# Raw Feeding Community



## JudyD (Feb 3, 2013)

https://therawfeedingcommunity.com/...s-not-a-wolf-stop-trying-to-feed-it-like-one/

I found this link on my FB feed. It's an interesting, well-balanced article, as are some of the others on this Raw Feeding Community site.


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

I actually think grains are the antichrist for SPOO's. What was not mentioned it that the impetus to move to a homemade or prey raw is frequently a mistrust of commercial dog food rather than trying to duplicate/justify based on a wolf diet. I did appreciate the tone of the article - do what works best for your dog.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

How refreshing to find a site about raw feeding that is so thoroughly down to earth and commonsensical - as well as providing references for its assertions! Thanks Judy!


----------



## nifty (Aug 2, 2013)

That was a great read, Judy, thanks! I couldn't agree more with the author's points. 

Just as human DNA is over 95% identical to that of most other primates, dog DNA is nearly identical to that of wolves. That doesn't mean humans are chimpanzees nor are dogs wolves. Humans would not do well on a diet matching that of primates in the wild, especially when we consider the question of scarcity and the resulting shorter lifespans of many species in the wild. Our dogs also may not be best served by a strictly prey model diet -- and again especially when we really cannot determine what wolves WOULD eat if they had constant access to a wide range of readily available food sources.

The final point which I always come back to when considering the merits of comparing dogs to wolves and extrapolating that dogs should eat like wolves is this -- dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor. Dogs are not wolves. There is plenty of evidence (which the article also refers to) which has shown that in fact changes in dietary availability throughout the history of domestication of dogs is quite possibly one of the factors which helped drive dogs' evolutionary path. So, with that in mind, it seems sensible to consider a wider range of dietary inclusions in dogs' diets.

I agree completely with the foundational premise that dogs remain primarily carnivorous and that meat, organ and bone probably ought to be the main ingredients in an ideal diet for dogs. After that, though, I believe that supplementation with small quantities of vegetable, fruit and oils is more than likely an addition to dogs' diets from which they have evolved to benefit.


----------



## JudyD (Feb 3, 2013)

Mfmst said:


> I actually think grains are the antichrist for SPOO's. What was not mentioned it that the impetus to move to a homemade or prey raw is frequently a mistrust of commercial dog food rather than trying to duplicate/justify based on a wolf diet. I did appreciate the tone of the article - do what works best for your dog.


Mfmst, I don't think there was any doubt the author is in favor of raw feeding. What I saw was more a disagreement with the "true believer" mentality that occasionally surfaced on a prey model forum I followed for a while, the absolute insistence that anything other than whole prey is downright evil, without any documentation to back it up.

I'm convinced that raw feeding is the ideal. I fed raw for a year or so, stopped when we got Blue as a pup, and haven't gotten back to it, partly due to some health issues that have kept me from spending several hours at a time cutting, weighing, and packaging the meat. Steve Brown, who wrote the book about the canine ancestral diet, has a once-a-week meal plan. The dog is fed high-grade kibble six days, then a big raw meal on the seventh. I'm thinking about resuming on that basis.


----------



## Liz (Oct 2, 2010)

We feed prey-model raw. It's gross, it took a while to figure out, and people definitely react when (if) I tell them, but our six year old dog is confused for a two year old all the time by people who know dogs (trainers, breeders, dog sport folks), so it's working.

That said, she really like watermelon. And Indian food. And Thai and Chinese and Japanese and Italian and Vietnamese and Mexican. And apples and blueberries. And french fries and mashed potatoes and roasted potatoes. She once ate a whole loaf of bread. Our go-to trail mix is just almonds and cranberries so we can share with her without having to pick out the raisins and chocolate (DH would definitely prefer raisins and chocolate).

So, I'm all for feeding raw. Just not for the sanctimoniousness and antisocialness of some of the conversations around it.


----------



## MollyMuiMa (Oct 13, 2012)

I love that site! Everybody should read the article about kibble and raw and the digesting
myth! I read it a few weeks ago and passed it on to another person on another forum and boy did I get slammed by the people who feed purely raw and believe that ALL kibble is bad bad bad !!!!!! I feed raw and kibble so I wanted the person who asked about the "Don't feed kibble and raw to your dog" advice that it really is okay to do!
Some people are fanatics about feeding raw and hey that's fine, but jeez not all of us have the time, money or freezer space! LOL!


----------



## JudyD (Feb 3, 2013)

One of the things I like best about PF is that civil discussion is the norm rather than the exception. Even those of us with strong opinions are rarely given to personal attacks and nastiness. I like the idea of a sticky about hot button topics (and raw feeding would qualify), with a summary of pros and cons, but I don't mind revisiting one of them to share a new slant, new information, or just new enthusiasm.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

Dogs and wolves don't just share DNA, they are a common species. The analogy between chimps and humans (species that long ago diverged from a common ancestor) simply does not hold with dogs and wolves, which if inter-bred produce fertile offspring.

I don't feed this diet only because it most closely resembles what wolves eat in the wild. *If* there were evidence that domesticated dogs did better eating plants and carbohydrates then I would choose that. But that is not what the evidence shows. Quite the opposite.

The differences in stamina, coat condition, clean teeth and breath, lean muscle mass (vs obesity), and over-all health are noticeable in a PMR vs standard or common kibble diet.

One diet is "natural" (as shaped by eons of canine evolution) and another is "unnatural" (in being in existence since 1956 when human cereal machinery was modified to produce species inappropriate "dog food") If commercial food showed me superior performance and health, I'd go for that.

I see marked differences in my dogs every day since putting them on a PMR diet, especially in my geriatric 14 year old dog who has had pretty bad arthritis, alopecia around his eye rims and ears and the most horrendous breath, not caused by bad teeth, but by some kind of stomach or digestive issue. All these things, not one, but all have disappeared. The hair has grown back on his bald spots from the alopecia. The bad breath is gone. The arthritis is better and he's lean, shiny and much more energetic and playful than he was before. He is eager to extend his walks where before he petered out much sooner. My Poodles are very muscular and strong, lean, clean teeth, ears, healthy skin, no allergies and they have an increased capacity for aerobic exercise. 

So when a PMR diet shows me dramatically positive results in real-life experience, and when all leading scientific studies show dogs that metabolized fat as their primary energy source (as opposed to those who burn carbohydrates) have far superior stamina and vastly higher aerobic capacity, and when the world's leading authority on canine nutrition (the National Research Council) says there is no essential need for carbohydrates in a canine diet, the fact that a PRM diet is a natural species-appropriate diet is confirmed for me that this is the optimal choice.

If I believed there were a better option, I'd go with it, no matter what wolves might eat in the wild. But evidence shows that dogs do better (much better) on high-protein high-fat diets. Feeding carbohydrates only causes negative health consequences, and is done for economy and convenience, not in the interest of good nutrition.

60 years since the introduction of commercial kibble. In evolutionary time that's a grain of sand upon a beach. Can dogs (in very uneven terms, varying by both individuals and breeds) process starches? I suppose. But at what costs?

The study you posted showed dogs (unevenly) have more genes markers for pancreatic amylase, but did not establish how the increased gene expression functioned in the real world. All omnivores produce amylase in saliva to start the process of pre-digestion as food is chewed. Dogs have no salivary amylase, and can not pre-digest starch as a result. The whole burden is pushed onto the pancreas. No surprise then than sick and inflamed pancreases are not unusual.

I think many dog owners don't have a clue how unfit their dogs are, and that many like them that way...they match them up with their own sedentary life styles.

Fatty tumors, gingivitis, rotting teeth, obesity, and arthritic joints are accepted as "normal" in our society and that's a real pity.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind whether a PRM diet or a kibble diet is for optimal for dogs. Surviving is not synonymous with thriving. That village dogs in the developing world, or dogs during early period of domestication survived eating human garbage (including cast-off sources of carbohydrates) doesn't convince me that feeding my dog a garbage model diet (GMD) is the best thing for them. 

I've spent months of intense research. When I'm shown evidence of a better way than PRM I'll be all ears. So far the evidence all points the other way. And what I've seen in my animals reflects that as well.


----------

