Feeding raw/prey model & vets' opinions

[LaPeque]

Does anyone that feeds raw/BARF/prey model have a vet who is absolutely enthralled with the idea?

We just went to Oscar's new vet here in PA for the first time. I'm feeding the prey model and while she didn't try to talk me out of it, she did have reservations as far as whether or not he was getting all the nutrients he needs. I do supplement with Wellness kibble sometimes, which seemed to ease her mind. Her opinion was to switch him completely to the kibble.

I know there aren't long term studies of the effects of raw feeding, but there is some pretty good evidence that it mimics nature the best for dogs. I don't know why so many vets are opposed. (I heard the vet tech whisper as she was briefing the vet outside the exam room that I was one of those "raw feeders." ) In my case, I couldn't even attribute it to the vet wanting me to buy food from the clinic, because they didn't even carry any. (As far as I could tell).

Other than our differing opinions on feeding, I loved the vet ... she was very kind and extremely thorough ... spent almost 45 minutes with us.

I'd be interesed in hearing what your vets say, especially if they are gung ho on these weirdo alternative feeding ideas.

[LuvMySissy]

My vet is 100% supportive of my feeding raw. We use The Honest Kitchen freeze-dried version.

Here is a link of a holisitic vet in CA that is completely supportive of both home cooking and raw. She also has great information on overvaccination.
Founders Veterinary Clinic - Raw Diets and the best dog foods explained.

[LaPeque]

Excellent link! Thank you.

[Ellie May]

I have no idea how Ellie's vet feels about it (but I'd be willing to take a guess).

I do know that while premade raw is often AAFCO approved and homemade diets created by nutritionists do meet AAFCO standards, prey model diets do not. That doesn't matter to some people but I personally feel it is the best that we have to go on right now, so I prefer to follow their guidelines. Giving a dog X% of muscle meat and X% of bones or whatever really can't be balancing calcium and phosphorus just right, can it? How about trace minerals? Are they getting enough? I'm not saying a raw diet doesn't contain these things but how much does the diet contain? So while we all have to do what we think is best, I think that is one of the reasons why some people would not feed prey model.

[LaPeque]

There is definitely a good argument for pre-made, for the reasons you have stated. One inherent problem with the prey model diet is that the responsibility for assembling meals is completely on the dog owner and not the manufacturer, which could lead to inconsistency.

However, I think prey can still be balanced. In addition to raw, meaty bones an essential part of the diet is also organ meat, which is a vital source of phosphorus.

Dietary requirements for copper, iron, zinc, etc. are also found in whole prey, although supplements can be used as well.

I am looking forward to thorough studies on the prey model - so many people swear by it that it would be nice to see their opinions backed by extensive scientific studies.

[keokis mom]

My vet told me that the raw diet was THE BEST food I could give Keoki- I have switched him completely to raw and notice so many significant changes for the better. Many traditional vets are not used to this method but after reading information I think it is the #1 option for my dog. Good luck!! and keep yours on raw!!!!

[Nancy1999]

Not everyone agrees that dogs are as closely linked to wolves as feeders of the prey model diet suggest.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by LaPeque

I am looking forward to thorough studies on the prey model - so many people swear by it that it would be nice to see their opinions backed by extensive scientific studies.

I wish.

Although, I do consider the millions and millions of years that canines thrived on a prey model diet a pretty good long-term study. And, the downward turn in the health of our dogs since the advent of kibble a pretty good long-term study in what a straight-kibble diet has done to our dogs.

Personally, I don't think we'll find *many* vets who support or understand raw (yet). Remember that in vet school, they receive about a total of 1.5 hours of education in canine nutrition. So, at this point - YOUR knowledge in canine nutrition has likely surpassed theirs. Many vets are also brainwashed and money-washed by Hills - from whom they get kickbacks for selling kibble.

This is a vet who has a blog - and she "gets it": DOG-Breath — “An outspoken commentary of ideas, healthy insights, and occasional rants that will bust your dogma!”

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by LaPeque

There is definitely a good argument for pre-made, for the reasons you have stated. One inherent problem with the prey model diet is that the responsibility for assembling meals is completely on the dog owner and not the manufacturer, which could lead to inconsistency.

However, I think prey can still be balanced. In addition to raw, meaty bones an essential part of the diet is also organ meat, which is a vital source of phosphorus.

Dietary requirements for copper, iron, zinc, etc. are also found in whole prey, although supplements can be used as well.

I am looking forward to thorough studies on the prey model - so many people swear by it that it would be nice to see their opinions backed by extensive scientific studies.

As Ann was saying, it probably won't happen and it SHOULD.
Longevity studies should be done on all canine diets but because most people don't agree with feeding raw, nobody will fund it.

I'm not advocating feeding raw at all but if studies were to come out that showed increased life span, I may consider it. I just don't see it happening though and the good reports by a few people I can't consider research, so we will stick with homecooked because I "personally" believe it is safer.

Calcium and phosphorus are found in the raw diet but is it balanced?
Does it even matter if these are balanced?
There are soooo many questions with very few answers.

Prey model feeders usually say no supplementation is necessary and I am just not so sure...

[Nancy1999]

While vets may not require many hours of study on nutrition, they do require many hours in learning to read scientific studies, and can tell the difference from good science and pseudoscience. Just because they don't agree with your experts, don't necessary believe it's because they haven't look at the research.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Just because they don't agree with your experts, don't necessary believe it's because they haven't look at the research.

I'm confused, lol. We were talking about the fact that there truly isn't any research - so I'm not sure what you mean. And, whose experts were you referring to, bc no one mentioned those either. I wasn't sure if you meant this reply for this thread or not, so I thought I better ask , bc usually I understand you to a T.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I'm confused, lol. We were talking about the fact that there truly isn't any research - so I'm not sure what you mean. And, whose experts were you referring to, bc no one mentioned those either. I wasn't sure if you meant this reply for this thread or not, so I thought I better ask , bc usually I understand you to a T.

There are a lot of different self-proclaimed experts in the field of dog nutrition. I do actually believe that there is a great deal of research on the subject. Just not the sort of research that backs up some of the claims that are often made on the Internet regarding which diet is best and why. Instead of the word research, in the previous post, I should have used the word hypothesis or theory. Some of the articles I've read do try to look like scientific research, and I believe that they mislead the average consumer.

How would you really do a study to show how one dog food was better than another? Unless a food is really really bad, it would probably be very difficult to see differences in the dogs. Quantity of food seems to be a larger contributor to the health and well being of a dog than quality. Meaning not to little or not too much. So much of a dog's longevity depends upon hereditary factors, and disease is hardly caused by diet alone. Cloned dogs would probably make the best test subjects, because the incidence of hereditary illnesses would be similar, but would you really want to buy food from a company that did this research? I mean if you've ever read any of the old studies, you realize unless a study is really really important, maybe it's best not to do it.

[Wylie's Mom]

Ahhh, now I understand what you were trying to say. I haven't see a lot of research that's been very persuasive. Most of the research I've seen has been done by the pet food industry.

As for the second point, I totally agree - studies would have to be "twin studies" or clone studies to rule out genetics as much as possible. And personally, I wouldn't like to see a bunch of dogs undergo a classic study if it means suffering. I mean, decisions and conclusions are made about human nutrition without locking humans up in cages - so either it's done via computer model, via knowledge, or it's done anecdotally and with chem panels. And for me I guess - the study has *already* been done anecdotally - first for millions and millions of years, and then when kibble was invented. So, my "wish" list would be that either vets acknowledge this (somehow) or they design some sort of anecdotal study with health outcomes to show that raw diets or cooked or kibble diet or whatever are healthy/unhealthy.

You'd probably find this interesting: Incestuous Pet Food Regulation Allows Consumers to Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes

[LaPeque]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

And for me I guess - the study has *already* been done anecdotally - first for millions and millions of years, and then when kibble was invented. So, my "wish" list would be that either vets acknowledge this (somehow) or they design some sort of anecdotal study with health outcomes to show that raw diets or cooked or kibble diet or whatever are healthy/unhealthy.

You'd probably find this interesting: Incestuous Pet Food Regulation Allows Consumers to Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes

I'm sure this article is biased, but it does present an interesting theory that echoes Nancy's post as to why there haven't been any large-scale scientific studies done on the prey diet.

Myths About Raw: Is there scientific research to back raw diets?

It is easy to look up the nutritional values of the things that are fed as part of the prey model ... what is hard to find is a definition of what is really "balanced" or what dogs' needs really are. All the info I find seems to be generated by people trying to sell us something. It really is frustrating.

[Nancy1999]

I don't believe any of those diets would be shown to be "significantly" better than another. It takes a lot of difference to show a "significant" difference in testing. First you would have to define "better." Would this mean, how long the dog lived, or lack of health problems? Would it mean the state of individual organs? After you decided what your definition of better is, than to test that you would need a rather large group of dogs than are genetically very similar, because genetics plays such a huge role in all these things. Animals live in cages to rule out other things that would cause an effect. For example, if these animals were living with different families the environment, they lived in could have caused the effect. Pesticides, cleaners, air quality all could influence the results, as well as many other environmental factors. Even the psychological environment should be similar as we know stress plays an important part in how the body/organs ages.

I think a computer model, only would work, if the knowledge was there and could be entered into the computer. For example, at age 3 bone calcifies in the anterior frontal blah, blah, blah. To do a real study you would have to study the organs at various ages to see what effect specific diets had on them. This means killing healthy animals at different ages to study them. I disagree with the millions and millions of years theory, and in the wild animals don't need to live very long, just long enough to procreate and feed their young. I suppose if we find people having dogs that live much longer or much healthier in the future, more people will take more notice of these raw food diets. I just don't think any food company would want to do a study such as this, or even use the results.

The part of all this I'm having a hard time accepting is why grain is so bad for dogs. Comparing dogs to cows doesn't seem right; cows eat raw grain, not cooked grain. Why can't some food man invented be better than something that dogs would get in the wild? Dogs have been living with man for over 15,000 years, and since a dog can procreate after the age of one, that is a lot of evolutionary years. Dogs like most animals are wonderfully adaptive to a wide variety of diets. This isn't to say that individual dogs don't do better on some diets than others.