Raw vs. kibble

Post Reply
Spike
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: Southern California

Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spike » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:08 am

I go to a park to run my dogs and know a lot of the folks/dogs there. There's a German Shepard that's had all sorts of problems but now looks and moves great. The owner says she's changed to Halshan premium raw food (locally produced and frozen). This dog runs about 10% of what my dogs do but it's health, appearance and disposition are much improved over what they were. My Brits are now eating Blue Buffalo Wilderness but I'm open to trying other foods.

I searched this forum for "raw" and found nothing. Is this because nobody feeds raw? If that's the case, is that because it's too expensive, it's not considered good for gun dogs, what?

Any thoughts about raw are welcomed.

Thanks,
Spike
Spike Cover

ghideon
Rank: Just A Pup
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:05 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ghideon » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:53 am

I have a GSP pup and the breeder told me to use Kirkland Adult food, which we did try for I time.

I mixed in 3-4 different puppy kibbles over some time (which included freeze dried raw) and he did horrible with them. Like hosing down the grass horrible.

Since that time (he's 9mo now) we were mixing in 50/50 Kirkland Adult and a limited ingredient formula. After receiving an allergy test (for food allergies he was allergic to potatoes, grain and diary, mildly allergic to beef and chicken) we went 100% on the limited ingredient kibble that was lamb-based.

He's actually eating less, and is more active (partly related to it not being 90-100 degrees farenheit later). It's also done wonders for picking up his poop.

User avatar
luvthemud
Rank: Champion
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: The Holyland, WI

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by luvthemud » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:45 am

Oh boy! Sort of opening a can of worms here, but I will tell you my experiences with raw feeding.

I had a dog that had all sorts of issues, so as a last resort, I decided to ditch the kibble. Did a lot of research, read some books, called some folks, and essentially decided that if done correctly, it can be very healthy for your pet. Clean teeth, solid/minimal stool, great coat, all the good stuff.

I decided rather than let my dog chomp away on a chicken quarter, that I would grind it. Using a mixture of chicken quarters, gizzards, and hearts, I would grind it all up and put it in 2 pound bags. I would then freeze it for a minimum of two weeks and thaw a weeks worth of food at a time. The dog absolutely loved it. Cost wise, it was pretty much the same price as what I was paying for the grain free dry food. I was getting the chicken from my local meat market at a pretty good price when buying 100 pounds at a crack. I did pork as well, and was actually planning on doing a venison batch when my dog ended up passing. I honestly believe that raw food prolonged his life.

The bad: making the stuff was messy and feeding it to the dog was as well. I got pretty efficient at it, but still, it was a few hours that could be spent doing something else. My plan was to eventually put the stuff in bratwurst casings, but the cost sort of drove me away from doing that. Handling raw chicken and having it slop all over the food dish and floor....not pleasant. Was also worried about the salmonella threat from the stools in the yard.

To supplement the main food, I made a freezer cube with a bunch of stuff like eggs with shells, flax seed oil, kelp, and other things. Dog loved them as well.

Good luck if you decide to try it. There is something gratifying about making your dogs food from scratch, but unless I have to because of some food allergy with kibble, I will never do it again.

Spike
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spike » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:42 am

Hi Luvthemud,

Thanks for the reply and for your experience.

I have had a bunch of dogs over the years (I'm an old guy) and for my second pair of Brits, I did the home-made food thing. So I know where you're coming from with the observation of "messy," and I also understand, "I will never do it again."

However, If raw can produce a good result and a commercially prepared raw diet can eliminate much of the time, effort and mess, maybe the last barrier is cost.

It is this issue of, "Can it produce a good result?" that I'm most interested in. You wrote that the raw diet seemed to prolong your dog's life. That's certainly a good result.

Thanks again.
Spike Cover

Dakotazeb
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: South Dakota / Arizona

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Dakotazeb » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:57 am

Spike wrote:I go to a park to run my dogs and know a lot of the folks/dogs there. There's a German Shepard that's had all sorts of problems but now looks and moves great. The owner says she's changed to Halshan premium raw food (locally produced and frozen). This dog runs about 10% of what my dogs do but it's health, appearance and disposition are much improved over what they were. My Brits are now eating Blue Buffalo Wilderness but I'm open to trying other foods.

I searched this forum for "raw" and found nothing. Is this because nobody feeds raw? If that's the case, is that because it's too expensive, it's not considered good for gun dogs, what?

Any thoughts about raw are welcomed.

Thanks,
Spike
There is not a lot of information on their web site as to the overall content and analysis. Only under Complete Diets do they give any percentages. Prime Ingredients #1 says 16.5% protein and 10.5% fat. Prime Turkey has 17.73% protein and 4.84% fat. While those percentages might be okay for a house dog they are very low for a hard working hunting dog. Your Brittanys, assuming they are hunting dogs, should probably have at least 26% protein and 16% fat. I think you are much better off staying with Blue Buffalo. I would guess there is an extremely small percentage of gun dogs being fed a raw diet. There are a lot of very good foods out there, like Blue Buffalo, that are a complete and balanced diet.
Janee's August Breeze - Bree
http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigree. ... erations=5

NSTRA Champion Godfather's Dakota Elle 2008-2016
https://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigree ... erations=5

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by shags » Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:01 am

Read some of the gazillion dog food threads on here and see how what works for some doesn't work for all.

Every dog is different and may or may not do well on any diet. So the thing to do IMO is to try the commercial raw diet and see how your dogs do on it. If they do well, and it's affordable and accessible, great. If not, now you know.

Steve007
Rank: 4X Champion
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Steve007 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:27 am

There is an amazing variety of commercial kibbles for allergic dogs, or for those who don't get along on regular food for whatever reason. See your vet. Duck, turkey, fish, venison, sweet potato, all kinds of things and all backed by professional canine nutritionists. To say nothing of a further massive variety of other commercial dry-food diets.

The faith-healing mysticism of "feeding raw" certainly has fans, but they could get far better long-term results (no research of longevity for dogs fed this way) by some continued experimentation until they find a scientifically-proven easily-obtainable food that works for them.

slistoe
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3616
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by slistoe » Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:35 am

Dakotazeb wrote: There is not a lot of information on their web site as to the overall content and analysis. Only under Complete Diets do they give any percentages. Prime Ingredients #1 says 16.5% protein and 10.5% fat. Prime Turkey has 17.73% protein and 4.84% fat. While those percentages might be okay for a house dog they are very low for a hard working hunting dog. Your Brittanys, assuming they are hunting dogs, should probably have at least 26% protein and 16% fat. I think you are much better off staying with Blue Buffalo. I would guess there is an extremely small percentage of gun dogs being fed a raw diet. There are a lot of very good foods out there, like Blue Buffalo, that are a complete and balanced diet.
You are trying to compare numbers from a wet food to a dry one relating the 17.5% protein to 26%. What I would like about the Prime #1 is the ratio of protein to fat. There is very little fat in the Turkey diet and that wouldn't be good for a working dog.
Being a wet food (68% moisture) you will need to feed a lot more pounds per day than a dry kibble - IMO that is some pretty expensive water in commercial raw food diets.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:08 am

In all of the feeding research I have seen reports of or he ones we participated in I have never seen documentation of dog nutrition I have never seen any evidence that individual doge have a genetic difference in their requirements anymore than any other animal specie. There are occasional differences due to an allergy but other than that if a diet was good for one it worked for all if they have the same activity and environmental situation.

there are many many dogfood topics already posted on this forum that probably covers most any thing you would want to know. Look and read and then if something hasn't been covered br sure to ask.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

CWT
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:46 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by CWT » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:23 am

Species. Sorry I can't help it.

nanney1
Rank: Champion
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:42 am

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by nanney1 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:24 am

I agree with luvthemud's comments. I tried it at one time just to see of any changes/improvements although my dog didn't have any problems. With one dog and a regular size refrigerator/freezer combo, it was no problem, just took some time to prepare. With two dogs, it started to become a hassle and without a second freezer, I was beginning to run out of space. With three dogs, there was just no way unless I wanted to invest in another freezer.

The dogs did fine on raw although I didn't see any noticeable changes as opposed to kibble. One dog was on raw for around a year. I know some who feed raw and have a large number of dogs to feed.

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:42 am

Spike, My Vizsla has been raw fed from 8 weeks. His condition is peak. Very lean, yet densely muscled. Coat is luxurious and soft. Teeth are gleaming white. Breath is fresh.

His stamina is almost limitless. There is no question in my mind that a balanced PRM-style (prey model) diet is an optimal one for dogs.

If one looks at any study done on high-protein high-fat diets one can see stamina (as measured by VO2 Max scores) soars as fat-burning replaced carbohydrates as a "fuel." And these results are very dramatic. Getting carbs out of the diet is hugely beneficial on multiple fronts.

The one rub in your plan is that pre-packaged commercial raw food tends to be $$$$$. If you have money to burn it has a convenience factor. But by sourcing ingredients well and paying attention to PRM ratios it is quite possible to DIY a raw diet at a good price. I think I spend less on raw than I would on a "premium" kibble, which isn't nearly comparable in quality IMO.

There is no need to grind food, and it is counter-productive. So beware elaborate on-line "recipes" that have you grinding big batches of food. Better to serve foods in their natural state. Do your research first.

My 2 cents,

Bill

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:52 am

Dakotazeb wrote:There is not a lot of information on their web site as to the overall content and analysis. Only under Complete Diets do they give any percentages. Prime Ingredients #1 says 16.5% protein and 10.5% fat. Prime Turkey has 17.73% protein and 4.84% fat. While those percentages might be okay for a house dog they are very low for a hard working hunting dog. Your Brittanys, assuming they are hunting dogs, should probably have at least 26% protein and 16% fat. I think you are much better off staying with Blue Buffalo. I would guess there is an extremely small percentage of gun dogs being fed a raw diet. There are a lot of very good foods out there, like Blue Buffalo, that are a complete and balanced diet.
LOL. These percentages of fat and protein are not "low" at all. They may "seem" low to someone comparing the numbers to a dried kibble because due to labeling laws moisture (water) is included in the percentages. Raw food of moisture rich (as a canine feed should be) and thus the percentages (in an apples vs oranges comparison) look low relative to kibble, but subtract the moisture from both feeds and there is no comparison about the percentages of protein and fat in a balanced raw diet vs a kibble diet.

A better measure would be to understand the percentages of calories from protein, fat, and carbohydrates are in each option. A PMR diet is near zero in calories from carbohydrates. The calories from protein and fat in a raw diet would blow away any kibble by a very wide margin.

Bill

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:09 am

My 5 month old pup only knows raw so I can't give a miraculous transformation testimony 8)

Chances are there are one or two "raw feeding networks" in your area, find them on facebook or yahoo groups, they can be great help in sourcing raw food at reasonable prices. I found a great distributor that I purchase from once a month much of what I feed.

Raw feeding is more work than scooping kibble from a bag, however once you are in the groove, it's not much trouble at all. If you are "raw curious" you can try one feeding a day raw, one kibble- don't mix kibble and raw at the same feeding. Here's my anecdotal evidence of the truth behind raw: my pup requires no "gradual transition" between proteins, raw whole salmon -> chicken w/ bone-> beef w/bone-> quail w/bone -> venison, etc every poop is nice and firm. I spend about $3.25 a day.

5 mos 46lbs

Image

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:52 am

Do makes sure not to feed raw salmon or trout from the Pacific Northwest as it can carry a disease that's deadly to dogs. Look up salmon poisoning.

I feed mackerel, sardines, anchovies, and similar oily fish.

Bill

CWT
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:46 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by CWT » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:14 am

Ya'lls dogs eat better than I do. Guess that is why my poop ain't nice and firm.

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:36 am

Spy Car wrote:Do makes sure not to feed raw salmon or trout from the Pacific Northwest as it can carry a disease that's deadly to dogs. Look up salmon poisoning.

I feed mackerel, sardines, anchovies, and similar oily fish.

Bill

My understanding is the salmon problem is mostly a volume issue, out of 14 feedings/week, my pup sees salmon ~4 times. I'm going to pick up some mackerel this month for some variety.

I'd like to add I feed 70% Blueridge Beef, pre-ground products that's why my cost is $3.25/day. Now that pup is older, I'm transitioning to more whole meat and expect my cost to hover around $2.50/day maybe less.

Re: Salmonella, E coli, etc. your dog's short digestive tract is so acidic that none of those food-borne bugs survive the trip... that why our dogs don't die eating all sorts of poop and dead stuff in the field ;)

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:19 pm

I can't imagine spending that much for dog food and going through all the work and mess. Guess you can do it for one dog but can you imagine what many of the training kennels and trial handlers would have to do and charge people if they tried it. One of my good friends said he spent 15000 for feed last year and he is feeding Purina. But he has to feed well as his dogs are running trials and the dogs in for training get worked hard most days. Let us know how it all works out for you.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:18 pm

Image

This is my young (19 months old) dog in what I consider peak condition. Just placed in his first field trial. I posted it on another forum talking about endurance and another on a food topic. He's at such a high metabolism that not a trace of fat can stay on him. I wish I could test him in this manner on a raw diet to see if there's a difference in any part of his performance. Unfortunately, it's way too difficult to do on the road, and especially asking his handler to do it while I'm not hunting him. If only someone could prove to me his performance would go higher, I'd switch over. All my dogs get raw sardines at home with their kibble, including venison and other when I have it.

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:05 am

Magnificent looking dog!

I am not by any means or measure an expert in canine nutrition no,r any sort of raw evangelist.

It's easy to imagine the significant logistics and infrastructure (refrigeration) commitment of raw feeding a dozen dogs in a kennel or even 4 dogs on the road for a couple of weeks.

Would it be better? I think so. The question, is the juice worth the squeeze for a dog on a FT campaign? I can't say. All you can do is establish a condition standard when he comes home and monitor the changes as you feed raw.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:23 am

Feed whatever you like but do realize that either works. It is almost universal that high performance dogs are fed kibble though some may be fed a chunk of fatty meat along with it but the problem of doing it keeps most, other than the northern sled dog owners, from doing it. Hard working dogs just do better holding their weight and energy with a diet that includes grain and the best of those is corn.

Many of the raw feed enthusiasts try to convince everyone that raw is superior and use every argument possible to convince you they are right and everyone should be doing it, but feed test over the years just do not support that theory. You can do a good job feeding either especially just to your hunting, house pet, or lap dog. But you may find a difference in the trial dogs that are in extreme conditioning and competitive trials.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

nanney1
Rank: Champion
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:42 am

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by nanney1 » Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:26 pm

SCT wrote:Image

This is my young (19 months old) dog in what I consider peak condition. Just placed in his first field trial. I posted it on another forum talking about endurance and another on a food topic. He's at such a high metabolism that not a trace of fat can stay on him. I wish I could test him in this manner on a raw diet to see if there's a difference in any part of his performance. Unfortunately, it's way too difficult to do on the road, and especially asking his handler to do it while I'm not hunting him. If only someone could prove to me his performance would go higher, I'd switch over. All my dogs get raw sardines at home with their kibble, including venison and other when I have it.
What kibble does this dog eat and how much does he weigh? How much exercise does he he get per day? Looks great!

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:17 pm

Right now he's eating Purina Pro Plan sport 30/20. He doesn't run every day. Some weeks he runs 4-5 days, and others 1-3 days. He is pressed pretty hard when he runs and once you get his metabolism high like it is, he will keep this muscle tone for several weeks, whether you run him or not. He's a nice specimen;-) He weighs 53 lbs in this condition at 19 months old. He peaked out at 57-58 lbs at 11 months.

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:56 pm

Urban_Redneck wrote:
Spy Car wrote:

My understanding is the salmon problem is mostly a volume issue, out of 14 feedings/week, my pup sees salmon ~4 times. I'm going to pick up some mackerel this month for some variety.

I'd like to add I feed 70% Blueridge Beef, pre-ground products that's why my cost is $3.25/day. Now that pup is older, I'm transitioning to more whole meat and expect my cost to hover around $2.50/day maybe less.

Re: Salmonella, E coli, etc. your dog's short digestive tract is so acidic that none of those food-borne bugs survive the trip... that why our dogs don't die eating all sorts of poop and dead stuff in the field ;)
Sorry, but you are misinformed on the issue of salmon poisoning. It is not a matter of quantity, but whether the salmon (or trout) carries a pathogen that is fatal to dogs. 90% of dogs with untreated salmon poisoning die from the disease. Feeding PNW salmon raw is a very bad idea.

I'm a strong proponent of raw feeding, but.....

Bill

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:05 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Feed whatever you like but do realize that either works. It is almost universal that high performance dogs are fed kibble though some may be fed a chunk of fatty meat along with it but the problem of doing it keeps most, other than the northern sled dog owners, from doing it. Hard working dogs just do better holding their weight and energy with a diet that includes grain and the best of those is corn.

Many of the raw feed enthusiasts try to convince everyone that raw is superior and use every argument possible to convince you they are right and everyone should be doing it, but feed test over the years just do not support that theory. You can do a good job feeding either especially just to your hunting, house pet, or lap dog. But you may find a difference in the trial dogs that are in extreme conditioning and competitive trials.

Ezzy
Please post a feeding study that shows dogs have higher energy when fed corn than they do when they run on meat, fat, organs, and bone.

Every study actually shows that stamina is much (much) higher in dogs fed high-protein high-fat diets (as opposed to high-carbohydrate diets). This is well-established in studies paid for by pet food companies themselves.

Bill

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:31 am

Conjecture on my part- a ripped dog like SCT's obviously needs lots of protein and fat to keep the lights on.

High performance kibble is still 50% marginally digestible fillers (grains and starch), likely his dog's short digestive tract may not be able extract enough nutrition from even the best kibble on it's way to the outlet. Feeding a more fully digestible, species appropriate mixture of flesh, organs, and bone makes the most sense to me. What that particular diet looks like for his ultra performance dog, I don't know.



PS Dogs don't need "carbs"

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:58 am

Urban_Redneck wrote:Conjecture on my part- a ripped dog like SCT's obviously needs lots of protein and fat to keep the lights on.

High performance kibble is still 50% marginally digestible fillers (grains and starch), likely his dog's short digestive tract may not be able extract enough nutrition from even the best kibble on it's way to the outlet. Feeding a more fully digestible, species appropriate mixture of flesh, organs, and bone makes the most sense to me. What that particular diet looks like for his ultra performance dog, I don't know.



PS Dogs don't need "carbs"
What is your definition of the term "filler"? Dog have consumed carbs forever and still do whether we feed them or they find them for their selves. And like all animals they do need fiber and other material for the health of their digestive tract and to remain healthy overall. I think we all agree dogs do use fat for much of their energy and use protein for the growth and maintenance of their body but they also do need and use carbs to a lesser degree that many species. One of the side effects of a high caloric diet is the desire to overeat if the dog is not extremely active. Strangely so many that advocate the extremely concentrated feeds are the same people who recommend green beans, pumpkin or some other fibrous carb be added to the dogs feed, And it works but shouldn't be needed if we feed what the dog needs in it's normal diet.

Though we all know diet is important for ultra performance, conditioning is the more visible factor effecting our dogs performance.
Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:51 am

ezzy333 wrote: What is your definition of the term "filler"? Dog have consumed carbs forever and still do whether we feed them or they find them for their selves. And like all animals they do need fiber and other material for the health of their digestive tract and to remain healthy overall. I think we all agree dogs do use fat for much of their energy and use protein for the growth and maintenance of their body but they also do need and use carbs to a lesser degree that many species. One of the side effects of a high caloric diet is the desire to overeat if the dog is not extremely active. Strangely so many that advocate the extremely concentrated feeds are the same people who recommend green beans, pumpkin or some other fibrous carb be added to the dogs feed, And it works but shouldn't be needed if we feed what the dog needs in it's normal diet.

Though we all know diet is important for ultra performance, conditioning is the more visible factor effecting our dogs performance.
Ezzy
The National Research Council, recognized as the world's leading authority on canine nutrition, says dogs have no essential needs for carbohydrates. None.

Raw-fed dogs don't need pumpkin, green beans, or the like to maintain great digestive habits and very compact stools. "Filler" is the difference between the small amount of waste that results from eating a natural meat, bone, and organ based diet and a kibble diet. There is no comparison is the quantity of waste (stool) between raw-fed vs kibble-fed dogs, and the more fillers the more waste.

Conditioning and a high-fat diet are closely interlinked. One pet food study took de-conditioned dogs who were fed a kibble diet and measured aerobic capacity (as VO2 Max). As expected for out-of-shape dogs it was quite low. Then, without lifestyle changes, the dogs were switched to a high-fat/high-protein ration. After a time these dogs were re-tested and their VO2 Max results soared to very near the levels expect from highly-conditioned dogs.

Food matters. Carbohydrates cut stamina. They provide a quick hit of blood glycogen, that is followed by a slump. In contrast, dogs burning fat has a nearly inexhaustible energy supply.

The reason to feed high-fat is not "to keep weight on," as de-tuned dogs eating carbs are the ones that get porky (while optimally conditioned fat-burners stay active and lean) it is to maximize stamina.

Bill

Steve007
Rank: 4X Champion
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Steve007 » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:47 pm

Spy Car wrote:[. One pet food study took de-conditioned dogs who were fed a kibble diet and measured aerobic capacity (as VO2 Max).
To refer to a "kibble diet" as though they were all the same seems a little short-sighted to me. :roll: To say nothing of the nonspecificity of "one pet food study".

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:37 pm

Very true 007. This is a new kibble (new to me, actually been produced for 30 years) I just started feeding my dogs. I've used several high performance dog foods with similar analysis numbers, and without naming names, every one of them caused soft stools, if serving size was slightly too big. Transition seems to be very fast with solid stools so far. I'm fortunate to live fairly close to the plant that makes this food for Billy Snodgrass, as he doesn't ship it and you can only buy it in a few stores in WY, MT, and ID. Hopefully it will work for my dogs and fill the gap delivering more fat and protein to my hard working dogs. Oh, and at $38 per bag, it's very affordable. Their chicken formula is the same analysis and $34 per bag. I think it's about 600 calories per cup so a little over two cups for my bigger dogs should suffice.

Image

User avatar
luvthemud
Rank: Champion
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: The Holyland, WI

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by luvthemud » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:25 am

Spy Car wrote:
ezzy333 wrote: What is your definition of the term "filler"? Dog have consumed carbs forever and still do whether we feed them or they find them for their selves. And like all animals they do need fiber and other material for the health of their digestive tract and to remain healthy overall. I think we all agree dogs do use fat for much of their energy and use protein for the growth and maintenance of their body but they also do need and use carbs to a lesser degree that many species. One of the side effects of a high caloric diet is the desire to overeat if the dog is not extremely active. Strangely so many that advocate the extremely concentrated feeds are the same people who recommend green beans, pumpkin or some other fibrous carb be added to the dogs feed, And it works but shouldn't be needed if we feed what the dog needs in it's normal diet.

Though we all know diet is important for ultra performance, conditioning is the more visible factor effecting our dogs performance.
Ezzy
The National Research Council, recognized as the world's leading authority on canine nutrition, says dogs have no essential needs for carbohydrates. None.

Raw-fed dogs don't need pumpkin, green beans, or the like to maintain great digestive habits and very compact stools. "Filler" is the difference between the small amount of waste that results from eating a natural meat, bone, and organ based diet and a kibble diet. There is no comparison is the quantity of waste (stool) between raw-fed vs kibble-fed dogs, and the more fillers the more waste.

Conditioning and a high-fat diet are closely interlinked. One pet food study took de-conditioned dogs who were fed a kibble diet and measured aerobic capacity (as VO2 Max). As expected for out-of-shape dogs it was quite low. Then, without lifestyle changes, the dogs were switched to a high-fat/high-protein ration. After a time these dogs were re-tested and their VO2 Max results soared to very near the levels expect from highly-conditioned dogs.

Food matters. Carbohydrates cut stamina. They provide a quick hit of blood glycogen, that is followed by a slump. In contrast, dogs burning fat has a nearly inexhaustible energy supply.

The reason to feed high-fat is not "to keep weight on," as de-tuned dogs eating carbs are the ones that get porky (while optimally conditioned fat-burners stay active and lean) it is to maximize stamina.

Bill
I am also of the belief that dogs really don't "need" carbs...however, I do have one question regarding this post. I have lived the last two years of my life on a keto diet, so while no expert, I do sort of know how it works in humans. With that said...

How does an extremely fit/lean dog, like the body builder pictured above, have a nearly "inexhaustible energy supply"? Where is the fat that their body is converting to that energy? Humans who live off of protein still need that occasional carb, even more so when they are at the lower end of the body fat scale.

shags
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by shags » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:10 am

Would adding fats to the current feed be as effective as switching brands, like a spoonful of lard, coconut oil, vegetable oil?

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:48 am

shags wrote:Would adding fats to the current feed be as effective as switching brands, like a spoonful of lard, coconut oil, vegetable oil?
This my way of adjusting when needed.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:04 am

Luvthemud, I don't think he has an inexhaustible energy supply. The calories he gets from his nighttime meal gets him through his 1-1 1/2 hour workouts. Longer than that and he'll start to slow down. If I gave him too many calories, like say 3000, he'd likely not be able to utilize them from the kibble he's been on, and I know his gut will be sick (soft stools to diarrhea). That's why I'm so excited about this new food I'm giving him. I can't say his stools are smaller, but they are solid, even though I've upped his fat intake by 20% and protein intake by 7.5%. Not only that, I believe the ingredients are a bit better with more meat meal than what he's been on. I don't have a problem with corn as a carb either, you can look at the dog and see he's working just fine on it. But, this food doesn't use it. Last time I ran him he averaged 18.5 miles per hour in 40 minutes on my Garmin Astro, and that was after standing through a couple distant points. He's not the fasted dog I've heard of, but he's not slow;-).

I'm curious to see how this HOT food works out for him next summer when the temps climb back up. I'll probably have to cut him down to 1 cup a day or slightly more.

Steve

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:41 am

shags wrote:Would adding fats to the current feed be as effective as switching brands, like a spoonful of lard, coconut oil, vegetable oil?
Yes and no. There was another thread recently where a poster used a high-protein but low-fat food, and i(n that case) it would make sense. But the rub is always the fact that kibbles all carry a heavy carbohydrate load. While raising fats is good, lowering proteins (by doing so) is not. Better to eliminate the carbs.

And carbohydrates in kibble disrupt fat metabolism. Dogs will still experience the rapid peak and crash caused by the rapid depletion of glycogen stores in the muscles typical of carb burning.

Adding polyunsaturated vegetables is a bad idea, as these are very inflammatory and bad for dogs. There is wide controversy over rendered fats like lard. Better (it seems) to add raw saturated fats like pork, lamb, or beef trim. Quality coconut oil (not the hydrogenated stuff) is a good source of medium chain fatty acids, but animal fats should provide the bulk of the lipids. Fatyy fish are good too (just be aware of the risk of PNW salmon and trout).

If one does add fat, increase the amount slowly. Really slowly. There are a myriad of changes that need to take place for dogs to restore their natural ability to metabolise fats well (after living on an unnatural level of carbohydrates). The pancreas, for example, needs to start shifting to the release of fat-specific digestive enzymes (Lipase). Sudden huge meals (often accidental ones) of dogs consuming a holiday feast's worth of fat (especially cooked fat/grease) when they are not conditioned to fat burning is implicated in triggering pancreatitis, as the pancreas spills the wrong digestive enzyme, which eats away at the digestive tract.

There are even intracellular changes that come with fat-burning as the mitochondria inside cells get revved up to produce energy from fat.

The superiority of fat-burning for increasing stamina in dogs is very well established in the veterinary scientific literature. Why this knowledge (in the main) has not trickled down into the hunting dog community is a mystery to me.

Bill

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:47 am

SCT wrote:Luvthemud, I don't think he has an inexhaustible energy supply. The calories he gets from his nighttime meal gets him through his 1-1 1/2 hour workouts. Longer than that and he'll start to slow down. If I gave him too many calories, like say 3000, he'd likely not be able to utilize them from the kibble he's been on, and I know his gut will be sick (soft stools to diarrhea). That's why I'm so excited about this new food I'm giving him. I can't say his stools are smaller, but they are solid, even though I've upped his fat intake by 20% and protein intake by 7.5%. Not only that, I believe the ingredients are a bit better with more meat meal than what he's been on. I don't have a problem with corn as a carb either, you can look at the dog and see he's working just fine on it. But, this food doesn't use it. Last time I ran him he averaged 18.5 miles per hour in 40 minutes on my Garmin Astro, and that was after standing through a couple distant points. He's not the fasted dog I've heard of, but he's not slow;-).

I'm curious to see how this HOT food works out for him next summer when the temps climb back up. I'll probably have to cut him down to 1 cup a day or slightly more.

Steve
Steve, all I know is that I've run my Vizsla on nothing but a diet of unprocessed meat, fat, soft-edible bone, organs, fish, eggs, and the like, following the 80/10/10 (Meat/Organs/Bone) Prey Model Raw ratios and the amount of stool is dramatically less that produced by kibble fed dogs and it is of optimal consistency.

Bill

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16646
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by ezzy333 » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:05 am

Steve all I know is all of mine and every NATIONAL CH, every 3 hr endurance trial winner plus every sled dog competitor I have ever encountered used a kibble and some added raw meat(sled dogs use it but normally heat it before feeding when on the trail) and it worked.

Feeding research and actual experience can't all be wrong. Look at the results and make up your own mind. The evidence is right before your eyes. Just be thankful you live in a country that allows you to make up your own mind what you want to feed and no matter what you choose I will bet next months paycheck your dog will do good. Dogs have been living healthy lives for centuries long before we had all of the advantages we have today.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:09 pm

Spy Car wrote:Do makes sure not to feed raw salmon or trout from the Pacific Northwest as it can carry a disease that's deadly to dogs. Look up salmon poisoning.

I feed mackerel, sardines, anchovies, and similar oily fish.

Bill
Thanks again Bill, I did a little research. I buy my salmon frozen and it spends a month in my chest freezer before thawing and feeding. I'll still check with my distributor about the source of the fish.

By Dr. Becker

If you live in the Pacific Northwest and your dog goes swimming, boating or fishing with you – or if you live elsewhere and are in the habit of offering raw fish to your pet – you should be aware that your dog could be at risk for salmon poisoning.

Salmon poisoning is a life-threatening condition most commonly caused by raw fish taken from coastal streams and rivers in the Pacific Northwest, from San Francisco all the way up to the coast of Alaska.

Cause of Salmon Poisoning Disease

The organism Neorickettsia helminthoeca, which embeds with Nanophyetus salmincola, a fluke present in raw fish, is what causes salmon poisoning disease.

Salmon, trout, lamprey and other fish native to the Pacific Northwest can be carriers, as well as sculpin, redside shiner, shad, sturgeon, candlefish and large-scale sucker.

When a dog eats infected raw fish, the larval flukes release the rickettsiae organisms, which then travel in the bloodstream to the liver, lungs, brain, and lymphoid tissues, causing necrosis, hemorrhage, and hyperplasia.

Symptoms and Diagnosis

Infected dogs will begin showing symptoms within 6 to 10 days after eating contaminated fish. Symptoms can include loss of appetite, depression, high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, discharge from the nose or eyes, and weight loss.

Diagnosis is accomplished either by fecal analysis to detect parasite eggs, or through a needle sample from a swollen lymph node to check for the presence of bacteria. Standard treatment involves an antibiotic and a dewormer. Many dogs respond immediately to treatment and begin improving within a few days. Once fully recovered, some dogs develop lifetime immunity to the disease.

If you know or suspect your dog has eaten raw fish and is having any of the above symptoms, you should make an appointment with your vet right away. Left untreated, salmon poisoning can be fatal within two weeks.

How to Prevent Salmon Poisoning Disease in Your Pet

When you’re near bodies of water with your dog, make sure he has no opportunity to eat raw fish.

When handling raw fish, make sure to wrap the waste carefully and dispose of it where your pet can’t get access.

Avoid feeding raw fish to your dog. Freezing fish meat can inactivate both the Neorickettsia helminthoeca and Nanophyetus salmincola organisms, depending on the freezing temperature, the time needed to freeze the fish tissue, the length of time the fish is frozen, and the fat content of the fish.

I recommend you deep-freeze salmon and all types of anadromous fish (fish that swim upstream to spawn) for at least 7 days if you plan to feed it raw, or cook it before feeding it to your pet.

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:13 pm

Urban_Redneck wrote:
Thanks again Bill, I did a little research. I buy my salmon frozen and it spends a month in my chest freezer before thawing and feeding. I'll still check with my distributor about the source of the fish.

By Dr. Becker

If you live in the Pacific Northwest and your dog goes swimming, boating or fishing with you – or if you live elsewhere and are in the habit of offering raw fish to your pet – you should be aware that your dog could be at risk for salmon poisoning.

Salmon poisoning is a life-threatening condition most commonly caused by raw fish taken from coastal streams and rivers in the Pacific Northwest, from San Francisco all the way up to the coast of Alaska.

Cause of Salmon Poisoning Disease

The organism Neorickettsia helminthoeca, which embeds with Nanophyetus salmincola, a fluke present in raw fish, is what causes salmon poisoning disease.

Salmon, trout, lamprey and other fish native to the Pacific Northwest can be carriers, as well as sculpin, redside shiner, shad, sturgeon, candlefish and large-scale sucker.

When a dog eats infected raw fish, the larval flukes release the rickettsiae organisms, which then travel in the bloodstream to the liver, lungs, brain, and lymphoid tissues, causing necrosis, hemorrhage, and hyperplasia.

Symptoms and Diagnosis

Infected dogs will begin showing symptoms within 6 to 10 days after eating contaminated fish. Symptoms can include loss of appetite, depression, high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, discharge from the nose or eyes, and weight loss.

Diagnosis is accomplished either by fecal analysis to detect parasite eggs, or through a needle sample from a swollen lymph node to check for the presence of bacteria. Standard treatment involves an antibiotic and a dewormer. Many dogs respond immediately to treatment and begin improving within a few days. Once fully recovered, some dogs develop lifetime immunity to the disease.

If you know or suspect your dog has eaten raw fish and is having any of the above symptoms, you should make an appointment with your vet right away. Left untreated, salmon poisoning can be fatal within two weeks.

How to Prevent Salmon Poisoning Disease in Your Pet

When you’re near bodies of water with your dog, make sure he has no opportunity to eat raw fish.

When handling raw fish, make sure to wrap the waste carefully and dispose of it where your pet can’t get access.

Avoid feeding raw fish to your dog. Freezing fish meat can inactivate both the Neorickettsia helminthoeca and Nanophyetus salmincola organisms, depending on the freezing temperature, the time needed to freeze the fish tissue, the length of time the fish is frozen, and the fat content of the fish.

I recommend you deep-freeze salmon and all types of anadromous fish (fish that swim upstream to spawn) for at least 7 days if you plan to feed it raw, or cook it before feeding it to your pet.
UR, I believe there is considerable controversy whether freezing (and for how long and at what temperature) makes infested salmon/trout safe for dogs to eat raw, or whether freezing is an effective measure. I don't know the truth of the matter. Personally, I would not risk it. Safe alternatives like anchovies, mackerel, and sardines are far less expensive where I live than salmon.

Do note the symptoms of salmon poisoning if you go forward as it is a very treatable condition if caught early from what I understand, but nearly always fatal otherwise.

Bill

CWT
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:46 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by CWT » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:00 pm

Or you can feed a regular dog food like normal folks do and not have to worry about it! That's my story and I am sticking to it.

User avatar
Urban_Redneck
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 pm
Location: NE PA

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Urban_Redneck » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:49 pm

CWT wrote:Or you can feed a regular dog food like normal folks do and not have to worry about it! That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Because there's never been a recall on bagged dog food :lol:

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:39 pm

ezzy333 wrote: Dogs have been living healthy lives for centuries long before we had all of the advantages we have today.
Yes, dogs lived for centuries (millennium) on non-kibble, which has only been around since the year you turned 29 (if I have my math correct).

The power of advertising at work, getting people to believe rendered-extruded-dried-bagged food is the only reasonable option. And that it is an "advantage" over real food.

Marketing works.

Bill

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:05 pm

Bill, I have no doubts you have a healthy specimen fed only on raw food. But, how often do you go out of state, or the country (Canada), to hunt, camping out well off the beaten path? Or paid a handler with 10 or more other dogs to campaign your raw fed dogs? That's my biggest dilemma along with the time involved processing raw meals for 5 dogs.

No one has or apparently can prove to me a comparably raw fed dog can go longer, faster, or stronger than my boy pictured above. Regardless of the size of stool!

Steve

User avatar
Spy Car
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:53 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by Spy Car » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:39 pm

SCT wrote:Bill, I have no doubts you have a healthy specimen fed only on raw food. But, how often do you go out of state, or the country (Canada), to hunt, camping out well off the beaten path? Or paid a handler with 10 or more other dogs to campaign your raw fed dogs? That's my biggest dilemma along with the time involved processing raw meals for 5 dogs.

No one has or apparently can prove to me a comparably raw fed dog can go longer, faster, or stronger than my boy pictured above. Regardless of the size of stool!

Steve
Steve, I can't argue that there may be times when feeding fresh or frozen food is less convenient that feeding dried food out of a bag. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

Your dog above is very impressive looking. I've had very high-stamina dogs that were kibble fed myself. Good genetics and conditioning go a long way. Doesn't alter my position getting a dog off carbs and on to burning fats as the primary fuel is the best way to take good genetics and top conditioning to the final level. These things are complementary, not antagonists.

Bill

User avatar
SCT
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Utah

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by SCT » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:11 pm

No argument here. Just would like to see it proven that there is a measurable difference in a way that I can see it for myself. Not something I can prove, nor anyone I know.

fishvik
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 942
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by fishvik » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:55 pm

Urban_Redneck wrote:
CWT wrote:Or you can feed a regular dog food like normal folks do and not have to worry about it! That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Because there's never been a recall on bagged dog food :lol:
I feed a moderate priced kibble supplemented with about a 1/4 lb boiled up mixture of pork trimmings(mostly fat), brown and white rice. My dogs, a GSP and a GWPxLab, do great on it and lately have been hunted 5 days a week without any loss of weight.

cld22
Rank: Just A Pup
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:05 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Raw vs. kibble

Post by cld22 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 3:12 pm

Just my experience. I am new to sporting dogs but I have had good many dogs from my own dogs great and small to foster dogs great and small. I am currently feeding my two dogs,13 yr old anatolian shep mix and my 8 yr old lab/springer mix, raw for a year, also my two cats. I have fed everything under the sun and mostly because I'm super interested in nutrition dog and people both and I'm always wanting to give the best available. It doesn't have to be complicated at all! I feed mine mostly heart,turkey necks, raw green tripe, ground gullet/trachea, liver and kidney. Sometimes if my husband goes hunting he will keep things that ordinarily get tossed or someone doesn't want he will bring it home for them too. As far as parasites there are a few things that need a deep freeze before feeding but its never stuff I have come across so I would research what those proteins might be. Here in Indy I am lucky there is a place that caters to canines and felines a like for all raw feeding needs. They have great prices too. 80/10/10 Meat/bone/organs with half being liver and it doesn't have to be fed exact everyday, it should balance out over a weeks time. Green tripe if anyone has fed it you know it stinks.....bad, like a cow barn in the middle of july but the dogs love it of course. It has many great benefits like helping with digestion, cleaning teeth both from acidity and chewing, and it has a good amount of fat if you are looking for better body condition and more calories. You can get it ground but I go with large chunks, its cheaper plus it makes them work a bit harder to eat it. Now when I'm out of town with them or I leave them with someone I will buy whole ground products to make it easier on us if we are traveling or on the person I leave them with. It is a bit more expensive that way but it's never for too long so it works out fine. Dehydrated raw is also available and I if just take one dog, its usually my smaller dog, Primo (lab/springer) I will buy dehydrated because it doesn't require refrigeration and he doesn't need much, its more expensive than the ground. So there are options so you don't have to lug around turkey necks and such when you are on a trip or if someone stays with your dogs and you don't want to completely gross them out :wink: You can also give eggs for a quick bit of protein and fat when you are on the road! Good luck :)

Post Reply