Dog nutrition - what is BEST for you and your dog?

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

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 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.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

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.

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...

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

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.

Originally Posted by Ellie May

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...

[Ellie May]

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.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

A lot of the websites used by raw dieters honestly seem like a bunch of opinion to me.

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).

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

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...

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.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

We still don't really know if raw fed dogs acually live longer. I would want to see a solid life span increase across the board.

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.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

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... And dogs live longer than wolves (or about the same if wolves are in captivity). So we may be doing something right somewhere.

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.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

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.

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.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

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.

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.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

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....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.

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.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

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.

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.

[Ringo1]

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.

[Ellie May]

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.

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

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.