# Raw feeding question



## Ms Stella

I have been feeding Stella natures variety frozen medallions for several months. I am switching to raw food that I prepare because of ease of getting the food and to help her teeth. I fed her a pork neck last night and she loved it. I also gave her chicken gizzards and hearts I think it was...so no bone in that. My questions are
1. Is it ok to feed a variety now? She has had chicken, beef, bison, and I think lamb of the prepared frozen stuff. Never had any tummy problems. Or is it best to stick with one form of animal for some reason. I have read that it best to start that way but as I said she has been eating commercially prepared raw for a while with no problems. 

2. When you say 2% of body wt does this include the bone? I didn't weigh the food yet..need to get a scale. Stella is 44 lbs, so she would get .8 of a lb daily...so .4 of a lb at each meal. Basically one half lb twice a day, but a pork neck would weigh more than say boneless chicken. 

3. Also she got so very dirty...she used her paws. They were covered in blood. Yuck! I will keep a snood on her next time and I guess I'll have to out on her bracelet covers for each feeding. Do you all have problems with cleanliness too?


----------



## Princess Dollie

Hi Ms Stella, this does not answer all your questions. But Dollie is fed NV raw also and thougt you might be interested in the responses to this post.

http://www.poodleforum.com/32-poodle-food/14056-raw-feeding-questions.html


----------



## Olie

Ms Stella said:


> I have been feeding Stella natures variety frozen medallions for several months. I am switching to raw food that I prepare because of ease of getting the food and to help her teeth. I fed her a pork neck last night and she loved it. I also gave her chicken gizzards and hearts I think it was...so no bone in that. My questions are
> 1. Is it ok to feed a variety now? She has had chicken, beef, bison, and I think lamb of the prepared frozen stuff. Never had any tummy problems. Or is it best to stick with one form of animal for some reason. I have read that it best to start that way but as I said she has been eating commercially prepared raw for a while with no problems.
> 
> 2. When you say 2% of body wt does this include the bone? I didn't weigh the food yet..need to get a scale. Stella is 44 lbs, so she would get .8 of a lb daily...so .4 of a lb at each meal. Basically one half lb twice a day, but a pork neck would weigh more than say boneless chicken.
> 
> 3. Also she got so very dirty...she used her paws. They were covered in blood. Yuck! I will keep a snood on her next time and I guess I'll have to out on her bracelet covers for each feeding. Do you all have problems with cleanliness too?


1) I think it would be fine, I would just make sure that you add a bit of bone in daily to adjust the stomach and see how her stools are coming along. Once they are firm, I think it would be fine.

2) It does include bone.

3) Mine rarely use their paws UNLESS they have a big bone I give to chew on for a while and that would be Suri. She will be all greezy. Once they catch on the meat will not be around very long. I would stick with covering the legs also. 

Have fun and good luck!


----------



## BlackPoodleMom

*Taste of The Wild*

My poodles went from the RAW diet to "taste of the wild" brand grain-free dog foods. I give them sardines in spring water for an extras treat and sometimes a little cooked chicken... I stopped the RAW diet because we travel a lot and it was getting messy. Something about raw chicken in my car didnt appeal to me! yuck! especially since it is SOOOO hot outside here in GA right now. They made the adjustment well and seem to "scarf!" down the dry food and their daily meaty treats! :act-up:


----------



## Ms Stella

We definitely have to find another way for her to have the bones..I put her snood on this morning and bracelet covers..she was much less dirty but still had some on one paw and some ear hair had fallen out and had blood on it... it is dangereous to humans to have bloody meat germs on the furniture, bed..not to mention that I kiss on her all the time  Ill try chicken bones for future as they are softer and maybe she will just crunch those. I guess worse case senerio is I go back to a commercially prepared frozen raw diet and give some supplemental bones ocassionally for teeth. Or maybe I can find a butcher to grind up some bones and meat for me..


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> We definitely have to find another way for her to have the bones..I put her snood on this morning and bracelet covers..she was much less dirty but still had some on one paw and some ear hair had fallen out and had blood on it... it is dangereous to humans to have bloody meat germs on the furniture, bed..not to mention that I kiss on her all the time  Ill try chicken bones for future as they are softer and maybe she will just crunch those. I guess worse case senerio is I go back to a commercially prepared frozen raw diet and give some supplemental bones ocassionally for teeth. Or maybe I can find a butcher to grind up some bones and meat for me..


I think you should stick with chicken bones at first, until she gets the hang of how to eat. They use their paws when they think it is something to really *work* on. When it is something they will just crunch up, most dogs seem to just hold it in their mouth, dropping it when necessary, and picking it back up.


----------



## zyrcona

I'm in two minds about raw meat. Initially I was enticed by the idea of it being 'natural' but on further examination and reflection, a lot of what has been written on the subject is very unscientific and nearly all of the evidence is anecdotal. I like to give my dog raw meat and fruits/vegetables as treats, but after some bad experiences, I now only give her meats considered safe for humans to eat raw, such as beef and lamb. For working dogs who live outdoors, eg. a pack of foxhounds, a diet of raw carcasses might be convenient and a good idea, but I'm not convinced it's right for my dog, who is a companion and lives in the house. Some points to consider:

a. The main argument that proponents put forward is that dogs are 'carnivores'. Dogs belong to the taxonomical order carnivora (as do the classic omnivores bears), but that does not mean they are carnivores in the sense that they eat only meat. Animals' natural diets are far less clear cut than some people seem to think. Even a classic herbivore, such as a grazer like a horse, will pick up small animals in the grass and digest them with no ill effects. There are a few extremes on either end (hummingbirds survive entirely on plant-derived foods, whereas cats are obligate carnivores). Humans and dogs are somewhere in the middle. Both can live off fresh raw meat alone (in some parts of the world, notably the Arctic, groups of people still do). In practice, they tend to eat both. Dogs will dig up roots and eat fruit and vegetables (I had a garden where foxes used to eat the courgettes off the plants).

b. No animal is evolved to eat cooked food. Cooking makes contaminated meat safe to eat, but destroys some of the nutrients in it. Because of this, cooked meat needs to be supplemented with either synthetic nutrients or ones from plant sources. Because we live in such large numbers, it is no longer possible for everyone to hunt and eat fresh meat without destroying the environment, so animals need to be reared for meat and slaughtered. Thus we have become closer to carrion eaters in this respect. Some meat, such as beef and lamb, can still be safely eaten raw, but meat such as pork and chicken can contain bacteria that can cause illness, and is considered safer to cook. Even human-grade meat from a really nice butcher isn’t the same as fresh-killed meat. It is exsanguinated (drained of blood) during the slaughter process, and although the conditions meat is kept in prevent it from decomposing as such, it still does undergo chemical changes that means it is not the same in terms of its nutritional profile as a fresh kill. Wild wolves’ diet would include bloody, still-warm prey, and unless you go out with your dog and kill a deer together and eat it, the raw food you are feeding is not the same.

c. Wild animals always have parasites, and they are not necessarily healthy. In nature, all that matters on an evolutionary scale is that an animal is able to live long enough to have young and rear the young to an age where they can survive independently. I once heard from someone who had worked in making wildlife documentaries that the animals were mangy and malnourished-looking on the close-up shots, and they had trouble finding photogenic ones.

d. Behaviour that is natural in the wild is not necessarily something we want pet animals to exhibit at home. Dogs who have been fed bones will often swallow fragments too large to digest, and will then vomit them back up hours later, and lick up whatever came with them that is digestible. Dogs are well adapted for vomiting, with saliva with a high pH, but vomiting dogs are probably not what many people want in their living rooms. My dog seems to throw up pig knuckles and the ends of chicken leg bones. Several times I fed my dog chicken liver with no ill effect, and then one time I fed it to her and she ralphed up what looked like a blancmange in the middle of the carpet.

e. Dogs can get food poisoning just as much as people can. My dog loves pigs' trotters, but she got gastroenteritis from one and I ended up taking her to the vet and paying for antibiotics. She was up all night every two hours needing to be let out to have diarrhoea. She must have felt awful, poor dog. :-( I’ve heard from people that after a while the dogs become immune to the bacteria, but it could also be argued that humans would too if they ate raw chicken and pork and got food poisoning often enough. My dog is a member of my family, and if this was so, she would be carrying bacteria dangerous to humans all over her body and in her mouth, which is not really a socially acceptable situation. Also, when she has eaten meat off a bone, her forelegs are filthy and smelly, which can't be very hygienic.

f. I disagree that eating raw meat stops dogs from smelling of dog. I have been to a zoo where wolves were fed whole carcasses, and the wolves stank. Some breeds of dog just smell more ‘doggy’ than others.

g. For the people who buy up chicken carcasses and other refuse from abattoirs: ironically, this is the sort of stuff that is used to make ‘meat meal’ used in low-quality food. Sure, it’s ‘human grade’ refuse and it isn’t rotting, but it may well have been treated in a way that wouldn’t be allowed in human-grade food, such as being thrown onto the abattoir floor after the meat had been removed and shovelled into a container later.


----------



## Ms Stella

zyrcona said:


> I'm in two minds about raw meat. Initially I was enticed by the idea of it being 'natural' but on further examination and reflection, a lot of what has been written on the subject is very unscientific and nearly all of the evidence is anecdotal. I like to give my dog raw meat and fruits/vegetables as treats, but after some bad experiences, I now only give her meats considered safe for humans to eat raw, such as beef and lamb. For working dogs who live outdoors, eg. a pack of foxhounds, a diet of raw carcasses might be convenient and a good idea, but I'm not convinced it's right for my dog, who is a companion and lives in the house. Some points to consider:
> 
> a. The main argument that proponents put forward is that dogs are 'carnivores'. Dogs belong to the taxonomical order carnivora (as do the classic omnivores bears), but that does not mean they are carnivores in the sense that they eat only meat. Animals' natural diets are far less clear cut than some people seem to think. Even a classic herbivore, such as a grazer like a horse, will pick up small animals in the grass and digest them with no ill effects. There are a few extremes on either end (hummingbirds survive entirely on plant-derived foods, whereas cats are obligate carnivores). Humans and dogs are somewhere in the middle. Both can live off fresh raw meat alone (in some parts of the world, notably the Arctic, groups of people still do). In practice, they tend to eat both. Dogs will dig up roots and eat fruit and vegetables (I had a garden where foxes used to eat the courgettes off the plants).
> 
> b. No animal is evolved to eat cooked food. Cooking makes contaminated meat safe to eat, but destroys some of the nutrients in it. Because of this, cooked meat needs to be supplemented with either synthetic nutrients or ones from plant sources. Because we live in such large numbers, it is no longer possible for everyone to hunt and eat fresh meat without destroying the environment, so animals need to be reared for meat and slaughtered. Thus we have become closer to carrion eaters in this respect. Some meat, such as beef and lamb, can still be safely eaten raw, but meat such as pork and chicken can contain bacteria that can cause illness, and is considered safer to cook. Even human-grade meat from a really nice butcher isn’t the same as fresh-killed meat. It is exsanguinated (drained of blood) during the slaughter process, and although the conditions meat is kept in prevent it from decomposing as such, it still does undergo chemical changes that means it is not the same in terms of its nutritional profile as a fresh kill. Wild wolves’ diet would include bloody, still-warm prey, and unless you go out with your dog and kill a deer together and eat it, the raw food you are feeding is not the same.
> 
> c. Wild animals always have parasites, and they are not necessarily healthy. In nature, all that matters on an evolutionary scale is that an animal is able to live long enough to have young and rear the young to an age where they can survive independently. I once heard from someone who had worked in making wildlife documentaries that the animals were mangy and malnourished-looking on the close-up shots, and they had trouble finding photogenic ones.
> 
> d. Behaviour that is natural in the wild is not necessarily something we want pet animals to exhibit at home. Dogs who have been fed bones will often swallow fragments too large to digest, and will then vomit them back up hours later, and lick up whatever came with them that is digestible. Dogs are well adapted for vomiting, with saliva with a high pH, but vomiting dogs are probably not what many people want in their living rooms. My dog seems to throw up pig knuckles and the ends of chicken leg bones. Several times I fed my dog chicken liver with no ill effect, and then one time I fed it to her and she ralphed up what looked like a blancmange in the middle of the carpet.
> 
> e. Dogs can get food poisoning just as much as people can. My dog loves pigs' trotters, but she got gastroenteritis from one and I ended up taking her to the vet and paying for antibiotics. She was up all night every two hours needing to be let out to have diarrhoea. She must have felt awful, poor dog. :-( I’ve heard from people that after a while the dogs become immune to the bacteria, but it could also be argued that humans would too if they ate raw chicken and pork and got food poisoning often enough. My dog is a member of my family, and if this was so, she would be carrying bacteria dangerous to humans all over her body and in her mouth, which is not really a socially acceptable situation. Also, when she has eaten meat off a bone, her forelegs are filthy and smelly, which can't be very hygienic.
> 
> f. I disagree that eating raw meat stops dogs from smelling of dog. I have been to a zoo where wolves were fed whole carcasses, and the wolves stank. Some breeds of dog just smell more ‘doggy’ than others.
> 
> g. For the people who buy up chicken carcasses and other refuse from abattoirs: ironically, this is the sort of stuff that is used to make ‘meat meal’ used in low-quality food. Sure, it’s ‘human grade’ refuse and it isn’t rotting, but it may well have been treated in a way that wouldn’t be allowed in human-grade food, such as being thrown onto the abattoir floor after the meat had been removed and shovelled into a container later.


Thank you, thank you!!
I agree with you and Stella recently vomited up a small bone from pork neck. She also refused any food yesterday morning and finally last night she did eat some of her prepared NV raw food. I sometimes feel like a failure trying to feed her the best way possible yet she seems to do best on not so much variety. I bought some food from a family that sells chicken, turkey and pork at the farmers market...they also make a frozen ground up dog food that contains a variety of the above inclucing bone and cartlidge...that seemed like a great idea..but She doesnt seem to feel well after eating it for 2 days. I have wondered, like you, about how people might prepare food for a dog...not taking the same percautions as one would with human food..what you post makes sense to me and since I am a health care provider...I like science based info. That is what keeps me from feeding raw all these years to my dogs. But for want of doing the best I can...I have once again tried raw. I wonder if the frozen prepared medallions from NV are free of bacteria? Freezing should help..Also, even when Stella seems to have the hang of eating a raw chicken thigh...and doesnt use her paws..she does get it on her ears a little and wants to lay down with it on her bed..so its not very clean for sure. I do therapy work with her and am around immunocompromised patients. Even though TDI doesnt dis-allow raw fed animals I always feel I have to bath her immediatly prior to going out to work with her...I would hate to think I could make one of the patients ill. Food bourne illness is rampant in this country. People call it the "stomach flu" but in reality something like 80-90% are related to food. Thanks again for your thoughtful post!


----------



## zyrcona

Cheers, glad it was helpful. 



Ms Stella said:


> Freezing should help..


Freezing should destroy most parasites, but will not eliminate bacteria from the food. Some people who like to prepare their dog's food from scratch like to boil it, but of course this will remove some of the nutrients so they need to be careful to add them back from other sources. TBH I see nothing wrong with feeding a good quality dog food (preferably with a high proportion of meat and no grains) and using a toothbrush (certainly more pleasant than wiping up sick and bits of bone). I suspect people take 'healthy natural diet' a bit too far sometimes. I mean, the diet we eat as modern humans isn't particularly natural, but people still live into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s on it.

The other thing I found with bones was that they tended to make my dog constipated with powdery yellow poo.


----------



## Quossum

Sorry you guys have had bad experiences with raw feeding.  I've been feeding raw since 1997 without problems, and with stellar health. 

However, no one should feel the need to have to justify *not* feeding raw. It is a choice that's a little "different" in today's world, but if you (general you, not picking on anyone) don't feel comfortable with it for whatever reason, then for heaven's sake, don't do it. There are some pretty decent kibbles out there now. 

--Q


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Oh my...I am going to have a long response to Zyrcona's post LOL. Must wait until I have time.......


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Okay...This is not as well thought out as I'd like b/c I am in a rush, but here goes my rushed response:

a) It is less about what is natural and more about how the dog's body is designed. Dogs are carnivores. A simple look at the way the dog's body is built tells us that they are designed to eat a carnivorous diet, not an omnivores diet, in ideal times. Your argument that dogs are omnivorous like humans is faulty because the dog's body is not designed to digest plant matter. If the dog's body was designed to efficiently digest plant matter, it would have the ability to efficiently and successfully break the cell wall of plant matter. In omnivores, this is the presence of flat molars for grinding and the enzyme amylase in their mouths as well as stomachs. Dogs only have amylase in their stomachs. 

Why would nature create an imperfect body design? If dogs were designed to eat plant matter, in flourishing times, why would they lack the ability to chew? Why would they be missing the molars that omnivores have that allow them to grind plant matter? Why would they be missing amylase in their mouths, to allow them to break up the cell wall of plant matter? Why would they have a digestive system that forces food through in rapid time? Dogs cannot efficiently process plant matter because they only have amylase in their stomachs, and none in their mouths. The amylase in their stomachs is not able to fully process plant matter because the food that they eat has such a fast turnaround time. It is drawn through and excreted as waste before they can get many of the benefits. This is why their stool often contains any veggies eaten identical to the way they went in. In order for a dog to get benefit from veggies, it must be pre-processed. Regarding pre-processing, the argument that wolves eat the bellies of their prey is false, unless the prey is so small that they eat it whole. Otherwise, they tend to leave the stomach.

b) Perhaps this is true, but it does not make a difference. Everything a dog needs, based on AAFCO guidelines, is in a varied raw diet of meat, bone and organ. I have a spreadsheet to prove it!

c) I'm not sure how parasites have to do with a raw diet. But, I'll go ahead and debunk the common myth that raw fed dogs are prone to parasites from eating raw meat. Nope, not true. 

d) After a dog is fully adjusted to a raw diet, this vomiting of bone fragments ceases to occur. It takes about a year for the dog's stomach acidity to reach levels that allow them to efficiently digest bone. Mine have been eating raw for about 10 months now and haven't vomited bone fragments in months. And, if they were to do it, it is a very tiny spot and I am more than happy to spray a little cleaning solution on the carpet if that is all it takes to ensure my dog has the most appropriate diet. As to saying that it is undesirable for dog owners to clean up the bone fragment bile vomits that might occur during the transition period, well, that is not a problem with the diet, but a problem that involves the human. I have said many times before, that the diet itself is ideal for dogs. It is the humans that have trouble with it. Most of the problems that occur with a prey model diet, IF they were to occur, are due to human error.

e) Dogs are susceptible to many of the same food borne diseases as humans, but they have bodily mechanisms that protect them in ways that we are not protected. The high acidity in their stomach, the fast motility through their digestive system are two of the major functions that prevent bacteria from multiplying in their digestive system as it would if a human ate contaminated meat. The food simply moves through too fast to cause problems in healthy dogs with functioning immune systems. How did your vet prove that the pig trotter caused food poisoning? Vets who are uneducated on a raw diet have a tendency to blame a raw diet when it often is caused by something else. 

f) I have never heard anybody claim that a raw diet will cure a dog of smelling like a dog. I think an appropriate diet that is providing all of the nutrients a dog needs, and is not triggering any allergies or medical conditions, will have better skin condition and will smell better than a dog who is suffering from some sort of ailment. The dental benefits of a raw diet are very, very real. Clean teeth is beneficial in dog odor prevention as well.

g) "Chicken meal" is not a bad thing, and is present in high quality kibbles. "Meat meal" is something you do not want to see because it does not disclose exactly what type of meat it is. Also, chicken carcasses should not be fed in excess because boneless muscle meat should make up the bulk of the diet. When you feed a homemade raw diet, you control the ratio of meat to bone to organ.


----------



## CurlyDog

This is a good conversation! I'm looking forward to your reply ChocolateMillie! I am feeding a blend of raw meat and bones, Honest Kitchen raw, and high quality kibble. I have to admit, I'm still a bit nervous about the raw even though academically, it makes so much sense to me. Having had a dog that died from a bowel obstruction (even though it wasn't food), I'm still a nervous mom!

Raleigh still clearly prefers anything raw to any kibble he has tried. He gets SO excited when he catches a whiff!


----------



## zyrcona

Quossum said:


> Sorry you guys have had bad experiences with raw feeding.  I've been feeding raw since 1997 without problems, and with stellar health.
> 
> However, no one should feel the need to have to justify *not* feeding raw. It is a choice that's a little "different" in today's world, but if you (general you, not picking on anyone) don't feel comfortable with it for whatever reason, then for heaven's sake, don't do it. There are some pretty decent kibbles out there now.
> 
> --Q


That's great if it works for you, and great that you're accepting there are acceptable alternatives and not being dogmatic about it. :-D I am not saying anyone is wrong to feed their dog raw food, and certainly there are some horrible processed foods around. As I said, I do feed my dog raw meat products, but I stick with lamb, beef, and fish and use it in combination with a variety of other types of food. What I find most concerning about this diet is its connections with homeopathy and other pseudoscientific methods and that its proponents frequently attack those who are not following their exact same ideas as them with unverified claims that they are ‘poisoning’ or ‘abusing; their animals. I do not like this ‘Raw Meaty Bones (TM)’ mentality and how nearly every website I’ve found promoting this diet seems to be doing so in order to sell a book or some sort of food product. Some people supporting this diet are of the mindset that their way is always the right way and has no disadvantages whatsoever, and that pet food manufactures are all ‘evil’ or ignorant. These observations strike me as the hallmarks of fanaticism and pseudoscience.

Response to ChocolateMillie’s comments:

You have not addressed my main point that exsanguinated carrion from which the meat and bones fed to dogs on this sort of diet is not chemically identical to what animals will eat in the wild, and that nutritional deficiencies may occur as a result of this. Additionally, in the wild, wolves will hunt game like deer, rather than birds, so I contend that the salmonella found in birds would likely not be something dogs would be exposed to. Certainly dogs will eat carrion in the wild, but a good proportion of what they eat would be freshly killed. I would recommend anyone who wants to feed their dogs on raw animal products alone submit the dogs for regular tests to make sure no such deficiencies are developing. There have been no tests involving a raw feeding method that has definitively shown a balanced diet is achieved, but there have been a few that have thrown worrying results. Taurine Deficiency in Rabbit (cats were fed ground-up whole rabbit carcasses and were found to be taurine deficient. The storing or processing of the dead rabbits may have contributed to the degeneration of the taurine (rabbits were not freshly killed each time a cat was fed). Glomerular ultrastructural lesions of idiopathic c... [Vet Pathol. 1995] - PubMed result greyhounds develop a disease due to meat contaminated with Escherichia coli. Note both these links refer to scientific research in peer-reviewed journals. I have yet to see any such evidence from the other camp.

Bears (including the facultative herbivore the giant panda) have similar dentition to dogs, and they seem to cope perfectly well with food from plant sources. I am not sure where you got the idea that dogs can’t chew, because I have observed mine doing it all the time and I would be interested if you could provide a reference for this. Dogs don’t eat the same proportion of plant matter to meat matter as do humans, but they do still eat fruit and most members of the canidae family have been observed to eat it in the wild. An obligate carnivore would refuse plant-based food. If you try to give a cat a banana, it won’t eat it. Humans also cannot digest many vegetables that have not been cooked, which is why the plant matter dogs eat is mainly confined to fruits and roots. Fish, beef, and lamb, plus many game meats, are all sources of parasitic worms. http://www.2ndchance.info/parasite-dogtaenia.pdf There is some evidence to suggest that worms may be beneficial to the immune systems of wild animals, but they are generally discouraged in humans and domestic animals, because the sensation of worm ends crawling out of one’s anus at night is not pleasant.

> After a dog is fully adjusted to a raw diet, this vomiting of bone fragments ceases to occur. It takes about a year for the dog's stomach acidity to reach levels that allow them to efficiently digest bone.

Consider this from another angle. Humans can also adjust to a diet of raw meat and fruit and develop a resistance to bacteria (and some do; google paleolithic diet), but if someone told a person to eat raw meat off an abattoir floor and vomit and suffer diarrhoea for a year, and then that person's diet would be more ‘natural’ and he or she would have a better immune system I don’t think the person would be impressed. I wouldn't reckon much to feeding a puppy on a diet that caused it to be vomiting so much while it's growing. And dogs may develop the ability to cope eventually, but a dog with pig-meat-dirtied forelegs is not a good idea on the bed of a human who hasn’t developed this resistance.

Like I said, I’m in two minds and I believe raw meat is a beneficial source of variety in a dog’s diet. I can respect anyone’s right and decision to feed their animals what they choose, provided they don’t try to foist it on other people and insist that it’s better than theirs when there is no hard evidence for that. If someone wants my advice, I’d say to stick with good quality, human-grade meats that do not host Campylobacter or Salmonella. I’d also say that if you want to feed raw animal products only, ask your vet for your dog to be tested every few months to make sure everything is OK nutrition wise.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

My response is too long and is therefore split up into two separate posts.



zyrcona said:


> I do not like this ‘Raw Meaty Bones (TM)’ mentality and how nearly every website I’ve found promoting this diet seems to be doing so in order to sell a book or some sort of food product.


It's quite the opposite. Those who promote a prey model diet adamantly claim that books, and food products other than raw, meat and organ are completely unnecessary and a waste of money. Also, if you don't like the attitude of the Raw Meaty Bones and Prey Model Raw people, and yes, they can be a little rough around the edges, that, again, is a problem with the humans, not an inadequacy of the diet. If you find someone who is promoting a product, I personally would run far away. 



zyrcona said:


> You have not addressed my main point that exsanguinated carrion from which the meat and bones fed to dogs on this sort of diet is not chemically identical to what animals will eat in the wild, and that nutritional deficiencies may occur as a result of this.


Actually, I did address it. As I explained, a diet of raw meat, bone and organ can meet all of the AAFCO guidelines. An owner who wishes to match a raw diet of meat, bone and organ to AAFCO guidelines may utilize this spreadsheet: 

http://www.netrophic.com/misc/NewPersonalDogFeedingGuide.xls




zyrcona said:


> Additionally, in the wild, wolves will hunt game like deer, rather than birds, so I contend that the salmonella found in birds would likely not be something dogs would be exposed to.


And I would argue that birds should not make up a large portion of an ideal raw diet. Red meat from large, ungulate mammals should ideally make up a large portion of the meat fed to a dog. 



zyrcona said:


> Certainly dogs will eat carrion in the wild, but a good proportion of what they eat would be freshly killed. I would recommend anyone who wants to feed their dogs on raw animal products alone submit the dogs for regular tests to make sure no such deficiencies are developing. There have been no tests involving a raw feeding method that has definitively shown a balanced diet is achieved, but there have been a few that have thrown worrying results. Taurine Deficiency in Rabbit (cats were fed ground-up whole rabbit carcasses and were found to be taurine deficient. The storing or processing of the dead rabbits may have contributed to the degeneration of the taurine (rabbits were not freshly killed each time a cat was fed). Glomerular ultrastructural lesions of idiopathic c... [Vet Pathol. 1995] - PubMed result greyhounds develop a disease due to meat contaminated with Escherichia coli. Note both these links refer to scientific research in peer-reviewed journals. I have yet to see any such evidence from the other camp.


Rabbit is so lean, a dog or human could essentially starve they were to eat a diet solely of this meat. The key in a raw diet is _variety_. If you feed too much of any one protein you do risk deficiencies. As is evident in the Spreadsheet I attached, a varied, raw diet will provide all of the vitamins and nutrients that a dog needs. You are correct, feeding meat that is not freshly killed does not an have identical nutrient profile as freshly killed animals. Thankfully, we have the USDA database to match the nutrients the meat does have to the AAFCO requirements for dogs. 

Taurine deficiency is easy to avoid. Feed lots of heart. My dogs get about 3 whole lamb or pork hearts a week. I feed chunks of beef heart too, but those hearts are so big I could never feed the whole thing at once.  

Regarding the Greyhound study, unfortunately I only have access to the abstract as I am not able to access the full text, or perhaps simply cannot figure out how to access the full text. Regardless, there is not enough information available to me to know the conditions of the study, what was involved, etc.



zyrcona said:


> Bears (including the facultative herbivore the giant panda) have similar dentition to dogs, and they seem to cope perfectly well with food from plant sources. I am not sure where you got the idea that dogs can’t chew, because I have observed mine doing it all the time and I would be interested if you could provide a reference for this. Dogs don’t eat the same proportion of plant matter to meat matter as do humans, but they do still eat fruit and most members of the canidae family have been observed to eat it in the wild.


I'm not sure where you got the idea that bears have the same dentition as dogs. Bears have flat molars for grinding plant matter. Dogs do not. I have attached 2 photos of skull of a bear as well as a photo of the dentition of a dog and then two photos of their skulls.

I got the information that dogs do not "chew" from my veterinarian as well as from watching my dogs eat. Dogs crunch their food until it is able to be swallowed, but they do not chew it up. They are not capable of the grinding action with their back molars that is what we humans associate with chewing. "Chewing", in the way that humans associate the term, with side to side and grinding jaw movement, is not a characteristic of a carnivore. Dogs are designed to move their their sharp, carnassial molars up and down to tear and rip through flesh, and then swallow.



zyrcona said:


> An obligate carnivore would refuse plant-based food. If you try to give a cat a banana, it won’t eat it. Humans also cannot digest many vegetables that have not been cooked, which is why the plant matter dogs eat is mainly confined to fruits and roots. Fish, beef, and lamb, plus many game meats, are all sources of parasitic worms. http://www.2ndchance.info/parasite-dogtaenia.pdf There is some evidence to suggest that worms may be beneficial to the immune systems of wild animals, but they are generally discouraged in humans and domestic animals, because the sensation of worm ends crawling out of one’s anus at night is not pleasant.


Dogs are not obligate carnivores. They are opportunistic carnivores, omnivorous carnivores, whatever you want to call it. They have omnivorous capabilities and can survive on an omnivorous diet, unlike an obligate carnivore. The question is not how dogs can survive, though, but how they will thrive. Surely feeding them based on the way nature designed their bodies - they way their bodies are currently designed, even after domestication - is ideal. If someone wants to incorporate some berries, fruits and roots to mimic the plant matter they might eat, go for it. It's far better than a processed diet. It's not necessary, though, as all of the nutrients a dog needs based on AAFCO profiles can be meat through a raw diet of meat, bone and organ. 

Re: worms from game meats, freezing meat will kill many parasites. Feeding only human grade meat is another way to avoid this if one is particularly concerned. 



zyrcona said:


> > After a dog is fully adjusted to a raw diet, this vomiting of bone fragments ceases to occur. It takes about a year for the dog's stomach acidity to reach levels that allow them to efficiently digest bone.
> 
> Consider this from another angle. Humans can also adjust to a diet of raw meat and fruit and develop a resistance to bacteria (and some do; google paleolithic diet), but if someone told a person to eat raw meat off an abattoir floor and vomit and suffer diarrhoea for a year, and then that person's diet would be more ‘natural’ and he or she would have a better immune system I don’t think the person would be impressed. I wouldn't reckon much to feeding a puppy on a diet that caused it to be vomiting so much while it's growing. And dogs may develop the ability to cope eventually, but a dog with pig-meat-dirtied forelegs is not a good idea on the bed of a human who hasn’t developed this resistance.


Again, you are forgetting the difference in the digestive systems of humans and dogs. Dogs have a short digestive track allowing meat to move through before it can reproduce bacteria and cause problems. A human has a much longer digestive track, and food sits in our stomachs for a significantly longer stretch of time, giving plenty of opportunity for bacteria laden meat to multiply bacteria and cause illness. Our stomach acidity is much lower than that of a dog, too.

I have no idea if a human would suffer from diarrhea for a year if they ate raw meat. But, I do know that a dog will not suffer from diarrhea from a year if they are fed an appropriate raw diet. If fed correctly, a dog should not experience diarrhea at all.

I have a growing puppy who is eating lots of raw meaty bones. He has never once vomited bone fragments. He has only vomited from car sickness. Quite a few times, actually. I do hope this has not interfered with his growth. Far more than my other poodles ever vomited when switching to raw. And, when they did vomit, all that came up was bile and bone, because the meat had already been digested. 

A growing puppy who is fed a raw diet at a very young age likely may not have any vomiting of bone fragments as their systems adjusts to the diet much quicker. A dog who is never fed commercial food likely never experiences this. Also, I'm not sure why you think that a raw fed dog going through transition will be vomiting frequently. If this occurs, the human is doing something wrong, as is the case with most problems in a raw diet. Perhaps feeding too little, resulting in the hunger pukes. Of course, bone is what will come up, because that is what takes the longest to digest. Bile/bone vomits are rarely due to the actual bone irritating the stomach, but instead, is all that is present in the dog's stomach.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> If someone wants my advice, I’d say to stick with good quality, human-grade meats that do not host Campylobacter or Salmonella.


Salmonella and Campylobacter are common bacteria found in a variety of locations, including kibble, boarding kennels, salad bars, droppings of birds and raw meat, including that sold in the supermarket. Tom Lonsdale explains,

"Theoretically the very young, the old and those with a reduced immune system are at greatest risk. When pets are first introduced to raw food, especially chicken, they may develop diarrhea. Salmonella, whilst often talked about, is seldom a factor. Sometimes, though, the diarrhea is due to contamination of the chicken with Campylobacter. Campylobacter induced diarrhea can be treated by your veterinarian. Once recovered, dogs are unlikely to suffer from the problem again" (Lonsdale, 2005, p.55).​



zyrcona said:


> I’d also say that if you want to feed raw animal products only, ask your vet for your dog to be tested every few months to make sure everything is OK nutrition wise.


Why? Where did you get this idea? Do you get tested to make sure everything is OK nutrition wise with your own body every few months? Will you take a kibble fed dog to the vet every few months to make sure everything is OK nutrition wise? Deficiencies occur in kibble fed diets. Specifically, Taurine deficiency. Have you actually talked to a vet about this laborious plan? My raw fed poodles recently visited two traditional vets and a holistic vet and I asked if there was anything I needed to do to ensure they were getting all of their nutrients from my homemade raw diet, such as blood work, etc. All three vets said, if they _look_ healthy and they _act_ healthy - they are healthy! Just the same as raising children. At these three vets, I asked if bloodwork would reveal any nutritional deficiencies in my dogs, and all said no. The visible health of my dogs is enough and bloodwork will not reveal anything other than prove that their major organs are functioning, which they are. Nutritional deficiencies can occur in any diet and should be dealt with no differently when feeding a raw diet as when feeding a kibble diet.

If you have a problem with the attitude of the Raw Meaty Bones advocates, or Prey Model Raw advocates, or the "inconveniences" of the diet to humans, that is fine, but don't knock the diet. 

I too do not think that commercial food is evil. I think that there are some great products out there and it is not below me to feed them. That does not change the fact that a raw diet of meat, bone and organ, of which dogs are physiologically designed to eat, is the most ideal diet.


----------



## Liafast

Thank you...I choose to feed raw and pratice minimual vaccine protocol because I feel thats whats best for my spoo's. They all look wonderful and my male puppy is doing wonderful, he has developed incredible shoulders muscles due to the fact he pulls the meat off the bones.


----------



## zyrcona

ChocolateMillie said:


> That does not change the fact that a raw diet of meat, bone and organ, of which dogs are physiologically designed to eat, is the most ideal diet.


OK, I am not going to say much more on the matter because I don't want to start an argument on a forum. All I will say is that I have researched this a lot in the past and seen a lot of the arguments you have put forward and seen no reliable research or qualitative, quantitative evidence to confirm the claim that raw animal products from commercially slaughtered animals is 'the most ideal' diet for domestic dogs. If people want to feed their dogs this diet, that's fair enough, but they should be aware that a number of people have had problems with dogs vomiting and having diarrhoea, and that there is as yet no proof of it being better in the long term than a high-quality commercial food diet. As the cat experiment shows, the nutritional qualities of raw meat are not always constant and can be affected to a large degree by how the meat has been stored. The spreadsheet you provided assumes certain nutritional values from items that can come from varied sources, and which may vary widely. This is why I believe getting a dog on this kind of diet checked regularly by a vet is a good idea. Commercial foods, even the cheap nasty ones, have to conform to certain standards with regards to nutrition. I am not saying anyone should feed cheap nasty food over good meat, but because raw meat's nutritional value is subject to variation depending on how it's been stored, the consistency cannot be guaranteed.

I apologise about the bear dentition as I thought their teeth were more similar to dogs' from my memory of skulls in a museum, but I have certainly observed dogs chewing bones and roots and similar such things.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> OK, I am not going to say much more on the matter because I don't want to start an argument on a forum. All I will say is that I have researched this a lot in the past and seen a lot of the arguments you have put forward and seen no reliable research or qualitative, quantitative evidence to confirm the claim that raw animal products from commercially slaughtered animals is 'the most ideal' diet for domestic dogs. If people want to feed their dogs this diet, that's fair enough, but they should be aware that a number of people have had problems with dogs vomiting and having diarrhoea, and that there is as yet no proof of it being better in the long term than a high-quality commercial food diet. As the cat experiment shows, the nutritional qualities of raw meat are not always constant and can be affected to a large degree by how the meat has been stored. The spreadsheet you provided assumes certain nutritional values from items that can come from varied sources, and which may vary widely. This is why I believe getting a dog on this kind of diet checked regularly by a vet is a good idea. Commercial foods, even the cheap nasty ones, have to conform to certain standards with regards to nutrition. I am not saying anyone should feed cheap nasty food over good meat, but because raw meat's nutritional value is subject to variation depending on how it's been stored, the consistency cannot be guaranteed.
> 
> I apologise about the bear dentition as I thought their teeth were more similar to dogs' from my memory of skulls in a museum, but I have certainly observed dogs chewing bones and roots and similar such things.


The spreadsheet that I provided is based on the nutrition information for various, specific cuts of raw meat, available from the USDA database. This is the information that human nutritionists use to formulate specific human diets. If its consistency cannot be guaranteed, this is also true for humans.

Why would this be specifically unreliable or not applicable to dogs? 

Regarding the spreadsheet assuming the values, is that not what any diet, commercial or homemade, human or canine, does? 

Also, when you mention dogs "chewing", they are not "chewing" bones and roots, but gnawing and crunching bones. Because dogs do not have flat molars, but instead have sharp, "carnassial" molars, they are only able to rip, tear and crunch. They do not grind and chew.

Regarding the cat study, I could have told you without a study that there would be deficiencies if a cat (or dog) was to strictly eat whole rabbits. The results of the study are neither earth shattering nor surprising. That is an unbalanced, _unvaried_ diet. Of _course_ there were nutritional deficiencies. And, rabbit is too lean to make up an entire diet. This is the very reason why _variety_ is key. Variety in meats is one of the single, most important aspects of a raw diet. You are ignoring this point. When a raw diet does not work, it is because the human does something ignorant like feed one single source of meat, an incredibly lean meat at that, without ensuring variety of both muscle meat and organ.

Regarding people having problems with vomiting and diarrhea, I will again reiterate, that this is caused by human error, not a problem with the diet itself. Feeding too much muscle meat or too much organ and not enough bone, will cause loose stool. Feeding too much bone and not enough muscle meat, will cause constipation and possibly stomachache. Feeding not enough food can cause hunger pukes, as can feeding on a specific schedule. Switching from a life of commercial petfood to a raw diet can cause digestive upset. If a very young puppy is immediately switched to a proper raw diet, digestive upset is rare.

Finally, what exactly are you expecting a vet to be able to do, in regards to checking the dog's nutrition? 

I think that, regardless of what one feeds their dog, regular vet checkups are important.


----------



## fjm

Is the spreadsheet available in another format, CM - it looks very interesting, but I can't open it on my Mac. A tab delimited text file would be great!


----------



## CharismaticMillie

FJM, I'm not sure...it is an Excel file and it opens on my Mac. I tried saving it to my Mac and then changing it to a tab delimited text file but it said it was not supported. The file is actually interactive and allows you to input values and it calculates things for you.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> The other thing I found with bones was that they tended to make my dog constipated with powdery yellow poo.


You were feeding far too much bone. The solution to this would have been simple. Less bone, more muscle meat. Remember what I said about human error?


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> Thank you, thank you!!
> I agree with you and Stella recently vomited up a small bone from pork neck. She also refused any food yesterday morning and finally last night she did eat some of her prepared NV raw food. I sometimes feel like a failure trying to feed her the best way possible yet she seems to do best on not so much variety. I bought some food from a family that sells chicken, turkey and pork at the farmers market...they also make a frozen ground up dog food that contains a variety of the above inclucing bone and cartlidge...that seemed like a great idea..but She doesnt seem to feel well after eating it for 2 days. I have wondered, like you, about how people might prepare food for a dog...not taking the same percautions as one would with human food..what you post makes sense to me and since I am a health care provider...I like science based info. That is what keeps me from feeding raw all these years to my dogs. But for want of doing the best I can...I have once again tried raw. I wonder if the frozen prepared medallions from NV are free of bacteria? Freezing should help..Also, even when Stella seems to have the hang of eating a raw chicken thigh...and doesnt use her paws..she does get it on her ears a little and wants to lay down with it on her bed..so its not very clean for sure. I do therapy work with her and am around immunocompromised patients. Even though TDI doesnt dis-allow raw fed animals I always feel I have to bath her immediatly prior to going out to work with her...I would hate to think I could make one of the patients ill. Food bourne illness is rampant in this country. People call it the "stomach flu" but in reality something like 80-90% are related to food. Thanks again for your thoughtful post!


Stella, don't let Zyrcona scare you from feeding raw. The single best thing you can do for your dog is feed a raw diet. People today tend to have a pathological fear of bacteria. 

A pork neck is not appropriate to be feeding Stella right now. You need to feed her softer bones, like raw chicken bones, like previously suggested, until she is better equipped to digest bone. She has been on kibble and commercial raw and her body is not used to this type of food. Commercial raw is an entirely different world from homemade raw and she needs to be transitioned to a raw diet just like a kibble fed dog. Having eaten pre-made raw does NOT mean that she can directly go to a homemade raw diet without a proper introduction. Step 1 of making the switch is fasting her for 12 hours and giving a soft bone-in meal like a chicken back. 

Pork bones are not the best choice for her right now. Pork bones are much harder bones than chicken bones. This is great in time when she is adjusted and she can have the dental benefits, but right now, you need to ease her into the diet properly. My dogs would NOT have been able to digest these, I am confident, if I had tried to do this right away. If she is vomiting bone fragments, it could mean you are not feeding enough. If it is happening early in the morning, give her a decent sized snack right before bed. Don't feed her at the exact same time every morning and every night. Vomiting bone fragments is also not uncommon if you feed a bone that is too hard for the body. Don't feed Stella pork bones for at least a few months on raw. Stick to chicken right now. Finally, it could mean that you are feeding _too much_ bone. Bone should only be a very small portion of a raw diet. 10% in an adjusted dog, more like 20-30% as you ease them into the diet to prevent loose stool.

It does not surprise me that Stella does best on less variety right now. It takes months to build up to feeding a varied raw diet. One protein per every two to four weeks is a moderate approach to introducing a raw diet. It takes 6-12 months for a dog to be fully adjusted to a raw diet. When they are fully adjusted, they theoretically would be able to swallow an entire bone whole, and digest it fully with zero gastrointestinal issues, including vomiting bone fragments or passing stool with bone fragments. Additionally, a fully transitioned raw fed dog can eat any protein without ill effects (unless of course they have an allergy to the meat, which, by the way, is extremely rare and is overdiagnosed.)

Just because you are having challenges right now does not mean the diet is not the best thing for Stella. Rather than giving up and sacrificing what is best for her, why not seek advice from those of us who are successfully feeding raw diets? We have all been where you are now and we can get you through the hard parts. Instead of giving up, tell us what is happening and I guarantee 100% we can get you through it panic free. Promise. Remember, I've been there.


Exactly what would make you think that Stella would cause a patient to become ill? As long as they don't come into contact with her stool, and I would hope they don't, they will have no more risk than they would from a kibble fed dog. There have been studies on this. I do therapy work around immunocompromised patients as well. Wipe her face, keep her feet clean, all will be well.


----------



## Ms Stella

Oh such good discussions! I am exhausted and cant digest it all tonight! Thanks for the lively discussion. I will read it all tomorrow evening. My concerns come from a lack of reasons for scientist who have interest in studying such matters. I wonder how we know that dogs that have slamonella, ecoli and other viral, bacterial, parasites present on their food...dont keep it on their fur...are we to wash them with bleach? If they step in poo with these bugs it can be on their feet and they can track it inside. Im not saying what I feel is right f yet for me.I do apreciate a mature honest discussion and exchange of what we can prove or has been proven scientifically. I happen to be Nurse Practitioner for a Bone Marow Transplant program. I consider myself an expert in managing infection in the most difficult patients. People getting a bone marrow transpalnt for leuema in particular...but I also take care of people who have a benign problem called TTP and HUS that comes from special strains of e.coli. I have had about 3 in the last year who could have easily of died...but were fortunate and recovered. They were all on a pheresis machine daily that removed this nasty protein that attack blood cells like platelets and red bolld cells. They were all in hospital for about 1 month. So...just thinking about this one bactera which is found on raw meat...if the dog gets it on them and they dont have a full soapy wash of all areas that touched it....people being licked, people kissing on the dogs nose...could be at risk for exposure for this. I dont have data to show you..I might could find some...I base my concerns based on what I know about infectious disease and what all of my team of Infectious desease specialty docs tell me. They feel dogs eating raw meat can transfer many bad bugs to humans...maybe we only feel it as the "stomach flu" or as diarrhea,but who knows! But we do get people with TTP who have not eaten raw meat...I should start my own study to see if any of these feed raw food to their animals. 

My most reasent thinking is that Ill go full circle to what I was feeding originally...cooked meats, and a few raw bones..supplemented with good kibble. It always sounds very up to date..and sort of the in thing...to feed raw. I like the passion raw feeders have for their feeding habits. I dont think many of them have scientific proof for what they say often times...but they are convicted that no one dissagree with the philosophy. There are of course many ways to fee our babies...I wish I had the time to research it all in peer reviewed journals. I also have another good friend who has a doberman and she is a human food geru...she likes the idea of raw on one level..but she is a biology PHD at a university in callifornia and she too believes that bacteria has potential to spread from the dog to us when they eat raw diets. 
Again, thanks for all the work that went into the thread. Ill look forward to reading all the responses tomorrow!


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> Oh such good discussions! I am exhausted and cant digest it all tonight! Thanks for the lively discussion. I will read it all tomorrow evening. My concerns come from a lack of reasons for scientist who have interest in studying such matters. I wonder how we know that dogs that have slamonella, ecoli and other viral, bacterial, parasites present on their food...dont keep it on their fur...are we to wash them with bleach? If they step in poo with these bugs it can be on their feet and they can track it inside. Im not saying what I feel is right f yet for me.I do apreciate a mature honest discussion and exchange of what we can prove or has been proven scientifically. I happen to be Nurse Practitioner for a Bone Marow Transplant program. I consider myself an expert in managing infection in the most difficult patients. People getting a bone marrow transpalnt for leuema in particular...but I also take care of people who have a benign problem called TTP and HUS that comes from special strains of e.coli. I have had about 3 in the last year who could have easily of died...but were fortunate and recovered. They were all on a pheresis machine daily that removed this nasty protein that attack blood cells like platelets and red bolld cells. They were all in hospital for about 1 month. So...just thinking about this one bactera which is found on raw meat...if the dog gets it on them and they dont have a full soapy wash of all areas that touched it....people being licked, people kissing on the dogs nose...could be at risk for exposure for this. I dont have data to show you..I might could find some...I base my concerns based on what I know about infectious disease and what all of my team of Infectious desease specialty docs tell me. They feel dogs eating raw meat can transfer many bad bugs to humans...maybe we only feel it as the "stomach flu" or as diarrhea,but who knows! But we do get people with TTP who have not eaten raw meat...I should start my own study to see if any of these feed raw food to their animals.
> 
> My most reasent thinking is that Ill go full circle to what I was feeding originally...cooked meats, and a few raw bones..supplemented with good kibble. It always sounds very up to date..and sort of the in thing...to feed raw. I like the passion raw feeders have for their feeding habits. I dont think many of them have scientific proof for what they say often times...but they are convicted that no one dissagree with the philosophy. There are of course many ways to fee our babies...I wish I had the time to research it all in peer reviewed journals. I also have another good friend who has a doberman and she is a human food geru...she likes the idea of raw on one level..but she is a biology PHD at a university in callifornia and she too believes that bacteria has potential to spread from the dog to us when they eat raw diets.
> Again, thanks for all the work that went into the thread. Ill look forward to reading all the responses tomorrow!


I just want to reiterate, that studies have been done, and raw fed dogs do not shed more bacteria than kibble fed dogs. I linked a resource once on this forum, yes, a _scientific_ study, for those that put lots of weight on this, but it would take me years to dig that source up again. I have spent too much time on this already today.

Regarding your good friend who is a human food guru - that is very honorable, but human nutrition and canine nutrition are such different worlds. In fact, comparing the two is very dangerous territory.

Regarding scientific studies and the raw diet, well, first I want to ask why so many people put such emphasis on scientific studies? Eating is not rocket science. 

Finally, and I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to raw feeding, I *only* have a problem when people believe fallacies and other myths that are untrue regarding the diet. If someone wishes not to feed the diet, I have 100% respect for that person and I might be one of those people one day. But to not feed the diet due to a fear of bacteria? Or other fears? Well, that is just a shame. I do not like to see people making uninformed decisions about a raw diet. Unfortunately, not many vets take it upon themselves to do additional research and help clients make appropriate decisions of what to feed their pets. Perhaps, if they researched further (which *some* do, by the way, and these vets are the ones who have an open mind to raw if outright recommending it).

All I ask, is that anyone reading about a raw diet not fall for the rampant paranoia of bacteria. I ask that people consider the species they are talking about. Dogs. Dogs lick butts. Dogs eat dirt. Kibble is contaminated with bacteria. A raw diet does not make a dog any more of a hazard to humans so long as _common sense is followed_. If your dog holds bloody, raw meat with her paws, wipe her feet before exposing her to immunocompromised people. You might want to think about wiping your dog's mouth in case he or she licked his own butt recently, too.  

Stella, an article you might find relevant and interesting: http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/13_7/features/Raw-Fed-Dogs_20025-1.html

Another interesting read. Some data gathered by Lew Olson. http://www.b-naturals.com/newsletter/is-a-raw-diet-dangerous/

I am attaching this for the fun of it, does not apply to bacteria or therapy work, but does apply to canine anatomy. http://www.b-naturals.com/newsletter/digestion-anatomy/

I also ask that people not disregard a diet because it is not as simple as pouring pellets into a bowl. Ask questions. Talk to people who successfully feed raw. Why are scientific studies so important? Why is the visible health of a dog not enough? Do you really need a scientific study to tell you that fresh, unprocessed food is better than kibble? 

Finally, you mentioned a concern for why scientists have not studied the subject. The answer lies in the fact that all of the major studies that have been conducted have been done by pet food companies.

There is simply nothing to gain and no funding available for an unbiased study that evaluates a raw diet at this time. Perhaps one day one will be carried out so that those who rely so heavily on scientific based studies will finally open their minds to raw. 

Raw feeding is not without scientific proof, though. Science tells us that dogs are designed to eat meat, bone and organ. Science tells us that healthy dogs are capable of eating raw meat without suffering ill effects. Science tells us what nutrients are in various types of meat. AAFCO tells us what nutrients dogs should have (and the validity of AAFCO's guidelines is an entirely different discussion.) The additional anecdotal observations of the pet owners is a legitimate form of research as well.

Scientific research of the above mentioned facts does exist. If scientific facts will help you feel more comfortable feeding raw, I urge you to continue doing research. Don't listen to what I say and don't listen to what anyone else says. Only you can form your own opinions based on the research that you do. That is what I did. I literally researched every claim that I have heard for and against raw diets. I have spent hours, weeks, months, almost a *year* reading about it, talking to vets, talking to raw feeders and talking to those who abhor a raw diet. It is only after this that I have developed my own beliefs on raw feeding, which are continually evolving.

My raw feeding beliefs are based on science. Dogs are scientifically classified as carnivores and they are designed to eat a diet of fresh raw meat, bone and organ, not cooked meat and most certainly not processed kibble. Studying the internal physiology of a dog is enough science to prove this fact. Most of what I claim, is based to some degree in science. Everything else is anecdotal evidence, which _is_ a type of research, as I said before. 

There are legitimate reasons to not feed a raw diet. A risk of disease from bacteria is not one of them, so long as the owner has common sense.


----------



## fjm

ChocolateMillie said:


> FJM, I'm not sure...it is an Excel file and it opens on my Mac. I tried saving it to my Mac and then changing it to a tab delimited text file but it said it was not supported. The file is actually interactive and allows you to input values and it calculates things for you.


The only spreadsheet app I have is Appleworks, copied over from my old Mac - it obviously can't cope. I'll have a look for something more up to date.


----------



## CurlyDog

It worked for me but I have Excel '08. AppleWorks. Wow. That's a blast from the past! LOL


----------



## Ms Stella

zyrcona
Like I said said:


> I think this describes my thinking as well..I dont know of anything more contraversial than feeding raw or not. The problem as I see it (as this is just my opinion as is everyone posting here it is only their opinion) is that there are no good studies to address these things...because of $$. Who would pay for such a study. I participate in many scientific research studies. The pharmaceutical companies pay for them  They have vested interest in seeing their opinions proved. Dog food makers will not conduct a streneous study to prove raw is safe for dogs and people...nor will the meat companies as there is no money in it.
> 
> When I research benefits of raw diets I see many quotes stating one thing or another....but all that I can see are quotes from others who have quoted others opinions. After seeing the same info over and over its easy to believe it comes from proven information. When infact it can come from a small group who believes something to be true from antedotal views. Maybe I just cant find it....I do see things written from journal of vet medicine....journal of emergency vet medicine...etc. I know nothing about peer reviewed journals for vet medicine or for dog nutrition. But I have not been able to see research to say that we really know anything other than the accounts of people who have had good or bad experiences.
> 
> I want to do the best for Stella as we all do. I think its obvious that we all love our dogs and want to do the best for them. On the one hand the thought of fresh, organic meat that is raw and free of excessive bacteria and virusus sounds great..is that what most people are feeding their dogs? I dont get the feeling that they are. That is expensive...that is what I try to feed my family whenever I can. But most feeding raw seem to get bones and raw intended for dogs...I agree that I dont trust most butchers to treat that meat the same as they treat meat for humans...or it sounds like many people buy cheap discounted meat...these all have antibiotic fed animal meat, bacteria and doG knows what on them...cooking destroys that but of course that is not the question here.
> 
> I am glad people think about this and post their own experiences here. I would love to see a real study over a long time that could settle some things once and for all
> 
> There have been so many points raised...it is impossible to agree on all these things. The one thing I have to agree or disagree on is we dont know the answers to most of these questions. Just because articles say with strong conviction...doesnt make it so


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> I want to do the best for Stella as we all do. I think its obvious that we all love our dogs and want to do the best for them. On the one hand the thought of fresh, organic meat that is raw and free of excessive bacteria and virusus sounds great..is that what most people are feeding their dogs? I dont get the feeling that they are. That is expensive...that is what I try to feed my family whenever I can. But most feeding raw seem to get bones and raw intended for dogs...I agree that I dont trust most butchers to treat that meat the same as they treat meat for humans...or it sounds like many people buy cheap discounted meat...these all have antibiotic fed animal meat, bacteria and doG knows what on them...cooking destroys that but of course that is not the question here.
> 
> I am glad people think about this and post their own experiences here. I would love to see a real study over a long time that could settle some things once and for all
> 
> There have been so many points raised...it is impossible to agree on all these things. The one thing I have to agree or disagree on is we dont know the answers to most of these questions. Just because articles say with strong conviction...doesnt make it so


I guess I just don't understand why one needs peer reviewed scientific studies to back up a diet. Do you read double-blind peer review studies for the diet that you eat? Do most people read scientific studies to determine what to feed their children? I don't think so.

I don't think that anecdotal evidence should be downplayed so much.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the idea that the meat raw feeders feed their dogs is more bacteria laden than the meat at the grocery store. Grocery store meat is known to be contaminated with salmonella, Campylobacter and E-Coli. I feed grocery store meat to my dogs, as well as some farm raised meat. The meat spends lots of time in the deep freezer regardless. 

Stella, please do more research on this issue before giving up. It is difficult to judge a raw diet before you have tried it. I am confident that if you _knew_ what raw feeders know, you would be thinking about things a bit differently. Raw feeders do not simply go around quoting what others say. Most of us tell our own experiences. 

By the way, all three of the vets that my dogs have seen, holistic and two traditional, told me I am doing the best thing I can for my dogs by feeding a raw diet. I mentioned possibly feeding a dehydrated raw because of student teaching approaching and how busy I am. My traditional vet explained that THK is worlds above kibble, but that nothing can compare to what I am feeding now.

I guess all I can do is cross my fingers and toes and hope that a study will be conducted on raw feeding so that those who refuse to open their mind will finally understand what they are missing out on.

Without having tried a raw diet, *REALLY* tried, one does not have all of the facts and is not fit to judge.

ETA: There are some things that are not opinion, but are fact. Like the physiology of the dog and the fact that the dog is designed to eat a diet consisting mostly of meat, bone and organ from large, ungulate mammals. If one refuses to accept this scientific fact, well, then I just don't know what to say.


----------



## Ms Stella

*Its a novel..lol*



ChocolateMillie said:


> Regarding your good friend who is a human food guru - that is very honorable, but human nutrition and canine nutrition are such different worlds. In fact, comparing the two is very dangerous territory.
> I was not saying that the two dietary needs are at all similiar....my point was that I have a great amount of respect for this person as she is a professor of biology at a major university in Calofornia and she is a human nutrition guru.
> 
> 
> Regarding scientific studies and the raw diet, well, first I want to ask why so many people put such emphasis on scientific studies? Eating is not rocket science.
> 
> I could never agree with this one...I am very much from a science background and bacteria, nutrition and health has to be science based and evidence based for me to believe it.
> 
> Finally, and I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to raw feeding, I *only* have a problem when people believe fallacies and other myths that are untrue regarding the diet. If someone wishes not to feed the diet, I have 100% respect for that person and I might be one of those people one day. But to not feed the diet due to a fear of bacteria? Or other fears? Well, that is just a shame. I do not like to see people making uninformed decisions about a raw diet. Unfortunately, not many vets take it upon themselves to do additional research and help clients make appropriate decisions of what to feed their pets. Perhaps, if they researched further (which *some* do, by the way, and these vets are the ones who have an open mind to raw if outright recommending it).
> 
> Because of your passion about raw feeding it does seem to me that you discount things that you cant be certain of...and I mean that in the most enduring way. You probably know I adore you and your postings..I just want to be careful not to say things with so much convictions that are not provable...as if they have been proven.
> 
> All I ask, is that anyone reading about a raw diet not fall for the rampant paranoia of bacteria. I ask that people consider the species they are talking about. Dogs. Dogs lick butts. Dogs eat dirt. Kibble is contaminated with bacteria. A raw diet does not make a dog any more of a hazard to humans so long as _common sense is followed_. If your dog holds bloody, raw meat with her paws, wipe her feet before exposing her to immunocompromised people. You might want to think about wiping your dog's mouth in case he or she licked his own butt recently, too.
> Im not wanting to mislead people...I am certainly not an expert! "I am just saying" hehehe if we use common sense salmonella on bloody meat that is on a dogs fur is different than bacteria in their mouth where they have bacteria that breaks those down...I cant imagine that Stella doesnt have more bacteria on her fur that can be transferred to humans just watching her eat it. Maybe she is a slob  but yes, dogs lick their butts...they do have germs we dont...but adding more must make it more likely that they can spread it to us. And as far as using the health status of the dog is concerned..I totally agree..and obviously nutrition is not the be-all of good health...I grew up in a family of animal lovers...but back in the day...we fed our animals stuff like "gravey train" Many are probably too young to know what that is...lol or maybe they still make it..?? Anyway it was junk food...or we fed the cheapest store brand. All our animals lived long healthy lives  It seems to me that nutrition for dogs as in people....doesnt show up so much if its good or adequate...but can show up if its really defecient.
> 
> 
> Stella, an article you might find relevant and interesting: Are Raw-Fed Dogs a Risk? - Whole Dog Journal Article
> 
> Another interesting read. Some data gathered by Lew Olson. Is A Raw Diet Dangerous? | B-Naturals.Com Newsletter
> 
> I am attaching this for the fun of it, does not apply to bacteria or therapy work, but does apply to canine anatomy. Digestion Anatomy | B-Naturals.Com Newsletter
> 
> Thanks for the articles...I did read two of them...Im still not convinced either way..
> 
> I also ask that people not disregard a diet because it is not as simple as pouring pellets into a bowl. Ask questions. Talk to people who successfully feed raw. Why are scientific studies so important? Why is the visible health of a dog not enough? Do you really need a scientific study to tell you that fresh, unprocessed food is better than kibble?
> 
> Finally, you mentioned a concern for why scientists have not studied the subject. The answer lies in the fact that all of the major studies that have been conducted have been done by pet food companies.
> 
> I wasnt asking why...I was stating that my displeasure with raw vs kibble contreversy...being that there are no studies...for the reasons you list.
> 
> There is simply nothing to gain and no funding available for an unbiased study that evaluates a raw diet at this time. Perhaps one day one will be carried out so that those who rely so heavily on scientific based studies will finally open their minds to raw.
> 
> Raw feeding is not without scientific proof, though. Science tells us that dogs are designed to eat meat, bone and organ. Science tells us that healthy dogs are capable of eating raw meat without suffering ill effects. Science tells us what nutrients are in various types of meat. AAFCO tells us what nutrients dogs should have (and the validity of AAFCO's guidelines is an entirely different discussion.) The additional anecdotal observations of the pet owners is a legitimate form of research as well.
> 
> Scientific research of the above mentioned facts does exist. If scientific facts will help you feel more comfortable feeding raw, I urge you to continue doing research. Don't listen to what I say and don't listen to what anyone else says. Only you can form your own opinions based on the research that you do. That is what I did. I literally researched every claim that I have heard for and against raw diets. I have spent hours, weeks, months, almost a *year* reading about it, talking to vets, talking to raw feeders and talking to those who abhor a raw diet. It is only after this that I have developed my own beliefs on raw feeding, which are continually evolving.
> 
> My raw feeding beliefs are based on science. Dogs are scientifically classified as carnivores and they are designed to eat a diet of fresh raw meat, bone and organ, not cooked meat and most certainly not processed kibble. Studying the internal physiology of a dog is enough science to prove this fact. Most of what I claim, is based to some degree in science. Everything else is anecdotal evidence, which _is_ a type of research, as I said before.
> 
> There are legitimate reasons to not feed a raw diet. A risk of disease from bacteria is not one of them, so long as the owner has common sense.





So I guess I wanted to say...I agree 100% and I dissagree 100%  As said...everyone has to do what they are comfortable with...Id feel horrible telling someone their dog cannot give salmonilla to a person and find out that their child comes down with and and suffers greatly...if I fed my dog raw meat...Id worry that could have contributed..

Just like another example I posted here once where my grandson had C. Diff a few months ago...and all health care workers know how contageous that GI bug is...my first thought was how did a 6 month old get THAT? I dont know....cant prove it..but I feared that he got it from my house...I walk in the hospital and walk in my house with those shoes on...he crawls on the floor at my house..did he get it from there...I dunno..but I sure feel bad thinking i increased the risk of him getting it by my profession..I have since changed my habits regarding my shoes. 

WOW...enough blabbering..if you have made it this far..Im sorry..lol
Tammie


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Stella, I personally consider "common sense" to involve washing a dog's legs with soap and water if they have been in contact with bloody meat. Obviously this could be a way to spread bacteria if ignored. I should mention that pig ears have been found to carry salmonella, so if you, or anyone else, feeds this to their dog, they should be sure to also wash their dogs fur that has come into contact with the pig ear.

I don't know for certain which therapy organization you participate in, but I am an associate member of Therapy Dogs International (and I think you are too, correct?) and they do require all of us to bathe our dogs prior to visits. 

I am confident that there are ways for you to feed a raw diet without risking the health of others. 

Now, many dogs carry salmonella and other bacteria who are kibble or canned or homecooked fed. I believe this is why Therapy Dogs International chooses not to disqualify raw fed dogs. They understand that dogs as a species can carry disease. The requirement for visiting pets to be clean is a much more beneficial and proactive policy than not allowing raw fed pets, like Delta.

Also, if the bacteria concept really is going to prevent you from feeding raw, you should know that Nature's Variety, Stella and Chewies and as of late, Primal, all use HPP (High Pressure Pasteurization) to reduce the risk of pathogens in their meat.

ETA: In case you didn't see this other thread I started - http://www.poodleforum.com/29-poodle-health/14655-salmonella-raw-feeding.html


----------



## Ms Stella

*Chocolate Millie...*

You have GOT to work in the field of faw food advocacy! You are the one Id want on my team or to head up my team if I were so inclined  

Human food and nutrition is definitly based on scientific research from the FDA and CDC, and medical studies...but we have choices and most of us dont chose as well for ourselves as we do for our pets..me included!

Also Im certain that you are doing a great job feeding your babies...I dont discount that one minute. I am just feeling its not right for me at this time. Who knows what a later date might bring..I am certainly every changing in my knowledge and acceptance. I also know that people not feeding raw, but other quality foods are doing a great job. Fortunately there are many ways to feed a dog healthily. 

Maybe if Stella had liked my attempt at this raw more, tolerated it better, and I were not so grounded in medicine I would have a different view..Her vomiting up bone, getting messy with blood, refusing to eat...etc let me be quick to decide that it was not for us at this time..She really likes the NV and its not messy...the only thing I felt I was missing was the bones for her teeth..but I will revisit that and find something that works and she likes. 

I dont think that people are missing out on something as long as they and their dog are happy and thriving on a quality food...I do appreciate your willingness to inform me. I would say you could be right..thanks for the discussion. Happy feeding to everyone!

I wish Id obsess 1/2 as much on my own diet as I have on Stella's!!


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> You have GOT to work in the field of faw food advocacy! You are the one Id want on my team or to head up my team if I were so inclined
> 
> Human food and nutrition is definitly based on scientific research from the FDA and CDC, and medical studies...but we have choices and most of us dont chose as well for ourselves as we do for our pets..me included!
> 
> Also Im certain that you are doing a great job feeding your babies...I dont discount that one minute. I am just feeling its not right for me at this time. Who knows what a later date might bring..I am certainly every changing in my knowledge and acceptance. I also know that people not feeding raw, but other quality foods are doing a great job. Fortunately there are many ways to feed a dog healthily.
> 
> Maybe if Stella had liked my attempt at this raw more, tolerated it better, and I were not so grounded in medicine I would have a different view..Her vomiting up bone, getting messy with blood, refusing to eat...etc let me be quick to decide that it was not for us at this time..She really likes the NV and its not messy...the only thing I felt I was missing was the bones for her teeth..but I will revisit that and find something that works and she likes.
> 
> I dont think that people are missing out on something as long as they and their dog are happy and thriving on a quality food...I do appreciate your willingness to inform me. I would say you could be right..thanks for the discussion. Happy feeding to everyone!
> 
> I wish Id obsess 1/2 as much on my own diet as I have on Stella's!!


I accept and respect your opinion. 

But remember, just because Stella is not raw fed, does not ensure that she is at any less risk of carrying salmonella or other bacteria. In a study that was conducted, Salmonella and E.Coli were the only pathogen that was significantly higher in raw fed dogs than non raw fed dogs. C. Dificile was higher in the non-raw fed dogs. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was essentially equivalent in both groups of dogs and Vancomycin-resistant enterococci was essentially equivalent. Unfortunately, the study was pretty flawed for various reasons including the fact that there were twice as many non-raw fed dogs included in the study as raw fed dogs. I'd like to see a study like this repeated, with an equal number of dogs in both groups. Additionally, I would like for something other than the dog's feces to be studied. It is not surprising that pathogens would reside in dogs' feces. Most of us avoid contact with dogs feces and most of us clean up after our pets. I would like to see a study that shows the difference in bacteria present in the saliva and perhaps coat of both kibble and raw fed dogs, who are cared for identically.

I just have to add one more thing: the obstacles that you had could have been avoided and can be avoided in the future if you allow someone experienced in raw to guide you through every step of the process, if you ever decide to revisit. The problems that you had with Stella are incredibly common when people introduce raw in a way that is not the best for that individual dog. Every dog is different and one of the greatest benefits of a raw diet is learning how to understand your dog's body. The problems that you had are 100% avoidable and I would be willing to guide you through the process should you ever decide to attempt again.

I am so thankful that I had mentors when I began a raw diet with my dogs. It is very likely that I would have given up if I had not had someone to talk me through every little thing that happened, what it meant, and how to avoid it. My mentors were right about everything and I learned how to understand my dog's bodies better. I attended lots of seminars, talked it through with my holistic vet, met with some local raw feeders, read some books and discussed the diet on online forums. This support network is what gave me the confidence that I was doing the right thing.

Once you understand why things are happening and how to avoid them, they become a little less scary. 

BTW - Did you know I almost went to school to be a nutritionist? Somehow I ended up in Psychology and Education instead. Sometimes I really do wish I had gone the nutrition route!


----------



## outwest

You can always do what I do and feed a quality kibble and canned as a base food with raw treats several times a week. It seems like a good solution for those of us who want to do what's best for our dogs, but have issues, whatever those may be, with a totally raw diet. Since my puppy doesn't eat 100% raw, her treats are easier to digest ones like chicken, ground meat, a raw steak cut in small pieces and the like. I only do chicken necks and an occasional turkey neck. I don't do raw pork or raw beef bones. That's just me. In moderation I haven't had any problems with vomiting up the raw. She was a 100%raw fed puppy when I got her, though, so maybe her system was already set up for it. 

There are some great kibbles and canned foods out there now. You don't have to feel like you are doing a disservice to your dog by not feeding all raw. For those that do it is great that are able to put that much thought into the dogs food, but many people wouldn't get the nutrient right without thorough thought to the meals. I commend CM and others who do it and have healthy spoos like they do. Some spoos are thin on a raw diet. I am not sure why. Maybe kibble is just more fattening. 

I also give fruits and vegetable treats. She isn't chubby, but she is a garbage disposal when it comes to food. She loves to eat just about anything. I think I may have to be a little more careful when she is full grown so I don't have a chubby poodle. 

Just to note: When I got my pup whe did have Clostridium in her stool. It was causing her absolutely no problems, she was healthy as a horse. The vet said it was likely a natural flora for her body since she was totally raw eater. I didn't want that bacteria in her stool. After I switched her to mostly kibble I had her stool rechecked and it was gone. You do not want elderly people getting that bacteria, but like CM mentioned, they wouldn't come in contact with her stool. Since my elderly mother lives with me, it was a concern for me.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Outwest - some raw fed dogs are thin, some are chunky, just like some kibble fed dogs are thin, some are chunky. There is nothing special about raw that causes dogs to be too thin nor too fat. It all depends on how much food your dog needs and how much food you feed them. It also depends on how lean of a diet you feed, etc. Fat content and even food amounts are so different in a raw diet, it can take a while to figure it all out. There are a lot less fillers in a raw diet. Many raw fed dogs will lose some weight during the initial transition and then build very dense muscle mass a little further down the road.

My dogs? They are getting fat on raw. I need to chill it with the food. LOL. Henry has gained nearly 10 pounds in the 10 months I have been feeding raw. The vet said he still looks great but I wouldn't want him to gain any more. I am cutting back his food to 2% of his body weight.


----------



## outwest

CM, You really should write an all inclusive article on raw feeding. You could even write a booklet and market it yourself. You know so much, have an intense interest in it, have experience, have researched all the information out there both pro and con and enjoy nutrition. It would be a great service to people. Since you have an education background you would know how to teach something so foreign to people. Just stick with researched facts that you source in the booklet with personal experiences of those that had done it. With a Psychology background perhaps you know how to write a paper with sources? You would have to leave out personal opinion, which often spoils informational booklets, and do something that pulls all the literature together in an easy to understand manner. Personal opinion is something both you and I are free with in this type of forum. On the topic of raw feeding, so fraught with strong opinions both in and out of the literature, it would be more successful without it. Of course, this is all my opinion. LOL, but when i see someone so knowledgeable and interested in something, you really should take it to the next level.

You could write an awesome booklet. There is a niche for everyone. This may be one of yours.


----------



## CT Girl

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. This conversation/debate about raw vs. kibble has been very enlightening. I appreciate the fact that even when opinions have differed the discourse has been civil. We are all after giving our dogs the best nutrition possible.

I am working toward feeding raw. I have been fortunate that some of the problems mentioned - bloody paws, vomiting - I have yet to experience (I probably just jixed myself). My fear is really operator error. The comforting thing about kibble is presumably the dog will get the nutients he needs to thrive. Right now some days are kibble days and some days are raw. Part of my struggle is that Swizzle is a toy. It is emphasized not to cut up bone and I have not. He has had chicken drumsticks and wings, and turkey necks and pork neck but then I am not keeping into the ratios. I have not fed him red meat yet and I am not sure what kind of red meat bone is appropriate for a toy. Right now the liver Swizzle gets is from Bil.Jac which I am sure is not ideal. I bought some liver and am going to bake some liver treats (the recipe I got on this forum). One reason I would like to keep some kibble in Swizzle's life is when we go on vacation I am not sure I can expect the sitter to feed him raw. 

I do think you should think about a book Chocolate Millie. You are so well versed in how to feed raw and you make it approachable and doable. I would love to see a book perhaps with different menus for different dog sizes. Something a newie to raw could model their feeding on.

I think part of my hesitation with raw is that my vet is strongly against it. He brought up the same concerns that were expressed on this thread. I understand the profit motive but I am not purchasing food from the vet and I am sure most people do not. He is expressing his honest belief that it is not the way to go. Is it arrogant and misguided of me to think that I know better than the vet? Is the vet misguided as thousands of years of raw feeding cannot be wrong? These are arguments I continue to struggle with.


----------



## papoodles

Wonderful informative post! Thank you all.It is a treat to read such a well written, well researched, in-depth 'treatise'.
And a special 'thank you' to Millie who has slowly but surely, nudged me in the direction of feeding 'raw'..I am up to half raw, and half kibble,( WellnessCore Ocean/AcanaPacifica), supplemented with pork neck bones a few times a week.I have seen a big difference in the fur of my white poodle who is afflicted with SA. I am doing more frequent oil bath to be sure, but now her fur is growing in white and it is soo soft and shiny!
I have to think it is because of the change in foods, and supplementation?
Thank you!


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ha, well, maybe I will add it on my list of thing to do. Really, I don't know that much more about raw feeding than any other raw feeder. Most of what I say has been said by others or I have learned from somewhere else. Raw Feeding Start-Up guides already exist. Menus exist in the form of a list of meat types that you could fed (sort of a joke, really, because there is no PMR menu) http://rawfeddogs.net/Recipes


Feeding raw sort of requires you to become an "expert" in it over a relatively short period of time. I won't lie, there is a lot of reading and learning that needs to be done to be a well informed raw feeder!

I really don't have any credentials, so I am not sure anybody would read anything that I wrote about raw feeding LOL. I will just continue to recommend the writing that is done by highly respected people.


----------



## outwest

sigh- you're selling yourself short, CM. You don't have to have a credential to write. You can get help with sourcing, it isn't a big deal. You obviously enjoy writing like I do or you wouldn't be on the forum. Just as you encourage people to try it, I am encouraging you to start writing it little by little.


----------



## schnauzerpoodle

Ms Stella said:


> You have GOT to work in the field of faw food advocacy! You are the one Id want on my team or to head up my team if I were so inclined


CM, I agree with what Stella's mom said  

Stella, do whatever you feel the most comfortable. Whenever you are ready, you know whom you can go for advice.


----------



## zyrcona

ChocolateMillie said:


> The spreadsheet that I provided is based on the nutrition information for various, specific cuts of raw meat, available from the USDA database. This is the information that human nutritionists use to formulate specific human diets. If its consistency cannot be guaranteed, this is also true for humans.


The nutritional values are derived from meat that is assumed to be cooked before consumption by humans. Because the meat has been stored in some way after slaughter, the values may not be reflective of either the cooked product or the product fresh and raw. Some carcasses are traditionally hung for weeks after slaughter (so not so fresh after all). It's not even known if humans can survive on a carnivorous diet based on raw meat from commercial abattoirs, even though they've been seen to survive 'in the wild' on such diets. I'd have much less concern about dogs fed mainly on fresh game meats. Then again, my dog recently showed a great deal of interest in pigeons I was plucking and gutting. I put the lungs, hearts, and livers in a bowl for her and she refused to eat them. xD

With regards to poo, all poo has bacteria in it. In fact, I'd be concerned about a human or animal with sterile faeces, because there's obviously something wrong with its gut flora. Don't eat your poo or anyone else's, and wash your hands after touching poo and you'll be fine. E. coli contamination on meat comes from either contact with faeces or incorrect preparation in the abattoir, in which the person doing the skinning allows the outside of the hide to come into contact with the carcass. Personally I've never observed a dog lick its anus. Certainly they lick their vulvas, penises, and testicles (which are not covered in this type of bacteria), but not their anuses. Some dogs will eat faeces, but there is some evidence to suggest they do this because of some sort of deficiency or out of habit developed from such.

Washing dog's legs? My dog has hairy legs and I feed her three times a day. Too much work. A 'human problem'? I don't see the point of doing something messy and inconvenient (and that has made my dog unwell in the past) when there's no hard evidence of health benefits to my dog, and when there's something else available that historically and with scientific testing has shown to give dogs acceptable lifespans of decent health.



ChocolateMillie said:


> That is an unbalanced, _unvaried_ diet. Of _course_ there were nutritional deficiencies.


The point of the cat study is that the researchers assumed the rabbits would contain enough taurine, and from chemical analysis, they did. Something in the way the raw rabbits were processed and stored caused their taurine content to deteriorate to the point where the cats became malnourished. It is extremely common in the wild for a predator to live off only one kind of prey, particularly with seasonal species' breeding economies (e.g. lemmings only). There is no reason a carnivore like a cat wouldn't be able to survive on rabbits it had caught itself. Plenty of cats live in semi-domestic settings where they live almost entirely off mice on farms, and do very well on it. The point I was trying to make is that meat that has been slaughtered and stored in some way may not have the same nutritional profile as fresh meat that the predator could be considered to have killed by itself. There may be, but there are no studies to prove there are. It's not about being closed minded; it's about there not being enough evidence to draw any conclusion either way at this point.



ChocolateMillie said:


> I think that, regardless of what one feeds their dog, regular vet checkups are important.


If they go anyway and the vet says they're OK, then there's nothing to worry about.  The diet that humans eat HAS been heavily tested (in that years ago, people realised they needed certain nutrients from other foods to make up for the lack of them in their preserved food, otherwise they got scurvy and similar diseases). And as I understand it, having children is a heavily regulated business in which health workers come and inspect the children to make sure they have correct nutrition. People are also able to respond to their own instincts for the needs of certain foods -- and yet some of them still manage to get malnourished. A dog can only eat what its owner gives it. Commercial dog foods also must pass nutritional tests before it can be marketed. Home-made diets do not have to pass nutritional tests.


----------



## zyrcona

Ms Stella said:


> The problem as I see it (as this is just my opinion as is everyone posting here it is only their opinion) is that there are no good studies to address these things...because of $$. Who would pay for such a study.


I say your experience and knowledge as a nurse are valid and applicable. I'm an ex-scientist (my PhD was in organic chemistry rather than a biological discipline) and the way I see it, it's a logical fallacy to assume that something is better just because it's seen as being more natural. Yes, vets' courses often are sponsored by poor-quality pet food manufacturers, but to discount conventional veterinary opinion entirely is naive and insulting to people who have spent years of study on a subject. At the current time, it's seen as progressive and enlightened to reject conventional science and its practitioners and embrace alternative medicine and therapies, and while there may be some worth in them, I've read of some bad things happen because people wouldn't listen to a doctor when there was something seriously wrong with them, and chose to put their faith in being healed instead by something there was no evidence to support.

Feeding raw carcasses and other commercial animal products to domestic dogs could be considered to be more 'natural', it could be considered to be 'intuitive', but it can't be considered to be scientific, because there simply isn't enough evidence to either confirm or disprove it.

I have a similar issue with many other alternative therapies, and even some natural/unnatural debates, such as the massive hype around breastfeeding. Yes, there are real scientifically established benefits to feeding human infants human milk over artificial substitutes, and I agree that everyone who has a child should give it a serious try. However, someone close to me recently gave birth to a daughter and was unable to breastfeed. She was in a lot of pain and emotional distress, and the baby wasn't getting enough to eat. All the health professionals told her it would be best for her and the baby to use an artificial milk substitute (which has been tested and is perfectly nutritious and people have lifespans and health within normal limits after being fed it as children) but she had been so pressurised by the pro-breastfeeding brigade (you're abusing your child, she won't get the best start in life, it's not natural) she insisted on continuing (using a pump to extract it, as it was impossible the natural way) and was stressed and had trouble bonding with her child. I was hugely relieved when she finally gave up on it and used the artificial milk, and was able to relax and enjoy her daughter.

Much of the propaganda around raw meat dog diets is this same emotional blackmail -- only whereas breastfeeding has been scientifically proven to have benefits over artificial milk, there are no studies proving or disproving the benefits of exclusive raw meat.

That said, I think suitable raw meat is a healthy and enjoyable addition to a varied diet for a dog (or a human). I would just caution people to take care if they want to feed it exclusively and to be aware of the lack of evidence supporting its benefits.

As for real research, perhaps someone who has money to invest in research and believes strongly in the ethic of feeding raw commercial meat to dogs would be willing to sponsor a scientific study? Alternatively, universities do have some limited funding to invest in independent research of their choice.


----------



## zyrcona

papoodles said:


> fur of my white poodle who is afflicted with SA.


So sorry to read your dog has sebaceous adenitis. :-( I think in your case it is best to try as many diets as you can and see if any of them help. The causes of SA are as yet not fully understood (they are thought to be partly genetic and partly environmental, but a genetic 'at risk' profile has yet to be elucidated, despite studies), and so in this case there really is no cure available as yet. When you are shooting in the dark as in this case, anecdotal evidence is all you have, and better than nothing. Some people have reported success with raw carcass diets; others with grain-free food.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> The nutritional values are derived from meat that is assumed to be cooked before consumption by humans.


This simply is not true. On the USDA database, you select "RAW" or "COOKED". The nutrient values change depending on whether it is RAW or COOKED. Get your facts straight. Have you even looked at the USDA database?


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> Some people have reported success with raw carcass diets; others with grain-free food.


What exactly is a "raw carcass" diet???


----------



## CharismaticMillie

zyrcona said:


> *Washing dog's legs? My dog has hairy legs and I feed her three times a day. *Too much work. A 'human problem'? I don't see the point of doing something messy and inconvenient (and that has made my dog unwell in the past) when there's no hard evidence of health benefits to my dog, and when there's something else available that historically and with scientific testing has shown to give dogs acceptable lifespans of decent health.


They make covers for your dogs legs. I have used these. They slide right on and work wonders. 

Is an acceptable lifespan of decent health all that you are asking for your dog? Kibble will certainly provide this. But, when kibble diets lead to periodontal disease at a very young age, and are not required to provide anything other than the most basic nutrition to allow a dog to survive, surely it is worth it to keep your mind open, no?



zyrcona said:


> The point of the cat study is that the researchers assumed the rabbits would contain enough taurine, and from chemical analysis, they did. Something in the way the raw rabbits were processed and stored caused their taurine content to deteriorate to the point where the cats became malnourished. It is extremely common in the wild for a predator to live off only one kind of prey, particularly with seasonal species' breeding economies (e.g. lemmings only). There is no reason a carnivore like a cat wouldn't be able to survive on rabbits it had caught itself. Plenty of cats live in semi-domestic settings where they live almost entirely off mice on farms, and do very well on it. The point I was trying to make is that meat that has been slaughtered and stored in some way may not have the same nutritional profile as fresh meat that the predator could be considered to have killed by itself. There may be, but there are no studies to prove there are. It's not about being closed minded; it's about there not being enough evidence to draw any conclusion either way at this point.


Which is why, when you feed a prey model raw diet, you NEVER feed exclusively one meat. Prey Model Raw feeders tend to OVERFEED organs and rich muscle meats like heart to prevent any deficiencies. I'll tell you one thing. IF my dog is deficient in anything, it is NOT taurine! 

I would not be putting so much faith in kibble diets, though. Nutritional deficiencies on AAFCO kibble diets do occur.

The good thing about a raw diet, is that it is balanced over time. It is not artificially balanced at every single meal. 




zyrcona said:


> And as I understand it, having children is a heavily regulated business in which health workers come and inspect the children to make sure they have correct nutrition.


You leave me speechless.

_Where_ do you live? A heavily regulated business? LMFAO. Wow. WOW.

Zyrcona, for an ex-scientist, you lack some common sense and _really_ are *hard* to take seriously.


----------



## zyrcona

ChocolateMillie said:


> Is an acceptable lifespan of decent health all that you are asking for your dog? Kibble will certainly provide this. But, when kibble diets lead to periodontal disease at a very young age, and are not required to provide anything other than the most basic nutrition to allow a dog to survive, surely it is worth it to keep your mind open, no?


There's no evidence either way on both these assertions. As I said before, it's not a question of being open minded, but a question of there not being enough evidence. If good, clear studies were available, I would be more open minded to feeding my dog raw meats, carcasses, limbs, organs etc. depending on the results and any actual statistical benefit.



ChocolateMillie said:


> _Where_ do you live? A heavily regulated business? LMFAO. Wow. WOW.


The 'heavily regulated business' was meant to be tongue in cheek. This thread is getting very heated and I was trying to defuse it. But when someone has a child, they are inspected by social workers in the first few years of the child's life and expected to bring it in to a doctor's surgery for medical checkups.



ChocolateMillie said:


> Zyrcona, for an ex-scientist, you lack some common sense and _really_ are *hard* to take seriously.


This is a personal attack. I appreciate that you feel strongly about your beliefs and you may dislike me and my opinions, but you have dragged the discussion down by resorting to this manner. It is a shame that you have done this when the discussion managed to remain civil for so long.


----------



## Ms Stella

*Thank you zircon. Your input is appreciated and right on.*



zyrcona said:


> I say your experience and knowledge as a nurse are valid and applicable. I'm an ex-scientist (my PhD was in organic chemistry rather than a biological discipline) and the way I see it, it's a logical fallacy to assume that something is better just because it's seen as being more natural. Yes, vets' courses often are sponsored by poor-quality pet food manufacturers, but to discount conventional veterinary opinion entirely is naive and insulting to people who have spent years of study on a subject. At the current time, it's seen as progressive and enlightened to reject conventional science and its practitioners and embrace alternative medicine and therapies, and while there may be some worth in them, I've read of some bad things happen because people wouldn't listen to a doctor when there was something seriously wrong with them, and chose to put their faith in being healed instead by something there was no evidence to support.
> 
> Feeding raw carcasses and other commercial animal products to domestic dogs
> could be considered to be more 'natural', it could be considered to be
> 'intuitive', but it can't be considered to be scientific, because there simply isn't enough evidence to either confirm or disprove it.
> 
> I have a similar issue with many other alternative therapies, and even some natural/unnatural debates, such as the massive hype around breastfeeding.
> Yes, there are real scientifically established benefits to feeding human infants
> human milk over artificial substitutes, and I agree that everyone who has a child should give it a serious try. However, someone close to me recently gave birth to a daughter and was unable to breastfeed. She was in a lot of pain and emotional distress, and the baby wasn't getting enough to eat. All the health professionals told her it would be best for her and the baby to use an artificial milk substitute (which has been tested and is perfectly nutritious and people
> have lifespans and health within normal limits after being fed it as children) but she had been so pressurised by the pro-breastfeeding brigade (you're
> abusing your child, she won't get the best start in life, it's not natural) she
> insisted on continuing (using a pump to extract it, as it was impossible the
> natural way) and was stressed and had trouble bonding with her child. I was
> hugely relieved when she finally gave up on it and used the artificial milk, and
> was able to relax and enjoy her daughter
> 
> Much of the propaganda around raw meat dog diets is this same emotional blackmail -- only whereas breastfeeding has been scientifically proven to have
> benefits over artificial milk, there are no studies proving or disproving the benefits of exclusive raw meat.
> 
> That said, I think suitable raw meat is a healthy and enjoyable addition to a varied diet for a dog (or a human). I would just caution people to take care if
> they want to feed it exclusively and to be aware of the lack of evidence
> supporting its benefits
> 
> As for real research, perhaps someone who has money to invest in research and believes strongly in the ethic of feeding raw commercial meat to dogs would be willing to sponsor a scientific study? Alternatively, universities do have some limited funding to invest in independent research of their
> 
> choice.


You have made many valid points and you do it respectfully and maturely. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

But full of inaccuracies, perpetuating invalid myths, and lacking common sense. At a point it gets difficult to hold my tongue when I hear laughable statements being made. And trust me, I'm not the only one who finds them laughable.


----------



## Ms Stella

*WOW...funny when you think you "know" a person...*



ChocolateMillie said:


> But full of inaccuracies, perpetuating invalid myths, and lacking common sense. At a point it gets difficult to hold my tongue when I hear laughable statements being made. And trust me, I'm not the only one who finds them laughable.


online...then you find out you had NO idea of what the person was like. If I didnt know better Id swear someone else had your login Lizzy and was posting for you. I just had no Idea how rude you would be to a fellow human being. Honestly, my thoughts about many of the things you posted about raw feeding...are the same as you said above about the above poster...full of inaccuracies, myths and unfounded..but am more from the camp of live and let live..So I chose my words carefully and accepted that you and I think differently about the subject and that I might be right or wrong as you might be right or wrong...I cant imagine why you take such offensive language against this poster..I wonder if you know this person and harbor a grudge.

Many people feed raw diets and their dogs do well...I have seen a great deal of info on the internet by intelligent people with antidotal accounts of dogs dying from bacteria, choking to death...I read on the other forum about your girl scaring you horribly while almost choking on her raw diet..you have had ear infections and other ailments..raw feeding is not surperior to other well balanced diets that are not raw..there is no proof. Sure many have fed it for years and have had great results..but as I said many have fed "kibbles and bits" for years and had great results. 

Mostly its just a shame that you can be so rude and mean to someone expressing oppisition to your thoughts and beliefs. And that is exactly what they are beliefs. I guess I just expected more from you. 

Also if you are going to be a positive force in raw diets you might consider your approach..no matter what is said about a topic if it is presented so roughly and wrongly most people dont want to even listen to it or be associated with it.

I am unsubscribing from this thread. It is so non-productive and doesnt spread anything good. Ive wasted too much time on it..I just feel bad for the opposing poster here and common sense tells me that she/he is correct..at least as correct as your information. 
Saying one does not agree or subscribe to a particular way of thinking is one thing but being down right rude and arrogant is just another..

I am always shocked at the things people will say in writing...on a forum..that I doubt they would say in person. Baffling to me!

Before I get drug down further into this I am unsubscribing from this thread and will not read any more posts about it. I hate this sort of thing, but human nature just draws you back when you get in the middle of it. So I sign off now. Happy Feeding to everyone...we all want the same thing..happy, healthy, thriving dogs.

Tammie


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Ms Stella said:


> online...then you find out you had NO idea of what the person was like. If I didnt know better Id swear someone else had your login Lizzy and was posting for you. I just had no Idea how rude you would be to a fellow human being. Honestly, my thoughts about many of the things you posted about raw feeding...are the same as you said above about the above poster...full of inaccuracies, myths and unfounded..but am more from the camp of live and let live..So I chose my words carefully and accepted that you and I think differently about the subject and that I might be right or wrong as you might be right or wrong...I cant imagine why you take such offensive language against this poster..I wonder if you know this person and harbor a grudge.


Nope, it was me that posted those things. I have a very small threshold when it comes to myths being perpetuated about a raw diet. All I ask is for an open mind. 



Ms Stella said:


> Many people feed raw diets and their dogs do well...I have seen a great deal of info on the internet by intelligent people with antidotal accounts of dogs dying from bacteria, choking to death...I read on the other forum about your girl scaring you horribly while almost choking on her raw diet..you have had ear infections and other ailments..raw feeding is not surperior to other well balanced diets that are not raw..there is no proof. Sure many have fed it for years and have had great results..but as I said many have fed "kibbles and bits" for years and had great results.



"Great results" is subjective. Most people think that their kibble fed dogs are doing "great" until they try a raw diet.

Tammie, I just want to correct something so that misinformation is not spread. My dog did not choke and this was verified by the vet that she saw last week who explained that it is physiologically impossible that she was choking because it would have happened immediately. Due to the digestive track of a dog, something that is swallowed is immediately in the stomach. i would have known within seconds if she was choking, not a few minutes later after she drank water. She had a GI reaction to something, likely gulped too much water because she was on Pred. and had voracious thirst or possibly because she swallowed something whole, which is not an inadequacy if the diet she eats, but is a failure on MY part to ensure that she ate the correct sized food. 

Lesson learned and I will not make that mistake again.

_But guess who did choke the other day, and I actually had to perform the Heimlich on? Tiger._ On a piece of kibble that I had fed him by hand. He was hacking and coughing and I could tell that he did not have enough force in his cough - because the kibble was lodged in his windpipe. Good thing the vets had told me how to do the Heimlich if ever necessary.

The ear infections on both of my dogs were caused by my attempt at plucking their ears. Henry did not get such an infection because I never attempted to pluck his ears.

When my dogs were on kibble, Henry regurgitated acid, had GDV and was quite thin Millie had bloody diarrhea, vomited almost dailly, and was on the verge of being diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. Both had plaque on their teeth. On raw, Millie has not had a single episode of diarrhea in 10 months. Henry has not regurgitated once, has gained weight and neither dog has a speck of plaque on their teeth.

There are risks to a raw diet. This is common sense. There are risks in everything in life, including a kibble diet, too. There is no evidence or proof that a raw diet is any riskier than a kibble diet, yet so many people seem to be fast and ready to blame a raw diet for all of its inadequacies. Laughably, the people who do this are the ones who have not tried it OR due to human error, had a bad experience.



Ms Stella said:


> Mostly its just a shame that you can be so rude and mean to someone expressing oppisition to your thoughts and beliefs. And that is exactly what they are beliefs. I guess I just expected more from you.


I have no problem with people having differing beliefs about a raw diet. I only have a problem with people perpetuating *false* myths about a raw diet.



Ms Stella said:


> Also if you are going to be a positive force in raw diets you might consider your approach..no matter what is said about a topic if it is presented so roughly and wrongly most people dont want to even listen to it or be associated with it.


I knew that Zyrcona had her mind made up and no intent to listen from the beginning. Had I thought that she had an open mind, I would have taken a kinder approach. That is why I took a very kind approach to you, Stella. 



Ms Stella said:


> I am unsubscribing from this thread. It is so non-productive and doesnt spread anything good. Ive wasted too much time on it..I just feel bad for the opposing poster here and common sense tells me that she/he is correct..at least as correct as your information.
> Saying one does not agree or subscribe to a particular way of thinking is one thing but being down right rude and arrogant is just another..
> 
> I am always shocked at the things people will say in writing...on a forum..that I doubt they would say in person. Baffling to me!


Actually, I would have said these things in person. Again, it is hard to hold your tongue when someone repeatedly says false things. It is not her different beliefs that I have any aversion to. It gets old, when you are a raw feeder, and you hear the same thing over and over again by others who have been fed the same myths that Zyrcona is perpetuating and that, Stella, you are now buying into. It is a shame, really.

I would like to conclude by saying that, REALLY, I am not being that rude, or offensive. I am just being brutally honest.


----------



## Keithsomething

I'm not on anyones side here but the bit about proper nutrition and children...I dunno about anyone else but here in Ohio...nutrition is not even on the radar of our social workers, IF nutritional neglect can be proven there may be something done about it but in my experiences with friends (just now getting jobs in the field) and family (working with foster children) any type of neglect is put on the back burner when compared to the big 3...just my two cents on that

about raw feeding, I can completely understand the benefit of doing so...if I had the time to dedicate to learning about it further and had the time to completely immerse myself in it I would not hesitate to feed my dogs RAW, but my schedule keeps me from being able to do that right now so FROMM it is for the pooches here!!


----------



## CurlyDog

I believe the post referring to monitoring by social workers was from the UK which may have more stringent monitoring? Regarding Fromms: we love the Surf and Turf! I feed a combo of raw and kibble. Fromms is high on my list.


----------



## zyrcona

CurlyDog said:


> I believe the post referring to monitoring by social workers was from the UK which may have more stringent monitoring?


Yes.  I suspect it's easier to breed dogs than it is to breed humans. Possibly they ought to even it out a bit, considering some of the unsuitable environments puppies are born in. :-(

Returning to the role of science in this topic. Science is the philosophy of evidence-based reasoning. Science has nothing to do with intuition or 'common sense'; it is about observable, testable phenomena in the real world.

The statement 'wolves in the wild survive mainly on meat from prey, and therefore this diet is the best for domestic dogs, which are a subspecies of the wolf' is what scientists call a hypothesis (where 'best' which is not an objective term, could be assumed to mean the one that will promote greatest health and longevity).

In this case, the hypothesis assumes that:
a. The diet wolves eat in the wild is the best diet they could have
b. Dogs' nutritional requirements are exactly the same as those of wild wolves
c. Carcasses and animal parts from commercial abattoirs provide the same nutrients as meat from fresh prey in the wild (in meat, decomposition is a complex process that begins in cells immediately after death. The chemical composition of a carcass that has been through the slaughter process and arrived at the point of sale is thus unlikely to be identical to immediately after it was slaughtered, which is why this is my main concern with the hypothesis)

When scientists come up with hypotheses, the next stage is to test the hypothesis, using what is called either an experiment or a trial, depending on the conditions used. At this point, not enough research has been done to say whether this particular hypothesis is true or false. That it may be intuitive is not evidence towards this. Some things that have been scientifically proven coincide with intuition, but others do not. Quantum mechanics is very much 'the Emperor's new Physics' because it's impossible to explain ideas like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, wave-particle duality, or quantum tunnelling in an intuitive way, yet it is an established science with proven, reproducible results, and it is useful in that it allows scientists to predict how subatomic particles will behave.

It is perfectly acceptable to incorporate an unproven hypothesis into one's life because one agrees with the idea behind it or finds it intuitive. There is certainly not enough evidence on harm resulting from feeding diets made of raw carcasses and parts thereof (again, I'm trying to use descriptive, generic terms as there are several different philosophies within this field of thought, such as 'BARF' and the 'Raw Meaty Bones (TM)' brigade). What is incorrect is to claim there is scientific evidence for such philosophies, when as yet there isn't any.

There are several new fields where intuitive hypotheses have led to intelligent research being carried out with good results and a change in scientific opinion. The main one that comes to mind is in footwear. Someone came up with the hypothesis that human feet are adapted to be walked on and that structured shoes damage the feet. Studies were carried out that confirmed that more injuries occurred to individuals wearing complicated shoes than did to people who were barefoot or shod in very basic shoes, and some very interesting studies were undertaken on the anatomical differences between running barefoot and running shod and the forces this placed on the joints and body. As a result, many manufacturers have started to bring out more simple shoes designed more for protecting the feet while preserving the natural human gait.

With regards to the comments of the bad-mannered person making the silly _ad hominem_ attacks (and this poster's posts did contain several scientific mistakes with regards to terminology and fact, but I attempted to focus on the debate in a constructive manner as the meaning was apparent): as I have previously stated, my mind is not made up on this diet or the philosophy behind it, and I'm not entirely sure why this individual claims to know so much personal information about me (including my presumed gender) from what I have posted in this thread. Had this person come on here and posted from the opposite school of thought, and claimed that feeding raw meat to dogs is bad and they will choke on the bones, I would have argued the opposite way, that there is no evidence for this and that dogs (or humans) can choke on anything they put in their mouths. I have read books and articles about this diet before deciding it is not for my dog at the present time, mainly due to the lack of scientific evidence in support of it. I do feed my dog raw meats as part of a varied diet, and I would be interested to read more real scientific research studies on this subject, should it become available.

Thanks to Ms. Stella for considering both sides of the argument and for standing up for reasonable and polite debate. I hope you reach a decision about Stella's food that suits both you and her. ;-)


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Thanks for the compliment, Zyrcona! . I thought you said you were done posting in this thread a few days ago?

Not being proven one way or the other does not mean there is no scientific evidence. What unbiased scientific evidence can you provide that a kibble diet is superior to an unprocessed diet?

Please explain how it's easier to breed dogs than humans?


----------



## zyrcona

ChocolateMillie said:


> I thought you said you were done posting in this thread a few days ago?


Don't think I did. Recall I posted a toned-down post and said I'd leave the subject alone a while back because the tone was getting too heated, but it carried on heating regardless.



ChocolateMillie said:


> Not being proven one way or the other does not mean there is no scientific evidence.


The meaning of this statement is not clear from the way it is phrased. If I were to claim that unicorns exist or have existed in the past, and that my hypothesis was based on there being accounts and illustrations of such animals in existence, and the observation that horses, an animal which is proven to exist, resemble unicorns and that unicorns must therefore be evolutionarily related, then my evidence would be anecdotal and not scientific. If I were to claim this hypothesis and then present two fossils I had found and claim they were unicorns, then there would be some scientific evidence to support my claim. If a rival scientist then carbon dated both the fossils and showed, using scientific methods, that one of them was modern and not as old as the claim, and claimed that the other might in fact be an arthropod and not a unicorn but was unable to tell for certain, then that would be considered controversial/flawed evidence that required further research in order to be proven.

Supporting ideas with results from research that are able to prove something is the cornerstone of science. There may be other reasons people have for doing things, and people may find them beneficial for these reasons, but unless there is evidence behind these reasons, they are not scientific. Many people enjoy the services of an acupuncturist, even though there is little to no evidence of acupuncture fulfilling any of the health claims it often makes. The acupuncturist's claim that there are paths where 'energy' travels in the body that the needles are aligned to may be intuitive to some, but there is no scientific evidence to confirm it. If feeding one's dog according to a particular philosophy makes some people feel better, there is nothing wrong with that, but the reasons for it are not scientific.



ChocolateMillie said:


> What unbiased scientific evidence can you provide that a kibble diet is superior to an unprocessed diet?


None. There is none either way, and neither have I claimed it to be so, for the same reasons there is no proof that it is inferior to the processed diet. An unprocessed diet may be better, it may be the same, or it may be worse. There is simply not enough research of the unprocessed diets to compare them to the commercial ones. It is a case of a known variable (conventional, scientifically tested diets) in comparison to an unknown variable (progressive diets that have not yet been the subject of adequate research). I have never mentioned 'kibble' which is an American term not used in my own country. I have mentioned commercial diets for dogs, by which I mean dry and wet food that can be bought for that purpose, and also some commercial foods made from raw ingredients, and that there is evidence that dogs can survive on them with reasonable health and into old age because scientific studies have been done and there is historical precedent. I have also mentioned grain-free diets because there is evidence that some grains can trigger allergies in dogs and may contribute to sebaceous adenitis. 



ChocolateMillie said:


> Please explain how it's easier to breed dogs than humans?


Example: If I decide to set up a business breeding dogs tomorrow, then all I need to do so far as the law is concerned is go out and buy any unspayed bitch, boot her out the back door when she comes into season, and wait to see if she returns. If not, rinse, repeat. Then so far as the law is concerned, I can lock said bitch in my outbuilding with access to a small yard and feed her boiled maize with vitamin supplements and water. Any puppies she has that survive to be eight weeks old I can then sell on the Internet, claiming I am a 'reputable breeder' specialising in 'designer dogs'. And if no-one wants to buy the puppy, I can dump it and its mother in the local animal shelter for them to deal with.

On the other hand, if I decide I want to breed a human, I must go out and find a willing person of the opposite sex and fornicate with this person. After this, tests will be offered free from the health service to ensure the foetus does not have genetic diseases. When the human is born, there is legislation governing the places it is permitted to be born and who else must be present. The new human will then be monitored by social services and by the health system to ensure its nutritional and educational needs are being met, and that I am not abusing it. If its needs fail to be met, the government will take the human away from me until I can prove I am capable of meeting them. I am not allowed to sell the human on the Internet under the law.

A bit unfair on the hypothetical bitch and her hypothetical puppies. :-(


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Where I live, childbearing is not regulated as much as you state it is in your country. It is quite simple to get pregnant. And, social services and the health system where I live do not monitor the things you mention. There are countless undernourished, neglected children who have not been 'checked up on' by social services. Unless something very serious, domestic abuse or severe neglect, is suspected or reported, social services is unlikely to be involved or even aware.

I have never heard of legislation permitting where someone may be born. One can give birth to a child in a car, in a field, in a hospital, in a bathtub, anywhere - it is a free country and nobody can oblige someone to birth a child in any particular place. Perhaps this is a cultural difference?

Finally, it is plausible that someone who is interested in trying to provide a superior diet for their dog, such as a raw diet, is interested in the best health of their dog and thus is not comparable to the type of childrearing , where I live, who would end up being suspect to have ther childcare abiliies, including nutrition, monitored by social service, meaning that a person who feeds a raw diet and strives to provide a superior diet for their dog would likely have the same legislation governing their dogrearing and childrearing - none.

Finally, when I speak of raw diets, I include commercial raw.


----------



## Olie

You know one thing I LOVE about feeding Raw is my dogs love it and they are very healthy!!! I have "no beef" with kibble at all. I just chose to feed a more natural healthier diet to my dogs. 

There is a great deal of evidence out there to prove it and some mentioned in this thread. It's how a person choses to anaylise the hell out of it. :aetsch: that for me is a waste of time..........It's NOT Rocket Science and this thread seems to be an attempt at claiming it is LMAO! 

I would shoot myself before I would look at every decision I made in a scientific way LMAO! No effense to to scientist I have much respect for the very important things in our country that many do. 

Really its not that complicated and I HOPE people do not read into this to deeply......


----------



## CharismaticMillie

I am 100% certain that my mother did not analyze the diet that I ate as a child this in depth. She did her best to ensure that I ate a balanced, varied diet of unprocessed food. She did not consult any scientific studies, nor did she consult a nutritionist or discuss my diet in depth with a doctor. Never once did any social services check to make sure I was getting proper nutrition. 

I am 100% certain that my two sisters and my sister in law are all raising their children in a similar fashion. Nobody is checking up on them from the government to ensure that they are feeding their children a nutritious diet. That is entirely the responsibility of the mothers and the government will not interfere with that unless severe domestic violence or neglect were to be suspected and reported. Since my sisters are wonderful parents, such a thing will never happen and they will continue to do their best, without consulting scientific studies, or relying on "balanced processed food". 

Similarly, I will continue to feed a varied, unprocessed diet to Henry and Millie. Just as I will aim to include as little processed food in my future children's diets, and just as my mother aimed to include as little processed food in my diet, I will continue to include as little processed food in my dogs' diets. 

What a complicated life I would live if everything I did had to first be tested and proven by scientific study. Instead, I will do what makes sense, I will take chances and risks and I will seek to find answers in many ways. I will adjust, as necessary. 

And, when I have children, I will have those children wherever I want. I live in a country that cannot tell me where I can and cannot give birth to children. 


Feeding a dog a varied, unprocessed diet is not as difficult as Zyrcona claims. If a deficiency is detected, it can be dealt with. Balance over time is what is needed and any issues can be addressed if necessary.


----------

