Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellie May  Exactly. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Ya know, when a whole lotta vet schools and veterinary nutritionists have a problem with something, I have to respect that and take a long look at it. Sure, some of them are getting funding for their research from dog food companies and I can understand the hesitancy about that; but others aren't.
In response to other posts, I wouldn't say commercial dog food is perfectly safe...far from it. It is, however, generally considered a way to meet basic nutritional needs. I'm sure we can improve on that and it may be the raw diet that does that. I still see that as an assumption though. Sometimes when we have a desire to makes things better, it doesn't go the way we had hoped. So even if we consider kibble "bad," I still want evidence that we aren't moving toward "worse" with raw.
I haven't studied the digestion of dogs and will be looking more into the fact that they "can't digest carbs," but a wolf's diet contains carbs... It may be that they just digest them to a lesser (or different) extent. I know they don't produce salivary amylase, so starch breakdown doesn't start in the mouth. Not convinced that they can't digest them though...
There was one study posted above about dogs in Britain I think it was. Those kinds of things are what I like to see, but there is no link. I'd like to read the actual study done. |
This is intersting point.
However, I know that many vets recommand science diet, and why?
because vet schools are funded by science diet. They even bought one of the biggest vet school in US. I need to study about the raw food more, but I was thinking that if our babies eat raw(100% natural) with some vitamins and get healthier(since it is all natural, less side effect than from chemicals in kibbles), vets won't make any money. I'm not disrespecting all vets, but my point is that at the end of the day vet's need to make money and they would recommand furbaby parents food that are not the best for their babies.