Hehe my dog loved rice till his death too, but we had to mixe it up with other things for him don't get weak.
I fed my neighbors dog rice when she was sick. The dog absolutly loved it. I almost blew up the house too cause i didnt know how to work a gas stove
I agree that it is generally frowned upon in the U.S., and even more recently with all the grain-free dog foods hitting the market. It does make sense given that dogs/wolves are not generally adapted to digest grains, and a lot of the skin/health issues we see in dogs are often due to poor diet. Rice may not be as devastating to dogs as cats (which can go blind if they don't get enough protein), but they're still not herbivores.
There is definitely an opposite side to the protein-coin. One of the biggest issues (problems?) I find with many of the "lots of meat" ads for dog-food is that too much protein is bad for domestic dogs. They aren't wolves living in the wild. Too much protein is hard on their kidneys and can damage their health.
I fed my dogs for years on Science Diet, then switched to Royal Cannin when I had to put my elderly dogs on a special diet. The protein levels were fairly low, no more than 15%, which helped prolong their lives. All of my dogs have live to at least 16 years, two to 17, one almost 18. They were in excellent health and condition until they got really old, when not much can be done for them.
Also, it's just as important for dogs to have adequate bulk in their diets so that their GI tracts function properly. It may not be that they get that much nutrition out of a lot of what is in premium dog food designed Vets, but the stuff that's there is important for them.
Protein can appear in many guises: Raw-hide chews, Greenies (anything containing gelatin is really high in protein). Once a dog gets into middle-age (about 7 years), it's a disservice to them not to monitor their protein intake very carefully.
BTW - I really like Greenies for my dogs, because they do such a good job cleaning teeth. Unfortunately, their protein content is so high, I stop feeding them to my dogs early on.
I agree that the final chapter does not seem to have been written yet where dogs and protein are involved. I just get annoyed with vegans/vegetarians trying to transfer their ethics to their children and/or pets, when the latter likely have very different nutritional requirements. I just know that when I switched from kibble started giving my 10 year-old dog (now 12) raw meat (whole animal, not just muscle) mixed with vegetables, her energy levels skyrocketed, likely due in part to better digestibility.
I'm going to delete or edit down my dog-related messages. They're not on point really. But first give people a chance to read them.
You and I see eye-to-eye about vegan/vegetarian gangstas.
A lot of the good effects depends on the quality of the food. Most dog food is crap. You put it Ol' Roy or regular Purina under a microscope, and you can see bits of chicken feathers and other detritus. So, if you changed from that to meat and vegetables, I'll bet their energy levels went up. High-quality (and higher priced) dog food like Hill's Science Diet and Royal Canin doesn't have all the nasty stuff in it. That makes a huge difference. So, if you're feeding the dog a good balance, then that sounds like a really good move for them. Monitoring kidney function by yearly blood tests should keep things copacetic. When pets get older, they really do need their protein levels cut back a lot. They will die a lot sooner if you don't.
That having been said, my last dog, Annie - absolutely the sweetest pet I've ever had the privilege of befriending - was 16 1/2, had abnormal kidney function and liver function - and was really not enjoying her dog food at all. So I put her on a diet of cooked chicken, rice and chicken broth. Perked her right up - but then after about 6 months, she just suddenly took a nose dive. I took to the vet, and her enzymes were really off the charts, plus her pancreas was showing problems. Pancreatitis is really painful.
The Vet suggested leaving her for a couple days, so they could rehydrate her, and try to get her condition manageable. I said no. All she had to look forward to was a steady and uncomfortable decline. We put her down that afternoon. It was the right thing to do, but very hard.
I could have kept her alive longer by feeding her all this stuff she really didn't like, and she loved the chicken delight. It was quality of life over quantity. It just ended her life sooner. I'd do it again. I knew the high protein diet would end her life sooner, but the choice was not a hard one.
Thats kinda like eating candy your whole like because you like the taste and the energy... but its not really good for you... im not so sure about it.
I feed my dog rice, its an ingredient in a lot of dog foods. Americans feed their dogs corn based dog food, a dog eating corn is far worse.
This has been screwing me up too. Because it's possessive, the word is in the genitive form, meaning that you add an и. It just so happens that a lot of words in genitive form are the same as their plural nominative form. Cyril was a prick.
Yeah, but I'm pretty certain it's still better than English often using -s for both plurals and possessives, with intricate rules involving a bit of punctuation (apostrophe) which doesn't affect pronunciation at all.
I say "pretty certain" because I'm a native speaker and I never struggled with it, but thinking how much more clear English could be, it seems like a total nightmare. :D
With few exceptions (which there always are with English), the apostrophe (before the "s") is an indicator of possession. What makes it confusing is that people use the apostrophe inappropriately, e.g., "it's" (=it is) instead of "its" (this is one of those exceptions), or they add it to a plural when just a plain "s" will do.
Aye, and I purposefully ignore the rule that "compact discs" should be abbreviated to CD's rather than CDs, because screw that nonsense.
We seem to be at an impasse with a chicken-and-egg scenario here. "If everyone had learned the language perfectly, common errors would not be socially reinforced." "If the language were less inherently confusing, everyone would learn it more perfectly." Both are true.
Why couldn't the translation be either: "The dog has rice" OR "The dog eats rice"
The best way to find answers to this question is to watch people demonstrating the difference between soft and hard consonants. There are some good videos on YouTube that helped me work it out.
There's no possessive here. собаки is in the genitive because it is the object of the preposition У. Under declension tables, the Genitive would have собака become собакы, but the Russian Spelling Rules require the ы to be changed to и - Genitive Singular Feminine.
Yes, собака is feminine. Собаки is the genitive case. With the table given on the tips and notes, it should be собакы. However, к falls under the spelling rule which always use и instead of ы ( 7-letter rule: К, Г, Х and Ш, Ж, Щ, Ч ).
Duolingo is weird... Insects learn portuguese; turtles play guitar in Catalunya and dogs have rice in Russia... : 0
When doing a listening exercise, how can we tell the difference between "ест" and "есть"? Just guess and hope we guess correctly whether the dog has or is eating rice?
I mean... in the end, the meaning is almost the same, in this case, if you think about it.
Why are peaple complaining that feeding dogs rice isn't normal? My dog lived off rice his entire 12 day old lif
maybe giving this dog so much starch isn't such an idea good. (notice the "English" word order at the end of the sentence.)
I can't understand the difference between "eat" and "have"!!! I have to guess every time ! Anyone can help please
Which is the symbol that substitutes the "ь" in an usual keyboard? Isn't it " ' "?
yes, the dogs have rice Sobaki is plural, not singular The singular must be SOBAKA
It can mean "to eat." For "the dog eats," you'd use ест.
Reading the comments it seems that you see this sentence as "the dog has = eats rice" as you can use "have" as an equivalent to "eat" in English. But I think the Russian sentence literally means that the dog "owns" rice. Am I wrong? To say, that he "has" in the meaning of "eats" rice, you would have to say: "савака ест рис", no?
I do not understand why (the Duo suggestion) 'dogs' have rice is wrong. Anyone?