Feeding raw/prey model & vets' opinions

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by 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.

Excellent post . I totally agree with you about dogs in the wild only needing to live long enough to reproduce to ensure survival of the species. The fact that wolves and other wild dogs have existed for so long doesn't speak to the quality of the diet at all. It certainly doesn't ensure that a raw diet is the ideal one to achieve longevity. I believe that nowadays there are commercial dog foods that are light years ahead of the early kibble as far as quality of ingredients and balanced nutrition goes though there are still many 'garbage foods' out there. Having said that, I think the evidence of the dental benefit of feeding meaty bones is undeniable. For that reason, I've begun giving mine raw meaty bones on an occasional basis. Their primary diet is kibble in the morning and kibble mixed with canned at night. This is the personal decision I've made based on the information I've read. I can't make the leap to just raw but do see some real benefits to it.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

It takes a lot of difference to show a "significant" difference in testing.

Testing is all fine and good, and we need it for a lot of things.

But, I don't need a p-value to tell me, personally, that I should eat a salad instead of cheetos throughout my life.

It's the same for my dogs. I don't need a p-value or statistical significance to be able to know that certain ingredients are not good for them, or to know the difference between feeding them junk food and quality food.

As for longevity - that's been debated here ad nauseum - I think Rawfedyorkiluv's family, for one, has been feeding raw for almost 30 years. If you visit the yahoo raw group - you'll find people there who've been feeding raw for decades. And, for me, as I've said - millions of years works for me. Here are a few other things to read:

Myths About Raw: Does the diet of wolves shorten their
Myths About Raw: Are dogs too far removed from wolves to be fed raw food?
Myths About Raw: Are dogs living longer because of kibbled food?
Myths About Raw: With all the premium kibbles available, is raw really necessary?
Rebuttal to Second Chance Ranch

As for grains, that too can be explained if you study a dog's dentition and digestive system. Some dogs are not as irritated by grains, for others - it can be awful if feeding them something their bodies are not meant to have day in, day out. Either way, their bodies are not really designed for grains.

Myths About Raw: Are dogs omnivores?

[keokis mom]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Testing is all fine and good, and we need it for a lot of things.

But, I don't need a p-value to tell me, personally, that I should eat a salad instead of cheetos throughout my life.

It's the same for my dogs. I don't need a p-value or statistical significance to be able to know that certain ingredients are not good for them, or to know the difference between feeding them junk food and quality food.

As for longevity - that's been debated here ad nauseum - I think Rawfedyorkiluv's family, for one, has been feeding raw for almost 30 years. If you visit the yahoo raw group - you'll find people there who've been feeding raw for decades. And, for me, as I've said - millions of years works for me. Here are a few other things to read:

Myths About Raw: Does the diet of wolves shorten their
Myths About Raw: Are dogs too far removed from wolves to be fed raw food?
Myths About Raw: Are dogs living longer because of kibbled food?
Myths About Raw: With all the premium kibbles available, is raw really necessary?
Rebuttal to Second Chance Ranch

As for grains, that too can be explained if you study a dog's dentition and digestive system. Some dogs are not as irritated by grains, for others - it can be awful if feeding them something their bodies are not meant to have day in, day out. Either way, their bodies are not really designed for grains.

Myths About Raw: Are dogs omnivores?

I have to say that after changing Keokis diet from kibble to raw I have noticed SIGNIFICANT changes

[Woogie Man]

Thanks, Ann, for all the links. I read some and bookmarked them all. As you can tell from my posts, I am firmly 'straddling the fence' on this issue . One thing I've read about raw feeding (from some other source that I didn't bookmark) is that in observing wolves feed that their stools show the bones they consume are wrapped in the hair of the prey they eat. This was taken to show that the hair offered some protection to the intestines as the bones made their way through. The only way to duplicate that would be to feed a whole carcass to your dogs and let them have at it. That would be duplicating a true raw diet much more so than meaty bones or processed raw (medallions). I do agree about the dangers of synthetic vitamins and minerals that are added to kibble, no matter the quality of the food ingredients. That is why I've switched to Nature's Logic, as it contains NO synthetic vitamin or mineral compounds. As far as I know, it is the only kibble to do so. If there's another, I haven't found it. At this point, I wouldn't say I disagree with the raw fed logic, only that I interpret some of the conclusions differently. What we feed our dogs is an individual decision that I hope everyone gives a lot of thought and research to. It is the most important decision that is made in the life-long care of care of our babies.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Thanks, Ann, for all the links. I read some and bookmarked them all. As you can tell from my posts, I am firmly 'straddling the fence' on this issue . One thing I've read about raw feeding (from some other source that I didn't bookmark) is that in observing wolves feed that their stools show the bones they consume are wrapped in the hair of the prey they eat. This was taken to show that the hair offered some protection to the intestines as the bones made their way through. The only way to duplicate that would be to feed a whole carcass to your dogs and let them have at it. That would be duplicating a true raw diet much more so than meaty bones or processed raw (medallions). I do agree about the dangers of synthetic vitamins and minerals that are added to kibble, no matter the quality of the food ingredients. That is why I've switched to Nature's Logic, as it contains NO synthetic vitamin or mineral compounds. As far as I know, it is the only kibble to do so. If there's another, I haven't found it. At this point, I wouldn't say I disagree with the raw fed logic, only that I interpret some of the conclusions differently. What we feed our dogs is an individual decision that I hope everyone gives a lot of thought and research to. It is the most important decision that is made in the life-long care of care of our babies.

Hi Jim Nothin' wrong w/ straddling the fence - I think a lot of us do. And, I really do think dogs can lead full, healthy lives on kibble, homecooked, or raw - and I recommend all 3 all the time - in fact I probably make more kibble recommendations in this section than anything else, LOL ! I just happen to think that raw is best since the meat still contains all its natural enzymes - it also contains organ meats and no synthetic vits/minerals whatsoever (I know you like that part ) - even in the medallions.

I wish you had that bookmark, I'd love to read it. I do know some prey-model feeders actually give their animals (ew) the entire carcass - as in a rabbit or deer or whatever. And, I haven't heard of stools showing the fur-wrapped bones. The stools usually show a consistency similar to those seen with medallions (small, firm, non-smelly, turn powdery after not too long). I don't know - I've just never heard that because bones are usually chewed - but I also think it would be natural that some fur would be consumed along w/ the bone when entire carcasses are consumed. So, while some might conclude the fur protected the intestines, we also have to consider that not all wolves in the pack will get some of the fur (bc they have to wait their turn) and they do fine as canine tummies are designed to digest bones (plus wolves eat chickens etc.).

As for your last 2 sentences, I couldn't agree more . I think discussions about food are always great - but at the end of the day, we all need to be supportive of everyone's choices in how they choose to feed their doggies. We all have our reasons for feeding what we feed - or don't feed.

I think sometimes though, as a raw feeder - you almost feel like you have to defend yourself...and that gets old, bc it comes up again and again - although I do have to say - it used to get really nasty, and now it's really just a discussion, which is nice.

[Woogie Man]

Ann, here is a quote about the presence of fur in the stools of wolves..." Wolf care managers questioned on the topic of feeding bones identified the presence of animal hide with hair as offering some protection from intestinal perforation in the wild". This is from Wikipedia, here's the link....Raw feeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I also found another link that discusses pros and cons of raw feeding. It's put up by a pet food co. but seems to offer good info. http://www.naturediet.net/downloadre...ile&itemId=447 I don't think the Wikipedia quote is from the place I saw it originally but I couldn't find the original link. Anyway, it's some more info on the subject.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Ann, here is a quote about the presence of fur in the stools of wolves..." Wolf care managers questioned on the topic of feeding bones identified the presence of animal hide with hair as offering some protection from intestinal perforation in the wild". This is from Wikipedia, here's the link....Raw feeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I also found another link that discusses pros and cons of raw feeding. It's put up by a pet food co. but seems to offer good info. http://www.naturediet.net/downloadre...ile&itemId=447 I don't think the Wikipedia quote is from the place I saw it originally but I couldn't find the original link. Anyway, it's some more info on the subject.

I only could find one single sentence about the fur thing, and it was from "wolf care managers" - so I couldn't gather much from one sentence. And, I've never heard this anywhere else.

As for the other link - as soon I got to "dogs are omnivores" - I couldn't put much validity in it, but I did skim it.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I only could find one single sentence about the fur thing, and it was from "wolf care managers" - so I couldn't gather much from one sentence. And, I've never heard this anywhere else.

As for the other link - as soon I got to "dogs are omnivores" - I couldn't put much validity in it, but I did skim it.

Since I love a good discussion as much as the next one, here's a couple of things I've found. " NO human nutritionist is recommending that all humans should eat a diet that only consists of bananas and leaves based on the theory that humans descended from the Chimpanzee even though the DNA profiles of the Chimpanzee/human is a closer match than the DNA profiles of the wolf/dog. And . . . there is not a single dog owner feeding their dogs a diet based on the wolf/dog theory who is also feeding themselves a diet based on the nutrients a wild Chimpanzee eats." Here's the link for this IS A RAW FOOD DIET THE ANSWER I also found this. "the domestic dog, are all omnivores, and the coyote C. latrans can subsist on fruit and other plant materials when prey is difficult to find (2). The diet of the ancestral species of the dog, the wolf Canis lupus, consists predominantly of meat in most habitats in which it is currently found. However, the dentition of the modern wolf is not dissimilar to that of jackals (3), and is consistent with a more omnivorous diet. Before persecution by humans, wolves were able to occupy a wider range of habitats than they do today; thus, it is possible that they formerly consumed a more wide-ranging diet." And here's the link. The Evolutionary Basis for the Feeding Behavior of Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Cats (Felis catus) -- Bradshaw 136 (7): 1927S -- Journal of Nutrition I also found that the diet of the maned wolf of Brazil consists of a notable percentage of what is called 'wolf's fruit'. I'm posting this not to discredit raw feeders, only to point out that the issue is not so clear cut as it may seem on first glance. I do see benefits to raw feeding but also think that anyone that goes that route should research it carefully. With the advent of commercial raw diets and proponents of raw saying how easy it is, it's easy for a person to 'just switch' to raw without giving it much thought and that 'could' be dangerous.