[Melcakes]

Okay so why raw and not kibble or home-cooked or why kibble and/or home-cooked and not raw? What's the best since the thread is about what's the best? People are asking this everyday. I'd like to know what you as well as others would recommend a new owner to feed their dog if they came to you and asked. You said you don't recommend homecoming, so would you recommend kibble over raw or raw over kibble? I'm just curious and why one would recommend what they would.

One can look at home-cooked, kibble and raw and find good things and bad things about ALL. There are not just safety concerns with raw ONLY there are numerous safety concerns with home-cooked and kibble as well, but people just want to talk about the safety concerns with raw. One has to look at these and decide which risks are greater, more prevalent and more serious. There are studies that do exists that show benefits as well as risks with all 3 diets (kibble, raw, home-cooked). People can look at these studies and take them for what they are or aren't. Personally, I've come across way more studies that show the risks for kibble and home-cooked is by far greater than in comparison to raw fed diets (I'll describe and provide some examples below). It really comes down to what people believe and feel comfortable with, looking at the benefits and risks and seeing if the benefits outweigh the risks and EDUCATING oneself.

Here are some interesting studies for those wanting to see them.

For example take this study: In December 1995, the British Journal of Small Animal Practice published a paper contending that processed pet food supresses the immune system and leads to liver, kidney, heart and other diseases. Dr. Kollath, of the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, headed a study done on animals. When young animals were fed cooked and processed foods they initially appeared to be healthy. However, as the animals reached adulthood, they began to age more quickly than normal and also developed chronic degenerative disease symptoms. A control group of animals raised on raw foods aged less quickly and were free of degenerative disease. - Complete study can be found online.

Interesting Stat - In all, more than 5,600 products by dozens of pet food makers have been recalled, from chain supermarket brands to prescription-only foods. This is a staggering number of products, and is unprecedented in this business IMO.

Accordingto the latest reports released by one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals - Banfield, The Pet Hospital, nearly 39,000 cats and dogs were sickened or killed nationwide following the recent reports of pet food-contamination with an industrial chemical. The data was reportedly compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals.

Dr. Francis M. Pottenger had some very revealing results on a study he did between the years 1932 and 1942. His study was done on seven generations of a colony of cats ( I know it's not dogs, but it's interesting). He fed half of the animals an all raw pet food diet, and the other half the same foods except that they were cooked. After only three generations on the cooked cat food, those cats were no longer able to reproduce. Mouth and gum infections, arthritis, bladder problems, heart lesions, irritable bowel syndrome, and thyroid problems also became common in the cats on the cooked cat foods. Aren't many of these health issues are common in todays pets? On the contrary, the cats on the raw cat food remained completely healthy and needed no veterinary attention. Dr. Pottenger then switched the weakened colony of cats back to all raw cat foods and after four generations the cats had a complete recovery from the ill-effects of the cooked pet food.

A raw study done on rats - Dr. Robert McCarrison, while stationed in India, became interested in the diet habits of different regions of the earth. In particular he noted the health of the Hunza, Pathan and Sikh peoples. He wondered if comparable diets would produce the same effects for rats. He fed the rats a variety of fresh foods, including bean sprouts, fresh raw carrots, cabbage and raw whole milk. Once-a-week he also mixed in flat bread and meat with bones in them. He provided the rats with sunlight, good air and sanitary living conditions. At the close of the study when the rats were the equivalent of 55 human years in age, he sacrificed them and autopsied them. He was stunned to find no signs of disease. The only deaths that occurred were accidental and not due to degenerative diseases.

Sure there is a definitely the need to realize the need for more studies to once-and-for-all prove the benefits of raw pet foods, but I think testimonials can't be ruled not valid or substantial. That's just really silly since I'm not seeing any studies that kibble or home-cooked is safer or better for a dog.

The oldest dog ever recorded, a 29-year-old Australian cattle dog named Bluey, died in 1939, several years before commercial pet food was invented, and that, of the two oldest dogs in recent years, one was fed primarily on kangaroo and emu meat. The other dog was Jerry already mentioned. Just found out about this other "oldest dog every recorded" was also raw fed dog.

Sure you're going to find bacteria in raw food, but were are the studies showing that these bacteria and/or parasites that are found in raw meats/food are causing dogs dying in staggering numbers or infecting people? I don't see any…

For example the British Vet. Association warns that humans risk exposing themselves to bacteria like Salmonella, and in a small study on the levels of salmonella in the stool of 10 dogs that ate a raw diet found that 30 percent of the stool samples from dogs fed a raw food diet contained salmonella, none of the control dogs (commercial fed) contained Salmonella, although they caution about the statistical significance of their results due to the small number of dogs studied. But really what does this prove? To me it proves that the dogs successfully passed the bacteria through their system. It didn't effect them. Despite such concerns about zoonosis and bacteria, there is no known incidence of humans being infected with salmonella by cats and dogs fed a raw diet!! Again, proper food safety precautions such as wiping down preparation surfaces and careful disposal of stools can reduce the risk of infection and really who eats dog poo anyways? Yes, parasites in raw food is real, but it has existed for many years and is not some new dreadful disease sweeping through our pets. It is something to be aware of but the precautions we are now taking (or should be) seem to be working and we should not allow this to dissuade us from our present dietary choices IMO.

The Sydney Morning Herald (paraphrasing RSPCA Australia President Dr Hugh Wirth) reported that "the 'compromise attitude' of veterinary associations in Britain and Australia is that raw meaty bones should be fed to pets a minimum of three times a week for dental health. Studies supporting this can be found online.

If one reads t"What's Really in Pet Food," the Animal Protection Institute study one will see that in kibble despite the appealing blandishments of pet food advertisements with their claims of providing "complete and balanced nutrition," if you're not exceedingly circumspect, you will find and end up feeding your pet chicken heads, road kills, spoiled or moldy grains, cancerous material cut from slaughterhouse animals, tissue high in hormone or pesticide residues, and even shredded Styrofoam packaging, metal ID tags and minced flea collars! To me that risks and these findings just make me want to steer clear of kibble as much as possible!

According to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Women who eat their meat well-done had almost a five times greater risk of breast cancer than those who ate meats cooked rare or medium! Wei Zheng, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of South Carolina School of Public Health, who was co-author of the study states, “ When meat is cooked at high temperatures it gives off substances called hetrocyclicamines, which have induced tumors in animal studies." Remember, you lose vitamins and enzymes at only 126 degrees, which is not much warmer than tap water. I find that with many people I talk to, convenience is the only deciding factor in choosing how to feed their pets -- regardless of the dog health problems that may occur.