It depends on the parasite. I would also think that typically, parasitic larvae IS killed by freezing but you would see them and thus not feed the infected meat. The issue, as yorkiepuppy pointed out, is the life stage BEFORE larvae, in which the parasite can lay dormant and survive extreme temp. levels. But then again, it depends on the parasite. If you have any specific parasites in mind I can consult my books!

Sorry to post three times but I also just saw that you posted a link to a case study involving dogs and Toxoplasma gondii. I'm not really sure why that study was done because cats are the only known host for T. gondii. Their presence shouldn't pose any problems to dogs.

I didn't read the whole thread, so, sorry if I repeat somebodies post.
I tried about all there is from home cooked to raw to prescription diets to find the right food for our Maggie who is very allergic to a gzillion nutritional and environmental things AND a picky eater. I ended up with Orijen. All of my babies, including Maggie, are doing very very good with it, all love it, their poop is nice and firm, not stinky and less than with all other foods before (and believe me... even though Yorkies don't poop big piles it adds up if you have five of them...LOL) It is pricey though but I don't care as long as I don't have to pay for Vet visits and medications...

This is an awesome thread! So much info flying around and so many opinions.

To answer the original question, the only person that can find the perfect food for *your* dog is you. Someone else probably said that, and said the following also. Each dog is different, and has different sensitivities and even different preferences.

Kaji will each pretty much anything. I do enjoy giving him fresh fruits and veggies as treats throughout the day. That is something I am comfortable with and I prefer them over processed dog treats, including most chews. (bullys) I do however feed him kibble. It's one thing we've had great results with, nice hard poops and not to smelly either. The kibble has very little fat in it, and if I control the portion, I control his weight. The guidelines on the label made it really easy for me to do this. Kaji has bad LP (3/4) and if he is even half a lb overweight, his knees pop. He got up to a full pound overweight and his knees popped non stop! It was freaking me out! I got the weight down and now, his knees rarely slip in and out. Plus, he's on a very predictable pee/poop schedule.

I did try Stella and Chewys and I didn't like what I saw. Kaji ate it fine, but his poops were soft. Not runny, but soft. To be honest, I hate the idea of having raw meat lying around. Kaji is a grazer, he eats in spurts all day. I serve him his daily portion and most days he'll grab mouth fulls here and there in between games of fetch. Other days he'll eat 90% of his ration in the morning, while other days he'll wait to eat till night. For the most part he's a grazer. I don't like the idea of having to leave anything non cooked out for him. He'll enjoy the new meal for a day or two, and after it's lost its novelty, he'll eat when he's ready. I can't do that with pre-made raw. I'm pretty sure if I leave it out, all the good processing to eliminate all the bad would have been for nothing.

I will say, that not all dogs seem to react to the exact same food the exact same way. Kaji's first dog buddy, Danger, was a pom with similar knee problems with the addition of a bad back due to bad breeding. He was on the same food, same routine, same everything. His poops were just awful! Squishy most of the time, stinky to the point that it made me gag, and a weird orangey color. I truly believe that each dog is an individual.

For now, I'm going to stick with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Kaji is doing well on his food. He'll do tricks for kibble. Even with tid bits of plain chicken breast, fresh fruit, and veggies, he'll always go back for his fill of kibble. His hair is as shiny as a cotton coat can get, and it's so luxuriously soft, he's never out of energy, and he's happy as a clam. It just works for us.

Below are some really great excerpts and studies and points taken from raw feeders. After extensively reading through a lot of websites and yahoo groups I think I'm a believer that raw is by far the best for a dog. Below shows the myths about bacteria and parasites in raw fed diets and how they are more prevalent, which is not aware by many, but based on science more prevalent in pet foods - commercial and home-cooked. Sorry for the super long post!

"I'd really like to know what people think pets ate before the advent of cooked, processed, and kibbled pet diets? They received hardly any cooked food, as food was a precious commodity that very few people would waste on something like a dog (dogs have not always enjoyed the same social status they enjoy now). By and large the dogs of "old" foraged and scavenged on their own, or hunted small prey animals to supplement what little food they received at home. And before this? Wolf-dogs hunted with their masters and hung around the camps, knowing they would receive whatever raw meat, bones, and offal were left over. Thousands of years ago, people did not cook for their pets. Why should they? The animals were fully capable of obtaining their own food and moreover were a good "disposal" for unused parts of animals. The dogs ate what they were designed to eat.
What about increased longevity people ask? Well dogs' longevity has only recently been determined by research performed by the pet food companies. They use these "estimates" to show that their food helps animals live longer. But longer compared to what? No one cared about canine longevity in the earlier days when dogs only ate raw diets, so no one kept records or performed surveys. So this longevity estimate is only valid from when the surveys started, this "nutrition" has not contributed to longevity in nearly the same manner IMO that increased social status has.

The oldest living RAW-FED dog is Jerry, an Australian cattle dog-bull terrier mix. He is 27 and lives with his owner in Australia and it's thought he could be the WORLD'S OLDEST DOG! Here's a link to the story (USATODAY.com - Outback mongrel could be oldest dog)

Those who remember the 'early days' remember long-lived dogs enjoying better quality lives until one day they just did not wake up. This slow, accumulating progression of disease is invariably linked with processed foods—something that has been proven time and again in human medicine and is being proven daily by the amount of processed food-fed pets suffering from a variety of these ailments and sitting in vets' waiting rooms. Millions of dogs eat kibble, and millions of dogs fill the waiting rooms of veterinarians, bad breath and all. These pets suffer from dermatitises of all sorts, or from cancers, joint problems, heart problems, kidney problems, digestive problems ("lack of enzymes"), liver problems, pancreas problems, coat problems, tooth problems, anal gland problems, glandular disorders, allergies, and soft doughy bodies brought on by eating a grain-based, artificial, highly-processed, additive-filled food touted as "healthy" for your dog. Thousands of dogs die from diet-induced diseases like bloat each year (and that is not to say all diseases are caused by diet, but many of them link strongly with processed diets and diet-induced periodontal disease. If pets are living longer, then why are they being considered old at younger and younger ages? A dog is now a senior by the age of 7 or 8; some even say a dog is old at 5 or 6. Cats are considered seniors by the ripe old age of 7 (tell that to raw fed cats still going strong at the age of 20!). It's my believe this premature aging is caused in large part by processed foods, which are now today mainly fed to our pets. Cancer, diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, heart problems, and arthritis (among other things) are being seen in younger and younger dogs. Dogs 3 years of age are being euthanized for malignant, systemic cancers!

Also, I believe the parasite and bacteria issue is something than non-raw folk use as a scare tactic, telling you that your dog is going to die if it eats raw meat because it will get a weird parasite. They neglect to tell you the very low incidence of these parasites in meat deemed safe for human consumption; nor do they tell you the most "deadly" of these parasites come from things like infected sheep placentas or stillborn calves. Simple solution—do not feed those things to your dog. As long as one exercises caution in obtaining their meat, parasites are a non-issue. And generally speaking, if your dog has a healthy immune system, it can deal with the parasites before they even get a chance to establish themselves. Parasites hate a very healthy host.
Yes, there is bacteria in raw meat. Yes, this bacteria can harm you. Yes, this bacteria is sometimes shed in dogs' feces. So if a raw-fed dog licks you, are you going to get sick? I suppose all things are possible, but on the whole: no, you will not get sick. This bacteria does not persist in the mouth of a raw-fed canine. The absence of plaque means the dog's mouth is no longer a hospitable place for bacteria to inhabit. Infact people don't realize it but pet foods, commercial or homemade, provide an ideal environment for bacterial proliferation!

Most of the documented cases of severe bacterial septicemia are from kibble-fed animals or animals suffering from reactions to vaccines. Kibble in the intestine not only irritates the lining of the bowels but also provides the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why thousands of processed food-fed animals suffer from from a condition called Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth. Raw meaty bones, however, create a very inhospitable environment for bacteria, as RMBs are easily digestible and have no carbohydrates, starches, or sugars to feed the bacteria. A kibble-fed and home cooked dog's mouth, however, provides the perfect environment for bacteria growth: plaque-covered teeth with sugary and starchy complexes provide both food and shelter for bacteria. The bacteria thrive in the mouth of a kibble-fed as well as home-cooked fed dogs because it provides both a perfect atmosphere and a good food source because of the bacteria in their gums and on their teeth . A raw-fed dog's mouth provides neither food nor a viable atmosphere for bacteria, which is why a raw-fed dog has odorless breath. So which dog would you be more worried about being kissed by and contracting disease from Thousands of people—even immunocompromised people—feed their dogs raw with no bacteria issues and with stronger immune systems as a result.

Commercial pet foods have been pulled off shelves more than once because of bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly toxin. Think about your dog—this is an animal that can lick itself, lick other dogs, eat a variety of disgusting rotting things, and ingest its own feces or those of other animals with no ill effects. The dog, plain and simple, can handle greater bacterial loads than we can. Can dogs get sick from the bacteria? I suppose they can. But it is rare and usually indicative of an underlying problem, especially when one stops to consider how much bacteria that dog probably comes in contact with every single day. One must ask "Why this dog? Why now? What has made this particular dog susceptible to bacterial overgrowth?" Something is not 'right' regarding the dog's health—a healthy dog does not suffer from bacterial infections or bacterial septicemia. That is just common sense. A dog suffering from "salmonella poisoning" is obviously not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a 'breakdown' in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem."

continued below

Dangers with homecooking for one's dog. Some additional excerpts taken.

"The suggestion of cooking your dog's food is actually quite harmful! It is the cooked food that causes problems with the dog's digestive system and that can result in the nutritional deficiencies.

First, the act of cooking alters the proteins, vitamins, fats, and minerals in a food. This alteration can make some nutrients more readily available and others less available. Cooking can alter fats to the point of being toxic and carcinogenic (The American Society for Nutritional Sciences. April 2004. Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation, Genetic Variants of Metabolic Enzymes, and Their Association with Rectal Cancer in Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 134:776-784.), and cooked proteins can be altered to the point where they cause allergic reactions whereas raw proteins do not (Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, in At War Within: The double edged sword of immunity, Oxford University Press, New York. pg 88.).

Second, cooked food lacks all the benefits of raw food. Cooked food is deficient in vitamins, minerals, and enzymes, because the very act of cooking destroys or alters much of them (exceptions to this are things like lightly steamed broccoli or tomatoes, but these are not appropriate foods for carnivores!). This decreases the bioavailability of these valuable chemicals and makes them less available to the animal. This is why these things have to be added back into pet foods and why a variety of supplements need to be added to home-cooked pet food—and why a variety of species inappropriate items are utilized as ingredients in these meals! Vitamins and minerals can be added back into cooked food, but finding the appropriate balance is incredibly difficult. Synthetic vitamins and minerals do not always exhibit the same chirality (three dimensional structure) that the natural forms had, which means their efficiency and use to the body are substantially decreased. This is compensated by oversupplementation, which then results in the inhibited uptake of other necessary vitamins and minerals. For example, excess inorganic calcium reduces the availability of iron, copper, iodine, and zinc (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 88). If you are feeding a cooked, home-made diet, can you be sure that your pet's needs are being sufficiently met if the very act of cooking destroys much of what is beneficial to your pet? Essentially, once you cook your pet's food you are now guessing which vitamins or minerals have been destroyed, how much of these might have been destroyed (which means you would have to know how much was present in the food in the first place), and how much supplementation your pet needs. Then you run into another problem: no one really knows what our pets REALLY need and use in terms of vitamins and minerals. . Additionally, how can we be sure that researchers have discovered all the nutrients necessary for our pets? This still is an on-going process (such as Eukanuba adding DHA to their foods; DHA is found in raw prey, so any dog or canid eating raw prey has been receiving appropriate levels of DHA), and since cooking food destroys minerals and vitamins and enzymes, researchers may be missing some very important nutrients. Feeding cooked food also causes pets to miss out on these 'unknown' nutrients, whereas raw food contains them in appropriate amounts.

People compensate for vitamin and mineral deficiencies without resorting to supplements: they simply add vegetables, grains, and dairy products to their carnivores' diets. Complex recipes are developed that create a wide range of foods for the dog (or cat) that must be cooked, steamed, blended, etc. in order for the dog to receive proper nutrition. Our carnivores once again have an omnivorous diet forced upon them in order to help them obtain all the appropriate nutrition that could simply be had by feeding a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats. Simplicity and perfection are traded for complexity and imperfection.Raw food, however, has the perfect balance of vitamins and minerals if fed as a part of a prey-model diet . Raw food also has unaltered proteins and nutrients, and the bioavailability of these nutrients is very high. And raw food—particularly whole carcasses and raw meaty bones—provide the NECESSARY teeth-cleaning effects that are lacking in any cooked diet. Periodontal disease-causing bacteria are scraped away at each feeding, whereas a cooked food-fed dog has that bacteria remaining, which are then coated over by a sticky plaque resulting from the cooked grains, vegetables, and meat proteins."

I'm not quoting b/c it makes the thread too long to scross though. :)

Dogs can be infected with T. gondii although it's not as common as cats. Definitely still a concern. I think freezing does take care of it though.

Never really studied parasitology although it is becoming more interesting to me. If some of these cysts are killed at -20, then why don't more raw feeders do this/know this?

There will always be a world's oldest dog named. It looks like other dogs have tied this one in age and there was really no notation about them being raw fed. One did eat kangaroo and emu though. lol. Anyway, that is an isolated case. I would want to see a solid life span increase across the board.

A lot of the websites used by raw dieters honestly seem like a bunch of opinion to me. We still don't really know if raw fed dogs acually live longer. And I've seen that wolves live to age 30 which is not what most people say. Their life spans are very short. It may not be from the diet, but nevertheless, they are short. It's not appealing to me...

Gotta go for now.

Since we were PMing about geeky foodie stuff :p -- I checked NV and they use High Pressure Pasteurization to kill their pathogens. I couldn't find anything on Primal, but maybe I'm missing something. (I feed Primal)

I agree. I would want to see a long-term study with a large sample. Even then, measuring the benefits of food/diet is extremely difficult - in any species. There is also exercise, genetics, disease, vaccination history, second-hand smoke etc. to consider - the variables are tremendous.

Even as a raw feeder myself, I don't really disagree with you regarding the websites. Many of them seem to foster the belief that there is only one way to feed your dog, period....and I just can't get on board with that at this time.

Probably more important than the type of diet is that it is balanced properly (according to AAFCO or a qualified nutritionist). An unbalanced diet can be dangerous to a dog...now that's a fact :)!

Ok, this thread is cutting into my study time.:rolleyes:

I would be much more willing to read some of these raw fed sites if I thought a substantial amount of research was applied. I see long answers about why non raw feeder concerns aren't valid and that is not what I like to see at all...

There is a bunch of, "Those non raw feeders are just trying to scare you about the parasite thing." Welllllll, ok, but the potential of giving my dog worm cysts doesn't sit right with me and I know by cooking the meat, we have taken care fo the problem. If worms and cysts were destroyed in digestion, then why do dogs get worms and why can they be found in the heart and brain? That is why I appreciate the people on YT who take time to look into these things without just saying, "It's fine. Don't worry about it. Your concern isn't valid" which I think a lot of these sites do.

As somebody said on Yahoo Answers who lost her dog to the BARF diet (I know it's just one person's story, but it's the same as a pro raw feeders story), break one of these bones in half and see what you get. It's sharp edges and doesn't look too pleasant. She did everything right too and yes, they were raw bones. It happens with any chew, but when something is that sharp, it is a concern.

I'd just as soon add vitamins back in, balance the diet, and not take the chance. I'm pretty sure premade raw would be better as far as safety b/c their foods should be tested before leaving.

thank you so much for posting this. i have been wanting to ask same question here :) i have a yorkie - zoey 2yrs old and a pomchi - baby 6yrs old. been feeding kibble and wet food. though i hate the wet food. makes my pomchi have bad breath. i'd rather cook for them. thanks again for posting. much appreciated.

haha. don't let it do that. you can always read the posts when you have free time. i had to study yesterday so i didn't have time to read all the posts. but i have time today. yay! :)

i tried to ask my nutrition instructor about feeding dogs raw diet, and asked her if the dog's system is similar to ours in it's reaction to raw foods....i don't think she really knows...(she said it's similar)she said to talk to my vet, and i told her vets are like human doctors, most of them don't know that much about nutrition. but she disagrees, (she thinks doctors don't know about nutrition, but she thinks vets know about dog nutrition.) well, i disagree with that.

I think have the same concerns you do. It's more he said she said instead of focusing their information and explaining the process the food goes into. When I tried Stella and Chewy's pre made raw, they (pamphlet and store workers) said to watch the video, it explains everything. No it doesn't, at least not to my satisfaction. I wish they would spend more time explaining how things worked and instead of just saying, "don't worry, there is nothing to be concerned about."
I did however like that if you have concerns, there is a package number that you can check and see the results of the analysis of the food contained in THAT packet.

I thought you were taking a dog nutrition course for some reason. :p

I took a human one a few years back and I loved it. Our prof is a registered dietician and has her phd in nutrition. She started with the digestive system broke it down and then went on to explain our food needs and how it all works together. I loved it! Now, if only I would apply what I learned to how it eat. :rolleyes:

i would love to take a dog nutrition class, but i have no idea where i can take a course like that. i started taking this nutrition class because i am interested in canine nutrition and since i can't find a class like that, i thought human nutrition class would at least give me some foundation and better understanding of how everything works. i do love the class. :) although i don't agree with everything taught in the class.

I concur. If vets learned so much about nutrition in school, why did Ellie's tell me they don't? A good portion of vets admit it.

Ok, this is my new question. If worms are killed during digestion and cysts are destroyed, then why do dogs get worms??? Or if the cysts lie dormant, is that okay? That would be no (IMO). Hmm.

That's just it. I love science. Give me studies! And dogs live longer than wolves (or about the same if wolves are in captivity). So we may be doing something right somewhere.

I have heard extremely reliable sources say raw is not a good idea. So if I am to believe that it is safe, I also need extremely reliable sources for that which I don't see (but could be missing).

Like with vaccines, I see Dr. Schultz at a major university/vet school coming out with some great research. That is what makes me comfortable altering that protocol...

i agree that there does not seem to be enough "scientific" proof and hard evidence that raw diet is a better choice for dogs. but i can also see the difficulties in obtaining scientific proof and hard evidence on the benefits of a raw diet for dogs. there are a lot of factors, it's a complex subject, and i think the amt of interest in feeding raw is recent. (my vet told me that only a minority of people are feeding their dogs raw diet. which makes sense to me)

it also bothers me when articles/info. written about raw only focuses on all the benefits of a raw diet for dogs without discussing all the un-knowns and possible dangers. while i wish someone could just tell me a simple answer when it comes to what is the best diet for dogs, i still appreciate honesty and objectivity more than my lazy preference for a simple answer.

i think most of the info on raw diet is good, but the reliability of the info is questionable, and honestly, it would make their points stronger if they point out what is not known at this point and their own biases. that way, at least we can make our own informed choices on what to do...

I had always thought that there weren't many studies on raw b/c who is going to fund it? And I still think that's true. But now that I go on pubmed, I find there are some. It only takes one aspect at a time into consideration though. And I'm still not sure how it compares to kibble.

I think there has to be a vet at a vet school really interested in studying this b/c no profit can be made by the outcome really (same as reducing vaccines). I just don't see that happening. The nutritionists at these places seem to already know the answer. And I think I recall Ellie's nutritionist saying that there are a lot of reports of obstructions, etc. but this is not news in the vet world b/c it is common. So they talk amongst themselves. No reason to report it. It's yesterday's news... The same goes for vaccine reactions, etc.

I disagree. Their arguments and opinion is very science based and looks at the evolution of dogs and how that translates into why raw fed is by far the best for a dog and most natural. You will find an honest, open discussion of what is being promoted, with a look at BOTH sides of the issue.

On the other hand commercial pet food feeders are part of the consumer society that swallows slick advertisements hook, line, and sinker. And if there is one thing pet food companies have down, it is advertising. They advertise all over the place: on TV, on the web, in hundreds of magazines, in schools, at dog shows (think of the Eukanuba Tournament of Champions; free bags of the sponsor's kibble are given to the winners at many dog shows.), at zoos, on billboards, and (most importantly) in your veterinarian's office (think of all those shelves filled with Purina foods, Hill's Science Diet, etc.). Raw feeding, however, has no such advertising capabilities, because people are supporting their local butchers, ranchers, farmers, etc., and are encouraging sustainable living practices rather than paying big bucks to make people buy some commercially-produced product. Raw feeding's advertising is through word-of-mouth and through the healthy dogs and cats that are fed such a diet (although with the advent of commercial raw diets, this has changed a bit).

Very well put, especially the bolded part. I love seeing both sides of the coin so I can make my own educated decision. Like spaying/neutering vs leaving your pet unaltered. There are arguments on both sides, I read it and came to my own conclusion.

Do we know if those fed kibble and home-cooked are living longer? The problem is that those studies for raw fed dogs don't' exist and they also don't exist for kibble and home-cooked fed dogs either! Just because there is "no scientific research" performed by institutions like the American Veterinary Medicine Association, raw diets should not be fed?!? This 'no scientific research' declaration is a cop-out claim that has been used to "debunk" raw diets and suppress the truth. But one must realize that there is NO evidence whatsoever to prove that kibbled, processed or home-cooked foods are good for your pets. The only research that has been done into processed foods was performed to see a) if dogs could be fed a grain-based food, b) if dogs could survive acceptably on these processed foods for a short period of time, c) if X brand of food can do such-and-such for the dog (help with kidney disease, help with diabetes, help with obesity), and d) if X brand of food is "better" (more palatable, better liked, less total stool volume, etc.) than Y brand of food. No research has been done to determine the long-term effects of feeding kibble, nor to determine if it is actually healthy for your dog (it is just assumed healthy because it has passed a 6 month feeding trial, and then manufacturers falsely advertise their product as healthy.).

But as for raw diets: one million years of evolution apparently is not enough evidence for those citing lack of research and lack of studies in scientific literature? Neither the anatomical and physiological evidence of dogs, nor mtDNA evidence, nor circumstantial and statistical evidence of diseases in processed food-fed pets, nor anecdotal evidence are enough from those becrying the lack of "studies" and "research". Anecdotal, eyewitness evidence is dismissed because it is scientifically "unfounded" and anecdotal, even when the evidence is standing right before their eyes in easily seen, wonderful health (It is interesting to note that eyewitness evidence is enough to help condemn a man in a court of law, but is not enough for the "scientific" community composed of pet food manufacturers).


Raw feeding has been around a heck of a lot longer than kibbled and homecooked foods: one million years of raw to only 100 years—at the most—of kibble. Pelleted, processed food is the real fad.

If you were to ask me those dogs fed kibble and home-cooked are living far shorter lives and experiencing in increase in new found diseases. That's not to say there aren't dogs living a fairly healthy live on kibble and/or home-cooked or are not dying outright from starvation or malnutrition. Sure, you certainly can get dogs with glossy coats and healthy bodies (healthy being used loosely) that live well into their teens while being fed kibbled and home-cooked foods. Yet the veterinary community has been seeing increases in things like cancer, obesity, diabetes, unilateral hip dysplasia, dermatitises, food allergies, kidney problems, pancreas problems, and liver problems. Just about every system in the dog has been affected in some way, shape, or form by some disease or problem that did not 'exist' prior to the advent of kibbled foods or was not recognized as a big issue. Part of this increase is due to the fact that more people own dogs today and that illnesses are more quickly diagnosed nowadays, but many of these diseases have been shown to have a VERY strong links to DIET—particularly in human research (like adult onset diabetes and obesity and cancer, for example). Many of our pets' body processes parallel our own, so who is to say that processed food will not affect them similarly?

So what about all these arguments against raw feeding put forward by other pet owners, veterinarians, and pet food companies? Is there any validity to them? Since this is an honest and candid look at raw feeding, I will be frank: yes, these claims may have some validity to them, but the 'problems' with raw feeding are not the problems of epidemic, drastic proportions that they are made out to be. There are risks to feeding raw, just as there are risks to feeding kibble and home-cooked. No one seems to mention the risks of feeding kibble, or homecooked perhaps because pet food companies and others that homecook have been very good at making people believe kibbled and homecooked food is a risk-free diet for their pets.

The assumption of this claim is that the diet of wolves shortens their lifespan and that we therefore should not feed this diet to dogs? Yes, wolves do not live as long in the wild as their domestic counterparts, but this is NOT because of the food they eat. Why would nature design an animal to be sustained on a diet that inevitably kills it? How could eating what it was designed and has evolved to eat decrease a wolf's lifespan? Its diet is what keeps a wolf alive! If it did not eat, how would it live? These questions aside, we must look at how absurd it is to link wolf longevity solely to diet.

Living in the wild is a tough job. Wild wolves face the brunt of nature and must deal with the bitter elements every single day. They also must deal with the high energetic costs associated with bringing down huge herbivores like elk, deer, and moose. They also encounter intraspecific competition for food among other wolves in addition to interspecific competition with bears, cougars, and humans. They face predation, habitat loss, and prey loss by humans as well as a decreasing environmental quality in habitat and food. They also must deal with parasites (every wild animal has them and usually coexists quite peacefully with them), with foreign toxic pollutants, with wolf-wolf altercations, with wolf-prey altercations, with wolf-other carnivore or scavenger altercations, and with increasing encroachment and habitat destruction by humans. They face a sporadic prey supply and starvation routinely and may go several weeks without food. In spite of all this they can still thrive well enough to expend precious energy in reproductive forays, producing litters of healthy pups and creating an increased demand for food. These are the reasons a wolf's lifespan in the wild is shorter, NOT because of its diet. It is precisely their diet and genetic hardiness that keeps them alive, even in the face of disease. It is not that their food is somehow lacking and incapable of sustaining them, but that they cannot always get enough of that food to meet all their metabolic requirements. It is that very food that fills, heals, and sustains them.

When we look at our domesticated wolf companions—our dogs—this lifespan issue becomes a moot point. Our dogs do not live in the wild and therefore do not face most of the energetically costly factors wolves face. Our dogs live comfortably in our homes where they should always receive enough food and care, and where the raw food they need can be obtained from parasite-free sources.

Also, In captivity studies show wolves can easily live up to 20 years. That's as long as dogs or LONGER especially TODAY IMO.

i think that it can be intimidating for pet owners to switch to feeding their dogs a raw diet, just because they don't feel educated enough about it. i don't disagree with you on the fact that raw is natural and probably very healthy for dogs, the concerns that many of us have is the processing and handling of raw in the manufacturing plants and the transportation process. if raw is fresh without going through manufacturing plant or where ever, i would feel a lot safer about feeding it to my dogs. it becomes dangerous IMO when it goes through the manufacturing process and transportation process. bacteria can multiply and produce toxins, contamination can occur, ...etc.

what are the risks of feeding raw? it seems that most of the sites talking about raw diet for dogs only focus on the benefits, and most of them do not mention the risks that owners should know about.

i think a lot of us who are interested in dog nutrition know about the possible risks/dangers of feeding kibble and home cooking, but we dont' know about raw diet because most just don't talk about the possible risks of feeding raw.

Yes, choking can happen with raw meaty bones. The primary culprit is a raw meaty bone that is too small for the dog (such as single chicken wings or necks). To prevent this from occurring, most feed big raw meaty bones. Additionally, dogs that have been eating commercial food must learn how to chew. They do not chew their kibble but typically "inhale" and gulp the food down; they try to do this with their first raw meaty bone and quickly learn that they need to CHEW their food. So choking can and does occasionally happen. However, think of all the other things that dogs choke on: kibble, pieces of rawhide, rocks, sticks, water, raquet balls, tennis balls, broken-off pieces of synthetic chew bones, pieces of toys. People tell you your dog will choke to death on raw bones, but they conveniently neglect to mention all the other things dogs choke on, including kibble and home-cooked food(ever hear your pet scarf its food and then suddenly give a nice big 'HORK'? Your pet just choked. Good thing they managed to cough it up; other dogs have not been so lucky.). Heck, dogs will choke on their own spit!! The truth of it is that any object the dog places into its mouth presents a choking hazard. I personally have heard of more dogs choking on and then dying from tennis balls than I have heard of raw-fed animals choking on their raw meaty bones (let alone dying from them!).

I suppose that obstruction/preforation could happen and have happened to dogs eating raw bones. However, as one JAVMA article put it: "the actual incidence of complications resulting from the ingestion of raw bones is unknown". People are claiming that this happens all the time without ever providing evidence for these claims. Raw bones generally are broken down chemically in the stomach and are soft and squishy (so it does not seem like they can do much perforating, then IMO). There are a ton of other things that will cause perforated intestines and obstructions much more so than raw dog bones including: cooked bones, chewed up tennis balls, sticks, strings, rawhides, etc.

I think if one takes the time to educate themselves it not very intimidating. Just my opinion though.

When you talk about the processing of handing raw in manufacturing plants and the transportation process you are speaking about pre-made raw, which is different than a prey raw model diet. Bacteria and contamination can happen in pre-made raw food just as much as it can it kibble and home-cooked.

The fact is that bacterial septicemia is just very rare. It usually occurs only in unwell animals that are incapable of dealing with a population of bacteria including immune compromised pets, sick pets, animals that have an underlying health issue. Bacteria are absolutely everywhere, and dogs often have a habit of eating anything and everything)? The unfortunate truth of it is that many vets and pet owners will simply blame the diet than work to find the real cause.


And actually most of the documented cases of severe bacterial septicemia are from kibble-fed and home-made fed danimals or animals suffering from reactions to vaccines. "Pet foods, commercial or homemade, provide an ideal environment for bacterial proliferation." (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1224.)

Commercial pet foods have been pulled off shelves more than once and far more often than pre-made raw because of bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly toxin.

The dog, plain and simple, can handle greater bacterial loads than we can. Can dogs get sick from the bacteria? I suppose they can. But it is rare and usually indicative of an underlying problem, especially when one stops to consider how much bacteria that dog probably comes in contact with every single day.

IMO something is not right regarding the dog's health—a healthy dog does not suffer from bacterial infections or bacterial septicemia. That is just common sense. A dog suffering from salmonella poisoning is obviously not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a breakdown in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem IMO.

I'm sure raw is a fine way to feed but I can't get past what was taught for the last 20 years . . don't eat raw meat! Wash your hands after touching it! Don't allow it to touch any kitchen surface without disenfecting!

That was drummed into my head all my life and I honestly don't see myself ever feeding my dog raw.

I'm sure other people have similar 'training' to overcome.

That's NOT TO SAY raw is bad; just that it's not for ME.

I would not say that kibble and homecooked fed dogs live longer. I'd say we don't know because it is all subjective. I hadn't really been talking about kibble being good or bad because that is so mainstream. I actually have a hard time considering dried, processed food with older and sometimes questionable ingredients a perfect diet. But many dogs do well on it, even some that don't do well on raw or HC, so they are all different. And that's what most are comfortable doing and I think that's fine.

And the "millions of years of evolution" that a good number of people agree with still has wolves dying at an average age of 8. I didn't say it was the food, but moreso how would we even know? There is evidence that wolves have nutritional issues on their diet. So there is more than one opinion...

I care so much about all of this b/c I'm going into the field and I do need answers for people. It's not enough for me to read that 10,000 dogs on a Yahoo group do well on raw. There are so many questions about safety that I am still not seeing answered. I'm not saying that raw fed dogs are heavily parasitized, etc., but that it must be possible for that to happen. And on raw sites, they say yeah it's possible but rare so no worries. Where are we getting that it is rare? Have we done any studies? The ones I've seen concern me. Have we interviewed a good number of vets across the country to see what they are finding?

BTW, I homecook but think it's way too easy to do it wrong, time consuming, expensive, there are quality control concerns, etc. So I usually don't recommend it.

Now this is the kind of opinion I enjoy seeing. You acknowledge that there are two sides of the coin. Honestly, I'd love to home cook for Kaji. I'm hesitant because I don't know enough about dog nutrition to feel that I can do well by him. I can't afford to see a dietitian right now, but it is something that I would look into in the future if my budget allowed me to do it right.