Any of you feed raw?

[polmaise]

Can you say who ''they'' are ezzy?
Seriously, I have had some that have done it through learned behaviour,and some that have done it with associated behaviour.
It's not conclusive off course in my case with only having breeding and having a few ,but I have found personally that when the dogs that have done it,then fed on a raw diet produce less, and also don't eat the less?..

[slistoe]

Raw diet never stopped any that I had from helping themselves. It was when I was feeding a raw diet that the first shiteater developed in my kennel.

[northern cajun]

Have never found a need to and I sure don't need the extra work and expense with no pay back.

Ezzy

Most people I've talked to or read that have done the math have said it works out to be about the same or less money than what they were feeding before.

Probably could be if you don't charge for your time and labor, don't figure in the cost of a scale so you can proportion the ingredients uniformally instead of feeding a little to day and a lot tomorrow like everyone does. Plus you need to check how much water there is in each ingredient or you will have no idea how much dry matter they are consuming. Also the extra fridge to keep everything from spoiling. I agree that raw feed is good but no one and I mean no one measures and mixes properly and have no idea what their dog need or what they are feeding.

Ezzy

I respectfully disagree Ezzy, I know some that feed it and its cheaper (more work thou) and the dogs perform better than on dry and tend to stay hydrated very well relative to dry food feed dogs.

[shags]

I wonder how many "raw" dogs have won endurance championships or stood on the steps of the Big House?

[walkos5]

Angry? No, just annoyed with the impertinence of the raw food evangelists.Try putting up something factual. THe only dog of mine that ever needed a tooth cleaning was a 17 year old we had switched over to canned food thinking it would be better for her - the vet attributed the build up to the wet food.I can assure you that your dogs will not live longer, have less health issues nor perform any better than mine simply because you are feeding raw. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence in a study by anyone to show that there is even a remote possibility of such. If you want to try it, fine, I really don't care. But don't try to pass it off as some sort of truth.

If I'm deceitful then you are full of yourself. Just because there has never been a study to prove feeding a raw diet can be healthier than feeding commercial dog food means just that, there's never been a study. Yet even with out any study you have already convinced yourself that it could not be possible and that's putting the cart before the horse. You take offense to anyone who tries to promote feeding a raw diet regardless of what success they might be having or have had, and that's typical of a close minded individual. Wolves and Coyotes do indeed have a shorter life expectancy than domestic dogs even the kibble fed ones but not because of the food they eat but because of the elements and constant competition they must deal with in the wild to survive. Now put your bag of kibble where it belongs, back on the shelf and throw your dog a nice meaty bone.

[slistoe]

Yet even with out any study you have already convinced yourself that it could not be possible and that's putting the cart before the horse. You take offense to anyone who tries to promote feeding a raw diet regardless of what success they might be having or have had, and that's typical of a close minded individual.

Again, you prove incapable of realistic interpretation of what is written - reading in what you want to make yourself feel better. I have not convinced myself that it is not possible - I simply said there is absolutely no evidence to show that - scientific or anecdotal. I don't take offense at anyone feeding a raw diet - I take exception to folks making false, unsubstantiated claims as truth.
As with most things in the dog food industry these days, what you feed has more to do with appeasing the conscience of owner than it does with the well being of the dog.
Don't worry about my dogs getting bones - in another month there will be 1/2 dozen deer/moose/elk carcasses here to cut up for them.

[displaced_texan]

Ezzy has a valid point about upside in all this, and in that I tend to agree. There are only 24 hours in a day and some people rightly allocate time to family, recreation, church, charity, etc.

When I can I fit raw feeding in, I do, and I am a big proponent of doing it partially, but it doesn't take priority over life.

I agree, we all have to allocate time for everything in our lives, and I've chosen to feed kibble exclusively, except for the occasional scraps or carcass.

My big issue was Ezzy almost dismissing it as something that is inherently interior to a prepared feed, and referring to proof that may or may not exist. On this one I'd be willing to bet it doesn't exist anymore than a PhD in Canine Nutrition exists.

[walkos5]

The only one making unsubstantiated statements is you. Your defense is stating the lack of any scientific study or evidence that supports the benefit of feeding a raw diet. Well where is the scientific study or evidence showing us that feeding a commercial diet is more beneficial than feeding raw? The readers above agree that no one would fund such a study. And I understand why. But just because there is no proof due to the lack of any scientific study does not mean the possibility does not exist for either argument. So what gives you the right to assure our fellow readers that feeding a raw diet will not make their dogs live longer, have less health issues nor perform any better then a dog that's fed a commercial diet when you have no evidence through any scientific study or evidence to support your statement. You ask for factual information yet you fail to provide any.

[slistoe]

I did not make any claims that feeding quality kibble was better. All I said was that there is zero evidence, anecdotal or scientific, to support your claims that raw will increase longevity and decrease health problems.

[walkos5]

I did not make any claims that feeding quality kibble was better. All I said was that there is zero evidence, anecdotal or scientific, to support your claims that raw will increase longevity and decrease health problems.

So now you have resorted to mixing words around and trying to confuse our fellow readers on who said what. Well I'm sure they all have the intelligent to weed through your useless attempt to cover up your own unsubstantiated claims of assurance. Unlike you, I Have never assured anyone of anything, but merely stated my opinion or belief on the subject.

[MonsterDad]

I did not make any claims that feeding quality kibble was better. All I said was that there is zero evidence, anecdotal or scientific, to support your claims that raw will increase longevity and decrease health problems.

Anyone that doesn't admit that feeding fresh, raw food to a canine is better than bagged dry food is simply being intellectually dishonest. The question is not whether it is better, rather is it worth the trouble or not and is it possible for everyone.

There is no question that when it comes to oral health, skin health like ear infections and digestive health, it is superior. The health and financial benefit of perfect teeth and gums far away any additional cost.

If you want evidence I will give you evidence. If in fact kibble was better and it was demonstrable, Purina would have published a study by now. The absence of such a study suggests to me that even Purina couldn't rig a study showing kibble was better.

[slistoe]

What is it with you people?? I say that there is no evidence of any form that raw is better for your dog - which you have quite plainly stated as a truth on numerous occasions - and you assume I am saying that kibble is demonstrably better. I have never said nor implied that. There is no reason to believe that a balanced diet of raw foods would be worse than a balanced diet of kibble food - nutrition is nutrition. If you folks want to make out that raw is superior the onus is on you to provide some evidence to substantiate your claims. You can't - there is none - that is dishonest. For every person that will say "My dog had a skin rash. I switched to raw and the rash went away." you will find a person that will say "My dog had a skin rash. I switched to XXX brand feed and the rash went away."

[slistoe]

Anyone that doesn't admit that feeding fresh, raw food to a canine is better than bagged dry food is simply being intellectually dishonest. The question is not whether it is better, rather is it worth the trouble or not and is it possible for everyone.

This is the snake oil pitch at its best.

[shags]

Do those of you who feed raw game, are you concerned that the meat may be contaminated with parasites or pathogens? I'm thinking about various worms that encyst in muscle, liver flukes and their eggs/larvae, protozoans, bacteria, and proins.
Not all these things live and reproduce in the gut, and I'm curious how you ensure safe rations for your dogs.

[polmaise]

feed what you want!
Just don't ram it down My throat!
Go have a beer and a rare steak.

[ACooper]

feed what you want!
Just don't ram it down My throat!
Go have a beer and a rare steak.

Now there you go!

[Chukar12]

Anyone that doesn't admit that feeding fresh, raw food to a canine is better than bagged dry food is simply being intellectually dishonest. The question is not whether it is better, rather is it worth the trouble or not and is it possible for everyone.There is no question that when it comes to oral health, skin health like ear infections and digestive health, it is superior. The health and financial benefit of perfect teeth and gums far away any additional cost.If you want evidence I will give you evidence. If in fact kibble was better and it was demonstrable, Purina would have published a study by now. The absence of such a study suggests to me that even Purina couldn't rig a study showing kibble was better.

Does this say the proof of "my point" is that you can provide no proof of "your point?'
That sounds remarkably similar to the classic definition of a difference in opinion.

[polmaise]

Food for thought?
Purina .
http://www.whichdogfood.co.uk/dog-food- ... lete-adult

[SubMariner]

feed what you want!
Just don't ram it down My throat!

THANK YOU!!!!

[walkos5]

Anyone that doesn't admit that feeding fresh, raw food to a canine is better than bagged dry food is simply being intellectually dishonest. The question is not whether it is better, rather is it worth the trouble or not and is it possible for everyone.

This is the snake oil pitch at its best.

MonsterDad, you left out deceitful and pessimistic. To say that bagged dog food is equally nutritious to a balanced raw diet is equivalent to saying a mothers breast milk is no better then the formula that you buy at the grocery store. For someone to say well a cup of my dog food has the same amount of protein,fat and vitamins as a pound of ground beef so it is nutritionally equal, would be dead wrong. The reason for that is because it is not about the quantity of nutritional ingredients but the quality. There is no dry kibble made anywhere by anyone that can match the quality of protein that is found in fresh raw meat. Just as the protein found in raw eggs is utilized twice as effectively within the body as the protein found in wheat, a grain added to many dog food brands. Those who refuse to accept the fact that nature enables better nutrition through a balanced raw diet then dry bagged dog food is every bit intellectually dishonest.

[slistoe]

There is no dry kibble made anywhere by anyone that can match the quality of protein that is found in fresh raw meat. Just as the protein found in raw eggs is utilized twice as effectively within the body as the protein found in wheat, a grain added to many dog food brands.

Very few quality dog foods use wheat in any significant amount. Just saying.
You bring up eggs as compared to grains to justify cooked vs raw meat protein(huh?). You do know that cooking increases the digestibility of egg protein from 50% to 90% don't you? Digestion of meat is also increased by cooking. What was your point again - oh yes, I was being deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

[ACooper]

To say that bagged dog food is equally nutritious to a balanced raw diet is equivalent to saying a mothers breast milk is no better then the formula that you buy at the grocery store.

Post your source.

[ezzy333]

There is probably no use getting back into this discussion so I will make this short. Someone please define a well balanced raw diet? Since protein is nothing more than a word we made up that includes all of the amino acids into one word, telling someone that an animal protein in a source of better quality amino acids is not true since an amino acid is an amino acid and there is no difference in the quality of one over another just isn't true. And the reason we try to include different sources of protein is we can get a balance of the essential amino acids than you can with one source. Since the amino acids are just a chemical to the body that it needs it really doesn't know or care what ingredient supplied it.

If you spend some time studying nutrition with an open mind you will see where most of the arguments we hear expressed on the net are not based on fact but more on what each of us has been convinced is the only way to feed an nothing could be further from the truth than boxing yourself into concept that that doesn't allow you actually working to find a better way to supply the animals needs. We could get more specific but I am convinced it would make little difference to any of you who have yourself in that position.

Ezzy

[brdhntr]

There is probably no use getting back into this discussion so I will make this short. Someone please define a well balanced raw diet? Since protein is nothing more than a word we made up that includes all of the amino acids into one word, telling someone that an animal protein in a source of better quality amino acids is not true since an amino acid is an amino acid and there is no difference in the quality of one over another just isn't true. And the reason we try to include different sources of protein is we can get a balance of the essential amino acids than you can with one source. Since the amino acids are just a chemical to the body that it needs it really doesn't know or care what ingredient supplied it.

If you spend some time studying nutrition with an open mind you will see where most of the arguments we hear expressed on the net are not based on fact but more on what each of us has been convinced is the only way to feed an nothing could be further from the truth than boxing yourself into concept that that doesn't allow you actually working to find a better way to supply the animals needs. We could get more specific but I am convinced it would make little difference to any of you who have yourself in that position.

Ezzy

Your assessment of proteins and amino acids is simplified to the point of being wrong and miss leading. The most obvious is that cooked or heated proteins link and become less digestible. Of course there is far more to the concept of feeding raw than just that.

[slistoe]

Your assessment of proteins and amino acids is simplified to the point of being wrong and miss leading. The most obvious is that cooked or heated proteins link and become less digestible. Of course there is far more to the concept of feeding raw than just that.

Scientific research does not support your opinion.

Our integrated energy assessment protocol shows that cooking increases the energy gained from meat as well as tubers and that, in both foods, it does so to a greater extent than pounding...............consumer-specific digestibility may have been improved through heat-induced denaturation of protein. In this process, proteins unwind from their tightly bound structures when heated, adopting a random coil configuration that increases their susceptibility to proteolytic enzymes in the small intestine (27) before access by gut bacteria. Such susceptibility serves to increase the proportion of protein digested by the consumer compared to the proportion digested by gut bacteria; this result is especially important, because the products of microbial fermentation of protein seem to return little energy to the consumer (2).

[displaced_texan]

If you spend some time studying nutrition with an open mind you will see where most of the arguments we hear expressed on the net are not based on fact but more on what each of us has been convinced is the only way to feed an nothing could be further from the truth than boxing yourself into concept that that doesn't allow you actually working to find a better way to supply the animals needs. We could get more specific but I am convinced it would make little difference to any of you who have yourself in that position.

Ezzy

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

Until you do that you're no more credible than anyone else that's saying you're wrong.

And don't tell me about what you did. Two reasons, science is constantly evolving, and for all I know you're a senile, confused old man.

[slistoe]

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

Until you do that you're no more credible than anyone else that's saying you're wrong.

And don't tell me about what you did. Two reasons, science is constantly evolving, and for all I know you're a senile, confused old man.

You are the one disputing conventional science. The science of dog feed rations has been well established. The emotional advertorials of feeding dogs is a new money maker. Where are your facts for the evolving science you speak of.

[displaced_texan]

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

Until you do that you're no more credible than anyone else that's saying you're wrong.

And don't tell me about what you did. Two reasons, science is constantly evolving, and for all I know you're a senile, confused old man.

You are the one disputing conventional science. The science of dog feed rations has been well established. The emotional advertorials of feeding dogs is a new money maker. Where are your facts for the evolving science you speak of.

I'm not disputing anything in this thread. Or saying anything has changed with animal nutrition.

I'm saying I'm sick of him always referencing facts and studies I don't get to see and am expected to take his word for him.

Science that's changed? Earth was flat, earth was supported on an elephant, earth was the center of the universe, what's known is constantly evolving. If everything was known, they would quit researching and studying things. Even in my short life they can't decide if pork is a good, healthy source of protein or to fatty.

References to things that are known/proven/whatever don't mean squat. Sources do. Imagine turning in a research paper with no sources cited. That's what many on here do.

[ezzy333]

If you spend some time studying nutrition with an open mind you will see where most of the arguments we hear expressed on the net are not based on fact but more on what each of us has been convinced is the only way to feed an nothing could be further from the truth than boxing yourself into concept that that doesn't allow you actually working to find a better way to supply the animals needs. We could get more specific but I am convinced it would make little difference to any of you who have yourself in that position.

Ezzy

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

Until you do that you're no more credible than anyone else that's saying you're wrong.

And don't tell me about what you did. Two reasons, science is constantly evolving, and for all I know you're a senile, confused old man.

I beg your pardon, I am not old. And since we don't talk sex on this forum, I won't comment on the man thing.

[slistoe]

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

Until you do that you're no more credible than anyone else that's saying you're wrong.

And don't tell me about what you did. Two reasons, science is constantly evolving, and for all I know you're a senile, confused old man.

You are the one disputing conventional science. The science of dog feed rations has been well established. The emotional advertorials of feeding dogs is a new money maker. Where are your facts for the evolving science you speak of.

I'm not disputing anything in this thread. Or saying anything has changed with animal nutrition.

I'm saying I'm sick of him always referencing facts and studies I don't get to see and am expected to take his word for him.

Science that's changed? Earth was flat, earth was supported on an elephant, earth was the center of the universe, what's known is constantly evolving. If everything was known, they would quit researching and studying things. Even in my short life they can't decide if pork is a good, healthy source of protein or to fatty.

References to things that are known/proven/whatever don't mean squat. Sources do. Imagine turning in a research paper with no sources cited. That's what many on here do.

When I first started on this internet thing many years ago all of the Purina and Eukanuba research papers were available online as education. I read many of them - then the AR do-gooders got on their attack campaign, amped up and fueled by the raw-food evangelists and fear mongers who were only too happy to have an ally to fight "big business" (cause how else does small business get big?) and all of the "knowledge" disappeared. But the evidence of the results of that knowledge have not - it exists in the lives of all of the dogs that are cared for around the world. The latest round of dog food "fads" is not a result of any new breakthroughs in scientific knowledge regarding nutrition but rather a better understanding of the shaping of public opinions for the purpose of marketing. The science of marketing has undergone a metamorphisis and the implications this has reaches much further and deeper than how much time and money should we spend feeding our dogs.

[shags]

Then supply us with a source of these facts you're always talking about.

I'm not disputing anything in this thread. Or saying anything has changed with animal nutrition.

I'm saying I'm sick of him always referencing facts and studies I don't get to see and am expected to take his word for him.

Science that's changed? Earth was flat, earth was supported on an elephant, earth was the center of the universe, what's known is constantly evolving. If everything was known, they would quit researching and studying things. Even in my short life they can't decide if pork is a good, healthy source of protein or to fatty.

References to things that are known/proven/whatever don't mean squat. Sources do. Imagine turning in a research paper with no sources cited. That's what many on here do.

So where is your scientific "proof"?

[walkos5]

There is probably no use getting back into this discussion so I will make this short. Someone please define a well balanced raw diet? Since protein is nothing more than a word we made up that includes all of the amino acids into one word, telling someone that an animal protein in a source of better quality amino acids is not true since an amino acid is an amino acid and there is no difference in the quality of one over another just isn't true. And the reason we try to include different sources of protein is we can get a balance of the essential amino acids than you can with one source. Since the amino acids are just a chemical to the body that it needs it really doesn't know or care what ingredient supplied it.

If you spend some time studying nutrition with an open mind you will see where most of the arguments we hear expressed on the net are not based on fact but more on what each of us has been convinced is the only way to feed an nothing could be further from the truth than boxing yourself into concept that that doesn't allow you actually working to find a better way to supply the animals needs. We could get more specific but I am convinced it would make little difference to any of you who have yourself in that position.

Ezzy

Ezzy,
You have way of presenting your arguments and information in a way that almost makes sense.

[MonsterDad]

This reminds me of the Star Trek episode where one of the characters was marveling at the machines that synthesized the meals and McCoy says "get some real food".

That about says it all.

[ezzy333]

This reminds me of the Star Trek episode where one of the characters was marveling at the machines that synthesized the meals and McCoy says "get some real food".

That about says it all.

We have had machines that synthesized our foods since the beginning of time. We call them plants and animals. The difference in real food is taste. What we eat is not always the best for you or for your dog but it tastes better, so we go with it.

[Garrison]

It is amazing how many calories are spent worrying about what dogs consume and so few on the animals that we consume.

[walkos5]

There is no dry kibble made anywhere by anyone that can match the quality of protein that is found in fresh raw meat. Just as the protein found in raw eggs is utilized twice as effectively within the body as the protein found in wheat, a grain added to many dog food brands.

Very few quality dog foods use wheat in any significant amount. Just saying.
You bring up eggs as compared to grains to justify cooked vs raw meat protein(huh?). You do know that cooking increases the digestibility of egg protein from 50% to 90% don't you? Digestion of meat is also increased by cooking. What was your point again - oh yes, I was being deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

I have not read anything credible that suggests cooked meat is more digestible than raw, and I am more concerned with the destruction of raw enzymes, and the loss of about 30% to 50% of important vitamins and minerals which are lost during the cooking process. The last quote was by Dr. Jennifer Thomason ( The Whole DOG ). My point was your making this too easy.

[ezzy333]

And which minerals are destroyed by cooking?

As far as any changes from cooking, I think you would have to go by an individual ingredient, how hot and how long was it cooked, plus the type of cooking. We do know that cooking made meat more palatable and more nutritious for people and the same is probably true for our dogs. Too many times we use the fact that cooking can harm certain vegetables and think the same things are true for vegetables, and of course we know that is not necessarily true since meat and vegetable have little in common. Meat for instance has few if any vitamins which is the big concern with fresh vegetable which is loaded with them. There is a much higher percent of minerals in meat than there is in vegetables but there is little difference in a heated mineral compared to a natural mineral since minerals do not dissolve or change from heating. For a matter of fact cooking is how we test to see how much mineral is in a substance when we are testing for ash.

And as we have discussed before when we talk about the quality of protein we are really just talking about the balance of the essential amino acids and not that one amino acid from meat is better than the same amino acid from vegetables. An amino acid is just an amino acid and there is nothing that says it is better or worse because of where it comes from.

I am sure we could continue this whole thing for weeks to come. but we also can shorten the process by observing what each kind or brand of food produces and have a good idea of where it is taking us. The first thing I notice is that just the few people on our forum feed a hundred different feeds and they each think what they are feeding is doing a good job, and I would be willing to bet they are right. Another good test is to go to a trial or a show and observe the dogs and determine what each is eating by looking at animals. Not only which feed is producing the most fit and healthiest, but the longest lived. If it seems impossible to tell them maybe the feeds are very much alike or maybe we need to just say what we are feeding doesn't make near the difference to a dog as what we are trying to make people think it is.

Just some things for you to think about while we watch our dogs eat their feed and wonder if they would like it well done or rare.

Ezzy

[MonsterDad]

Ezzy, you better hope there is no such thing as Planet of the Dogs. If its anything like Planet of the Apes, some big hairy dog is gonna serve you kibble to get back at you, and the cheap kind too, loaded with corn, wheat and Chinese vitamins. Maybe they will spare you and give you the kibble without aflatoxin and euthanized humans.

Just remember what St. Francis said.

[birddog1968]

Someones prone to the dramatic

[slistoe]

There is no dry kibble made anywhere by anyone that can match the quality of protein that is found in fresh raw meat. Just as the protein found in raw eggs is utilized twice as effectively within the body as the protein found in wheat, a grain added to many dog food brands.

Very few quality dog foods use wheat in any significant amount. Just saying.
You bring up eggs as compared to grains to justify cooked vs raw meat protein(huh?). You do know that cooking increases the digestibility of egg protein from 50% to 90% don't you? Digestion of meat is also increased by cooking. What was your point again - oh yes, I was being deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

I have not read anything credible that suggests cooked meat is more digestible than raw, and I am more concerned with the destruction of raw enzymes, and the loss of about 30% to 50% of important vitamins and minerals which are lost during the cooking process. The last quote was by Dr. Jennifer Thomason ( The Whole DOG ). My point was your making this too easy.

Why not try reading the quote I posted a little earlier. Someone did the study. They published the findings. They found that both meat and tubers are made more digestible by cooking them. The technical explanation is copied there for you as well. Read it.
The studies have been done on the loss of vitamins and minerals as well - where they actually concerned themselves with whether any such loss was an actual and real detriment to the end result of nutritional benefit from the food. The studies are there - but you won't find them referenced by any site promulgating raw food.

[walkos5]

Our integrated energy assessment protocol shows that cooking increases the energy gained from meat as well as tubers and that, in both foods, it does so to a greater extent than pounding...............consumer-specific digestibility may have been improved through heat-induced denaturation of protein. In this process, proteins unwind from their tightly bound structures when heated, adopting a random coil configuration that increases their susceptibility to proteolytic enzymes in the small intestine (27) before access by gut bacteria. Such susceptibility serves to increase the proportion of protein digested by the consumer compared to the proportion digested by gut bacteria; this result is especially important, because the products of microbial fermentation of protein seem to return little energy to the consumer (2).

Who's our? And are they associated in any way with a commercial dog food company. I do have another interesting article to share. (Net Pets) Edmond R. Dorosz BSA DVM gives reference to a study by a Dr. Francis M. Pottenger who in 1940 completed a 10 year study that involved 900 cats. Half of the cats were given a raw diet consisting of meat, bones, organs, raw milk and cod liver oil. The other half the exact same diet with the exception that the meat was cooked. The cats that ate the raw diet were healthy, of uniform size and skeletal development and had good fur. They also averaged 5 kittens per litter, and miscarriage was almost non existent. Their cause of death was usually old age. The group that ate the cooked meat had no end to the list of problems. There were skeletal and fur problems, digestive problems, litter sizes varied, Pneumonia was common along with other ailments with an end result of shorter lifespan. Should I discredit this information or does it sound accurate enough to the point that
we can agree that a raw diet can provide better nutrition to a carnivore such as cats and dog then something cooked or processed? if not then why?

[shags]

It's common knowledge that cats have different dietary requirements from dogs, so that 70+ year old study isn't germane to this discussion. And if it were, findings would be suspect because it doesn't seem to be double blind.
Regardless, when cats raised on commercial food these days often live into their late teens and early twenties, dying of "old age" at age ten doesn't sound so great :roll:

[ezzy333]

I was afraid this is where you and Monster were coming from but didn't want to insult you by questioning your knowledge.

that a raw diet can provide better nutrition to a carnivore such as cats and dog

You are right about the cats but our canines may have been carnivores way back in time somewhere but in more recent times it was discovered they were more omnivore. Dogs eat many vegetables and fruits in the wild just as our companion dogs of today do.

Ezzy

[walkos5]

It's common knowledge that cats have different dietary requirements from dogs, so that 70+ year old study isn't germane to this discussion. And if it were, findings would be suspect because it doesn't seem to be double blind.
Regardless, when cats raised on commercial food these days often live into their late teens and early twenties, dying of "old age" at age ten doesn't sound so great :roll:

Is your last statement a fact backed by science or just your opinion, because most cat owners I know who feed their cats cat food also let their kitties out for fresh air and we all know what that means. Fresh birds, mice and bunnies. Perhaps it is those cats eating a combo diet that live into their twenties. Do you think if a someone did a similar study using dogs, fed a suitable raw meat diet with some added fruit and veggies and the only difference was that the one group ate cooked meat the outcome would be much different as far as health problems and longevity? if so, why?

[shags]

Put your thinking cap on . Cats that are allowed to go outdoors regularly don't usually have a long lifespan...yotes, target shooters, cars, fights, disease, etc. The strictly indoor kitties don't encounter such danger and tend toward the longer lifespans.

I've worked in various capacities at several vet clinics since I was 14. I'm signing up for Medicare this year. That's a whole lot of anecdotal experiences and observations.

I have another observation too. The guy crosslots from us never feeds his dogs once they're about 6 months old. If they're hungry, they better go catch something. Their diet is 100% natural for as long as they live...which is about 11/2 - 2 years. And something else occurs to me. Around here there are lots of nasty mangy yotes and foxes. If raw is so great, how come their immune systems are so lousy?

Feed what you want. More power to ya. But unless you also can cite proof of your claims that raw is superior for domestic dogs, your views are no more valid than anyone's.

[walkos5]

I was afraid this is where you and Monster were coming from but didn't want to insult you by questioning your knowledge.

that a raw diet can provide better nutrition to a carnivore such as cats and dog

You are right about the cats but our canines may have been carnivores way back in time somewhere but in more recent times it was discovered they were more omnivore. Dogs eat many vegetables and fruits in the wild just as our companion dogs of today do.

Ezzy

Well I appreciate the thought, and that too is debatable, but I agree that our wild canids do seem to be more opportunistic as they will feed on plants, fruit and berries to a lesser degree. Be more afraid of the answers you get then the questions you ask. advice is free so keep what you like and toss the rest.

[walkos5]

Put your thinking cap on . Cats that are allowed to go outdoors regularly don't usually have a long lifespan...yotes, target shooters, cars, fights, disease, etc. The strictly indoor kitties don't encounter such danger and tend toward the longer lifespans.

I've worked in various capacities at several vet clinics since I was 14. I'm signing up for Medicare this year. That's a whole lot of anecdotal experiences and observations.

I have another observation too. The guy crosslots from us never feeds his dogs once they're about 6 months old. If they're hungry, they better go catch something. Their diet is 100% natural for as long as they live...which is about 11/2 - 2 years. And something else occurs to me. Around here there are lots of nasty mangy yotes and foxes. If raw is so great, how come their immune systems are so lousy?

Feed what you want. More power to ya. But unless you also can cite proof of your claims that raw is superior for domestic dogs, your views are no more valid than anyone's.

"Whoa", didn't mean to raise the bp. I just think there is more to this argument then stating no one can prove it due to lack of scientific evidence or something. All of the information concerning diet and nutrition that I have read favor raw food to provide better nutrition. Ask yourself this, where does a dog food company start the process for making kibble. With some form of raw meat and added ingredients, right. Well the way I see it is I'm eliminating the process and feeding from the starting point. Not sure about those coyotes, the ones in my area look pretty healthy. Missing some deer too.

[MonsterDad]

There was a time when Americans were among the healthiest people in the world. Those days are long gone. Every time I land in Chicago I wonder how people make it past the age of 40 and Chicago is not the worst.

The downward spiral of health in the United States is largely due to processed, simple carbohydrate-laden foods much like what is fed to our pets.

If you don't have the common sense to understand that man and beast deserve organic fresh food and pastured animal products then I can't educate you on the benefits.

[shags]

LOL When I make spaghetti and meatballs I start with raw, too, but wouldn't end the prep there

Think about marketing. If raw was the best, wouldn't the big feed companies be marketing nice lovely no muss no fuss packages of nicely chopped raw meats? Of course they would! There's already one company doing it small scale and it doesn't seem to be going very well.

[birddog1968]

There was a time when Americans were among the healthiest people in the world. Those days are long gone. Every time I land in Chicago I wonder how people make it past the age of 40 and Chicago is not the worst.

The downward spiral of health in the United States is largely due to processed, simple carbohydrate-laden foods much like what is fed to our pets.

If you don't have the common sense to understand that man and beast deserve organic fresh food and pastured animal products then I can't educate you on the benefits.

This is all true ! but it doesn't mean food can't be cooked. And it by no stretch means that modern premium dry dog foods are like the processed foods most Americans CHOOSE to eat.