# SkeptVet vs Dodds - Diet - Nutriscan etc



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Thank you for that interesting link RD. It is important that all decisions we make for our own health as well as that of our companion animals and in raising food animals be scientifically evaluated and that the findings of those studies be objectively vetted.

That being said I did recently do NutriScan testing on all three of my dogs on the recommendation of my vet. Based on the results of their NutriScan profiles I did decide to make major changes in how I feed my dogs, switching from a good quality commercial food to home cooking for them. While this has been a challenging change I will say that I have seen some definite improvements in things like the reduction of Javelin's excessive ear wax production. Lily and Peeves will have their annual exams in a couple of weeks and I am hoping that I will see improvements in their urine chemistry. While I recognize as a scientist myself (college biology professor with a PhD in immunology) that these improvements are merely anecdotal evidence of the value of the testing I can't argue with my own success for these three dogs. 

I do hope that over the longer term we will see good studies done to evaluate all of the ideas that are out there so that the wheat can be sorted from the chaff for the benefit of human and animal health. In addition to the issues of food sensitivities I am also interested in the issues of raw diets and see that the blogger you linked to has written extensively about raw feeding. I decided to provide a cooked diet for various microbiological reasons. I also hold the view that our dogs are not wolves and that we have guided their evolution far enough away from their wild relatives that the raw diet is not innately more suitable for them based on the pseudoscientific view that your dog is a wolf in a dog suit anymore than your cat is really a little lion on the back of your sofa.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

Thanks for your comment, Catherine. It's always nice to have someone with a background in science weighing in. I've been following the results with your dogs Nutriscan, and appreciate your follow ups. Everyone here can learn a lot from the members here, even if thus far a lot of these results may be considered anecdotal. Like you said, it's difficult to argue with the success one sees with their own two eyes. 



> I do hope that over the longer term we will see good studies done to evaluate all of the ideas that are out there so that the wheat can be sorted from the chaff for the benefit of human and animal health.


You and me both, and I do think that the science has come a LONG ways over the past 20 years. Much of this has been consumer driven, the internet has created a lot of armchair experts which I like to think has ultimately forced pet food manufacturers to step up their game, and not just in companion pet food. I have seen the same improvement over the years in aquaculture circles. Sometimes based on solid data and facts, and sometimes based on knee jerk reactions and pseudoscientific hyperbole. 




> I also hold the view that our dogs are not wolves and that we have guided their evolution far enough away from their wild relatives that the raw diet is not innately more suitable for them based on the pseudoscientific view that your dog is a wolf in a dog suit anymore than your cat is really a little lion on the back of your sofa.


Yes, that pretty much sums up how I feel as well. lol


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

RD. I see many parallels between human biomedicine and the issues we are talking about here. Technology has given the ability to move research forward at tremendous rates of speed, but that doesn't always translate directly to improved applications and practices. As I often tell my students, it isn't always wise to rush to a new diet or treatment based on a report of a research finding as soon as the information is out there. Careful vetting of research findings and trial results is incredibly important. That said as you noted I have my three anecdotes in progress who seem to be doing very well with their new diets. I attribute that as much if not more than anything to the fact that they are now eating human grade food 100% of the time.

BTW I bookmarked skeptvet's blog. There is a ton of interesting looking reading over there.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't believe that blog has any posts regarding the authors name, credentials, etc, this link will take you to an IAABC interview with Brennen McKenzie, the man behind SkeptVet. 

Interview with Brennen McKenzie, the SkeptVet - The IAABC JournalThe IAABC Journal | The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

Just in case anyone is interested.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

In the About page on his blog, he does have a way to find out who he is. Interestingly he makes a decent case for why he prefers anonymity, although I think knowing his credentials makes his writings carry more weight.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 29, 2016)

RD, thanks for posting, I had never heard of SkeptVet -it's good to see some different views and he has lots of articles.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

No problem, glad to help.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Skeptvet can be a bit obnoxious, though. For example he feels that the use of titers to determine if a dog should be vaccinated is not useful and one part of his argument is that it could lead to more dogs being unnecessarily vaccinated if their titer is low but they don't actually need to be revaccinated. That argument makes zero sense since by default the dog would be getting automatically vaccinated otherwise. He actually disagrees with Dr. Ronald Schultz, who is the most well known canine vaccine researcher. Sorry, but I'll listen to Schultz on this one, given his extensive research on the matter, unless the Skeptvet can procure some research himself!

Sketpvet is also opposed to raw diets.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't believe that he stated it was not useful, only that it can be misleading at times due to the various conditions/circumstances involved. Basically titers on their own are not always a 100% reliable indicator whether an animal requires another vaccination for a specific disease, or not. 

Antibody Titer Testing as a Guide for Vaccination in Dogs and Cats | The SkeptVet

In that article he states:


> So while I believe the evidence indicates we can safely vaccinate most dogs and cats far less often than has traditionally been recommended, I do not believe we should use titers or other methods to reduce vaccination out of fear.


and .....



> So while I see utility for antibody titer testing in some situations, it is distressing that some companies selling these tests seem to be marketing them using fear and the testimonials of individuals who are known opponents of science-based medicine and promoters of irrational anti-vaccine positions and unscientific alternative therapies. Dr. Shawn Messonier, Dr. Karen Becker, Catherine O’Driscoll, and Dogs Naturally Magazine, are some of the entirely unreliable sources to which the Vaccicheck company refers pet owners in promoting their product. We will do far more harm than good for our pets if we base our vaccination decisions on pseudoscience or irrational fear, which is what these individuals often promote, rather than sound science.


He certainly doesn't hold back any punches. lol

and ....



> Again, I’m not saying I am opposed to titer testing. I do it for those clients who request it, and sometimes it leads us to skip a vaccine I might otherwise have given. But it also sometimes gives us no information at all (when the titer is negative), and most vets would feel obliged to vaccinate these dogs regardless of when they had previous boosters. And the bottom line is it is being sold primarily with the idea of making dogs safer by reducing vaccination rates, and I don’t see any evidence that this would actually be the case.


----------



## Verve (Oct 31, 2016)

Like CM, I strongly disagree with his take on the value of titering in lieu of additional vaccines. 

I had *thought* he had also dismissed the growing literature on the risks of spay/neuter, but he seems to be updating his own thoughts as the research comes in. People always seem to be requesting references to the literature on this topic, and he is doing a good job of gathering them into one place. 

Benefits and Risks of Neutering–An Evidence-Based Approach | The SkeptVet


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

I really didn't intend to derail the entire topic of this thread and I worry that responding back with more quotes will do that, but since you did it I will too.

The argument that because they are not a 100% reliable indicator of immunity is sort of a pointless argument. It's pretty well known that even dogs who respond with low titers might still have a protective immune response if challenged, and most veterinarians advise clients to go ahead and vaccinate to be safe when the titer is low. Personally, I only use Dr. Schultz' lab, as it gives the specific CDV and CPV titer value. 

"Vaccine titers can tell us an individual is immune and does not need to be vaccinated for some specific diseases. For other diseases, a positive titer does not reflect immunity. And a negative titer cannot reliably tell us if an individual is susceptible and need additional vaccination. Therefore, the usefulness of titers in determining if an individual needs to be vaccinated is quite limited. " - how he reaches the conclusion that the usefulness is limited is beyond me, particularly in a vaccine sensitive breed such as standard poodles. Reducing the number of DPV vaccinations from 8 or 9 to 3 or 4 is huge. Not to mention, it's sort of pointless vaccinate a dog who already has immunity. As I said, I personally use Schultz' lab for titers and I've not had a dog test unprotected for distemper or parvo.

"However, titers can also lead to an increase in unnecessary vaccinations if animals with negative titers are routinely vaccinated even though they may already be immune." - Considering the alternative would be automatically vaccinating dogs every 1-3 years, it's hard to argue that titer testing to check for immunity first would possibly lead to an increase in unnecessary vaccinations.


----------



## Verve (Oct 31, 2016)

I'll just add to CM's comment about titers with two anecdotes about using it with two puppies of mine. Both got two parvo/distemper shots at 9 and 14 weeks (the Dodds protocol). I didn't want to give a third shot if it wasn't necessary, but was reluctant to send them out into the world without being sure they had immunity--one was headed out to show and the other to his new home. I titered both when they got their rabies shot at 7 and 6 months, and both came back with high values. 

In the case of the first one, my vet launched into the "titers don't tell us all that much..." spiel. I pointed out that in this instance, I wanted assurance that the vaccines had "taken," and that a positive result would tell us that, and he agreed.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

LOL it's all good, I didn't say that I agree with 100% of his opinions, or comments posted on his blog.


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

I actually came across Skeptvet recently when I was researching another issue. On the whole, I find his stuff interesting and enlightening, but it also is obvious that he's not as objective and scientific as he claims. He clearly has pre-conceived views and those views basically dictate how much "scientific evidence" is needed to validate the view, in his mind. 

The best and most direct example is his constant battle against Dr. Karen Becker, and here is one illustration - where he criticizes Becker for citing a study that seems to indicate that dogs in the UK had shorter lives in 2014 than in 2004:

Are Our Dogs Dying Younger Than They Used To? | The SkeptVet

Skepvet criticizes Becker because 1) several breeds actually lived longer in 2014 than in 2004, even if the overall number totaling all breeds is down in 2014 vs 2004, and 2) the 2014 and 2004 surveys didn't use the same methodologies and same sample sizes. For these reasons, Skepvet claims Becker's assertion should be completely invalidated. While #2 certainly would be enough reason NOT to conclude definitively that dogs are now living shorter lives, it would be ridiculous to say that just because the comparison isn't 100% apples to apples, that means it has 0% value. #1 is a completely irrational objection - out of 160+ breeds, he picks out 6 that lived longer in 2014 than 2004, and cites that as evidence that Becker cherry-picked only numbers that suited her assertion (assertion that dogs are less healthy now than before). In other words, Skepvet is arguing that Becker's wrong because "only" 159 out of 165 breeds lived shorter in 2014 than in 2004. Umm.... ok....

Then, he goes on to assert:

"There is excellent data in humans, and that shows conclusively that life expectancy and nearly every other objective measure of well-being has improved steadily for at least the last 100 years. For humans, at least, science and science-based nutrition, sanitation, and healthcare work far better than anything that went before.

There is no reason to believe the same is not true for our pets, however, there is also no reliable evidence either way."

If there is "no reliable evidence either way", then, how can there be "no reason" not to believe that companion animals, just like humans, are living better and longer? His logic seems to be - if humans are living longer and better, then the default assumption, in the absence of evidence, should be that companion animals also are living longer and better. If he can assume this to be true - while admitting to lack of scientific data - how come an opposite assertion from Becker should be invalidated because that assertion lacks scientific data? Why is science required for one side but not for the other side? And, even if the aforementioned 2004-2014 studies above does not definitely prove anything, it should at least give someone pause or cause someone to at least question the assumption that dogs are living longer now. The fact that Skepvet chooses to completely dismiss it - there's a difference between questioning it and dismissing it -indicates that he has a hard-wired pre-conceived opinion.

Kevin


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Kevin I agree with you that SkeptVet has some less than objective views about those whose beliefs and practices he calls out on the carpet, but I do think that he is correct in his assertion that science and objectively obtained data derived from the good practices of science should be applied to veterinary medicine with the same rigor applied to human medicine. I will be happy to see huge volumes of data about tests like NutriScan, hopefully supporting its validity, but if not then so be it.

And Verve, it is one of the best practices of scientists to reevaluate their understanding and views based on new evidence (as you mentioned with respect to risks/benefits regarding spay and neuter). Adherence to dogma is anti-scientific at its core.

In the meantime it falls to us to evaluate the views and findings from all of the diverse materials available to us to make the best decisions we can for our dogs and their health.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

> He clearly has pre-conceived views and those views basically dictate how much "scientific evidence" is needed to validate the view, in his mind.


While I have not read his entire blog, from what I have read I think that is a fair comment. I personally like the fact that he questions everything, even if he goes overboard at times. As Catherine just said, in the end it's up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff and decide for ourselves what is best for our pets. I agree with some of his views, others not so much.


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

Catherine/RD, I definitely agree that we should do whatever we can to pursue scientific research to shore up a lot of the speculation that we're forced to engage right now on what's best for our pets in the absence of definitive scientific answers. And, one thing I certainly will give credit for Skeptvet is that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't lie in terms of his facts and descriptions - where we need to read between the lines is what he chooses to conclude from these facts and descriptions. 

Another example of how he selectively applies science where he sees fit is yet another beef he's having with Karen Becker, over her citing of a study that, in her view, shows that processed food can cause diseases:

More Misuse of Science as Propaganda Tool by Mercola and the AHVMF | The SkeptVet

As I said, Skeptvet doesn't lie - he merely interprets the study and Becker's words very selectively. As far as I can tell, his whole point is - this one study is preliminary so it doesn't actually prove anything as a final verdict. This, of course is true - if it WEREN'T true and this WERE the definitive smoking gun, then the FDA should immediately mandate that all kibbles, from grocery store brands to Orijen, be pulled off all the shelves across the country. But, again, just because the study isn't definitive doesn't mean it has no value - and in this case, Skeptvet does admit that the study is "worth following up on". But, these are four words of compromise in a long article that, outside these four words, clearly aims to completely discredit Becker and vets along her line.

Basically, whenever a study comes up that disagrees with Skeptvet's presumed point of view, he says "well, this study doesn't prove anything definitive". But whenever a study comes up that aligns with his presumed point of view, he says "see, I told you so." An example of the latter is how he keeps citing studies that show that raw food has a higher chance than dry food of being contaminated with bacteria - and from this, he concludes that raw food is more dangerous for pets and humans. But, that is a leap of logic - just because something has more bacteria doesn't automatically make it more harmful. A much more definitive "proof" would be if there were studies that show that a higher % of dogs and cats that are fed raw foods contract bacteria-caused illnesses than dogs/cats that are fed kibbles - or, even short of studies, I would love to hear vets come out with anecdotal claims that say "I know studies don't exist, but given the thousands of animals I've seen over the years as a vet, I simply know from observations that more animals get sick from raw food than from kibbles." In fact, Skeptvet actually admits in various subtly mentioned places that he himself has not observed raw food to actually cause illnesses in animals and humans at a higher rate, and that if he has to guess, he would say that the risk is "not that high". If there is no evidence, not even anecdotal ones, that raw food is more likely to make animals or humans sick, then isn't any study that shows raw food to contain more bacteria simply stating an observation, but that observation hasn't been proven to have any real-life positive or negative consequence? Yet in this case, he's willing to simply assume a negative consequence, without any science or anecdotes to prove it.

But as I mentioned, I'll give him credit - even if the mentioning is hidden a bit, he does actually admit that he has not observed raw food-caused illnesses. And, certainly, the fact that raw foods may contain more bacteria is "worth following up on" 

Kevin


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

kchen95 said:


> And, one thing I certainly will give credit for Skeptvet is that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't lie in terms of his facts and descriptions - *where we need to read between the lines is what he chooses to conclude from these facts and descriptions*.


Yes, yes, yes, yes!


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

> ....where we need to read between the lines is what he chooses to conclude from these facts and descriptions.


Exactly what one should be doing regarding all of these groups. Yes? 

I think what SkepVet really loathes in some of these groups/individuals, is they can sometimes (often times in some cases) use fear mongering to sell their company line. I see the same thing from members of various forums, including this one. Personally I find it offensive, and I believe this is why SkepVet comes across at times as such a hard azz. He personally finds much of this type of "science" to be offensive. I'm not attempting to make excuses for his comments, I'm simply offering an explanation from my viewpoint after reading some of his various comments over the years.


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

RD. said:


> Exactly what one should be doing regarding all of these groups. Yes?
> 
> I think what SkepVet really loathes in some of these groups/individuals, is they can sometimes (often times in some cases) use fear mongering to sell their company line. I see the same thing from members of various forums, including this one. Personally I find it offensive, and I believe this is why SkepVet comes across at times as such a hard azz. He personally finds much of this type of "science" to be offensive. I'm not attempting to make excuses for his comments, I'm simply offering an explanation from my viewpoint after reading some of his various comments over the years.


Absolutely - each one of us should be looking at the facts and making our own conclusions - and question any conclusions that don't pass the smell check, from any side.

I agree that's the beef that SkeptVet has with these groups/individuals, but the problem is, he's doing exactly the same thing, from the other side. There are extreme people from both sides that are making this flawed argument:

Because there is no definitive scientific proof for what's really best, you should assume that X is best and Y is bad.

I hope everyone can see why that argument doesn't make sense?  And, because there is no scientific proof, in order to support any choice, no matter which side you're on, you have to rely on anecdotal evidence and indirect references. So, it would be erroneous to dismiss any side by making the argument of "well, science doesn't support you". Science doesn't support any side, not at this point, so we have to stop using science as an excuse to categorically dismiss any side's validity - because the argument of "science doesn't support you or me, so therefore I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't make any sense.

Kevin


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

But we must insist that scientific methodologies be applied to finding evidence based answers to the important questions!


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

> I agree that's the beef that SkeptVet has with these groups/individuals, but the problem is, he's doing exactly the same thing, from the other side.


Yes and no. And while this may seem like I am splitting hairs, as a general rule you won't find SkeptVet using scare tactics to influence people to his side of the debate. Unfortunately that type of behaviour is quite common among the other side. That's where his beef is strongest - that and his colleagues that are crying foul the loudest are often also in line to profit from their "proof". That's where I see the main difference between himself, and the other side. He's not running around shouting to everyone that the sky is falling, he's standing in one spot and saying no, it's not.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

> But we must insist that scientific methodologies be applied to finding evidence based answers to the important questions!


Amen to that.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

Coming late to this discussion, although I have been following it with interest. Is part of the problem that so few people do not actually understand scientific methodologies, or even how the process of scientific enquiry and investigation work? Something is either "true" or "false", not "supported by such evidence as we have available"; a personal experience or anecdote from a close friend outweighs any quantity of carefully researched and compiled statistics; if one scientific theory or hypothesis in any field is disproved, it is seen not as another welcome step along the unending path to a better understanding of our world, but as discrediting every other theory and hypothesis. Instead of learning how to recognise and reject Bad Science, "science" itself is labelled "bad", and viewed as inimical to everything that is natural and emotional and spiritual and nice. And if so, where do we begin to address such a pervasive problem?


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

kchen95 said:


> i agree that's the beef that skeptvet has with these groups/individuals, but the problem is, he's doing exactly the same thing, from the other side.


yes!!!


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

Hi Catherine, I absolutely agree that scientific studies should be pursued as a top priority, and doing so is critical towards yielding concrete answers. But, before science can strengthen our answers, we still must make decisions for our pets, now, in the absence of abundant science, so the more pressing question is, in the absence of definitive scientific answers, how can we make informed "best guesses". We simply have to make these guesses - life (for us and for our pets) goes on without scientific clarity, and we can't refuse to make, or discredit, all anecdotal and observational conclusions just because they're not "science". We don't have the luxury of halting our pets' biological clock,and only starting that clock after science tells us definitively what to do. Again, I am absolutely NOT saying that we shouldn't pursue scientific inquiries as rigorously as possible - we absolutely should. But, we also need to make decisions based on our best guesses, for now, in the absence of science. Those two things are not mutually exclusive - and of course I'm not saying you're implying they are 

RD, I believe Skeptvet is doing WAY more than simply saying that the sky is not falling; he is not only saying that the sky is not falling for those who choose to, say, feed big company kibbles, but he's also saying (or at least hinting very strongly) that the sky COULD be falling for those who choose to feed raw. It is clear to me that he's saying both these things: that those who feed big company kibbles are making good decisions, AND those who feed raw are making bad decisions. And that's fine - it's a legitimate guess in the absence of definitive scientific proof. But, just don't pretend that one guess is scientific and the opposing guess is not - neither is.

FJM, are you saying the problem is that people discredit science entirely whereas they should discredit only specific cases of bad scientific practice? If so, yup that makes sense. And I also agree - the whole idea that science ultimately will yield the "right" answers is a bit of a pipe dream. Rather than yielding a simple yes or no, it's more likely that science will provide more data that would strengthen or weaken certain assumptions, but it may not yield definitive answers. This goes back to what I'm saying about recognizing the need to make "best guesses" in the absence of 100% proven "right answers". Frankly. we pretty much have to make these best guesses for the vast majority of important decisions in life; the welfare of our pets is no different.

Kevin


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

Hi Kevin, perhaps, but there is no way that one can compare the hinting that something COULD be possible, vs what I have been watching take place from the other side over the past few decades. From where I am standing, the large group of fanatics has always been standing on the opposite side of the fence from me. I do agree with you though, until more scientific facts are supplied, one has to go off of best guesses. I'm ok with that, I'm not ok with people making "information" up as they go along, in an attempt to scare people into a like mindset. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

Hi RD, makes perfect sense! 

Perhaps the most ironic and downright amusing thing to all this mudslinging between SkeptVet and his chosen adversary, Karen Becker, is this: they actually agree on what's the best food to feed your pets. AND, they agree on what's the worst food to feed your pets. Both of them cite nutritionally balanced home-prepared fresh food as the best food, and nutritionally imbalanced home-prepared food as the worst food. It's amazing that these critical similarities are completely obscured by personalities, egos and turf wars. 

Kevin


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

Yes that is quite ironic. The good part in these debates is that we all seek the same thing - what's best for our 4 legged companions.


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

I am impressed with Dr. Brennen McKenzie. At least he is keeping up with complimentary and alternative veterinary medicine and researching it. I suspect my vet has never heard of Dr.'s Dobbs and Becker. I sent him a question about prophylactic gastropexies and got a thoughtful email with footnotes. I encouraged him to post his response on his blog. If you look on his blog you can see our PF comments are followed


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

What do you all think about buying commercial raw food and cooking it? Many raw supporters, like Karen Becker, indicate that it's totally fine to do so, while certain raw food companies say no, with language like this:

Cooking would render the food biologically inappropriate in a fundamental way. Cooked food loses much nutritional value, including enzymes and biologically active essential fatty acids. The latter, being damaged by heat and oxygen, become slow poisons, doing irreparable damage. Cooking causes complexes to form between proteins and starches, between vitamins and trace minerals, and between minerals. Cooking produces carcinogens and anti-immunogens. Many minerals, essential amino acids and vitamins also become indigestible.

Again, we don't have science to prove or disprove this, so we're left with anecdotal observations and intuition. Thoughts? 

Kevin


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

We-e-e-e-lll - humans have been cooking food for thousands of years. Dogs have evolved along with us. Cooking may reduce some nutrients, but also increases the availability of others, and can reduce the impact of some bacteria etc. In general our dogs are fed far higher amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrate, etc than they actually need, so any small reduction through gentle cooking is unlikely to lead to malnutrition. Is there any evidence for essential nutrients in raw food? And that they are needed in every meal? Seems to me we are in the territory of raw feeding for humans...


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

I think that we need to be very careful when utilizing information supplied by those who are set to profit from that information. That includes vets, food manufacturers (including both dry & raw), etc. 

I suspect that there are millions of dog owners world-wide, that have raised healthy, thriving, disease & cancer free dogs to ripe old ages, on ALL of these various types and cooking methods. Regardless of what the so called experts will say. What we have learned thus far is that not all dogs can assimilate all foods equally - and that is where a keen eye of observation, anecdotal observations, and intuition come into play. 

IMO, and IME, some dogs are far more forgiving than others in this area. So the right answer is - there is no right answer for all dogs.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

And there is no one right answer for people either, although there are general requirements that need to be satisfied for all living things. One must consume adequate calories, minimum or above complete protein (all essential amino acids covered), essential vitamins at minimum or better levels (but not wild excesses for fat soluble vitamins) and the like and it is far better to eat all of those things daily rather than erratically. This certainly doesn't mean that the protein has to be chicken vs. beef or even raw vs. cooked however and that is where experience and observation of the individual becomes important.

fjm your observation that domestic dogs are the products of very close associations with humans and have coevolved side by side with us is important to keep in mind in the cooked vs. raw conversation though I think. To me the likely fireside scenario of humans offering food inducements to early proto-dogs is of a person giving a bone from something that was cooked to that animal rather than throwing a valuable hunk of raw meat that the people would have consumed after cooking it themselves. I still maintain that thinking we should feed dogs like wolves is not particularly based on very clear or data driven thinking. That being said for those whose dogs do well on it and who don't have concerns about microbiological hazards in their households I am not going to try to convince you not to feed raw.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I can easily imagine an early human throwing unwanted bits of raw prey beast to a proto dog - the skinny boney bits that are not much wanted by humans. Or the bones and gristle after cooking, or inedible (by humans) bits of fruit and vegetables. And then (horrors) there are human faeces, and as one who has to persuade their dogs away from unpleasant examples of these I am only too aware of how horribly attractive they can be. Seems to me dogs can survive and thrive on a wide range of foods...


----------



## kontiki (Apr 6, 2013)

kchen95 said:


> RD, I believe Skeptvet is doing WAY more than simply saying that the sky is not falling; he is not only saying that the sky is not falling for those who choose to, say, feed big company kibbles, but he's also saying (or at least hinting very strongly) that the sky COULD be falling for those who choose to feed raw. It is clear to me that he's saying both these things: that those who feed big company kibbles are making good decisions, AND those who feed raw are making bad decisions.
> 
> And that's fine - it's a legitimate guess in the absence of definitive scientific proof. But, just don't pretend that one guess is scientific and the opposing guess is not - neither is. Kevin


Yes, it definitely appears that way to me too. Actually in reading Skepvet I am beginning wo wonder if he either owns a commercial dog food company, or has a lot of stock in one or more of them. 

In which case, if people are feeding raw human grade meat, fruits, vegetables, etc to their dogs he would not earn one cent. Just something to consider. 

Of course, you can probably tell that is exactly what I feed my Spoo. I won't go into the long story, but my spoo almost died on kibble, of all kinds, qualities, etc. He had lost 1/3 of his body weight, was on injected fluids, weak, food either coming up one end or the other. I was concerned he was going to die. I finally told my vets that I didn't care if they didn't support raw feeding, that I had to so something or we would lose him. 

Within one day of his eating only raw human grade fresh chicken he was drinking on his own, not throwing up, out of his bed, etc. He is now almost 8 years old, acts like he is 2, and my vets no longer criticize his diet at all. They are quite interested. He eats a wide variety of fresh human grade meats and fish, all organic organs, berries, fruits, etc, He does eat some cooked things, like veggies, sweet potatoes, squash, etc. only because they come out whole the other end if not cooked and he finally refused to eat them at all.

A couple of months ago I was somewhere with no access to meat for him, so used kibble, and he couldn't keep any of it down after the first meal. The next day he refused to eat at all. 

So, I realize this is only anecdotal, but is enough proof for me.

It could be that different dogs have different digestive systems too, just like people. I have a friend about 40 who lives on McDonalds and other junk food, and seems fine. On the other hand my sister and I have to follow strict gluten free diets with no processed foods to remain well.

Who knows, maybe the friend eating almost all McDonalds/junk food type diet will live to be a healthy 100 and show us all up!


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't own a commercial dog food company, or have ANY stock in one or more of them, yet I find myself agreeing with much of the reasoning behind what Skeptvet says. Not because I feel that feeding raw is wrong, or that feeding kibble is better, but because a large portion of the info being supplied by the raw fanatics as facts, are anything but. That, and just like Skeptvet I find the means of their delivery of baseless facts via fear mongering to be offensive. Dr. Becker would have everyone believing that anyone feeding their dog kibble is ensuring their pets will suffer from GI tract inflammation, a myriad of assorted degenerative diseases, and/or cancer. Grains are bad, your dog will suffer, blah-blah-blah. Yet via the same anecdotal evidence millions of healthy long lived dogs world-wide proves just the opposite.

Not all dogs that die from cancer, or suffer from degenerative disease, are linked to poor nutrition. My guess, with no science to prove otherwise, is most are probably linked to genetics. We see the same in humans. Long distance runner with less than 10% body fat who eats like a monk, dies at age 40 from heart disease. Person down the street who smokes, drinks, and seldom watches what he eats for more than 30 seconds, lives to be 85. There isn't always a reason, for the rhyme. Life isn't that definitive. 

Our last poodle lived to be 17, had all his original teeth, and never suffered a day of poor health until his final year. Even then it came fairly swift near the end, when eventually his 17 year old heart gave out. An old dog who ran and played like a pup until he was well past 15 yrs of age. When strangers met him they were always shocked at how old he was. He ate kibble his entire life.

Again, there is no right or wrong here, we are all doing what we personally feel is best for each of our pets. But if we are going to offer up facts, and use science to support them, then we better have more than just a gut feeling or anecdotal evidence when we are promoting that evidence as science, or facts. IMO those that have a DVM behind their name should also be held to a much higher standard when sharing their views with the world. Shame on those that do not, no matter what their personal beliefs are.


----------



## kontiki (Apr 6, 2013)

Yup, we are all still waiting for scientific proof either way. 

It is interesting that the fear mongering can go both ways. 
I was at a pet supply show, looking at grooming tools. There were various kibble company sales people there, who definitely tried to put the fear of XXXX into me when I explained why my Spoo is raw fed. One of them literally followed me around trying to tell me I was killing my dog. I had to leave just to get away from him. I never did get my grooming tools.


----------



## kchen95 (Jan 6, 2016)

Yup I definitely feel like the fear mongering goes both ways. Before I started researching into raw food, I got the sense from anti-raw people that feeding raw would be downright dangerous, not only to pets but also to humans around them. Only after much more extensive research did I realize that even anti-raw people admit that this danger is more in theory than in evidence - just like only after much more extensive research did I realize that even pro-raw people admit there is no definitive scientific evidence supporting the pro-raw claims. But, once you strip away the mudslinging, I feel like certain reasonable deductions can yield. 

For example, let's look at the fundamental thing that Skeptvet and Karen Becker agree on - that all else being equal, fresh food is at least "probably better than" processed food. This is a guess that both sides are willing to accept. So, if we accept this, then there are two ways that freshly prepared raw food can still be worse than kibbles/processed food:

1) If raw food's bacterial risk turns out to be real and high.
2) If the raw food you're feeding is nutritionally imbalanced.

To me, if you're concerned about #1, you can simply cook the raw food, and #1 goes away (Karen Becker herself does not object to cooking raw food). Then you're left with #2 - nutritional imbalance. For this, if you're talking about commercial raw food and commercial processed food companies, the difference is not raw/fresh vs. processed, but whether individual companies are knowledgeable about creating a balanced nutritional diet, whether it's raw/fresh or processed. Any kibble company can be ignorant and create an imbalanced diet, just as any raw/fresh food company can do the same. So, unless one wants to make the argument that raw/fresh food companies, in generally, know less about nutritional balance than processed/kibble food companies, then the concern over nutritional imbalance cannot be categorically held against raw/fresh food companies. One possible argument would be that big companies, like Hill's, simply have researched pet nutrition longer and more extensively and therefore they "know best" what to feed our pets. If this is the case, then one would have to argue that Eukanuba, Hill's and Purina are better than not only all the raw food companies, but better than all the premium kibbles companies as well - because all the raw food and premium kibbles companies are smaller than Hill's/etc., and therefore they must know less, so the argument goes. In other words, using this argument, I would have to pick Hill's not only over Darwin/Primal (prominent raw food companies), but also over Orijen/Taste of the Wild/ZiwiPeak.

So the question then becomes: are these big companies really the only ones that know what constitutes a nutritionally balanced meal for a dog or cat? I find that really hard to believe, especially considering what's typically considered the bible for nutritional balance, AAFCO standards, isn't exactly a secret recipe. Or, let's push the logic one step further - for the sake of argument, let's say that we agree Hill's has created the absolute best nutritional balance. Even if that were true, wouldn't it be a "better" food to simply copy Hill's nutritional contents (written directly on the Hill's pet food bag itself) and create a fresh version of these contents - basically, Hill's but with fresh ingredients? I'm not sure how one could argue that Hill's fresh food would be worse than Hill's processed food, if the contents of the two are exactly the same and the difference is simply that one is processed and one is fresh? To defeat this argument or at least render it irrelevant, one would have to:

1). Reject the original premise that fresh food is probably better than processed food.
2). Accept that fresh food is probably better, but say the difference is so marginal that it will not have any real impact on the health of the animals; therefore, you'd be paying more money and creating more work for no reason.

Does that pretty much sum up where we are? 

Kevin


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

I agree, fear mongering does go both ways, which is why I said .......Shame on those that do not, no matter what their personal beliefs are. 

And maybe it's just me, but IMO the raw camp has typically come across more on the fanatical side. When I listen or read the views held by someone like Becker, much of what she states comes across to me as très bizarre. 



> Then you're left with #2 - nutritional imbalance. For this, if you're talking about commercial raw food and commercial processed food companies, the difference is not raw/fresh vs. processed,


Typically I believe this is a case of commercially processed food, vs home made raw food. When the raw movement started, everyone feeding raw was creating their own food, in their own kitchen. Many still are. Many with zero experience on animal nutrition, other than whatever research they have performed online. For many years there were no commercially available - raw diets, and that is when these arguments about nutritional imbalance began. 

This isn't a case of who's the biggest, it's a case of people with absolutely no background in animal nutrition creating diets for animals. 

Today there is a lot more information that can be gleaned online, than back in the 90's when the BARF movement was going strong. I think for a DVM that is much like it would be for an MD, with folks going online and reading up on various ailments, and then self prescribing and self medicating themselves. It can be a slippery slope, especially if the animal being fed has specific medical needs, or problems.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Kevin I was thinking about this thread after yesterday's "fresh" postings and what I might want to say in regard to them. We must have been in each others' heads since you very clearly made my arguments for me. I think the only thing I would add is that we have to be able to believe that all of the people involved in the enterprise of pet food production have one motivator: producing the best product possible based on available nutritional research (no profit concerns, no interest in what competitors are doing or at least the ability to put those things far enough into the background to make them minor issues).


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

No profit concerns? Who can say that, about anything? I love my job, my boss is one of the best, but that doesn't mean that I don't care how much I get paid. 

I think that it's fair to say that about commercial products, no matter what it is, dog food to you name it. One can place the utmost care, love, etc into the product, strive to be the absolute best, and still be concerned about profit. Part of that profit and overall success is shared with the employees.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Obviously I know that you can't run a business without wanting to make a profit! It can't be the concern that overrides decisions about safety, quality and integrity. Sadly there are enterprises that lose sight of what the priorities should be and cut corners in the name of the $$$ bottom line. Dogs died when companies cheated on their protein analysis and used melamine to make their foods look like they met AAFCO standards when they not only didn't meet the nutritional standard, but instead had been rendered outright dangerous.


----------



## RD. (Jul 19, 2016)

Yes, unfortunately in all walks of life there will be those that view their bottom line, as the only line. There is no getting away from that, and as consumers we can vote with our wallets - which is exactly why pet food companies (all of them, not just dog/cat) have had to continuously step up their game over the years. 




> Dogs died when companies cheated on their protein analysis and used melamine to make their foods look like they met AAFCO standards when they not only didn't meet the nutritional standard, but instead had been rendered outright dangerous.



This is part of the reason why one needs to better scrutinize vendors of the various raw ingredients used in pet foods, whether the end product is raw, or kibble. And when dealing with foreign suppliers, and countries with different standards and regulations than ours, tighter vetting needs to take place. Melamine slipped in from suppliers in China because at that time no one in North America was testing for melamine - they simply tested for crude protein content. In Canada, now not only are suppliers/manufacturers testing for these substances, government inspectors require safety checks of the plants that are based in these foreign countries. If they don't pass the sniff test, they aren't allowed into the country. Even manufacturers of pet fish food have found this out the hard way. Allow our inspectors in, or you won't be certified or allowed into the country. 

Hard lessons to learn, but a move in the right direction. And another reason why when feeding kibble, I choose to feed locally manufactured food, that is made from locally sourced raw ingredients, that are fit for human consumption. In some cases our dogs are eating the same foods that we eat. A colossal improvement over what our pets were receiving 50 years ago when I was a youngster.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

RD., yes certainly raw food commercial production companies can be as guilty as kibble and canned manufacturers in poor motivation and corner cutting for the sake of profit. This situation for pet food is as complex and fraught with potential danger as is human food production (loaded with its own recalls and less than honorable moments). I suppose one should not expect excellence in all aspects of pet food production when there are so many problems in human food production (can you tell I have a cynical streak?).

Honest open discussions like these with the opportunity to generate action plans (as suggested voting with one's wallet) are very important in trying to move the needle on concerns like this.


----------

