# Why I don't feed raw.



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion 

I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a sideline to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.

I don't believe that raw feeding is necessarily bad for dogs. I am not aware of any research which finds this, I feel it is merely another marketing line for the purveyors of things-we-don't-really-need.

It is generally accepted that dogs split from wolves at least 10s of thousands of years ago (and there is evidence that it could be as much as 100 thousand years ago) and evolved to tuck into human midden waste. that waste included meat and bones, but also included vegetable matter and human waste (poo) from which they could also extract nutrition. (the jaws and teeth of dogs have evolved to allow them to eat this variety of matter. The GI tract of dogs differs from wolves for this same reason).
The Nutritional Advisory Group for Americal zoos recommend feeding ALL captive carnivores on a cooked diet. Not raw.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

So the "Nutritional Advisory Group for American Zoos" advise all zoos across America to feed captive carnivores cooked food? Including Polar Bears :sosp: and Walruses :sosp: who live in the Arctic? I think the advisory group may need to do a little more research...


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Everyone has their own opinions on what they believe is best. I believe that a dog is a carnivore and will continue to feed my dog Prey model raw for the rest of her life. 

I am not bothered whatsover when people say that a dog is an omnivore or that they need to be fed on cooked meat because that is what they believe and I'm in no position to question their beliefs. 

Although I can't quite understand the factor regarding veg. It has to be pulped before being fed in order for a dog to gain nutrition from it. If it was a natural/needed part of a dogs diet then wouldn't they have evolved to eat it whole?


----------



## Sarahferret (Apr 25, 2012)

All captive animals? So that includes zoo animals? Why would a captive lions nutritional requirements be different to a wild ones? And what do they say are the benefits of cooking food?


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

It would be weird going to a zoo and seeing lions being fed on roast beef...or penguins being fed cooked fish......


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion
> 
> I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a sideline to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.
> 
> ...




So they basically believe that those same carnivores who are still in the wild cook their food before eating it?

I was very shocked to read that some zoos were feeding wolves kibble (someone on another forum posted about it last year) that just says *lazy* to me


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Sarahferret said:


> And what do they say are the benefits of cooking food?


Don't you know anything?? The benefits of cooking food are - the aroma, the taste and the presentation, oh wait, that's me and my roast dinner 

Wet, dry or raw it is the owners choice, but why do they chuck so much rubbish into processed food? Adding colour to make the dry stuff look nice is ridiculous how many dogs care if they have pretty food?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

bearcub said:


> So the "Nutritional Advisory Group for American Zoos" advise all zoos across America to feed captive carnivores cooked food? Including Polar Bears :sosp: and Walruses :sosp: who live in the Arctic? I think the advisory group may need to do a little more research...


Please. I have tried to justify some of the reasons I don't think raw is necessarily best for dogs. Your comment doesn't help the discussion.



> It would be weird going to a zoo and seeing lions being fed on roast beef...or penguins being fed cooked fish......


 What's your point?



> All captive animals? So that includes zoo animals? Why would a captive lions nutritional requirements be different to a wild ones? And what do they say are the benefits of cooking food?


Thank you, Sarah for a sensible point.
I think the reason they advise cooked meat is because of the risks associated in handling large quantities of raw food and the difficulties in ensuring adequet nutrition when feeding whole raw whole prey (too much Vit A etc). Other than that, I'm not sure and I don't know that this is the core issue. I would say the evolutionary development of dogs was more crucial to my argument.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the zoo thing is a perfect example of humans thinking they know best and not paying any attention to the fact that it's actually the animals that *know* what is best for them. If raw fish and raw seal wasn't the best thing for a Polar Bear to eat then he wouldn't a) live in the arctic b) be white and c) have survived.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Please. I have tried to justify some of the reasons I don't think raw is necessarily best for dogs. Your comment doesn't help the discussion.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> ...


What are the risks associated in handling large quantities of raw food?

Are they feeding cooked bones? Surely that is far more dangerous to the animals

A lot of vitamin A would need to be eaten in order for anything to occur as a direct result of that. That sounds like a very pitifull excuse


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Is this a discussion that we can only contribute to in favour of your opinion, or can anyone join in 



Old Shep said:


> I think the reason they advise cooked meat is because of the risks associated in handling large quantities of raw food


eta - by preparing raw food to cook, the 'risks' are still there, and those 'risks' are exacerbated by the cooking/cooling process


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I think the reason they advise cooked meat is because of the risks associated in handling large quantities of raw food and the difficulties in ensuring* adequet nutrition when feeding whole raw whole prey* (too much Vit A etc). Other than that, I'm not sure and I don't know that this is the core issue. I would say the evolutionary development of dogs was more crucial to my argument.


I thought that carnivores could get all the nutrition needed from raw food. If too much vit A is a problem how do wild dogs/wolves cope - have domesticated dogs lost the ability to process it?


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion
> 
> I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a sideline to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.
> 
> ...


May I ask what you do feed? Just for my own curiosity?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm rally disappointed that people can't discuss this properly. This is exactly the reaction I got on another forum, only there I continued to try to justify my reasons for believing as I do. I am not making that mistake again.

I will say, however, that this type of backlash only contributes to the view that people who feed raw are extemists.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I'm rally disappointed that people can't discuss this properly. This is exactly the reaction I got on another forum, only there I continued to try to justify my reasons for believing as I do. I am not making that mistake again.
> 
> I will say, however, that this type of backlash only contributes to the view that people who feed raw are extemists.


I have asked reasonable questions which have gone unanswered  how can you justify calling raw feeders "extremists". The only extreme thing I have read is that cooked food is best for wild animals


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I haven't seen anything of the kind Old Shep, only people trying to understand the points you're putting forward.

First you say domestic dogs have evolved, then point out something to do with how they're now feeding the animals they've evolved differently to. What was the point in mentioning it then?

Tbh you've barely given any reasons!


----------



## Sarahferret (Apr 25, 2012)

Is the gi and teeth of a dog really all that different to a wolves? That's the first time I've heard that. 

I am a raw feeder but often get fed up about people saying the wolf diet should be mimicked. I think domestic dogs have come a long way from wolves BUT I do belive that dogs are carnivores, and all carnivores share a requirement for a MEAT based diet.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I'm rally disappointed that people can't discuss this properly. This is exactly the reaction I got on another forum, only there I continued to try to justify my reasons for believing as I do. I am not making that mistake again.
> 
> I will say, however, that this type of backlash only contributes to the view that people who feed raw are extemists.


Maybe it was your opening statement that caused the 'backlash' - by telling us that there is an advisory council in the US that recommends that all captive carnivores should be fed cooked food (which is just plain illogical) it didn't really get the debate off to the right start.

And calling raw feeders extremists won't put the debate back on track either


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> I'm rally disappointed that people can't discuss this properly. This is exactly the reaction I got on another forum, only there I continued to try to justify my reasons for believing as I do. I am not making that mistake again.
> 
> I will say, however, that this type of backlash only contributes to the view that people who feed raw are extemists.


I dont feed raw. I feed kibble. I asked you what you feed since you dont feed raw. My question was not backlash


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Goldstar. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I think the issue of captive animals diet is taking us off at a tangent. Captive carnivores actually live longer than wild animals. I cannot answer detailed questions about the Nutritional Advisory Group for American Zoos guidelines and how they come to those decisions, but I'd assume they are made in the best interests of the animals. I don't know what the NAGAZ say the risks of feeding raw food to captive animals would be, but an educated guess would be spoilage being left in the enclosures and the large ammount of food being handled by a large staff, which makes it difficult to maintain hygene standards. If food is cooked, prepared and packed at food processing plant, where all the resources are available to ensure risks are minimised, then transported to zooz for distribution it minimises this risk.

This isn't my main point though. My main point is that dogs have evolved to eat a varied diet and not just a raw one.

Ouesi. I am currently feeding my dog Natural Instinct. By accident, rather than design


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sarah. Yup. They are different. Very different.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> This isn't my main point though. My main point is that dogs have evolved to eat a varied diet and not just a raw one.


But why is a cooked diet any more varied than a raw one? This week my dogs have had eggs, fish, carrots, peach, horse poo, grass, ox tongue, beef, chicken and lamb 



Old Shep said:


> Ouesi. I am currently feeding my dog Natural Instinct. By accident, rather than design


So you are feeding raw :sosp: bit lost now!


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Ouesi. I am currently feeding my dog Natural Instinct. By accident, rather than design


Isnt that pre-made raw? Or is it kibble?


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Isnt that pre-made raw? Or is it kibble?


I think it's cooked wet with rice and veg


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Shrap said:


> I think it's cooked wet with rice and veg


Natural Instinct is pre made raw


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Definitely confused by the OP now. Maybe they meant Nature Diet?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I ordered it by mistake. I thought it was kibble and they were doing a special offer. My dog is prone to the runs and I was looking for something else to try. I have a freezer full now 

Bearcub. That's intersting. So you don't only feed raw food? 

I was accused of not giving may reasons why I don't (except just now--till it's done) feed raw. I didn't want to start with a very long post, but I do have other reasons.

I don't believe that there is any good evidence (not anecdotes) that raw feeding is in any way better than other dog food

I think it's basically a marketing ploy and that these companies are preying on most good dog owners desire to "do the best" for their dogs and it's an emotional choice, not a rational one.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

And can I apologise for using the word "extremists". I was feeling got at. Sorry.


I can't use the "edit" feature so I have to double post.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I ordered it by mistake. I thought it was kibble and they were doing a special offer. My dog is prone to the runs and I was looking for something else to try. I have a freezer full now
> 
> Bearcub. That's intersting. So you don't only feed raw food?
> 
> ...


But most of us don't buy pre made raw. Most of us source our meat from different places...


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

So you buy it all separatly? Why do you do that when there is pre-made raw diets available? Would that not be more convenient?

The stuff I have is

Working Dog Food - Natural Instinct


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I ordered it by mistake. I thought it was kibble and they were doing a special offer. My dog is prone to the runs and I was looking for something else to try. I have a freezer full now
> 
> Bearcub. That's intersting. So you don't only feed raw food?
> 
> ...


How long have you fed the Natural Instinct for? It does take time for a dog's natural pH levels in his tummy to adjust to digesting raw food, so the transition isn't always immediate. If you did stick with it, I'm sure you would see results, particularly in the poo department.

I do feed exclusively raw, but just give little snacks here and there - fruit and veg are not fed alongside their meals but just ad hoc as a little treat. The grass and horse poo they treat themselves too 

I agree that Natural Instinct and other pre made raw companies are using marketing ploys, just like Bakers and Pedigree do - but at least they can go some way to back up their claims. I can't imagine ever being able to afford to feed my two on pre made raw - most companies are extortionately expensive - NI quoted me for DIY raw £5/kilo for chicken carcasses last year. I can buy them for 40p/kilo from a local butchers.

Just remember though, it's not the pre made raw companies that 'invented' the concept of raw - they've just jumped on the bandwagon and are exploiting it for all it's worth. It's the same as the multiple companies selling chicken keeping equipment for 'urban farmers' - something that people have been doing for many years but now it's become fashionable and therefore expensive.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I feed raw chicken, beef, lamb, turkey, rabbit, venison, fish. In different ratios of meat bone and organ. Occassional pork.
I also feed kibble sometimes when I'm away somewhere. Grain free.
He also gets tinned oily fish, raw and cooked eggs, and left overs.

I'd say that's more variety than any commercial food.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2012)

Personally, I think that ANYTHING commercially made is suspect. I feed kibble for sheer convenience reasons and my dogs do well on it. If I had a dog with severe allergies I would probably be more motivated to feed raw. Right now Im just not, though I do feel its a healthier choice. 
Healthier for the same reason I would rather my child eat an apple than a bowl of commercially prepared applesauce with additives and preservatives. 
I tend to go by the adage that food should remember where it came from.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> but at least they can go some way to back up their claims.


That's the crux of my argument. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up their assertions that it's better for dogs

Shrap. That _is_ a varied diet! But why not cooked meat? Is it necessary to feed it raw?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion


Hopefully you view this post in the manner who expect.



> I don't believe that raw feeding is necessarily bad for dogs. I am not aware of any research which finds this, I feel it is merely another marketing line for the purveyors of things-we-don't-really-need.


Who's gains from this marketing? Ok I know BARF tends to be over commercialized but that is only one segment of those who raw feed. Butchers etc don't generally advertise raw and to be honest haven't got a clue about. In fact normally you have to educate your friendly butcher  The main people who provide marketing are commercial food companies who try to convince people that theirs is the only way to feed a complete diet for a dog although marketing is only one ploy. Interesting to note for instance the Delta Society in the states have banned raw fed dogs from being therapy dogs. Apparently due to scientific evidence. It may not be an influencing factor that the secretary for the charity is Brenda Bax; Marketing Director of a major commercial dog food company, Purina. There is also scientific evidence that dry food fed dogs also shed salmonella to counter this and only recently several people were hospitalized in the states. In 2008 over 70 people were hospitalized (Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Dry Dog Food - US News and World Report). Why then pick out raw feeding?

I'll then go mention benefits. Why is it raw feeders tend to be so passionate about the feeding method. Without going into details within this thread (as I get the feeling this post is going to be long enough) could it be they see the benefits first hand with their dogs?



> It is generally accepted that dogs split from wolves at least 10s of thousands of years ago (and there is evidence that it could be as much as 100 thousand years ago) and evolved to tuck into human midden waste. that waste included meat and bones, but also included vegetable matter and human waste (poo) from which they could also extract nutrition. (the jaws and teeth of dogs have evolved to allow them to eat this variety of matter. The GI tract of dogs differs from wolves for this same reason).


I'd like to see your reasoning for this impression. http://www.thewholedog.org/NHMVTheOmnivoreCarnivoreQuest.pdf is a good article which argues against this. In fact it's interesting to note that most of the raw feeders who feed vegetable matter specifically process it first, such as blending it, to enable nutrition from it to be more easily extracted. They can survive on vegetation but optimally should be eating meat.



> The Nutritional Advisory Group for American zoos recommend feeding ALL captive carnivores on a cooked diet. Not raw.


Why is it that documents such as http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/zoo/WholePreyFinal02May29.pdf exist on a us government site no less. UK zoos as far as I am aware do not feed commercial food and certainly do not cook it for carnivores. Could it be in the US another example of commercialization and lobbying? I do not know.

You do not mention anything about the argument for or against commercial food. Arguments for include it's convenient, it's nutritionally balanced etc. However there are plenty of reasons not to feed commercial foods when you start looking into them and their ingredients. If you go through http://files.championpetfoods.com/ORIJEN_White_Paper.pdf, a document put on the web by a commercial pet food company it argues that dogs are carnivores and should be fed as such. It also mentions how carbohydrates are not needed for dogs and yet commercial food is full of carbohydrates which could potentially stress a dogs liver. Lets also not forget the questionable preserves and additives which are in some foods.

At the bottom of the link "Pet Food: A Dog's Breakfast" Documentary Available in Media Library Collection « Poisoned Pets is an interesting video which is worth watching. Is the food you're feeding your pet killing it? (and making your vet rich) | Mail Online is also an interesting read and you can find other articles around which are similar.

In summary then for me I've seen benefits for the idea of raw feeding and how it is, despite your apparent views, the most natural feeding method for dogs. I have also seen why commercial foods are not a healthy alternative. Is is surprising I feed raw and will continue to do so?


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> That's the crux of my argument. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up their assertions that it's better for dogs
> 
> Shrap. That _is_ a varied diet! But why not cooked meat? Is it necessary to feed it raw?


I would still have to feed bone, and it would be pointless cooking expensive cuts of meat to then feed stripped bare bone. Why cook when you can feed it raw? Cooking increases available calories, so would need to feed less. Cooking changes composition of fats and over consumption of cooked fats can cause pancreatitis.
Being able to vary his meals gives him much more enjoyment and a much better work out, as well as being the best way to clean his teeth.

Probably missed some reasons out as well.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> It does take time for a dog's natural pH levels in his tummy to adjust to digesting raw food


Not sure what you mean by this Bearcub. Are you saying that there is some alteration in the Ph levels in the gut after they start eating raw food? How does this happen?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Not sure what you mean by this Bearcub. Are you saying that there is some alteration in the Ph levels in the gut after they start eating raw food? How does this happen?


I can't really explain it as well as it was explained to me at a vet's lecture I went to, but basically a dog's natural pH level is fairly low - ie more acidic but over time a kibble fed dog's pH balance will rise slightly to a more unnatural level of around 5 or 6. If a kibble fed dog is put on raw, his pH balance will, over time, revert back to a natural level of around 4 and will enable him to digest his food more efficiently.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Because cooking can decrease the vitamin content of some foods.
Because dogs can eat RAW food as they have strong digestive acid.

Dogs should not eat cooked bones as they splinter.

And this thread sums up the variety and enjoyment of the dogs eating RAW foods : http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-health-nutrition/188747-whats-bowl-today.html

The evidence is probably in dogs who eat raw and no longer suffer from allergies or skin conditions and who have great teeth etc.... so when owners see the dogs improve or are in great condition then that is enough for them.

There will always been those who agree with it and those that don't .


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't think anyone has 'got' at you... I think people are just picking up on points you have made... some of which I don't quite understand anyway.

You start by saying that dogs have evolved enough away from wolves, to not need to eat raw food and then follow that by saying zoos feed animals who *haven't* evolved away from that, cooked food. That isn't really relevant considering they are feeding animals cooked food, when they are perfectly capable and designed to eat raw food... as there wild counterparts do. Also, when asked why they do this, your response was that there is too much risk when handling such large quantities of food, hygiene etc... not that it isn't actually the right thing to feed. I think zoos feed such things because it is more convenient... same as though zoos who feed kibble.

Then, we have your point about captive animals living longer. That really means very little, considering diet is not a common killer among wild animals (except the lack of!), they have after all, evolved to eat that specific diet. If they hadn't, and weren't capable of that diet, then they would have died out. Wild animals face many more dangerous than captive animals do, they face harsh conditions, lack of food, injury and illness (captive animals are treated by vets)etc etc. So, your point doesn't really hold much value at all.

What about a dogs teeth and digestive system is different from a wolves? And what in a dogs mouth suggest it is suitable to eat vegetables?

I have no doubt in my mind that a raw diet is the best way to feed for my dogs. My older dog has allergies to grains which is how I came across raw diets, and it all makes sense now... I couldn't feed differently now, the change in him is astonishing! It was, therefore, a given that my pup would go on to a raw diet too... and he is, he absolutely loves it and is thriving. He is 13 weeks old now, and was 7 weeks when I brought him home. The breeder was feeding him half raw and half kibble... after a week he was refusing the kibble so he put himself on to fully raw.

I don't like to feed pre-made raw because a lot of it is minced, and a lot of it has veg in it. It is also a fair bit more expensive, and I love to shop around and get some bargins  I also don't think you get the same variety when feeding pre-made.

Even if people do believe that dogs have evolved enough to not need raw meat (I, personally, don't believe that), I don't understand why they believe that they have evolved to eat such a high percentage of grains that kibbles have in them... and find raw such a strange thing...

My post isn't to 'get' at you, I am just picking up on points you made and trying to have a discussion


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> So you buy it all separatly? Why do you do that when there is pre-made raw diets available? Would that not be more convenient?


One of the advantages of not having pre made raw is you know what is being fed and the quantities being fed. Something to bear in mind is many raw feeders looked at it initially due to their dogs suffering allergies and many dogs have been helped because of it. With allergies it's important to know what you are giving so you can avoid triggers. It's also a matter of trust. You can ask if a company has a specific ration of things like liver and organs but is it really. Doing it yourself you know.

Isn't your dog worth a bit of inconvenience?

As for evidence being only ancedental. Who would fund studies? Commercial pet food companies have millions or billions invested so they can fund studies easily. Lippert and Sapy produced a report in 2003 based on statistics that showedhome prepared food increased the life span of dogs by approximately 3 years on average. OK not specifically raw but doesn't this show something is wrong with commercial food? As to animals living longer in captivity... erm I think I would live longer at home too rather than living in the wild where I had to fight for food  If this was a major and non-contentious point all zoos would feed commercial foods. They don't. 
[youtube_browser]kFYxv_HXq4I&NR[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> So you buy it all separatly? Why do you do that when there is pre-made raw diets available? Would that not be more convenient?
> 
> The stuff I have is
> 
> Working Dog Food - Natural Instinct


Missed this post sorry.

I don't find it that much more difficult to throw together different cuts of animals. He does get a fair amount of minced blocks with a small amount of bone in for meat variety. But does get raw meaty bones.

Convenience doesn't bother me, I have a large dog who eats approx 1-1.2kg a day so I can give larger cuts if I can't be bothered portioning.
Sometimes he gets fed once a day and sometimes twice, just depends on what I want to feed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Don't forget the benefit of teeth cleaning. Raw Meaty Bones cleans teeth. Even pedigree adverts state 80% of dogs have dental problems by the time they are three years old.

Lets look at some teeth from raw feeding:

A nine year old dog, fed kibble before changing to raw









After one month of raw feeding









Four months after starting raw feeding









When you consider dental problems actually can influence heart and liver problems it should make you think. Yes you can clean your dog's teeth or use man made products such a plaque-off but should you need to?


----------



## porchpotty (Aug 3, 2011)

We are all entitled to our opinions though. I feed my dog with dog food and sometimes cook for them. Occasionally, I feed them with raw and my dogs enjoy all these.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Goblin. In response to your points
1. There are numerous articles on salmonella (and other pathogens) in raw food and I'm sure there are some on processed food, too. It's not my main argument

2. I have already stated that I'm sure ther is lots of anecdotal evidence for the benifits of raw diet, but that's pretty poor evidence.

3. Your wholedog link did not, in any way, argue against what I said about the evolution of the dog. Did I miss something?

4. Perhaps the feeding of cooked food to carniverous captive animals is a vistim of lobbying. We'll never know.

5. I didn't read all of the Orijen paper, but on a quick reading, I am surprised by some of the tone of what they write. They state that dogs are carnivores and assert that they have an "exceptional" ability to secrete hydrochloric acid, stating that the Ph of a dogs gut is around "1-2". Yet humans, who are clearly ominvores, have a gastric Ph of between 1.5 and 3. Not really "exceptional" at all. Dogs can also convert carotene into Vit A and cystine ( found in beans and nuts-plant protiens) into the amino acid taurine. These (and many other similar metabolites_from non-meat protiens) are functions found in omnivores - therefore, contorary to what some people believe, dogs can, and do, metabolise plant protiens. I am not arguing that dogs are therefore carnivores, I'm just saying it's not as easy as that. 

6. I'm not an apologist for the dog food industry and I'm pretty sure a lot of what they produce is poor quality (and I agree with the poster who said "who needs the food to look pretty". There is no place for dyes in dog food. I just don't see that as a good reason to feed raw food.

7. I'm tired and going to bed. Hope to pick this up tomorrow!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Look i've said it before and i'll say it AGAIN

people so need to get over all this **** of salmonella and bacteria in raw food. Alot of people myself included eat a raw meat diet very similar to what people here feed there dogs, bar the bones  and a few other bits, guess what, i'm not sick everyday and have in fact never been healthier  amazing hey.

Also the pre made raw are a million miles away from feeding proper prey model raw and not everything should be about convenience. I buy in bulk and add food from alot of other places, would i change that? hell no!

Also you have only to PROPERLY look at the anatomy of a dog to see they are carnivores. The teeth, short digestive tract are almost identical to wolves what does that tell you.

*le sigh*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> 1. There are numerous articles on salmonella (and other pathogens) in raw food and I'm sure there are some on processed food, too. It's not my main argument


So don't use it



> 2. I have already stated that I'm sure ther is lots of anecdotal evidence for the benifits of raw diet, but that's pretty poor evidence.


Yet those who feed raw are passionate about it for a reason. What's the evidence against it? Bear in mind that the number of vets who support raw feeding are growing in number as they see the benefits in some dogs.



> 3. Your wholedog link did not, in any way, argue against what I said about the evolution of the dog. Did I miss something?


The article in question differs from your assertion that...


Old Shep said:


> (the jaws and teeth of dogs have evolved to allow them to eat this variety of matter. The GI tract of dogs differs from wolves for this same reason)..


I'm still waiting for the evidence of this from you to support your statement, especially when I see no adaptation in the jaws and teeth of dogs, in fact the reverse.



> 4. Perhaps the feeding of cooked food to carniverous captive animals is a vistim of lobbying. We'll never know


Which means it's not necessarily a good argument to use.



> Dogs can also convert carotene into Vit A and cystine ( found in beans and nuts-plant protiens) into the amino acid taurine. These (and many other similar metabolites_from non-meat protiens) are functions found in omnivores - therefore, contorary to what some people believe, dogs can, and do, metabolise plant protiens. I am not arguing that dogs are therefore carnivores, I'm just saying it's not as easy as that.


Even those who feed Prey Model Raw, rather than BARF (raw including vegetables) acknowledge that dogs and wolves can survive through harsh times on vegetation. It's simply not as efficient for them to do so. Just because they can doesn't mean they can thrive on it. As far as I am aware, omnivores can't survive on a pure meat diet, dogs can and do thrive on it. It's also interesting to note that certain breeds such as Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Newfoundlands, Dalmatians, Dobermans, Boxers and Great Danes may not be able to produce enough taurine from some commercial foods which can lead to heart problems.



> I'm not an apologist for the dog food industry and I'm pretty sure a lot of what they produce is poor quality (and I agree with the poster who said "who needs the food to look pretty". There is no place for dyes in dog food. I just don't see that as a good reason to feed raw food.


Which comes down to why you feed what you currently feed. What benefits can you prove as to your preferred method being better for dogs? It comes down to pros and cons for each. In my mind there are far more pros to raw feeding than there are for commercial food where there are many disadvantages.

I'm fully prepared, as most raw feeders are to accept not everyone wants to feed raw. If they start a discussion like this however they need to provide reasonable arguments as to why they feed what they feed instead and stack the pro column for their feeding method and con column for raw. On the flip side those who support raw can do the reverse.


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion
> 
> I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a sideline to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.
> 
> ...


I haven't read every post in the thread. Jut a few.

But I have to wonder what the point to the post is?

You don't feed raw. Okay, cool story. You don't agree with feeding raw. Again, cool story.

I don't feed kibble to my dogs, don't agree with feeding kibble, yet, I don't feel the need to start a thread to say so.

You don't like raw, then don't feed it.

I'd also suggest any organisation that thinks feeding ALL captive animals cooked food needs to go back to square one research wise.


----------



## Sarahferret (Apr 25, 2012)

I feed raw, and its down sides for me include
- it is currently more expensive than feeding commercial
- I am currently spending hours everyday trying to find cheaper sources of meat
- I now have a freezer taking up a large part of my living room
- it is harder to feed when away from home
- I do worry about whether I am getting it 'right'

With regards the last point, I would have the same issue with commercial. There are so many brands out there, they are all different. Science hasn't led to there being one perfect commercial food, so I'd still have to study labels which never show you 100% of contents and attempt to chose a brand that appeared the best, but I could get it just as wrong. At least feeding raw I know exactly what I'm giving.

As far as hygiene, salmonella etc, its not something that concerns me. I'm a, shall we say, messy person. I've never feared germs, I'm in my thirties and never had a sick day in my life.


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Lions being fed cooked food?

What do they have their steaks like, blue, rare, well done? I can just imagine a Lion walking into our steakhouse and asking for his steak :lol:

I apologise that is a bit childish, but really? I would've thought that since most zoos are conservationists and that some of the captive bred animals are then released into the wild.. that they would be fed a raw diet.

Also I would've thought it was less time consuming to chuck half a cow in a lion cage than it would cooking, preparing half a cow.. It just seems daft to me.



Old Shep said:


> That's the crux of my argument. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up their assertions that it's better for dogs
> 
> Shrap. That _is_ a varied diet! But why not cooked meat? Is it necessary to feed it raw?


You want evidence..




























All raw fed dogs - all looking fantastic, all healthy, all with shiny white teeth that are in competition with Simon Cowell, shiny coats and all jump about when they hear their freezer being opened.

IMO the proof is in the Puddin'. Meaning the proof of how good the diet is, is your own dog. It doesn't suit everyone but my dogs are thriving, as are my friends.

If you don't want to feed raw, then thats your choice - you don't have to explain yourself. It's not for everyone. I'm only just getting over the fact that I have to touch the meat, it's something that I don't like doing - even with my own food. But thats that. Seeing my dogs eating their dinner is fantastic. There is a link to my blog on the bottom of my signature.. thats is all about my dogs and their raw diet.. feel free to look through it.

And the only real difference between the anatomy of dogs and wolves is that dogs are generally smaller with smaller brains.



> "Column 1" - Total Skull Length
> 
> Largest male wolf: 29.3 cm
> 
> ...


Taken from and I apologise if this is not allowed.
Wolf and 19th and Early 20th Century Domestic Dog Skull Measurements

Which basically says they haven't evolved much...


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> So you buy it all separatly? Why do you do that when there is pre-made raw diets available? Would that not be more convenient?
> 
> The stuff I have is
> 
> Working Dog Food - Natural Instinct


I like to obtain it separately for many reasons, cost being a huge factor. I have a fantastic butcher and can feed around 1.3 - 1.5kg per day for £10 - £12 per month as opposed to something like Natural Instinct which would cost me upwards of £140 per month based upon their feeding guidelines (although I would think Kilo would need more as he eats 4% - 5% of his bodyweight at present).

ETA: their 'large' dog guideline is for dogs over 34kg, 48kg is quite a lot larger than that, so I adjusted the amounts accordingly, but still following their recommendation of percentage bodyweight to feed.


----------



## bluegirl (May 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion
> 
> I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a sideline to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.
> 
> ...


I respect anyone's wishes not to feed raw but like you I thought long and hard about how I wanted to feed my dogs and I chose to feed raw and I have a whole list of reasons too, equally as valid as you points I'd imagine. But I think this is one of those divided subjects like religion and abortions your either for or against and there's no middle ground.
I'm glad you are happy to feed convenience food. I am happy feeding raw and have done for 10 yrs now. For me its the best decision I ever made. I'm sure you feel the same way with how you feed. I have no desire to try to change anyone's view.


----------



## Chihuahua-Rocky (May 10, 2011)

I personally don't feed raw, but that's not because I think it's bad. I actually think it's a really good way of feeding your dog. Today, there is so much "crap" in processed dog food and it is actually really difficult to find a decent one. If dogs were for example supposed to eat grains in any form, then why do so many dogs have allergic reactions to it? But yet for most cheap dog foods grains are on the first place in the ingredient list simply because it's cheaper than meat. Also, it is widely known that for example cooked chicken bones are very dangerous for dogs. So why would anyone feed their dog cooked chicken (including the bones) when this would put the dog in danger. Rocky had loads of raw chicken necks and backs before and he loved munching them up . Seeing him loving it just says it all really.

Same about Zoos. I actually can't believe that it is recommended that Zoos feed their animals cooked food. The point, that cooked food will reduce health risks is simply a lazy excuse as it would be more work to keep the place where food is prepared clean. I mean there are WILD animals (ok they are captured in a Zoo but that still makes them wild) and should therefore eat their food the way they would find it in their natural habitat.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm not an extremist.
Are kibble feeders lazy? 

When my dogs were on dry food they had, 
manky teeth
moulted terribly
were never satisfied after being fed
had allergies 
terrible stomach/colon problems
ear infections
kibble was often thrown up whole, so obviously they couldn't digest it properly
and the last straw, seizures.

Those problems still happened even on foods like Orijen and Arcana (though I will admit allergies were reduced on Arcana)
Also I was really put off dry food when I found maggots at the bottom of a bag (which thankfully I had stopped feeding them).

Since being on raw their teeth have improved drastically 
they've stopped moulting 
between 3 dogs there is less poo in a week then the dog next door does in a day - and it doesn't smell as strongly
their behaviour has improved 
they're satisfied after meals
stomach problems appear to have stopped
they're more obedient
one is now less aggressive to other dogs
ear problems have cleared up
they're generally calmer and happier
muscle tone has improved
fur is softer, yellow tint to the white dog has gone
even my rough coated dog feels smoother and has more shine
and total bonus - no seizures.

As I've said before, I think raw feeders are very eager to encourage people to feed raw because the changes are just so hugely positive, how could anyone not encourage that?


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

I looked into feeding raw at great length wanting to be sure I was doing the best for my dog.

My decision is a good quality wet food. It provides my dog with a balanced diet and I dont feel it's that far removed from raw tbh. Naturediet is steam sterilised and is our base. Most good quality wets are not laden with preservatives and colours and go thro minimal processing to retain nutrients.

I add variety by alternating with different brands. Zooplus do great cereal free high meat content with unusual proteins to add to the mix and I grab any special offers as they come along. As long as it's good quality. (Like to keep carbs and veg to a minimum)

For me, raw would be chunks of animal. I put a good wet diet over raw minces. It works out cheaper. I would need to bulk order to save money, dont have the freezer space and dont want that much food at a time.

Chicken wings for teeth are my limit. Providing chunks of animal is out. 

Tried denser bone but she doesnt digest it properly and I'm not prepared to go through the worry of bringing back up undigested bone, choking etc. The whole transition process tbh.

Not keen on having bloody remains lying around either in the house or in the garden. I'm not "Mrs Muscle" when it comes to cleaning but it wouldnt work. I have young grandchildren and for me the cleanliness side of things hits it on the head completely.

Not saying I'm right by any means, just my opinion.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

i don't feed raw. i am in no way against anyone who does though. alfie just wont touch the stuff! he is fed on home cooked plus a good quality kibble. his coat and teeth are in great condition and his breath is lovely!
he also hardly ever itches and he used to be quite scratchy when he was younger and on other brands of cheaper food. it also works for his sensitive tummy which is now much, much better!

the way i see it is just like with people dogs can do very well on different diets, one can do really well on raw while others can do very well on kibble.

i do believe that dogs are so far evolved now from wolves as a whole that that theory isn't relevant anymore (many believe the training methods are outdated that are based on dogs being wolves etc) and dogs do not 'need' to be fed how they would in the wild as most breeds would have never been in the 'wild'.

i do believe op your argument for why you dont feed raw took a major u-turn when you say you are feeding raw!
also your dog will have a sensitive tummy if you are always changing food to what is on offer that week imho.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

This has GOT to be a wind up right? :sosp:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Mmm, so really the title should be "why I do feed ready prepared raw"?


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Do you know...
I don`t think it`s any of my business what you feed your dog. 
Why should I care what you feed your dog? :sosp:
Why do you need to justify what you feed your dog? 

I feed my dogs what they like and what I can afford and what I consider to be a good diet. I feel absolutely no need to justify it. 
So why do you?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> i do believe that dogs are so far evolved now from wolves as a whole that that theory isn't relevant anymore


Based on what evidence though. Evidence already given shows the similarity in jaw structure through to digestion methods.



> (many believe the training methods are outdated that are based on dogs being wolves etc)


The wolf expert who coined the phrase "alpha" now states he was wrong.
[youtube_browser]tNtFgdwTsbU[/youtube_browser]

Regardless, the whole issue about if dogs are still carnivores isn't justification for commercial food. Many raw feeders feed the BARF method which is a mix of meat and vegetables.

To be honest my main gripe with threads like this is the lack of reasons given why commercial food is "better". The main reasons I see is that it is more convenient and, if you believe the marketing, is balanced and complete but even that comes back to convenience.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I've switched two dogs from kibble to raw. Rupert had terrible weight problems for about 6 years, sat at around 26kg when his ideal weight was 35kg. This was despite me managing to get over 1kg of kibble into him a day. Tests showed nothing wrong with him at all. Eventually switched him to raw and what a difference! His coat went from harsh and dull to soft and shiny, he had more energy, he stopped itching, he stopped getting hot spots anywhere near as regularly and most of all he seemed to actually enjoy his food. And keeping weight on him was much easier!

Spencer came to me fed cheap and crappy kibble mixed with an even cheaper wet food. I switched him to a higher quality food but then realised that for the same price I could feed him raw. He was bouncing off the walls when fed the cheap kibble, a bit calmer on the higher quality kibble and a lot calmer on raw. His coat is better, his teeth were already starting to go yellow at just 9 months old but are now white again. His coat is lovely, his skin is great and he doesn't smell at all. As for his enjoyment...well I've never seen a dog get in a crate as fast as he does when he sees me pick up his food!

I feed a lot of pre-prepared minces even though I'd rather not as I have nowhere nearby where I can get meat at an affordable price. It works out more expensive than it does for those in the UK who feed raw but still around the same price as a reasonable quality dog food. I make sure to order raw meaty bones and what large chunks of meat I can and Spencers diet is certainly varied. He gets fruit and veg too, natural yoghurt and any healthy table scraps. Personally I'd think a raw diet is far more varied than simply being fed the same kibble day in, day out.


----------



## kerberos (Jun 18, 2012)

this will always be an ongoing debate until commercial dog food producers are shunned by the average dog owner for its content,when will the vets speak out.

I feed a variety of wet and dry foods along with blended veg, scraps and 'cooked meat', cooked because these are family pets.

does every RAW feeder freeze their food first or just throw it straight out on the yard for their dogs?

when i have a big enough freezer ill be going to the slaughter house to 'invest' in what they have for the dogs, i agree that dogs are far from wolves though !

I was shocked to find that the bio-fuel industry competes with the dog food companies for chip fat etc and i can see this in many dry feeds.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

I've found this thread interesting, yes I've read most of it before, but was nice to see why some people choose not to feed raw. I have every intention of starting my BC on raw when we get near to the end of her bag of kibble. 

My reasons; it looks like incredibly boring food, Grace doesn't enjoy eating it, she can go a whole day without touching it and although her health seems reasonable I don't feel she is getting the right nutrition for her.

The kibble she is on was recommended by the vet, but I really don't feel it's the right food for her.


----------



## Barkley Star (Feb 10, 2012)

Dizzy Grace said:


> I've found this thread interesting, yes I've read most of it before, but was nice to see why some people choose not to feed raw. I have every intention of starting my BC on raw when we get near to the end of her bag of kibble.
> 
> My reasons; it looks like incredibly boring food, Grace doesn't enjoy eating it, she can go a whole day without touching it and although her health seems reasonable I don't feel she is getting the right nutrition for her.
> 
> The kibble she is on was recommended by the vet, but I really don't feel it's the right food for her.


Mine are like that, they don't show much enthusiasm for kibble, unless it's "dressed up" or they are really hungry. To the point where I was worried about them getting enough vitamins and minerals. They also have problems with their anal glands, so we were giving them chicken wings weekly to firm things up. In the end I though, why not just go raw? It's cheaper and would mean less faff. I've just changed them over, so I am still trying to figure out what works for us and get it right. But they look better, have lost their extra kilos while retaining their energy levels and most importantly they now love feeding time!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Based on what evidence though. Evidence already given shows the similarity in jaw structure through to digestion methods.
> 
> The wolf expert who coined the phrase "alpha" now states he was wrong.
> [youtube_browser]tNtFgdwTsbU[/youtube_browser]
> ...


I just don't think they are anymore, dogs have evolved greatly and there is evidence and studies that prove that too, basically there is always studies to go with everything, but i dont see that a bichon is closely related to wolves imo.

anyway like i said i am not against raw feeding, i just believe there are dogs who do well on raw and there are dogs who live healthy, happy and long lives on commercial food too.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

As far as I'm concerned kibble/wet food is merely a way to exploit people into providing what they feel is the *best* for their dog. The only raw I feel matches that is the commercial stuff, ie. Prize Choice. Otherwise I don't really understand where that opinion comes from. My dog gets fed from abattoirs and butchers where the vast majority of meat I eat comes from

I don't really care for the whole wolves thing. I feed raw because I know I'm giving him a lump of chicken, as opposed to a lump of chicken, and rice, and chicory root, and oats, and barley, and vitamins A, B C, whatever etc. Its simple food, he gets what he needs (he's had blood tests showing his phosphorous and calcium levels etc are all good) and I don't have to worry that I'm setting off his skin by not knowing what he is eating.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I just think of it the same as human food, you can prepare your own from scratch or live off ready meals of varying quality. I personally also don't think dogs have the teeth for chewing kibble, if you have ever seen a dog throw up the kibble it's the same as it was in the bowl


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I just don't think they are anymore, dogs have evolved greatly and there is evidence and studies that prove that too, basically there is always studies to go with everything, but i dont see that a bichon is closely related to wolves imo.


Neither are Pitbulls like Chihuahuas but they still have the same nutritional and feeding requirements other than quantities They are both dogs. I keep hearing of evidence of differences between wolves and dogs but still do not see any based on biology. Even if this evidence was provided the question is still one of natural food vs processed food and which would be better for a dog.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

I don't feed raw mainly for practical reasons - I hate handling raw meat, I don't have the freezer space, Charlie & I have dinner at other people's houses at least once a week and sometimes he's fed 'on the road' if we're out all day at the weekend for example. It just doesn't make sense for us. 

But also in the same way that (if I have kids) I'll be buying them the 50/50 disposable/eco friendly nappy, rather than the hassle of terry cloth or the irresponsibility of buying the standard plastic that's filling up our landfills...I'm going to continue to feed Charlie on what I consider to be a good quality wet and dry food rather than putting in a lot of effort to feed raw for not much gain.



As with everything with our lives - these decisions are personal


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Goldstar. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I think the issue of captive animals diet is taking us off at a tangent. *Captive carnivores actually live longer than wild animals.* I cannot answer detailed questions about the Nutritional Advisory Group for American Zoos guidelines and how they come to those decisions, but I'd assume they are made in the best interests of the animals. I don't know what the NAGAZ say the risks of feeding raw food to captive animals would be, but *an educated guess would be spoilage being left in the enclosures and the large ammount of food being handled by a large staff, *which makes it difficult to maintain hygene standards. If food is cooked, prepared and packed at food processing plant, where all the resources are available to ensure risks are minimised, then transported to zooz for distribution *it minimises this risk.*This isn't my main point though. My main point is that dogs have evolved to eat a varied diet and not just a raw one.
> 
> Ouesi. I am currently feeding my dog Natural Instinct. By accident, rather than design


Yes maybe, but I believe that is because they face no threats be it from man or other animals. They also receive regular meals in captivity (be it bad or good) an animal can survive on a lot of things, whether they actually thrive on it is a completely different story 

Lucky loves burying a bone then eating it after a few days when its stinky, perfectly fine and perfectly natural IMO. So the other argument regarding handling by staff just comes down to convinience really. Hardly in the best interest of the animals is it but rather in the best interest of the staff. 

What risk? If you are referring to this salmonella rubbish then please don't tell me you really believe there is no risk of this from kibble

I am not bothered what anyone else feeds, I feed prey model raw because I believe its best for my dog. My belief, my choice. I don't ever expect anyone to justify what they feed, its none of my business.

The ONLY proof I need that this diet works is my thriving dog who has never had one health issue since feeding raw. That far outweighs any written document or commercial food ad


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Gosh what a lot of comments since last night! I'll try to answer them.

I have stated - repeatedly - that I am not an apologist for the dog food industry. At no time have I said their food is best, in fact, I did state that some of it was rubbish. That does not mean that a raw diet is better. What about a home prepared, cooked diet?

I agreed that dogs fed raw bones seem to have better teeth than those who don't. This is why I give my dog a raw bone from the butcher from time to time (or even a rack of lamb flank).

I believe I already replied to the bacteria-in-dog-food question. I don't want to repeat myself. (I do think that a human diet which based on raw food is a tad extreme. Even the Innuit don't do this exclusivly. But they do have very nice teeth!)

I have never said dogs were not carnivores -I made a typo last night, but if you read my post you would realise I was stating that although dogs can metabolise plant protien, they were carnivores. I'm not going to argue with The Smithsonian Institute! BTW, giant pandas are also classed as carnivores, although their diet is 99% plant based.

The process of domestication has resulted in dogs having very much smaller teeth (proportionally to the size of the skull); the shape of the mandible being more curved; the development of an angle between the facial region and the cranium (the stop); weaker jaw muscles and the overall size of the skull being proportionally smaller. There are other evolutionary changes which the GI tract has undergone the evolution of the dog, but my time is limited.

I stated quite clearly that I was not arguing that a raw diet was neccissarily bad for a dog. I was stating that I had seen no evidence that it is better than the majority of comercially produced diets. No one has yet given me anything at all which shows that a raw diet is superior. While stories of dogs miraculous recovery from a mydrid of assorted ailments may be interesting to the owners of these dogs, they do not, in any way, represent evidence of efficacy.

I think Bluegirl hit the nail on the head when she said


> But I think this is one of those divided subjects like religion and abortions your either for or against and there's no middle ground.


 because feeding a raw diet is an emotional decision, rather than a rational one. And that's OK. but let's be honest about it--there is no credible evidence that it is better for dogs per se.

Emma said


> i do believe op your argument for why you dont feed raw took a major u-turn when you say you are feeding raw!
> also your dog will have a sensitive tummy if you are always changing food to what is on offer that week imho.


You clearly didn't read all my posts as I explained why I was currently feeding raw and I am not stupid, or stingy- I do NOT change feed regularly. Personal Comments like this do not contribute to the discussion.

Thanks for all the replies and no, it's not a wind up, just a healthy, robust discussion.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

I still love my diet, so do my dogs. I don't need to justify it to anyone. You might think my diet is extreme ( i never said i SOLEY eat raw meat), but then the same can be said about a vegan diet

TBH this thread is rather poinless


----------



## Jugsmalone (Apr 11, 2011)

Dogless said:


> I like to obtain it separately for many reasons, cost being a huge factor. I have a fantastic butcher and can feed around 1.3 - 1.5kg per day for £10 - £12 per month as opposed to something like Natural Instinct which would cost me upwards of £140 per month based upon their feeding guidelines (although I would think Kilo would need more as he eats 4% - 5% of his bodyweight at present).
> 
> ETA: their 'large' dog guideline is for dogs over 34kg, 48kg is quite a lot larger than that, so I adjusted the amounts accordingly, but still following their recommendation of percentage bodyweight to feed.


I need to find a butcher that cheap. I would love to put coles back on raw and try Buster on it but I've not managed to find a cheap butcher. Buster would cost a for:bored:tune to feed.


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I stated quite clearly that I was not arguing that a raw diet was neccissarily bad for a dog. I was stating that I had seen no evidence that it is better than the majority of comercially produced diets.


And I see no evidence that a commercial food is better than raw.

Again, I'm really not sure why you started the thread.

I feed raw, I have fed kibble and wet, both high quality. My dogs personally do better on raw.

Less waste, great teeth, great coats, nice calm dogs etc. Plus I save around £60 per month compared to when I was feeding commercial.

So for me personally the pro's of feeding raw far outweigh the pros of commercial food.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Jugsmalone said:


> I need to find a butcher that cheap. I would love to put coles back on raw and try Buster on it but I've not managed to find a cheap butcher. Buster would cost a for:bored:tune to feed.


Are there no suppliers that delivery your way? i manage to feed my two on about £10 a month


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> The process of domestication has resulted in dogs having very much smaller teeth (proportionally to the size of the skull);
> 
> While stories of dogs miraculous recovery from a mydrid of assorted ailments may be interesting to the owners of these dogs, they do not, in any way, represent evidence of efficacy.
> .


This first point you make is exactly why I prefer to feed a raw diet. I have Chihuahuas which due to the size of their jaws and teeth are prone to alot of tooth decay and gum damage that is exacerbated by kibble and soft foods. Feeding them raw bones is a perfect way of exercising their jaws and cleaning their teeth. I also think raw food gives them a mental work out too as it takes more effort to work out how to eat it as opposed to just hoovering up kibble.

Ive enjoyed hearing how much better peoples dogs are on raw food! Good for you lot! I think the evidence at this stage is annecdotal...but how much annecdotal evidence would it take to convince you, Old Shep??


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Old Shep - I, personally, find your comment that feeding a raw diet is an emotional decision, and not a rational one, an offensive comment. It really makes me not want to have a rational discussion with you, if you are going to say such things.

You keep going on about feeding raw, and whether it is right etc, well what makes kibble so 'right'?


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

I can't help but think this thread is just completely pointless - to be honest, if you don't feed raw, so what?!  It's no big deal - lots of people don't feed raw. You're not going to change the raw feeders minds - our dogs are all the proof we need that raw is the way to go - and at the same time, we're not going to change your mind - you're clearly happy feeding commercial food, and that's fine, millions of dogs do just fine on kibble/wet diets, and as long as it's good quality, I see no problem with it whatsoever.

I haven't read all of the thread - but have picked up a few points. Every zoo I've ever been to, and indeed my local zoo (which is acknowledge as one of the best in Europe), are clearly ignoring the ''experts'' who advise feeding cooked meat to captive carnivores. Why? Because it's a load of cr*p! Carnivores need meat - and they're designed to eat it raw, and it's what the animals thrive on.

The bacteria argument is fruitless and one I get sick of hearing. Bacteria isn't an issue for dogs like it is for us - if we ate cow poo, drank from streams, put things in our mouths that we picked up from the street, and shared communal drinks that are left outside cafes/pubs - then no doubt we'd get ill, but dogs don't.

I have been feeding my dogs raw for over forty years - handling raw meat for mostly multiple dogs for all those years - twice a day, every day - and never once have I became ill through doing so. But eating cooked meat? Now that's a different story! I've lost count of how many times I've ended up with a jiffy tummy through eating cooked meat that either hasn't been cooked or stored properly.

In regards to why do raw feeders feed the meat raw rather than cooked, then it's quite simple - cooking destroys nutrients. Why would we go to the hassle and fuss of cooking a food when it's actually healthier and far more nutritional to feed it raw? It'd be a waste of time and energy! Not to mention it'd be unsafe - a diet of just meat isn't enough (whether it be cooked or raw) - dogs need bone in the diet too, and these are dangerous if fed cooked. Of course we could use a supplement to provide the calcium and minerals bone contain - but again, why would we bother to go to all that hassle?! Bones are packed full of goodness, and fantastic for the teeth to boot - they're also cheap and great fun for the dog.

As for why do most raw feeders source their food themselves rather than buying the pre-made raw - obviously I can't speak for others, but for me, one of the main reasons I feed raw is because I like to see exactly what my dogs are eating - if I wanted to feed something that was manufactured by someone else, with goodness knows what has really been added to it, then I might as well feed kibble - but by sourcing my own raw from the butchers and fishmongers, I can see my dogs food in it's whole natural state - and the vast majority is fit for human consumption - so I know exactly what is going into my dogs - and I know that absolutely no additives, chemicals, junk, cereals, grains or derivatives are passing their lips.

Having a dog terminally ill with stomach cancer (directly linked to poor nutrition) this is of HUGE indescribable importance to me.



pogo said:


> You might think might diet is extreme, but then the same can be said about a vegan diet


I like this. Whilst I can't say I'd ever be inclined to go as far as eating raw meat myself (I even like my steak well done! ) I've seen you mention that you do several times, and I like the comparison you've done to the vegan diet. Both ''extreme'' (for the lack of a better word) diets - but neither more so than the other.


----------



## Jugsmalone (Apr 11, 2011)

pogo said:


> Are there no suppliers that delivery your way? i manage to feed my two on about £10 a month


That is cheap! I've not give up yet. I currently spend £85 for food for both of them. I've recently had to put coles on wet food as his mouth is so sore from the dry food (storage mite allergy).

I just need to find that special butcher


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

A lot of the comments coming back confirm that some posters have not even read my replies. Don't keep going on about pathogenic organsims, because we have covered that and I fully accept that there are cases of this occuring in both processed and raw dog diets. Similarly the issue of the AMERICAN Nutrition Advisory Group. Obviously, its remit is zoos in AMERICA. Here is there website.
Nutrition Advisory Group

I'm not going to continue with this discussion because it appears that there is actually no evidence that it is better for dogs. This was the reason I started the thread. i _genuinely_ wanted to see what the evidence was as I had never been able to find any.


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> A lot of the comments coming back confirm that some posters have not even read my replies. Don't keep going on about pathogenic organsims, because we have covered that and I fully accept that there are cases of this occuring in both processed and raw dog diets. Similarly the issue of the AMERICAN Nutrition Advisory Group. Obviously, its remit is zoos in AMERICA. Here is there website.
> Nutrition Advisory Group
> 
> I'm not going to continue with this discussion because it appears that there is actually no evidence that it is better for dogs. This was the reason I started the thread. i _genuinely_ wanted to see what the evidence was as I had never been able to find any.


But where is the evidence that cooked or commercial food is better?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> What about a home prepared, cooked diet?


I admit that I don't know a lot about cooked diets although my understanding is that supplements are frequently necessary. Cooking is known to change the nutritional value of food which makes providing a balanced diet even more difficult. When a dog is designed to eat raw meat, why not supply raw meat? Never seen a dog or a wolf cook for itself 



> The process of domestication has resulted in dogs having very much smaller teeth (proportionally to the size of the skull); the shape of the mandible being more curved; the development of an angle between the facial region and the cranium (the stop); weaker jaw muscles and the overall size of the skull being proportionally smaller. There are other evolutionary changes which the GI tract has undergone the evolution of the dog, but my time is limited.


When you consider every breed of dog has a different skull shape it's not surprising that teeth are different. Look at a brachycephalic small dog's teeth layout and you'll likely see a mess However the number and design of the each tooth is the same or am I wrong? You can argue that the teeth are not as large but we are talking about the function of of each tooth and how they are used to eat. That hasn't changed. Whilst jaw muscles may be naturally stronger in a wolf, one of the things most raw feeders notice is the strengthening of the muscles used when eating simply due to them actually being used for what they are designed to be used for.



> I stated quite clearly that I was not arguing that a raw diet was neccissarily bad for a dog. I was stating that I had seen no evidence that it is better than the majority of comercially produced diets. No one has yet given me anything at all which shows that a raw diet is superior. While stories of dogs miraculous recovery from a mydrid of assorted ailments may be interesting to the owners of these dogs, they do not, in any way, represent evidence of efficacy.


And yet you have stated 


Old Shep said:


> I'm not an apologist for the dog food industry and I'm pretty sure a lot of what they produce is poor quality (and I agree with the poster who said "who needs the food to look pretty". There is no place for dyes in dog food.


Now if you admit a lot of commercial food is poor quality whilst not showing any disadvantages to raw feeding where does that place your argument?



> feeding a raw diet is an emotional decision, rather than a rational one.


I'd say feeding commercial food is an emotional decision or being blinded by marketing from large commercial companies. Most of those who raw feed have done a lot of research into dog nutrition as well as looking into things like possible risks involved so it becomes a rational decision.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

lozzibear said:


> Old Shep - I, personally, find your comment that feeding a raw diet is an emotional decision, and not a rational one, an offensive comment.


I find it a little offensive too, as if I am some silly woman (not being sexist...I am a woman!) who makes big decisions like this on the basis of some romantic notion.

I made the decision to feed raw after the fantastic vet that I used to go to gave me the final push needed, with her very rational reasoning. I had been considering it for a while, but lacked confidence I suppose with Kilo being still a puppy. It wasn't done on a whim or because I fancied the idea, but because I believe that I am doing my best by my dog.

I don't mind whether people feed wet, dry, raw or a combination TBH - although I do like to think that some rational thought has entered into the process!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Again. Not one single piece of evidence that a raw food diet is better for dogs that a good commercially prepared one. Not one.

This merely confirms my original opinion, which I put aside for the purposes of this discussion as I was open to persuasive, rational argument, that it is a passing fad, based in sentiment rather than hard science. ONE piece of _proper _evidence from a well constructed trial is all I ask. That's not much to expect is it? I cannot find any, and I thought people who had made the active decision to feed their dogs in this way would have access to _something_ rational.

It appears I was mistaken


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Another one who finds the comment that feeding raw is an emotional decision offensive.

Out of interest Oldshep have you ever owned a dog will allergies? Have you ever seen your 6 month old pup having convulsions trying to be sick but having nothing left to throw up because of a cereal intollerance? have you ever had to pick up 16 (!!) poops a DAY because of a food storage mite allergy (it may surprise you to know these mites live in ALL commercial dry food and many dogs ARE allergic to them) have you ever had to coax you shaking dog from under the kitchen table to spray her blistered wheeping skin with steriods because of a reaction to her food? I would guess not.....this is what I have been through with Lexi over the past 3 years so don't say to me that I made an emotional choice to feed raw.

I have tried so many dry commercial kibbles I have lost count, I had her on wet foods but she is allergic to cooked meats (excluding turkey) and eventually at 18 months old we got her on burns turkey and rice kibble and she was ok, bad wind, 7 or 8 poos a day and terrible terribel teeth for an 18 month old because she couldn't have any treats, and finally at about 20 months i started to research raw feeding.

On her 2nd birthday we started to raw feed and my dog can now eat raw chicken, turkey, lamb, beef, rabbit, salmon, white fish, pork and other things all of which if fed cooked cause her to be poorly. She gets pro biotic yoghurt, veg, cottage cheese and other bits to help support her very weak digestive system and she is blooming.

All her hair has finally grown back after loosing a lot of it on her chest from a huge reaction to something which caused all her skin to blister, her teeth and pearly white, she is happy, healthy and poops 2 times a day.

My vet totally supports my diet and has even gone as far as telling me that my dog should technically be on daily medication as some of her allergies can be so extreme yet she is in such good shape he believes because of the time and effort i put into her diet.

I would never tell everyone to raw feed, and better a good quality kibble feeder than an uninformed raw feeder but for some dogs out there raw feeding is a llife line they needed.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Ive read this thread all the way through and have yet to see a single piece of evidence that raw food isnt better for dogs TBH! All we have heard is that cooked food is better for zoo animals in the US!!
So could we have the evidence for the opposing view on raw feeding please??
(if Im doing my dog a disservice I would be happy to view the evidence proving it).


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

im sorry but you seem rather rude towards raw feeders for no reason.

if you dont want to feed it fine but you neednt put it in that way.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Again. Not one single piece of evidence that a raw food diet is better for dogs that a good commercially prepared one. Not one.
> 
> This merely confirms my original opinion, which I put aside for the purposes of this discussion as I was open to persuasive, rational argument, that it is a passing fad, based in sentiment rather than hard science. ONE piece of _proper _evidence from a well constructed trial is all I ask. That's not much to expect is it? I cannot find any, and I thought people who had made the active decision to feed their dogs in this way would have access to _something_ rational.
> 
> It appears I was mistaken


Look you are far too obsessed with getting evidence if you put half the energy into researching what you want to feed your Dogs that you have into this thread there wouldn't have been any arguing.

I suggest you shut up, sod off, stop offending people and do your own bloody research.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Again. Not one single piece of evidence that a raw food diet is better for dogs that a good commercially prepared one. Not one.
> 
> This merely confirms my original opinion, which I put aside for the purposes of this discussion as I was open to persuasive, rational argument, that it is a passing fad, based in sentiment rather than hard science. ONE piece of _proper _evidence from a well constructed trial is all I ask. That's not much to expect is it? I cannot find any, and I thought people who had made the active decision to feed their dogs in this way would have access to _something_ rational.
> 
> It appears I was mistaken


Wow! I dont feed raw and I find this offensive LOL!
Did the pictures of the older dogs teeth not count as evidence to you?
I have read many studies that show raw is indeed very healthy, sorry, dont feel like looking them up ATM. Most are on veterinary journals anyway that are not readily available in linkable form.
The other problem is, there is no major corporation with a vested interest in running a study that would compare raw to kibble. No dog food company is going to back such a study - its not in their best interest!

If youre happy with your choice of food, why do you care what others feed so long as theyre not hurting their dogs?


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

I own up to have skim read a lot of this thread but I am now really confused 

I have decided that my next dog is going to have a raw diet (still a bit scared as it's all new to me) so please can someone tell me what is meant by commercially made raw? I noticed a pet shop had a freezer full of raw mince - is that it or is that classed as normal raw??


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

delca1 said:


> I own up to have skim read a lot of this thread but I am now really confused
> 
> I have decided that my next dog is going to have a raw diet (still a bit scared as it's all new to me) so please can someone tell me what is meant by commercially made raw? I noticed a pet shop had a freezer full of raw mince - is that it or is that classed as normal raw??


Natural Instict do commercially made raw, basically it comes in packs that look like an ice cream tub and its minced meat with veg and supposdly all the correct ratios (although I find that hard to believe) and they charge a small fortune.
I do feed minces which are sort of classed as commercial as its easier for breakfast time, but wouldn't but the 'pre-packed' everythig in one tub type.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

So complicated, I have a lot to learn!


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

delca1 said:


> So complicated, I have a lot to learn!


In practise, it's a lot simpler than it sounds when doing all the research!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

All I've found is that carrots are good 

Dietary

However, it is likely that β-carotene may serve to protect the immune cells against mitochondrial dysfunction and membrane rigidity

Effect of Prolonged Feeding of Raw Carrots on Vitamin A Content of Liver and Kidneys in the Dog


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

rona said:


> All I've found is that carrots are good
> 
> Dietary
> 
> ...


well, dammit!! My lot refuse to eat fruit and vegetables!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Found this. Haven't read it yet

Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't know of any proper studies that are pro-raw... who would fund such a study? Of course there are ones for kibble, because the kibble companies benefit from such a study. Since raw diets are commonly bought from small suppliers, butchers, supermarkets etc, then there is no one big company who will fund a study into it. 

The only evidence I need, is to look at my dogs and the way in which they are built, and designed... they are carnivores, and carnivores eat meat. I also look how utterly fantastic they are doing on it... Nothing else matters really.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I will say, however, that this type of backlash only contributes to the view that people who feed raw are extemists.


Wow. Clearly I'm _mental_!



Old Shep said:


> Captive carnivores actually live longer than wild animals.
> 
> This isn't my main point though. My main point is that dogs have evolved to eat a varied diet and not just a raw one.


Well of course they do! They have no predators and they have *vets*!

I'm confused as to your point. I doubt the raw brigade feed strictly only raw, nothing but. My lot get pizza crusts, bits of toast, ends of carrots, whatever falls on the floor and isn't dangerous, occasional dog biscuits, the list is endless. I want to know what my dogs eat, but I'm no fanatic. I prefer not to give them artificial additives, in as much as that is possible given the meat I use may have been injected with water etc. I'm happy, the dogs appear healthy, think I'll carry on with my extreme diet 

It's a choice, isn't it? Some horse owners only feed straights, the purest sort of food and no mixes. Some people eat no dairy etc.

Is your point to attack raw feeders and tell them they're silly and being swept away on a tide of fashion?  It costs me lots less to feed raw and I use a bloke who minces carcasses or gives me lumps of stuff: commercial he ain't!

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's stupid to have posted what you did because I honestly believe it's hugely personal what you feed your dog, but again, I really think people should take time to grasp the main feeling of a particular forum: there is a large contingent on here who feed raw and believe in it quite passionately. What were you expecting on this thread? I'm genuinely puzzled.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm appalled by the hysterical personal abuse I have been subjected to for apparently having the temerity to ask people for evidence that a raw diet is in any respect better for dogs than comercially prepred food.

Thank you Rona. You are the only person who has responded with actual evidence. Interstingly, it backs up my views. I suggest people read it. if you are so sure that raw feeding is best it should have no qualm about reading it.

I'm done.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I'm appalled by the hysterical personal abuse I have been subjected to for apparently having the temerity to ask people for evidence that a raw diet is in any respect better for dogs than comercially prepred food.
> 
> Thank you Rona. You are the only person who has responded with actual evidence. Interstingly, it backs up my views. I suggest people read it. if you are so sure that raw feeding is best it should have no qualm about reading it.
> 
> I'm done.


I don't believe most have subjected you to hysterical personal abuse; you have called raw feeders extremists who make the decision to feed raw for emotional reasons which I find offensive as it implies that I am incapable of reasoned decision making. I and many others have not resorted to trying to cause offense in return, yet have replied to your posts with our thoughts very politely.

I read the study that Rona linked to with interest; you may be relieved to hear that it didn't upset my unstable emotional equilibrium .


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I'm appalled by the hysterical personal abuse I have been subjected to for apparently having the temerity to ask people for evidence that a raw diet is in any respect better for dogs than comercially prepred food.


Where is this hysterical personal abuse? I don't see it  although I think I missed out page 9 cos I got bored.  

What I do see is someone posting controversial ideas about feeding zoo animals cooked food and saying raw is pointless.

If you received a poor response elsewhere (from a forum where people fed raw?! Shock, horror!), what the heck were you expecting here? I don't see anyone trying to brainwash others into feeding raw, I see people saying why they feed it. Commercial is fine, as long as it's not full of cereal, carciogenics and unnecessary colours and additives. There are, however, very few really good commercial foods available and disgracefully, none at all in most major supermarkets.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Dogless said:


> I don't believe most have subjected you to hysterical personal abuse; you have called raw feeders extremists who make the decision to feed raw for emotional reasons which I find offensive as it implies that I am incapable of reasoned decision making. I and many others have not resorted to trying to cause offense in return, yet have replied to your posts with our thoughts very politely.
> 
> I read the study that Rona linked to with interest; you may be relieved to hear that it didn't upset my unstable emotional equilibrium .


Woah, there, now, calm down!  I think you're getting a little unstable right there! This is terribly entertaining, I must say.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

LexiLou2 said:


> Natural Instict do commercially made raw, basically it comes in packs that look like an ice cream tub and its minced meat with veg and supposdly all the correct ratios (although I find that hard to believe) and they charge a small fortune.
> I do feed minces which are sort of classed as commercial as its easier for breakfast time, but wouldn't but the 'pre-packed' everythig in one tub type.


The thing is you don't want 'all the correct ratio's' constantly. That's one reason why raw is so good. Because it is not exactly the same every day, every meal, means certain organs get rested during the processing of meals. Vitamin/mineral/acids etc. aren't the same in all meats and by eating varieties different digestive processes work to break them down and digest/process them. Much the same as in the wild and much the same as our own diets we need a variety of foods, in the carnivores case meats. If we gave our dogs just chicken every day or we ate macdonalds for every single meal we would both be deficient and the same organs would be working to process our food without a days rest. Because raw food varies so much, some days beef the next pork and rabbit, the next offal and bones etc. different organs process different meats and on some days some will get rested as some meats are easier to process than others by the body. If a dog gets fed the same kibble day in day out, and many do throughout their lives the dogs digestive system and organs like the liver and kidneys are working at the same rate constantly, couple that with dry food and not enough fluid intake compared to the rate the dry food takes fluid out of the body and you can have kidney disease/failure later in life. Those kidneys have been totally overworked all the dogs life, as has the liver and most likely both have not had the moisture content they need for good, healthy function. One reason why raw fed dogs don't drink much, as they have plenty of moisture in the meat which makes organ function optimal.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that *I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding.*


But you dont. You want to talk about NOT feeding raw.

You started a thread about what people shouldnt do and get mad because people defend what theyre doing???


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Depends. My understanding of commercially prepared raw is raw mince mixed with ground bone and liver/organs in the 80/10/5/5 ratio (or so they say). Another type is raw "freeze dried" food.

A bag of raw mince on it's own would not be classified as prepared raw in my mind.

Old Shep.. you appear simply to want to discount/ignore any evidence given whilst not being able to support your views.

In your initial post:


> I feel it is merely another marketing line for the purveyors of things-we-don't-really-need.


 when talking about raw food. You also say 


> ONE piece of proper evidence from a well constructed trial is all I ask


There's your problem. You see marketing where it's a grass root movement based on experiences. It' not backed by big money to be able to produce what you feel you need but you will ignore logic as it's not convenient. Commercial food manufacturers have the money available to fund studies but can you find a single well constructed trial to say their food is better? (I've seen rona's link before but even that points to lack of proper studies) For me a statistical analysis not looking at raw which shows 3 years average extended lifespan when feeding a dog home prepared meals compared to commercial food is, when taken with many personal experiences pretty encouraging to me.

I'll leave with one more thing to consider..

To provide a dog with the opportunity to have a healthy and active life, a high carbohydrate diet, one that is simple, processed and having a high glycemic index should play no part in a dogs canine diet. Doing so leads to increased blood glucose and insulin levels, with the potential to develop many negative health issues including, but not exclusively damage to liver and kidneys. What's a major constituent of commercial food? Why is it that carbohydrates form such a large percentage of commercial food when they are not listed in the nutrient profiles created by the dog food companies themselves. These are the nutrient guidelines created so companies can use the label "complete".


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I just see someone asking for proof and reacting (maybe over reacting a little) to some very stroppy posting from others.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

ouesi said:


> But you dont. You want to talk about NOT feeding raw.
> 
> You started a thread about what people shouldnt do and get mad because people defend what theyre doing???


I totally agree with this ouesi and I said to my daughter that the very title of the thread was inflammatory to raw feeders. A thread entitled *'Why I feed a commercial diet*' would have been more appropriate. I would never put up a thread saying *'Why I don't feed kibble' *as surely I am going to find fault with a food others feed which I don't and most likely because I don't feed it I don't know much about it. So I am not surprised this thread has caused bad feeling, I'm pretty sure kibble feeders would feel the same had I put up a thread saying that I thought their way of feeding was wrong.

A thread saying why you *do* feed a certain food is much more appropriate IMO and much more diplomatic!


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

rona said:


> I just see someone asking for proof and reacting (maybe over reacting a little) to some very stroppy posting from others.


My problem with this thread though, is that it clearly wasn't posted in an attempt to actually learn... it was a thread to criticise. I could imagine the uproar from kibble feeders if a raw feeder started a thread called 'Why I don't feed kibble'... the title in itself shows that the OP had no intention to learn. All the OP has done is offend people and totally over-react


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Malmum said:


> *'Why I feed a commercial diet*' would have been more appropriate.


Not necessarily possible though as I have rarely seen logic and research being the basis of that decision.

Personal choice and trying to get the best commercial food for their dog is what is normally seen and I for one am quite content to try to help those interested in knowing which commercial foods are better than others if they wish to go that route.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lozzibear said:


> My problem with this thread though, is that it clearly wasn't posted in an attempt to actually learn... it was a thread to criticise. I could imagine the uproar from kibble feeders if a raw feeder started a thread called 'Why I don't feed kibble'... the title in itself shows that the OP had no intention to learn. All the OP has done is offend people and totally over-react


Christ we get raw feeding all the time!!!
A lot of them have had a go at me over the years because we have to feed Muddy Chappie 

We are the worst owners ever


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Another thing about scientific studies. It has been common in the past for vets to suggest low protein diets for kidney failure in dogs due to a scientific study. Recent studies however have shown the opposite to be the case. Despite this many vets will still push low protein diets made by commercial companies for dogs with kidney problems. This says a lot about the ability to change ideas and also the commercial companies putting money before the health of dogs.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

lozzibear said:


> My problem with this thread though, is that it clearly wasn't posted in an attempt to actually learn... it was a thread to criticise. I could imagine the uproar from kibble feeders if a raw feeder started a thread called 'Why I don't feed kibble'... the title in itself shows that the OP had no intention to learn. All the OP has done is offend people and totally over-react


I do wonder about the real intention of the OP, but I have to say I've quite enjoyed the factual parts of this thread and found it interesting, as well as seeing the views from a few others who are not feeding raw and their reasons why. Most of them aren't based on nutrition as far as I see, but cost/ease or their personal situations.

Rona I don't know your reasons, but each to their own as far as I am concerned and what suits some dogs doesn't suit others. Even different humans require different types of diets sometimes, that's just life, but I do agree that the raw feeders on this forum can be a little overbearing, however they are very passionate about it and I find that quite reassuring to an extent.

I think everyone knows that the majority of nutritionists and their studies are funded by pet food companies and it really isn't in their interest to publish anything that suggests an individual can provide the best diet for their pets without lining their pockets. So unless someone with plenty of money and time on their hands puts together a proper independent research into a raw diet the most factual evidence will always be somewhat anecdotal or personal experience.

I think when it comes down to it we all have to feed our dogs what we and they are happy with and not worry about what anyone thinks.


----------



## Halifu (Jan 22, 2012)

I've missed this 1
Can't really add more than others have said really, but had to say something.

Read the Op.
I find it crazy that some Humans think it better to feed wild animals in captivity cooked meat i.e. The study mentioned in US zoos mad. 
I'm just watching a nature programme on the box now and the lions dont seem to be BBQing their kill
My dogs have never looked better since they have been fed a raw diet, that's all that matters to me.
Come on. Same old dry pellet every day or propa chunks of meat,bones & offal.:rolleyes5:
No offence meant to anyone who feeds dry prep food
Is it a fad ? Or is it just more pet owners are waking up to what c*ap goes into a lot of the commercial dog foods....:yesnod:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I find it disgraceful that some find it appropriate to feed wild animals processed food, utterly disgraceful! Who on Earth can think this is right?

Processed food is not even good for us humans, we all know microwave meals, macdonalds, burger king, kfc etc. is not good for us so why would we want to dish out heart disease, diabetes and obesity onto wild animals too. I am very sceptical when I hear how good processed foods are supposed to be for animals particularly when I look in the shopping trollys of obese humans and see the kind of processed foods they live on!

Diabetes, heart disease and obesity linked illness is greater now than it was fifty years ago and that can be blamed largely on processed convenience foods. You only need to look around you to see how unhealthy western populations are becoming and to bestow that on animals too is outrageous!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Dizzy Grace said:


> Rona I don't know your reasons, but each to their own as far as I am concerned and what suits some dogs doesn't suit others. Even different humans require different types of diets sometimes, that's just life, but I do agree that the raw feeders on this forum can be a little overbearing, however they are very passionate about it and I find that quite reassuring to an extent.
> 
> I think when it comes down to it we all have to feed our dogs what we and they are happy with and not worry about what anyone thinks.


It starting to get that you have to make excuses for not feeding raw.
Well I've not got excuses just a very very good reason
Before Chappie given two weeks to live









After Chappie








Would you feed anything else?

People should not be made to feel guilty about their choices.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Dizzy Grace said:


> I do wonder about the real intention of the OP, but I have to say I've quite enjoyed the factual parts of this thread and found it interesting, as well as seeing the views from a few others who are not feeding raw and their reasons why. Most of them aren't based on nutrition as far as I see, but cost/ease or their personal situations.
> 
> Rona I don't know your reasons, but each to their own as far as I am concerned and what suits some dogs doesn't suit others. Even different humans require different types of diets sometimes, that's just life, but I do agree that the raw feeders on this forum can be a little overbearing, however they are very passionate about it and I find that quite reassuring to an extent.
> 
> ...


i think most of the raw feeders on here are just happy with their choice in food for their dog, most of them are not overbearing, unless of course you are on a thread about it and then obviously they are going to defend their choices!

i haven't had anyone say to me that what i am feeding is wrong, i think you can see if a dog looks happy and healthy and for most this is enough.

alfie wouldnt do the raw thing at all, he is on a homecooked plus a half of his kibble allowance of a good quality. his tummy is good after a lot of trouble and hs coat is in good condition, i cant be offended by raw feeders as it is my choice not to, just as it is their choice to feed it.

if it works for their dog thats great, the same with other foods too.

i would think if you find raw feeders offensive in any way maybe avoid the raw threads.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

But nobody is making you feel guilty  : feed what you like, just let's live and let live and not tell people you shouldn't feed whatever. I am happy feeding what I feed, I'm sincerely glad your boy is doing well on Chappie.

What pees me right off is people telling me I shouldn't feed such and such or that Bakers is the greatest food ever because they can't see beyond the marketing.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Again. Not one single piece of evidence that a raw food diet is better for dogs that a good commercially prepared one. Not one.
> 
> This merely confirms my original opinion, which I put aside for the purposes of this discussion as I was open to persuasive, rational argument, that it is a passing fad, based in sentiment rather than hard science. ONE piece of _proper _evidence from a well constructed trial is all I ask. That's not much to expect is it? I cannot find any, and I thought people who had made the active decision to feed their dogs in this way would have access to _something_ rational.
> 
> It appears I was mistaken


Why the obsession with evidence & trials? When I had my son (long time ago!) I didn't do huge amounts of studying of trials to find out whether I was capable of feeding him a balanced/nutritious/healthy diet prepared myself using fresh ingredients compared to mass produced commercial meals. Would you live off ready meals because they are more balanced and contain all the nutrients you need and you might not get it 100% right if you dared to cook yourself?

Am sure lots of trials have been done over the years on the effects to humans of the various ingredients in our food such as E numbers, preservatives, all sorts of unsavoury fats etc. They are not for our benefit just to extend shelf life & profits for the manufacturers, most people are aware of that. Yet somehow over the years we have been led by the nose to believe dog food manufacturers are whiter than white and completely altruistic and we will kill our pets if we give anything else. Its big business so of course they are going to try to rubbish any other food.

You say raw feeding is a passing fad, people have been feeding raw for years, I would say kibble is more of the fad - can't actually think of any living creature that has evolved to eat nothing but dry kibble!



Old Shep said:


> I'm appalled by the hysterical personal abuse I have been subjected to for apparently having the temerity to ask people for evidence that a raw diet is in any respect better for dogs than comercially prepred food.
> 
> Thank you Rona. You are the only person who has responded with actual evidence. Interstingly, it backs up my views. I suggest people read it. if you are so sure that raw feeding is best it should have no qualm about reading it.
> 
> I'm done.


I wish you would highlight the hysterical personal abuse you have suffered, the only uncalled for comments I have seen have been from you actually  I am neither emotional nor an extremist thanks.

Rona I would never criticize anyone for what they feed their pets, its none of my business same as I wouldn't ask what your own diet consists of. I don't go around preaching about it and only mention it if asked. The only reason I got involved in this thread at all is because the OP was making derogatory comments about raw feeders


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> It starting to get that you have to make excuses for not feeding raw.
> Well I've not got excuses just a very very good reason
> Before Chappie given two weeks to live
> 
> ...


Yes because I would use my brain to think about the long term implications of feeding such a low quality dog food. It may work right now, but what about in 3-4-5 years time, would i be able to live with myself knowing the food i had chosen for my dog potentially caused issues? No


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yes because I would use my brain to think about the long term implications of feeding such a low quality dog food. It may work right now, but what about in 3-4-5 years time, would i be able to live with myself knowing the food i had chosen for my dog potentially caused issues? No


Think thats a bit unfair to be honest, it obviously works for Rona's dog and thats what matters


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rona said:


> It starting to get that you have to make excuses for not feeding raw
> ....
> People should not be made to feel guilty about their choices.


When you get a thread saying "why I don't feed kibble", asking for debate but providing only poor arguments for their side of the discussion what would you do?

When it comes down to it in theory raw food is the most logical feeding method for dogs. I say in theory deliberately. Each dog as we all know is unique. What works for some dogs doesn't for others. Wouldn't life be boring otherwise. For many, raw feeding has solved problems, probably most common, I speak from personal experience here, that of allergies. Generally speaking visits to the vet have also plummeted for all of our dogs. Given that I am passionate about raw feeding and will defend my feeding method backed by the research I have done.

I don't care what other people feed. I don't know them or their dogs. Even if I did it's their choice. If they want to discuss it however I'm prepared to provide information so they can make an informed choice, one which hopefully is based on balanced arguments. I think however you would have to admit it hard to find evidence of health benefits of commercial food. The argument against raw generally tends to work around the possible negatives of raw, not the benefits of commercial. Why is this?

I know it sounds harsh but if you are confident in your feeding method, why feel guilty? Many raw feeders give up as they are made to feel guilty. "You'll kill your dog", "it will choke on a bone" and I could go on and it's one of the reasons I push potential raw feeders to look for the potential drawbacks and the arguments against it. I'm confident in my feeding method and it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. If that did happen however I could acknowledge I made the best decision I could with the information I had at the time. I wouldn't feel guilty about it.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yes because I would use my brain to think about the long term implications of feeding such a low quality dog food. It may work right now, but what about in 3-4-5 years time, would i be able to live with myself knowing the food i had chosen for my dog potentially caused issues? No


I think you are completely missing the point. Rona's dog would not have had three or four years without that food, so she would never know.

As to long term implications of feeding low quality food, why did all my parents' large dogs live well into their late teens on nothing but leftovers of what we were having? Dog food? What the hell was that? They never saw a vet either.

I have been lurking on this thread trying to work out the reason it was started in the first place, except to cause an argument. The OP seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him/her is being hysterically abusive, which I find a little bizarre, and is asking for studies which of course will never materialise. Butchers do not work for the animal trade and have no reason to finance studies. People who feed their dogs raw food and see their waste good, their teeth good, their health improved have enough evidence; they do not need a scientific study to tell them the bleeding obvious.

Personally, I think any dog fed on raw food is a tragedy waiting to happen because it is a well known fact that once they get a taste for blood, they will turn and kill you It may not be today, nor tomorrow, but one day or night when you think you are secure in your beds, there he will be, teeth bared waiting to rip out your throat I know this for a fact - my mum told me

Dogs are carnivores and need meat. They hunt and kill animals for the meat, they do not nibble away at plants or find their way into someone's lettuce patch. You wouldn't give a horse a pork chop so why on earth would you think a dog needs vegetables? Look what happened when they tried feeding cows to other cows

The only reason I do not feed raw meat is a) Because I am too lazy and b) because I am scared of getting it wrong. I am still thinking about it.


----------



## Halifu (Jan 22, 2012)

Not a scientific study, I'm sure I read in 1 of Tom Lonsdales books.It had been noticed in Autsralia that after commercial food became readily available a few years later there was an increase in dog cancers and dietary /related illness.
As another mentioned above my parents dogs were always fed on raw meat & bones suplimented with the left overs from our table.
They had dogs for more than 40yrs,I don't remember any of their dogs being unwell come to think of it i dont recal this talk of fads or fashion then
May be it was because people had better things to do than post pointless threads on forums


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Well so far this thread has not changed my mind about what to feed my dog at all! It has however made me feel very sorry for Old Shep!!
It must feel nice and safe in your cosy bubble where you believe everything official sources tell you and dont bother to use your own eyes and ears to develop independent thoughts. Even knowing that the vast majority of research studies into commercial diets are flawed due to their bias you still choose to believe them?
Are you sure your name isnt Old Sheep??


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yes because I would use my brain to think about the long term implications of feeding such a low quality dog food. It may work right now, but what about in 3-4-5 years time, would i be able to live with myself knowing the food i had chosen for my dog potentially caused issues? No


This is why I get pissed off. Judge all you want. I know he would have been a dead dog.
I don't give a stuff if he doesn't get that extra year of life at the end. 
He's having a bloody good one now, all because of what many class as an inferior food.

18 months we fought for his life about £7000, and the answer lay in a little tin

Now tell me I don't care enough


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> This is why I get pissed off. Judge all you want. I know he would have been a dead dog.
> I don't give a stuff if he doesn't get that extra year of life at the end.
> He's having a bloody good one now, all because of what many class as an inferior food.
> 
> ...


So you think it was JUST the Chappie and not the £7000 worth of vet? care/ nurturing you gave him- really?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I think you are completely missing the point. Rona's dog would not have had three or four years without that food, so she would never know.
> 
> A


See i would hazard a guess that it was a hell of a lot more to do with the vet care/drugs/nurturing the dog got than the food he was fed. Yes if it is the ONLY thing they will eat at the time- sure get something down them- long term? maybe reconsider.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> So you think it was JUST the Chappie and not the £7000 worth of vet? care/ nurturing you gave him- really?


Read what I have written 
The vets had run out of ideas, we had decided that if he didn't respond within two weeks we would PTS, the Chappie was a last ditch effort.

Did you not look at the pictures?
Can you not see that he was just skin over bones?

Unbelievably arrogant of you


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> See i would hazard a guess that it was a hell of a lot more to do with the vet care/drugs/nurturing the dog got than the food he was fed. Yes if it is the ONLY thing they will eat at the time- sure get something down them- long term? maybe reconsider.


It wasn't all he would eat, it was the only thing that he could keep in his ravaged body!!!!!!
We try odd other things occassionally now, some he can tolerate at low levels, others still give him the squits.
Not going to put his life on the line to satisfy someone else missed placed food snobbery


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

NOT arrogant. Just because i have a different point of view does not warrant "name calling" Unbelievably childish of you :rolleyes5:

If you do not go into incredible detail to surround what was/is wrong with your dog then what on earth do you expect anyone who has done any research surrounding dog food to say "ohhhhhhh thats lovely quality food"- tis a forum to express opinions so aint going to happen.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Rona my last dog was the same, she had IBD (it's an awful condition )- and lost so much weight and condition so quickly that she was basically a frame. The only way it was controlled was through steroids AND "crap" food. So that's what she had and it worked very well. 

She was quite old at the time of diagnosis (16- and went on happily for another 3 1/2 years) but if she had been young I would have done nothing differently.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Rona I don't think you should get upset by what anyone says/thinks, you know your dog best and if Chappie works for him its the right thing to do. No one can judge as for all we know you could have tried everything including raw.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Rona I don't think you should get upset by what anyone says/thinks, you know your dog best and if Chappie works for him its the right thing to do. No one can judge as for all we know you could have tried everything including raw.


Doesn't upset me, but I know of at least one young woman on here who has been intimidated into changing to raw. 
Not saying the change is a bad thing, just the way it's done and the way she was made to feel a bad owner.

It shouldn't happen.
Too much judging and not enough question asking/fact finding.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> Doesn't upset me, but I know of at least one young woman on here who has been intimidated into changing to raw.
> Not saying the change is a bad thing, just the way it's done and the way she was made to feel a bad owner.
> 
> It shouldn't happen.
> Too much judging and not enough question asking/fact finding.


REALLY? wow. Everyone should at least be able to stand behind their choices for their animals. Then again I know several people who have gone back to kibble having been told by the vet that raw diet is dangerous. :sosp:

Maybe more info giving would help too :yesnod:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rona said:


> Doesn't upset me, but I know of at least one young woman on here who has been intimidated into changing to raw.
> Not saying the change is a bad thing, just the way it's done and the way she was made to feel a bad owner.
> 
> It shouldn't happen.
> Too much judging and not enough question asking/fact finding.


Thats not nice and no it shouldn't happen. In my view its something you have to believe in and feel comfortable with after doing plenty of research. Its scarey enough to start with even if you believe its right so to push anyone into it isn't good at all


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Doesn't upset me, but I know of at least one young woman on here who has been intimidated into changing to raw.
> Not saying the change is a bad thing, just the way it's done and the way she was made to feel a bad owner.
> 
> It shouldn't happen.
> Too much judging and not enough question asking/fact finding.


surely she must have wanted to though. i mean no one has pressured me as i know how well alfie is doing on his food. i actually very rarely venture onto the raw chat as i dont feel i want to change. she must have wanted to on some level.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Seriously was 'intimidated' into feeding raw? Sorry, but says who? No-one is bullying anyone into doing anything via a computer and if someone thinks that, then they need to log off and walk away. All forums are like this-we hear the cries of bullying all the time, had it last night from someone on Horse and Hound who refused to walk away from a thread she started where people were trying to advise (not bully ) her. She wouldn't stop responding and got more and more angry until someone had the sense to ask to lock the thread. Just log off, easy.

For some of us, the way we feed is massively important. I see other owners who can't be bothered to do the research into what actually suits their dog (not saying you are like this, Rona, but I did have a run in with someone ages ago over the dried food they fed that contains BHA and was told what a terrible person I was for telling them the food contained it-duh, google the ingredients!) or they jump on the raw bandwagon but can't be bothered to ensure they're feeding the correct ratios. 

I just cannot imagine anyone being so ridiculous as to feed something they don't really want to feed just because someone on here says so.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> NOT arrogant. Just because i have a different point of view does not warrant "name calling" Unbelievably childish of you :rolleyes5:
> 
> If you do not go into incredible detail to surround what was/is wrong with your dog then what on earth do you expect anyone who has done any research surrounding dog food to say "ohhhhhhh thats lovely quality food"- tis a forum to express opinions so aint going to happen.


So I have to take your word for it that because you've looked into it, raw is good for all dogs but you can judge me when I say Chappie is the best for mine?


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

Back in the day, us humans used to eat raw. We were fit, strong wirey beasts that could fight for our survival.

Then we discovered how to make fire and thus came forth the fry up and we ended up a race of fat feckers


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> So I have to take your word for it that because you've looked into it, raw is good for all dogs but you can judge me when I say Chappie is the best for mine?


WHERE have I said that??????????????????????????????????????? If you refuse to give details surrounding your dogs health, or back up why you feed what you feed then maybe people will question you.......


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> WHERE have I said that??????????????????????????????????????? If you refuse to give details surrounding your dogs health, or back up why you feed what you feed then maybe people will question you.......


Then why can't people question the feeding of raw food, without abuse from you?

Anyway, off to walk my poor crippled badly fed badly treated dog. TTFN


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> Then why can't people question the feeding of raw food, without abuse from you?
> 
> Anyway, off to walk my poor crippled badly fed badly treated dog. TTFN


Abuse??????? again where? are you reading the same thread lol You called me arrogant, i just put my point across. I have NOWT against people feeding processed food- just do not tell me it is a better source of nutrition for a dog than raw.

There seems to be circumstances such as yours which dictates a bland possible lesser nutritional value food works- might help if you explain the situation surrounding that instead of just saying "chappie is the way forward for me"


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

My first dog was fed on tinned food and mixer plus the odd cooked scraps. She also had milk every night 
Died age 17 years

Jaz had tinned and mixer biscuits, dry complete, scraps and sometimes chicken wings. 
Pts at 13 years.

Maybe if they had only had raw they could have lived longer....maybe if they only had complete they may have lived longer, who knows. Both were pretty healthy up to the last few days of their life.

This time I am trying a raw diet, how long I do it for I have no idea but I will not be telling anyone what they should feed, its down to personal preference, time cost etc.

Just before I run off for the popcorn I will own up to the fact that *Jaz loved Bakers complete* and had it a lot


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rona said:


> Doesn't upset me, but I know of at least one young woman on here who has been intimidated into changing to raw.
> Not saying the change is a bad thing, just the way it's done and the way she was made to feel a bad owner.
> 
> It shouldn't happen.
> Too much judging and not enough question asking/fact finding.


Before I joined this forum I had never heard of feeding a dog raw food. I was seriously considering it myself, until someone started talking about cutting up lungs and testicles and eyeballs, so I think I will stick to what I am already giving them. Which is at the moment, Skinners. I would rather it were Royal Canin which everyone says is crap, but it has great results, but I cannot afford it. They also occasionally have a tin of chappie each.

I neither know nor care what is in Chappie; I only know it was the one and only thing that sorted out my boys' tummies last year and any food that can do that cannot be all bad. The pity is that some of these food snobs would not even lower themselves to try it, they would have given up on your dog Rona and said: no, chappie can't possibly be any good.



emmaviolet said:


> surely she must have wanted to though. i mean no one has pressured me as i know how well alfie is doing on his food. i actually very rarely venture onto the raw chat as i dont feel i want to change. she must have wanted to on some level.


But some people are very easily intimidated and easily led. A lot don't have any convictions of their own and will just follow the crowd. I wouldn't be intimidated into doing something like that, but there are people that would. Just think how many members have left permanently in tears because some keyboard bully has decided to have a go.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes this is very true, many people do whatever anyone tells them at the drop of a hat, but they must have asked or ventured onto the raw threads as other wise they wouldn't have been persuaded. It's not all over the forum, the cute pictures or the advice threads or training, it is on the food section but if they wanted a kibble or wet food there are parts for that too.
> 
> On the whole i dont read the raw threads as i dont feed it, probably never will and have no clue about it. I read this thread as i thought it might be a well balanced argument about the positives vs negatives of it, tbh it seemed like the op had had a bad experience by the title. was surprised by some of the raw feeders, i had no idea some of the members who feed raw did as they dont really mention it in other threads. the other member must of had an idea to feed raw, otherwise avoid the subject.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Why i feed raw and nothing else.... because it would have probably killed Chance in the end.

Fed on kibble yes even chappie  couldn't put weight on and kept losing it









8 months on raw 









anyone see the difference


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Yes this is very true, many people do whatever anyone tells them at the drop of a hat, but they must have asked or ventured onto the raw threads as other wise they wouldn't have been persuaded. It's not all over the forum, the cute pictures or the advice threads or training, it is on the food section but if they wanted a kibble or wet food there are parts for that too.
> 
> .


No they asked about a health issue and was bombarded with the hard core raw feeders (some of whom are no long here) telling her that it would cure her dog and that the crap she was feeding (a well respected alternative )was causing the problem.
It wasn't and the dog still has problems.

Many on here are delicate people, people who have problems in the outside world.
I wish some would remember that sometimes. 


pogo said:


> Why i feed raw and nothing else.... because it would have probably killed Chance in the end.
> 
> Fed on kibble yes even chappie  couldn't put weight on and kept losing it
> 
> anyone see the difference


Then you know how brilliant it is when you find "THAT" food :thumbup:


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> No they asked about a health issue and was bombarded with the hard core raw feeders (some of whom are no long here) telling her that it would cure her dog and that the crap she was feeding (a well respected alternative )was causing the problem.
> It wasn't and the dog still has problems.
> 
> Many on here are delicate people, people who have problems in the outside world.
> ...


Oh, i see, well that is different.

although i did a thread as alfie had many problems, was recommended raw too, along with other things but decided against it. you have to make your own mind up. but shame on them for bullying someone.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Oh, i see, well that is different.
> 
> although i did a thread as alfie had many problems, was recommended raw too, along with other things but decided against it. you have to make your own mind up. but shame on them for bullying someone.


It wasn't exactly what you would call bullying, it was more an insistence that they were right.
That's part of the problem with forums I've found, everyone is an expert


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Again, same problem raised elsewhere yesterday. Should we pay heed to people being fragile etc and the response from a clinically depressed young lady was an overwhelming no! She says (animal) forums are public, they are not designed for gentle treatment for delicate flowers and they're the wrong place to be if you can't take some occasional rough words. I so agree. I left one forum because it had whinging teenagers on it saying how awful their life was. 

Everyone on here is an expert-with their own dog. It's good to share experiences and I'm passionate about what I feed, but nobody could persuade me to feed something with which I didn't agree. I'm sorry but you'd have to be very silly to let that happen.


----------



## JenJen22 (Sep 29, 2011)

I have just read the entire thread and wanted to add my opinion.

1. I think the raw feeders on here have shown quite clearly how their dogs have changed for the better.

2. I agree with others as to why there are no "raw" feed studies - probably because the big companies cannot make money from it so its pointless to them!

3. I feed my dog Chappie because he has a very sensitive tummy - if i feed him something else (tried to introduce Wainwrights and James Wellbeloved) then he gets diarrheoa, loses weight quickly and bleeds when he has dairrhoea, and also had skin allergies. Since he has been on chappie his weight is stable, he is more energetic, and has never itched like he did before. Now i feed him that because he does so well on this - the same as raw feeders feed raw because their dogs do well on it. I have been slated before for feeding chappie but it is my choice to feed my dog this why put him through more ill times with other food choices.


4. On this thread i have seen person after person state how great their dog does on raw (and other food for some people) but not even the OP has stated why they think that raw is not good?

5. Although i feed my dog chappie, most processed supermarket dog food out there is probably the same as us eating MCDs, takeaways everyday for years. 
So i applaud raw feeders as i think its prob the best thing for them!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JenJen22 said:


> I have just read the entire thread and wanted to add my opinion.
> 
> 1. I think the raw feeders on here have shown quite clearly how their dogs have changed for the better.
> 
> ...


I myself have never even hinted that I think raw feeding is wrong, just the attitude of some raw feeders


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

I hope I don't come across as a holier than thou raw feeder, i may have done on my earlier post but the OP rattled me.
I fed Lexi Chappie for a while, its the only thing that could get her soild, the issue on chappie was the quantity of the poops 15 or so times a day, which she doesn't have with raw....it suits my dogs but I'm very much eack to their own.
My parents JR is 16 next month has been fed on pedigree chum her whole life, is going blind and deaf but has no arthritis, no lumps or bumps and has been to the vets a grand total of 3 times in her life outside her boosters, i personally don't think its a great food but its suited her.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

I really don't want anyone to get upset with this, but I am really fascinated what it is about Chappie in particular that has helped people with their poorly dogs and why they decided to try it? (I've not looked this up or done any research, just curious as it seems a popular choice)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Dizzy Grace said:


> I really don't want anyone to get upset with this, but I am really fascinated what it is about Chappie in particular that has helped people with their poorly dogs and why they decided to try it? (I've not looked this up or done any research, just curious as it seems a popular choice)


I don't think anyone knows really! Rona suggested it to me when both my dogs had the serious squelchies; I had tried all sorts of expensive foods for sensitive tums and nothing worked. Then I remembered my vet telling me to give it to my old retriever when he got to about 12 and nothing else agreed with him.

The thing is that it seems to work for most dogs. For mine it was a temporary fix because they are simply too big to feed on just tinned, but had I had smaller dogs I probably would have kept them on it.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

I tried Coco on raw for a while but it didn't suit her and now she is on Skinners Duck and Rice. Suits her to the ground. I'm certainly not against raw, just not right for us.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> Again, same problem raised elsewhere yesterday. Should we pay heed to people being fragile etc and the response from a clinically depressed young lady was an overwhelming no! She says (animal) forums are public, they are not designed for gentle treatment for delicate flowers and they're the wrong place to be if you can't take some occasional rough words. I so agree. I left one forum because it had whinging teenagers on it saying how awful their life was.
> 
> Everyone on here is an expert-with their own dog. It's good to share experiences and I'm passionate about what I feed, but nobody could persuade me to feed something with which I didn't agree. I'm sorry but you'd have to be very silly to let that happen.


Full of the milk of human kindness I see 



Dizzy Grace said:


> I really don't want anyone to get upset with this, but I am really fascinated what it is about Chappie in particular that has helped people with their poorly dogs and why they decided to try it? (I've not looked this up or done any research, just curious as it seems a popular choice)


Don't know, it's always been that way for all the years I've been around dogs.
I know something.............if they ever change it or stopped making it, it will be a bad bad day for dogdom


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I tried Scorcher on raw last year and I am not going to lie, she did improve. However it was not practical for me to keep feeding, the price was reasonable however it took all my freezer space and she would break into my freezer while we were out resulting in melted stinky bloody food all over the house. 

I am also a bit odd when it comes to blood, can't really deal with it unless its from my animals. 

I stopped the raw and put her onto the same food all my other dogs are on (Royal Canin) and she's just as good as she was on the raw. None of my other dogs have had raw, I don't personally see the need because they are fine on dry food, coats are stunning (if I do say so myself  ), stools are firm and consistent, they love the taste, their teeth look great and their weight is perfect. 

It's everyone's own choice to feed what they want, personally raw is not for me however I certainly respect those who do feed it.


----------



## JenJen22 (Sep 29, 2011)

Dizzy Grace said:


> I really don't want anyone to get upset with this, but I am really fascinated what it is about Chappie in particular that has helped people with their poorly dogs and why they decided to try it? (I've not looked this up or done any research, just curious as it seems a popular choice)


Our vet recommended it to us - i know its not the best which is why i researched and tried wainwrights and wellbeloved n it didnt agree with him so sticking to chappie at the moment.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

rona said:


> Don't know, it's always been that way for all the years I've been around dogs.
> I know something.............if they ever change it or stopped making it, it will be a bad bad day for dogdom


I may be wrong, but I think that Chappie is the only dog food still in its original form and was actually one of the first to be manufactured, along with Kit-e-Kat, which all we could get for cats back then! Horrible stuff, stank of stale corned beef!

Most of the other tinned foods have been changed in some way or other. My Sammy always had Winalot, the original stuff which came out of the tin as sort of folded meat! Then they went and changed it to chunks, which he didn't like.

I hope Chappie stays as it is. After all, they've still got their flavoured ones to keep up with all the other junk in the supermarket, so perhaps we should send a petition to the manufacturers to make sure they don't tamper with it!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Chappie certainly helps most dogs with dodgy bellies or whatever but the amount of rice and grains in it made Chance so ill, it was unreal really.

To me it's one of those foods i'd never in a million years feed it full time even if i fed dry/wet food as there is to much **** in it for my liking but short term yes it's definitely good for that


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Full of the milk of human kindness I see


Me? I do the extremely professional, super sensitive thing all day at school. Kids seem to love me: break duty is never boring! However, I draw the line at pandering to whinging kids on the Internet!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I may be wrong, but I think that Chappie is the only dog food still in its original form and was actually one of the first to be manufactured, along with Kit-e-Kat, which all we could get for cats back then! Horrible stuff, stank of stale corned beef!
> 
> Most of the other tinned foods have been changed in some way or other. My Sammy always had Winalot, the original stuff which came out of the tin as sort of folded meat! Then they went and changed it to chunks, which he didn't like.
> 
> I hope Chappie stays as it is. After all, they've still got their flavoured ones to keep up with all the other junk in the supermarket, so perhaps we should send a petition to the manufacturers to make sure they don't tamper with it!


Mars United Kingdom - Mars Petcare

I've often thought that I should email them 



cinammontoast said:


> Me? I do the extremely professional, super sensitive thing all day at school. Kids seem to love me: break duty is never boring! However, I draw the line at pandering to whinging kids on the Internet!


If only you knew who I was talking about and what they've been through!!
c'est la vie


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I wouldn't ever tell anyone what to feed, and I don't look down my nose at people who don't feed raw... I will, however, defend raw when it is criticised *again*. On here, it may be populated by many raw feeders, but the generally dog owning public do not feed raw, and most look at me like I have grown an extra head when it is mentioned. I think that is why raw feeders defend it so much, because in 'normal' life we are criticised and treated like freaks because of it. I mean, who would have ever thought of feeding a carnivore raw meat??  

I, also, do believe that it is the best way to feed. Of course I do, lets face it, it takes more time and effort to feed raw so if I didn't truly believe it was the best way to feed, I certainly would not do it. I think a small number of dogs truly do not do well on raw, but I think a lot of the time it is other factors that cause them to not do well. Such as spending many years on kibble (old dogs can change over easily but dogs are all individuals and some can take longer), the owners not giving them time to adjust, the humans making errors on what they are feeding etc.

I have read accounts where owners claim their dogs have done terrible on raw... and that all of their multiple dogs 'suffered' in the same way. I, personally, find it extremely unlikely that ALL their dogs suffered in the same way due to just not suiting raw. I think it is most likely the adjusting, what the owner is feeding, or another factor that is purely coincidence. Not that it matters to me, because I couldn't be happier with what I feed.

And to join in on posting pics  this was Jake when on kibble...









Bald eyes...









And now... raw fed for the last two years


















So, for me, it will always be raw.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

My dogs have always been fed on a kibble diet, suits them and me. Quick to give them, easy to buy. Sounds lazy but ive never had any problems and wouldnt change their diet. 

They also get scraps in their bowl too from whatever is left from dinner etc. my show lab does not do well on raw, yes it may be the diet needed adjusting but a complete food is much easier for me and my dogs like it and are healthy. 

I have friends who feed raw and their dogs are great on it but wouldnt work for mine, and another friend who takes her dog out in the morning and evening, whatever they catch thats their food! If they dont catch anything she has meat/carcases ready. It completely depends on the owner, dog.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped. If it's a good quality one, then fair do's and I know some have found success with raw over top quality alternatives. But how many were on poor quality food where a change to anything would have been an improvement??

As for the peer pressure - I felt it too. Did lots of research to see if I should "jump on the band wagon" All for meaty bones for teeth but Heidi can only have chicken wings. Tried harder bones but she is sick. Supposedly if I wait it out, she will adapt. I dont believe that's in her best interests and cant risk shards of bone going back and forth in her system until she does. As for raw minces. I bought some NM nuggets - yuk!! No thank you. All sounds lovely but in practice - give me a good brand of wet in a can and we're both so much happier. 

I think kibble is disgraceful. Way too processed, stays in the system for an abnormally long time and drains vital fluids in it's rehydration process. My views because I had an awful time with Heidi. That doesnt mean it's bad for every dog or I need to brow beat everyone that uses it.

Chappie proves a huge point. Whatever the quality, if works where all else fails, it's got to be good.

In any case, feeding is a big part of a dog's life but there is so much more for us to enjoy.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped. If it's a good quality one, then fair do's and I know some have found success with raw over top quality alternatives. But how many were on poor quality food where a change to anything would have been an improvement??


Jake was on Wainwrights, which isn't what I would consider one of the poor quality kibbles. He has an allergy though, so there are very few kibbles who would suit him... and I refuse to sick him on one type of food for the rest of his life... How boring would that be? So, with raw he can get a far greater variety, he loves it, he looks great, a mega shiny coat and his teeth are fantastic etc etc. I don't need to think, 'will this set him off?'... because no raw meat does.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped. If it's a good quality one, then fair do's and I know some have found success with raw over top quality alternatives. But how many were on poor quality food where a change to anything would have been an improvement??
> 
> D


It would depend on the individuals take on 'good quality' Im not up on kibbles but for a lot of people, they rate brands like JWB or Arcana but if these have grain content then it's not good quality for my two, whereas it might suit other dogs down to the ground


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lozzibear said:


> Jake was on Wainwrights, which isn't what I would consider one of the poor quality kibbles. He has an allergy though, so there are very few kibbles who would suit him... and I refuse to sick him on one type of food for the rest of his life... How boring would that be? So, with raw he can get a far greater variety, he loves it, he looks great, a mega shiny coat and his teeth are fantastic etc etc. I don't need to think, 'will this set him off?'... because no raw meat does.


so glad jake is doing so much better, you must have been in hell with his poor face like that.

i have heard this is why dogs do well on raw (not as extreme cases as yours) but there is an unknown allergy to something in other food and you can see everything that goes into the raw diet. Obviously there are others with no allergies who do great on other things.

just glad it worked out for jake bless him, his eyes looked so sore


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I'm neither for nor against raw. The reason I don't feed mine a total raw diet is I don't trust myself as I have neither the time nor freezer space to do it properly.

So mine are on Skinners museli mix, and this is supplemented by butchers tripe (in the process of changing to ND) and various AMP frozen minces, the Natures Menu frozen nuggets and raw bones.

Both mine are happy, healthy, good teath, bright eyed and look fab. However, any sign of dodgy tums and the chappie comes out. 

What works for your dog works for your dog, no one has the right to tell you otherwise.


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> I'm neither for nor against raw. The reason I don't feed mine a total raw diet is I don't trust myself as I have neither the time nor freezer space to do it properly.
> 
> So mine are on Skinners museli mix, and this is supplemented by butchers tripe (in the process of changing to ND) and various AMP frozen minces, the Natures Menu frozen nuggets and raw bones.
> 
> ...


I know someone whos got a chest freezer for collection, free if you want one 

I have to say though on another note, Chappie didn't work for my boy when he had a dicky tum.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped. If it's a good quality one, then fair do's and I know some have found success with raw over top quality alternatives. But how many were on poor quality food where a change to anything would have been an improvement??


Ours used to be on Orijen & Arcana, although Pip's stomach improved a little bit, ear infections, behavioural problems, manky teeth, excessive moulting, etc, etc, still went on.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

Personally this thread 'Why I don't feed raw' has convinced me more than ever that raw is the way to go.

I spent a lot of time and effort before I got Buffy researching what foods to buy her. I settled on Naturediet wet with Wainwrights dry. Money is an issue so I figured that's the best I could do and would try and be happy with that.

But now she's here I'm not happy. I don't like the way her food is gone in two seconds flat and she looks at me like 'was that it?', I don't like the way she inhales without chewing, and I don't like the way that what comes out is pretty sizeable, 3, sometimes 4 large amounts each day. They are solid but I can't help thinking if it was so good for her why would so much come out? 

Of course I haven't tried raw yet so I don't know how Buffy will take to it, but if she takes to it well I will know once and for all that I am doing the best for her.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped.


Emma suffered environmental allergies when on kibble (vet with their Hills amongst others) but also when on Rinti wet food, a "high quality" german make. Changing over to raw and she simply doesn't suffer at all. Allergy only occurred after playing in wet long grass so cannot see it being food ingredient related indicating something more substantial at work in relation to health.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2012)

I've been reading this thread with interest and thought it was about time I put my two cents (or pence?) in 

As of just over 1 week ago, I feed raw.

This is the 4th time I've started feeding raw  The other times I stopped after a few weeks, for various reasons. However, I've always believed that raw is the best thing for her, which is why I keep coming back to it. 

When I've not been feeding raw I've been feeding Ziwipeak which is dehydrated raw. I was very happy with the ZP, I still think it's a great food and was very happy to feed it. The main reasons why she is back on raw are that her teeth were getting plaque on them, and she's not even 2 yet and I always gave plaque-off too. In addition I love the variety that you can feed with raw and I think that's a really good thing for a dog.

To be honest I really dislike kibble, I just can't find anything good about it. I do rate good quality wet food though, but unfortunately the range of good wet food here is VERY limited and VERY expensive so it just wasn't an option for me.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SLB said:


> *I know someone whos got a chest freezer for collection, free if you want one  *
> 
> I have to say though on another note, Chappie didn't work for my boy when he had a dicky tum.


Lol! Funnily enough, we're in the process of clearing out the shed. It has power in there, so maybe if we get our arses into gear it is something I can look at! 

re Chappie, again it was Rona that suggested that. Worked brilliantly for both mine when they had the squits. But I'm happy what I'm feeding now is giving them everything they need.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> so glad jake is doing so much better, you must have been in hell with his poor face like that.
> 
> i have heard this is why dogs do well on raw (not as extreme cases as yours) but there is an unknown allergy to something in other food and you can see everything that goes into the raw diet. Obviously there are others with no allergies who do great on other things.
> 
> just glad it worked out for jake bless him, his eyes looked so sore


Thank you 

It really was a nightmare, and the poor boy was only 8 months old when it started. He had constant ear infections too... The vet went through every other option before settling on it being an allergy, so we had 5/6 months of constantly going back and forth to the vets, he was given antihistamines, steroids and stronghold. The only one that did anything were the steroids, which is why the vet concluded an allergy.

I, stupidly, thought he could still get the odd biscuit, but no even they set him off  He hasn't had any problems since starting raw 2010 though  (well, except with the biscuits but as soon as I stopped those, he cleared up right away) But, I do love that I can know exactly what he is eating... which is another reason why I don't like to feed minces even when raw feeding


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

SLB said:


> I have to say though on another note, Chappie didn't work for my boy when he had a dicky tum.


Jake point blank refused to even touch it


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When we see the before and after raw pics I often wonder what kibble or wet food was dropped. If it's a good quality one, then fair do's and I know some have found success with raw over top quality alternatives. But how many were on poor quality food where a change to anything would have been


chance had been fed both high and low quality. The rescue he's from also supports raw feeding as well as grain free kibble.

Initially they tried chappie because he had chronic stomach problems, it made him 10 times worst his fur started falling out even more etc they have tried jwb, wainwrights, acada(sp), and a couple of others but I'm **** at remembering names.

We were asked what we intend to feed him at the preliminary interview and as I said raw they were happy as it's only thing they had yet to try.

By the time he came to us he weighed half what he does now, had lovely bold patches, fur turned funny yellow colour etc

So when I say I wouldn't feed anything but raw, well I mean it.


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Lol! Funnily enough, we're in the process of clearing out the shed. It has power in there, so maybe if we get our arses into gear it is something I can look at!
> 
> re Chappie, again it was Rona that suggested that. Worked brilliantly for both mine when they had the squits. But I'm happy what I'm feeding now is giving them everything they need.


She's in the bottom end of Derbyshire and can't take it anywhere, I don't know how big it is, I can ask her for you if you would like? She moves in a month but freezers go quickly.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Right,

I am no scientist, I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be anything but a jack of all and master of none but I will try and answer the benefits for you as I see them, experience them every day and having fed my first dog virtually every dog food on the market at some point I will have some decent understanding in order to answer your supposed questions.

First off.

The tile of the thread is "Why I don't feed raw"

You then state on page three:



Old Shep said:


> The stuff I have is
> 
> Working Dog Food - Natural Instinct


If you go to Natural Instinct, select the Working Dog range then you will see you have a choice of flavours. Choose one, doesn't matter which one it is because they all say at the side of the product:

*A frozen complete and balanced raw food for dogs*

So clearly to begin with you are either a hypocrite, forgetful, naive to what ingredients you are feeding your dog rendering all arguments put forward by yourself as one diet having dietary benefits over another because you lack the ability to understand ingredients or you haven't fully researched a raw diet and believe it to be purely raw meat and bone and not split into healthy percentages that include veg, table scraps, fish, egg and offal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it you don't know much about a raw diet or ever really watched a dog.



Old Shep said:


> Before I start, I wish to point out that I want to have a civilised, rational, respectful discussion about raw feeding. I tried this on another forum and was bombarded with nasty, hysterical feedback. I have generally found people on this forum more mature, though, so I hope we can have an interesting and informative discussion
> 
> I outlined the reasons why I don't necessarily feed raw on another thread as a side line to an OP question and didn't want to hijack the thread to discuss the issue on general. I'm more than happy to listen to opposing views, though.
> 
> ...


So why are there no scientific studies to back up that a raw diet is better for your dog than a commercial food diet? Simple. Nature dictates what an animal eats and dogs eat a variety of things but in order to be healthy they need a larger portion of meat and bone to veg and fruit. Common sense therefore tells us that a dog's natural diet consists mainly of animal products. 
Kibble manufacturers process the animal products and essentially remove the water from them to increase shelf life as you add water to anything and it creates a breeding ground for bacteria and decomposition. When you remove water from meat it reduces in size dramatically - ever buy a nice juicy steak from the supermarket and then cook it but it reduces by about a third? This means if a manufacturer buys in a ton of meat then after removing moisture that will be reduced by up to 40%. To bring this back up to weight again they need to add stuff but it has to be cheap because they have just spent a fortune on water that they have steamed away so they turn to more readily available cheaper products such as by-products like sugar beet, cereals and rice. These are things that dogs don't really eat as they don't have the physiology to deal with the digestion and they don't utilise carbs as we do. When a kibble enters a dog's mouth it does so by the use of only the incisors or just the lips as kibble is in easy to eat sizes that doesn't really require a great deal of chewing - think Rice Crispies. A dog's mouth contains moisture which is immediately soaked in the hydrated food turning the edges of the food to a paste. Dogs love to chew as any dog owner will tell you and when they do chew the softened kibble is more likely to build up on the gum line as it is scraped off by the dog's scissor action teeth. Over time this build up can cause all manner of issues as a dog can't clean it's teeth. Ever notice who makes the majority of pet owners aware that there are products that clean your pet's teeth? That's right, it's TV adverts for dental sticks for dogs to chew on but who makes them? That's right it's Pedigree, but who owns Pedigree? That's right Mars, but what do Mars make? That's right lots of commercial pet foods - Mars Petcare | Pedigree, Whiskas, Cesar, Nutro, Royal Canin, Banfield The Pet Hospital and More | Mars
Seems to be a nice little earner they have got there as one of the most common issues folk have with their dogs is bad breath but that is just a surface symptom to what is happening underneath - Pet Dental Care - The Importance of Dental Care For Dogs and Cats

Quoted from the above page: Dental disease affects up to 80% of pets over the age of three, and just like humans, there can be serious consequences of poor dental health.

The age of three, THREE, THREE!!!!

In three years of eating a food that is marketed using every medium available (check the banner at the top of this page and there'll more than likely be a pet food ad) the process is well underway to creating issues.

So how often to these big companies recommend cleaning a dog's teeth:

Dental Care - 3-4 times per week.

http://www.hillspet.co.uk/en-gb/dog-sick/dental-health.html - recommend you actually buy a dental pet food from them.

Informative Dog Articles - Health - Eukanuba - UK - recommend you feed them kibble yet state that Wolves don't need to visit vets for dental issues, interesting.

Is this making it a bit clearer now?

Since a kibble diet has become common and the companies that manufacturer it have large marketing departments to suck in the masses the cases of dogs needing dental treatment or treatment that can be directly related to poor dental hygiene has dramatically increased. So that means vets get more money for your visits and treatment for your dog. If the vet gets more money for your visits then the pet food Co's are more likely to be able to get the vet to push their product which causes dental issues. Next time you're in your vet's reception, look to see if they recommend certain foods, I bet if they do they have been sponsored by them to subsidise their practice and even their university education - what better promotion tool than the recommendation of a so called expert who has just saved your dog's life because of the food you are feeding it.

As fit as a Butcher's dog, not a Miller's dog.

Ever watch a dog eat kibble? It's pretty boring for all involved as the pieces are uniform, don't require much effort to get in to the mouth and it is similar to us eating a bowl of corn flakes as they are fortified with vitamins and iron so could you survive off of just corn flakes? Probably.

Actual food, food that has varying contrasts in taste, texture, weight, colour (NOT Baker's) and they have to use various teeth in order to consume the food.

One of my dogs goes from field to stomach so she uses her canines to kill, her incisors to tear and her pre-molars to cut - she gets a full dental workout and that is just a rabbit. 
A rabbit is a wonderful thing, it's the same to a dog what a stuffed Yorkshire pudding is to us. They have meat and bone, tissue, tendons, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, tripe and part digested vegetable matter - the perfect packet of food for a dog.

Chuck a pig's head down for your dog and not only will you have a quiet dog for a while but if you watch it the dog gets a full experience of using all of its teeth, it's jaw muscles, it's paws, it's body - everything - just by eating a meal.

Put half a chicken down, a turkey leg, a full trout, some beef cheek, lamb ribs or some trotters and your dog's body language and demeanour changes completely to a content dog. If we had to live off of soup type meals we'd get pretty bored as we enjoy chewing too as our mouth tools prove.

The benefits of a raw diet are pretty clear and need very little clarification because what did dog's eat before the pet food manufacturers came along? It is a well-known fact that anybody with half a brain can make statistics represent any side to any argument that is being investigated, the only thing is it takes money to carry out such investigations and the only ones who have that are the Pet Food manufacturers and they can manipulate the results to whatever they wish to represent and they are not going to spend millions on research to come to the conclusion that any sensible person would given all of the facts or just looking at what happens in nature that raw meat is eaten by all carnivores and omnivores so why not dogs? It would mean that people would stop buying their products which I believe is a £4billion annual industry.

If you wish to carry out your own experiment then buy two dogs from the same litter and feed one on a raw diet all of its life and the other on a processed one. Add up all of the veterinary bills for each individual dog over the course of their lives, how long each dog lived, which was in better condition etc and compare the results.

I have a dog that has been fed a raw diet for a year and a bit now who is four. My friend has a dog that has been fed kibble all of its life and it's a year younger. My dog has pearly whites and never at the vets. My mate's dog has brown smelly teeth and has been to the vets for blood test etc due to various illnesses. That is all the evidence I need but it is a personal choice what folk feed their dogs, I just feel sorry for some dogs more than others.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lozzibear said:


> Thank you
> 
> It really was a nightmare, and the poor boy was only 8 months old when it started. He had constant ear infections too... The vet went through every other option before settling on it being an allergy, so we had 5/6 months of constantly going back and forth to the vets, he was given antihistamines, steroids and stronghold. The only one that did anything were the steroids, which is why the vet concluded an allergy.
> 
> I, stupidly, thought he could still get the odd biscuit, but no even they set him off  He hasn't had any problems since starting raw 2010 though  (well, except with the biscuits but as soon as I stopped those, he cleared up right away) But, I do love that I can know exactly what he is eating... which is another reason why I don't like to feed minces even when raw feeding


oh bless him, it must have been terrible!

Alfie as a puppy had the most awful tummy and it nearly drove me mad with it at times as it was one step forward 2 back! he refused many foods, including chappie and it wasnt until it was found he had had giardia and that puts them off food. he also was given a hills elimination diet by the vets but that made his tummy loose too!

he doesnt like raw though, he prefers the smell of food to get an appetite, thats why he has half cooked. I know what you mean about the biscuits, i used to think one cant hurt. but on his diet now he loves his food and his tummy has been holding up really well for a while now.

All his trouble with his tummy though seems small compared to your poor boys eyes, alfie would only have it for a day but he would still be happy and bouncy! im so glad jake is better and a diet change is what cured what all those medicines couldn't!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SLB said:


> She's in the bottom end of Derbyshire and can't take it anywhere, I don't know how big it is, I can ask her for you if you would like? She moves in a month but freezers go quickly.


Bit too far out for us but thanks!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I know I said I'm done, but I just want to respond to hutch6 who called me a hypocrite because I have some raw food in the freezer. You very clearly DID NOT READ WHAT I POSTED!! Because if you had you would have read where I said



> I ordered it by mistake. I thought it was kibble and they were doing a special offer. My dog is prone to the runs and I was looking for something else to try. I have a freezer full now


on page 3. Where you said you looked.

I expect an apology for being called a hypocrite.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I know I said I'm done, but I just want to respond to hutch6 who called me a hypocrite because I have some raw food in the freezer. You very clearly DID NOT READ WHAT I POSTED!! Because if you had you would have read where I said
> 
> on page 3. Where you said you looked.
> 
> I expect an apology for being called a hypocrite.


TBH you are, your thread says 'why i dont feed raw' when you do even by mistake!!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Are you being intentionally provocative, or are you just a pedant?


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> I know I said I'm done, but I just want to respond to hutch6 who called me a hypocrite because I have some raw food in the freezer. You very clearly DID NOT READ WHAT I POSTED!! Because if you had you would have read where I said
> 
> on page 3. Where you said you looked.
> 
> I expect an apology for being called a hypocrite.


But you are feeding it. The title of this thread is why I DONT feed raw but you do.

If you dont feed raw thats fine, I dont feed raw either. But its really weird to me to start a whole thread about not feeding raw when you indeed do. Granted its commercially prepared raw, which to me defeats the main purpose of feeding raw, but still...

If youd rather not feed raw, why not donate that freezer full to a rescue in your area, then you can go back to feeding whatever you prefer to feed?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Are you being intentionally provocative, or are you just a pedant?


A bit of both I'd say!!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said you were either one or maybe something else on a list I wrote and said I would give you the benefit of the doubt:

So clearly to begin with you are either a hypocrite, forgetful, naive to what ingredients you are feeding your dog rendering all arguments put forward by yourself as one diet having dietary benefits over another because you lack the ability to understand ingredients or you haven't fully researched a raw diet and believe it to be purely raw meat and bone and not split into healthy percentages that include veg, table scraps, fish, egg and offal. *I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it you don't know much about a raw diet* or ever really watched a dog.



Old Shep said:


> *I ordered it by mistake. I thought it was kibble and they were doing a special offer. My dog is prone to the runs and I was looking for something else to try.* I have a freezer full now
> 
> I don't believe that there is any good evidence (not anecdotes) that raw feeding is in any way better than other dog food
> 
> I think it's basically a marketing ploy and that these companies are preying on most good dog owners desire to "do the best" for their dogs and it's an emotional choice, not a rational one.


After reading your bit about it being on speciel offer and bought it without checking what it was first regardless fo your dog's troublesome tum I'd say you don't really care what you throw into your which makes any discussion you want to have on dog food and diets obsolete because you don't care either way as long as it gets fed and doesn't cost too much.

It is an emotional choice for me because I want the best for my dogs, not just what is on special offer at the time regardless of dietary requirements. Your's is neither an emotional choice nor a rational choice, it is an economical choice which comes as a detriment to your dog but as you failed to research the product you were buying - "It's cheap it'll do" - you actually wasted money and probably spent more obtaining additional food.

I bet the money you spent on the discounted sale stuff that you are now PAYING extra to keep frozen but the way, was more than I spend on food for my three dogs in total per year.

The above three paragraphs make interesting reading because in the last two you are arguing with yourself:

*I don't believe that there is any good evidence (not anecdotes) that raw feeding is in any way better than other dog food*
So you are of the opinion that there is no evidence to back up a raw diet therefore it isn't proven and theere is no reason to feed raw.

*I think it's basically a marketing ploy and that these companies are preying on most good dog owners desire to "do the best" for their dogs and it's an emotional choice, not a rational one.*
Here you argue that the Pet Food industry is pulling the wool over dog owner's eyes and exploiting their consideration to their pets so commercial processed food is a bad thing.

You must spend days not talking to yourself before you apologise and make friends again, either that or the thread title should have "The pro's and con's of processed and raw food"


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


So you've basically ignored all the reasons and photos for why people feel that raw is better than kibble. 

Shall I go back to letting my dogs have seizures and allergies so that I don't seem faddy?


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


Why do you care if its an emotional choice? 
Why do you care if folks have no rational reason for feeding raw?
Why do you care if its a fad?
Why do you care what lifestyle choices OTHERS make with THEIR dogs?
Why do you care if folks feed raw to feel superior?

Why does it matter in the least to you what *I* or anyone else feeds their dog?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


I wasn't aware of fads lasting hundreds of years. I would suspect that actually feeding dry kibble is a fad in the grand scheme of things. Or do you think they fed dry processed food back in the 1920's as opposed to scraps and raw meat? :rolleyes5:


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


Honestly, what nonsense. You accuse others of being deliberately provocative or of subjecting you to personal attack, yet persist in displaying the same behaviour yourself.

I don't feed the diet that I do to make myself feel superior to others or because I think it is the 'in' thing to do - that would be stupid. I made the decision to do so rationally because I feel that it's best for my dog. I don't mind what anyone else feeds theirs and don't feel that raw is better for all dogs or all owners - I know that for some reason feeding raw in your book makes me incapable of rational thought so don't expect you to understand my point of view.

The only thing that I do agree on is that feeding raw is a lifestyle choice, same as exercising is a lifestyle choice for me and feeding kibble or wet is a lifestyle choice for others.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> *I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice *(and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


Excuse me?

My decision to feed raw IS NOT emotional it is a rational choice to feed my carnivores a diet that is species appropriate.

Seriously :dita: fad my arse. You are quite frankly pathetic.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


Please can you find me a thread where someone has an issue with their dog chasing barley, wheat or tears off to go devour the veg patch?

Your dog is a f-ing predator and therefore eats meat. It has not developed the ability to process the meat that it has lived off for milenia so therefore it has eaten it raw for a very long time.

Ferrets are polecats, are you going to suggest that they eat processed food?

You ask for research, evidence, stats, etc. yet you have nothing to back up your choice other than "It was in the sale".

Raw feeders are passionate about what they feed their dogs because they have spent time researching it, sourcing the food and preparing thier homes to accomodate it. I've gone that one step further and obtained permission from a land onwer where I can hunt their food or the I can take the dog to hunt it's food. Would you like to come and see how a dog obtains it's food and eats its food naturally, you are more than welcome?

What makes a chicken more nutritional once it has been processed and made into little brown chunks of cereal, oils, additives, preservatives and very little of the actual chicken that went in at the start as apposed to the chicken being given to the dog as a whole? Would you rather eat a steak, steamed veg and noodles or would you prefer some of those Pot Noodles that you have to add hot water to in order to bring them back to life? Wake up and get real.

I suggest you stop insulting everybody and realise this is not a perceived attack, it is just astonishment that someone could know so little about basic nutrition for any living creature let alone one you choose to invite in to your home.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Where do you people get your information? The Daily Mail?

Have you ever read anything by Mech or the Coppingers? Anything authorititive which explains the evolution of the domestic dog?

Not all carnivores eat a mainly meat diet. The giant panda is a carnivore.....why am I bothering? I have put forward these arguments before and they have been ignored. Anecdote is not evidence.

*sigh*


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Sorry but if veggies need to be pulped etc that much for a dog to get ANYthing out of them to me they are not naturally meant to eat them 

You are never going to change the mind of us raw feeders, so why don't you just sod off and go back to your own little world!


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Where do you people get your information? The Daily Mail?
> 
> Have you ever read anything by Mech or the Coppingers? Anything authorititive which explains the evolution of the domestic dog?
> 
> ...


Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please Please pelase please please please please please please please please pelase please please please please please please please tell me where you go the idea that Giant Panda's are carnivores?

I have read the Coppingers book "Dogs", still doesn't mean a processed diet is better than a natural diet does it?

Steak, veg and noodles or pot noodle?

ETA: Can you point me to where either of the mentioned people vindicate a processed food is better for a dog than a natural food? Much appreciated.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> I have read the Coppingers book "Dogs", still doesn't mean a processed diet is better than a natural diet does it?


That statement shows that you clearly haven't read their book (maybe you did read it, but failed to understand it?)

Next you'll be telling me homeopathy works!!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Are you being intentionally provocative, or are you just a pedant?


Old Shep, to me, from the points you have put forward your whole argument is:

"I don't feed raw as there are no scientific studies for it so it must be a fad and dogs have evolved since the end of WWII or later (which is when dog food started becoming common) to be able to eat processed food."

Even if you want to argue the omnivore/carnivore question you'll find raw feeders divided on the issue but both camps still feed raw. It's even debated on this forum on occasion with a general consensus normally reached of we'll agree to disagree.

On the flip side those who do feed raw have provided evidence from personal experience as well as logic based in scientific fact.

Despite all advances humanity we don't know everything about human nutrition, yet alone a dogs nutritional requirements. To pretend we do is arrogant and stupid in the extreme and yet commercial dog food companies say it all the time. As dog owners we can take the theoretical base of what we do know, based on logic and science and apply it in the hope that it will benefit our dogs. For the majority of raw feeders it seems to work.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here you go, honey. It's a website where you can find out things. It's not always trustworthy, though. so here's another source. It's from Sadiego Zoo, so I think it's pretty accurate. Some big words, though.

Giant Panda Fact Sheet


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> That statement shows that you clearly haven't read their book (maybe you did read it, but failed to understand it?)
> 
> Next you'll be telling me homeopathy works!!


In my last post I asked you to point me to where both sets of people advocate a processed diet over a natural diet. I have taken time to answer your conflicting posts and views to give you a clearer picture as to why people choose a raw diet for their animals including myself, located information to back up my claims and understanding of the pet food industry so I ask you to do the same so I may understand where this information you have is and I will read it and digest it.

The Coppingers believed that dogs first started the domestication process around the time man started farming and helped man out initially by clearing vermin and pests - did they then take them to the farmer to cook, process and turn into a dry biscuit? - before they moved onto scavenging off human waste. They state that the scavenger diet may not be the healthiest for a dog yet processed food contains cereals, additives and very little meat content making it a scavenger based diet. I feed whole rabbit mainly with two dogs more than capable of catching them for themselves making it a more natural diet than anything out of a pet store could ever provide - my dogs kill and eat other animals for food, not biscuits from a bowl. It is harder work but they enjoy it, I enjoy it, the land owners enjoy there horses not being lame and my dogs are thriving, you try and save a few quid and your dog has a dodgy stomach, ever tried your dog on a raw diet? Maybe it's stomach won't be so dodgy as it won't be getting hammered with additives and allsorts of horrible stuff that you have no idea about that goes into the processed food. If you want to give raw a go and want some rabbits let me know.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here you go, honey. It's a website where you can find out things. It's not always trustworthy, though. so here's another source. It's from Sadiego Zoo, so I think it's pretty accurate. Some big words, though.
> 
> Giant Panda Fact Sheet


From Wikipedia:

Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is 99% bamboo.[5] Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food.[6][7]

There are some big words aren't there? No wonder you got all mixed up.

Diet

Nearly 99% of the giant panda diet is bamboo.

More than 99% of diet is bamboo - NOT MEAT
◦Most bears rely on plants for at least 75% of their diet (except for carnivorous polar bears)
◦Consume 12-15 kg/day of bamboo roots, shoots and leaves (23-36lbs) 
■Are capable of eating up to 38kg (84 lbs) of "new" bamboo shoots 
■Leaves contain the highest protein levels, followed by branches and stems 
◦25 species of bamboo eaten by pandas in the wild
◦Only a few bamboo species are widespread at the high altitudes pandas now inhabit 
■Bashania fangiana in Wolong (sub alpine conifer forest) 
■Fargesia spathacea, F. robusta, Sinarundinaria chungii, S. nitida, and S. fangiana in lower altitudes 
◦All plants of single bamboo species flower, die, and regenerate at the same time 
■Pandas must have at least 2 different bamboo species available in their range to avoid starvation 
For the *approximately 1% of diet that isn't bamboo*: 
◦Occasionally eat eggs, small or infant animals, carrion  all opportunistically 
◦Forage in farmlands for pumpkin, kidney beans, wheat, domestic pig food (Hu & Wei 2004)
◦Occasionally eat other plant species
◦Consumption of soil observed, but rarely (perhaps for absorbing plant toxins)

They are an Omnivore at best not a Carnivore. Hope that clears it up for you so you can sleep at night.

Remember how I said you could make any stats favour any argument? Well you've just done that by ignoring the 99% vegetable diet and going solely on the 1% of their diet.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here you go, honey. It's a website where you can find out things. It's not always trustworthy, though. so here's another source. It's from Sadiego Zoo, so I think it's pretty accurate. Some big words, though.
> 
> Giant Panda Fact Sheet


If you click on the blue word carnivora on the wiki link, it brings up a new page which states giant panda is almost excluively a herbivore?


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

LexiLou2 said:


> If you click on the blue word carnivora on the wiki link, it brings up a new page which states giant panda is almost excluively a herbivore?


That is a step too far in Old Shep's work ethic when it comes to research, it has to be right in front of Old Shep, someone else has to do all of the work or it simply doesn't exist, isn't true or just a phase something is going through (a phase to Old Shep is a period of time between 80 and 200,000years).


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I have come to the conclusion that not only is feeding a raw diet an emotional choice (and why do some of you feel that's an insult? I do lots of things with and to my dog that are emotional, rather than rational. We all do. All the time), but the way some people have responded to this _percieved _ attack on their decision makes me realise that they have no rational reason for feeding raw. It's a fad. It's a "lifestyle choice". It makes owners feel better (superior, even?) owners.


Err........? Have you read any of the replies to your post? People have shown evidence of the improvements to their dogs of feeding raw, so yes I suppose that is emotional; not wanting your dog to die is emotional. But how you can call it a fad or a lifestyle choice is quite beyond me. You are one of those people who have made up their minds that they are right and have only pretended to listen to the arguments against. I have a brother like that.



Old Shep said:


> Where do you people get your information? The Daily Mail?
> 
> Have you ever read anything by Mech or the Coppingers? Anything authorititive which explains the evolution of the domestic dog?
> 
> ...


The giant panda eats bamboo. I know you can get bamboo shoots down the Chinese, but does that make them meat?

Give me a break!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So lets look at this. I assume your assumption is to point out that it's classified as a carnivore but mostly eats bamboo. What is actually said:



> Despite its taxonomic classification as a carnivoran, the giant panda's diet is primarily herbivorous, consisting almost exclusively of bamboo. However, the giant panda *still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes, and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo*. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut. The giant panda is a *"highly specialized" animal with "unique adaptations"*, and has lived in bamboo forests for millions of years. The average giant panda eats as much as 9 to 14 kg (20 to 30 pounds) of bamboo shoots a day. Because the giant panda consumes a diet low in nutrition, it is important for it to keep its digestive tract full. *The limited energy input imposed on it by its diet has affected the panda's behavior*. The giant panda tends to limit its social interactions and avoids steeply sloping terrain in order to limit its energy expenditures.


Oh wait.. more..


> Similarly, the giant panda's round face is the result of powerful jaw muscles, which attach from the top of the head to the jaw.* Large molars crush and grind fibrous plant material*.


So nothing like a dog. If you can read additional facts about pandas however, such as it only digests about one fifth of it's food so has to spend a high percentage of it's life eating it's obvious that eating plants is very inefficient for this carnivore despite having adaptions within it's jaw, such as molars to grind food which dogs do not have. Have I missed anything, you know, all those big words are difficult for me

I've already said omnivore/carnivore is an ongoing debate in raw circles. Two different methods of feeding are used by two different groups "to veg or not to veg along with meat". Both styles are raw feeders. So again.. what are your arguments not to raw feed?

Oh.. if you want you can see a cow chasing and eating a duckling on youtube. Does this mean cows are omnivores or even carnivores?


----------



## Sarahferret (Apr 25, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> That statement shows that you clearly haven't read their book (maybe you did read it, but failed to understand it?)
> 
> Next you'll be telling me homeopathy works!!


Now this has REALLY pissed me off. I have always been sceptical of homeopathy, but I'd NEVER have out right said or implied that it would never work.

One of my ferrets is being treated homeopathically for a disease that I had always been lead to believe required major surgery to cure. As she has other problems, anaesthetic would be too dangerous at this point. My vet offered me a homeopathic remedy, I thought it was worth a try whilst her strenghth was being built up enough to allow the surgery. 3 weeks later she has new hair growth where she was almost bald. THAT is thanks to the homepathy you ridicule.

How can you knock it unless you've tried it?!?


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Not all carnivores eat a mainly meat diet. The giant panda is a carnivore.....why am I bothering? I have put forward these arguments before and they have been ignored. Anecdote is not evidence.
> 
> *sigh*


Can I nominate this for "Post of The Year" maybe "Post of the History of Pet Forums"?

Let's go through this step by step shall we.

*Not all carnivores eat a mainly meat diet* - no they eat an animal tissue diet. Any animal that eats animal tissue and raw vegetation (not part digested) is classed an Omnivore. But anything that has meat or animal tissue in it's diet could be classed as a carnivore if you wish to only include the meat percentage of their varied diet, which is what you did with the following statement (forget the 99% bamboo diet and focus on the tiny 1% amount of opportunistic animal tissue) - *The giant panda is a carnivore*

*I have put forward these arguments before and they have been ignored* - but people took your "arguments" and provided evidence, personal experience (just because it is not carried out under clipboard and safety goggles does nto make it anecdotal) and yet it is you that ignores the evidence presented including the dietry habits of the Giant Panda which had the facts right in front of your face.

And to quote my favourite bit - *why am I bothering?* - I have no idea either.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

I have been reading this thread and been having a little chuckle to myself.Why feed raw meat instead of cooked meat?Answer.......a dog hasn't travelled up the evolutionary scale far enought to be able to stand at a cooker and use a saucepan.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I know you can get bamboo shoots down the Chinese.
> 
> Give me a break!


give me beef in black bean sauce 

Cooked of course


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

hutch6 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is 99% bamboo.[5] Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food.[6][7]
> 
> ...


Oh dear! You seem unable to follow a logigal line of argument. I shall try again, shall I?

I was pointing out that just because an animal is classed as a carnivore, does not mean it eats a wholly or mainly meat diet. My example was a panda. It's a very good example of a carnivore that eats plant protien. *sigh*



> Not all carnivores eat a mainly meat diet - no they eat an animal tissue diet. Any animal that eats animal tissue and raw vegetation (not part digested) is classed an Omnivore. But anything that has meat or animal tissue in it's diet could be classed as a carnivore if you wish to only include the meat percentage of their varied diet, which is what you did with the following statement (forget the 99% bamboo diet and focus on the tiny 1% amount of opportunistic animal tissue) - The giant panda is a carnivore


This does not make sense. I suggest you either
1. re-read my original point, or
2. re-word this.



> just because it is not carried out under clipboard and safety goggles does nto make it anecdotal)


Did you seriously write this? Perhaps you should look up the meaning of words before you commit them to a post.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sarahferret said:


> Now this has REALLY pissed me off. I have always been sceptical of homeopathy, but I'd NEVER have out right said or implied that it would never work.
> 
> One of my ferrets is being treated homeopathically for a disease that I had always been lead to believe required major surgery to cure. As she has other problems, anaesthetic would be too dangerous at this point. My vet offered me a homeopathic remedy, I thought it was worth a try whilst her strenghth was being built up enough to allow the surgery. 3 weeks later she has new hair growth where she was almost bald. THAT is thanks to the homepathy you ridicule.
> 
> How can you knock it unless you've tried it?!?


I can't even be arsed replying to that nonsense.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

Not completely relevant to the topic, I'm still trying to find the program about the changes in humans caused when we discovered fire but this gives some idea...

Proteins are dangerous when cooked - Professor Rozalind Gruben - YouTube

Btw I'm not a raw nazi, I switch between best kibble, raw and some cooked left overs now N then.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

You are seriously holding up Rozalind Gruben as some kind of expert in food? Give me a break! Don't you recognise pseudo-science when it hits you in the face??


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> You are seriously holding up Rozalind Gruben as some kind of expert in food? Give me a break! Don't you recognise pseudo-science when it hits you in the face??


I don't know what else you would call a zoo which cooks for its carnivorous inmates.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> You are seriously holding up Rozalind Gruben as some kind of expert in food?


 no I am not claiming this person is an "expert" but she speaks along the same lines as various experts in the program I am still trying to find.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Is this thread really still going?!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Helbo said:


> Is this thread really still going?!


Quite entertaining though :ciappa:


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Paganman said:


> no I am not claiming this person is an "expert" but she speaks along the same lines as various experts in the program I am still trying to find.


she has quack qualifications fro a quack institution. You really need to brush up on your internet skills. You know, it's now possible to check these things

:laugh:


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Oh dear! You seem unable to follow a logigal line of argument. I shall try again, shall I?
> 
> I was pointing out that just because an animal is classed as a carnivore, does not mean it eats a wholly or mainly meat diet. My example was a panda. It's a very good example of a carnivore that eats plant protien. *sigh*
> 
> ...


Try not to dig yourself a deeper hole or get into any more of a tighter corner, the light doesn't do you justice.

I suggest you have study of species classification and when you've worked why a panda is where it is you come back to us fresh, full of energy and ready to present facts instead of trying your best to be the clever box because not only are you struggling with simple bear facts but you are incapable of grasping the difference between theory and fact to the point you have argued both sides in one post with no conclusion. I've wrote that slowly so you can keep up.

You argue that a dog is far removed from the wolf yet a panda should be classed as a carnivore because it got stuck under the same branch as bears.

I wrote the bit that confused you really slowly as well so it wouldn't baffle you but I failed.

So the examples you have been presented with and explained have not provided you with 'anecdotal' evidence?

You know what? You win. You are right in everything you say and everything you do. There are no such thing as theories just methods and facts such an animal that has diet made up of more than 99% vegetable matter is a carnivore. God I feel stupid now for all of that studying I did and time wasted researching stuff. What a plank I am.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> You really need to brush up on your internet skills. You know, it's now possible to check these things
> 
> :laugh:


and you need to practice what you preach :yesnod:


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

Goblin said:


> So lets look at this. I assume your assumption is to point out that it's classified as a carnivore but mostly eats bamboo. What is actually said:
> 
> Oh wait.. more..
> 
> ...


^^ I love how Old Shep totally ignored this great post by Goblin.

EDIT: Although not all of the quote came out in this for some reason


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Don't kid yourself. Whatever you studied, it clearly wasn't science. You don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory and haven;t a clue about scientific evidence.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Wow....cant believe this thread is still going!! I think everyone is 'tuning in' to see if Old Shep will ever give a response that appears sane and well thought out to anyone else but himself!!
Kudos for giving a panda as an example of a carnivore that exists on a mainly veggie diet. Shame the research you quoted also showed it was a totally ineffective diet that meant the poor (endangered) panda has to spend its entire life stuffing its face to get any nutrients!!
Maybe you should go back to the drawing board and find us another plant eating carnivore that is a success story instead?:yesnod:

(I swear its like arguing with a 5 year old! Anything they dont like and its fingers in ears and "la la la, Im not listening!!rrr:"......Im now convinced that Old Shep has some sort of job in politics.)


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Don't kid yourself. Whatever you studied, it clearly wasn't science. You don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory and haven;t a clue about scientific evidence.


Again, absolutely right. How do you do it?

Can I ask why you opened a debate with a debate between yourself if you are always right?

Just off to feed the mower contents to my dogs but I'll come back in a bit to see how wrong everyone is.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Don't kid yourself. Whatever you studied, it clearly wasn't science. You don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory and haven;t a clue about scientific evidence.


Come on now, you are enjoying this trolling far too much


----------

