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

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by 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.

i totally understand where you are coming from. i think i feel the same way that you do. i just feel really frustrated in the process of searching for info. regarding raw diet for dogs. honestly, i feel like i am just trying to get some valid information(like you i want something a little more convincing than people's opinions, something based on study just feels a little more solid than testimonials) but it feels like i keep running into info. presented in almost a defensive way. raw feeders seems to be very defensive in the way they present information. i don't really understand why that is the case. have they been attacked so much that the only way they react to explaining it to others is to be defensive and "bust myths" i am sure there must be a lot of misinformation about raw diets, maybe that is why people are so irritated and defensive when they present their info.

most info i come across for raw diet seems to be in response to myths about raw diet, and it gets a little frustrating to read because after reading a lot of these things, i still feel unsatisfied, like i still haven't gotten anything "solid".

you know what i mean?

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

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.

doesn't it make their argument so much more convincing when they present all sides of the story instead of only saying the positive stuff?

there are advantages and disadvantages to each diet. and by not ignoring the downside it shows me that the person is not blindly doing something. they have considered all the pros and cons and made a decision based on that.

i know that there must be a lot of crazy stupid myths about raw diet. i don't believe in the myths about raw diet, but i would like to see some solid info. and i think for some of us, the information we are able to get a hold of on raw diet is just not enough. we want more.

[Melcakes]

Okay so why raw and not kibble or home-cooked or why kibble and/or home-cooked and not raw? What's the best since the thread is about what's the best? People are asking this everyday. I'd like to know what you as well as others would recommend a new owner to feed their dog if they came to you and asked. You said you don't recommend homecoming, so would you recommend kibble over raw or raw over kibble? I'm just curious and why one would recommend what they would.

One can look at home-cooked, kibble and raw and find good things and bad things about ALL. There are not just safety concerns with raw ONLY there are numerous safety concerns with home-cooked and kibble as well, but people just want to talk about the safety concerns with raw. One has to look at these and decide which risks are greater, more prevalent and more serious. There are studies that do exists that show benefits as well as risks with all 3 diets (kibble, raw, home-cooked). People can look at these studies and take them for what they are or aren't. Personally, I've come across way more studies that show the risks for kibble and home-cooked is by far greater than in comparison to raw fed diets (I'll describe and provide some examples below). It really comes down to what people believe and feel comfortable with, looking at the benefits and risks and seeing if the benefits outweigh the risks and EDUCATING oneself.

Here are some interesting studies for those wanting to see them.

For example take this study: In December 1995, the British Journal of Small Animal Practice published a paper contending that processed pet food supresses the immune system and leads to liver, kidney, heart and other diseases. Dr. Kollath, of the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, headed a study done on animals. When young animals were fed cooked and processed foods they initially appeared to be healthy. However, as the animals reached adulthood, they began to age more quickly than normal and also developed chronic degenerative disease symptoms. A control group of animals raised on raw foods aged less quickly and were free of degenerative disease. - Complete study can be found online.

Interesting Stat - In all, more than 5,600 products by dozens of pet food makers have been recalled, from chain supermarket brands to prescription-only foods. This is a staggering number of products, and is unprecedented in this business IMO.

Accordingto the latest reports released by one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals - Banfield, The Pet Hospital, nearly 39,000 cats and dogs were sickened or killed nationwide following the recent reports of pet food-contamination with an industrial chemical. The data was reportedly compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals.

Dr. Francis M. Pottenger had some very revealing results on a study he did between the years 1932 and 1942. His study was done on seven generations of a colony of cats ( I know it's not dogs, but it's interesting). He fed half of the animals an all raw pet food diet, and the other half the same foods except that they were cooked. After only three generations on the cooked cat food, those cats were no longer able to reproduce. Mouth and gum infections, arthritis, bladder problems, heart lesions, irritable bowel syndrome, and thyroid problems also became common in the cats on the cooked cat foods. Aren't many of these health issues are common in todays pets? On the contrary, the cats on the raw cat food remained completely healthy and needed no veterinary attention. Dr. Pottenger then switched the weakened colony of cats back to all raw cat foods and after four generations the cats had a complete recovery from the ill-effects of the cooked pet food.

A raw study done on rats - Dr. Robert McCarrison, while stationed in India, became interested in the diet habits of different regions of the earth. In particular he noted the health of the Hunza, Pathan and Sikh peoples. He wondered if comparable diets would produce the same effects for rats. He fed the rats a variety of fresh foods, including bean sprouts, fresh raw carrots, cabbage and raw whole milk. Once-a-week he also mixed in flat bread and meat with bones in them. He provided the rats with sunlight, good air and sanitary living conditions. At the close of the study when the rats were the equivalent of 55 human years in age, he sacrificed them and autopsied them. He was stunned to find no signs of disease. The only deaths that occurred were accidental and not due to degenerative diseases.

Sure there is a definitely the need to realize the need for more studies to once-and-for-all prove the benefits of raw pet foods, but I think testimonials can't be ruled not valid or substantial. That's just really silly since I'm not seeing any studies that kibble or home-cooked is safer or better for a dog.

The oldest dog ever recorded, a 29-year-old Australian cattle dog named Bluey, died in 1939, several years before commercial pet food was invented, and that, of the two oldest dogs in recent years, one was fed primarily on kangaroo and emu meat. The other dog was Jerry already mentioned. Just found out about this other "oldest dog every recorded" was also raw fed dog.

Sure you're going to find bacteria in raw food, but were are the studies showing that these bacteria and/or parasites that are found in raw meats/food are causing dogs dying in staggering numbers or infecting people? I don't see any…

For example the British Vet. Association warns that humans risk exposing themselves to bacteria like Salmonella, and in a small study on the levels of salmonella in the stool of 10 dogs that ate a raw diet found that 30 percent of the stool samples from dogs fed a raw food diet contained salmonella, none of the control dogs (commercial fed) contained Salmonella, although they caution about the statistical significance of their results due to the small number of dogs studied. But really what does this prove? To me it proves that the dogs successfully passed the bacteria through their system. It didn't effect them. Despite such concerns about zoonosis and bacteria, there is no known incidence of humans being infected with salmonella by cats and dogs fed a raw diet!! Again, proper food safety precautions such as wiping down preparation surfaces and careful disposal of stools can reduce the risk of infection and really who eats dog poo anyways? Yes, parasites in raw food is real, but it has existed for many years and is not some new dreadful disease sweeping through our pets. It is something to be aware of but the precautions we are now taking (or should be) seem to be working and we should not allow this to dissuade us from our present dietary choices IMO.

The Sydney Morning Herald (paraphrasing RSPCA Australia President Dr Hugh Wirth) reported that "the 'compromise attitude' of veterinary associations in Britain and Australia is that raw meaty bones should be fed to pets a minimum of three times a week for dental health. Studies supporting this can be found online.

If one reads t"What's Really in Pet Food," the Animal Protection Institute study one will see that in kibble despite the appealing blandishments of pet food advertisements with their claims of providing "complete and balanced nutrition," if you're not exceedingly circumspect, you will find and end up feeding your pet chicken heads, road kills, spoiled or moldy grains, cancerous material cut from slaughterhouse animals, tissue high in hormone or pesticide residues, and even shredded Styrofoam packaging, metal ID tags and minced flea collars! To me that risks and these findings just make me want to steer clear of kibble as much as possible!

According to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Women who eat their meat well-done had almost a five times greater risk of breast cancer than those who ate meats cooked rare or medium! Wei Zheng, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of South Carolina School of Public Health, who was co-author of the study states, “ When meat is cooked at high temperatures it gives off substances called hetrocyclicamines, which have induced tumors in animal studies." Remember, you lose vitamins and enzymes at only 126 degrees, which is not much warmer than tap water. I find that with many people I talk to, convenience is the only deciding factor in choosing how to feed their pets -- regardless of the dog health problems that may occur.

[Melcakes]

These studies scare me and I have to say I have not found any raw food studies that scare me. I'm not seeing any studies that kibble or home-cooked is safer or better for a dogs and quite the opposite in fact.

Further, most people don't know what to look for in dog food and don't understand how to correctly read the labels. Unfortunately, for the pet food purchaser, and worse for the dog, despite what the label may claim, they really are feeding foods that are NOT a good source of nutrition for their dogs.

With raw feeders I believe people are coming to the realization that while their dogs may be doing well, they could be doing better and that is a big reason people switch their pets and we are seeing more raw feeders emerge. There are also many leading nutrionist, board certified vets and experts that agree a raw food diet is by far the best. I'm a believer that the majority of pet owners are happy to just feed brand-name, pre-made foods to their pets because it is convenient, easy, and their animals eat the food and appear to do well on it. Since most people have never encountered raw fed dogs, they do not know what they are looking for and do not have anything to which they can compare their dogs. They may think their dog's breath and health is fine until they smell a raw-fed dog's breath and 'see' its health, just like many people think their dog is "well-trained" (it 'sits' and 'comes' when they ask...sometimes) until they come across a truly impeccably trained animal.

This is what it comes down to: everything has a risk associated with it. That is the way life is. Regardless of what you feed your pets, there will ALWAYS be some sort of risk. There are the main risks of feeding a raw diet, but IMO and research they are minimal risks compared to kibble and home-cooked, and people who feed raw truly feel that the benefits outweigh any possible risks. At the end of the day it is entirely up to the dog's owner to decide what is best for their dog.

[pawever Yorkie]

My babies have been on dehydrated raw & kibbles for years and I searched YT and decided to go real RAW diet. Last week, I went to pet store and met this guy who studied raw food for years and he fed his dogs(including who had joint problen w/diabetes) raw food for five years now and guess what? Her problems are gone now. he told me things that I always wondered about; those ingridients which I can't even pronounce in kibbles. He said even healthiest kibbles have some of these chemicals. Often, they put sertain chemicals together which will lead your dog illness in long term. I though I was feeding my babies the best food, boy was I wrong... I got bravo raw chicken,beef, and rabbit to start with.
He also told me to get some beef bones to clean babies teeth. I also read that some YT ladies wrote that even pre made raw food are not that good quality since we never know what kind of quality meat they use. I was kinda got scared to get raw meat from any market, so I went to organic store and bought some organic lamb chop, veal neck, beef organs, buffalo, angus, duck, quail... etc. I spent about $300 and some people in the store told me I was crazy to feed my babies organic meat. Am I? I just want best for my babies. I rather skip my meal than feed my babies some junk! At this point my dilemma is to figure out which one is better pre model raw or pre made raw? and if I use real raw meat is it necessary to use organic meat? any thoughts ladies?

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

i totally understand where you are coming from. i think i feel the same way that you do. i just feel really frustrated in the process of searching for info. regarding raw diet for dogs. honestly, i feel like i am just trying to get some valid information(like you i want something a little more convincing than people's opinions, something based on study just feels a little more solid than testimonials) but it feels like i keep running into info. presented in almost a defensive way. raw feeders seems to be very defensive in the way they present information. i don't really understand why that is the case. have they been attacked so much that the only way they react to explaining it to others is to be defensive and "bust myths" i am sure there must be a lot of misinformation about raw diets, maybe that is why people are so irritated and defensive when they present their info.

most info i come across for raw diet seems to be in response to myths about raw diet, and it gets a little frustrating to read because after reading a lot of these things, i still feel unsatisfied, like i still haven't gotten anything "solid".

you know what i mean?

Exactly. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Ya know, when a whole lotta vet schools and veterinary nutritionists have a problem with something, I have to respect that and take a long look at it. Sure, some of them are getting funding for their research from dog food companies and I can understand the hesitancy about that; but others aren't.

In response to other posts, I wouldn't say commercial dog food is perfectly safe...far from it. It is, however, generally considered a way to meet basic nutritional needs. I'm sure we can improve on that and it may be the raw diet that does that. I still see that as an assumption though. Sometimes when we have a desire to makes things better, it doesn't go the way we had hoped. So even if we consider kibble "bad," I still want evidence that we aren't moving toward "worse" with raw.

I haven't studied the digestion of dogs and will be looking more into the fact that they "can't digest carbs," but a wolf's diet contains carbs... It may be that they just digest them to a lesser (or different) extent. I know they don't produce salivary amylase, so starch breakdown doesn't start in the mouth. Not convinced that they can't digest them though...

There was one study posted above about dogs in Britain I think it was. Those kinds of things are what I like to see, but there is no link. I'd like to read the actual study done.

[Ellie May]

In answer to your question, I recommend kibble over raw.

Even though I feed homecooked, I don't want to say it's the optimal or best diet. The answer to that is, I don't know. I try to be very straightforward about the problems with it, but haven't really been asked about anything beyond that. Then again, I don't spend too much time defending HC diets because they are similar to raw in that it is something I'm comfortable with and I understand others may not be.

I just see an awful lot of raw is best with lack of evidence. Somehow there has to be proof that it is better than kibble (and for me personally, better than HC) to consider recommending it.

And something interesting I just read about raw fed dogs and nice coats...it's likely the fat content in the food, not the state of the meat.

[Wylie's Mom]

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.

This is great....and exactly why this discussion is so important and interesting .

Hey......are we seriously having a calm FOOD discussion??? WOW. I wonder if a pig is flying .

[pawever Yorkie]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Exactly. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Ya know, when a whole lotta vet schools and veterinary nutritionists have a problem with something, I have to respect that and take a long look at it. Sure, some of them are getting funding for their research from dog food companies and I can understand the hesitancy about that; but others aren't.

In response to other posts, I wouldn't say commercial dog food is perfectly safe...far from it. It is, however, generally considered a way to meet basic nutritional needs. I'm sure we can improve on that and it may be the raw diet that does that. I still see that as an assumption though. Sometimes when we have a desire to makes things better, it doesn't go the way we had hoped. So even if we consider kibble "bad," I still want evidence that we aren't moving toward "worse" with raw.

I haven't studied the digestion of dogs and will be looking more into the fact that they "can't digest carbs," but a wolf's diet contains carbs... It may be that they just digest them to a lesser (or different) extent. I know they don't produce salivary amylase, so starch breakdown doesn't start in the mouth. Not convinced that they can't digest them though...

There was one study posted above about dogs in Britain I think it was. Those kinds of things are what I like to see, but there is no link. I'd like to read the actual study done.

This is intersting point.
However, I know that many vets recommand science diet, and why?
because vet schools are funded by science diet. They even bought one of the biggest vet school in US. I need to study about the raw food more, but I was thinking that if our babies eat raw(100% natural) with some vitamins and get healthier(since it is all natural, less side effect than from chemicals in kibbles), vets won't make any money. I'm not disrespecting all vets, but my point is that at the end of the day vet's need to make money and they would recommand furbaby parents food that are not the best for their babies.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by pawever Yorkie

This is intersting point.
However, I know that many vets recommand science diet, and why?
because vet schools are funded by science diet. They even bought one of the biggest vet school in US. I need to study about the raw food more, but I was thinking that if our babies eat raw(100% natural) with some vitamins and get healthier(since it is all natural, less side effect than from chemicals and in kibbles), vets won't make any money. I'm not disrespecting all vets, but my point is that at the end of the day vet's need to make money and they would recommand furbaby parents food that are not the best for their babies.

I know this is the common belief and it is true. But take Ellie's board certified veterinary nutritionist. She does not get funding from any pet food company and still does not recommend raw. She formulates homecooked diets and does make money from that but would sooner tell someone to feed commercial food. She will balance raw diets also (and thus make money off of them), but she still disagrees with the practice. She just tries to make sure the owners are doing everything as safe as possible.

And I know the ingredients of dog food aren't appealing. They are actually pretty gross, but it still comes back to the average track record over time. So to change that and start recommending raw, it needs to be proven that it is safer and has major benefits.

[pawever Yorkie]

Would it be possible that vet wouldn't recommand raw, simply because they don't know much about it? I wonder if there's any study which compares over all dog's health on raw vs kibble.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by pawever Yorkie

Would it be possible that vet wouldn't recommand raw, simply because they don't know much about it? I wonder if there's any study which compares over all dog's health on raw vs kibble.

That is something that I'd like to see done but since there are so many aspects to feeding, it would be difficult. Most vets don't know about nutrition, but veterinary schools/board certified nutritionists do.

So then it's people on the internet who say their dogs do well on raw against people like Ellie's nutritionist who are very respected in the field. Not saying the feeding method doesn't deserve attention, but that the people who are experts in animal nutrition seem to have major concerns.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by pawever Yorkie

My babies have been on dehydrated raw & kibbles for years and I searched YT and decided to go real RAW diet. Last week, I went to pet store and met this guy who studied raw food for years and he fed his dogs(including who had joint problen w/diabetes) raw food for five years now and guess what? Her problems are gone now. he told me things that I always wondered about; those ingridients which I can't even pronounce in kibbles. He said even healthiest kibbles have some of these chemicals. Often, they put sertain chemicals together which will lead your dog illness in long term. I though I was feeding my babies the best food, boy was I wrong... I got bravo raw chicken,beef, and rabbit to start with.
He also told me to get some beef bones to clean babies teeth. I also read that some YT ladies wrote that even pre made raw food are not that good quality since we never know what kind of quality meat they use. I was kinda got scared to get raw meat from any market, so I went to organic store and bought some organic lamb chop, veal neck, beef organs, buffalo, angus, duck, quail... etc. I spent about $300 and some people in the store told me I was crazy to feed my babies organic meat. Am I? I just want best for my babies. I rather skip my meal than feed my babies some junk! At this point my dilemma is to figure out which one is better pre model raw or pre made raw? and if I use real raw meat is it necessary to use organic meat? any thoughts ladies?

IMO organic is better. there is also pre-made organic raw food available (PAW NATURAW distinct by instinct ®* |* Organic, Raw, Frozen Dog Food and Cat Food, Organic Raw Diets for Pets) if you don't want to make your own. i think it depends on you and what you are comfortable with. for me, i am not at a point where i feel comfortable/confident to make my own raw food for my dogs. so if i choose pre-made raw for right now.

[Melcakes]

I think you'll find vets, vet schools and vet. nutritionists that can go either way. There are a lot of leading vets and expert board certified nutrionists and vets that highly recommend raw! There is hardly anything to base one saying that raw is not safe or unhealthy, due to the lack of studies on raw food, so these "believes" that raw is unhealthy according to some I take with a grain of salt since everything seems to be unfounded and the studies that do exists show raw to be much more healthier than kibble or home-cooked. Ye,t these vets are recommending kibble and home-cooked when there are thousands of studies that show really disconcerting issues with both. That concerns me. Most vets will not recommend raw because it's not recommend by the AAFCO which is considered to be the Green Steel of Approval and what Vets are taught in vet school and a large number of board certified Vets are part of the AAFCO. But ,the AAFCO and their standards is an entirely different subject and debate and IMO extremely flawed. The AAFCO standards are useless for evaluating raw food diets and why they are incomplete in determining the actual "nutrient standards" needed and utilized by our pets.

People say they want more studies and/or kibble proves an okay average track record, but I think evolutionary adaptations over million of years is much more of a record than just 50 years of dog food studies which show a lot of major concerns. Contrast this with a whole prey animal. Raw food's "best" is a brutal battle for survival over a span of several million years. Species evolved and adapted to their environments, thriving on fresh raw foods. If wolves and dogs have survived the worst of nature while eating fresh raw prey, what does that say for raw diets? A whole raw prey animal (unprocessed and NOT ground), or whole raw foods, contain the exact proportion of fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. One will be hard-pressed to test this in a lab, as the testing itself alters the perfect proportions. Nature's laboratory is how we know it is perfect. This is the food that keeps wolves, other canids, and felines alive and thriving, even in the face of intense pressures and hardships (many of which are man-induced!). Nutritional deficiencies arise because the animals cannot get enough to eat, NOT because the food is insufficient in nutrients.

Canine longevity and quality of life has been decreasing for many breeds since the advent of processed food. This new generation of veterinarians know nothing but kibbled, processed food and the ailments induced by it.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

These studies scare me and I have to say I have not found any raw food studies that scare me. I'm not seeing any studies that kibble or home-cooked is safer or better for a dogs and quite the opposite in fact.

Further, most people don't know what to look for in dog food and don't understand how to correctly read the labels. Unfortunately, for the pet food purchaser, and worse for the dog, despite what the label may claim, they really are feeding foods that are NOT a good source of nutrition for their dogs.

With raw feeders I believe people are coming to the realization that while their dogs may be doing well, they could be doing better and that is a big reason people switch their pets and we are seeing more raw feeders emerge. There are also many leading nutrionist, board certified vets and experts that agree a raw food diet is by far the best. I'm a believer that the majority of pet owners are happy to just feed brand-name, pre-made foods to their pets because it is convenient, easy, and their animals eat the food and appear to do well on it. Since most people have never encountered raw fed dogs, they do not know what they are looking for and do not have anything to which they can compare their dogs. They may think their dog's breath and health is fine until they smell a raw-fed dog's breath and 'see' its health, just like many people think their dog is "well-trained" (it 'sits' and 'comes' when they ask...sometimes) until they come across a truly impeccably trained animal.

This is what it comes down to: everything has a risk associated with it. That is the way life is. Regardless of what you feed your pets, there will ALWAYS be some sort of risk. There are the main risks of feeding a raw diet, but IMO and research they are minimal risks compared to kibble and home-cooked, and people who feed raw truly feel that the benefits outweigh any possible risks. At the end of the day it is entirely up to the dog's owner to decide what is best for their dog.

i agree with you that kibble and homecooked have risks associated with them. i think what a lot of us are simply trying to find out more info on raw diet for dogs. personally i have read a lot of info on kibble and i understand why it is not the best for my dogs. at the same time, i understand why people choose to feed kibble. there are reason to do so. i feed pre-made raw, homecooked, and i also feed them kibble that i consider high quality. the reason i do this is to provide my dog with variety and because i am very confused. lol.