# Pros & Cons of feeding RAW



## Plabebob (Nov 30, 2009)

In response to what's going on with the thread about how to feed raw I am starting this one in the hopes that the debate can be moved over to stop valuable info from being buried under a sea of arguments!

Personally I am a paid up member of the RAW brigade but am open to reasoned argument backed up by evidence....

Go!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I personally wouldn't feed it for a number of reasons:

1) I don't have space for an extra freezer to keep the meat in, or space in my current freezer to keep meat.
2) It's more convinent for me to feed commerical foods.
3) I've fed all my animals on commerical foods and never had a problem, so don't plan to change their food anytime soon.
4) Takes them longer to eat than commerical food and I don't want blood from the meat over my carpet.
5) Don't want them to become protective over bones and meat, which are higher value to them than dry kibble.


----------



## Plabebob (Nov 30, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I personally wouldn't feed it for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1) I don't have space for an extra freezer to keep the meat in, or space in my current freezer to keep meat.
> 2) It's more convinent for me to feed commerical foods.
> ...


Eek! If I had carpets I think I'd have to think twice. The OH has already relegated Tron to being fed outside at his house!

On the value thing though... on the first day Tron picked up the meat & ran, after just 1 week I can take the food away from him & give it back again no problem, I think if it's every day they kind of get used to it...


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

We tried feeding it for about six weeks, but have since read up on dogs who have suffered horrendous injuries, had to have operations, and some who've actually died from swallowing splintered bone fragments.

At least two of our pack were swallowing huge, sharp fragments of bone, and if there is the _slightest_ risk of us killing one of our pack, this is why we're not feeding it ever again.


----------



## Plabebob (Nov 30, 2009)

Wow that sounds pretty scary - I haven't heard first hand about dogs suffering injuries from eating raw - have you got any links?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

SlingDash said:


> We tried feeding it for about six weeks, but have since read up on dogs who have suffered horrendous injuries, had to have operations, and some who've actually died from swallowing splintered bone fragments.
> 
> At least two of our pack were swallowing huge, sharp fragments of bone, and if there is the _slightest_ risk of us killing one of our pack, this is why we're not feeding it ever again.


wow, I didn't know about this.  I thought it was safe to feed raw bones. this just adds to my reasons why I won't feed RAW.


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

Plabebob said:


> Wow that sounds pretty scary - I haven't heard first hand about dogs suffering injuries from eating raw - have you got any links?


Nope, and I can't be bothered to trawl through everything again to paste it here to be honest.

We arrived at our decision having done so, and pro-raw feeders have arrived at their decision via another route, so I'm assuming everybody's happy.



> The OH has already relegated Tron to being fed outside at his house!


Beware of feeding raw outside. I am convinced that our doing so is what led to us having a rat decide to make its home in our house - having been lured in by the lovely smells and uneaten morsels of raw meat...


----------



## ploddingon (Jun 15, 2010)

I have thought of RAW often but have never fully got it established and am now happy with feeding the Natures Best kibble and Natures Menu tinned food.

The reasons RAW hasnt worked for me =

*Convenience*. Few, if any of the butchers round here stock more than the usual meat, poultry, all chopped and prepared ready for sale. I dont think they ever see a bone as it is all delivered to them already prepared and ready for sale.

I also think it would be difficult to cater for a raw diet for the dog when away on holidays.

*Cost*. To provide enough bones I would have to buy chicken legs, lamb ribs etc at full price from the butcher which is very expensive.

*Fear*. When I have given Bobs a chicken leg I have ended up taking it off him when he nears the end of it as I am scared of him choking on the end of it.

*Appetite*For whatever reason my dog does not relish the taste or smell of raw meat. He often sniffs at it and walks away from it, regardless of what type of meat it is and I end up throwing it away.

*Balance*I am concerned whether a competely raw diet provides the full quota of vitamins, minerals and calcium etc that a growing dog needs and I feel I can provide that easier and in a more measurable way with the tinned food etc I now give him.

I now give Bobby NM and NB food and he is doing well on it. I do give him the occasional bone so help to clean his teeth and because I do like the idea of a dog that chews on a bone (it seems a natural thing for them to do) but other than that he will stay on kibble and tinned


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Mine are no more protective over their raw dinner than they are over a carrot or toy, they're not lions when feeding and very approachable. They never take their food on the carpet as they're not fed in a carpeted room and usually in the garden or kitchen.

I feed raw because I think it's more natural and healthy as opposed to all the additives in commercial food. They have lovely teeth, lovely coats, lovely small poops and never go to the vet, except for vacs! 

I can see both sides of the feeding debate I just prefer raw.


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

> They...never go to the vet, except for vacs!


I realise this may be taken the wrong way (as is the way here, it seems), but...

It's a bit of a stretch for anybody to say/assert/allude-to (etc, etc) that their pet doesn't go to the vet _because_ they are fed on a raw diet.

We have seldom visited the vet for anything other than boosters or 'little girls' (or 'little boys') surgery , and we have only ever fed either what we now consider utter rubbish (before being 'enlightened' by this forum), or [now] a mixture of high quality kibbles, moist foods and various offals and fish.

If raw feeders, who say it is their pet's diet that is to thank for rare visits to the vet, are to be believed, then I'm assuming we should, very soon, expect to be going to the vet more often (along with the hundreds and thousands of others who don't feed raw), or we should at least have had more frequent visits in the past than we have.



> I feed raw because I think it's more natural and healthy as opposed to all the additives in commercial food


Then why not feed a balanced, commercial diet that doesn't contain any? There are plenty about. I just can't get my head around the idea that RAW is best. You could argue that it's not "natural" for us humans to cook our food, yet we seem to have done alright for ourselves - as have the dogs who have, for the vast majority of their shared history with our species, eaten what we have left-over.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

You can take things different ways -
the post doesn't say - my animals never go to the vets because I feed a raw diet.
and
It's possible that the comparison between commercial and raw was targeted towards the majority of commercial which does contain nasties, it doesnt specifically include those that dont.

I dont feed raw and hats off to you for trying but much as you can infer from what has been said that raw = no vets visits and all commercial foods contain nasties, it could be seen that with nothing to back it up, animals dying through being fed a raw diet is a bit far fetched too
I think OP started this thread to keep avoid the arguements and keep to the Pro's and Con's 

Raw to me is the most natural way to go and I wish I had the umph to take the plunge but I dont have the freezer space, would be concerned at not providing a fully balanced diet, not happy with the mess in the house or outside encouraging vermin. So for us it's the next best thing - steam sterilised food such as ND WW and NH


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I started raw because my Malamute when he was about 9/10mths wouldnt eat the food he had been on since a pup after trying various dried/tinned/wet foods which he wouldnt either eat at all or only for a few days to maybe a week or two if I was lucky I tried the natures menu raw complete frozen blocks which include minced meat raw veg and small portion of cooked rice and ground bone everything they need. Never had any problems since he eats it every day hes poos were better and in general his health. In fact he did so well on it the others are now on it too except I now buy the premium blocks of pure minced meat which most include ground bone and add my own vegetables and rice. To make sure nothings lacking i add multi vitamin and mineral powder and ra oil sometimes too. They also get a small portion of JWB dried for breakfast but main meals raw.

Humans are warned about living on processed food and that too much is bad for us so maybe dogs are no different. I suppose you could say the dogs decided themselves. Its all he would eat and the others showed more interest in what he was getting than the commercial food they were still having so I put the lot of them on it.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

I started feeding raw when my pup at around 10 months started to lose hair and have bright red skin, she had been on really cheap kibble. I made the switch to raw and within 6 weeks, her skin was perfect, with no medication whatsoever.

I am fortunate to have a old fashioned local butcher who has his own abbattoir. The meat comes direct from there, as well as locally shot/trapped rabbit. I freeze everything in an old freezer in the garage

A big plus for me was the amount and texture of the poo. Ratio wise, she poos once a day and half the amount, never runny or soft, that she produced when on kibble. Obviously too, bones are a natural teeth cleaner


----------



## 300roses (Jun 16, 2010)

I have been battling my dog's demodectic mange for over a year. Her hair fell out, leaving a big bald patch on her body. She was on kibbles, then later I switched her to homecooked. I also put her on supplement after supplement to help with her condition. But nothing helped, her bald patch remained with no signs of hair growth. My vet was even telling me that her hair follicles were dead and he did not think any hair was going to grow back. 

Then finally during the last visit, he advised me to put her on a raw diet and see if it can help. Even before his advice, I have already been reading up on raw and its many benefits, but couldnt quite get started. But after my vet advised me to go raw, I decided to go ahead to with raw. 

So I went raw and so glad I did. After two months into raw, to my delight, her hair started to grow back where it had been totally bald. Now she has been on raw for over 4 months and her hair has all grown back. I took her to the vet recently for a review and a blood test. He was pleased to see that her hair had grown back and commented that she was looking good. Her blood test results were good too. He advised me to continue her on raw. 

For me, raw works best for my gal. I also have a couple of good butchers that I could obtain meat supplies from. The only disadvantage would be my lack of freezer space. My freezer is not big enough, so I could not buy too much meats at one time. 

But I do not see raw as a 'miracle' or 'cure-all' diet, as I believe for good health, other factors come into play too. Every dog is different, what works for one, might not necessarily work the same way for another. It is up to the individual owner to decide what's best to feed their dogs.


----------



## Nellybelly (Jul 20, 2009)

not pro or against.
to be honest, i knw so much more about nutrition than i apply to my dog. NOt from lack of concern, time, love, money...
but simply because it's not practical.

She gets a good dry food (not the best but readily available in cyprus unlike many of the others)...
and 40-50% of her diet is anything and everything really. Raw bones (but not chicken - still not entirely convinced they are safe -... only marrow bones, and more recently ox tail).
Cooked meat, pasta, rice, raw and cooked veg...
leftovers, treats, peanut butter, yoghurt... just too much to list. if its not bad for her she gets fed it at some point or another. She is often visitng friends with us, not home for dinner etc...and she had perfect poos, is ablt to swtich foods readily, healthy coat and skin, and generally been a stable weight since she reached full size.

Should a problem occur I will reconsider her diet... but for now she is well, she is happy, it suits our lifestyle (and hers). I dont think i'd ever switch to all raw. In fact, I'd probably still only do 2-3 raw bones a week, but reconsider other aspects of her diet.


----------



## LeeM018 (Aug 26, 2010)

I wanted to start feeding raw, but my young lad has been through a few tester chicken wings, which he chews nicely until he can get it all in his mouth. As soon as it's all in there he'll try and swallow whole, which frightens the life out of me. 

I know the argument will be to feed bigger bits, but all that will do is delay him getting to the size that fits his mouth, upon which he will go for the swallow. 

In my mind the benefits aren't worth the risk, so he'll continue on a mixture of Nature Diet (or Wainwirght if ND don't sort their act out soon) and Fish4Dogs. With F4D chews for his teeth.

That being said, I'm not opposed to feeding raw and appreciate the much cited benefits, it's just the risk is too great on balance for me to be comfortable with.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

We have tried RAW for a week, with fab support from Katie, but I gave in and back to Orijen, and ND. Bracken is a gulper and my hands were looking like they had been through a shredder, the loose poops were awful, (even the bissell struggled to get the marks off my carpet) so not one to mix with toilet training, and Harvey had a worm in his poop, which he has never had before. 
I was also really worried about getting Brackens right because he is so young. 

As soon as Bracken was back on the food he was weaned onto solid poops and slower eating with the aid of an Animal instincts bowl. 

Would I try again? Not sure I am going to let the boys guide me. If they are good on the Orijen (slowly changing Brack's over) then possibly better the devil you know.


----------



## SashaXx (Sep 3, 2010)

I feed kibble and raw. I don't feed chicken wings as he will swallow them whole:scared: I mainly give him the minces which include the bone, plus he gets offal, heart, raw egg with shell, yogurt, sardines or other tinned fish, he does get chicken carcesses and other bones.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

My dogs are raw fed, and I've never had any problems with bones, or chewing/swallowing whole. If you go about it the right way, they learn to chew through bones properly. My two Labs, Indie and Tau have never been fed anything else, except for the very occasional kibble meal when I'm away, as it's easier to travel with. Although I have also just nipped to a shop and bought them chicken portions on the move as well, can't get more convenient than that.

I think the main problem people have when switching, and dogs suffering injuries, is they perhaps don't understand what's the best way to go about it. I always tell people if they're raw feeding for the first time, then use chicken bones because they are softer and more easily digestible. If it's a chicken wing, then hold on to the end, don't just let them have it, make them chew it. The best starting food from my point of view, is chicken carcasses and neck, or turkey necks. Most dogs aren't big enough to swallow this whole, and have to chew them. The worst bones to introduce first are ribs and weight bearing bones, and I think this is where a lot of people and their dogs come a cropper. These can and do splinter, particularly from an older animal. I only feed lamb ribs, as again, these are softer, much easier to manage.

I've been through this with Miggin, the cocker pup, who was on kibble when he came to live with us, and switched him over on chicken wings, which I bashed up in a tea towel, and then held on to to make him chew. I got a couple of nibbled fingers, but it's the technique that's important. You've got to sit them away from you, and only let them have the chicken wing at the side of their mouth, letting it go a bit at a time. It's isn't easy, but he did learn to chew through them and now eats them no problem. 

When you think about the type of animal a dog would naturally eat, it isn't going to be a cow or anything particularly large, it's going to be smaller animals, and younger animals, and so that's what I feed.

The pro's:

I know what they're getting and it's all good
Keeps teeth clean
Keeps anal glands clear
Can be very cheap if you shop around
All fresh nutrients, much easier for them to digest and make the most of

The con's:

It takes planning, but not necessarily vast amounts of freezer space

-----------------------------------------------------------

There have been instances of dogs choking on kibble, I've got a prime candidate here, Tess, the Lab pup who hoovers her food down, and she's on a commercial diet as that's what her owner will feed her when she goes back after basic training is complete. Toy dogs are prone to this, as they tend to possett food, taking a gulp and holding it at the back of their mouth, then hoovering up more. 

I feed my dogs outside, well, they do live outside, and don't particularly see signs of extra rats. I have seen signs of rats around the bird feeder though, and it won't stop me from putting food out for them, particularly in this weather. 

I pay 50p for a 2lb block of green tripe, I use approx 1 per day. And I pay £1.50 for about 10kgs of chicken carcasses, which is enough to last me for a week. Lamb bones are free, and they get a few other extras like a tin of fish, eggs, cooked liver, blended veggies. I reckon I spend about £12 per week for three dogs kept totally on raw, and I usually have enough left over to give Tess a treat or three during the week. 

I'm not sure what price a good quality dog food is to be honest, I usually only look at the ingredients, but I don't think it could compete with the raw mine get.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

Definately seems to be the way to go if you/your dog can get on with it.
I know I would struggle as said so sit on the sidelines and admire those who do it successfully.
I definately think dogs are more healthy as a result but with Heidi's tummy issues I have a good excuse to pass:lol:
We got as far as raw chicken wings which I wouldnt stop for their teeth and anal gland benefits.
My son's viszla loves her chicken wings, no gulping or eating whole which surprised me for a bigger dog but I guess there will always be exceptions to the general rule.


----------



## lucybichon (Nov 9, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> You could argue that it's not "natural" for us humans to cook our food, yet we seem to have done alright for ourselves - as have the dogs who have, for the vast majority of their shared history with our species, eaten what we have left-over.


I don't really think you could argue that it's not "natural" for humans to eat cooked meat - our digestive systems aren't made to cope with bacteria the same way as a dog's is. Dogs lick the kitchen floor, the pavements on a walk, lamp posts, etc, and don't get ill from it as they are designed to cope with all sorts of bacteria - I'm sure if we humans starting licking floors and pavements we would be very poorly!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lucybichon said:


> I don't really think you could argue that it's not "natural" for humans to eat cooked meat - our digestive systems aren't made to cope with bacteria the same way as a dog's is. Dogs lick the kitchen floor, the pavements on a walk, lamp posts, etc, and don't get ill from it as they are designed to cope with all sorts of bacteria - I'm sure if we humans starting licking floors and pavements we would be very poorly!


And of course, the classic dog greeting.... not sure that would go down too well saying hello to other dog walkers 

Someone I help out with their dogs feeds half and half, one day kibble, one day raw, and the difference in the excitement over raw is very noticeable, they obviously enjoy it such a lot more.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I feed raw and I would never feed commerical food again. For people that say it's a trendy fad dogs have only been fed commerical food for 40 years or so I would say that's more of one. I've never had a problems

Pros for me:
I know exactly what's going into my dog he's not being stuffed full of additives and cereals
His teeth and coat are amazing
He's very healthy only goes to the vet for vaccines (I know not necessarily the diet)
It's much more natural for them than eating additives and cereals and god knows what else

Dogs choke on kibble doesn't mean people are automatically saying don't feed kibble it is evil and will kill. Most of the anti-raw studies are sponsored by food companies and strangely they say that commercial food is better


----------



## LeeM018 (Aug 26, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My dogs are raw fed, and I've never had any problems with bones, or chewing/swallowing whole. If you go about it the right way, they learn to chew through bones properly. My two Labs, Indie and Tau have never been fed anything else, except for the very occasional kibble meal when I'm away, as it's easier to travel with. Although I have also just nipped to a shop and bought them chicken portions on the move as well, can't get more convenient than that.
> 
> I think the main problem people have when switching, and dogs suffering injuries, is they perhaps don't understand what's the best way to go about it. I always tell people if they're raw feeding for the first time, then use chicken bones because they are softer and more easily digestible. If it's a chicken wing, then hold on to the end, don't just let them have it, make them chew it. The best starting food from my point of view, is chicken carcasses and neck, or turkey necks. Most dogs aren't big enough to swallow this whole, and have to chew them. The worst bones to introduce first are ribs and weight bearing bones, and I think this is where a lot of people and their dogs come a cropper. These can and do splinter, particularly from an older animal. I only feed lamb ribs, as again, these are softer, much easier to manage.
> 
> ...


This post makes me feel very guilty and weak willed for giving up after not getting the results that 'I' wanted to see straight away.

I will go back to the wings with with my lad and attempt the technique you described above.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LeeM018 said:


> This post makes me feel very guilty and weak willed for giving up after not getting the results that 'I' wanted to see straight away.
> 
> I will go back to the wings with with my lad and attempt the technique you described above.


Oh dear, honestly, I wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty for not raw feeding. I think if you really struggle, there's no problem feeding a good quality commercial food. I don't think there's huge amounts of evidence that raw is better for all dogs, it won't make them live longer or healthier lives in every instance.

I do personally feel better feeding mine raw, because I like that they get good fresh ingredients, but then again, they'd eat dead manky road kill rabbit if they got the chance, chuckle.

If you want to try feeding wings, sit on a low perch with the dog sat with it's back to you inbetween your knees, and feed the bashed up chicken wing from the side. They do wriggle and try and move, so keep a grip of their collar if they've got one on. If you bash up the chicken wings, do it with a tea towel wrapped round them, otherwise they tend to scoot off the kitchen side. Once they get chewing, they do tend to start to concentrate, and the hardest part is keeping hold of the last part, which is why I tend to make sure there are no large bits of bone left to swallow. I use a rolling pin to bash them up, but a meat hammer is good if you've got one.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Once they get chewing, they do tend to start to concentrate, and the hardest part is keeping hold of the last part,


I have been feeding raw for nearly 3 years and I still panic a little but this is how I still feed wings The last bit may not be crunched as much as I would like but have never had problems

I think the big downside for me is, portioning up fresh green tripe. There is no worse smell. As I get mine straight from the abbattoir, I have to buy bulk, so I portion up 15 whole tripe each time


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

Can I join the "guilty" clan too - may be we should start another thread for the those who "would, if they could, but cant" :lol:

I am still wondering about the possible implications of feeding a "commercial" diet. Even the best quality. As mentioned a dogs tum is different to ours and can deal with "foreign bodies" that we cant. 

Therefore, is all this top quality commercial food going against what's natural to them. Maybe it shouldnt be so pure?

I have fed Heidi the best I can afford and had more problems with her tum than I ever did with my last dog who ate just about everything no gradual change over with foods, whatever was on offer in the supermarkets, table scraps etc.etc.

Soo it makes me wonder, if we dont feed raw which to me is more natural -then maybe we would be better off feeding the lower grade foods to give their tums something alien to deal with.

Oh, I dont know - whats a girl to do


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

pearltheplank said:


> I think the big downside for me is, portioning up fresh green tripe. There is no worse smell.


This is the only con for me, having to deal with tripe, organs, heads, feet etc etc. I don't like touching it at all to be honest. :

Other than that, I'm 100% happy with a raw diet, else I wouldn't feed it. In 6 years we've NEVER had a dog choke or have any health issues related to the dogs eating a raw diet or bones. A friend feeds her 15 sled dogs the same and again, no problems in over 10 years. So I am more than happy.

Of course there is a risk, there is a risk with everything we do. Blimey, if we were that bad we'd never leave the house!! It does take longer to prepare, and it isn't nice to deal with - but the dogs are worth it.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I did with Roo and he couldn't stomach it, was very strange. He has the odd chicken wing now and he's ok, but anything else and it was straight through, and we persisted for a good few weeks.

Then I read something that made me rethink. We all argue about how our dogs are not wolves and have been domesticated...well surely the same goes for their tums? (Just my opinion like). 

Now he's on WW and Royal Canin. May not be the best stuff to feed, but it works for us and him, and given how bad he was a few weeks ago, I'll take whatever works for us to be honest.

I don't feel guilty for not feeding raw. My dog is a healthy dog, he's happy and he's perfect weight for his size. 

Everyone knows their dog and what works for them. No one else should have the right to tell you what to feed.


----------



## ploddingon (Jun 15, 2010)

Mum2Heidi said:


> Can I join the "guilty" clan too - may be we should start another thread for the those who "would, if they could, but cant" :lol:
> 
> I am still wondering about the possible implications of feeding a "commercial" diet. Even the best quality. As mentioned a dogs tum is different to ours and can deal with "foreign bodies" that we cant.
> 
> ...


I understand (and share) your confusion 

I have come to the conclusion that the main thing iis whether your dog will eat what you are feeding him, and if his health is good (as much as you can tell).

My last dog would eat absolutely anything that was put down for him. It didnt matter what brand, if it was dog food or human, wet or dry, raw or commercial. It all went down well and sharpish too.

Bobby is a totally different kettle of fish.

I have never seen a dog given best raw beef/chicken/lamb etc sniff at it as if it was poisoned and just walk away. He hates it and there is no way he could be given it as a regular diet.

We read how raw is more natural, but failing that we should give our dogs one of the 'premium' dog foods available on the market now. Organic or free from this, that and the other. I do agree with this, and try to follow this guideline.

However, Chappie, a dog food that is certainly NOT classed as premium, has loads of cereals etc in it (considered less than ideal), is a food regularly recommended by vets for dogs with jippy stomachs and some feed theiir dogs on it permanently and have perfectly happy and healthy dogs.

Supermarkets sell their own brand foods, again not classed as premium, but again their customers would say their animals do well on it.

I think at the end of the day all any of us can do is look for the best dog food we can afford, access easily and which our dogs will enjoy. Whether it is raw or commercial, as long as we are doing the best we can for out mutts that is the main thing.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

I suppose the ideal is what works best for your dog. 

On paper, I feel raw has to be the best but cant/wont put it into practice.

Chappie in itself screams "Noooooooooooooo" by todays ideals but no one can explain why it works so well. Unfortunately it made mine itch otherwise she would still be on it.

She developed an extremely sensitive tum with lots of upsets. I blamed kibble but will never know. She is now on good quality wet and a tum supplement to try and help her back to normal. After dabbling with a bit of raw and having more upsets, I have drawn a line under it. (Except for chicken wings)

If we have problems again I will definately be looking to down grade to something not as pure upholding my theory that their tums need some sort rubbish going thro. (yet to decide what constitutes rubbish :lol


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

lucybichon said:


> I don't really think you could argue that it's not "natural" for humans to eat cooked meat - our digestive systems aren't made to cope with bacteria the same way as a dog's is. Dogs lick the kitchen floor, the pavements on a walk, lamp posts, etc, and don't get ill from it as they are designed to cope with all sorts of bacteria - I'm sure if we humans starting licking floors and pavements we would be very poorly!


I'm not sure how long we have actually been cooking meat - are you? We've been around for several hundred thousand years in our present form, and I doubt very much that cooking was done until VERY recently on that timeline. Some cultures eat raw food these days anyway, and a friend of ours likes his steak done 'blue'.

When we were young, we used to play in filthy streams and do all sorts of other horrendous things that I can't bring myself to admit in here, and we were never "very poorly" - apart from the usual childhood maladies. People these days are far too obsessed with cleanliness and hygiene, and I don't honestly think we would be all that ill if we went around licking floors and pavemements - provided we had got rid of our inability to fight such possible infections by our over use of household cleaners, detergents and antibacterial agents etc.


> I think OP started this thread to keep avoid the arguements and keep to the Pro's and Con's


Really? I get the feeling that us 'antis' have been led here like lambs to the slaughter! :lol:

By the way - is this topic going to be made a 'sticky'? By rights it should be.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I prefer my steaks pretty much raw, can't abide overdone rib eye!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Hope you're getting an idea of the pro's and cons of raw feeding Plabebob - there will always be the few who will disagree but as you asked for a debate and not an argument *I *think it's much more informative to keep it that way.

Many knowledgeable raw feeders on here to help you make up your own mind - hope it's helped! Good luck!


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

_I think OP started this thread to keep avoid the arguements and keep to the Pro's and Con's

Really? I get the feeling that us 'antis' have been led here like lambs to the slaughter!_

Seems to me your responses are purely to "nit pick" and as for "antis" (if there is such a word) - it wasnt that long ago you were feeding raw and shouting it from the roof tops.

I cant believe you really think that licking pavements and floors wouldnt make you seriously ill and blame it on overuse of household cleaning products. Or that you feel the need to mention it.

If you go back as far as cavemen, they had fires and I would think cooked their food. Dont recall any pics or references in my history lessons to our ancestors eating raw meat. From what I gather, we progressed to eating raw.

It's ok to have an opinion and a debate but if you continually say "black" to someone saying "white" all our threads are going to be headed nowhere and OP's will never get the facts they deserve.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't rise to the bait. I know my opinion on raw and have no need to explain myself to anyone other than someone genuinely asking for advice. I didn't try and quit so have seven years of knowledge on raw feeding and willingly pass anything on in order to advise anyone considering feeding BARF!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I think, as some people have said, each to his own. I'be chosen to go raw for very personal reasons. No-one can tell me this is right or wrong, it's what we chose as best in our eyes after an extremely traumatic time with one of our dogs in August. 

We did not jump on the trendy bandwagon + had barely heard of feeding raw until I asked for the best feed on another forum. We've done the research, sourced the food and the dogs seem to like it and look well on it. Yes, it's a pain to stock up, yes, you need a new freezer!

I've never had possessive dogs, they will let me take food from their mouths and have never bitten us. 

I'm not going to try to convert anyone but I will tell people that I think it's a good thing and on the other forum, it's pretty much Orijen or raw! 

Suits me, suits my dogs, not up to anyone to have a go about that.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I'd say on the Malamute forum roughly 70 - 80% of people feed raw - so i'm well within my comfort zone there. 

No need for coverting, each to their own!


----------



## Paws Dawson (Oct 22, 2010)

Havent read all of this one but could I just point out that a raw fed dog doesnt have to be fed large bones and leave 'bloody' body parts on your carpets.
Or even need a giant freezer.

One of my dogs would break a chicken wing / quater / back 'just' enough for it to fit down his throat and generally gag and throw up several times forcing it down... obviously this isnt good for him but that doesnt mean I cant feed him raw.

I simply bought a commercial spec mincer and i grind up chicken and any other soft boned meat i can get, rabbit etc to make individual meals.
These are fed in his bowl like any other meal, eaten in minutes... or seconds with no mess no fuss no gagging and no worry about commercial additives or preservatives.

Chicken quarters and wings bone and all - minced









Beef and broccoli









Individual meals ready for freezing, then simply defrost a meal as and when needed :thumbup:









I could fit 1 (collie size) dogs meals for a month in one large freezer drawer packaged up like this.

Personally i put the liver / kidney / heart / carrott / apple etc etc through the mincer as well with the meat to make interesting and varied meals for my dogs.

Once a month a friend and I get a bulk load of chicken from a catering butcher as well as any 'woops' items from asda or tripe from another butcher, whatever we find at the time.
Then we have a mincing night and a few drinks and make up about a months worth of food.

By the end of it ill have something like chicken and liver, chicken and tripe, chicken and heart, chicken and kidney, beef and pork with apple, beef and squash, chicken and carrott, just tripe, plain chicken.

Personally I do also feed larger lamb and beef ones from the butcher too maybe 2/3 a week to clean their teeth, keep them busy and give them a treat but they both know to go to their matts (and i put a towel down on them first) and they eat their bones there and only there. 
They both chew larger bones properly but a raw feeder doesnt have to feed whole bones or heart and kidneys and create a horror story behind their sofa?

Just thought id add that


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Great pics Paws. . As you prove there are ways to feed a raw diet even if people/dogs can't cope with bones. 

That's what I love, it's so easy to adapt a diet to fit. My boy has to be on a fairly low fat diet, and I can chose exactly what he has. :thumbup:


----------



## 300roses (Jun 16, 2010)

Paws Dawson said:


> I simply bought a commercial spec mincer and i grind up chicken and any other soft boned meat i can get, rabbit etc to make individual meals.


Another good way of feeding raw, with bones included.  Love the pics.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Sometimes some people who feed RAW are so passionate about the diet it can come across as condesending. 

The way I see it is if it suits the individual dog, then that should be enough for us, weather it be Chappie, Skinners, AG, JWB, Orijen, ND, RAW or any other food. 

How ever good liver, Banana's, or Kidney may be for me... give it too me and I wont gain much from it, as it wont pass my lips, if it did I would be rather ill.... Same for some dogs. 

Inform people of the available options :thumbup: Preach at people and they are likely to turn their backs. Many people joining this forum will feed supermarket brands, as they know no better. If they are made aware of the available options then thats fab. 

Some people cannot afford to feed RAW, Orijen or other higher priced options. Desn't mean they don't care for their dogs.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Rep your way for that post Sue!!! :thumbup:

Slingdash, go on then, lets see you go around licking pavements, and perhaps some windows as well, or lamp posts...

We'll see how ill you get!


----------



## 300roses (Jun 16, 2010)

sue&harvey said:


> The way I see it is if it suits the individual dog, then that should be enough for us, weather it be Chappie, Skinners, AG, JWB, Orijen, ND, RAW or any other food.


Every dog is different, one dog might do well on a certain diet, whereas it might not be so for another dog. Ultimately, we all want the best for our dogs. The best diet would be the one that suits our dogs most, be it dry, raw or homecooked etc.


----------



## Nellybelly (Jul 20, 2009)

sue&harvey said:


> Sometimes some people who feed RAW are so passionate about the diet it can come across as condesending.
> 
> The way I see it is if it suits the individual dog, then that should be enough for us, weather it be Chappie, Skinners, AG, JWB, Orijen, ND, RAW or any other food.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post, another rep from me!


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Nellybelly said:


> Brilliant post, another rep from me!





Horse and Hound said:


> Rep your way for that post Sue!!! :thumbup:


Thanks guys, just don't like to see people being chastised over what they feed their dog.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sue&harvey said:


> Thanks guys, just don't like to see people being chastised over what they feed their dog.


On this thread?? Or just in general?


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> On this thread?? Or just in general?


In general, and on this thread. Unless they are causing serious problems because what they are feeding, eg something poisionous


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sue&harvey said:


> In general, and on this thread. Unless they are causing serious problems because what they are feeding, eg something poisionous


I didn't think anyone was being chastised in this thread.  I'll re read!


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> I didn't think anyone was being chastised in this thread.  I'll re read!


Some parts came across as condesending, and nit picking


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sue&harvey said:


> Some parts came across as condesending, and nit picking


Ahh well I didn't really get that, hope it wasn't me.  I felt the non raw feeders were rather picky, too.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> Ahh well I didn't really get that, hope it wasn't me.  I felt the non raw feeders were rather picky, too.


I meant both the for's and against. If the dogs are happy, & healthy then that is what is important 

Personally I am neutral. Didn't work for us yet, but may in the future


----------



## lucybichon (Nov 9, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> I'm not sure how long we have actually been cooking meat - are you?
> 
> No, sorry, I'm not. But like someone else said on here, if you go back as far as cavemen they made fires and am sure they cooked their food over this.
> 
> ...


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

To BARF or not to BARF?

BARF or RAW, we'll call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? If I post in the negative it's not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dog's raw food, it is part of my own dog's diet, but rather that I disagree with the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of "nature". Google RAW diet and you'll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.

So let's start with "nature", the idea is that what's natural is best. Well what is natural: disease, injury, starvation etc, and un-natural: medicine, physiotherapy, science etc. So it's natural for a dog to die of parvo and un-natural to inoculate against it, or it's unnatural for a dog with an un-descended testicle to have it removed to reduce future problems and natural to leave it to go on to develop an increased risk of cancer. These are just two examples, I'm sure you can think of many more, and they demonstrate a physical abnormality and an illness process, both of which are natural but who would say that nature is best . So rather than natural shall we call it inherited abilities and forget the idea that what is natural is intrinsically preferable.

Dogs have a plethora of inherited abilities varying from recent adaptations like an increased herding instinct in a collie or the physical attributes that produce the speed of a greyhound to the far older basic biochemistry that comes from a shared ancestry with all life on the planet. These abilities have allowed man and the dog to coexist when at times it would seem that we have trouble coexisting with our own species. So to the crux RAW feeding is best because it is natural, why? Both dogs and humans can and do digest cooked food extremely well and often more easily than raw. Neither species has had time too evolve to eating a cooked diet in the few thousand years that we have been eating it beyond some very minor adaptations. What we have inherited is a "natural" ability to utilize a great variety of food sources that includes this "un-natural" cooked food. So if by cooking we reduce bacterial contamination, increase palatability and, to a degree, ease of digestion then to refuse its use on not "natural" grounds is a little like refusing the Parvo inoculation as it's not "natural". So if we put to one side the Disneyfied idea of "it's not natural" is there other reasons why cooked is bad? Some oft used reason for RAW is that cooking destroys nutrients, causes cancers and tooth decay. But what does it really do to the food and its nutrients.

Nutrients, in simple terms, can be described as macro (big) protein, fats and sugars and micro (small) vitamins and minerals. Meat supplies micro and macro nutrients, the macro are protein, fat and a small amount of sugars. Even lean meat from farm animals contains a fair amount of fat; in beef around 40% of its calories will come from fat. This fat will be used as energy either direct as fat or converted to sugar. The protein will be broken down and used for repair/growth or it can be converted for use as energy. Proteins are built from amino acids and these come in different types, some are classed as essential and the rest non essential. The difference is in there ability to be rebuilt into new proteins i.e. essentials can be built into any protein whereas non essential cannot. If you only eat none essentials you will lack some of the building blocks needed so a diet must include all the 10 essential amino acids to be adequate. One way of ensuring this is to eat animal protein as this contains all of them, against some vegetable proteins being short. There are many vegans that get all their and their dogs' essential amino acids from beans and pulses etc but it takes more effort than I would want to use when all I need is a bit of meat. Both Raw and cooked meats are well digested by dogs and will supply a good amount of the nutrients they contain, there are draw backs such as contamination, this can be from bacteria, such as salmonella, or chemicals such as antibiotics/hormones, used to treat the animal source prior to death. The risks of chemical contamination, I hope, don't need to be highlighted but the bacterial risk is a less well known area.

Carbohydrates are complex sugars and it is often claimed that dogs are not able to digest this food source but in truth that is nonsense, oft quoted is wolves don't eat the stomach contents of their prey, or they are carnivores. Wolfs digest carbs very well if they are presented in a viable form, an example is an Artic wolf eating lemmings and hares throughout the summer these are eaten whole stomach and all. The stomach contents of this type of prey animal are whole and part digested vegetable matter etc and make up a fair proportion of a the preys total calorific content, these would be wasted calories if not utilised by the wolf, in a similar fashion timber wolves depend to an equally large degree on rodents such as field voles for their summer diet. So our dogs have an inherited ability to deal with carbs and when presented in a viable form give good digestion rates, basically the dog/wolf is not an obligate carnivore like a cat but has omnivorous capabilities. Through these sources the dog can gain not only the sugars but also valuable fats, protein and micro nutrients. The three food sources are common to both raw and cooked foods but as has been mentioned need to be presented to the digestive system in a usable form i.e. a lump of wood is made of carbohydrate but there are very few animals with the digestive system capable of breaking down and utilising these calories. Cooking in part has been offered as an aid to this problem and is a little easier to arrange than Lemming digestion.

The last of the three food types are fats these are found in varying degrees in meat from small amounts in a wild rabbit to large amounts in a farm reared pig. Fats are used for a number of processes but for this essay we will stick with their use as an energy source. Fat has 9 calories per gram against 4 for carbs or protein so it is a dense form of fuel that forms a major part of supplying low speed, stamina type energy needs. The fats found in meat are not the only source of this nutrient there is another available source that is relatively cheap and available in the form of vegetable oils. Vegetable oils are not often met by wolves but they are well digested by dogs and, in the main, they have a bonus of being high in linolic acid which is very important to growth and general health, when lacking in puppies it leads to retarded growth, failure to thrive and skin problems. So vegetable oils are both a cheap and also good quality form of fat that dogs can very easily assimilate in exactly the same way as they would an animal fat, again perhaps not natural but defiantly useful.

So how does how does cooked versus raw stand up? It has already been mentioned that a common accusation is that cooking destroys nutrients and the equally common answer is that cooking helps with digestion. Well as with most augments they are both right. It all depends on how and what things are cooked, there is evidence that cooking increases absorption of many micro nutrient, especially in vegetable matter, but also that it might slightly slow digestion of meat if excessive heat is used. What needs to be considered is if this will affect the diet to any real degree or are the percentages just academic rather than real. If an animal is short of nutrients then there may be an argument for choosing to cook some things and not others but for the average dog in the UK, USA or Ireland there is no reason why they should have any shortfall. So if you have a portion of meat then either cooked or raw it will supply a good quantity of its macro and micro nutrients to the dog's digestive system. Personally I feed meat raw, as mentioned above butchers waste and rabbits etc, not because raw is intrinsically better but just that cooking is unnecessary in most situations. If a supply of cooked meat became available I would have no hesitation in feeding it as an alternative or alongside the raw and as I use a percentage of complete food it could be said I already do.

I use a variety of commercial complete foods and I have gotten good results; I must say that they have never been used as the only food but in truth for the average pet dog I find no reason why they shouldn't be. They are more than adequate in the three food groups and necessary micro nutrients. There is an ongoing discussion about price and quality but at study by Krogdahl et al suggests that there is more likely a variance in quality through brand rather than price and a study they undertook showed all the brands tested exceeded minimum requirements. Carpenter looked are the digestibility of low grade, mechanically recovered meat such as might be used in pet feeds, or sausages for human consumption, and found that other than the expected variance through increased cartilage type material there was little relevant difference in digestibility from other meat sources. Dogs getting home prepared meals should also have adequate and balanced macro and micro nutrients if the owner has a realistic knowledge of feeding and if not then I would have no hesitation in recommending using such a preparatory dog food. The claims of them poising dogs and causing long term health problems seem hard to believe when over the period of there use dogs lifespans and general health has improved. This is likely in part due to better health care but if dog food was as dangerous as some would claim they would surely have a noticeable negative impact on general health and well being. There is growing evidence that burning food may have some negative health benefits but the rendering process of most pet food does not reach those sorts of temperatures. Some other negatives that are sited are dental problems but these are down to eating a soft diet rather than the ingredients so a dog fed on raw pet mince is as likely to get plaque build up as will an animal on any wet soft diet, feeding dried food will limit this to an extent. To further avoid this problem there needs to be opportunity to chew a harder object to reduce the amount of soft feed sticking to teeth and to break off plaque. Bones are very good for the latter and I feed raw bones once or twice a week but it must be born in mind that there are risks in feeding bones, even raw, and the owner needs to decide for themselves if it is worth it. There are alternatives in the form of chews etc available in most pet shops that in theory should do a similar job but not having tried them I would not like to judge.

Lastly there is the dietary effects on performance, feeding a raw only diet will give little in the way of adjustability, it may well suit the lifestyle of a wolf but not so the modern dog. Modern domestic dogs perform a great variety of jobs from the extremes of a long distance sled dog racing over hundreds of kilometres to that of a greyhound sprinting over 500mertres and their dietary needs will vary accordingly. One problem is in the amount of protein, and this goes with high protein completes as well as RAW. Various authors have stated that greyhounds run fastest on medium protein diets and Hill suggests, 25% protein, 30% fat and 45% carbs, whereas long distance huskies will need high fat, higher protein and only minimal carbohydrate, such as 35% protein, 45% fat and only 20% carbs. These authors suggest that increasing dietary protein to the greyhounds slowed racing. Hill suggest that carbs are useful as a recovery aid to restock glucose stores more efficiently and faster than is possible through protein and fat alone and this is seconded by Wakshlag. The carbs that are being advocated are not available in a raw only diet, although as stated are probably part of a wolfs diet, and to exclude them would be rather like excluding an energy/electrolyte drink to Paula Radcliff because it's not " natural" although it will decrease race times and aid in her recovery process.

So in conclusion the RAW type diets sell books and in the world of those keen on all things "natural" in a "Disney" type way may well suit their sensibilities but in the real world then it is hard to see any real purpose or reason to such a restrictive regime. It is supported with an almost evangelical following that seems to breach no dissent but has no real science to back it beyond the all things natural brigade. I specialise in sight hound types and have for the past 40 years and these type of dogs especially have moved beyond their wolf ancestors in both physical structure and use so why oh why should they eat a wolfs diet, it doesn't apply to their current energy requirements, especially when the "raw diets" being suggested aren't even the true diet of wolves?
References posted/pm'd on request.

Appendix A
Recent studies have highlighted the high incidence of gastric ulceration and gastritis in working dogs "studies of this group of dogs suggest that most working dogs may have at least some risk of developing exercise-associated gastro-intestinal disease" (Davis). This will lead to increased permeability of the lower gastroenterial tract, this born in the light of recent gastroenterological thought, relating increase permeability with increased incidence of acute gastritis, you can imagine that a high bacterial load can only increase likelihood and extent of this problem. Some dogs may carry a high bacterial load naturally but there is an increased incidence with animals that are suffering with diarrhoea (Stanley). These bacteria are likely from the diet and include serious pathogens such as salmonella, likely from uncooked chicken. Clostridial spp and Campylobacter spp are also commonly found. Stanley states "Campylobacter can survive for days in surface water and as long as 4 weeks in feces. The duration of excretion in infected dogs and cats can be as long as 4 months and infected animals should be quarantined away from children during this period". So careful storing and prep is a must for anyone with children if feeding raw pet quality meats to their dogs. An alternative would be human quality such as wild rabbits that have been properly frozen straight away and then defrosted in the fridge, basically as you would for your own consumption. The other obvious choice is cooking which will of course reduce the incidence of bacterial contamination and for the majority of owners this has already been done for them in the preparation of dried or tinned feeds. Personally I feed a percentage of raw butchers waste which has not been stored in ideal conditions and reading into this subject has made me think.

Edit to add;
http://www.deltasociety.org/Document.Doc?id=679
http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=554
http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/biotech/2008/725-731.pdf


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Phew! Didn't read all that have to be honest, as have two very good books for reference should I need. 

Would just say that I have only been feeding raw for around 7 years but do know some showers/workers/breeders of Mals who have fed raw for well over 20 years. Beautiful dogs, beautiful coats, beautiful litters, great show and working results and dogs who have lived to ripe old ages.

I prefer a raw diet, many on here don't. Could be a Malamute/Husky thing who knows? but these dogs do well on it and certainly don't have deficiencies of any kind, they would have shown themselves before now.

Feeding raw is not a new thing, some may think so over here but not in other countries, especially Australia and New Zealand.

We have to agree to disagree on certain things and I think this is one of them. There are some con's written about raw feeding but there are also many many pro's in literature too!


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Gosh, Sandymere, that is one hard going post. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time thinking and researching the issue but that makes for hard reading.

True, if you go by the scientific published literature then raw feeding has got a very bad rep. Anything from increased risk of bacterial contamination to dietary insufficiencies. 

True, there have been very few scientific studies into raw feeding (Billinghurst mentions some field trials but there seems to be no write-up of these). I guess that is largely down to the fact that there are no big players who could afford to pour money into this research. There are manufacturers of commercial raw food or complete supplements but even they are relatively information poor when it comes to their analyses (other than the macronutrient ones) and research. 

I also agree with you that many raw feeders take a holier-than-thou attitude and rubbish other people's choices, even those of fellow raw feeders (the purist vs supplement lobby springs to mind). 

Yet, a raw only diet can be a viable alternative to commercial pet food if done properly and responsibly.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> Some cultures eat raw food these days anyway, and a friend of ours likes his steak done 'blue'.


Even "blue" steak is cooked in some form. Proper raw steak is used in stuff like tartare or carpaccio (sp).

Prefer mine medium.

But if you seriously think you can eat a raw chicken and mayo butty go ahead, why not wipe it on the floor before hand...


----------



## Nellybelly (Jul 20, 2009)

sandymere said:


> To BARF or not to BARF?
> 
> BARF or RAW, well call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? If I post in the negative its not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dogs raw food, it is part of my own dogs diet, but rather that I disagree with the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of nature. Google RAW diet and youll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.
> 
> ...


I really liked your post. It was long, but everything was relevant and well-argued. I must say I do mostly agree with you.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

sandymere said:


> To BARF or not to BARF?
> 
> BARF or RAW, well call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? If I post in the negative its not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dogs raw food, it is part of my own dogs diet, but rather that I disagree with the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of nature. Google RAW diet and youll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.
> 
> ...


I'd just like to say that, part of that wasn't relevant to me, as I'm more into prey model myself. It is _exactly_ how wolves would eat. A lot of raw feeders don't just give lamb ribs etc, they give whole prey too, like wild caught rabbits with stomach contents intact, because as this rightly stated, when wolves eat small prey it would be too difficult to remove sotmach contents from such a small fiddly animal! So they eat it, that's where green tripe comes in when not feeding whole prey. It contains partially digested vegetable matter as well as important enzymes for digestion.
What that study failed to mention is that, although dogs CAN digest carbohydrates when presented in certain forms, they have absolutely NO nutritional REQUIREMENT for it.
Especially the commercial foods loaded up with grain. I have never watched Nat Geo Wild and seen wolves go raiding grain fields!
I agree with the dental aspect, some BARF feeders feed minced meat/bone which i disagree with, as their dogs are missing out on a fabulous mental/physical workout as well as teeth cleaning. However, some dogs are gulpers and do need to eat minced, which is fine by me, whatever works for your particular dog.

You say cooked food is easier to digest for dogs? I would like to see the proof for this, because as far as I can tell, and everyone else who feeds raw too, the food goes in and comes out after 4 hours, with MUCH less waste than someone feeding cooked homemade, or commercial pet foods. Those foods can take around 12 hours to digest, and have much MORE waste.

That says to me that dogs are finding the raw diet easier on their stomachs.

Nature provides the best diet she can for animals to thrive on and yes, she also throws in some disease for population control (why? - because the animals are thriving so well on the prey she provided)

I'm not going to get into the pro v anti vaccination debate. Personally I believe in vaccinating only enough (titre tests instead of over vaccinating). I do also believe over vaccinating causes a whole host of other problems and for some people they prefer not to vaccinate if there is not much of the particular disease in their area.

I cannot find the website anymore, but I did read somewhere about the people in Switzerland or something, they all fed their dogs raw, and then the commercial pet food companies moved in, and suddenly complaints of skin problems/allergies etc. got very, very much worse.

Most kibble fed dogs who have skin problems no longer have them when moved onto raw, although some higher quality pet foods would also solve the problem, in some cases it doesn't and owners have tried almost every pet food on the market before turning to raw (which solves the problem  )

I hope this kept to what the thread was meant for??


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Wild whole rabbits from the Dogfood Co - £2 each, the dogs love every bit of them! 

Raw food is digested much faster than cooked - that's why the little bu**ers are always on the look for more. Where does it say that it isn't and who has actually stated that? Just the same as breast milk is in a baby - as it's a natural way of feeding.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Both dogs and humans can and do digest cooked food extremely well and often more easily than raw.


The above posted by sandymere.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

sandymere said:


> To BARF or not to BARF?
> 
> BARF or RAW, well call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? If I post in the negative its not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dogs raw food, it is part of my own dogs diet, but rather that I disagree with the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of nature. Google RAW diet and youll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.
> 
> ...


Apologies as I haven't got enough time to read through every part of your post thoroughly, work to get on with! But I disagree with the assumption that raw food isn't easily digestible, and better for us, and for animals. Ok, so humans have sort of gotten past the stage where we can cope with raw meat, although I jokingly said I prefer my rib eyes pretty much blue; but with dogs I'd definitely say they cope incredibly well with appropriate raw meat. There was a study a few years ago, documented on the BBC news, about a group of people who agreed to only eat raw vegetables and fruit, not sure about meat, but the study basically found that they were healthier after eating the raw fruit and veg for a certain period, than before they started. It's basic stuff, cooking breaks cells down, and the nutrients are lost, that's why dog food companies add them back in, but I firmly believe they are better sourced naturally, which is definitely a benefit of the raw diet. Ok, so we have to simulate nature in a way, and blend veggies, but the meat and bones they digest very easily, and get the most benefit from. I help look after dogs that are part raw fed, and the amount of waste from a small bit of kibble is astounding, and yet mine will eat a whole neck of lamb, with very little waste. That tells me they digest and cope with meat/bones very well.

(and more apols, as I had to delete part of your post to get it to post)



Shrap said:


> I'd just like to say that, part of that wasn't relevant to me, as I'm more into prey model myself. It is _exactly_ how wolves would eat. A lot of raw feeders don't just give lamb ribs etc, they give whole prey too, like wild caught rabbits with stomach contents intact, because as this rightly stated, when wolves eat small prey it would be too difficult to remove sotmach contents from such a small fiddly animal! So they eat it, that's where green tripe comes in when not feeding whole prey. It contains partially digested vegetable matter as well as important enzymes for digestion.
> What that study failed to mention is that, although dogs CAN digest carbohydrates when presented in certain forms, they have absolutely NO nutritional REQUIREMENT for it.
> Especially the commercial foods loaded up with grain. I have never watched Nat Geo Wild and seen wolves go raiding grain fields!
> I agree with the dental aspect, some BARF feeders feed minced meat/bone which i disagree with, as their dogs are missing out on a fabulous mental/physical workout as well as teeth cleaning. However, some dogs are gulpers and do need to eat minced, which is fine by me, whatever works for your particular dog.
> ...


I think this sort of post to discuss raw feeding is exactly what the thread is about. I don't feed prey model, but do include green tripe, and try to give appropriate sized bones for a dog. But agree with what you say, that a good quality kibble, probably can and does give what a dog needs, just as much as raw, it's a matter of researching and deciding what is best for your dog. Of course health issues can help with that decision, if you try something and it's better for your dog, then you are, of course, going to use that product, and tell others about the benefit(s).

Good thread, some really interesting points put forward.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Dogs digestive tracts are much shorter than humans - that's why they don't get salmonella and the like, as food passes through so quickly. If you feed raw and cooked together however, the cooked is digested slower and keeps the raw in the gut for longer, so increases the risk of bacteria building up in the gut and allowing things like salmonella to take hold.

Dogs and humans have an entirely different digestive system, one being a carnivore the other an omnivore!


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

> I can't help but wonder if your change in opinion of raw feeding is down to maybe you not doing enough research beforehand and rushing into it all too fast which has caused you to panic


No - what caused us to panic is reading about dogs who've had horrendous injuries, or who have even died from being fed bones.

Our two younger dogs are 'gulpers', and they were trying to swallow huge splinters of sharp bone as quickly as they could - they just wouldn't stop that no matter what we did. If there is even the slightest risk of us harming or killing them by feeding bones, this is the reason we changed our minds.

We tried it, and we were not remotely comfortable with it. End of.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Actually Malmum, they do sometimes get salmonella, just not that frequently, and from sources people wouldn't think of. Raw hide chews are known to often be contaminated with various nasties, including salmonella.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

When you think of where they stick their noses it's harly surprising really, lol.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> No - what caused us to panic is reading about dogs who've had horrendous injuries, or who have even died from being fed bones


Ha ha - my son's like that. If he reads the "possible side effects" on medication the doctor prescribes he doesn't want to take it. However sense prevails and he understands it's only a *possibilty*!


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ohh that was a bit nippy, let's not turn this into an argument again!

I think you did rush into it a bit, and were also quick to rush to the decision to stop. It's perfectly reasonable for you to be worried about gulpers swallowing to much sharp bone etc. Gulpers are at a far higher risk than non gulpers, but most dogs just take time to get used to it. you need to show them how to eat it as they're not used to it. You could even feed the ground meat and bone until the stomach revs up again, with recreational bones that aren't swallowed for a bit of a dental work out/fun etc.


I forgot to add in the bit about salmonella etc. Took me a wee while to write my response, especially with Indy constantly jumping on the laptop lol!

I have heard of some dogs getting salmonella from chicken wings, they were puppies. I just think if you're worried about it to keep the meat fresh, especially with chicken tbh, as the older a bone gets then more brittle it becomes (aside from the build up of bacteria).

I also feel like you're saying that the diet is bad because of people being rather extreme, saying anything else is wrong and attacking people who say otherwise. I don't get what it has to do with the pros and cons of actually feeding your dog raw.. Just don't get involved with those people.
It's a bit like the islamic fundamentalists, most well educated people realise they are just a small percentage and that Islam is not bad in itself?
Bit of a weird analogy I admit lol!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shrap said:


> Ohh that was a bit nippy, let's not turn this into an argument again!
> 
> I think you did rush into it a bit, and were also quick to rush to the decision to stop. It's perfectly reasonable for you to be worried about gulpers swallowing to much sharp bone etc. Gulpers are at a far higher risk than non gulpers, but most dogs just take time to get used to it. you need to show them how to eat it as they're not used to it. You could even feed the ground meat and bone until the stomach revs up again, with recreational bones that aren't swallowed for a bit of a dental work out/fun etc.
> 
> ...


Is that known/proven? As I mentioned, salmonella can be present on a lot of commercial dog food/treats, particularly the cheap imported stuff.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Yeah the puppies were raw fed on chicken. And the person was a friend of a friend.


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Is that known/proven? As I mentioned, salmonella can be present on a lot of commercial dog food/treats, particularly the cheap imported stuff.


Sleeping Lion, there are studies that have shown that dogs fed a raw diet are shedding more bacteria than their commercial-fed equivalents. For example, Evaluation of Pet-Related Management Factors and t... [Zoonoses Public Health. 2010] - PubMed result and The occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of... [Zoonoses Public Health. 2008] - PubMed result. Also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

Edit, there is also this, which compared raw and 2 canned diets. The raw contained more bacteria but even the canned contained Ecoli: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478425

However, all it means that one needs to be aware of the issue as a raw feeder and just be vigilant with one's hygiene.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I'd feed raw if I could afford it!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shrap said:


> Yeah the puppies were raw fed on chicken. And the person was a friend of a friend.


So the chicken was tested, and found to be the cause?

I'm not trying to be picky, but there is an awful lot of hearsay, dogs choking, catching stuff, being ill, etc, when raw fed, but when you actually read about feeding dogs commercial foods, exactly the same stuff happens to some extent. So you could say feeding your dog anything is a risk, it's up to you to decide after researching, and concluding what you feel is best for them.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> Our two younger dogs are 'gulpers', and they were trying to swallow huge splinters of sharp bone as quickly as they could - they just wouldn't stop that no matter what we did. If there is even the slightest risk of us harming or killing them by feeding bones, this is the reason we changed our minds.
> 
> We tried it, and we were not remotely comfortable with it. End of.


Thought it was all about what the dogs need, not what you want.

And what bones were you giving your dog to enable them to "gulp"? I don't feed raw but a friend does and both her dogs gobble raw meat like anything, but their bones are simply huge, therefore they can't.

And why not just cut the bones and do the meat though, if you were that adamant raw was the way to go.

Just seems you changed your mind very fast.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Dude i'm for raw feeding 
And no it wasn't, but that's all they had eaten, they were well supervised. And it was diagnosed salmonella - fairly educated assumption. They were quite young too.. 

I checked prices against orijen and it's cheaper to raw feed a GSD than feed orijen.

There is a risk with everything, just like us eating a medium rare steak  mmmmm


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Hobbs, we know they shed it more, we're just talking about the dogs actually getting ill from it. Them shedding it proves most of them don't get affected by the bacteria, that their digestive systems were made to deal with it


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

NicoleW said:


> I'd feed raw if I could afford it!


Took me over a month to source the right stuff and it was a butcher in a big supermarket that referred us to the right independent butcher.

We get:

12kg of chicken carcasses for £10.50

30lbs of chicken mince (with bones) for £10 (old-fashioned guy works in lbs)

30lbs of green tripe for £10.50

They get different stuff occasionally but that's our staples.

The tripe and chicken completely filled the upright freezer (5 drawers) plus 2 drawers in the human freezer.

The dogs get 600g a day each, more if they look a bit skinny/exercise more. 
This is a heck of a lot cheaper than high quality kibble.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

How much a month does it cost you to feed this then? I'm spending roughly £40 every 6 weeks for his arden grange, lately it's only been lasting a month


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

What breed/weight/age is your dog?


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

GSD crpss Husky, 6 months old. Was weighed about two - three weeks ago at 21kg


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

well adult gsds get to about 40kg and huskies about 25kg. so say as an adult he'll weigh just over 30kg? He'll be eating about 1kg of raw per day. approx 800g muscle meat, 100g bone, 50g liver, 50g kidney/lung/other offal.

If you take a look at the prices listed by cinammontoast you can gauge it. Or have a look at Durham Animal Feeds :: DAF Petfood - Frozen Food

For a 40kg GSD it would be about £50 a month if only sourced from there, but you can get stuff cheap from butchers as they need to pay to have their waste removed. also reduced stuff in supermarkets. sometimes reduced lambs legs in cash and carries etc.

You'd be feeding some green tripe as well as the above, it counts in the meat part of the 80/10/10.

I'd almost guarantee that you at least wouldn't be paying more than you are now.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

By the time he's an adult he'll be eating more of this arden grange so will be costing me roughly the same amount to feed him! 

Going to do a bit more research, have a look if it's something I can offer him, and if he'll like it.

He quite happily eat all the meat and marrow out of a marrow bone I get from the butchers. I got told to strip all the meat off AFTER I gave it to him, he seemed to thoroughly enjoy the meat lol.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

NicoleW said:


> How much a month does it cost you to feed this then? I'm spending roughly £40 every 6 weeks for his arden grange, lately it's onlyy been lasting a month


you can work it out by calculating 6% of his current weight but we found that too.much for our lot.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I got told 10% puppy weight but not how to slow that.. I just asumed work out 10% at 8 weeks and keep increasing it gradually until it hits the 3% of adult weight, then keep it at that.


----------



## Souris (May 24, 2010)

cinammontoast said:


> Took me over a month to source the right stuff and it was a butcher in a big supermarket that referred us to the right independent butcher.
> 
> We get:
> 
> ...


Just a quick question if you don't mind- if your chicken mince has bones in it, how much mince do you feed on a daily basis? Do you go with one meal green tripe, one chicken mince so that the level of bone isn't too high?

I had looked at the mince, but I was really worried about the bone content being a bit high if it was going to be fed a few times a week, that's all.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Phew! Didn't read all that have to be honest, as have two very good books for reference should I need.
> 
> Would just say that I have only been feeding raw for around 7 years but do know some showers/workers/breeders of Mals who have fed raw for well over 20 years. Beautiful dogs, beautiful coats, beautiful litters, great show and working results and dogs who have lived to ripe old ages.
> 
> ...


I dont think you disagree with me as I though you feed raw and cooked? Is so then you do exactly what I do which is to feed a varied diet based on the needs of the animals, their lifestyles, age etc using the three food groups of protein carbs and fat. I have no problem with feeding raw food to a dog but I do have a problem with people promoting raw only diets based on erroneous information. Do you use rice?
A couple of points about salmonella and dogs you state that they have a short digestive tract and that is effects on salmonella infection etc and it doesnt seem to follow basic physiological principles, perhaps you could give some more details? And you state dogs are carnivore but that is a label from a very basic biology and dogs dont so easily fit as they, unlike cats, are not obligate carnivores but have omnivorous digestive/biological systems. Lastly you mention some two reference books and I wonder if you could let me know what they are, its an area Im interested in and didnt know of any reference books other than BARF ones were available and unfortunately Books promoting BARF diets are a little like using the Atkins diet book when investigating human diets.
Regards Sandy


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Souris said:


> Just a quick question if you don't mind- if your chicken mince has bones in it, how much mince do you feed on a daily basis? Do you go with one meal green tripe, one chicken mince so that the level of bone isn't too high?
> 
> I had looked at the mince, but I was really worried about the bone content being a bit high if it was going to be fed a few times a week, that's all.


Check that the mince you looked at has bone in it, cos some don't, especially the commercial dog food ones from pet shops.

I'm not concerned about the level of bone unless I see really chalky poos (which we had one week). They have a mix of tripe, chicken on the bone, chicken mince (one 2lb bag between three of them every two days means that they don't get much each) and anything else we find that looks tasty.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

hobbs2004 said:


> Gosh, Sandymere, that is one hard going post. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time thinking and researching the issue but that makes for hard reading.
> 
> True, if you go by the scientific published literature then raw feeding has got a very bad rep. Anything from increased risk of bacterial contamination to dietary insufficiencies.
> 
> ...


Thank you for reading the post rather than looking at a couple of lines and then jumping to conclusions. I agree a raw only diet can be a viable alternative for some dogs just as a raw only diet can be a viable alternative for some humans, the Inuit would be an example, but what one needs to bare in mind is just because it can doesnt necessarily mean it should. Cereals/vegetable matter is more viable in the cooked form and especially in very active dogs a good carb source is an important dietary component. There have been studies into raw, the bacterial links I posted where an example, but they tend to get ignored as the pseudo science has taken over the debate somewhat. The field trials you mention were probably the two cat populations that started the whole idea, Billinghurst observed two populations of feral cats, one had a high carb diet one a high meat, one population had more birth defects than the other and he put this down to diet. I have a couple of problems with this; 1 the birth defects were likely genetic and not linked to diet at all, 2 the cat is an obligate carnivore and does not do well on carbs, in everyday terms it burns protein and produces glucose from fat and protein, gluconeogenesis, all the time and does not switch this off when carbs are available so the glucose builds up in the blood stream whereas dogs, humans etc only burn protein/fat for gluconeogenesis,when there is no carb/glucose source available, basically protein/fat are the first choice for a cat and glucose/ fat are the first choice for dogs/humans. For a sedentary dog a raw diet would be fine, bearing in mind the risks of bones, bacterial load although the effects on long term bowel health if adequate fibre was not included is an interesting area.
Regards sandy

(WO/2000/011964) METHOD AND COMPOSITION TO PROTECT AN OBLIGATE CARNIVORE FROM A DISEASE OF ABNORMAL CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Nellybelly said:


> I really liked your post. It was long, but everything was relevant and well-argued. I must say I do mostly agree with you.


Thank you for reading it and I concur in that I only mostly agree with it, first written a while ago and needs a little updating. I find it funny that many claim to have researched this area yet are unable to read a few hundred word post prior to forming an opinion, alas the death of critical thinking.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Shrap said:


> I'd just like to say that, part of that wasn't relevant to me, as I'm more into prey model myself. It is _exactly_ how wolves would eat. A lot of raw feeders don't just give lamb ribs etc, they give whole prey too, like wild caught rabbits with stomach contents intact, because as this rightly stated, when wolves eat small prey it would be too difficult to remove sotmach contents from such a small fiddly animal! So they eat it, that's where green tripe comes in when not feeding whole prey. It contains partially digested vegetable matter as well as important enzymes for digestion.
> What that study failed to mention is that, although dogs CAN digest carbohydrates when presented in certain forms, they have absolutely NO nutritional REQUIREMENT for it.
> Especially the commercial foods loaded up with grain. I have never watched Nat Geo Wild and seen wolves go raiding grain fields!
> I agree with the dental aspect, some BARF feeders feed minced meat/bone which i disagree with, as their dogs are missing out on a fabulous mental/physical workout as well as teeth cleaning. However, some dogs are gulpers and do need to eat minced, which is fine by me, whatever works for your particular dog.
> ...


Hi, the idea that nature provides doesn't sit well with me, nature isn't a thing it doesn't provide dogs/wolves have evolved to live in an environment rather than nature having made a place, having said that if people have religious beliefs then they are entitled to believe different. Now digestion, the dogs gastric tract has evolved to utilise a variety of foodstuff and is in truth very similar to our own. Both have a problem with cellulose in the raw state and as plant cell walls are composed of cellulose digestion is reduced, cooking, rodent digestion etc allows for better digestion via giving access to the cell contents. The digestive tract deals with food at an appropriate pace i.e. slowing down with high fat protein meals speeding up with simple sugars so its not about being "easier on their stomachs" but a matter of digestion to suit content. Stool bulk depends on diet and colonic bacterial activity. A healthy colon will have plenty of bacteria and these utilise/ferment appropriate fibre as part of the digestive process, so dog's fed decent amounts of fibre will of course have larger stools but I would suggest that this is a good rather than bad thing. So in conclusion large stools aren't a bad thing and carbs are digested better when processed. (Eat a sweetcorn without breaking the cellulose skin and it will pass through undigested, process that same corn heat and mash and the contents will be well digested).
I agree dogs do not need to eat carbs but then nor do humans but don't need is very different than shouldn't have.
I won't get into the eczema thing at present as it's a big area but hope to at some point other than to ask for any research to back up "Most kibble fed dogs who have skin problems no longer have them when moved onto raw".
Regards Sandy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think you're coming across as a bit unecessarily harsh and pointed in your posts Sandy; I'm sat here while my cuppa mashes, and although I'd love to have hours to read through every long post, and digest (no pun intended) every word, think about it a bit more, pull up what I've researched in the past and post lots of links, I simply don't have time. I have my own business to run, ten dogs to exercise with there different levels of exercise/feeding regimes, house work and a craft fair to go to this afternoon, thank God I'm a touch typist. So are my 'brief' views not as valid as someone who does have time to sit and read through because they don't have such a busy life?? 

My proof is when I take my dogs out and see them healthy, fit and loving life, and they love their food. I rarely have ANY problems with them, and the vets are always more than pleased with how fit and healthy they are. Of course, I could get the same effect with a commercial food, I'll never know, because having researched since I first got Indie, I prefer to raw feed, and give them fresh healthy food instead of processed food, and I'm pretty much the same about my diet. Dog food is a new concept, and it hasn't made dogs live longer or healthier lives, so there's no proof that it's any better than a diet of left overs and odds and sods, which is what dogs used to be fed before commercial foods were available. The simple fact is, provide them with a good nutritional diet, and they should do well on it; dog food manufacturers simply cash in on this, and provide all sorts of charts and percentages to baffle most people into believing it's the best thing for their dog, when it's just another alternative to an equivalently good diet. Don't even get me started on life stage diets and diet foods


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Wild whole rabbits from the Dogfood Co - £2 each, the dogs love every bit of them!
> 
> Raw food is digested much faster than cooked - that's why the little bu**ers are always on the look for more. Where does it say that it isn't and who has actually stated that? Just the same as breast milk is in a baby - as it's a natural way of feeding.


Speed of digestion is not based on raw or cooked, it's really basic biology. Simple sugars process quickly complex more slowly, fat slowly, protein pretty slowly, a mixture at the best rate for that meal. Eat protein and you will feel fuller for longer as it takes time to digest eat a mars bar and it will be broken down and digested very quickly. Very, very basic biology. 
What has breast milk got to do with it?
Ps before anyone says dogs digest different from us look at the digestive tracts of both species and if anyone starts on about amylase in the saliva I will sigh deeply lol.

Ps I feed wild rabbits, I own three lurchers, but I always freeze, skinned and gutted, for a fortnight to kill worm cysts then defrost and each gets a third along with a carb source.


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

sandymere said:


> Thank you for reading the post rather than looking at a couple of lines and then jumping to conclusions. I agree a raw only diet can be a viable alternative for some dogs just as a raw only diet can be a viable alternative for some humans, the Inuit would be an example, but what one needs to bare in mind is just because it can doesn't necessarily mean it should. Cereals/vegetable matter is more viable in the cooked form and especially in very active dogs a good carb source is an important dietary component. There have been studies into raw, the bacterial links I posted where an example, but they tend to get ignored as the pseudo science has taken over the debate somewhat. The field trials you mention were probably the two cat populations that started the whole idea, Billinghurst observed two populations of feral cats, one had a high carb diet one a high meat, one population had more birth defects than the other and he put this down to diet. I have a couple of problems with this; 1 the birth defects were likely genetic and not linked to diet at all, 2 the cat is an obligate carnivore and does not do well on carbs, in everyday terms it burns protein and produces glucose from fat and protein, gluconeogenesis, all the time and does not switch this off when carbs are available so the glucose builds up in the blood stream whereas dogs, humans etc only burn protein/fat for gluconeogenesis,when there is no carb/glucose source available, basically protein/fat are the first choice for a cat and glucose/ fat are the first choice for dogs/humans. For a sedentary dog a raw diet would be fine, bearing in mind the risks of bones, bacterial load although the effects on long term bowel health if adequate fibre was not included is an interesting area.
> Regards sandy
> 
> (WO/2000/011964) METHOD AND COMPOSITION TO PROTECT AN OBLIGATE CARNIVORE FROM A DISEASE OF ABNORMAL CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM


But isn't there a middle way? Cook the carbs to make the nutrients more available for those who feed carbs and feed the protein raw? If safety is a concern (for those with kids, the elderly or the immune suppressed), the meat could be seared.

What my main concern is for those who feed raw (and I feed my cats raw) is that they get all the nutrients that they need. This, imo, doesn't mean just feeding supermarket meat that has been well bled, some bones and a little offal.

And that is where I bemoan the lack of research the most. While I have access to nutrient databases, they do not tell me to what extent the meat available in butchers/supermarkets have the level of nutrients that a newly killed animal has. A lot of the nutrient databases also understandably focus on nutrients that are important to humans, and therefore do not include those that are important to obligate carnivores, for example.

That is where the frankenprey (the cobbled together) approach becomes very complex and complicated. It is not just the stomach content (though that is often the only one that is being referred to) but it includes the likes of iron (in the blood of prey) and the fibre (the fur or feathers) etc.

Also, is the argument that every meal doesn't need to balanced but that offal and the like can be spread out over time correct? For example, thinking about cats and their tpyical prey (small birds, mice, small rats, squirrel, small rabbit, insects), they would eat the whole of their prey they catch, thereby getting a balanced meal every time. Balanced in this case meaning roughly the 80/10/5/5.

True, different prey presumably have different nutrient profiles and over time the micronutrients and trace minerals would even themselves out but that is different evening out compared with spreading the ratio out over time.

Anyhow, I digress from your point re carbs and dogs.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

hobbs2004 said:


> But isn't there a middle way? Cook the carbs to make the nutrients more available for those who feed carbs and feed the protein raw? If safety is a concern (for those with kids, the elderly or the immune suppressed), the meat could be seared.
> 
> What my main concern is for those who feed raw (and I feed my cats raw) is that they get all the nutrients that they need. This, imo, doesn't mean just feeding supermarket meat that has been well bled, some bones and a little offal.
> 
> ...


A sound degression, cats are different and I would not feed a cat carbs, and yes the middle way is sensible.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Shrap said:


> Hobbs, we know they shed it more, we're just talking about the dogs actually getting ill from it. Them shedding it proves most of them don't get affected by the bacteria, that their digestive systems were made to deal with it


How does Them shedding it prove they are not affected? Shedding actually shows that they are infected and infective! A healthy dogs digestive system can and does cope very well with occasional bacterial challenges but having to deal with a continuous challenge is a different matter. Chronic infection may be sub symptomatic but that doesnt mean its a good thing.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you're coming across as a bit unecessarily harsh and pointed in your posts Sandy; I'm sat here while my cuppa mashes, and although I'd love to have hours to read through every long post, and digest (no pun intended) every word, think about it a bit more, pull up what I've researched in the past and post lots of links, I simply don't have time. I have my own business to run, ten dogs to exercise with there different levels of exercise/feeding regimes, house work and a craft fair to go to this afternoon, thank God I'm a touch typist. So are my 'brief' views not as valid as someone who does have time to sit and read through because they don't have such a busy life??
> 
> My proof is when I take my dogs out and see them healthy, fit and loving life, and they love their food. I rarely have ANY problems with them, and the vets are always more than pleased with how fit and healthy they are. Of course, I could get the same effect with a commercial food, I'll never know, because having researched since I first got Indie, I prefer to raw feed, and give them fresh healthy food instead of processed food, and I'm pretty much the same about my diet. Dog food is a new concept, and it hasn't made dogs live longer or healthier lives, so there's no proof that it's any better than a diet of left overs and odds and sods, which is what dogs used to be fed before commercial foods were available. The simple fact is, provide them with a good nutritional diet, and they should do well on it; dog food manufacturers simply cash in on this, and provide all sorts of charts and percentages to baffle most people into believing it's the best thing for their dog, when it's just another alternative to an equivalently good diet. Don't even get me started on life stage diets and diet foods


 Its not meant to be harsh, more micky taking really, so many claim to have researched this area but when asked for what they have found can only come up with some extremely dodgy info from frankly laughable web sites, I just try to make people look beyond the dodgy science. Id agree provide a nutritional diet and a dog will do well but what constitutes a nutritional diet? The idea that a bowl of chicken carcasses that have been stripped of their meat for pies etc then the remainder minced and sold as chicken mince being a natural diet, rather than a bacterial stew, is a little dodgy to my mind. I also dont have hours and most of what I post has been used on a number of forums and the links saved so its just a matter of copy and paste.

Mrs S is a keen photographer, won the odd comp and published, few pics on here of kibble fed dogs.
Flickr: sandymere's Photostream


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

sandymere said:


> Its not meant to be harsh, more micky taking really, s*o many claim to have researched this area but when asked for what they have found can only come up with some extremely dodgy info from frankly laughable web sites, I just try to make people look beyond the dodgy science.* Id agree provide a nutritional diet and a dog will do well but what constitutes a nutritional diet? The idea that a bowl of chicken carcasses that have been stripped of their meat for pies etc then the remainder minced and sold as chicken mince being a natural diet, rather than a bacterial stew, is a little dodgy to my mind. I also dont have hours and most of what I post has been used on a number of forums and the links saved so its just a matter of copy and paste.
> 
> Mrs S is a keen photographer, won the odd comp and published, few pics on here of kibble fed dogs.
> Flickr: sandymere's Photostream


It does come acoss as your way or the highway though. What is laughable to you is your opinion on something, just as others value the resource. People don't tend to like "to be made" to see anything. Offered other resources mabey.

I don't really see what youre getting at to be honest. One min you are saying cooked ad another something on Kibble. The relevence of the photos :confused1: me. If they are titled Kibble fed dogs, perhaps you could reference the page?


----------



## briony (Dec 4, 2010)

I feed raw and have done for a while because my husband is an electrician in a poultry factory so i don't have to pay for any chicken 
The main factor for changing over originally was financial pure and simple owning Giant breeds and constantly looking for a high quality kibble was tedious and boring and i didn't understand half the time what i was looking at on the ingredients labels, i then went to many seminars by purina and royal canin and was still non the wiser i just got baffled by their science talk. 
Hubby worked at the factory so the choice was easy to make i researched it by asking other owners/breeders and we duly swapped over. (they didn't just eat chicken though)
We had one old girl that was fed on anything as she wouldn't accept raw she lived on Bakers complete/wagg aything that was on offer at the supermarket with a couple of butchers choice tins thrown in and she looked nothing less than she should have done she was a brilliant example her coat was always shining, her teeth were excellent and she never suffered any ill health never saw a vet since she was a puppy for vacs.
I can see both sides and as always its what suits the dog in question and the budget of the owner


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

Still not a 'sticky' I see?

What are the criteria for topics becoming so, I wonder? At the moment, it appears - although I could very well be wrong about this - that the administrators are favouring one type of feeding over another, and that'd be wrong.

Having said and asked that, I suppose we'd have 'stickies' filling the forum if every topic were to become one, but it's still a little strange to see the fascinating 'Raw Feeding' topic up there while this one remains a standard/normal topic.

:confused1:


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

SlingDash said:


> Still not a 'sticky' I see?
> 
> What are the criteria for topics becoming so, I wonder? At the moment, it appears - although I could very well be wrong about this - that the administrators are favouring one type of feeding over another, and that'd be wrong.
> 
> ...


No offence Slingdash but a lot of work went into the creation of Katie's raw feeding thread, which cannot be quite said of this one.

So, I really don't think that her thread having become a sticky has anything to do with any favouritism - just with hard work and a recognition that her thread filled a need.

And as you said, not all topics can be stickies.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

sandymere said:


> Its not meant to be harsh, more micky taking really, so many claim to have researched this area but when asked for what they have found can only come up with some extremely dodgy info from frankly laughable web sites, I just try to make people look beyond the dodgy science. Id agree provide a nutritional diet and a dog will do well but what constitutes a nutritional diet? The idea that a bowl of chicken carcasses that have been stripped of their meat for pies etc then the remainder minced and sold as chicken mince being a natural diet, rather than a bacterial stew, is a little dodgy to my mind. I also dont have hours and most of what I post has been used on a number of forums and the links saved so its just a matter of copy and paste.
> 
> Mrs S is a keen photographer, won the odd comp and published, few pics on here of kibble fed dogs.
> Flickr: sandymere's Photostream


Without meaning to sound rude (there's been quite enough of that going on recently, not on this thread but a few ruffled feathers elsewhere), but I've never told people that all kibble is rubbish, and respect their views if they feel that a good quality kibble is nutritionally right for their dog(s), who am I to argue? I don't take the mickey out of anyone who has researched and believe they are feeding their dog or any pet, a good diet, which is why I feel you are coming across as harsh.

I prefer to raw feed because I don't like feeding processed foods, studies have linked different kind of processing and food manufacture to all sorts of illnesses and disease. I eat as many fresh ingredients as I can myself, and give my dogs good fresh food, although they don't mind the occasional bit of processed left overs in there either, but then who doesn't like the occasional bit of 'naughty' food. Any basic science will tell you raw is much better as long as it's presented in a way that nutrients can be absorbed.

RAW Truth: Raw Fresh Produce Vs. Cooked Food | yourgreensite.net - a green web portal devoted to organic and sustainable lifestyle, travel, holistic health, environment, art and design

One article among many, if you start to look at the benefits of eating raw food, with links to scientific studies.


----------



## SlingDash (Jul 30, 2010)

hobbs2004 said:


> No offence Slingdash but a lot of work went into the creation of Katie's raw feeding thread, which cannot be quite said of this one.
> 
> So, I really don't think that her thread having become a sticky has anything to do with any favouritism - just with hard work and a recognition that her thread filled a need.
> 
> And as you said, not all topics can be stickies.


No - that's fair enough - I was only asking.

As for "offence"? You don't have to worry about that here.

Unlike having to do so when it comes to certain other members.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SlingDash said:


> No - that's fair enough - I was only asking.
> 
> As for "offence"? You don't have to worry about that here.
> 
> Unlike having to do so when it comes to certain other members.


I'm not sure just what you mean by this?? Other than trying to make a provocative remark, or cheap shot at me or someone else who doesn't necessarily agree with feeding kibble, in which case I'm afraid it just doesn't work. A saying I often go by, I value the opinion of those I respect


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Two good books:

Dr Tom Lonsdale's - Raw Meaty Bones.
Dr Ian Billinghurst - Give your dog a bone.

Useful link:
Dog Digestion | BarfWorld: Fresh Frozen Dog Food

The definition of a dog is definitely carnivore. It doesn't have the teeth of an omnivore but will eat a variety of foods to survive as it's an opportunist, just like the fox. As it cannot always hunt for prey unlike the cat, it will eat a variety of foods. His teeth are nothing like that of the omnivorous human, having no molars for grinding and his digestive tract is shorter and better equipped for eating and digesting meat, as this link explains: Fact Or Fiction - Are Dogs Omnivores?

Carnivore vs. Omnivore
definition of dog from Oxford Dictionaries Online

My teeth are nothing like my dogs, thank goodness and to date I don't know of any human who has such, unless of course they've had them altered to be that way, lol. 

This isn't meant as a slur to anyone feeding kibble etc., just a response - all be it late - to a question asked of me earlier in this thread.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Without meaning to sound rude (there's been quite enough of that going on recently, not on this thread but a few ruffled feathers elsewhere), but I've never told people that all kibble is rubbish, and respect their views if they feel that a good quality kibble is nutritionally right for their dog(s), who am I to argue? I don't take the mickey out of anyone who has researched and believe they are feeding their dog or any pet, a good diet, which is why I feel you are coming across as harsh.
> 
> I prefer to raw feed because I don't like feeding processed foods, studies have linked different kind of processing and food manufacture to all sorts of illnesses and disease. I eat as many fresh ingredients as I can myself, and give my dogs good fresh food, although they don't mind the occasional bit of processed left overs in there either, but then who doesn't like the occasional bit of 'naughty' food. Any basic science will tell you raw is much better as long as it's presented in a way that nutrients can be absorbed.
> 
> ...


I love it! What a good site it made me giggle at the first paragraph
_The typical species in its natural pristine environment lives seven times past its age of maturity. Humans normally mature in their late teens to early twenties. Our average potential life span in robust wellness is actually in the range of 120-140 years. This is never actualized due to the effects of heating food and not learning to skillfully handle psychological stress through self-mastery._.
Lordy how did they come to that conclusion? Based on any evidence? No! I could as easily say the reason we dont live to two hundred is because we live in houses and so live an un-natural life lol. I do love the site, I thought of spending lunch going through it to highlight all the dodgy claims/science but I expect it would be a little cruel so I will just say that it uses a lot of jargon but doesnt seem to know what the jargon means. Ah thank you Horse and hound.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Thanks for your reply Malmum, your _Two good books_ are books written to sell, if the authors were really looking to forward veterinary science there ideas would first have been published in a veterinary journal were they could be reviewed by their peers ie vets who specialize in the field. They werent which suggests the authors doubted there own conclusions/science, the Aitkins diet has been described a good book but I wouldnt base a healthy diet on it, maybe take some ideas on board but that would be it.
A quick look at your links;
Dog Digestion | BarfWorld: Fresh Frozen Dog Food 
this is a site selling frozen meat and so hardly unbiased, but hay ho, lets have a look, a quote

_The definition of a dog is definitely carnivore. It doesn't have the teeth of an omnivore but will eat a variety of foods to survive as it's an opportunist, just like the fox. As it cannot always hunt for prey unlike the cat, it will eat a variety of foods. His teeth are nothing like that of the omnivorous human, having no molars for grinding and his digestive tract is shorter and better equipped for eating and digesting meat,
_Unfortunately this doesnt look at the whole picture and ignores some very salient points. A wolf/dog doesnt need the grinding teeth as that process mastication of the vegetable matter has already been done by the prey animal. Having gutted many rabbits, hares etc over the years I can assure you that a hare caught in the morning has a large amount of vegetable matter in its stomach, around a quarter of its body weigh, and this has been broken down already so the dog/wolf only has to digest it, it needs teeth to break don the carcass so it can digest this calorie source rather than ones to re masticate. I dont understand the bit _As it cannot always hunt for prey unlike the cat_ thats lost me lol, do dogs have Bank holidays?.
The next link falls at the same hurdle Fact Or Fiction - Are Dogs Omnivores? _The second factor is their digestive system. Dogs do not have enzymes in their saliva that can quickly break down starches and carbohydrates. This task is placed on the pancreas. A dog's pancreas only can produce a small amount of enzymes, if a dog eats a small portion of vegetation. If you feed your dog large amounts of vegetables, its pancreas is pushed to the limit. Pushing any organ to the limit is hazardous to any animal's health_.
The dog doesnt add amylase in at chewing as it doesnt chew, it adds it in at the stomach, just as we do, as that is where it is needed and its not _pushed to the limit_ any more than you would be if you ate a burger in a bun. Its this infant school idea that evolution has reached a point and everything is black and white and can be put in little boxes. From carnivore to herbivore is a continuum rater than fixed points so most species can move along to a degree as a human can be a carnivore as with the Inuit traditionally having virtually no vegetable matter in their diet or a hill collie of the last century eating oats yet still working long and hard. Cats are true carnivores, humans omnivores and dogs fall between the two in digestion, I can give more info but it gets a little heavy so on to the next quote;

Carnivore vs. Omnivore _Scientists can argue forever as to whether our dogs today are carnivores requiring a high protein dog food with a few omnivorous traits or omnivores that still retain their 40 million year old carnivore anatomy and physiology  wouldnt it be easier if we let mans best friend make the decision. Next time you have a chanceput an ear of corn alongside a piece of steak and see which dog diet your pet naturally selects_.
Well put an ear of corn along side a steak and I would eat the steak, so I must be a carnivore! Its a nonsensical statement (in truth a Devon cream tea would be better perhaps this means Im a clotted creamivore). Slightly more seriously I agree dogs should get a high protein/meat diet but argue that carbs have their place and cooking/completes arent the evils they are made out to be but mainly I hate pseudo science.
Lastly a dogs teeth are very different from a wolves they are much smaller in comparison to body size which means that they arent as good at dealing with larger pieces and perhaps this is why there are so many instances of dogs choking, basically weve bred for smaller teeth for so long and to such an extent that its having an impact on feeding. It may be an idea to look beyond slightly dodgy none professional web sites and look at the vets journals etc as this is where the new science is found and ideas presented.
Regards sandy.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

sue&harvey thanks for your reply in answer to a couple of points, quoted in italics;
"_It does come acoss as your way or the highway though. What is laughable to you is your opinion on something, just as others value the resource. People don't tend to like "to be made" to see anything. Offered other resources mabey_."

I know Im terrible  but afraid I fell in to the trap of critical thinking so when I read a web site I think about what is written and unfortunately many of these sites work on the principle that most just believe without thinking, perhaps I should stop thinking. There is loads of research that show if you challenge beliefs that are based on poor foundations the believer clings more tightly to those questionable beliefs as a way of protecting against having to admit to being fooled. Or in old speak you cant put knowledge into a closed brain. Personally I enjoy my thoughts and suggestion being challenged as it gives me new areas to look into and knowledge to consider, I would love for raw to be the answer to all our problems but alas it doesnt stand up to scrutiny, a sensible balanced diet remains the winner so far. I hope people dont take to much offence as my posts look at the evidence people put forward and dont judge the poster who Im sure in the majority of cases are acting on what they believe to be the best intentions.

"_I don't really see what youre getting at to be honest. One min you are saying cooked ad another something on Kibble_."

Sorry you lost me there. Perhaps kibble is cooked?

"_The relevence of the photos me. If they are titled Kibble fed dogs, perhaps you could reference the page_?"

Reference the page? Pics of dogs are the ones, not the lizard etc i don't expect they eat cooked.
Sandy.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Would have thought *all* books published are sold, that's why we buy them, to read their contents - newspapers & magazines too. Perhaps you know where we can get them free - please tell! 

I think it's a real shame the OP's thread has been completely highjacked in this way - at least the OP may find something useful in the links the rest of us are posting! Hope so! 

Just for the record - are you a scientist?


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I think it's a real shame the OP's thread has been completely highjacked in this way - at least the OP may find something useful in the links the rest of us are posting! Hope so!


I thought the point of this thread was to debate raw food. This is what is happening imo, so not sure why you think that it has gone off track?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sandymere, do you honestly just get off on being so sarcastic and rude to people who don't happen to hold the same opinion as you? Really, perhaps you need to stop just copying and pasting your own posts from forum to forum and actually do something constructive.

There's absolutely no point in even trying to respond to your sheer rudeness and ignorance. You obviously *think* you are absolutely right because your links are better than mine, how childish. You ignore basic science that tells us that in the majority of cases, processing food devalues the nutrients, and combining fresh ingredients helps us to absorb the most vitamins and minerals. 

You don't perhaps sell kibble do you  Is there an ignore button???


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

hobbs2004 said:


> I thought the point of this thread was to debate raw food. This is what is happening imo, so not sure why you think that it has gone off track?


The post below yours explains perfectly why I think it's gone off course!

Gutting a rabbit - no need! Freezing a rabbit - again no need. Pork and beef are the only meats to be wary of if not first frozen and if human grade from a butcher no risk at all! Shows a complete lack of knowledge of raw feeding.

One case in the UK of a raw fed dog becoming fatally il due to feeding raw beef - *ever!*

Many many raw feeders I know get their rabbits from the local game warden, they are certainly not gutted as you'd lose all the essential nutrients that offal and innards contain. When feeding raw it is a good idea to regularly worm your dog but then we all do that anyway.

Obviously when SM guts and freezes the dogs rabbits it must be a bank holiday - one of those days when they are not roaming free to catch their own and eat it whole! 

I agree with sleeping lion - there are ways to put your point across and downright rudeness!

Think we should stop rising to the bait TBH, as it seems to be a wind up!


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Malmum said:


> The post below yours explains perfectly why I think it's gone off course!
> 
> Gutting a rabbit - no need! Freezing a rabbit - again no need. Pork and beef are the only meats to be wary of if not first frozen and if human grade from a butcher no risk at all! Shows a complete lack of knowledge of raw feeding.
> 
> ...


I am honestly lost. Who says that you don't need to freeze rabbit and other game but should freeze pork and beef?

Lalalalallalalal - forget the rest I have said .....


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

*Myth: MY DOG WILL ACQUIRE PARASITES FROM THE RAW MEAT IN A RAW DIET.*

Yes, there can be parasites in raw meat. But if you are getting meaty bones and carcasses from places fit for human consumption, the parasite factor is negligible. Most parasites are a non-issue and can be safely dealt with by your dog if it is healthy.

The parasite issue is something than non-raw folk use as a scare tactic, telling you that your dog is going to die if it eats raw meat because it will get a weird parasite. They neglect to tell you the very low incidence of these parasites in meat deemed safe for human consumption; nor do they tell you the most "deadly" of these parasites come from things like infected sheep placentas or stillborn calves. Simple solutiondo not feed those things to your dog. If the dog looks like it has parasites, simply get a stool sample or blood sample taken. A dog can be wormed holistically or allopathically (the chemical insecticide dewormers). But generally speaking, if your dog has a healthy immune system, it can deal with the parasites before they even get a chance to establish themselves. Parasites hate a very healthy host.

*MYTHS ABOUT FEEDING RAW.*
Freezing meat can help kill many parasites (such as the parasite present in salmon that CAN cause a deadly disease in dogs; freezing fresh raw salmon, steelhead, trout, and other salmonids for at least 24 hours before feeding effectively disposes of the parasite. Cooked salmon does not carry the parasite.). As long as one exercises caution in obtaining their meat, parasites are a non-issue. If feeding fresh salmonids or wild game, it is recommended that the meat be deep frozen for at least 24 hours before feeding for salmonids and one month for wild game.

Do not give in to the bacteria and parasite scare tactics. The suggestion of cooking your dog's food is actually quite harmful! It is the cooked food that causes problems with the dog's digestive system and that can result in the nutritional deficiencies vets claim they see from raw diets (in reality, most of these nutritional deficiencies arise primarily from home-cooked diets, since cooking destroys many valuable nutrients.). This issue is dealt with in further detail in the Cooked Food myth.

This is a myth made possible by our society's pathological fear of bacteria. Of the millions of bacteria on this earth, it is estimated that less than 1% are harmful. Media and society as a whole have played up bacteria, painting it as an evil nemesis that must be stomped out with disinfectants, antibacterial everything, and unnecessary vaccination. This has resulted in the emergence of super-bacteria and "super-viruses", no thanks to the improper use of antibiotics and the plethora of antibacterial soaps and products. Developmental biologists have recently learned that bacterial exposure is absolutely necessary for the development of a healthy immune system, among other things. Humans and dogs have evolved in the presence of bacteria, and insisting on a sterile environment has created more damage than good. So where does this intersect with raw feeding?

Raw diet critics tout this myth as a main reason for not feeding raw. Yes, there is bacteria in raw meat. Yes, this bacteria can harm you. Yes, this bacteria is sometimes shed in dogs' feces. So if a raw-fed dog licks you, are you going to get sick? I suppose all things are possible, but on the whole: no, you will not get sick. This bacteria does not persist in the mouth of a raw-fed canine. Canine saliva contains lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and destroys bacteria, but more importantly, the absence of plaque means the dog's mouth is no longer a hospitable place for bacteria to inhabit. *A kibble-fed dog's mouth, however, provides the perfect environment for bacteria growth: plaque-covered teeth with sugary and starchy complexes provide both food and shelter for bacteria. The bacteria thrive in the mouth of a kibble-fed dog because it provides both a perfect atmosphere and a good food source (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.). Why does a kibble-fed dog have stinky dog breath? Because of the bacteria in their gums and on their teeth (just like the bacteria in our mouths gives us halitosis).* A raw-fed dog's mouth provides neither food nor a viable atmosphere for bacteria, which is why a raw-fed dog has odorless breath. So which dog would you be more worried about being kissed by and contracting disease from? I personally would be quite leery of the stinky-breathed, bacteria-laden kibble-fed dog. If one is still worried about being licked by a raw-fed dog, one has several solutions. Teach the dog not to lick, or avoid being licked. But if you have a healthy immune system, being licked and in contact with a raw-fed dog will not affect you other than boosting your immune system. This is the same thing for kids: being around and licked by a raw-fed dog will do nothing but boost their immune systems and help them grow up into happy, healthy adults.

As for dogs shedding bacteria in their feces: do not eat dog poo and wash your hands after feeding your dogs or cleaning up after them. Handle the raw meat you feed your dogs the same way you handle your own raw meat (which can get you sick if you eat it raw or do not clean up well enough afterward; do the experts really think that people are not smart enough to figure out that they should wash their hands and countertops after preparing raw meaty bones for their dogs? Apparently so.). If you have kids, teach the children not to eat dog poo and clean up immediately after your dog, and you will not need to worry. Bacteria is absolutely everywhere. You are just as likely, if not more likely, to get sick from your produce or a strange bathroom. You do not need to worry about the dog tracking bacteria through the house; there is plenty of bacteria throughout the house anyway, so any additional bacteria a raw-fed dog might add is negligible. Thousands of peopleeven immunocompromised peoplefeed their dogs raw with no bacteria issues and with stronger immune systems as a result.

Anti-raw people protest that raw-fed dogs pose a serious health risk to immunocompromised people and people with auto-immune disorders. Oddly enough, it is these immunocompromised people who have a better understanding of the important role nutrition plays in strengthening the immune system. A quick tour of the Yahoo! Rawfeeding group will reveal quite a few people who have an auto-immune disorder but have been feeding their dogs raw for many years with no ill results whatsoever. Anti-raw people (vets included) make it sound like immuno-compromised people (and most other people) are incapable of properly handling raw meat and cleaning up afterwards. The solution proposeddo not feed raw meaty bones!is absurdly condescending (they assume we cannot clean up after ourselves and are incapable of feeding our dogs because we lack a credential in pet nutrition), and skips the most logical step: simply observe proper hygiene and use the same precautions you use in preparing your own meat. It is not that difficult, honestly.

People proclaiming this "serious health risk" claim seem to think people are incapable of a) properly feeding their dogs and b) cleaning up after themselves. Use good hygiene practices: clean countertops and utensils used to feed dogs, and wash your hands. Feed the dog outside or inside on a towel or plastic-type tablecloth you can reuse and wash when needed. Or feed the dog in its crate, or on an easy-to-clean surface. By training the dog to eat in one place, you will not have to "worry" about him tracking a mess or bacteria through the house. If you are still concerned about bacteria, clean your dog's paws, mouth, etc. with a mild, safe antimicrobial like diluted white vinegar. Honestly, as long as proper hygiene is observed, the bacteria are a non-issue. Remember, you are sharing your life with an animal that licks its own rear and eats cat poop before licking your face.

*The Current Myth List*

Dogs are omnivores

Wolves eat the stomach contents of prey

Dogs are too far removed from wolves to be fed a raw diet

Dogs have adapted to cooked diets

Dogs live longer today because of commercial foods

Wolves have shortened lifespans because of their diet

Millions of dogs safely eat commercial foods, so why feed raw?

Raw diets are not balanced

Bacteria in raw meat is dangerous to my pet

My pet will get parasites from the raw meat

Raw-fed dogs pose a serious health risk to humans

Raw diets vs. the AAFCO standards

There is no scientific research to validate raw diets

Feeding raw meat makes a dog bloodthirsty

I am not knowledgeable enough to make my dog's food

Raw diets are not very digestible

Raw diets are inconvenient and expensive

Different breeds of dogs need different diets

Because of the risks of bones, ground raw diets are better

Plenty of premium kibbles are available, so raw is unnecessary

Home-made, cooked diets are viable alternatives to raw

Vets are thoroughly qualified to dispense nutritional advice

Small dogs and toy breeds cannot eat raw diets

Carbohydrates are necessary in dog's diet


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Been a while since I read that. Still not sure where your "freeze beef and pork comment comes in"? Did someone on here say that?

I guess with pork it does depend on where you are in the world. While it is ok for cats and dogs to eat raw pork in the UK, it isn't advised for many parts of the continent.

I would like to pick out one point though



> in reality, most of these nutritional deficiencies arise primarily from home-cooked diets, since cooking destroys many valuable nutrients.


While vets may see pets suffering nutritional deficiencies from a homecooked diet, that is a bit of a brush statement to make, isn't it. We might not agree with a homecooked diet but there complete supplements available to those who do homecook or some decent recipes to follow to prevent those problems.

From a feline perspective at least, there have been some studies that have shown nutritional deficiencies in raw diets (not saying that these are perfectly conducted studies - they are not, or that their reference point is correct, which are guidelines for US or European commercial food makers).

But the point is that we as raw feeders are taking on a responsibility to make sure that we are providing our paws (feline or canine) with all the nutrients they need.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

In pork the parasite is Trichinosis which is virtually unknown in the UK anyway but freezing will kill the parasite.

Salmon, as has been mentioned is usually frozen before it comes over here, so again is quite safe but if in doubt freeze.

The only one i'd be concerned about is Neospora Caninum which can be found in beef - although again extremely rare. If frozen at -20 for at least 24 hours the meat will be safe.

I would not feed pork before freezing if it were animal grade meat, however I do feed pork fresh from my butcher with no ill effect. Salmon is not an issue for me as the dogs don't like it but beef, whether human grade or animal grade I always freeze, because rare as it is there has been one recorded case (not sure if any more) of a dog dying due to Neospora Caninum.


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

Malmum said:


> In pork the parasite is Trichinosis which is virtually unknown in the UK anyway but freezing will kill the parasite.
> 
> Salmon, as has been mentioned is usually frozen before it comes over here, so again is quite safe but if in doubt freeze.
> 
> ...


I wasn't thinking about parasites, i.e. trichinosis, when I was saying that your choice to feed raw pork is country-dependent. I was thinking more about the viral Aujeszky disease, which is endemic in parts of Europe 

But hey, by the nature of how I prepare my raw food, making up batches for weeks/ a month in advance, the meat gets frozen anyhow. And I include a little salmon in my cats' batches as it is a great source of Vit D3.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't worry too much either as mine's mostly frozen, except when I get back from my once weekly trip to the butcher who save lots of things for me on the day he knows i'm coming - last week a sectioned pigs head! The dogs hang round me like i've got lucky bags and are so ecited so I always sort them out bits before freezing the rest, their fave being pork skin. 

Luckily mine hate salmon (expensive) and when i've thrown them some to catch it comes back out of their mouths faster than it's gone in, lol - think they don't like the feel of it.

At least with the butcher he can tell me it's origin but if buying from the dogfood co. I always freeze anything that's not frozen first. Also the butchers pigs trotters/ears/tails are much smaller than pet supplies so I feel they come from younger, tender stock. Apparently he says we can eat it ourselves and some of his customers do - yuk!!


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

I don't know same old same old without any scientific basis. Freezing rabbits destroys worm cysts, so you don't have wormy dogs as much, farm stock are wormed so feeding this meat raw will have a lower incidence i thought anyone who had looked into this would know that without me having to explain it. I agree this is getting a little niggly and away from the point which was pros and cons of a raw diet so perhaps a review of the subject may help.

The idea of a raw food diet was based on observations of two colonies of feral cats, one colony had more birth defects than the other and it was suggested that this was a result of diet. The problems with this is one, its based on cats not dogs and these are very different in their digestion and more importantly substrate use ie the cat is an obligate carnivore the dog is not, two, the birth defects were unlikely to be the result of the diet but rather a mixture of hereditary/environmental factors. So the first premise is floored but that doesnt mean the idea is not without validity and so further discussion. The next reason given for the diet is that dogs dont need or naturally eat carbohydrate so feeding it is bad for them. The evidence offered is based on a statement by a wolf biologist wolves dont eat the stomach contents of their prey but this is misleading as what he said was wolves dont eat the stomach contents of prey over the size of a hare. In fact in his study of Artic wolves he observed that they were feeding almost solely on young hares and lemmings all summer and so were eating all the stomach contents of their prey. So it would seem that carbs are very much a part of a wolfs diet. Next it is said as dogs use Gluconeogenesis to turn fat/protein in glucose they dont need to eat carbs the problem with this is that we use exactly the same process of Gluconeogenesis so on that evidence humans dont need carbs either! Of course we dont need but I doubt many qualified specialist, dietitians, would recommend a carb free diet, much more likely a balanced diet to suit the needs of the individual that is based on the three food groups of protein, fat and carbohydrate. There are many things we and our dogs dont need but that is very different than saying shouldnt have. As cooking carbs makes them more digestible it seems sensible to do so. There are many other claims put forward but all Ive come across so far dont hold up under scrutiny. 
We know that raw meat is much more likely to have infective bacteria present, we know there are risks in feeding bones, and we know dogs have changed anatomically from wolves. Why should we risk their health if it isnt necessary? I do I feed raw meat and bones and the main post states this and why. I do some in knowledge of the risks and try to minimize them by feeding only good quality meat, not chicken, raw, and bones that are none weight bearing ie ribs as these are softer and so more easily broken down by the dogs smaller teeth. If feed a complete of around 22% protein and cooked vegetables most days with meat/bones once or twice a week. The result of this regime has been to have very fit, healthy dogs, that are able to work through the winter, run with me all year and most importantly make good pets/companions that are balanced in mind and body. I would never suggest others feed bones but leave it up to each individuals choice to consider the risks versus the clean teeth etc. I can see positives to feeding raw but advocating it to be the answer to everything and discounting carbs or cooked meat, cereal etc is a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So in conclusion I feed a mixture of raw, cooked and complete and the dogs do very well on this. I could in my opinion improve on this by feeding meat, cooked or raw, as almost 2/3rd of the meal, and a carb source, likely oats, with some cooked vegetables as the remainder but I could improve my diet slightly but doubt the effort would be worth the benefits as doing a little more exercise would have much greater results. 
Simple science realy.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I know a lady with 15 working/showing/breeding Mals & Sibes, who used to take the lower intestine out of wild caught rabbits because of worms but she doesn't anymore because as she says they are wormed every 6 weeks anyway so no risk.
She's been in the Mal/Husky business for years, always fed raw had no health issues and get her rabbits from a game warden, also gives some to me when she has too many. No probs here either.

When feeding raw it's always best to err on the ide of caution and worm 6 weekly!


----------

