Feeding raw/prey model & vets' opinions
 

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." :D) 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. ;)

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.

Excellent link! Thank you. :)

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.

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.

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!!!!

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

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!”

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...

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.

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 :p, bc usually I understand you to a T. :D

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.

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

:thumbs_up

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.

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 :thumbup:. 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. :aimeeyork :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :)

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. :p

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?

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: :thumbup::thumbup:

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

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 :D. 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. :aimeeyork :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :)

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 :rolleyes:! 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. :)

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. :aimeeyork :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :)

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. :rolleyes: :)

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. :aimeeyork :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :animal-pa :)