers should conduct feeding trials on dogs that are living in a home, not under a lab's care, and in the real world and not just for the sake of being able to say feeding trials prove their food is OK - more for the benefit of them personally seeing the effect, good or bad, their food has on dogs in the real world. Not to mention the fact that if you have a nutritionist creating the diets, and the company is using the best of the best of ingredients, there wouldn't be much question as to whether the food is OK.
In all honestly, feeding trials in accordance to AAFCO procedures aren't impressive and I'd rather go by the ingredients used and the complete nutritional analysis, which Natura does not provide on their packaging.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Natura, I like Natura products, but, don't necessarily agree with everything they do.
Just my few cents.
Another question - If the testing is done on groups of owned sled dogs and hunting dogs, is it really comparable to pet dogs? I mean, my dog is very active; far more active than 95% of the pet dogs out there probably, but I doubt it is anything compared to actual "working" dogs. I would think that to properly evaluate a food for American dogs, the testing would have to be done either on actual pets, or on dogs living a life that is comparable to pet dogs. And then, if you are using actual pets, you are going to be dealing with a huge margin of error because you will have a lot of people dealing with their own dogs (since few people have dozens of pet dogs), slipping them various treats....
Just another thought that occurred to me. And no, I don't feed Natura products at all right now, although I do like Innova and will probably throw it back into the rotation at some point.
Just another thought that occurred to me. And no, I don't feed Natura products at all right now, although I do like Innova and will probably throw it back into the rotation at some point.