The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 158

Thread: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

  1. #1
    Baloo317's Avatar
    Baloo317 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8,793

    DefaultThe Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Ok, Firstly, I'm not trying to get anybody's hackles up. Respond to this thread if you wish, but know that I am not trying to influence the decisions of anyone with regard to what they feed their dogs.

    I have been on this forum for a few weeks now, and I have found that RAW feeders are way over-represented. So I wanted to provide this thread to offset that influence just a tiny bit.

    Firstly, there is absolutely nothing that substantiates the "biologically appropriate" claim. No studies, nothing proven whatsoever. (Think about it, how often do wolves eat chicken liver?? Never!! (yes, it makes a difference) And anybody wanna guess what a wolf's average lifespan is? Not 12-15 years, I can tell you that much! (according to my research, 6-8 years. 10 if they're lucky)) So if feeding raw lengthens lifespans that much, what's with that? FYI for those of you who didn't know, wolves have no natural enemies in the wild. (outside of humans) So other animals aren't killing them en-masse, they are dying of natural causes. And the species "Canis" (which dogs and wolves belong to) are actually classified as omnivores. It bugs me when I here people talk about feeding their dogs raw to "provide a natural diet for my carnivore". Not so much. Cat's are carnivores, dogs are omnivores.

    Also, the risks of feeding raw meat are HUGE. Even if dogs get infected with salmonella bacteria, the risk to them is minimal, but they shed the bacteria in their hair and saliva for weeks. THIS IS VERY COMMON!! So common that raw-fed dogs are banned from therapy work in my area because they were consistently making vulnerable populations (elderly, etc.) sick. Not to mention that many folks feed raw meat they get at the grocery store, and that stuff was never meant to be eaten raw by anybody. (Dog or human!)

    Also, splintered bones can (and often do) wreck havoc with a dogs intestines, sometimes causing major internal problems.

    Not to mention that it is A LOT of work to feed raw. Ensuring proper handling procedures (which in my experience, many people do NOT do) takes time.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, as Dani mentioned in another thread, it is very very difficult to create a nutritionally balanced diet when you have to do it yourself. This requires SO MUCH knowledge about all the elements of a proper diet. To name a few; proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals. A raw feeder must figure out how all these things work together, and how much of each their dog needs, based on age, weight, activity level, environment. (Most folks can't do this for themselves, let alone their dogs.) And needs to also be able to make appropriate changes when needed! Very few people do all of this perfectly for their dog.

    (the majority of reference for this info comes from an article by a vet who has also written books on Labs.)

    Now, many people will probably respond to this thread saying "my dog(s) have been on a raw diet for ___(insert # of years here) and they're doing great, thank you very much!" Or some other anecdotal evidence for the wonders of feeding raw. I say if it really works for your dog, and it makes you feel like a great dog owner, fantastic. As I said above, I'm not trying to change anybody's position, merely trying to ensure that all the facts are represented.

    So to sum up my argument, feeding raw is NOT biologically appropriate, it is very difficult and can be very dangerous, it is a TON of work, and it is very RARELY done correctly.

    However, to reiterate my point so that I don't get a lot of defensive replies, I am NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYBODY!!!!

    I wanted the other side of the debate to be well represented, and I hope I've done a mildly decent job of it.
    Kate
    Baloo - 5 year old black lab
    Peanut - 7 year old minpin
    Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
    We're Superdogs!


  2. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,829

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo317
    I have been on this forum for a few weeks now, and I have found that RAW feeders are way over-represented.
    I don't find this at all. The majority of people on this board, as well as dog owners as a whole, feed kibble. RAW feeders tend to be outspoken, but they're definitely in the minority. Feed what you want as long as it works for your dog...plain and simple.

  4. #3
    Baloo317's Avatar
    Baloo317 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8,793

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JacksAndLabs
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo317
    I have been on this forum for a few weeks now, and I have found that RAW feeders are way over-represented.
    I don't find this at all. The majority of people on this board, as well as dog owners as a whole, feed kibble. RAW feeders tend to be outspoken, but they're definitely in the minority. Feed what you want as long as it works for your dog...plain and simple.
    I wasn't really talking numbers. I've just found that their opinions sometimes get in to the exclusion of others.
    Kate
    Baloo - 5 year old black lab
    Peanut - 7 year old minpin
    Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
    We're Superdogs!


  5. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Trickster's Avatar
    Trickster is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,913

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Firstly, there is absolutely nothing that substantiates the "biologically appropriate" claim. No studies, nothing proven whatsoever.
    You are right about there being no conclusive studies done on raw diets. Who would fund them? the dog food companies? :P

    I believe that raw feeding is biologically appropriate for a canine. I am all for feeding a high quality kibble however there is no denying that a raw meaty bone is more natural for a dog than cooked, processed kibble. Those teeth are not meant for grinding grains and vegetables -- they are for tearing at meat and bone.

    http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

    Also, the risks of feeding raw meat are HUGE. Even if dogs get infected with salmonella bacteria, the risk to them is minimal, but they shed the bacteria in their hair and saliva for weeks.
    Have a read of this excellent article:

    http://rawfed.com/myths/bacteria.html

    I have raw fed alongside kibble for 4 years now. And I have one major poop eater. Never had a problem. And, if I am absolutely honest, I am not one for cleaning. I can't think of the last time I washed my hands after touching my dogs.

    My Murphs breeder has been raw feeding for decades and has never once had problem with bacteria related illness.

    Not to mention that many folks feed raw meat they get at the grocery store, and that stuff was never meant to be eaten raw by anybody. (Dog or human!)
    I agree -- the grocery store is not the best place to go for meat. I get mine from butchers and farm shops. That way I know exactly where the meat is coming from and I only ever buy free-range poultry/beef/pork etc.

    Also, splintered bones can (and often do) wreck havoc with a dogs intestines, sometimes causing major internal problems.
    Sure they can, but I guess this comes back down to personal experience. One of my dogs had to have a plastic toy bird surgically removed from his intestines. So on that note it is a risk I am willing to take.

    Not to mention that it is A LOT of work to feed raw.
    Actually, when you get into the swing of it, you would be surprised how easy preparation is. It can be tough at first but you get the hang of it eventually. If you prepackage all the meals separately and store them in the freezer (THIS is time consuming) it is as easy to prepare as kibble -- remove it from the bag and serve.

    it is very very difficult to create a nutritionally balanced diet when you have to do it yourself. This requires SO MUCH knowledge about all the elements of a proper diet. To name a few; proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals. A raw feeder must figure out how all these things work together, and how much of each their dog needs, based on age, weight, activity level, environment
    The way I see it, feeding a dog is not rocket science. You don't need a degree in nutrition to feed yourself or your family so why your dog? yes, it does take a fair amount of research especially when you are first starting out but noone should ever let the percentages and making a balance scare them. When I feed my dogs raw meals I know what they are getting is probably not "balanced". But at the end of the week, providing you have a reasonable idea of meat/bone/organ ratios, it balances itself out.

    merely trying to ensure that all the facts are represented.

    So to sum up my argument, feeding raw is NOT biologically appropriate, it is very difficult and can be very dangerous, it is a TON of work, and it is very RARELY done correctly.
    Ahh, but what you are saying is not fact, but opinion.

    It can be dangerous, but taking your dog for a walk and letting it off the leash is equally as dangerous. It can be a ton of work but only if you make it that way.

  7. #5
    Apollopuppy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,694

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Hmmmm....yes, wolves wouldn't eat chicken liver usually but would they regularly consume,eat grains and other processed crap? When kibble is made it is cooked at VERY high temps, this denatures proteins and affects the digestability of certain nutrients.


    Balanced Diet:

    Many raw feeders feed raw to their dogs BUT they also supplement with a high quality kibble. Unfourtunately the BEST diet for a dog (whole prey). Is not usually able to be fed.

    The way I see it is this, powerbars...people eat em all the time. They are full of nutrients, right? Well yeah, but also they are full of fillers, dyes, salts, preservatives, etc. All these things are not that great. Whats better for a human, a powerbar or a salad? I think we can see the choice here is obvious. Yes,, you are right kibble AND raw are trying to replicate the same thing, WHOLE PREY. NEITHER is the 'perfect' diet, but IMO when combined they make for a much better diet then kibble alone. Im sorry but there is NO WAY I will ever believe that dry, dehydrated kibble is the best route, however I don't think raw is the best route either. I think combined they make for a better diet.

    Difficulty:

    I do not feed my dogs a raw diet, but I do feed my ferrets a natural diet (this means whole prey AND raw meaty bones). Yes, you have to know what you are doing. Many people who raw feed are aware of the various nutrients needed by dogs, or in my case ferrets. Sorry I can't provide you with a dog example, but can provide you with a ferret example. Taurine, an essential nutrient can't be manufactured by a ferret's body, Taurine can be found in heart AND raw meat. However, freezing raw meat can and will diminish the taurine content. As a competant natural feeder I realize that fresh meat and fresh heart must be given on occasion. I also am aware that the calcium phosphorous levels in a cornish hen are far different from the levels in a full grown chicken and that BOTH must be fed to balance out the diet.

    Eggshells and raw bones provide the calcium phosphorous in my ferret's diet. YOu do your homework and you figure it out quickly what to feed.


    Saftey:

    Salmonella- yeah, it freaks people out, and yes you are right it can be shed in the fur and the stools. But ask the experienced raw feeders on here if they have EVER been infected by salmonella. I doubt you'll find someone to say yes (although its not to say its impossible, just uncommon). Dogs can handle raw meat, as you correctly identified and unless there are infant/young elderly or immunosupressed people living in the house, chances are a person won't be affected by the salmonella.

    Bones- Okay I dunno if its different with dogs, but I have NEVER EVER had a ferret choke on a raw bone. Raw bones are quickly dulled down in the digestive tract of a ferret, perhaps its different with dogs. Dogs tend to 'gulp' their food more, so yes unlike ferrets they DO have a higher tendancy to choke BUT if you feed the wing attached to the body, for example, they are less likely to choke, so you CAN work around it.

    Grocery Store foods- Freezing kills alot of the non pathogenic bacteria found on these foods and yes, you are right, they aren't meant to be consumed as raw BUT I feed grocery store chicken to my ferrets and NEVER have had a problem. A dog/cat/ferret has a MUCH more specialized stomach then a human and they can and will digest these foods without a problem. In the wild dogs don't eat off a plate, they consume bacteria on a regular basis. Grocery store chicken/meat isn't gunna kill them, although I will say organic IS better. Which leads me to my next point:Many people feed organic organ meat. This is where you don't wanna feed everyday grocery store stuff. Filter organs such as gizzards, livers, etc IMO NEED to be organic, thats where most or all of the toxins in the body are filtered out.

    Unbalanced diet- You bet. Improperly fed raw diets are aweful. Many vets don't reccomend them because they see ricketts on a regular basis. Giving all the nutrients is crucial. IMO if you can't handle that, don't feed raw. Some people have no clue what they are doing, thats why its good to feed kibble too, it balances out the diet and provides for any missing nutrients.



    Raw feeding is not totally biologically appropriate because the animal doesnt consume fur and brains and other parts of the whole animals but you can bet your bottom dollar that its MORE biologically appropriate then kibble. LIke I said in the wild a dog would NEVER consume kibble ever ever ever. Meat thats been cooked at high temps twice are NOT biologically appropriate either. the ONLY biologically appropriate diet is WHOLE PREY and I will stick to that.
    Love,<br />Giuli<br /><br />

  8. #6
    Baloo317's Avatar
    Baloo317 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8,793

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Trickster..

    Who is Carissa Kuehn??

    Because those links you gave just sent me to someone else's "opinion", and no facts.

    The majority of the data that I used came from an article by Karla S. Rugh, DVM, PhD, author of "What about Labrador Retrievers?"

    Some was opinion, of course, but I really tried to stick to the "FACTS" and not just opinions.
    Kate
    Baloo - 5 year old black lab
    Peanut - 7 year old minpin
    Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
    We're Superdogs!


  9. #7
    Apollopuppy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,694

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    You are gunna get alot of opinions when it comes to animal nutrition. IMO I wouldn't knock raw. It can be just as effective as kibble AND in reality MANY vets will tell you the best diet is kibble AND raw.
    Love,<br />Giuli<br /><br />

  10. #8
    Baloo317's Avatar
    Baloo317 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8,793

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollopuppy
    Hmmmm....yes, wolves wouldn't eat chicken liver usually but would they regularly consume,eat grains and other processed crap? When kibble is made it is cooked at VERY high temps, this denatures proteins and affects the digestability of certain nutrients.
    "Extrusion (the process by which kibble is made) actually increases the digestibility of certain nutrients." That's a direct quote. And wolves in the wild do eat plant and vegetable matter.

    The way I see it is this, powerbars...people eat em all the time. They are full of nutrients, right? Well yeah, but also they are full of fillers, dyes, salts, preservatives, etc. All these things are not that great. Whats better for a human, a powerbar or a salad? I think we can see the choice here is obvious. Yes,, you are right kibble AND raw are trying to replicate the same thing, WHOLE PREY. NEITHER is the 'perfect' diet, but IMO when combined they make for a much better diet then kibble alone. Im sorry but there is NO WAY I will ever believe that dry, dehydrated kibble is the best route, however I don't think raw is the best route either. I think combined they make for a better diet.
    I don't believe that that analogy is appropriate. "Powerbars" are not meant to constitute someone's entire diet. Either is salad. Both are parts of a whole.

    I do not feed my dogs a raw diet, but I do feed my ferrets a natural diet (this means whole prey AND raw meaty bones). Yes, you have to know what you are doing. Many people who raw feed are aware of the various nutrients needed by dogs, or in my case ferrets. Sorry I can't provide you with a dog example, but can provide you with a ferret example.
    Ferrets and dogs are incredibly different when it comes to dietary needs. The resources (food, etc.) that are available for ferrets are very poor, and I don't blame you for taking their health into your own hands, I applaud you for it. But there are appropriate foods out there for dogs. Are there crap foods out there too? Absolutely!!! But it's pretty simple to tell the difference between the two.

    All the stuff that you posted on safety pretty much emphasizes my points, so I'll leave that alone.. ;D :P

    Raw feeding is not totally biologically appropriate because the animal doesnt consume fur and brains and other parts of the whole animals but you can bet your bottom dollar that its MORE biologically appropriate then kibble.
    This claim depends on many many factors, I would be willing to bet that the diet my dog gets is much more "biologically appropriate" than many people's dogs who feed raw, based on what I have seen.
    Kate
    Baloo - 5 year old black lab
    Peanut - 7 year old minpin
    Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
    We're Superdogs!


  11. #9
    Trickster's Avatar
    Trickster is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,913

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    I would be willing to bet that the diet my dog gets is much more "biologically appropriate" than many people's dogs who feed raw,
    Can I ask what you feed you dog then?

  12. #10
    Baloo317's Avatar
    Baloo317 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8,793

    DefaultRe: The Other Side of the "Raw" Debate

    Sure!

    I've posted it numerous places, http://www.tlcpetfood.com/

    I decided on that after more research than I even remember!!
    Kate
    Baloo - 5 year old black lab
    Peanut - 7 year old minpin
    Monster - 3-ish year old frenchie/jack, rescue
    We're Superdogs!


Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25